Talk:Ayn Rand

NOTE: Some of these conversations have already been archived in the latest archive; as they fizzle I will simply reupdate their entries in the archive and remove them from this page if no one objects. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts at managing the talkpage bloat, but moving the talkpage to an article is a very bad idea as it disrupts the edit history of the talkpage. Archiving should only be done for dormant threads (at least a few weeks old). For more information, check out Help:Archiving a talk page. Skomorokh 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversations open at time of archiving

Open issues, April 2008

Because the above discussions are so intertwined and difficult to make sense or keep track of, I thought we might list some currently open suggestions/problems with the current version of the article. Some of these are long-discussed, some of them are mine.

• The length of the article and various strategies of reducing it

I suggest we address this one first since our edits here will influence the remaining open issues. Idag (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I had some thoughts about this earlier. We could move much of the stuff about philosophy and the full details of her philosophical influences to the Objectivism article. Someone disagreed with this, though so we need to discuss it more. Readers should get a biography of her life and an outline of her views. For the meat of the philosophical stuff, the Objectivism and Criticism of Objectivism articles would work well. I do not want to lose anything in the move though, and yes, that includes the criticism. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault for holding things up; I've explained my thoughts (in a somewhat garbled fashion) above, let's work it out there. Skomorokh 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Rand's relationship with academic philosophy and how much weight it ought to have
• The quality and extent of referencing reliable sources independent of the subject - whether or not figures such as Young and Boisvert should be cited.
• The relative weight in the article given to criticism
• Whether or not material (such as Rand's relationship to figures in the history of philosophy, the cult criticism) is better included in this article or in related/summary articles
• The extent to which Rand's own speeches/writings should be used as a source
• What is an appropriate number of links in the external links section and which links should be included

Please add issues I have missed or you think need addressing in short, one-line bullets like the above. We can then start separate sections below for specific issues. Thanks, Skomorokh 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. On the last bullet point, I agree that that issue also needed to be raised. Last night I was looking through those links (some of which are broken, by the way, and need to be removed or fixed) and thinking how excessive they all seem. WP:EXTERNAL tells us a lot of how and what is acceptable in that section. Further, any of those links which are already cited within the references should be removed anyway for reasons of citation redundancy. J Readings (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian?

Why is Rand in "List of Russians" when she was a US citizen, not a Russian citizen? Just because someone is born somewhere it does not make them "that nationality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.159.47 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Being born somewhere does make you that nationality. I was born in the U.S., but I can't suddenly say "I feel like being Italian today." Idag (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you could go to Italy and become an Italian by adopting citzenship. We don't call Spike Milligan an Indian do we? No, he moved to Britain and adopted British citizenship. Ayn Rand's Russian citizenship was revoked when she became a US citizen, thus making her American over Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.159.47 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rand was born in Russia. She grew up in Russia. Even though she was an American citizen, she was born Russian, grew up Russian, and was shaped by Russian culture. Her philosophy is in fact largely a reaction *against* Russian culture. Therefore it is fair to categorize her as Russian (although Russian-American is more accurate). TallNapoleon (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, why is Spike Milligan not in "List of Indians"? That's the most retarded thing I've heard for a while. You don't always have to be stigmatized with a nationality label just because you were born there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.143.181 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rand and her philosophy were both greatly shaped by the fact that she was a Russian-American. Since this is a biographical article, it should certainly include major influences on her life and her work. You haven't provided a compelling reason to the contrary and I would also remind you to please be respectful of other editors. Please take a look at WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article text should be guided by reality. The reality is, Rand was born a Russian, and like others she emigrated to the US, which she adopted as her home. Thus when it comes to categories, Rand fits several, including: Russian, Russian emigree to US, US citizen. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No compromise

I stick this point up at the top because it disputes the basis of the 'compromise' debate.

Should Ayn Rand be identifed as a 'philosopher' - or not? Many comments look at the use of the term - the article itself cites one usage example in the NYT. But this is I think not the standard. Many, many people are called 'philosophers'. It seems anyone with an academic post in a 'philosophy department' can be called 'a philosopher' on WIkipedia. Even a few without - several articles create new 'philosophers' out of people whose status rests solely on editing philosophy magazines, ,or writing articles 'on philosophy' in newspapers, or writing descriptive accounts of philosophy in books. But of course such philosophical pundits and commentators are indeed, widely referred to as 'philosophers'. Wikipedia cannot use this as its standard, or the term means nothing.

Clearly when someone is designated 'a philosopher' in an encyclopdia it must be because they have produced a work recognised by a significant number of the community of scholars (not just academic philosophers, but nor is it the general public) as a contribution to philosophical knowledge.

So Ayn Rands claim, I suggest, rests NOT on usage - the foontoe [1] is quite irrelevant, but on her supposed contribution - 'objectivism'. Yet it does not take much time to see that this is a contribution of the kind Scientologists would understand - it is coining of an 'ism' backed by a powerful publicity machine. 'Objectivism' is not recognised, as the article accepts, by the scholarly community as 'philosophy' at all. In as much as there si a theory, it is a very old one - egoism, or to be more precise, 'infantile egoism'

The rest of the discussion is of historical and cultural interest - not philosophical. Docmartincohen (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. Objectivism may be *bad* philosophy (this is my opinion) but it is still philosophy. Whatever else may be said of it, it is an attempt to systematically explain the universe in a philosophical manner, answer the traditional questions asked of philosophies, and so forth. It attempts to advance its position by reasoned argumentation and has a significant corpus of technical philosophical work, much of it written by Rand. Again, I personally believe that these are not persuasive, that they are highly flawed, that they are in fact holier than swiss cheese. I think the ethics she advances are downright evil, and her epistemology and metaphysics are, as you put it, infantile. But Wikipedia cannot be the judge of the quality or morality of a philosophy. We can only state the facts. I think that it might be good for Wikiproject Philosophy to lay down some guidelines on what does constitute a philosophy. Further emphasis on the controversy surrounding Objectivism's philosophical status could also be justified. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it might be good for Wikiproject Philosophy to lay down some guidelines on what does constitute a philosophy. I think that's a constructive idea, actually. I agree. The fight really shouldn't be here, but at Wikiproject Philosophy or at a page determining philosophical notability similar to the one we have for academics (see WP:ACADEMIC). Once there are some concrete criteria in which to determine the status of a writer, it might make it easier for editors with differing opinions to balance other policies and guidelines. Just a thought. J Readings (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - it a worth sorting out. Actually, I argued that a few years back too. It is a term that appears throughout WIkipedia and often IMO is innappropriately used. But since it is not yet sorted out, the issue still is important to the current page.

TallNapoleon responds that 'Objectivism may be *bad* philosophy (this is my opinion) but it is still philosophy'. But to present a philosophy does not mean you are a 'philosopher'. Many writers present distinctive views of the world which are later described as their 'philosophies' - but they remain writers. Or take Mao for instance. Mao wanted to be taken as 'a philosopher' and wrote many self-consciously 'philosophical' works PLUS he contributed a distinctive new philosophy to the world: 'Maoism'. But no one says of him 'the philosopher, Mao Tse Tung, wrote... blah blah blah - and Wikipedia's entry rightly does not introduce him as a philosopher.

With Rand: she, like Mao, like many others presents a 'philosophy' and wishes to be remembered as a 'philosopher'. This, i hazard, is true of just about every academic and quite a few amateur 'philosophers' too. Yet her ideas are not accepted within the philosophy world (and this after a suitable period of time has elapsed) as sufficiently novel or useful to justify her inclusion in the necessarily limited ranks of 'philosophers'. This objection stops all the others becoming 'philosophers' for the purposes of the historical record, it should stop Rand too .

I'd say criteria should be drawn up on a special page, as suggested by Readings. I'd be pleaseed if some of my proposals here can help to start it. The page could also say, very practically, alternative titles for those no longer to be called 'philosophers'. There are 'academic philosophers', there are writers specialising in philosophy, and writers whose works present a particular philosophy. Rand is perhaps best seen as one of this last kind.

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I should clarify what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that editors here go off half-cocked looking to revolutionize how Wikipedia operates and pick a fight. Not at all. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources in order to write its content. It avoids original research, relies on verifiable reliable sources, and writes its articles in a NPOV fashion while avoiding undue weight, especially in the promotion of fringe theories. These are sacrosanct pillars. That said, one of the things I've noticed is that the old saying is largely true: "The more you know, the less you know." Increasingly, I notice editors are using LexisNexis, Factiva, JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, Worldcat, and other databases in order to research and write articles. All of that's a good thing and I admire people who selflessly spend much of their free on this project in order to improve the encyclopedic content. The problem--still unresolved in my humble opinion--is how to reconcile undue weight and WP:FRINGE with other policies and guidelines. Asking if Ayn Rand should be labeled a "philosopher" is the equivalent of asking if David Irving should be labeled a "historian" or if G. Edward Griffin should be labeled a "conspiracy theorist." It depends. Do we cite journalists or do we cite academics? Both are considered reliable sources. If we cite academics, are they historians or are they specialists? If they're specialists, are they mainstream or fringe? If they're mainstream, are they partisan or disinterested third-parties? If they're disinterested, how should that be determined objectively (and is it even possible)? Last but not least, if they're disinterested third-parties, are they representative of the field when so many articles and books can be accessed with a drop of the hat nowadays? The questions are almost endless. Again, this is not something to take up at the Ayn Rand talk page. It's something that should really be addressed at places like the Village Pump, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and the Wikiproject Philosophy page -- among other venues. I wish I had a satisfactory answer to these questions, but I'm struggling to create an excellent NPOV article in good-faith as much as the next editor. All I can suggest is that this issue be raised at the appropriate venue. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all sure where this ridiculous insinuation of "amateur" versus academic philosopher is coming from; the correlation of being employed as an academic is very new in the history of philosophy, since the time of the German Idealists to be exact. Few of the major modern philosophers were employed as academics; off the topic of my head, none of Descartes, Schopenhauer, Hume, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbes, Kierkegaard, Bacon, Holderlin, Rousseau, Jacobi, Buber or Camus were. Are they to be omitted from the "necessarily limited ranks of 'philosophers'" (!) too? Shall make the principle consistent and start referring to writers who are not literature professors and painters without MFA's as "amateurs"? This nonsense must be put to bed before it takes up any more real estate in Wikipedian minds. Discussions as to what defines a philosopher belong at WT:PHIL; you are more than welcome to propose a criteria there. I have yet to see a definitive source from the tertiary literature that states that Rand was not a philosopher, although we have seen those (IEP/SEP most prominently) that do refer to her as one. Mao's article does not refer to him as a soldier or librarian either; as along with "philosopher", these roles are not the ones that stand out when we think of Mao's life work; it would be stretching reality quite a bit to make the same claim of Rand. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear... the argument has gone round in a circle and starts to eat its own tail!

The original point was that academics teaching or researching philosophy should NOT be counted as 'philosophers'. (Skomorokh directs fire at a paper tiger.)

If academics are acceptable, we have a handful of 'historical philosophers' and about one million new ones. Rand can certainly join in with other writers-whose-work-has-philosophical-content to this new category. But it would be meaningless.

The second point was that if we preserve the term as 'meaningful', we might still want 'very occasionally' to confer it on some new people.

So then, who will decide? I suggested it should be a judgement made not by the 'general public' but by the relevant expert bodies. That' I guess is where th 'elitism' comes in. So, for example, if works like the Oxford Companion to Philosophy include Rand and treat her as 'a philosopher', we have to follow their judgement, whatever, as TallNapoleon says, we may think of the quality of their work itself. But if such philosophical works do NOT count her as a philosopher (and in this case they do not) then it is no good appealing to newpaper articles and online sources comipled by computers or generalists (as in the sections below, eg Ask the Media: Novelist, Philosopher or Both?

