Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 45

This is an archive of past discussions about Ayn Rand. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

→

Add reference please

How Ayn Rand became the new right's version of Marx: Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats March 2012 The Guardian by George Monbiot 99.109.127.221 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be added? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting insights and comparisons, add. 99.181.131.192 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not add. Opinion columns and editorials are not reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They are RS if attributed to those who wrote them. 99.109.127.232 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. Despite what some editors seem to think, there's no hard and fast rule that establishes whether something is a reliable source. Blogs almost always are not, for example, but they can be in a few rare cases, depending on whether they're blogs of established authorities in a field, for instance. It all depends entirely on the particular source and what it's being used for. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, we don't just add "sources" for their own sake. Sources are added to document the content of the article. I don't know of anything in the article that needs citing that this would be the best source for. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The item would be a more current reference in Ayn Rand#Reviews, who died 30 years ago that day, "has never been more popular or influential." (5 March 2012) 99.181.142.150 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Collected Soc. Security and Medicare

I read the WP section on due weight. "100 Voices" satisfies that definition. Therefore I have replaced the edit that RL0919 removed. Also I noticed "100 Voices" was used to cite the fact Rand developed lung cancer from smoking. If "100 Voices" is good for citing Rand's lung cancer then it's good for citing the fact she collected government assistance. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This dispute has never been about whether 100 Voices is acceptable as a reliable source. It has been entirely about whether this issue has enough significance in secondary sources to be included. So saying that the source "satisfied that definition" and is "good for citing" simply indicates that you don't understand what the objection is in the first place. Anyhow, I have dealt with your lengthy addition in a series of steps, starting with fixing the obvious errors and then working through the more debatable aspects. Hopefully it will be instructive, and if not then at least other editors have some set points to help them decide what (if anything) might be appropriate to retain from your edit. --RL0919 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RL0919: I've corrected the typos in my addition and I changed the citation method to the style used throughout the article, otherwise it looks fine to me. You said the quotes in my addition don't have enough significance in secondary sources to warrant inclusion in this article. Here's a salient point you may not have considered. SO WHAT? This information comes from a well-written, well-researched book. I think the problem here is that YOU don't understand the significance of Rand reversing herself by accepting government assistance, a practice she railed against HER ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE. I have replaced my addition. Also, perhaps you should offer a compromise instead of repeatedly deleting my subsection entirely. Have you considered that? Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One of my steps was a version that summarized the facts but omitted the unnecessarily extensive quoting. You are the one who decided this must be covered in far greater length than other matters that most biographers consider far more important. It seems clear enough from your response that your desire to include this is entirely tendentious: you want the article to emphasize a point about Rand, and it doesn't matter how much weight serious biographers give to the matter. You don't seem to care (or perhaps understand) what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article if it conflicts with your agenda. You don't even care whether the source says all the things that you insert. And frankly this is common and tiresome. So I'm going to leave this for a while for others to comment -- or better yet, do some editing on the matter. --RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Pryor is overlong and simply bloated. It should be severely trimmed or cut completely and summarized. It's partially a due weight issue, but also partially just a problem of unnecessary article fat. Moreschi (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RL0919: Whittling my addition down to a stub without quotes and then deleting it hardly represents a compromise. Moreschi: I've reduced my edit by about half but I left what I felt was the more important quote and made a refernce to Evva Pryor, the social worker who convinced Rand to accept assistance. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The quote adds nothing to the excellent summary to which it is attached. Mentioning Pryor by name is fine, and the summary is good, but the quote is redundant (so removed). Plus it's stylistically horrible to end paragraphs with quotes, or so I was always taught. Moreschi (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes, "what I was taught" trumps MOS. Show me one Wikipedian who has read MOS, or even any significant part of it, and I'll show you a liar. So there. Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe the quote should stay. However, as long as this represents a true compromise, I'll accept it. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Split up influences?

Right now we've got her fiction influences mixed with her philosophy influences. I think it would be a good idea for us to split these up--otherwise, the reader doesn't immediately know which ones influenced her philosophy and which influenced her fiction. I think it's important that we split them up because they are two very different things. This would be problematic if one of them counted for both, but I don't think any do. Here's what I'm thinking:

(fiction)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, O. Henry, Victor Hugo

(philosophy)

Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, H.L. Mencken, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Nietzsche, Isabel Paterson

Thoughts? Byelf2007 (talk) 15 May 2012

I see your point, but you're talking about a list in an infobox. I'm not sure it is desirable to complicate that with this sort of distinction, especially since broad categories like these could be seen as misleading (for example, Mises could be considered a "philosophy" influence only in very narrow areas). The body text can discuss the nature of each influence as appropriate. So I lean against this idea. --RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Just wanted to let folks know that due to the recent disruption by an IP-hopping banned user, I've put in a request at WP:RFPP to temporarily semi-protect this talk page. Anyone who wishes to comment on that request may do so there. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The request for semi-protection was fulfilled with an expiration time of one month, which I would hope is ample time for our banned user to find a different outlet for his frustrations. In the meantime, if an IP or non-autoconfirmed editor wants to make a comment about the article, please feel welcome to contact me at User talk:RL0919 and I can post the comment on your behalf, or just make a change to the article if it is something simple. (Anyone else who wants to volunteer for similar duty is welcome to say so below.) --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Literary reception

