Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Disputed sentence

I have removed the 'discuss' tag and replaced the sentence with a new version that explicitly links each separate claim to the source. Peter Damian (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

[update] SK has replaced the 'disputed' tag, o/a of Vallicella not being published on Rand. I.e. while he concedes (or at least has not challenged) V's identity as a recognised scholar of Kant, and therefore able to comment authoritatively on whether Rand understood Kant or not, his objection is that Valicella published this in his blog, and not in RS. This is exactly the precedent we need to establish in the Arbcom hearing. Peter Damian (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one doesn't have to wait for ArbCom for this particular issue. I believe that admin User:DGG (a highly respected admin on Wikipedia and long-time established editor) would argue (successfully in virtually all cases I've read with his involvement) that recognized authorities in the field by their peers precludes a literal reading of the blog as an unreliable source. In particular, precedents have been set for the use of blogs by respected economists and New York Times journalists which have been used repeatedly as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles when it comes to commenting on matters which they know intimately. If you were to go to his talk page, he could elaborate on this point (perhaps even here on this talk page). For example, if I remember the discussion correctly, it would make little sense to cite an independent third-party economist for issues of social gossip involving others, but would make perfect sense to cite him/her for independent economics-related commentary to his or her blog if it's within the expert's field. It couldn't hurt to ask DGG what the current state of play is on this front across Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This case is slightly different. What about the argument that Vallicella has no published material relating to Rand (though I happen to know he has read a great deal of Rand)? The problem is that he is criticising Rand's understanding of Kant as a Kant scholar, not as a Rand scholar. I happen to agree with you - logic suggests that if he is an expert in Kant, then he has correctly identified problems with Rand's understanding of Kant. But playing devil's advocate, does the citation stand, do you think? Peter Damian (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MR. Damian on this point; Using Vallicella as a source is fine for claims about Rand's understanding of Kant (even his blog), because V has been published by independent RS's in this field. Vallicella would be a fine addition to the Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy article (and section here) for example. But we can do a lot better for general assessments of Rand's work and its reception, without having to stoop to citing Objectivist publications. Skomorokh 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Devil's advocate, because I agree for WP:IAR reasons although I disagree in principle: If Valicella's blog is fair game, then why do we maintain the prohibition against experts using their personal expertise to make edits on Wikipedia? I.e. if a Latin scholar comes across a claim that "void ab initio is a Latin phrase," they need to cite sources before correcting it to "void ab initio uses the Latin phrase ab initio". So why would we accept an expert's SELFPUB outside of Wikipedia when we reject an expert's SELFPUB inside of Wikipedia?

To the first point, can Skomorokh be clear about whether he now accepts the Vallicella citation in the intro or not? I.e. can we remove the 'dubious' tag? To the second devil's advocate point, the principle would be that if we can get reliable sources for the fact that X is an expert on the subject, then we can accept any statement, within reason, by X. Of course we should always prefer RS proper. But I can find no mention of Rand's treatment of Kant in the scholarly literature. Nor would I expect to. Peter Damian (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Technical point: wikipedia articles are always considered unreliable, never mind who writes them. Among other things, anyone can change, tweak or put out of context the content introduced by the expert. If he publishes in his blog then we have a fixed copy of his arguments, and only himself can change it (and no, I don't think that it's good enough to link to a diff unless it's some very very very special case) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the reason the RS guidelines exist in the first place was to avoid lawsuits. The fact that precious little stands in the way of a garden variety blogger and his or her publications made the risk too great for any of us to take, especially when it came to biographies of living persons. Not so in this case. Rand is not only dead (something the WP:SELFPUB category allows for), but the "blogger" in question is a highly respected academic. Like I said before, the precedent for the use of a specialist commenting on his or her blog regarding his specialty has been allowed in the past. Unless you are going to argue that Valicella has a poor reputation and likely to alter the blog to include outrageous personal claims, I don't see what the problem would be here. J Readings (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG has left some very helpful notes on this problem here. I suggest we leave the article with the 'dispute' tag on it, while I find a way to address the issues he raises. The main thing is that 'some philosophers' is not good when it should read 'at least one'. But since I am sure other established philosophers have raised similar issues to Vallicella, that will not be a problem. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not be surprised to see an established philosopher reference an author such as Rand in a blog, but not write an academic article on her; she is largely ignored after all within Philosophy. I can see nothing in policy that prevents its use. In this respect there is little difference with the various Randian Institute web sites which are used elsewhere in this article --Snowded TALK 07:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<undent> The Kjaer problem. This person is now removing well-sourced material (the Quinton citation). I have agreed to leave the 'dispute' tag on the Vallicella citation, until I can source other mention of the her 'sloppy' approach to philosophy. In the meantime, KJ is a major nuisance. Is there something that can be done? Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular philosopher

In his article in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Quinton distinguishes two kinds of popular philosophy. (1) Where established philosophers write popular works accessible to the general public. For example, Simon Blackburn. (2) Where non-established philosophers write philosophy intended to emulate the work of established philosophers. He calls these 'amateur philosophers'. He includes Rand under (2). Which variety is intended here? Should we not go with Quinton's classification, on the grounds that it is more specific and less ambiguous? Peter Damian (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A tertiary source (i.e. review of the secondary literature on Rand) would be preferable; Quinton may not be representative of the scholarship. Support briefly summarizing his position in a footnote though, as the Oxford Companion is a very good place to start. Skomorokh 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazism or Fascism

Quick poll: do people prefer saying Rand opposed Nazism in the lede, or that she opposed fascism, or none of the above? Please place a brief (totally nonbinding) vote with a comment explaining. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism: Saying an American author opposed Nazism is like saying that a child likes candy--it'd be news if she supported Nazism. Furthermore Nazism is a very specific, almost idiosyncratic form of fascism, which was (and is) a fairly broad philosophical movement, all of which Rand opposed vociferously. So, I think saying "fascism" tells the reader more. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascism: But I'll go with whichever the majority favors as I don't see that it is a big difference.