I would say the question is roughly the same if we wanted to talk about 'artists' or 'nuclear physicists'. You have to have provided some peer-group recognised work to jump from your day-job (' Mad Max, a lecturerer in Fine Arts at Hull University') to the more attractive designation "the modernist painter, Mad Max"...

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all on the same page here; the discussion at WT:PHIL seems supportive of using inclusion in the Oxford Companion', Stanford Encylcopedia and Internet Encyclopedia as authoritative. If you have any other sources in mind that you consider authoritative, be sure to suggest them there, and we can codify a policy. Skomorokh 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with J Readings on this one. There are sources stating that Rand is a philosopher and there are sources stating that she is simply a writer. So the central issue is which set of sources do we go with? I would suggest moving this discussion to one of the venues that J Readings has suggested because this issue affects numerous other articles and because this way we'll get input from more people. Idag (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Edward, if you're reading this, while Docmartin's point is similar to yours, he has raised it in a civil and constructive manner while maintaining a respectful discussion. We didn't ban you for your substantive points, but for the way in which you raised them. Idag (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is under discussion by the Philosophy WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:PHIL#What_constitutes_a_philosopher.3F. Policy will be made there and applied here.

Potential compromise

It's clear, IMO, that adding "non-academic" to the intro is giving undue weight. However, it is very clear that Rand was a highly controversial figure, and that her views were heatedly contested, to say the least. Therefore I propose something along the lines of "controversial novelist and philosopher". Alternatively, it could read something like "novelist and originator of the controversial philosophy of Objectivism"--which doesn't use the philosopher word that we have been so worked up about. This, I feel, would not violate WP:UNDUE. This should satisfy Edward's (far-fetched) concerns that some innocent schoolchild will see that Wikipedia says she's a philosopher, and therefore automatically believe every word she's ever written. I will state that I am happy with the phrasing as it stands, but that a compromise along these lines might be reasonable. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Idag (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not necessary to use the word "philosopher" in the lede; I would support something like "playwright, novelist and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism". I would strongly oppose any weasely references to controversy in the lede – this is not what Rand is famous for, IMO. Nietzsche was a controversial "person who does philosophy", but the lede of his article does not give mention to this, and rightfully so. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, and should frame our articles accordingly. I commend you for your constructive initiative, TallNapoleon. Regards, Skomorokh 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand wrote novels, so we can safely call her a novelist. It's a statement of fact. Were they well-written and well-argued novels? Some people say yes, some people say no. Frankly, for the purpose of the lead section, we don't need to qualify the statement. It's the word "philosopher" that keeps creating problems. I scanned WP:AVOID. It doesn't state that we cannot use the word "controversial" in the lead. Then again, the WP:WEASEL essay cited by Skomorokh doesn't highlight the word, either. I notice that the Karl Marx page--a former featured article no less--indicates quite clearly in the lead section that Marx and Marxism is the source of "controversy" and is "controversial." Couldn't we do something similar here? My personal preference, mentioned a few times on this talk page, is to go with "novelist-philosopher" for several reasons. Barring that, TallNapoleon's suggestion sounds reasonable enough. J Readings (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading over the lede again, I am fine with the current wording of controversy, so long as it remains directed at Rand's ideas. Skomorokh 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Novelist-Philosopher seems okay to me. I'm only not interested in entertaining ideas that are forwarded to push a POV on any side. An encyclopedia should provide facts and links to more information. When the crticism section grows and grows it seems like someone is more interested in keeping people from reading the source material. That is, the criticism section is designed to make a reader become dismissive. Facts speak for themselves and people are free to make up their minds based on those facts. Not to invoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law but the Hitler bio article has no criticism section, the facts speak for themselves. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify Ethan, would you object if the word "philosopher" was not in the lede? As in TallNapoleon's proposed rewording or my version of it. Skomorokh 15:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I realize it's the word causing the issues, but she spent more years focused on her philosophy than she did on her works of fiction. The issue seems to be that some people fear her being seen as a philospher or don't think her philosophy was any good, or think that you need to be an academic writing in peer reviewed works to be considered one. Did she write novels? Yes. Did she write non-fiction philosophical works? Yes. Did she develop and publish a philosophical system? Yes. These are facts and stating them makes no claim to their validity or quality. I think philosopher should stay. I don't like non-academic philosopher as it's merely another attempt to dismiss her works and the term is not used widely enough top have any non POV meaning. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say she wrote novels, non-fiction philosophical works and developed and published a philosophical system then? This would be letting the facts speak for themselves, IMO. The current writing is "Rand...was a Russian-born American novelist and philosopher. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism." Why not just alter the first clause to read "Rand was a Russian-born American author." or "...writer" ? The reference to the novels and philosophy in the next line make it obvious what kind of author/writer she wasSkomorokh 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First, in't nice to have a constructive debate on this! Thanks to all of you who are being positive about improving the article and not filling the page up with insults! I'm interested in hearing what others think on this too before I agree to any such change. If you would, could you answer this: Why are we contemplating chaning this "Rand...was a Russian-born American novelist and philosopher. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism." What is factually incorrect or POV about it? Does the term philosopher imply "academic>" Does it imply validity? Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Ethan a dawe asks, I’ll offer my opinion. I can't get worked up about this issue yet. I realize I'm guilty of this as well, but pointing to other articles on Wikipedia as templates is probably not the way to resolve this issue. It just occurred to me that there are infinite combinations to advance a workable template for the lead. WP:LEAD advises us to formulate a basic (no more than four paragraph) short summary of what is already in the rest of the article. Sorry to dumb down an already controversial subject, but after reading what we have in the article, I think everyone will agree that Rand's life and legacy are not too difficult to summarize. She was a Soviet-born émigré to the United States. She wrote novels that were largely trashed (or even ignored) by the critics in her lifetime, despite being best-sellers. She published essays formulating a philosophical system she called "Objectivism." She started a movement. Despite not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals or being recognized by the academic establishment as a philosopher, she was respected (and admired) by some of the literati and many ordinary readers. (NB: plenty of reliable third-party sources verify both sides of that coin. I have avoided listing them all up until now, but LexisNexis generates literally hundreds spread out over four decades). Today, her books and her philosophical movement have a newfound lease on life in some circles affording her a sense of mainstream respectability that was not really offered to her while she was alive. In fact, Objectivism now enjoys some notable adherents to its ranks decades after Ayn Rand's death. The End. As a basic overview, did I leave out any major brush strokes? I mean, that is Ayn Rand's life and legacy in a nutshell as I understand it from reading the article. I guess what I'm saying is, why not just summarize what's in the article? Instead of obsessing over adjectives, we nail down what needs to be trimmed, what needs to be copy-edited, what needs to be supported more (and there are plenty of unreferenced assertions still in the main text), etc. and then come back to the lead. In fact, writing the lead section is really last. I understand (and sympathize) with some editors here, that there is the perception that the Ayn Rand article is being presented as some kind of one-dimensional perfect figure. The problem is, based on the text and reliable sources, it’s more a shade of gray. I realize that some editors here won't appreciate me saying all of this, but I think part of the problem has been that we haven't been using enough reliable third-party sources, either. I think User talk:Skomorokh raised that issue above and I agree with him. Anyway, I'll stop there. I fear I'm beginning to ramble. J Readings (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to handle it would be to replace "philosopher" with something like "she was a novelist who, in her works, created the philosophy of Objectivism." That's a pretty non-controversial statement and this way we can avoid the argument over adjectives. Idag (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I find the proposed wording awkward and misleading (she created the philosophy while working on her novels and presented it in both the novels and her later non-fiction). More importantly, I don't see the need for any compromise, as there has been no reasonable argument put forth that "philosopher" is anything but a clear, concise, and accurate designation. What legitimate viewpoint would we be accommodating by such a compromise? Mwickens (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's my thinking: A lot of people beyond our two trolls don't accept Rand as a philosopher at all. I personally think that she is; after all, being a philosopher does not actually being a good philosopher. However, because of this dispute it seems reasonable to suggest that, instead of saying she was a philosopher, say she was "the originator of the controversial philosophy of Objectivism", which is undeniably true and NPOV. I favor the inclusion of "controversial" because, well, it is. Objectivism is exceedingly controversial, and I think acknowledging such in the intro does not give undue weight. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Rand is controversial and that it merits inclusion in the lead section. However, if undue weight becomes an issue (and I agree that's a legitimate concern for any article), it might be useful to review the number of articles that either criticize her ideas, identify her work as controversial, etc. According to LexisNexis, a keyword search for "controversial" and "Ayn Rand" (and various combinations linking her to controversy) registers 720 articles. Here's a brief sample:

• 1. NEW ISSUE HONORS WRITER AYN RAND NOT EVERYONE'S HAPPY ABOUT THE CHOICE, SAYING AUTHOR PROMOTED SELFISHNESS.

The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), May 2, 1999 Sunday Final Edition, STARS; Stamps; Pg. 33, 667 words, Jeff Stage Staff writer

Controversial novelist Ayn Rand, who promoted what she called " ...

• 2. Ayn Rand's Atlas shrugged; a philosophical and literary companion; Brief Article; Book Review

Reference & Research Book News, February 1, 2008, 163 words

9780754655336Ayn Rand's Atlas shrugged; a ...

... Still popular, still controversial, and still influential, Rand's ...

... Review; Brief Article; Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A ...

• 3. THEATER REVIEW; No calm waters here; Howard Korder's 'Sea of Tranquility' is filled with jokes and great acting, but do we believe any of it?

Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2008 Tuesday, CALENDAR; Calendar Desk; Part E; Pg. 3, 662 words, Lewis Segal, Times Staff Writer

... HBO, 1988), "The Passion of Ayn Rand" (Showtime, 1999) and "Stealing ...

... a book exploring the controversial theory that the Anasazi cliff- ...

• 4. My book of the year was...

Sunday Business Post, December 23, 2007, AGENDA, 4888 words

... tax cuts.His adoration of Ayn Rand is also questionable.Yet, despite these ...

... story of a full and controversial life. It is a ...

• 5. Jan. 28 - Feb. 3

Copley News Service, December 21, 2007 Friday 3:36 AM EST, STARWATCH, 3150 words, Wanda Perry

... record regarding a controversial topic. Explain or defend ...

... Smothers, James Dickey, Ayn Rand and James Joyce.For ...

• 6. Who is John Gault?

Non-Prophet, November 26, 2007 Monday 10:57 PM EST, 432 words, Non-Prophet

... Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand on audio book from ...

... boards. Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rands 1,000+ magnum opus ...

... free markets. The work is controversial because of how it is critical of ...

• 7. ‘Atlas’ At 50

Tampa Tribune (Florida), April 22, 2007 Sunday, BAYLIFE; Pg. 1, 529 words, KEVIN WALKER, The Tampa Tribune

Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," ...

... author-renegade philosopher Ayn Rand began her 1957 novel " ...

... Shrugged," which remains a controversial book 50 years after ...

... Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, ...

• 8. Jolie to film the cult 'bible of selfishness': Actress tackles daunting epic by controversial author who counted Reagan among her fans

The Observer (England), January 28, 2007, OBSERVER FOREIGN PAGES; Pg. 33, 865 words, Paul Harris, New York

... star in the film of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. ...

... Hollywood. Getty Images AYN RAND IS one of the most controversial ...

... Shrugged is one of the most controversial books in modern literature. ...

... Wisconsin-Madison and member of the Ayn Rand Society.The plot is hardly conventional ...

... David Kelley, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute and a script ...