There has been an effort recently (and others in the past) to remove a passage from the lead that characterizes the literary reception for Rand's fiction as being predominantly negative. The current wording says it "was not well received by literary critics". An editor was recently blocked for edit warring over this. The sentence was previously uncited (as is common for summary text in the lead section), but because it was challenged, I moved a citation up from the body that directly addresses this. It is from The New Ayn Rand Companion by Mimi Reisel Gladstein. Gladstein is a respected academic and an expert on Rand as a literary figure. I quote from the cited material, which is a book from an academic publisher: "Over the years, there have been those few reviewers who have appreciated not only Rand’s writing style, but also her message. Their number is far outweighed by reviewers who have been everything from hysterically hostile to merely uncomprehending. The antagonism of critical reaction grew in direct proportion to the enthusiasm of the reading public." This is probably the single best overall summary because it is short and comprehensive, but other sources could be cited. For example, Anne Heller's biography of Rand describes the reviews for Atlas Shrugged: "They were not merely critical, they were hateful and dishonest." Does anyone want to challenge with contrary sources? --RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just a passerby on this, but if the reviews were "hateful and dishonest", doesn't that make them unfair? And in such a case shouldn't "unfairness" be mentioned? Depending, of course, if this is a widespread opinion among experts. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the material that was removed, and I think restoring it was justified. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Dr.K's question, I couldn't say that particular detail is "a widespread opinion among experts", although I understand why Heller said it. It's also specific to the reviews of one book. For contrast, Heller says the reviews for We the Living were "mixed", and her description of the reviews for The Fountainhead is, "Reviewers were hostile or, at best, bewildered." One thing that makes Gladstein especially useful as a source on this is that she summarizes Rand's reception overall, whereas many other sources discuss it book-by-book. --RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you RL0919 for the clarification. I agree with your approach based on your explanation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If it was a fact, even if the critics are ignorant and uncomprehending it would be ignoring reality to leave it out. It's an encyclopedia article, not a fan page. If people are going to be swayed strictly by "what the critics say" they're probably not bright enough to grasp what she had to say anyway. The fact that many had a negative reaction because the ideas are so foreign to them just proves what she said about the mentality that's common. Upon actually reading AS, hopefully people would for example see the Chambers review for the baseless hatchet job that it is. It ultimately undermines his credibility, not Rand's.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Points to top of talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." We're here to talk about how to improve the article, not about the validity of Rand's ideas or her opponents criticisms. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about - the validity of certain info being in the article. I'll let you know if I feel I need your input regarding what I address on here. You'll be in for a long wait sport.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The "have largely" should be changed to simply "largely" to reflect that the ever-evolving academic attitude towards Rand, as indicated by the references cited. Original text: "Scholars of English and American literature have largely ignored her work,[182] although attention to her literary work has increased since the 1990s." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewolfemann (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Two suggestions.

I'm stunned this talk page is protected, don't remember seeing that in 6 or 7 years of editing. In any case suggest a "Personal Impression" section that can convey some of what she was like as a person. Think this best based on the videos and things she says in them. In fact it seems people don't want her mentioned in other articles (see Evil). Just watched the '59 Mike Wallace interview, the Tom Snyder and some Phil Donahue on youtube which do convey same. As there doesn't seem to be anything on her personal life, O'Connor, etc. her or in any article, it's glaring by its absence and this would be the place for it. The other thing is how she is more or less of a pariah now. I can assure when I was young and saw some of those videos in their original showings, that was not the case. Lycurgus (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A section called "Personal Impression" would be an unusual addition; I've never seen such a thing in another WP biographical article. There is some material in there on her personal life, although a few months ago an editor changed the section headers in a way that made it sound like later sections were only about her work. I just updated the headers to correct that. If there's more personal life info you think should be in the article, that's where it should go rather than creating a new section. On the second point, material about how she was perceived would presumably go in the "Reception and legacy" section, assuming there are secondary sources for it. --RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're saying that changing "Early Life" to "Life" addresses the substantive point? As for the title of the material, obviously it's not the point. You also seem to presume I didn't assess the current content. Not going to argue here but I think the change you made is laughable. As for the second point, due to its currency there will be no shortage of such sources, the comments by presidential candidate Roseanne Barr come to mind, among many many ohers. Lycurgus (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to restate my points on the assumption that the tone of your reply was caused by poor communication on my part: If you think there should be more information about her personal life, it should go in the "Life" section where other personal information already is. Information about how other people view her would belong in "Reception and legacy". Ideally these additions should come from secondary sources, rather than from primary sources like her own comments in interviews. I hope that clears up what I meant. --RL0919 (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is far too viscous an environment for me to want to contribute other than in the very focused way above. I'm still stunned that this talk page is protected, though I don't doubt it's required. So that fact attests to the second suggestion and you seem to more or less aquiesce in the first, it will just be for someone with more investment in the article to maybe fill that out, maybe a Persona subsection of Life. I did note that contrary to what I've seen in articles in other encyclopedia's articles like Hegel and Kant don't have such but they also have more developed biographical §§. Lycurgus (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you think should be said about her personal life that isn't already mentioned. She loved her pet cats. She retained a strong Russian accent. She was willing to discuss ideas for hours with people who were open to reason, and was quite short with those who apparently weren't. People with whom she had discussions generally noted that she had remarkable, penetrating eyes. She deeply loved her husband Frank, for whom she had a (probably exaggerated) hero-worship, but arranged an affair with Nathaniel Branden, with her husband's complicity. She would occasionally, particularly as she aged, "excommunicate" a former friend for alleged irredeemable psycho-epistemological errors; ironically, this was abetted by Branden, who eventually became a victim himself. She was often depressed about the state of civilization and the difficulty of changing it. Erika Holzer wrote a very appreciative book about her life with Rand. I don't think you can discern very much useful personal information about her from the video interviews. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