it is redundant to say more than she opposed collectivism and statism, since fascism, communism, socialism, the welfare state, mixed-economy, etc. are all under the umbrella of collectivism and statism. one could say that using even both those words is redundant, but i believe they both should stay as "collectivism" is a Randian invented word, to the extent it carries the meaning it does today, whereas statism is a more contemporary word used in popular economic-speak. Stevewunder (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

although i think Rand popularized the word statism as it is used today also. Stevewunder (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

if ayn rand is not a philosopher, why does it matter what her views of "Nazism" or "Facsism"" matter? what is judy bloom's view of fascism?Brushcherry (talk) 10:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Fascism also. Like TallNapoleon says, it's utterly unworthy of comment that a 20th century American philosopher (sorry, ideologue ;) opposed Nazism. Disagree with Stevewunder that the reader will infer from the antipathy towards fascism a dislike of collectivism and statism – many in the English-speaking world think of the former as a right-wing ideology and the latter as left. Regards, Skomorokh 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

From a deleted discussion

I see that some people are claiming expertise and saying Ayn Rand was not a philosopher. In 2003 on the now-deleted discussion page for the now long deleted list of major philosophers, an anonymous editor wrote:

Quite literally no one who seriously studies philosophy anywhere considers Ayn Rand a philosopher. Hunt through the index of any philosophy book or journal you like, and you won't find her name cited; look through the philosophy section af any library, and you won't find books on her. Look through the course syllabi for any philosophy department you want and you won't find them reading anything she wrote. In philosophy Ayn Rand is a non-entity, or a rather embarrassing joke.

That of course is nonsense, and I adduced some evidence that may be useful to those discussing that question:

beginning of quote from deleted discussion page

I would submit that the authors and editors of the following works are among those who "seriously stud[y] philosophy":

Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).

Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302.

The above list Ayn Rand among philosophers, contrary to the troll's bigotted assertion.

The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher, contrary to the bigot's assertion:

• Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
• Tibor Machan, (Stanford University. See his home page at [1].)
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Tulane University)
• Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts)
• Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
• Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
• Roderick Long (Auburn University)
• R. Kevin Hill (Northwestern University)
• Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
• Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania)
• Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
• Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (I'm not sure of this affiliation -- more later))
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
• Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (I'm not sure this one is up to date))
• Gary Hull, (Duke University)

Michael Hardy 19:46, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By the way, the list above is of course a partial list. And also, one may list professors in other humanities fields than philosophy. I will also take up the anonymous posters challenge to list journal articles. That will take some time, but let's start with this one:

• Leonard Peikoff, Aristotle's Intuitive Induction, The New Scholasticism, Vol. 59, p. 30-53, 1985.

Michael Hardy 22:15, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recalling the dishonest claim again:

"Quite literally no one who seriously studies philosophy anywhere considers Ayn Rand a philosopher. Hunt through the index of any philosophy book or journal you like, and you won't find her name cited; look through the philosophy section af any library, and you won't find books on her. Look through the course syllabi for any philosophy department you want and you won't find them reading anything she wrote."

A scholar at New York University has told me that Ayn Rand has been discussed in the following scholarly journals (contrary to the claim about "any ... journal you like"); I'll try to cite articles on this discussion page as I find the cites:

• Philosophical Books
• Review of Metaphysics
• The Monist
• The Personalist
• Social Philosophy and Policy
• Catholic World
• American Journal of Economics and Sociology
• Germano-Salavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies
• College English
• University of Windsor Review
• Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society
• Journal of Popular Culture
• Cycnos
• Aristos
• Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
• The Occasional Review
• Reason Papers
• Critical Review
• Journal of Libertarian Studies
• The Humanist
• Commentary
• Nomos
• English Journal
• Journal of Thought
• Journal of Philosophical Research
• New University Thought
• Journal of Business Ethics
• Library Journal
• Choice
• Journal of Canadian Studies
• Social Justice Review
• Teaching Philosophy
• Resources for American Literary Study
• Policy Review

Contrary to the claim about "any philosophy book ... you like", she is the topic of articles in the following encyclopedias:

• Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Encyclopedia of Ethics
• Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
• Encyclopedia of New York State
• American Authors and Books
• American Novelists of Today
• Encyclopedia of World Literature
• Contemporary Authors
• Contemporary Literary Criticism
• Contemporary Novelists
• A Handbook of American Literature
• Contemporary Women Philosophers
• Oxford Companion to American Literature
• Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature
• Twentieth Century Authors

Michael Hardy 20:17, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

end of quote from deleted discussion page

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

response

I'm not going to take responsibility for a 2003 discussion in which I took not part and I am not sure what the intent here. Lets make a few points:

1. No one as far as I know is denying that there are not sources (including reputable ones) that list her as a philosopher
2. However she is not listed in several reputable sources, where you would expect any philosopher to appear.
3. The long list of philosophers comes without citation so one can not say what they said about her and NOTE, they are all American
4. This is one of the issues for arbcom. She is far more notable in the US than Europe and she is taught on some philosophy courses in the US, but its a very low percentage
5. So the issue is one of weight

Now please stop using words like bigot and if you are going to provide huge lists please do so when they can be checked. We have had Steve doing this in the past with both dubious sources and erroneous ones (mistaken entries) and some refusals to provide more detail (the californian Steve, how many times do I have to ask). This is a policy issue. If policy is that any reputable source counts then, while I will less of WIkipedia, I will happily accept the label on this article--Snowded (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. These long lists serve no purpose without citations and explanations of origin. Indeed, if I didn't know better I would say that they were more for generating heat than light. As for myself, the lists I provided where verifiable through Lexis-Nexis -- where the methodology was explained and the results checked and cross-checked -- only then to be compared against existing Wikipedia policies (WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV) and guidelines (WP:RS, WP:LEAD, WP:FRINGE). Ultimately, Arbcom decides how to interpret policy in this instance -- no one else. J Readings (talk)

Checking out the journal list, only "Review of Metaphysics" and "The Monist" would really count as philosophy journals and neither of those are first rank. Can we have reference to actual articles. I say this because one I checked out some weeks ago (a Warwick academic article) mentioned Ayn Rand, but only to make it clear that when the author talked about Objectivism he was not referencing the work of Ayn Rand --Snowded (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, to be sure, "Objectivism" is not synonymous with "Randianism" or "the school of ideological thought founded by Ayn Rand." The more journal academic articles I read on JSTOR where "Objectivism" is mentioned in the economics and politics literature, the more I am convinced that it is a mistake to assume the Ayn Rand school (pre?)dominates the definition. FWIW, J Readings (talk)

I will try to find dates, page numbers, etc.