• 9. Sex! Power! Politics! Money!: If only Ayn Rand's novels were as filmable as her life

National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), January 16, 2007 Tuesday, ARTS & LIFE; Notebook; Pg. AL1, 1046 words, Robert Fulford, National Post

Ayn Rand, the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas ...

... America when she was 21. Her somewhat controversial ideas (she thought there was too much altruism ...

... publication, The Objectivist. He also became Ayn Rand's lover, in 1954, with his ...

... TV movie, The Passion of Ayn Rand, cast Helen Mirren as ...

... made. Even the failures of Ayn Rand (such as her prose) have their own foolish ...

... sense of humour and take Ayn Rand seriously.Robert.fulford ...

• 10. Ayn Rand at 100: loved, hated, and always controversial, the best-selling author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is more relevant :than ever.

Reason, March 1, 2005, Pg. 22(8), 3013 words, Young, Cathy

... years after her death, Ayn Rand remains a fascinating and ...

... book Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand,and Sciabarra wrote 1996's controversial Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.) The five-year-old Journal of Ayn :Rand Studies, co-founded ...

... hagiographic way. Two controversial books about Rand the person ...

... life and work: The Passion of Ayn Rand(1986) by Barbara ...

... Day: My Years With Ayn Rand (1989) by Nathaniel ...

... book called Who Is Ayn Rand? More than 40 years ...

... still stands.The Appeal of Ayn RandReading Rand's philosophy ...

... mutual aid.The Limits of Ayn RandPerhaps Rand's biggest ...

... impossible.The Darkness in Ayn RandIn the heyday of the Objectivist ...

... action of another."The Paradox of Ayn RandFor all her flaws, ...

• 11. Biography of Rand is a gem of a book

Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City), February 6, 2005 Sunday, 477 words, Dennis Lythgoe Deseret Morning News

AYN RAND, by Jeff Britting, ...

... pages, $19.95.Ayn Rand is most famous for her ...

... an archivist at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, ...

... on Rand's life ("Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life") and ...

... biography, simply titled "Ayn Rand," which is appropriately filled with wonderful ...

... forum for her increasingly controversial ideas. This is a gem of a ...

• 12. Autographed book could be worth $5,000 for Batavia's library

Chicago Daily Herald, January 5, 2005 Wednesday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 462 words, Gala M. Pierce, Daily Herald Staff Writer

... printing, signed copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."After ...

... It was a pretty controversial book when it came out," ...

... edition, first printing of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in ...

• 13. rand not bland

Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), February 1, 2001, Thursday, HIT; Pg. 35, 216 words

THE Fountainhead is based on the controversial book of the same name by Ayn Rand (pictured), who also wrote the ...

I'll stop there, but there are literally hundreds of articles that describe her work and her status as controversial. Unless someone can think of a good :reason why not to label her controversial in the lead, it seems a reasonable (and accurate) qualifier. J Readings (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rand is controversial, but this is not central to why she is notable, or to understanding her. It is relevant to understanding her cultural impact and should therefore be mentioned in the article, even prominently, but I disagree that it warrants inclusion in the lede. When I see "controversial" in the first paragraph of an article, I expect the rest of it to have a significant amount of space devoted to the controversy; in other words, I infer that the controversy is largely what makes the subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, without which it might have been omitted or been worthy only of a very brief article. For example, The Bell Curve, Scopes Trial, and Bjorn Lomborg. Such is not the case with Ayn Rand. In this respect, she is more akin to Michel Foucault, evolution, and global warming, where the subject has generated significant controversy but would be worthy of inclusion absent that. Mwickens (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rand is controversial, but this is not central to why she is notable, or to understanding her. Really? And you are basing this conclusion on...? I'm reading carefully the notability and lead guidelines. They're quite specific on what we should be examining: reliable, independent, third-party sources that are in no way affiliated with the subject. That excludes, I imagine, any partisan sources affiliated with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Consequently, it largely depends on what the majority of reliable third-party sources say about Rand, correct? (Incidentally, reliable third-party sources definitely include newspapers and magazines, as well as peer-reviewed academic journals.) As for what should be included in the lead section, WP:LEAD is also quite specific: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead section, like the article itself, is not a resume. Indeed, in a sense, I believe that the current lead section is still inadequate because it doesn't mention the fact that her novels were largely trashed by critics when they first appeared, despite her novels being best-sellers; that the academic establishment eschewed Rand's work during her lifetime and that acceptance of her ideas by parts of the mainstream establishment is only a fairly recent posthumous phenomenon, according to the reliable third-party sources I have read. As I said before, it's my sincere belief that we should be focusing more on working on the body text which is quite clear on what makes her notable, depending on the time-frame of the discussion. But ultimately, yes, the lead section will have to mention the shades of gray involved as to why she was (and is) notable. J Readings (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the WP:LEAD article. I do note that it also says that "the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." To me, that doesn't argue for it being the first word used to describe her. Perhaps a sentence at the end like: "From the publication of The Fountainhead until the present day, her books and ideas have been the subject of controversy." But I'll have to think about this more. Mwickens (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll read the lead piece as well. We need to come up with something. Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have had enough. Argument here has degraded to personal insults and disruptive POV pushers are constantly assaulting the page. Ayn Rand was a controvercial figure, there is no doubt about it. I don't agree with her words or actions in many cases, what I do appreciate is her philosophy, which I came to after first learning about it in a Philosphy class. You can see Rand in Wolff's "About Philosophy" fifth edition where she is described as a Novelist and Philospher page 139 paragraph 1 line 4. A philosphy text from a college level course. Period. End of discussion. Good bye Edward and anon. Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the authors page for wolff. He is a philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paul_Wolff Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is called cherry-picking. In one of the quotes above, Rand is described as "author-renegade philosopher". I'd love to see your explanation for why we should hide her renegade status, but I doubt you're capable of offering one. Of course, failure to do so would constitute a concession. - Bert 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Bert, so far as far as I can make out, we have one highly respected analytical academic political philosopher and historian of philosophy, Robert Paul Wolff aver that Rand is a philosopher, and no reliable sources that say she is not. Now, we could probably find hundreds of scholar's reactions to Rand that says she was or was not a philosopher, so that won't really get us anywhere. Where the meat of this discussion is is in the tertiary literature - the surveys of reaction to Rand. See my response to Edward above for more information on this point. And, as a friendly word of advice, before you respond to any further discussion you might want to ask yourself "Do I want to win an argument, or work towards consensus on a solution?" If it's the former, you will probably only end up frustrated. Regards, Skomorokh 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic rigor and Godwin's law

Here's an extract from the summary of an as-yet-unpublished paper that has gone through exactly the same peer-review process as Rand's non-fiction essays on philosophy:

"Our research goal was to rigorously and scientifically determine, by consensus, whether Adolph Hitler was indeed a great man and entirely admirable, just as the pamphlet claimed. To this end, we polled no fewer than 10 self-chosen individuals at a meeting of the White Power Brigade. While some might argue that this is neither a random nor representative sample, or that the sample size is woefully inadquate to allow any sort of generalization, we feel that our results are nonetheless entirely valid, because this method works so well for Wikipedia. As a methodological necessity, we were forced to disregard the negative response from a brave, African-American protester named Leeroy Jenkins, because the man was clearly a troll and probably a sock-puppet of Edward G. Nilges. Likewise, we did not always get a straight answer, so we accepted both 'Seig heil!' and 'Hitler's cooler than white raptor Jeebus!' as affirmatives. The end result was that 9 out of 10 people agreed, forming a clear consensus."

This isn't even a sham; it's too transparent and ridiculous for that. I abstain even to the point of refusing to log an "abstain" in the right place. - Bert 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I restored this section after someone censored it because I thought it was funny. I'd have done the same for Edward's arguments (which nobody can refute) but I think the rules actually do allow silencing banned people. Anyhow, there's a real point in here, mixed in with the humor, which is that this so-called consensus is based on sampling self-selected and highly partial individuals.

Now, I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy of Randists who're trying to take over all of her articles, just that her fans are both motivated to contribute and unqualified to determine what's neutral. No matter how many Randists you ask, you're never going to get a fair and balanced article if you let them control it. It doesn't really matter what the majority of Randists think, either, any more than it matters what the majority of Catholic archbishops think about the priest sex abuse scandal. They're all reading from the same page, so to speak, so all of their opinions add up to just one.

The way I count it, there are at least two people against the one Randist hive-mind, so the consensus is for admitting in the lead that Rand is a non-academic philosopher. 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hitlerum is a blatant troll, and is not constructive, regardless of how "funny" you think it may be to compare your fellow editors to white supremacists.

Now I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it. That said, it is still a philosophy, which by definition makes Rand a philosopher. My personal opinion is that someone is a philosopher if a large number of people consider them to be a philosopher. It's that simple. This doesn't (or shouldn't) give Rand any kind of special authority. After all, philosophy is not like law or medicine. There is no license to practice philosophy. There is nothing that says that a philosopher has to be an academic for their work to be valuable. Putting non-academic in the lead would be giving undue weight and would require that one of the articles major focuses.

Finally, don't call me a Randist or any other word you can think of to describe one of her followers, because I most definitely am not. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're attacking a straw man. The argument here is that Rand was not in any sense a conventional philosopher, so we can't let the article lead off with the implicit claim that she was. Philosophy is less like medicine than it is like plumbing; anyone can do it, but if you do it wrong, you can make a real mess.

That's why professional philosophers, like plumbers, start by getting training in the traditions and methods of the craftsmen of the past. Rand is demonstrably not a part of this tradition, as she rejected it explicitly and seemed to be somewhat ignorant of it. Maybe she can lay a pipe, maybe she can't, but saying she's a philosopher without qualifying that statement is just lying.

This is not a new point. I've made it and others have. Nobody's really addressed it, despite a few weak attempts. The article SHOULD lead off with the fact that she's not an academic philosopher. 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that, as someone who is Jewish, I find this post extremely offensive. While there are certain people who have a pro-Randian bias, most of us work hard to make this article NPOV. I personally am friends with a number of Objectivists, but I am not an Objectivist and I have also published essays criticizing Objectivism. At the end of the day, you have to realize that this is simply one of many philosophies and stop taking it so personally. If you post another disgustingly offensive remark on here, I will recommend that you be banned for violating WP:Civil and WP:Attack and you can join Edward since you seem to respect him so much. Idag (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me say, as someone who is a member of the human race, I find your statement "you can join Edward since you seem to respect him so much" isomorphic to Nazi talk: "you can join the Jews in the camps since you seem to respect that Jew Husserl so much". Lilith2396 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the author of that bit of satire, but I stand by my decision to undelete it, ESPECIALLY if it offends you. Satire is SUPPOSED to offend whoever it targets, and you were obviously one of those targets. But grow some thicker skin and lay off the guilt trip; there's no anti-semitism here. As for Edward, he could be kinder towards his intellectual inferiors, but he does know what he's talking about.

In any case, I don't think the goal was so much to suggest Randists are neo-Nazis as to point out that sampling the opinions of like-minded individuals doesn't tell you anything. We already know that Randists love Rand and will somehow find some way to justify making the article fit their view of the world, in which Rand is perfect in all ways. There's no point polling all the Randists who dominate the Rand-related articles and declare a false consensus just because they agree with each other.