More non-encyclopedic factoids: Rand was a stamp collector (she wrote a short essay, published in Minkus I think), and collected a few (cut & polished) geodes. She and Frank studied ballroom dancing somewhat late in life, and not long before her death she had started taking private lessons in abstract algebra, as part of a plan to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of mathematical knowledge. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Defense of Philosphy

I think that the philosophy section should be divided into a "Defense of Philosophy" and an "Objectivism" sections. The first part would describe her efforts in supporting the importance of ideas, and especially of ideas that originate in academia. The second part would the current contents of the section under Philosophy. Any thoughts? Johnskrb2 (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well this is just flat false. We can't know what she would have been like had it been true, but she was famously dismissive of most everything outside of a fairly narrow set of things she was familiar with and considered academic philosophy especially worthless, Aristotle excepted, as I noted in the lede. She did champion "man's mind" and its products but not the actually existing institutions supporting it in her time. Philosophy as an abstraction she made concrete, yes, Academic Philosophy no. In fact, SFAIK she was largely oblivious of the two major schools of 20th century Western philosophy. Lycurgus (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider to be "the two major schools," perhaps linguistic analysis and naturalism? In Europe there was a hodge-podge of different schools. Anyway, Rand knew the gist of such stuff; sometimes it was reported to her by acquaintances (such as Leonard Peikoff) who were attending mainstream university philosophy classes, academic philosophical symposia, etc. However, she was not inclined to spend much time probing deeper into notions that she thought were so far off track, nor to debate details when premises and methods were the main problems. Recall Ellsworth Toohey's famous dictum: "Don't bother to examine a folly — ask yourself only what it accomplishes." — DAGwyn (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

analytic and continental. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

John had it right, although I think a single sentence would suffice, rather than a whole section. Rand often tried to convince her audience (most notably at West Point and at a conference of businessmen) of the practical importance of ideas and especially of philosophy. See her speech/article "Philosophy — Who Needs It?" Lycurgus seems to have mistaken "import" for "approval". Not only did Rand disapprove of mainstream academic philosophy, she maintained that it was the root cause of many perceived evils in contemporary society. And of course she considered that to be an important effect. — DAGwyn (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Responding normally now that page unprotected. We seem to be in agreement DAGwyn, minus whatever it is you're talking about with the approval/import dichotomy. I don't use either of those terms in my reply to Johnskrb2. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but John did: "the importance of ideas", and you(?) responded that "this is just flat false". Maybe the way John put it could be misleading, which is why I elaborated on the correct part of the notion. If something is added to the article in this regard, it needs to not be easily misread as implying Rand's approval for many of the ideas that academics had been espousing. — DAGwyn (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that I was not clear. I did mean that she thought that academic ideas had special importance and influence, applying both to good ideas and to bad. In line with this was her defense of philosophy and man's need for it in his every day life, irrespective of the actual source of the ideas. Johnskrb2 (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Found another free image

File:Ayn Rand.jpg I was looking for something else and came across it. Thought I would just drop a note here in case you want to use it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a free image. It was taken by a professional photographer in 1947 and is licensed by Getty Images. Someone seems to have posted it to Flickr under false pretenses and from there it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I have initiated a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ayn Rand.jpg. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is Atlas Shruged best described as a "love story" in wikipedia

Atlas Shrug main theme regards the disintegration of society by adopting fake sets of values. This is in conjunction with her philosophy of Objectivism which is heavily presented there inc. a 58 p speach which is essentially a philosophy article. Ayn rand frequently described it as the definitive exposition of objectivism. If Rand described in an interview the as "a love story" it was not, probably, a simplistic description. Any way, regardless what she said- it's not the best description. My POV: Just like you, I'm not an objectivist. I think it's a silly philosophy. I think Atlas Shrugged is shallow and boring. It's by no means mainly a love story. --MeUser42 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this section/discussion - seems we agree on much of this - however, and as in my original edits, when asked by film producer Albert S. Ruddy if a screenplay could focus on the love story, Ayn Rand agreed and said, "That's all it ever was."< ref name="NYT-20110417">Dowd, Maureen (April 17, 2011). "Atlas Without Angelina". New York Times. Retrieved July 30, 2012.</ref> This is *very significant* since the "Atlas Shrugged" author, Ayn Rand, *herself* is stating her main intention for writing the novel, *regardless* of other materials, including philosophy, that may also be contained in the novel - Below is the entire relevant quotation, written by a Pulitzer Prize winning author (Maureen Dowd) and published by a multiple (108?) Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper (The New York Times) - that seems about as good as a "Reliable Source" can be for this type of material.

Copied from The New York Times, 04/17/2011:

Al Ruddy, the charismatic producer of “The Godfather” and “Million Dollar Baby” (and a Democrat), spent decades trying to make Rand’s master work into a movie.

“Dagny Taggart is the greatest role ever written for a woman,” he said in his gravelly voice. “She’s a great executive, she’s gorgeous, and the three greatest guys in the world are all mad about her. Hot stuff about cool geniuses.” In 1975, he wanted to pull together “a dream cast,” with Faye Dunaway as Dagny, Clint Eastwood as Hank Rearden, Robert Redford as John Galt and Alain Delon as Francisco d’Anconia.

He went to New York to talk to Rand, crowding onto a love seat at her agent’s with the tiny objectivist, who loved manly men like Ruddy. She agreed that he could focus on the love story. “That’s all it ever was,” she said.