"Snowded", can you write "neither of those is of first rank"? "Neither" is singular. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically you could argue that I should have written "neither RoM nor Monist is" but the form of words I used is common and the meaning obvious. Maybe you can pay the same attention to detail in your various citations? --Snowded (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I will try to find page numbers, etc. So I take it we agree on that and on my grammatical point. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I certainly didn't mean to imply anyone posting to this page is a bigot; only that an anonymous poster to a now deleted page, from whose words I quoted a brief excerpt, was a bigot. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling people a bigot is a bad idea, grammatical pedantry on a talk page is an indulgence, issuing long lists before doing your research a mistake. I wonder what we might agree on? --Snowded (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Procedural comment

While I agree that it would be wise to set aside the "philosopher" issue until the current Arbitration is concluded, I must point out that the question of whether or not Rand was a philosopher will likely not be settled by the Arbitration Committee, because that institution does not rule over content disputes, but rather judges interpersonal disputes. Skomorokh 15:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded's addition

I approve of noting that she hasn't gotten a lot of recognition in academic philosophy. It seems to me we've floundered around for straightforward wording that isn't inflammatory or unbalanced, and I think this mention is fine. If it were up to me I might tweak it a bit to note her feud with academia (a word that itself would be valuable to include) and the mutual generalized dislike between these these two parties representing the mainstream sphere of philosophy and academic philosophy. But I'll take what I can get. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to include something on the feud - do you have a cite? --Snowded (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a Google News search of Ayn Rand and Academia [2] brings loads of descriptions of her generally cool reception there (although there's also quite substantial coverage of examples of her influence and being discussed and controversial in academic circles). I have to go so I didn't have time to dig much, but as I recall she has commented on her dislike for academia and academic philosophy and I believe it's been covered in independent sources. As it's an article about her, I think hew views as well as those of her critics is worth including. I suppose improving the coverage in the appropriate section first and then doing the intro might be the way to go, but for various reasons I am not prepared to make that substantial effort at this time. But I wanted to voice my support for fair, accurate and balanced descriptions of her accomplishments, her significance, and the controversies and criticism she's engendered, including substantial rejection from academia (with substantial exceptions as notable). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated --Snowded (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But if she is not considered to be a philosopher in the lede, then why oh why would there be notable reason to mention she hasn't received much recognition in academic philosophy IN THE LEDE? I guess there is such a thing as too much balance. Is that the point you two are making? Stevewunder (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As Snowded probably knows, I think there is not case to support to omission of the word philosopher to describe her. It is completely a POV fantacism that has wasted a lot of time that could have been spent on improving the article. There is really no case to be made that she isn't a philosopher. There isn't a single source that's been put forth that argues this, and there are an abundance of sources, as you note, that deal with the fact that she wrote and discussed philosophy. Whether it's any good is another issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Analytic

I don't know enough about this, but is Rand a part of the Analytic tradition in Anglo-American philosophy? Her fervent adherence of logic and reason suggests that she might have some influence from Russell and Moore. Wandering Courier (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a very interesting question. The short answer is no, though both Objectivism and analytic philosophy have shared roots in Aristotelian logic and empiricism. There is very little to suggest that Rand personally engaged seriously with 20th-century Anglo-American philosophy, though interestingly Alan Greenspan was an adherent of logical positivism before going to the darkside, and the majority of formally-trained Objectivist philosophers earned their degrees from stridently analytic departments. On the other hand, the secondary literature on Rand's philosophical work is overwhlemingly analytic for the reasons you mention (though there have been a few continental philosophers to examine her work in an intellectually honest fashion; get a taste of Žižek analysis [[Randian_hero#Characteristics|here]). Hope this helps, Skomorokh 08:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bill Vallicella's blog quote

The quote from Vallicella's blog in the criticism section is out of line. For one thing, it is from something titled: "Is Ayn Rand a Good Philosopher?" Of course we don't want to put that title into the text (as i have tried) because we don't want anyone to get the impression that Ayn Rand was a bad philosopher, because even that would imply she was in fact a philosopher, which is of course heresy. So we avoid in his quote the fact he does call her a philosopher, but leave in the statement "limited understanding" -- which of course Bill Vallicella could not really know. She might have had deep understanding, but an inability to articulate herself, for instance. The quote is a punch below the belt -- which may be fine for a blog -- he's writing a blog after all -- but should we be quoting from blog-speak in this article? Not to mention the fact that Vallicella is an American academic, which of course makes anything he has to say on Rand suspect to start with. Stevewunder (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia article type of criticism and it comes from an invalid source - a blog. There is valid criticism of Rand in academic journals for those editors that want to hunt it down. If it were acceptible to use blog's anyone could prove anything, at anytime. Shall we provide sources that the earth is flat, or that aliens have abducted humans for sex experiments? This is a slap in the face to the concept of valid sources, just as the deleting of the very solidly sourced "philosopher" is a slap in the face of WP. --Steve (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'll delete it again and we'll see what happens. Stevewunder (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogs have to be used with caution, but in this case (i) the source is reliable and (ii) it indicates the seriousness with which she is taken. See comments on journals elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

it does not indicate the seriousness with which she is being taken. if it were more serious, bill would not use the phrase "limited understanding". the tone is full of vitriol, not professionalism. Stevewunder (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of legitimate sources that criticize her. Let's stick to those. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "vitriol" is arrant nonsense. However I am open to an equivalent source which deals with her reading on Kant. We have here a reputably philosopher, addressing (largely with dismissal) a core aspect of her approach. That is important. If you have another CoM, happy to consider it. --Snowded (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind his "dismissal". Rand rarely appears to seem to know what she is talking about (much like me). But the word "understanding" is -- as i have said several times -- is not an objective term. this is one scholar making an inference. if someone came up with one scholar that says she is a philosopher it would be dismissed as a matter of weight. i think her "lack of understanding" should be dismissed as a matter of weight unless you can come up with many scholars that say the exact same thing. particularly since it is an inference. --- oh that's right, you don't take me seriously anyway. so just fuck off and ignore this post. Stevewunder (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