A real consensus would be a compromise that even reasonable people who think little of Rand would support. This doesn't include people like TallNapoleon, since their edit history here is no different than a Randist's, regardless of what they say. Editing is as editing does, not as it claims. 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, satire is not an appropriate way to make a point on Wikipedia. See WP:POINT. Second, I have attempted to propose a compromise in the previous section--although given how ridiculously large this talk page has become it's no wonder that you missed it. Essentially, my proposal was to avoid using the term "philosopher" at all in the lede, and instead refer to her as the "originator of the controversial philosophy of Objectivism"--an undeniably true statement. I'm not sure whether to include "controversial" or not, but it does not appear to give undue weight, given that Objectivism is nothing if not controversial. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think satire is highly appropriate when rational debate has been ignored and even censored. In any case, she's been called a philosopher, with certain qualifications, and we have to report that. We just have to report it honestly, which means we can't drop adjectives like "non-academic" and even "renegade". I think we need a new category for undue lightness, as opposed to undue weight, to account for the cases where something is conveniently glossed over to sanitize the truth. It would handle things like, "Some people have expressed criticism about Hitler's social policies" and "Rand is a philosopher". 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Since at this point 69 has ceased contributing anything productive to this article, I suggest that we take the advice under WP:Trolls and stop responding to his off-topic rambling posts. Idag (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Any sign of intelligence is off topic and rambling to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree. Ethan a dawe (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Skomorokh 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not willing to participate in discussion, then you don't get any say in the consensus the rest of us form without you. Thank you for your concession. - Bert 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Ask the Encyclopedia Britannica

• Friedrich Nietzsche: "German classical scholar, philosopher, and critic of culture, who became one of the most influential of all modern thinkers." [1]

• Albert Camus: "French novelist, essayist, and playwright, best known for such novels as L'Étranger (1942; The Stranger), La Peste (1947; The Plague), and La Chute (1956; The Fall) and for his work in leftist causes. He received the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature."[2]

• Jean-Paul Sartre: "French novelist, playwright, and exponent of Existentialism—a philosophy acclaiming the freedom of the individual human being. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964, but he declined it."[3]

• Arthur Shopenhauer: "German philosopher, often called the “philosopher of pessimism,” who was primarily important as the exponent of a metaphysical doctrine of the will in immediate reaction against Hegelian idealism. His writings influenced later existential philosophy and Freudian psychology." [4]

• Ayn Rand: "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." [5]

Personally, I like how the Encyclopedia Britannica describes Rand in the opening paragraph of its article on her. We can't copy it wholesale because that would be plagiarism, but it's still interesting. A google search of "writer Ayn Rand" yields 4,270 hits, "novelist Ayn Rand" (820 hits), "philosopher" (13,600 hits), "novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand" (2,520 hits), "philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand" (873 hits). Obviously, we cannot use these as it is original research. What we can do is get a sense for what the reliable third-party media saw as her occupation for undue weight considerations. Ultimately, we have to go with what the reliable third-party sources say. A plain vanilla google search is not too helpful because some of these sites include blogs and other partisan sources without editorial oversight. But JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Factiva would probably yield more accurate results. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That definitely sounds good. Especially because its similar to Camus who developed his philosophy in a similar way. Idag (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are lots of objectivist sites on the web, so a google search would skew results towards description of Rand as a philosopher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Shermer in his piece on Objectivist Cultism referes to her as novelist-philospher http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I could check Tibor Machan's memoir, he knew Rand and is a libertarian. He very likely considers Rand a philospher and is a PhD in philosphy. I'll get the info and post back what I find. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - "Ayn Rand is a major intellectual of the twentieth century … Her novels had expressed philosophical themes, although Rand considered herself primarily a novelist and only secondarily a philosopher." Skomorokh 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with how the Encyclopedia Britannica's handled the issue of how to summarize Rand. It starts by speaking of her novels, which emphasizes that she was a novelist, mentions that they're commercially successful, without pretending that the critics thought much of them, and immediately explains that her philosophy is in direct opposition to popular ethics, explaining part of why its so controversial (as well as offering an insight into how Objectivism is in many ways defined largely by what it opposes). Note how it says she produced a philosophy, but does not call her a philosopher, and therefore doesn't leave the false impression that she was any sort of academic. In short, the Britannica is much more NPOV that the current Wikipedia article. While we can't steal the words outright, we can certainly model our version loosely on the successes of this one. - Bert 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

And yet we have Camus listed as a philosopher on wiki. Is that a mistake? People here have argued one is and the other isn't. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask the Media: Novelist, Philosopher or Both?

The news coverage offered by LexisNexis Global Business and News Service has approximately 12,000 publications from national & local newspapers, press releases, transcripts of tv broadcasts, newswires, statistical bulletins, magazines and trade journals.

A keyword searches looked at (and excluded) certain words from the articles by journalists to get a sense (not the last word, of course) for what the journalists tend to use in their identification of Rand’s occupation. Just typing in the keyword “Ayn Rand” produces thousands of articles. Major mentions – articles solely about Ayn Rand – reduces the number of articles down to roughly 2500. That said, if we were just curious on how the journalists sometimes identify Ayn Rand by occupation, these results might be useful.

From descending order of descriptions in the media, according to this database:

Keyword search: “novelist Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher” All available dates All industries, all subjects

All Results: 203 articles.

• Newspapers (142)
• Newswires & Press Releases (25)
• Aggregate News Sources (13)
• Web-based Publications (11)
• Magazines & Journals (10)
• Industry Trade Press (8)
• Newsletters (3)
• Current Awareness (1)
• People Directories & Profiles (1)
• Unclassified Documents (1)

Keyword search: “philosopher Ayn Rand” AND NOT “novelist”

All Results: 164 articles

• Newspapers (132)
• Newswires & Press Releases (10)
• Magazines & Journals (8)
• Aggregate News Sources (7)
• Web-based Publications (4)
• Blogs (3)
• News Transcripts (1)
• Newsletters (1)

Keyword search: “writer Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher”

All Results: 157 articles

• Newspapers (123)
• Aggregate News Sources (16)
• Magazines & Journals (9)
• Newswires & Press Releases (7)
• News Transcripts (2)

Keyword search: “novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand” or “novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand”

All Results: 121 articles.

• Newspapers (94)
• Newswires & Press Releases (12)
• Aggregate News Sources (6)
• Web-based Publications (6)
• Magazines & Journals (3)
• Industry Trade Press (2)

Keyword search: “philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand” or “philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand”

All Results: 55 articles

• Newspapers (37)
• Aggregate News Sources (7)
• Newswires & Press Releases (6)
• Web-based Publications (3)
• Industry Trade Press (2)
• Magazines & Journals (2)

Based on these preliminary search results, it appears that many (most?) journalists tend to identify Ayn Rand as either a “novelist” or a “writer” (if we decide they are synonyms), rather than just a philosopher, more than anything else. 360 articles identify her as either a novelist or a writer, but not as a philosopher. Another 164 articles identify her as just a philosopher, with an additional 176 articles saying that she is both a philosopher and a novelist.

I’m surprised, actually. I was expecting the majority of articles to identify her as a “novelist-philosopher” or as a “philosopher-novelist”, which include by the way “novelist and philosopher” and “philosopher and novelist” in the keyword searches. Instead, we get 360 for either novelist or writer versus 340 for either philosopher or some combination of the two (e.g., novelist-philosopher).

Incidentally, according to these results, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe – some of the major nationwide US dailies — tend to identify Ayn Rand as a novelist only. These results are not the last word on the subject by any means, but they do give us a little better idea of how Ayn Rand tends to be identified in the popular press. That said, the research that editors like Ethan a dawe and others are producing is highly useful, too, in my opinion. We definitely need to look at how books, academic journal articles, and other WP:RS genre sources identify Rand in order to balance the coverage out before coming to any conclusions. I hope this helps a little bit more. J Readings (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks J. I'm searching everything I can find. I just checked out NPR (not known for being fans of Rand in general) and found her identified as "controlversial writer and philosopher" Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the three magic words are "writer", "novelist" and "philosopher". What's interesting is that the former subsumes the latter two, as novels and philosophy are both kinds of writing, and also includes such things as screenplays and speeches. Moreover, she made her living from the various things she wrote and, to a lesser extent, from giving speeches.

In short, "writer" a general term that is accurate and uncontroversially neutral, so I suggest we call her a writer, but immediately mention that she put forth her personal philosophy, which she called "Objectivism". This neatly side-steps the issue of what, if any, sort of philosopher she might have been, and is consistent with what the Encyclopedia Britannica does. Objections? - Bert 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer "novelist" because "writer" just seems to be too generic (if you think about it, almost every notable person on Wikipedia was a "writer" to some extent). Idag (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush is notable, yet he's not a writer. Disproof by single example, but you can find many other cases of people famous for what they do, not for what they wrote. Morevoer, even those who are famous for what they wrote aren't necessarily writers in any professional sense of the word. Rand was a professional writer, and her writing output was hardly limited to novels, so we would have to add that she was a screenwriter, a speechwriter, a playwright and an essayist, at the very least. Better to just call her a writer, since it includes all of these jobs. - Bert 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keyword in my previous post: most. Disproof by example doesn't work in this instance. Idag (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown that even "most" was true, nor have you shown how the case I gave fails to apply to Rand. On top of that, you seemed to have stopped reading at the first sentence, since you ignore all the arguments afterwards. I accept your concession. - Bert 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

I prefer both. Novelist. She wrote novels. Philospher. She devloped a philosophical system and wrote non-fiction works about that. She is both. I finding Cites from academic philosophers who are not objectivists calling her a philosopher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not a plumber, but I'm certainly qualified to do some simple jobs around the house. It would be accurate to say that I repaired a hot water heater by replacing the thermocouple or fixed a toilet by using a plunger. These are plumbign tasks, but it would be inaccurate to say that I'm a plumber, particularly since nobody in their right mind would ever pay me to do these tasks. I have no real training as a plumber and my abilities fall short of what is expected of a professional. The same is true with regard to Rand as a philosopher; she clearly lacked the knowledge of the philosophical canon that would be expected of any academic.

Howeover, Rand was definitely a professional writer, and her writing included everything from popular novels and screenplays to essays and speeches. She made her living primarily from a few novels, but there wasn't a day in her life that she worked as a philosopher. If we promote her to philosopher, it would be like promoted to to plumber: only honest if we add a qualifier such as "amateur" or "non-academic", depending.