Accordingly, returning old uncited text to the better supported text - In any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The piece being cited is an op-ed, not a news or feature article. Generally op-eds are not good sources for factual claims. Do you have any other source for this? --RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK quoting factual information in the The New York Times, even in an Op-ed, is sufficiently factual to qualify as a Reliable Source in Wikipedia - after all, and as before, a Pulitzer Prize winning author (Maureen Dowd) is publishing factual information in a Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper (The New York Times) - this seems more than sufficient to be reliably factual I would think - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Now I see it was in response to the question "is it a love story?" which puts the charictarization in context! Furthermore, this is just not the main feature of Atlas Shrugged, even if she would have said that out of such context (which she didn't). Simply reading the book makes it clear. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Brief followup - several relevant refs -> seems ENotes also refers to "Atlas Shrugged" as a "love story" => click here - "Atlas Shrugged" as a "love story" also appears in the Preface of the following book => "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion", By Edward Wayne Younkins, according to http://books.google.com - hope these refs help - there may be more of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your link describes "love story" as only one of the aspects of the story, strengthening my point if anything. The term 'love story' is not even stated first. Furthermore, The article is now stable at it's stable version, and I strongly suspect you of editing with an anti-rand bias. Please do not change until consensus is reached. Quote from your ref: "...A complex combination of mystery, love story, social criticism, and philosophical concepts".--MeUser42 (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, not anti (or pro) Ayn Rand - I continue to regard, as many other readers, "Atlas Shrugged", and several of Rand's other novels, as some of the best novels I've read over the years - but works of fiction nonetheless, and not otherwise - my major point, according to the NYTimes citation, is that Rand herself regarded the "Love Story" in "Atlas Shrugged" as the most important aspect of her novel - I agree, for encyclopedic purposes, that cited material takes precedence over uncited material - Thanks for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not a philosophical novel without strong citation evidence. I would have thought better to just leave it without a designation. When I first read it, it was in Science Fiction. That said, cited material takes preference over uncited material ----Snowded ^TALK 09:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just read the book. Any way, let's not overly dig about this, the designation is not necessary. I got rid of it. --MeUser42 (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read it, and I have a degree in philosophy, its not a philosophical novel, it might even be described as dystopian. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting (imo), and possibly related reliable reference (?), about the "main focus" of the author (Ayn Rand) *herself* in writing the Atlas Shrugged novel - as being more about the "love story" aspect in the novel (and less about her philosophy) - may be found in a published transcript< ref name="AlRuddy-Interview">Interview (1999). "The Making Of The Atlas Shrugged TV MiniSeries - Albert Ruddy, Susan Black, Bill Collins". Prodos Institute Inc. Retrieved August 3, 2012.</ref> of an interview with film producer Al Ruddy as follows:

Copied from Interview Transcript About The "Atlas Shrugged" Novel:

AL RUDDY (film producer):
...one of the most insightful moments in my whole relationship with Ayn Rand, was when I said: "I think you've written a spell-binding novel - as a great love story and as a thriller." I said " I must tell you that (although I'm that keen) I am not a student of the Objectivist movement. I'm approaching this book for what it is." She said: "Dahling, I never wrote this book to be anything on Objectivism. That came later."

Hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Is Atlas Shruged best described as a "love story" in wikipedia?" - Is Atlas Shruged described as a "love story" in wikipedia? I see the quote where she said it was, but I don't see where it's actually described that way. Where is the problem? What is the improvement that you're suggesting needs to be made? --Onorem ♠Dil 15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

@Onorem - Seems MeUser42 challenged my adding a cited sentence to the lede ===> In 1957, she published her best-known work, the novel Atlas Shrugged which Rand regarded as a love story saying "That's all it ever was."< ref name="NYT-20110417">Dowd, Maureen (April 17, 2011). "Atlas Without Angelina". New York Times. Retrieved July 30, 2012.</ref> ) <=== this cited sentence has since been removed by MeUser42 - entirely ok w/ me to restore the cited sentence in the lede of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for any source for the quote beyond the op-ed. The interview with Ruddy contains related information but not the quote. It is unlikely that Dowd did any direct interviewing for an op-ed column. She doesn't claim to have, and it would be an unusual practice for an opinion column. So she presumably got this from some previous publication, and I'd like to know where, in order to properly assess the credibility of the quote. I haven't found it yet. If the first-ever appearance of it was in Dowd's column, then I would not consider that a reliable source for biographical detail. In any case this is an overly detailed point to go into the lead, and perhaps even for this article. If anywhere, it belongs in the Atlas Shrugged article. --RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

@RL0919 - Thanks for your comments - Yes, I agree - the comment could be from an earlier publication (I haven't found it yet either) - seems worthy nontheless considering the author/newspaper (Dowd/NYT) as noted earlier - for purposes of Wikipedia, I would agree w/ consensus of course - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done ? - May have found a (much?) better citation for the Ayn Rand quotation re Rand's main focus on the "love story" aspect of writing the "Atlas Shrugged" novel - searched an online copy of "100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (b. 1958) (Contributor: Ayn Rand Archives) (Publisher: Penguin Books/NAL Trade) 638 pages, (November 2, 2010), ISBN 0451231309, ISBN 9780451231307 - (please kindly credit Gary Weiss, author of "Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul." St. Martin's Press. 2012. ISBN 0-312-59073-3, C-SPAN BookTV Video (52:33), for suggesting a search of the McConnell book in a recent email, 08/04/2012) - for the relevant quotation - as follows:

Copied from an online Google Books "preview" copy of "100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (2010):

According to Al Ruddy talking with Ayn Rand about the "Atlas Shrugged" novel (Interview, October 20, 1999):

"Ayn, you've written one of the great thrillers, one of the great love stories-the greatest part for a woman I have read in contemporary literature." She said, "Exactly darling. That's exactly the way I see it. That's all I've ever wanted it to be."