All "philosopher" reverts claim there is no consensus. Agreed we are far from consensus in many places. However, it appears there was once a consensus she was a philosopher, and that got changed. Maybe we are on the fence now, I don't know. There is surely no consensus either way. But she has not appeared on the site as a philosopher for a long time now, despite there being no consensus she is not one. Some want to wait for an arbcom decision, which i think is like waiting for Godot and don't believe will resolve anything. If only for some equal air time, we should call her a philosopher for a while now. I don't believe there is a consensus against this. If arbcom actually ever comes around and gives us clear direction on the issue, we can always react to that when it comes. meanwhile, i believe she deserves airtime as a philosopher, however ignorant you brits might think us yanks are being in the matter. Stevewunder (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This from an editor with a track record (and one banning) for vandalism on the article. If you check you will see that Arbcom notified all editors involved that there are moving to resolution. --Snowded (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, snowded, don't address any of the points i make directly, simply point out i am a vandal and dismiss them due to that. but guess what? this isn't a political debate. i might be editing this from a prison cell on death row for murdering children -- would that change the value of my discussion points? why don't you engage in dialogue instead of dismissing me for my edits you dislike? by the way, my "vandal" edits get reverted in about 90 seconds. there are many other really silly edits that have lasted for weeks. i believe you have made some of them. which is worse? i normally don't engage in the ad hom bullshit, but since it seems to be the method you prefer, verse dialogue over issues, i will. you are a pretentious fuck that resorts to name dropping instead of rational argument. Stevewunder (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are vandalising the article, you have just done it again. You are now abusing other editors which I suppose is par for the course. --Snowded (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm not abusing other editors, just you. how have i vandalized the article again? how come all my changes count as vandalism? i'm as sincere as the rest of you. Stevewunder (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"pretentious fuck", reported to admin I can't be bothered with this your behaviour is out of court --Snowded (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand and academic philosophy

There is a paragraph on this topic in Criticisms section, a subsection in the Legacy section. The former seems more directed at explaining the mutual antipathy rather than expounding on any criticism, so I think it ought to be merged, intact, to the Legacy section. There might also be sufficient content for a separate article on Objectivism and academic philosophy. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Honors section

This section is a mere three lines long. Would anyone object to integrating it into the biographical sections of the article? Skomorokh 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Steve (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved it to its own section because it was part of the "Early Life" section (!). Feel free to integrate it elsewhere. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First Successful Novel?

This wording implies that we the living and anthem are not successes. Sales figures for these novels belie that claim. We The Living (1936) outsells Faulkener's Absolom Absolom and Orwell's Keep the Aspidistra Flying of 1936 by ten to one on amazon, and outsells Joyces best sellers by two to one. That Rand cane to fame with Fountainhead is much more accurate and NPOV and I am making tha change.Kjaer (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer -- I would recommend that you consult with the reliable source noticeboard in order to see if information gleaned from Amazon.com constitutes a "an independent and reliable third-party source". If Living and Anthem were best-sellers, you should easily be able to find that information elsewhere (e.g., NYT). I'm not saying these books weren't best-sellers. What I am saying is that, in my experience, Amazon.com faces a lot of obstacles for accepted use on Wikipedia as a reliable source -- and this point, incidentally, has nothing to do with the Ayn Rand article. It's a general point about Amazon.com. Best to check with the noticeboard. J Readings (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed some redundancy in the lede with regard to the discussion of her books:

"She wrote the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and developed the philosophical system known as Objectivism."

"Her first successful novel was The Fountainhead, published in 1943, and her best-known work is the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957."

The second sentence and the first part of the first sentence essentially say the same thing, so would anyone mind if one of them was trimmed or the sentences were fused together? Idag (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"First successful" is a historical matter. Nowadays, everything she ever wrote sells to her admirers. (You could probably get good numbers for The Laundry Lists of Ayn Rand in some circles.) The question is what was successful at the time of its first issue; and that's The Fountainhead. (Amazon, of course, is not a reliable source on anything whatsoever.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks Orangemike. J Readings (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. Got a link, Mike? Skomorokh 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything but Philosopher, then?

If we are agreed on the above comments under "4th para" by SteveWunder, then I suggest we advise arbcom that the ONLY thing we need a ruling upon is the use of "philosopher" and tell them that we will handle the rest on our own amicably.

If this is agreed, then I suggest the "anti-philosopher" faction should either say they want the current wording, or should suggest an alternative, while the "pro-philosopher" faction should either endorse the DEC 31 wording - i.e., philosopher with footnote - and we can have done with this.Kjaer (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag if you are going to say criticism, you also have to say enthusiasm. I think the long standing NPOV "controversy" covers both admirably. Plus, you can't logically say that she was largely ignored, then say she generated much criticism. Kjaer (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have a very different interpretation of why this is with Arbcom. There is issues on evidence and behaviour, the question of "philosopher' is just one (and the least important in some ways) illustration of the issue. --Snowded TALK 05:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

ayn rand as a philosopher is the least important in some ways? how about you edit the ayn rand page to reflect that she is a philosopher (this being a minor issue and to show your good will). then arbcom can focus can focus on issues on evidence and behavior.Brushcherry (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Please, David. (Call me Ted.) I think this whole issue is very childish, and that we can all move forward based on the obvious consensus, except for philosopher. If you want to continue this unnecessary hostility, feel free. I have beeen editting so many other pages quite constructively that this one simply turns my stomache. I think we can all get past this if you will only show a little bit of charity towards your opponent. 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing hostile in the above Kjaer (and that response to disagreement illustrates the wider issue), there are issues of evidence and behaviour that need a ruling. I am pretty sure that if I restored the qualification on Schools of Philosophy that you would revert it (to take one example) and I am struggling to find the consensus you refer to for at least one of your edits this morning. I am double checking at the moment before reverting. I don't expect Arbcom to make a content ruling on Philosopher, but I do expect some ruling on the nature of evidence. There are wider issues on sources etc. --Snowded TALK 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a group of about a half-dozen to a dozen people who are camping this article, and who snipe all new editors as they spawn. These Wikipedian wallhackers seem to feel they have some sort of proprietary right to revert everything anyone else adds to the article until this group of people come to a consensus, whereupon they will bring new rules and regulations and standards and truth to the rest of us, like Moses descending from the mountain. That is not how Wikipedia works, and I will not refrain from making edits to the article. If you believe the article should not be edited then lock it. The article does not belong to you, it belongs to everyone. -- SmashTheState (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What i am trying to grasp is, why does everybody edit, when they know their edit is going to be edited? and then come here to fight about it.Brushcherry (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