The decidedly non-original research into secondary sources that Readings provided confirms that she is known primarily as a writer, so let's stick to what the sources say and not stretch them to fit our preconceptions, ok? - Bert 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My sources are non-original research as well. So, you can take your stretching comment and have anice look in the mirror. Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are cherry-picked and irrelevant, while Readings' search was comprehensive and neutral. Don't even pretend that they're of comparable validity. - Bert 65.170.159.12 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your entire argument boils down to: you don't think Rand was a good philsopher, therefore she was not a philosopher. If you look at the phone book, you could probably find plumbers who have the same skills as you, but are considered plumbers (albeit not very good ones). The term writer is too generic. What if we simply say something like "controversial figure who, in written works and speeches, created the philosophy of Objectivism." This way we neutrally state what she actually did instead of trying to pick one word to encompass it all. Idag (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what my argument boils down to, and until you take the time to understand and address my argument, there's very little for me to say. - Bert 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bert, note that several of the sources I've provided are Academic Philosophers who don't agree with Rand. Considering all the arguements about these very people on this page I woud think they would ount for more than a "stretch." Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This approach has been refuted by Readings' comprehensive search. - Bert 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A web search does not trump verifiable and reliable third party sources. Check wikipedia policy, I did. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for, Ethan. You might actually get it. :-) In any case, a few things: (1) LexisNexis is not a web search. It's a newspaper and magazine database. (2) As newspaper and magazine articles, the articles that are generated *are* both verifiable and reliable third party sources meeting the criteria of WP:RS. They all have editorial oversight and reputations for fact-checking. They don't have to be academic sources to be "reliable third-party sources". (3) "Verifiability" does not necessarily mean that the source must be online, though it would convenient if it were. (4) In the case of LexisNexis, it is an online database and it is used quite often on Wikipedia. (5) WP:V, here at least, is not the issue so much as it is WP:UNDUE. (6) I could list the hundreds of articles by name, title, publication, date, and section where Rand is identified as (for example) a "novelist" versus "philosopher", but as I stated elsewhere, that would take an enormous amount of space on the talk page (See what happened above with the word "controversial" and just listing a small sample). Instead, I demonstrated the results of the reliable sources via aggregate numbers. (7) I realize that the we cannot footnote the search results, but I already said that myself. This exercise was done specifically to give good-faith editors who are not pushing for one thing or the other A REAL SENSE for how the media identify Rand's occupation for "undue weight" purposes. Finally, (8) If all that will satisfy is listing an extremely large number of reliable third-party sources, rather than just the numbers, I suppose I could make time over the weekend to do that. I'm a little disappointed that it has to come to that, but I suppose it's necessary to satisfy the cynics. But do I really need to dedicate hours of my time on Saturday or Sunday to do that? To be honest, I would prefer if I didn't have to. J Readings (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

J, I don't want you to waste your time, so let me explain. Here is the quote I'm referring to

"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

The context part seems escpecially telling. Rand is being called a philospher, by academic philosophers in my cites. Even ones who are disagreeing with her. So, people who are philosphers calling her a philospher seems pretty valid and important. Does that make sense? Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's useful. But they don't necessarily trump everything else, either, as the next paragraph on mainstream news organizations makes clear. Everything should be weighed on balance with the available sources. Incidentally, since "mainstream" seems to be a recurring word on WP:RS, I've been meaning to ask for this information: in citing book and academic journal sources from philosophers, it would be helpful if we had the publishers. I would rest more easily if we had more information on them. I know I must sound hypocritical after asking not having to list the hundreds on my end, but for the books and book chapters, we're only talking about a few. I'm interested to know, for example, if they're university publishers or something else. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a reasonable request. I can have that information by tomorrow afternoon. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe faster :-) The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand from University of Illinois Press Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

About Philosophy, currently by Prentice Hall. I'll check the 5th edition to see if it's the same later. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand by Tibor Machan from Peter Lang Publishing Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So, I was considering updating the cites in the lead next to "philosopher" with the sources I have found in books by academic philosphers, both sympathetic and unsypathetic to Rand that call her a philospher. I was going to include all of them so as to try and avoid this debate again in the future. I don't want to do that if the good faith editors here disagree though. So, how are we feeling? Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want others to listen to you, you must return the courtesy. Edward has offered a pair of very informative and neutral lead paragraphs, and I fully endorse his suggestion. He's also contributed to the large number of unrefuted arguments against calling Rand a philosopher. You have chosen to ignore him, and by doing so, you give up your right to participate in any effort to build a consensus. I'm much too polite to simply ignore you, but I'm much too rational to allow your view any more weight than it has on its merits, which is to say, none. - Bert 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Consensus lead, to be used once the protection is removed...

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

She was an advocate of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, and opposed socialism and what she regarded as pernicious altruism, as well as religion. Her influential and often controversial ideas have attracted both admiration and denunciation.

With appropriate hyperlinks and references, of course. - Bert 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the consensus and not what the citeable evidence shows.

Bert, I think you're not reading what I've written the past few days:

• The article listed Rand as a philospher, among other things.

• Someone changed this (I've forgotten who now.) saying that she wasn't.

• I have provided multiple (multiple!) reliable and NPOV sources showing that she was indeed considered a philospher.

I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. You may want to exclude me because you don't like the evidence I've provided but it is what it is. Attempts to push your POV by claiming consesus will not work Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All of these points have been refuted above. Please don't waste my time repeating what's already been demonstrated to be false. - Bert 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

No they haven't. Saying they have doesn't make it so. Sorry Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with the first paragraph of Bert's proposal. The problem we have is that a number of sources call Rand a philosopher, but a number of other sources don't call Rand a philosopher. That first paragraph provides an elegant solution to this problem because it avoids calling Rand a philosopher while at the same time pointing out the fact that she developed a philosophical system. The second paragraph is too POV though. Idag (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Idag, do you have any specific objections to the second paragraph? For example, what part is too POV and how would you fix it? - Bert 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What good verifiable third party sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability don't call Rand a philosopher? Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See specifically the section on sources, especially reliable sources. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for more of a general trend. I reran J Readings' Lexis search and got over 100 hits of various news and media sources that did not refer to Rand as a philosopher. They didn't say that she wasn't a philosopher, they just didn't refer to her as a philosopher. I also did a search of court documents and got a number of hits in which courts refer to Ayn Rand without the term philosopher. I particularly like the phrase that one of the courts used: "Shortly after entering the United States, Foroglou, professedly an atheist, began to develop a belief in Objectivism, a philosophy developed by the twentieth-century author Ayn Rand." Foroglou v. INS, 170 F.3d 68, 69 (1st Cir. 1999). Other courts have similarly referred to Rand as an "author". See, e.g., Lane v. Random House, 985 F. Supp. 141, 146 (D.D.C. 1995); Negri v. Schering Corp., 333 F. Supp. 101, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). Idag (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Idag. You see, this is precisely why I encourage everyone to check and cross-check the results. I'm not looking to bamboozle anyone. If we have (for example) 100 writers who identify someone as X and only 10 writers who identify someone as Y, it's not a highly advisable idea to pretend that Y is suddenly the majority view. (Incidentally, the number on the search results also depends on the time period involved as well as which keywords are included/excluded). Anyway, this is the whole point of WP:UNDUE. It was designed to stop editors from playing fast and loose with state of public knowledge. Looking at court cases, newspapers, academic books, books for a general reader, academic journal articles, etc. and weighing everything on balance is all part of the process. Thanks to everyone for going to the trouble. It's honest work, J Readings (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethan, please don't ask questions that have been answered. If you scroll up, you'll see that Edward's solution to the problem of calling her a philosopher is in fact based on the Encyclpedia Britannica, which is a highly reliable source. You seem to have a real problem remembering things that don't suit you, so I'm going to keep reminind everyone of what you fail to remember. I don't particularly know or care whether you're playing dumb or not playing, but either way, the game is up. - Bert 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement that Edward's proposed first paragraph is an acceptable compromise, so I've implemented it, making only one minor grammatical change that is unlikely to offend anyone. I've also implemented the second paragraph, though I recognize that Idag has more to say about it. While he can certainly make changes directly in the article, it might be cleaner if we hash it out here first. - Bert 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

Bert, your edit removed the reference from the lede. As you did not mention it in your comment here, I'm going to assume that was an honest mistake. Please let me know if it wasn't. Regards, Skomorokh 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the reference was to support calling her a philosopher. Since we're now calling her an author who created a philosophy, the reference serves no purpose, so I removed it. If it's useful elsewhere in the article, then by all means move it where it will do some good, but it's not needed in the lead. Rather than edit war, I'd appreciate if you'd do the removing. - Bert 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

There isn't general agreement yet. We are still debating. I supplied J with some information he wanted about my references. We are still discussing the proper lead. Please don't go changing the lead until the debate is done. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've withdrawn from the consensus-building effort through your actions, so you need to keep your paws off the article so as to avoid an edit war. - Bert 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

No I haven't and You know it. Stop now Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. - Bert 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

Actually it is. Look at the history and you'll see that we are debating the reference today. Attempting to claim I have left the debate or that their is a consensus is POV pushing and won't help improve the article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is not part of these events, you should reserve comment about them. Whatever you're doing now, it has little to do with debate, and less to do with building a consensus. You are simply getting in the way of people who are busy. - Bert 12.111.29.12 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this is consensus. It reflects the pov of editors rather than the tertiary literature (see my comments on this point above). The reference in the first sentence to a reliable source gives credible indication that Rand is considered a philosopher: "throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher." I appreciate that some editors new to the project might not realize that WP:V is a core policy of, and threshold for inclusion in, the encyclopedia. I also appreciate efforts at searching for the use of the various terms, which provide useful rule-of-thumb indicators, but finding that a given article does not use the adjective "philosopher" is not at all proof that the author does not consider Rand a philosopher. Exceptional claims require exceptional references, and so far the anti-"philosopher" arguments have offered precious little in the way of convincing tertiary literature on the question. See my suggestion for how to deal with the leading sentence below. I also strongly condemn efforts to marginalize the good faith efforts of Ethan a dawe. Regards, Skomorokh 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that literary academica is irrelevant. Philosophical academia does not generally consider her a philosopher. - Bert 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've provided cites showing that some do. Do you have cites showing academic philosophers saying Ayn Rand is not a philosopher? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, are there reliable sources which confirm that most academic philosophers claim Rand is not a philosopher? If so, I will immediately drop my resistance to removing "philosopher" from the lede. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be produced that confirm that most academic philosophers claim Rand is not a philosopher I will immediately drop my resistance to removing "philosopher" as well. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This ignores Wikipedia conventions

I would like to draw your attention to the current lede of the article, which identifies Rand as a "novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter". This is Wikipedia convention (I mean the number of occupations, not the specific ones); see for example Rene Descartes ("French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer."), Thomas Paine ("pamphleteer, revolutionary, radical, classical liberal, inventor and intellectual. "), Albert Camus ("French-Algerian author, philosopher, and journalist"), David Hume ("18th-century Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian"), Edward Said ("literary theorist, cultural critic, political activist, and an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights."), Bertrand Russell ("a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, and pacifist"). I could go on. The point is, any notable philosophical figure (or however you want to phrase it) who is noted for anything other than simply philosophy, is identified as such in the leading sentence. The current version describes Rand best, without attributing undue weight to any of the hats she wore. Skomorokh 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the philosophers you list are uncontroversially accepted as philosophers. This is not the case for Rand, so calling her a philosopher without qualifying that statement is inaccurate. Call her a non-academic philosopher, if you must call her a philosopher at all. Otherwise, the result is unacceptable, and not just to me. - Bert 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

Bert, my above comment was not to be pro or anti describing Rand as a philosopher, but to be pro- describing Rand's notable contributions in the various fields, like the gentlemen listed above. So read it as my supporting "Rand was a novelist, playwright, screenwriter and originator of the philosophical system Objectivism" as opposed to "Rand was a writer. She wrote the novels x, y and z and invented Objectivism". I am only arguing here for a plurality of descriptions rather than one or two. Regards, Skomorokh 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would accept that as a compromise. - Bert 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