There may be other related relevant quotations in the book (for example, one may wish to search the above online book copy (or the actual book/ebook?) for the "love story" phrase for more relevant quotations) - in any regards - Hope the above helps in some way - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It does help. I have this book, by the way, and the others cited in the discussion, so I can confirm details without relying on Google Books. However, it reaffirms what others have said to you, because what Ruddy relates is that he told Rand the book was several things, among them a love story (but also a "thriller" and "the greatest part for a woman"), and she agreed. (Although, the conversation as described by Ruddy is ambiguous as to whether the "it" Rand refers to is the novel or the proposed movie. The mention of a "part for a woman" suggests "it" is the movie.) This source, like the others you've brought up, doesn't contain the exact quote provided by Dowd. So either 1) Dowd provided the quote from memory and got it a bit wrong, or 2) Ruddy has provided different recollections of the conversation over the years. Maybe both. Either way the exactness of the quote is questionable. It is the very specific perspective of the supposed Rand quote (that a love story is "all it ever was", emphasis added) that is in dispute. I don't think anyone is denying that a love story is one aspect of the novel. In fact, the additional sources you added into the article aren't even needed to support that -- the source previously cited (Gladstein's New Ayn Rand Companion) also mentions the romance aspect. That detail just wasn't included in the article previously. So my take would be to remove the quote because sources do not agree on its exact wording (plus it is unnecessary detail for this article). The op-ed and interview citations, all of which go back to one person (Ruddy), can go as well. We can use higher-quality academic sources to support the various elements: romance, mystery, science fiction etc. The pre-existing Gladstein reference is good for that, as is the Younkins book you mentioned above. This gets us out of depending on one person's potentially variable recollection of a particular conversation he had with Rand in the 1970s, and back into the world of scholarly consensus, which is how we should try to ground the article whenever possible. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your *excellent* comments - an *excellent* presentation imo - nonetheless, opinions from others, to develop a consensus if possible, may be the better way to go with this I would think - for my part, the edit(s) seems sufficiently well sourced for this type of material (after all, recordings may not exist) - Wikipedia readers of the contested materials/refs may judge for themselves the credibility (and importance?) of the material - esp if given the chance to know such materials/refs even exist at all - Thanks again for your *excellent* comments - they are *very much* appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping some others would weigh in, but apparently not. Unfortunately, we can't leave everything that is contested in the article -- it would be vastly long and unreadable if we did that. Two of the refs you supplied have provide no support for the disputed quote. If anything, they call it into question, because it is apparent that Ruddy is describing his conversation with Rand a little bit differently each time. That's reasonable enough for someone giving their recollections of decades-old events, but it lacks the precision needed to attribute exact words to Rand, particularly when the point being pushed is dependent on the specific wording. The point that Atlas contains a love story element is not disputed and can stay, but the quote should go. --RL0919 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - yes, the "love story element" seems well supported - and also yes - I too would welcome other points of view on this - Please understand, I understand, and appreciate, your own thinking about this - however, others, with different editorial experiences, may (or may not) have a different opinion - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't characterize Atlas Shrugged as primarily a "love story," although it is partly that. It is also a lot of other things.. Rand explained in interviews and writings that the goal of her fiction was to depict her notion of "ideal man." In identifying for herself what that would be, she developed further much of her personal philosophy, and a lot of that ended up in here books. The Fountainhead could also be considered partly a love story, although most readers forced to characterize it with only one attribute would mention something about "individualism" instead. However, there is no need to give a simplistic characterization, which is bound to be misleading. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the major point, according to the above noted quotes and references, is that the author, Ayn Rand, *herself* seems to consider the Atlas Shrugged novel as Primarily a "love story" - not anyone else - characterizations by others seem irrelevant to this major cited point as far as I can see at the moment - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy here is to work from third party reliable sources. So the characterisation (if there is one) should come from critics rather than the author. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Snowded - Thank you *very much* for your comments - seems my premise here re the policy of reliable sources in this instance could have been better - thanks again for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Drug use

Her continued use of the drug for a number of years may have contributed to what some of her later associates described as volatile mood swings.

Er, she used amphetamines for three decades, hardly a "number of years". Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! Maybe change 'number of years' to '3 decades' if you have a high quality (!) reference. --MeUser42 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is already sourced. I'll need to verify, of course. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is pinning down exactly when she stopped. Heller is specific in saying she started taking the pills in 1942, but the closest I can find for an end to her use is "the 1970s". So to say "three decades" exactly would go beyond the specificity of the sources. How about "approximately three decades" as the wording? That would be more precise than the current wording without overstating what we know. --RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything is better than a "number of years". It may also be acceptable to say that these types of amphetamines were widely prescribed and in common use. To the best of my understanding, in the US, they were in wide use from the 1950s to 1965. Before 1965, you could purchase amphetamines without a prescription. Doctors stopped prescribing them for weight-loss by the late 1970s, but they then switched to giving them to children in the 1980s for ADD. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated the wording for the duration. Going into a discourse about the history of how such drugs were prescribed seems off-topic for this article. I did restore some content about the possible impact of amphetamines on her post-Atlas Shrugged depression, which was removed recently by an editor on the grounds that it was "speculation by a non-physician". Speculation, I agree, but it is found in several sources and we have no requirement that sources have medical degrees in order to speculate about the lives of historical figures. --RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Denouncing of conservatism

She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.