New Book

Objectively Speaking. http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR100B —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambler Justice (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks! Alas, our Objectivist chums have chosen not to reveal its contents to the world, so unless one of us editors has a physical copy we will be unable to use it to verify the contents of this article. Skomorokh 03:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus/Philosopher/Arbcom

We had a tacit agreement that we were awaiting Arbcom on this. One of the reasons for that is the edit wars could not be resolved that time. While arbcom will not resolve a content issue and possibly not a policy issue they will address behavioural and other issues. My view remains that we should await Arbcom on the contentious issue of naming her a philosopher. If other editors are not prepared to do that, then we need to get a structured discussion here on what is a agreed and disagreed and see if we can find a compromise. In the mean time edit warring and spurious warnings on editor's talk pages will not help. If we can't wait, lets agree a process --Snowded (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that ArbCom should deal with behavioral issues first, and then we can deal with any content issues that ArbCom doesn't deal with. For the record, the issue of philosopher is under discussion and the addition of that designation was made without consensus. Idag (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't address content disputes. There are numerous sources that establish Rand is a philosopher, such as her NY Times obituary and numerous books written about her and her philosophy. There's also a criticism section in this article full of attacks on her abilities as a philosopher. No sources have been provided to dispute her being a philosopher, so there's really no policy basis to remove the accurate descriptor. I suggest we move on to actual issues that have some need to be worked out. If for some reason arbcom decides the word philosopher should be removed, we can of course do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you do not have agreement to that. Weight is also an issue and your interpretation of policy is nor correct.. I've had enough of this tonight, I will come back to it in the morning and attempt to structure this in the hope of reasonable behaviour. --Snowded (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. The descriptor is not accurate as there are a multitude of sources that do not designate Rand as a philosopher. The addition of that designation was completely unilateral, and we will set up a process to discuss it once ArbCom finishes addressing the behavioral issues. Idag (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Snowded and Idag. Those of us who disagree based on specific good-faith policy concerns are neither idiots nor trolls. We're looking for a solid decision that carefully interprets *ALL* the policies correctly. Hopefully, ChildofMidnight (and others) will both acknowledge and respect a request for further patience. I, for one, will be sorely disappointed and irritated if ArbCom fails to address this very serious issue, along with the equally problematic behavioral issues on this and similar pages. J Readings (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy that supports excluding a well sourced description based on that term not being used in some sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It's called "undue weight." And we're not talking about "some" sources -- we're talking about "many, many" sources. We've discussed this countless times, ChildofMidnight. It's pointless to claim we haven't considered policy in this discussion. If you disagree, you disagree, but it doesn't matter. Ultimately, it's Arbcom's decision, not yours. J Readings (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So there are many sources that treat her as a philosopher, a section in this article criticizing work as a philosopher, and many many sources that don't mention her at all in relation to philosophy or that don't explicitly state that she is a philosopher? How many sources don't mention her being a writer? Or a playwright? At some point you have to come up with sources for your position. That she isn't mentioned as something in lots of places is a very weak position and there is no policy that supports that as a basis excluding content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There are policies. I've mentioned them to you already, and please don't exaggerate -- there are only a few sources relatively speaking that state she's a philosopher. There are many more that state she was simply a novelist -- something Rand herself would acknowledge, apparently, according to the Ayn Rand Institute video I was listening to today. Stating that we don't have policy issues here is a bad-faith exercise. "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."J Readings (talk)

So it has been argued that the policy that prevents us from calling her a philosopher is "undue weight". Ok, let's agree that this is the point of contention, and let's explore this point. According to the evidence presented, she is known much more commonly as a novelist than philosopher. But is she known more commonly as a screenwriter than a philosopher? Is anyone going to argue that point? Is she known more commonly as a playwright than a philosopher? Please go on record if you believe she is known more commonly as a screenwriter or playwright than philosopher and present evidence to back up that case. If you do not believe that -- and still believe that, based on "undue weight", she should not be called a philosopher, then it follows logically you should be arguing she should not be called a screenwriter or playwright either. Stevewunder (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm actually going to flip sides somewhat in this debate. We all agree that there are notable and reliable sources that call Rand a philosopher. Thus, under Undue Weight, the weight for calling her a philosopher is greater than 0, which means we have to include that designation in some form (i.e. we can't omit it entirely). Given that, how about we use the designation "non-academic philosopher"? Almost all of the major philosophy sources that omit her are from academia and we can all agree that Rand and academia did not mix. Thoughts? Idag (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "popular philosopher"? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of that one because she's only popular in certain areas. Idag (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Or you could use "self-described philosopher". CABlankenship (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling her a "philosopher" and then including all of the criticism that most academics ignore her as a philosopher, that she lacks rigor, knowledge of subject matter -- whatever -- you accomplish the effect of the "pop" "non-academic" "self-described" labels. The article should stand as a whole consistent piece. The criticism has more meaning if it stands in contrast to how she is presented otherwise. If we ditch or qualify the philosopher label in the beginning, then criticism of her philosophical work starts to have "undue weight". Stevewunder (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• The tacit agreement Snowded speaks of fell apart for me when people started making all of the heavy-duty critical statements in the lede that were an implicit statement that Rand was not a philosopher, and continuing with criticism in general with less and less editing done by consensus. That, plus learning that ArbCom wasn't going to address content, brought the tacit agreement to an ending.
• The philosopher issue was not under discussion, it was on hold. In fact, it has not been agreed upon since sometime in December - and in December was the first time it became a matter of contention since somewhere last spring. There was a long period of consensus that she is a philosopher. And over the articles entire history, the periods of contention have been very brief and all of the time in between she has been labeled a philosopher.
• The weight is ALL on the side of Rand being a philosopher. Only a tiny, tiny number of sources say anything to contradict the fact that she was a philosopher.
• Contrary to what was mentioned above, the removal of the "philosopher" descriptor violated policy and was done unilaterally.
• The weight of all of those sources that don't say she is a philosopher is zero! You can't weigh the absence of an assertion. The only weight is of those sources that make statements that are pertinent to the discussion.
• The sources give us only these facts: 1) she is a philosopher, 2) she chose to present her philosophy to the popular market instead of to academia, 3) she was hostile towards academics, 4) academic philosophy has not given her work much attention, 5) some academnics have criticized her work in normal ways, 6) some academics have been dismissive of her work, 6) some academics have found value in her work. All of the rest is personal pov or original research. --Steve (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "Ayn Rand was a Russian-American intellectual, best known for her novels, and for the philosophical system she named 'Objectivism'." CABlankenship (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