I wasn't offering it! Just an example to make a point. Skomorokh 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's Undue Weight Policy (WP:UNDUE): "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Given the evidence (especially the media evidence), prominence of placement is still troubles me. How authors, journalists, and academics generally identify someone's occupation by name in reliable third-party sources in order to see what label should be prominently placed on the subject is just as important as identifying and attributing specific viewpoints to avoid original research and synthesis. J Readings (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why people are getting so hung up on the "philosopher" term. If we change it to "author who advanced the philosophy of Objectivism", that doesn't imply that she's not a philosopher. She was an author and she advanced a philosophy. It is a true and neutral claim that synthesizes the competing sources. Idag (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be a little strange if a host of anonymous IP's showed up demanding that Rand not be considered a novelist because English lit professors supposedly thought her writing was garbage, and if subsequently we changed the lede to "Rand was a writer who wrote novels" instead of "Rand was a novelist". It's just a true and neutral claim as the example you gave, by which I mean subtly not neutral at all. I agree that this issue is of negligible importance (while you all have been discussing it, I have been making sweeping changes to the body of the article), it's on principle that I oppose appeasing motivated (in good faith or not) attempts at inserting POV into the article. Skomorokh 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"If an idiot says that the sun will rise tomorrow, the statement is not wrong just because the declarant is an idiot." Ultimately calling someone a "philosopher" is a value judgment that some third party sources don't make. She is certainly an author, by any standard, so let's go with the First Circuit Court of Appeals and call her an "author who advanced the philosophy of Objectivism." This way, you still have the strong implication that she's a philosopher (she advanced a philosophy), but the reader still makes the final call. I share your distaste for the source of this debate, but ultimately, he does have a point. Idag (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And I only arrived at that conclusion after looking at how the media largely describes Rand. I don't consider myself a partisan one way or the other. J Readings (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My perspective is this: it's not something I would normally argue about. This debate has been had before too. Every few months a sock-puppet of a couple of editors pops up, and/or an anonymous IP shows up and tries to change this article. I disagreed with Edward, first, becasue it's been argued before, secondly becasue he was very rude, and third becasue Hook's piece was written before Rand wrote any non-fiction philosophy books. He was pushing. Bert then joined in calling me rude and a bully. I'm not going to cave to that, considering the only thing he has edited here is Rand and is clearly pushing POV as well. What I did find was that the cite on Philospher wasn't great. Then the whole "rejection by academics" thing came up. So I started looking, not Cherry Picking as Bert says, for how she was dealt with in books about and by philosophers. Those I checked confirmed that she was called a philosopher. I've even provided the publishers for the books to see if they mesured up to good uality standards. Academic press published books by philosophers calling her a philosopher. Even the one that was arguing she was wrong. So, no, it's not a big issue to fight over, but what I've found in fending off POV pushers is that the cites are even better than before. It seems, every time I find a cite, some new anti philosophy thing turns up. So far I haven't seen evidence as to why the article should change, from philosopher. I've only seen evidence as to why it should stay that way. Show me specific cite saying she is not a philosopher! It's good to check articles, but to still be arguing this tangent when it's argued before and no new cites produced suporting Edward and Bert's position. I remain puzzled and frustrated. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about Edward or any anon IPs or SPAs, nor do I want to involve myself in their affairs. While I don't like rude diatribes filling up pages, either, I hardly consider my actions to be "POV pushing." Speaking only for myself, I'm editing this article because -- well -- I read all of her books, I'm familiar with the subject matter, and I thought I'd contribute in (what I believe to be) a constructive policy-oriented process. I'm not sure what would be resolved by showing one or two articles saying that she is not a philosopher. Someone could easily argue, then, that a minority of publications arguing that someone is not a philosopher is an equal sign that many people must be thinking that the person is (ergo, the need to prove she's not). Believe it or not, that's been argued before. It's pointless. Rather, and I've said this in good faith multiple times, I'm simply interested in WP:UNDUE and WP:V having experienced this problem with other articles. I look at what the reliable third-party sources say en masse as an identification of what she is (novelist, essayist, novelist-philosopher, screenwriter, etc) and balance it against other descriptions. If the journalists calls a subject X, we can't suddenly assume that must have been thinking Y instead. For whatever reason (right or wrong), she was identified as X. You're obviously passionate about this. That's okay. I'm not looking to convert you and I appreciate not having to list all of the articles that identify her occupation. I certainly don't WP:OWN this article, and, believe it or not, I always prefer to take discussions to talk pages rather than disrupt the main page with senseless edit wars. Also, I'm grateful for the list of publishers. I'll try to look up those books tomorrow. I want to examine them.J Readings (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite see how calling someone is philosopher is a value judgement, whereas calling them a novelist is a "true and neutral claim". To me "wrote philosophy=philosopher", "wrote stuff=writer", and "wrote novels=novelist" are baldly obvious, analytic, not value, judgements. But I am going to stop debating this as it is a spurious discussion. Let's all pick an unsourced statement in the article and source or remove it, or do something productive instead. Skomorokh 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Readings, I am quite familiar with the policy, would you like to share with us your interpretation of how exactly it relates to my point? Copypasta isn't particularly helpful. Regards, Skomorokh 21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think there is anything really "spurious" about taking policies (all of them) seriously and discussing them in a civil way. Most of us are here to improve the article in good faith. J Readings (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

one of the reasons in my experience why WP:UNDUE is just as important as WP:V is so that we don't have to worry about controversial minority labels being prominently placed in the lead section, the infobox, or elsewhere in the text. To give a few examples of when this has come up on Wikipedia: what if we were to find only a handful of verifiable third-party sources referring to someone as a "Holocaust denier" or a "conspiracy theorist" or a "renegade" or a "terrorist" or a "political agitator" or a "hate monger." Should any of those labels be prominently placed in the infobox or lead section to describe the subject's occupation simply because the articles identifying the subject as such can be verified? I would argue no. For me, it would be a completely separate matter if the preponderance of verifiable third-party reliable sources pointed in that direction. Then, citing a sample in the footnotes would probably suffice for the sake of WP:V and WP:NPOV. But just because we have a few verifiable sources one way and a few the other way does not suddenly mean that we can safely close the discussion, start calling people "POV-pushers" again, and think the legitimate concerns of WP:UNDUE vanish. Indeed, exception claims require exceptional sources. I agree. That's the point of it all. In good-faith, J Readings (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. For a controversial point like this, sometimes the best approach is to find a couple of sources that talk about the general perception of Rand within the discipline of philosophy. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know or care if Rand was a philosopher. What disgusts me is your behavior, especially Ethan and tallNapoleon. You remove the contributions to the Talk page when you don't like them and you make a constant issue out of people's behavior without listening to what they say. When people stick up for Edward, you immediately turn on them. I notice he likes to stick up for other people but I guess your fathers never set you this example.

Shame on all of you!

Lilith Lilith2396 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read his posts? He did nothing but hurl insults at myself, Ethan, and pretty much the rest of Wikipedia. I try to assume good faith, but I was sick and bloody tired of being continuously insulted by this person. This was not a matter of "standing up for people"--this was a matter of one person taking over a talk page with off-topic rants and continuous denigration of other users. I took action by removing his contributions; if an administrator wishes to revert this then I will gladly abide by that decision.

I see that you are a new user, and so I will try to follow WP:BITE, but please understand that this is a very sore topic. Now, please see WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH. Personal comments about me, my father or anyone else are not appropriate, and are one of the reasons why I removed Edward's content, which you can see if you read through the edit history. I would advise that you look at some of the things Edward wrote before you start launching blanket condemnations of the rest of us, and ask yourself: if you were the target of his profanity-laced tirades, would you feel any differently about the matter? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward typically posts carefully reasoned analyses which are verbose because he's trying in fact to be fair and polite. He's then met with incomprehension and dismissal because, you appear to reason, he "must" be a "troll": it can't be that complicated: you must be permitted to make judgements based on what you remember from survey courses: anything deeper must be trolling and original research.

You treat him with the utmost disrespect by calling him a name, and he feels that he's been told, not that he's wrong for good reasons, but that "no Irish need apply": people with his style, again an effort, to me, at intellectual honesty, just don't belong.

Guess what: he fights back, and then you label him further as being uncivil.

I'd say yours is the incivility. You want to stay on the surface of things. Because Ayn Rand says she's a philosopher, and because she was commercially successful, and had a big mouth, you believe her and suspend your critical faculties.

For shame!

*golf clap*

Your uncivil personal attack on Lilith is typical of how you treat anyone who thinks this article could be a little bit more neutral. Oh, and congratulations on upholding the Wikipedia tradition of pestering genuine experts, such as Edward, until they react with justified anger, and then using their angry remarks as an excuse to run them off. Keep it up and Wikipedia will soon be the most trusted authority on Airbender, and nothing else. Lilith, while perhaps new to Wikipedia, was quick to pick up on how things work here and correctly identified your abusive behavior, and honest enough to call things as they are. They should be lauded, not abused. The reality is that the article is currently biased towards Rand, so a neutral version is necessarily going to look anti-Randian in your biased eyes. - Bert 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look through the edit history, you'll see that Edward was angry and insulting in his very first posts here, we did not "pester" him into it. If you wish to civilly contribute a criticism of Rand without edit-warring then do so - especially because reasonable minds can differ. But if you're on here to simply insult other users and refuse to engage in any kind of a dialogue (which is what Edward was doing), then there's no need for you to be here. In addition, Edward is not an expert. All he has done is write a book about computer programming. That may arguably qualify him to edit the computer programming material, but I have yet to see any substantive peer-reviewed philosophy articles credited to his name Idag (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward is all the expert you deserve. I have confirmed his claim to have taught philosophy at uni level and to have published, but more than this, you only have to examine his writing style and ability to reference philosophy, as well as his careful style of analyses to confirm that while he's a layman, he is the best philosopher here.

Furthermore, it is paradoxical that wikipedia should be founded by an autodidact as a way for uncertified and not fully certified people to participate in scholarship, yet the discussion boil down to, not debate over Edward's broad, tolerant, and yet meaningful definition of philosophy as a "big tent", one that includes Carnap and Heidegger but refuses admission to Rand, but his certification and your feeling "insulted".

Edward was in fact the person wikipedia was created-for, because most of us have families to support and/or no money to pursue graduate studies, but some of us read books on the way to work instead of staring dully out into the rain. The lesson being that you wouldn't know real freedom if it bit you in the butt, since all it means to you is the perverted liberty to label and then torment people.

There is something rather intriguing about Edward. It is that he is willing to defend other people's reputations and to come to their aid, something very rare today both on wikipedia and also in "real life". I mean, I've seen people laid off and escorted weeping to the door by Security while fat and pompous "technical experts" make themselves scarce and blame the victim, whereas Edward went to bat both for Kathy Sierra and Herb Schildt when the manufactured consensus was that she was "alleging" harassment and that he was "mistaken about C" and a liar.

You are slaves, working for free to make Jimbo Wales rich in your absurd hopes that the Great Elder Brother, he who killed the Father, will single you out and let you be a house nigra some day, and you try to display chops primarily by showing your willingness to kill people's good names.

Such argumentation speaks for itself. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeedy it does. You people piss us off. You've long used the rules to get rid of people and to endanger reputations in the real world, and you act like the marginal and deviant people you are in reality, who have erected this slave republic not to create anything (you are a worldwide joke to editors and teachers) but to play a child's game of "grown up", without having to earn your chops in the real world. That's why you label people and pretend this stops discussion of their contributions: you admitted the depth of Edward's analysis but refused to engage it because he's now and forever a "troll": a real timesaver, you "reason".

Edward is off-topic, of course, and you roll your eyes in disdain because now your precious time is being wasted. But as he's observed on usenet, one thing is always on topic: and that is the politics of personal destruction, in which Bert and Edward are supposed to either slink off or beg forgiveness for having minds. But if your rage is on-topic then so is The Tempest.

You fools! I and my fellows

Are ministers of Fate: the elements,

Of whom your swords are temper'd, may as well

Wound the loud winds, or with bemock'd-at stabs

Kill the still-closing waters, as diminish

One dowle that's in my plume: my fellow-ministers

Are like invulnerable. If you could hurt,

Your swords are now too massy for your strengths

And will not be uplifted. But remember--

For that's my business to you--that you three

From Milan did supplant good Prospero;

Exposed unto the sea, which hath requit it,

Him and his innocent child: for which foul deed

The powers, delaying, not forgetting, have

Incensed the seas and shores, yea, all the creatures,

Against your peace. Thee of thy son, Alonso,

They have bereft; and do pronounce by me:

Lingering perdition, worse than any death

Can be at once, shall step by step attend

You and your ways; whose wraths to guard you from--

Which here, in this most desolate isle, else falls

Upon your heads--is nothing but heart-sorrow

And a clear life ensuing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should note just once, for the record, that practically nothing asserted in the above is true (i.e., it does not correspond to reality). Also, it is off track; this page is for discussing possible editorial changes to improve the associated article, not for name-calling and so forth. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but it is. Edward posted an analysis of why it is controversial, hence NNPOV, to identify Rand as a philosopher, and even some of his enemies were forced to admit that the analysis, although censored despite his request and his committment to only comment in that section, was journal article quality.