She also denounced conservatives. In her 1979 interview with Tom Snyder she said "conservatives will destroy this country". Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Which Tom Snyder show? Tomorrow (TV series)? 99.112.214.184 (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The full interview is on YouTube. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article already says she disagreed with conservatives, in the sentence immediately prior to the one quoted above, so I'm not sure what the add would be. If the only concern is to say specifically that she "denounced" them, well, let's just say that an article called List of people and ideas denounced by Ayn Rand would not be a stub, so I would not be concerned to note that particularly for conservatives. --RL0919 (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What does "she worked with conservatives on political projects" refer to specifically? It sounds a bit like editorializing by a conservative editor. What do the sources say? Rand came out pretty hard against the conservative party line and I don't think this article makes that clear. There's lots of examples, but here she pretty much destroys the platform of every conservative running for office. I think it is time for this article to stop playing footsie with her position on conservatism and to show that she denounced it. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some instances where she worked with conservatives are described in the article. One example is her involvement in the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. Her relationship with conservatives was long and complicated, and is well-documented in sources (it is the primary focus of Burns' Goddess of the Market, for example). The article would be wrong to ignore that history. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good WP:RS about how Rand condemned conservatives. Jennifer Burns uses quotes that are much better than the euphemisms in this article. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn-rand-wouldnt-approve-of-paul-ryan.html --Nbauman (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another good collection of quotes that distance Rand from conservatives. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-kilgore/conservatives-lionize-the_b_175318.html When I read this WP article, I get the impression that conservative editors tried to tone down the differences. For example, look at abortion. She wasn't "pro-choice." She aggressively defended the right to abortion as a fundamental freedom. There's lots in here about the National Review's treatment of Rand, but nothing about Rand's scathing views of the National Review. Just go through Kilgore's quotes and compare them to the way the same subjects are treated in this article, and you'll see what I mean. --Nbauman (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

She also wrote on this in the Objectivist Newsletter 1981, just after the Reagan election. I looked for it but looks like I recently threw it out, had kept it for a long time. She refers to them as hobgoblins and the like. Ayn was a radical atheist, it's ironic that she's finds such support in just the quarters she rightly vilified. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, found it. It's "The Objectivist Forum", vol 2, No. 3, June 1981 and the Article is The Age of Mediocrity, pp 1 -11. It's a talk given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston on April 26, 1981. "Halloween-like creatures" is the actually used expression. (top of page 2). 72.228.189.184 (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW in the Q+A after the talk at the ARI link, she makes a relevant comments about libertarians (to this thread) and the retarded or handicaped (to the thread about Hickman below). 72.228.189.184 (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Undue quotation

I challenge User:Medeis to explain why specifically the following remarks from Paul Ryan need to be included in this article: "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff". I don't find Medeis' comment, ("hardly seems undue for nominee for vp of "leader of free world"--indeed, is center of current world conrtorversy") to be a sufficient explanation of his restoring of this material, given that Mr. Ryan may well have made many comments about Rand and that we can't quote all of them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur ----Snowded ^TALK 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Ryan's views on Rand should be on Ryan's page, we don't compile every politician's views on Rand here. We wouldn't edit George Washington's page if Sarah Palin said she endorsed his views.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur about the quoting, but the text was exaggerating his degree of endorsement, so I added a (sourced) clarification. --RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think removing it entirely would have been better; this isn't the Paul Ryan article. I don't see how details about what Ryan thinks of Thomas Aquinas really belong in an article about Ayn Rand. I won't revert back if anyone restores it, though. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also concur. It's tangential to the article. Enough to know Rand is influential in modern politics without listing (here) her admirers. If that is seen as a good thing, I'd suggest creating a List article. --HighKing (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

this is not a Paul Ryan article true, but that's why it's only a PASSING paragraph...no valid reason to remove, as it's pertinent who she may have influenced. Wikipedia is not the place to push agendas, very true, but it's not a place to SUPPRESS information that is arguably notable or pertinent, even if peripheral. It's not like there's a whole section on "Paul Ryan" in this article. But just a passing few lines. There's no real "undue" anything. No valid WP concrete reason to remove...because omissions can be "agenda pushing" too if that's the case. We all need to be careful. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In the big picture, a bit of qualified admiration from a particular politician isn't an important fact about Rand. That's why over time we've moved away from listing the names of politicians, pundits, etc., in favor of more general statements about her influence. That said, it is going to be a pain to suppress this during the campaign. I would rather have a relatively brief, factual, and decently-sourced mention, than to battle a bunch of random "helpful" additions that come with POV, no sources, etc. We could probably cover it in a single sentence. Then it can be cut after November 6. --RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem. What you said was inaccurate. It was not "a bit of qualified admiration". Apparently you are not aware of all Ryan said about Rand, that showed clearly (not even a debatable "opinion" issue, but clear as day) that it was WAY MORE than just "a bit of qualified admiration". (Unless you're just referring to his convenient line now, recently...but I'm referring to overall, in general from just a couple of years ago.) He said that he grew up on her and based all his economic views on her and her writings, and was basically in love with them. See the interviews (that he's dishonestly trying to walk back). If you saw the piece on O'Donnell last night (a guy who I don't even like, as I'm NOT a "liberal", so I have no ax either way), you'd see that your characterization of "a bit of qualified admiration" is a GROSS MINIMIZING or just a plain lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just maybe didn't know the full extent. But you really should. Ryan is a notable figure who may be the next Vice President. As I said, it's not like a whole SECTION on Paul Ryan is in this article...a whole thing. Just a passing few lines. Which is arguably pertinent. Ryan was almost a cult follower of hers (until April of this year lol).