trying a new approach

We now have a breathing space with the freeze on the article, hopefully in that time we will get the Arbcom rulings. Can I suggest that we try and agree on a series of facts and problems then try and move forward? Ie for the moment the argument about what it should be stops. We know that a lot of this evidence is contradictory (hence the disputes). Here is my attempt

1. The contentious areas are her description in the information box and in the introduction to the lede (which will do not have to be the same)
2. There is no dispute that she gave rise to a school of Philosophy which is called Objectivism
3. If we look in dictionaries and encyclopaedias of philosophy from university publishers then she is mentioned as a philosopher in one US book, as an amateur philosopher in one European one, but otherwise is not listed
4. She is frequently mentioned as a philosopher in journals (refereed or otherwise) linked to Objectivism
5. Obituaries and other newspaper/magazine references call her a philosopher
6. She does not appear to be mentioned in the main international journals of Philosophy (we have some claims here but no references so far)
7. Philosophers such as Huemer and Nozick while accepting her politics do not treat her as a philosopher are critical of the quality of her philosophy
8. Tara Smith's book on ethics and other work by US based philosophers has developed a respectable body of work based on her ideas
9. There is a clear difference between her notability and treatment in the US and the rest of the world

My goal here is to distil down to a short series of statements then attempt to create some actual words that we can agree on. If we look at the article's history when philosopher has been used, it has been qualified --Snowded (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The statements above should reflect the following corrections or observations:

• 1) There area several contentious areas - not just her description in the lede and info box. Edit warring has gone on over the critical statements put into the lead from a blog, over the critcism section, and over the popular influence section.
• 3) She is mentioned as a philosopher in a great many solid sources - saying just in 1 US book is a massive misstatement.
• 6) She is found in a number of academic journals of note.
• 7) A number of other philosophers treat her as a philosopher, and call her a philosopher. Some are critical of her work, others not.
• 8) There is a difference between her book sales in the US and the rest of the world, but no numbers have been supplied, no sources provided. But we do know that there are a large number of her books sold in foriegn nations and in many different languages. --Steve (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

comments

Does Nozick explicitly say that he doesn't consider her a philosopher? Or is it just that he disagrees with her philosophy? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I had read (and the same is true of Huemer) they do not treat her as I would expect one philosopher to treat another. They show respect for the politics, but more or less dismiss the philosophy (rather like a professor with a first year enthusiastic student). I chose my words carefully here as it is ambiguous. --Snowded (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is what does it mean to treat her as a philosopher? We're skimming really close to OR and SYNTH to say that based on X Y and Z Nozick clearly doesn't consider her a philosopher. That's why I like the "popular philosopher" formulation. Not in the sense that she was popular everywhere, but that her appeal is popular, and that she is popularly considered to be a philosopher. Not by all of academia perhaps, but certainly, it appears, by many "regular people". TallNapoleon (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted, and poplar if used would I think have to be qualified, but I really don't want to get into solutions yet. We really need to get some agreed statements up first.--Snowded (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular would be OR and she is only popular in a small community, the cited qualification is "amateur". However at this stage I don't think we should be coming up with solutions, but statements. Given your question of that statement I have hanged it. Huemer for example thinks that taking Rand's philosophy as stated may prevent students making progress in ethics as an academic discipline because of the number of errors. The point is that these two have both been cited in lists, but their view of Rand is pro in respect of her politics not her philosophy.

Thing is popular doesn't necessarily mean "well-liked". Consider for instance, a Swedish pop star. Such a person would qualify as a popular artist, despite only being popular within a small community. Considering the amount of books she sells, I don't think that calling her popular is unwarranted, especially since her philosophy is fundamentally an appeal to the populace, not to academia. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, the thing with "popular" is that it has multiple meanings, one of which is "well-liked." The reader won't necessarily know which meaning we are referring to. However, I think "non-academic" conveys the meaning that you're trying to get at with popular. In response to Snowded, I agree with all of the points you made in your list above. Idag (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There just seems something vaguely negative POV/undue weight about non-academic, ditto for "pop philosopher". I don't know, it's not a huge deal but it makes me feel a little queasy. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Temporary compromise to lift protection

Any chance we can agree on something between simply-philosopher and no-mention-of-philosopher and leave it be for a while so the page can be unprotected?

You all must realise that proposing either Rand being identified as a philosopher without qualification, and not being discussed as a philosopher at all will only result in an edit-war, blocks, protections, topic bans and so on. At least until Arbcom makes its decisions on misconduct and editing principles, we should agree on a temporary compromise on the philosopher issue, leave it be and go on improving the rest of the article (where there has been remarkably little acrimony).

Two options that might be palatable would be a) Listing novelist first, then some qualification of philosopher, then screenwriter and playwright. b) Sticking with novelist, screenwriter and playwright for the opener, then having a philosophy-heavy sentence immediately after.

I tentatively suggest this because some of us who have been anti-philosopher in the past (Idag and TallNapoleon) seem to be amenable to some form of a), while CABlankenship proposed a form of b) above ["Ayn Rand was a Russian-American intellectual, best known for her novels, and for the philosophical system she named 'Objectivism'."]