Nonetheless, because your feelings were hurt, you allowed a pre-existing label, applied to him unethically by amerindianarts, to stop discussion of the important issue he'd raised.

As it is, the ordinary educated reader, once she hits the "philosopher" claim, will stop reading since the only people who dignify Rand with this title are her phollowers.

Edward is right. A "philosopher" is someone with whom you can disagree with and yet still acknowledge is a philosopher. Rand does not meet this criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that I can participate in editing this article is patently absurd, as I've been prevented from so much as fixing your typos, much less correcting your many biases. Wikipedia neutrality is a farce. - Bert 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Damn right, Bert. Hasta la victoria siempre!

Two important citations of Rand as a philosopher have been missed. (1) Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers (Thoemmes Continuum, 2005) (This entry is available on the Ayn Rand Society website (www.aynrandsociety.org) (2) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a forthcoming entry on Ayn Rand. The SEP website is http://plato.stanford.edu/ If you look at the TOC under "R" you will find "Rand, Ayn (Neera Badhwar and Roderick Long)"

Also, I saw zero references to Tara Smith's 2006 book "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics." The book is a discussion of Rand as a philosopher, and is published by Cambridge University Press. That is an instance of a top philosophy press considering her a philosopher.

Hope that helps. Endlessmike 888 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A phony philosopher may represent a serious philosophical problem to a real philosopher (a philosopher peer-accepted into the trans-temporal conversation). Thrasymachus and Hitler would both merit mention in a comprehensive philosophical dictionary, because Thrasymachus represented a serious alternative to Plato's theory of justice, and Hitler "influenced" an entire generation of Critical Theorists...who sought ways to account for the rise of radical evil and to prevent its return.

Therefore you need a way to disambiguate two types of cites. In type (1) we cite the philosophical layperson and in type (2) we incorporate another's thought.

As to the Stanford entry, the process of actually reading Rand is incredibly painful. It's like grading English papers in a junior college. My guess is that whatever unfortunate grad student got the job regrets it and the entry isn't appearing because he's drinking himself to death.

Lilith2396 (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources moved from ex links section

I have removed the following from the external links section per WP:EL. If editors feel that any of these constitute reliable sources that may be of use, they are free to integrate them into the article as in-line citations:

Critical views

• Big Sister is Watching You by Whittaker Chambers, originally from the National Review
  • A Half-Century-Old Attack on Ayn Rand Reminds Us of the Dark Side of Conservatism by Robert Tracinski, rebutting Chambers's review
• The Concerned Novelist by Alper Ecer, (originally published in the Turkish academic magazine "Liberal Thought" of Association of Liberal Thinking)

Audio, video and transcripts

• "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" — Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974
• American Writers: Ayn Rand C-SPAN 2002 RTSP videos.
• Template:WiredForBooks
• 1961 interview with Ayn Rand
• Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5
• The End of the Road - 4 Apr. 1968 broadcast on WBAI
• Campus Or Battleground: A Report on the Events at Columbia University - 15 Oct. 1968 broadcast on WBAI
• The Invasion Of Czechoslovakia - 30 Oct. 1968 broadcast on WBAI

Regards, Skomorokh 20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult criticism

This really applies to the Objectivist movement (where its explored more fully), but I still think some mention of this should be made in this article. Idag (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it's right there in the Objectivist movement section:

Several prominent critics of the movement accused it of being a cult,[35] claiming that it exhibited typical cult traits, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrine and extreme adulation of the founder. Objectivists counter that even if some of Rand's followers have acted like cultists, this was not intended by Rand, and note that Rand explicitly condemned "blind followers"[36]

Do you think more needs to be added? Skomorokh 23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most biography articles have criticisms of the person's work as well. See, e.g., Karl Marx and Hegel. For length reasons, I don't think we need to hash it out in the article, but just put in something that says "hey, this criticism of her philosophy movement exists". Idag (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we are talking past each other, but the cult criticism is mentioned in this very article - Ayn Rand. I've quoted from the relevant section above. Could you be a little clearer? Skomorokh 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it (I thought you were referring to the Objectivist article). Its all good then =) Idag (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Word

I've provided multiple cites and reasons why the reference to philosopher should remain. It seems the majority of posters here are more willing to consider the posts of Edward, the block dodger and insult hurler, and Bert, the POV pusher. I've repeatedly asked for Good Faith and repeatedly daelt with arguments from good faith editors reasonably. I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and produced high quality sources, and people make barely a mention of them before breazing over to Edward and Bert's POV that goes against these sources. What this means to me is that this article is waste of time. The POV hatred of Rand is more important than wikipedia guidelines. I'm used t having insults hurled at me and have tried to be as calm and cool as possible, but the guidlines appear to be a joke. Trolls and insult hurlers get heard more than people who provide real valid quality sources? It's sad. I salute Skomorokh who spent the day making positive edits and contriutions to the article, he represents the ideal of what a good wikipedia editor should be. Now I'll give Bert and Edward what they really want, I will really step away from the debate so they can have there fake POV view put up. Im unwatching this article and leaving it for others to waste time over. Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have been positive and we are certainly not ignoring your sources. We're just trying to come up with a compromise solution that incorporates all the sources (notice that Bert and Edward haven't really provided anything to this debate). J Readings and I have found sources that call Rand an "author" and, per Wikipedia policies, we are simply trying to fomulate a neutral lead by essentially stating what Rand did and letting the reader decide what adjective to call her. Personally, I hope that you will return to this article since you have provided many positive edits. Idag (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Edward provided a very neutral lead which I promoted and cleaned up, and both of us have contributed to this discussion by expressing a non-Randian view. In any case, Ethan isn't so much acting as an individual as a willing tool of the ARI, so his absence only means that others of his (hive) mindset will take over. - Bert 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

By the way, if you delete the above paragraph again, I'll report your censorship and have you banned. That is your only warning, so pay attention to it. - Bert 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried incorporating the few reasonable-looking suggestions for improvements to the lead (excluding those that were ill-conceived), but none of them produced a better result than the original. For editorial consistency with other lists I added a comma to the list of professions. The article has a readable, interesting lead which concisely captures just the subject's essentials, and it even flags the profession "philosopher" with a note explaining her relation to academia, which satisfies legitimate concern about possible misunderstanding. I don't want to join into the argument, but I note that the term is being used correctly according to reliable dictionaries. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Bert was right: Ethan ran off and brought in another Randroid, DAGwyn, to take advantange of the biased "protection" on the article. Oh, and I'm not a night owl, I just work shifts. 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Unsourced assertions removed to talk page

"Ashland University in Ohio, Cambridge University, and the University of Pittsburgh."

"At the University of Pittsburgh the research is headed by professors James Lennox and Allan Gotthelf, both of whom are renowned for their illuminations of Aristotle's writings."

Regards, J Readings (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Duke University's professor Gary Hull is a member of the Ayn Rand Institute and has lectured courses incorporating Objectivist literature and discussion. Professor Gotthelf has identified certain trends in contemporary academic philosophy which make philosophers more receptive to Objectivist ideas: chief among these are the notions of essence and concept as epistemological, developments in virtue ethics, and current projects in normative philosophies of science and logic."

The above paragraph is also unsourced and it currently reads like original research. J Readings (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably also mention that the first two sentences in the "Rand's work and academic philosophy" section also strike me as being either original research or original synthesis (though I could be wrong), but I'm leaving them for now.J Readings (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Want real bias? Check out this sentence:

"While in general Rand's work has had little effect on academic philosophy—her followers being largely drawn from other professions—there has been an increased scholarly interest in her work in recent years."

Look at how hard this sentence bends over backwards to say that Rand's followers come from "other professions". Professions? Wait, you mean none of them are blue-collar workers? Even if they're professional doctors and programmers or whatever, they're not professional philosophers. At most, they're amateur philosophers, if not mere clueless poseurs. Incidentally, so was Rand, so it all fits.

What's sick is that high school and college kids are flattered into thinking they're philosophers when all they've learned is Rand's very twisted outsider's view of the field. They master a Bizarro version of philosophy without ever encountering the real thing. And by the time they do run into real philosophers, they can only discuss them in terms of how they err by disagreeing with Her Holiness.

It's a cult, not a philosophy, and this article is a hagiography, not a biography. All of your well-meaning but decidedly minor improvements amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. The phrase "her followers being largely drawn from other professions" was added by an opponent of Rand's ideas, but in any case Rand would be irrelevant if the majority of her followers were professional philosophers. The phrase serves no neutral purpose and should be removed. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith

I have had it. My time has been wasted with the utmost in ex nihilo incivility and bad faith. A troll posts anonymously and insincerely: I have identified myself and I mean what I say. But I shall no longer interact with this page. Instead, I shall rip this issue a new asshole in the form of an article in a philosophy journal. Good bye. - Nilges

While I slept, an administrator with a terrible track record has decided to take sides and silence at least three particpants in the consensus-building process by putting a stealth semi-protection on the article. As far as I know, placing any sort of protection without a notice in the article is against the rules, as is doing so without announcing your actions to other admins. Moreover, the last time someone used a semi-protection here, it was recognized as biased, and therefore upgraded to a full protection. It looks like nothing has been learned, and we're back where we began.

At this point, the semi-protection has to go, either removed entirely or replaced with full protection that affects all participants without singling out those who do not wish to sign up for accounts. - Bert 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The page has been protected to prevent editing by a user who has been indefinitely blocked and is now getting around his block by editing anonymously. Unfortunately, this is the only way to deal with him because if we block a specific IP, he'll just edit from a different computer. I am sorry that you are sharing his company, but just make an account. You're signing your posts with your name anyway, so it really won't make any difference and you'll be able to edit. Idag (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This happens not to be true. Edward is supposedly blocked, but he's agreed on his own not to edit the article and to limit his contributions to this talk page. In addition, there's been no evidence to link him to any other account that's editing here. Therefore, the semi-protection can't have anything to do with stopping Edward. And let me remind you that I am under no obligation to create an account, and neither is that night owl anon. - Bert 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That night owl anon has vandalized this page [6]. You are of course under no obligation to create an account, but then you will be affected by the semi-protect that has been put in place to protect this page from vandalism. If you feel that strongly about creating an account, then let me remind you that there still plenty of noncontroversial pages on Wikipedia that you can edit anonymously. Idag (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your subjectivity is dominating your judgement.

This page is full of strong words, and many remarks are entirely uncivil. In particular, Ethan is frequently guilty of this, to the point where a third party recently felt compelled to edit out one of his more offensive statements. The comment you keep deleting is far more civil than almost everything that Ethan wrote, so if you were at all consistent, then this page would be empty. Instead, you're judging me under a tougher standard than you apply to Ethan, which is a type of perceptual bias. My comment is strong, but civil.

Just as you falsly equate comments you dislike with attacks, you falsely equate article edits you don't like with vandalism. The night owl did not replace the article with "Ayn Rand sucks!" or anything else that patently degrades the quality of its content. Instead, he or she rolled the contents back to the last edit before the wrong version got frozen into place. This necessarily undid all the changes that were snuck in while the unfair semi-protection lock was on, including many drastic changes that were made without prior discussion, much less consensus. For that matter, this editor has participated in disucssions here and has justified these actions. In short, while you may not like that bit of editing, it is anything but vandalism.