See what he said in 2005...see what he said in 2009. Way more than just a "bit of qualified admiration". There was NO "qualified" anything until JUST RECENTLY...for political expedience now. Wikipedians are NOT to cater to lying politicians' flakiness and lies and dishonesty and flip-floppery. But just the actual recorded facts. Ryan loved Rand and her capitalist philosophies. (Probably still does, but can't say it now, because she was an Atheist.) And it's NOT "too tangential" just because you say it is...and because "you don't like". Or because Ryan is flip-flopping now, and basically lying or minimizing documented recorded facts until just recently. That does NOT negate his words just a few years ago. References to who she may have influenced who are notable is pertinent. The point is it's sourced and accurate, and no real reason to remove. He is notable...and it was not such a casual thing to him. See his 2005 and 2009 interviews and words. Regards. Jots and graphs (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care what substance of comments are finally agreed on, but the fact that the US VP candidate has expressed her central influence on him politically is quite relevant in this article. I have to agree wholeheartedly with J&G's reversion of the last deletion. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

We should mention that the Republican VP candidate is a ~~Anne~~Ayn Rand fan (and probably in the sense of fanatic) but the long quotations are excessive. Edit warring is also foolish. I've just put a 3rr warning on J&G's talk page and s/he is at the limit ----Snowded ^TALK 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Anne Rand"? "Fanatic"? and you dare speak of foolish? I haven't seen naked hostile POV this strong in a long while. μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm entitled to think that he is a fanatic as long as I don't suggest an edit to that effect. Otherwise I have correct an autotype error ----Snowded ^TALK 10:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At one time the article had a fairly lengthy list of notable persons who claimed to have been substantially influenced by Rand. After some time gettng used to the article without such a list, what I think is needed instead is a mention of the degree to which Rand's ideas have influenced the culture, particularly in the USA but also now in India and presumably some other countries. This should be done without naming individuals in this article, although Rand's influence whould be noted in the biographical articles for the specific notable persons. For example, Paul Ryan's article should (and does) mention that he was influenced by Rand, since it seems to be an important thing to know about Ryan. But that factoid doesn't tell us much if anything about Rand herself, so it doesn't belong here. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

fwiw - seems the following NYT ref may (or may not?) have some relevance to the present discussion? => < ref name="NYT-20120824">Krugman, Paul (August 24, 2012). "Galt, Gold and God". New York Times. Retrieved August 24, 2012.</ref> <= in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a different discussion above, opinion columns are not good sources for biographical information. That goes double for information on living people, and triple for partisan items written during an election cycle. However, the disagreement above is mostly about the relevance of the information to this particular article, not about a lack of factual sources, and surprisingly Krugman didn't have anything to say about Wikipedia editorial judgments. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@RL0919 - Thank you for your comments - no problem whatsoever - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Rozenbaum

Should we be giving the German spelling of Rand's name when the Russian spelling (as well as the English pronunciation) has a zee? I intend to give an accurate transliteration from the Russian (which has also been done with her first and middle names) unless there is some overriding reason not to do so. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We follow sources, and every source I've ever seen uses the spelling we already have in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian says Russian-born American author and philosopher Ayn Rand loses outsider status

Ayn Rand Institute finds dilemma in radical author's evolving legacy "Once peripheral, Rand has veered close to the mainstream, garnering unprecedented influence thanks to US politicians" ...[read more] Rory Carroll in Irvine, California guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 August 2012 10.52 EDT

A very interesting source. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture list

This article has been without a "pop culture" bullet list for over five years, but yesterday Caillois (talk · contribs) decided to add one.[1] I deleted it today, but Captain Screebo (talk · contribs) is defending it.[2] The editing trend here over the last few years has been the exact opposite of this: not only have we kept the popular culture discussion in prose format (as recommended in both the WP:TRIVIA guideline and the essay at WP:IPC), but mentioning of individual items has been downplayed in favor of summaries based on quality secondary sources. Rather than see the article take a giant backwards step towards the kind of trivial, poorly-sourced content such a section would invite, I've removed it again. Others please weigh in. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I get your point and agree with your concerns and overall statement. Also, I have to admit, this is also ultimately a decision of the main maintainers of the article in order to have a coherent style of writing. But if the content of the list, that clearly exists nowhere else in the article, had been merged with the prose section in the first place, we wouldn't have a discussion on the usefulness of trivia lists at all. So since you're asking, in my opinion a trivia section can keep additional interesting information out of the prose text, which would not fit as well into it, so that the text itself remains better and more fluidly readable. Also it can catch the eye of a reader skimming through the article. Although, you are correct, the trend and general guideline may be favouring the prose form, obviously there are examples given where trivia lists are very useful and an interesting read, e.g. James Monroe and xkcd. Regarding the content itself, where for example there is no videogame reference to Bioshock at all, neither here nor in the Atlas Shrugged article, I would highly suggest it is of general interest and relevance. (As a remark, I would also say this about Paul Ryan.) This is something, which might not be mentioned in classical encyclopedias, but should be found somewhere on WP, which is NOT purely used for academic research. Caillois (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, didn't catch that the list was only added recently (missed it in the page history), not really trying to defend it, just figured that if it had been there for a while... etc. I agree with what Caillois says above about Bioshock, I think this info should be included as I have the game but had never heard of Ayn Rand before reading a BBC article about the enduring popularity of Atlas Shrugged, the game was widely praised for its originality and (as I know now) its use of Randian themes, moral dilemmas and so on. So could we work it into the prose section?