I think a temporary solution along these lines ought to be acceptable to the pro-philosopher editors, having had to tolerate no mention of Rand as philosopher for the past few weeks.

Do you all think something along these lines could be workable? I'd like to edit the article some time before fucking March 17th. Skomorokh 03:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either A or B. Once the protection is lifted, I'm also voluntarily limiting myself to 1RR on this article. Idag (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to Skomorokh being allowed to edit - he hasn't been part of this conflict, and I'm sure that he would stay away from anything controversial, and clear anything questionable on the talk page. But I don't think anyone else should be on this article till ArbCom renders a decision on the behavioral issues. The fact is that there still is a great deal of acrimony in a number of areas. It would not be good to open the article while this is still unresolved. --Steve (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I recall I've been fairly consistently pro-philosopher, but my rationale has basically been a bit different. Essentially I think that if enough people say someone is a philosopher, then they are a philosopher, and that enough people do say that Rand is a phliosopher. Ofc finding sources to back this up might be a pain. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'd be happy either with philosopher or not. Just make it clear which, and everyone agree to stick to it. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I too think the solution (both temporary and permanent) lies somewhere between no-philosopher and philosopher, hence the attempt to see what we can agree on as facts, and then form some words around that. For example, keeping Author in the information box but saying at the start of the lede that she wrote books on philosophy and created a philosophical movement. I was also happy to move some material from the lede (the criticism re Kant). Recent postings on the arbcom working page however are not encouraging. --Snowded (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I said a long time ago I'm happy with calling her an intellectual or writer who wrote this that...etc. tho i am not happy with a qualified philosopher label, because it is asymmetric with including serious criticism of her philosophical work. i think few here believe the philosophical criticism should be thrown out, thus if she is to be criticized as a philosopher, she must first be called a philosopher. Stevewunder (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevewunder, so I take it you would prefer option B? Idag (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with B in the form "Ayn Rand was a Russian-American intellectual, etc . Stevewunder (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from Steve, I'm sensing broad agreement on a temporary compromise on this issue. I'd like to propose as the opening line the following:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American intellectual best known for her novels and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism.

I'm not proposing that this is the closest to the truth, or the most representative of reliable sources, merely that it is an acceptable introduction to the topic we can agree on while discussion continues. Skomorokh 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a variation on the previous compromise. I would prefer ... Russian-American novelist and scriptwriter also known for developing a philosophical system ...' however I can accept the above. --Snowded (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Scriptwriter doesn't work without philosopher, as writing scripts was much much less important to the life of Rand than writing philosophy. If we're leaving philosopher out, we will should go with intellectual/author/writer. Skomorokh 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Although I think the best intro sentence is "Ayn Rand was a Russian-American author." it succinctly tells the full story. then we amplify. Stevewunder (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's the source upon which we're basing the exclusion of describing her as a philosopher? I appreciate these attempts, but they're awkward, inaccurate and clumsy (wordy). Can't we just include the word philosopher (gasp!!!) AND a cogent explanation of the notable criticisms for balance? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's coverage of criticism of Rand is very, very far from comprehensive or representative, making a summary untenable at this point. I think your suggestion is good for what the lead should ultimately say, however. Skomorokh 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with Wunder's start, but where form there? How are you going to deal with the philosopher issue? Best to just put it out there up front and then balance it with notable criticism (I would say opposition, but no one has provided a single source arguing she isn't a philosopher). ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is not to deal with the philosopher issue; I intend to leave that to you fine fellows here to argue out here, based on the sources. The "best known for developing a philosophy called Objectivism" line lets the reader know in no uncertain terms that Rand's philosophical contributions are at the core of her notability. Skomorokh 09:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the citation argument, if you want to go down that route, then the statement of accepted facts (not stated, but those accepted by both sides) is a first step.--Snowded (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this compromise. As far as something more permanent, I think, once ArbCom wraps up, we should take this issue to the NOR noticeboards to get wider community participation since this issue is not limited to this article. Idag (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You would have to delete properly cited material, violating Wikipedia policy to achieve what you are calling a compromise, but would instead be an error - one of undue weight, original research and POV. You are not going to find consensus going down that road. There are some editors that are simply going to have to accept that she was a philosopher - perhaps not as they see it, or wish it, but as the Wikipedia policy requires that it be interpreted. --Steve (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, consensus is Wikipedia policy too, and the current wording emphatically does not fulfill it. It's perfectly easy to verify the proposed wording to reliable sources without engaging in original research, and consensus here does not support the idea that the proposed wording is non-neutral. Do you not see that you will not be able to get the article to reflect your perspective by stonewalling? Skomorokh 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing about what he's saying that's stonewalling. He's 100% correct. By any rational application of the word she was a philosopher. Your attempts to couch it in false officiality are completely transparent, you and various others are the ones doing exactly what you accuse Steve of - you're trying to push an inaccurate point that's supported only by your own agenda, not by reality. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't believe I have questioned the accuracy of Steve's perspective. 2. Unless you consider wanting to write a comprehensive, verifiable and neutral article on the topic an agenda, I don't have one. 3. I personally consider Ayn Rand to be a philosopher. 4. Claims in Wikipedia do not rest on editors' delusional pretenses to understanding The Truth or Reality, but on the consensus of reliable sources. 5. For someone devoting their time to a collaborative encyclopaedia, you have a terrible attitude. Skomorokh 07:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The primary issue with Arbcom is the behaviour of editors and there is no better illustration of why this has become necessary that the response above. I wonder if Steve has ever made a post where those who disagreed with him were not accused of POV or OR. --Snowded (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone bites, this is not the appropriate forum for comments about other editors; you already have your Arbcom pages for that. I would really appreciate if we could stay on-topic here. Skomorokh 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, consensus is attempting to get agreement on the proper application of Wikipedia policies. You called my attempt stonewalling, but I am only doing what other other editors have done on this issue, calling for observing Wikipedia policy where Ayn Rand is described as a philosopher. Some editors propose to change it to something else, they call it 'compromise.' This has happened before in the many years the article has been here. And over time, despite several conflicts on this exact same issue, the editors decided that WP supported calling her a philosopher.