Finally, if you take a look at Lorelei#References_in_other_works_of_art and compare it to what it was like before I severely pruned the list [3], you'll see that I am definitely against random willy-nilly inclusion of trivia, fancruft and other such distractions in serious, well-written articles. cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your interest in the BioShock association, but understand that this is just one of many, which is part of the problem. We used to have examples in the prose. For instance, when we said Rand had been mentioned in tv shows, we might mention The Simpsons and Mad Men. But then someone would want to add their favorite example (Colbert, South Park, etc.), and the list grows. Ditto for movies, novels, etc. When the text mentions that an actor named his daughter after a Rand character (real example), most would say it has gone too far, but individually it is hard to determine that one show, person, etc., should be mentioned and another not. (Is Mad Men more or less significant than Futurama?) So over time the approach turned to summary only. A few names of writers, artists and businesspeople have survived, but books, shows, actors, politicians, etc., are no longer listed. I'm not saying that's the one and only solution, but it has been stable that way for a while. If there is a consensus to add examples back in (selectively and in the prose, not a bullet list), I can live with that, but I'm not going to initiate it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I can live with your reasoned approach to this matter, as you can see from the Loreley trimming I did I'm definitely against overlong, trivial lists, in fact I'd never heard of Rand before (although I knew of the Fountainhead, probably because of the film), apparently she's a bit of a cause célebre in the States, and is probably referenced as often as Monty Python or suchlike in the UK.

Not that I want my favourite game, movie included, but I think there's a serious distinction between a fleeting mention or some cryptic smartass reference to an author or their work and basing whole novels/series/games about that particular universe (or using it as a major influence). I was genuinely intrigued and interested to discover this fact. I'll dig a little deeper if I have the time but no harm done in not having the bullet list. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(As an afterthought) You seem to know the subject pretty well, I'm not at all up to speed on the influence this woman and her works have had in the US, couldn't we sort of work in something along the lines of:

Rand and her works have been referred to in a variety of media: on television shows, ranging from fleeting mentions in cartoons like Futurama or the Simpsons to (making this up) major plot lines/characters in series such as Mad Men etc. etc.

Think about someone in another country who doesn't know who Ayn Rand is but probably knows the Simpsons, Desperate Housewives, Mad Men, hit video games and US blockbuster movies (now showing in a cinema near you), it could intrigue them to find out more, read her works etc. Okay, just a suggestion. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts on this! I think this really is the crux of the matter, that very few people are aware both of Ayn Rand writings and Bioshock to the extent that they would make a connection between them. But most would find this fact extremely interesting and maybe surprising. I, for one, would love see more references to people and media, which were inspired by Ayn Rand, not just mere name-dropping. And I myself wasn't aware Mad Men had so many references to and complete characters may be based upon characters from Atlas Shrugged until I read your replies! Just one brief mention in the article with a hyperlink would have helped out a lot. So I fully support CaptainScreebo's proposition and but as he said until now it is a suggestion and maybe there are more, such as having a separated page for pop culture references? What's your opinion on that? Caillois (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bioshock article should (and does) mention that it is to some degree inspired by one person's notion of a few of Rand's ideas. However, the emergence of Bioshock doesn't enlighten us about Rand herself, just as peripheral mention in satires etc. doesn't provide any illumination. This is even more so when you consider that much of that sort of thing has been based on limited or distorted notions of Rand's ideas. This might be grist for a critical essay, but it has no place in an encyclopedic entry.

As with the Ryan business (see above), there could be some mention that there have been many references to Rand's ideas in popular culture, without listing specific instances (which as we have found in other articles can quickly get out of hand). However, it really doesn't seem to add anything useful to the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hickman redux

An IP editor is attempting to reinsert discussion of William Edward Hickman into the article. Those who have been around this talk page for a while may recall that material about this has been hotly disputed in the past. Those who weren't around can check out the archives (this search should help). The status quo prior to the latest insertion was that the journal notes that mention Hickman are alluded to in the discussion of Nietzsche's influence on her, but Hickman's name is not mentioned. As before, I don't care if the mention of him is in or out, but if it is in then it should be brief, neutral, and well-sourced. Good luck. --RL0919 (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"I don't care if the mention of him is in or out, but if it is in then it should be brief, neutral, and well-sourced. Good luck"

I can go with that I guess. --71.142.222.164 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick user perpective: I came to this page specifically to find out "did she really defend some 1920's murderer" and was disapointed to have to come to the Talk page to even find out the name was Hickman. For what it's worth, I think the mention of Rand on the Hickman page is perfectly fair and balanced and is probably more relevant to the Rand wiki page than the Hickman one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.56.44 (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Russian-American vs. Russian American

I know this is not a big deal at all, but the vast majority of Wikipedia articles exclude the hyphen in nationalities of this sort (e.g., Italian Brazilian, African American, and French Canadian). I think it would be appropriate to get rid of the hyphen for Rand's nationality to put it in sync with most of the rest of Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.173.120 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the standard is to use the hyphen when it is used as an adjective. Compare "she is a Russian-American novelist" to "she is a Russian American". InverseHypercube (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you may be right. Used as an adjective, compound nationalities are written in many ways on Wikipedia (e.g., Russian American, Russian-American, and Russian-born American). Issue put to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.10.2 (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted material

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

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

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

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

Topical vs. chronological in Life section

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

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

Tone

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

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

shameful randians

i am quite confused by the edit summaries attached to this repeated contentious edit: [4]. Both the shorter and the longer claim seem true. The longer claim seems more useful in my eyes as more inclusive and informative: i.e., more links. What is the purpose of the removal and the attacks here? μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arb break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes substantiating Rand on taxation and conscription

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

Rand on Taxation:

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

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

Rand on Conscription:

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