I followed the link you provided to refesh my memory on Consensus, and I noted that "consensus" explicitly takes back seat to Wikipedia's policies and guidlines: "Consensus among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome."

The editors at this article have a disagreement on applying the three most fundamental of Wikipedia policies: wP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR.

In the article on consensus it says, "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality." This needs to be mentioned here, but in the interest of avoiding more contentious exchanges, just to say that allegations are being addressed in the ArbCom.

The heart of the dispute is that solid, reliable verifiable sources call Rand a philosopher. When some editors offer reasons for deleting those sources, they have said that it is because Rand is NOT listed in many of the sources as a philosopher, and that this absence of a mention means, in effect, the same as a source explicitly saying she is not a philosopher. That is a form of original research.

The same editors who argue for the not-called-philosopher-therefore-isn't say that it is undue weight to use those sources that call Rand a philosopher instead of the sources that are mute on the subject. But "prevalence" in reliable sources means weighing "not a philosopher" sources against the "is a philosopher" sources. Rand's absence or the absence of a "philosopher" description is a negative - it has no weight in the presence of a positive.

Putting together these different sources that are mute, and then implying that their muteness is in itself equivalent to saying Rand is not a philosopher and that the weight of the muteness is such as to completely overthrow the sources that are clear in saying she is a philosopher is synthesis that is very heavy on original research.

At this date, this is the principle, as seen by one of the arbitors of the ArbCom, which is still underway. "The neutral point of view, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. The neutral point of view is not fulfilled by merely presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source. Prevalence in reliable sources determines proper weight. Relying instead on implied arguments, synthesized claims, and the views of Wikipedia editors is contrary to the neutral point of view, and explicitly considered original research". --Steve (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, it is possible to have other understandings of WP policy than your own. Please, it is only a TEMPORARY compromise to prevent edit warring until we can find a better solution. It does not imply ultimate acceptance. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, does anyone other than Steve oppose this compromise? Because consensus does not require unanimity and it looks like we only have one editor who is opposed to the compromise. Idag (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Not me. I am so tired of this confrontational drama and the insistence that only Steve's interpretation of policy *has to be* the correct one that I suspect I'm not the only one who is irritated at this point. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean 100% agreement among all established editors. If it did, I could have held up the Raymond Boisvert decision for years by simply disagreeing with the few others who sought to remove Boisvert's criticism from the article. At some point, one must respect others. One last comment on what Steve wrote: "one of the arbitors (sic) of the ArbCom" is a misleading statement. The editor in question made it quite clear that the reply was simply his or her personal opinion, that it counted for nothing as far as ArbCom's decision was concerned, and the opinion itself -- in my view -- was also vaguely stated to the point that it does not outweigh the collected opinions of other editors interpreting WP policy in good faith, or more importantly, ArbCom itself. Overall, to be frank, those types of (mis?)statements above are part of the reason why I don't contribute more to the various discussions on this talk page. Again, I suspect that I'm not alone. J Readings (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what the basis is for excluding the word philosopher. We're going to dance around it by saying she developed a philosophical system? Doesn't that make her a philosopher? And we're doing this even though there are numerous sources, including her own critics, who refer to her as a philosopher? Why? What would be the policy basis for this? We're doing it not based on sources but the fact that some sources don't include her? This seem preposterous. I've always supported a cogent explanation of the criticisms against her, philosophical and political, but I don't see any evidence that anyone has argued she isn't a philosopher except on this talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How about so that we can put off the decision and work on other things? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This compromise is a temporary solution. For now, we agree to disagree and put in the above proposal that no one, with the exception of Steve, finds repellent. Once ArbCom ends, we can continue this debate at the community noticeboards and get some community-wide input so we can permanently resolve it. As, TallNapoleon pointed out above, the compromise will let us move on to other things in this article that need attention. Idag (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That compromise would be wrong. It would involve deleting sourced material without consensus and as Idag knows there are many, many editors who take the same position that I do - I am most certainly not the only editor that finds that position repellent. Idag was the one who requested this freeze, if he and others would like to request an early defrosting, and a temporary solution, it is simple. Agree to leave the lede as it is, and edit the way one should on an controversial, frequently contested article - make suggestions on the talk page, if there is an objection to the proposed change, leave it alone and make a different proposal. Meanwhile, try to achieve real consensus - an agreement to the application of WP. --Steve (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Delete sourced material without consensus" -- what does that even mean any more? J Readings (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

!vote

(outdent) If there are "many many editors" who oppose this, I do not see them. Let's do a quick straw poll, who here is in favor of adopting Skoromokh's temporary compromise proposal so we can move on to other things for now? Idag (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support Given the reaction of Steve and CoM even this might produce edit warring elsewhere in the article, we might be best waiting for Arncom --Snowded (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Changing my position to oppose: Without ArbCom and some administrator oversight, it appears that we will just have another edit war on our hands if protection gets removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a difference though between a good faith dispute and one editor stonewalling against a consensus compromise. Idag (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not by voting. Idag, it is inappropriate of you to characterize my motivations - it is referred to as a lack of good faith, as you are fond of pointing out. --Steve (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

However votes to gage consensus--which is clearly what this is--are acceptable. BTW Idag, I'm not saying it's right that we'll have an edit-war on our hands, just that I think we will. To be clear I have no problems with the compromise wording so long as we all understand that it's temporary. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, if we do come up with a clear compromise and someone reverts against that compromise, we don't need to edit war. We leave his changes alone and then report that person on ANI, which is still going strong as evidenced by some recent blocks. I'm not saying that this is the preferred approach, but there are ways to enforce compromises and I don't think that we should let worry over enforcement trump the need to come to some type of a consensus. There's going to be more admins watching the behavior here now that this case is in ArbCom, so I think that if we actually get a consensus, it will be enforced. Idag (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's put it this way: without administrators around to enforce the compromise it's fairly clear that it will get broken. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I put forth the phrase "philosophical system", I believe that this is not actually appropriate. The phrase "philosophical doctrines" is more accurate. CABlankenship (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• support CABlankenship (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• support the compromise wording of Skomorokh. J Readings (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• support Idag (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)