Finally, the current semi-protection is based on stated claim that a banned editor is hiding under an IP, but that's flatly false. There's no evidence to suggest that either the night owl or myself are banned or blocked or whatever. The only one who's banned is Edward, and he's agreed not to edit the article.

In short, on three issues, you are completely out of touch with the truth. - Bert 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sticking in "I love Kevin" into an Ayn Rand article is vandalism. As far as Ethan, he has made many constructive edits to this article. Looking at your edit history, all you have done so far is get into edit wars and insult the editors on the talk page. You have not sourced a single unsourced statement or made any other edit that this article needs. Looking again at your edit history, it appears that you have yet to make a single constructive edit to ANY article on Wikipedia. Unlike you, Ethan has made a number of edits that have improved this article, he has not called you names and has not accused you of being a "hive mind" and therefore he is not judged under a "more lenient standard". Idag (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kevin edit is random vandalism that doesn't come from the night owl or from anyone who's banned. It's irrelevant noise that you'd like to use as an excuse for a one-sided semi-protection. All of my edits here have been constructive; I'm an NPOV pusher whose job is to keep this article honest. - Bert 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kevin edit was made by 69.113.176.28, please see the link I posted earlier which identifies the source of the edit. Please point to a single (non-edit warring) constructive edit that you have made to this article. Idag (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The Kevin guy is a random, drive-by vandal, not a persistent problem. The only other anon edit was by me, and I explained why I rolled back all the changes since the admin bias kicked in. There's no excuse for this semi-protection and I will roll back all changes once it's gone. 19:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Propose Archiving

This talk page has yet again gotten ridiculously long. Would someone be willing to archive it soon? It appears many of these conversations are no longer significantly active. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have begun removing extraneous material. If people object to anything I remove, put it back and post a note here in a new subsection and we can reach consensus on whether to keep it where to put it. Also, I have rewritten the second paragraph of the lede to be more neutral. I would appreciate it if this section remain free of any discussion as to whether or not Rand is a philosopher. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Influences

In her 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from, she replied:

"Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgment of a debt to Aristotle, who was the only philosospher who ever influenced me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.253.19 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is largely correct, although oversimplified (as one might expect for a TV talk show). Rand claimed to derive the rest of her philosophical system step by step from its metaphysical basis, along with specific observations about the characteristic nature of certain entities (such as man). She attributed her metaphysical basis essentially to Aristotle: primacy of existence, law of identity, law of noncontradiction.

Are you suggesting some change in the article text? If so, what and where? — DAGwyn (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe this could be used as an additional source for the statement that she never read Kant. Idag (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But it's not. Rand certainly read writings of some philosophers other than Aristotle; it's just that his influence was the only one she thought she owed a debt to. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Rand "certainly" read writings of any philosophers? Branden said she didn't read Kant.

Let's take a look at her *magnum opus*, "For the New Intellectual".

Hmm. No index: no bibliography. Bitch too lazy? An index and references are a minor but real prerequisite in a scholarly book. My Goddess, she doesn't even meet your standards.

OK, so she read Aristotle? Let's see what she says:

Plato's system was a monument to the Witch Doctor's metaphysics - with its two realities, with the physical world as a semi-illusory, imperfect, inferior realm, subordinated to a realm of abstractions (which means, in fact, though not in Plato's statement: subordinated to man's consciousness) with reason in the position of an inferior but necessary servant that paves the way for the ultimate burst of mystic revelation which discloses a "superior" truth. But Aristotle's philosophy was the intellect's Declaration of Independence. Aristotle, the father of logic, should be given the title of the world's first intellectual [ta da], in the purest and noblest sense of that word. No matter what remnants of Platonism did exist in Aristotle's system, his incomparable achievement lay in the fact that he defined the basic [tan tan tara] principles of a rational view of existence and of man's consciousness: that there is only one reality, the one which man perceives-that it exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the consciousness, the wishes or feelings of any perceiver)-that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not create, reality)-that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not create reality...that A is A.

If submitted anonymously as part of a paper in any good Philosophy 101 class, the teacher would fail the student, because what she has written gives no evidence of reading either Plato or Aristotle.

1. The student gives no evidence that she knows that many Platonic dialogues presented "his" philosophy as the words of Socrates, who far from being a "witch doctor", claimed to know very little: to think without illusions. He asked people questions to undermine preconceptions.

2. Plato didn't posit two realities. He said that ordinary sensory reality is a shadow of Reality as derived and evanescent as the shadows on the wall of a cave lit only by fire. The abstractions were his only reality, and they were, as is mathematics, independent of man's consciousness. In fact, Plato would be offended by Rand's charge that his World of Forms was consciousness-dependent. That's precisely what the Forms are not.

3. Plato found evidence, in trying to teach slaves and women, that the ability to comprehend demonstrations was rare, almost mystical. But calling it mystical doesn't make it mystical, since for him each step in awareness had to be justified by reason. There is evidence for this "anti-anti-intellectualism" that confronts teachers when they actually try to use formal methods in class, and here (when people use misinterpretations of administrative rules to avoid thought).

[The origin of the inability of slaves, women and thugs like Thrasymachus to follow dialectics was a consequence of evolution and their struggle for survival: Plato's Guardians are supported by the state merely to avoid the self-interest of slave thought. Anthropology tells us that for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, homo "sapiens" was only sapient enough to use tools but could not make tools: this may be an evolutionary explanation of why even today, people learn at second-rate uni to "use" the results of Enlightenment while in effect being forced by administrative tricks not to participate in a continued enlightenment.]

[Although the administered world sets its face against Islam, it says "the gates of itijihad are closed to its little computer tenders" and this reification is so attractive, promising as it does access to the megafortunes of the computer thugs while of course withholding that promise in virtual slavery, that wikipedians, thirsting for alienation, construct play-pens in which they reproduce the miserable conditions of their work.]

[Texts like Rand contain of course nothing like logic, and are reassurances, despite their lack of even such basic apparati as indexes and references, that their reader is an intellectual, especially if he sends the embedded postal card to the "Ayn Rand Institute", whose 1984ish O'Briens will, he is reassured, be in touch with him in order to reassure him he's not a complete fool. ]

4. Aristotle did not posit a unitary sensory reality, for the very good reason that we are deceived by the senses and he knew this. Furthermore, Rand makes a real howler. If reality is independent of "consciousness, wishes, and feelings" then it can not only not be created, it cannot be changed. Without apparently proofreading, Rand has said literally here that no part of reality can be altered by the will. Which flies in the face of common sense, expressed in the Serenity Prayer: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".

For example, Rand had a childish love of choo-choo trains and was thrilled to take the controls of a New York Central train as a temporary giant phallus. Yet precisely when she published her magnum opus, the American railroad passenger system destroyed itself, and what was so solid to her, such an unquestionable reality, is now a collection of rusted rolling stock through which the field-mouse trots in a peaceful spot, surrounded by whispering ears of corn, in Union, Illinois, at the "Illinois Railroad Museum".

Rand is no philosopher, nor had she read philosophy. Please use the lead Edward Nilges has proposed.

Lilith2396 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC

It's obvious that Lilith is simply a troll looking for attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.24.252 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been wondering if she is a sock puppet for Nilges, since the argumentation is so similar (and so similarly misguided). I learned long ago, the hard way, not to attempt to refute such argumentation point by point. If I thought it might be somebody seriously trying to understand an issue through dialogue, then I'd be much more sympathetic and probably enter into discussion so long as progress seemed likely, although in another venue since this is not a proper forum for such discussions. However, her/Nilges' mischaracterizations of both Rand's ideas and this article's discussion history lead me to doubt very much that truth or understanding are among her goals. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Philosopher:" some definitions and some mainstream sources

The dictionary (AHD4) defines "philosopher" as "1. A student of or specialist in philosophy. 2. A person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy" and defines "philosophy" as:

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Obviously Rand meets many of those definitions. Personally, I'd say she is a "student of or specialist in" in philosophy in its meanings 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, but not 5 and 6. Whether you label her a "philosopher" or not is a matter of opinion.

It is a "fact about opinion" that some sources use the label "philosopher" and some do not.

The Columbia Encyclopedia does not label her a "philosopher" but does say that "Her novels are romantic and dramatic, and they espouse a philosophy of rational self-interest that opposes the collective of the modern welfare state."

Britannica opens with the sentence "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic."

Encarta opens with "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate."

Her obituary in The New York Times opens with the sentence: "Ayn Rand, the writer and philosopher of objectivism who espoused "rational selfishness" and capitalism unbound, died yesterday morning at her home on East 34th Street."

Most mainstream sources consider her a novelist first, philosopher second; e.g. the Time obituary's headline is "Ayn Rand, 'Fountainhead' Author, Dies." Dpbsmith (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

...which essentially is what I (and one or two other established editors) have been saying all along, hence my suggestion to use a database review (complemented by how other secondary and tertiary sources describe her en masse) to confirm how she was (and is) identified in the reliable third-party media. Unfortunately, focusing on what these sources say ON BALANCE in this discussion has been marginalized by the somewhat understandable, but constant need (?) to react to (rebut?) anon IPs. It's a shame, really. Personally, I've refrained a little from editing the article until the dust settles. I'm afraid this article still needs a lot of work in terms of balanced substance, correct wikification, cleanup, and lead writing if it ever hopes to get an upgrade, but we can discuss those details in other sections. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When this issue came up previously, I found similar definitions in a different dictionary, and noted that Rand is properly termed a "philosopher" on several counts. Thanks for the additional references showing that she is widely regarded as one by the general public. This issue is ironic, since if the member-of-the-club definition were operative, then Rand would not have wanted to have been so labeled anyway, due to her low opinion of the contemporary state of that profession. (A view shared by many academics in other fields.) — DAGwyn (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the appellation a person is given should be based on what they are known for. For instance, "Ayn Rand, cat-fancier" would be inappropriate, since it isn't what people think of when they think of her, even though it's accurate. I think she is known for her philosophy almost as much as for her novels, and that grants her the title of philosopher. To recall something mentioned earlier, noone thinks "Mao, the philosopher" when asked to recall Mao. Plenty of people think "Ayn Rand, philosopher" when asked to recall Ayn Rand, particularly when in an academic environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.86.104 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I was making a slightly different point, although it seems that we are in general agreement on the "philosopher" issue. It would be correct to say "Rand was a cat fancier," since in fact she met the requirements to be included in that category based on the most common meaning(s) of the term. It merely wouldn't be correct to imply that that is the primary thing she is known for. (By the way, she was also a philatelist.) — DAGwyn (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In case the issue of "Is Rand a philosopher" pops up again, here is another cite. Or sort-of cite. The book "Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought" will be published by Blackwell in their companion series. The volume is being edited by Allan Gotthelf and Greg Salmieri. Its publication date is 2010, so it doesn't count until then. But keep it in mind any way. Endlessmike 888 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Well, her summation of Plato is pretty good, and Rand's is really bad. Plato as anti-rational? That's rather odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P97dav45 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Talk Page Semi-Protection

Almost all of the problems that have taken place here are due to editors operating from anonymous IP addresses. Nilges' filibustering has by and large prevented any other discussion from taking place on this page. I understand that this is something of an extraordinary step, but I think that we should consider having this talk page semi-protected. This is less than desirable, but I'm afraid it may be necessary to stop the incessant trolling here. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its necessary just because the main article is semi-protected. There have been constructive anon contributions in the past and I'd hate to completely strip all anons of a chance to contribute to this article just because of a few bad apples. Idag (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Idag. As much as I find "Bert" and Edward/Lilith to be annoying, disruptive, and insulting I think it's fine to just delete their posts/edits rather than block all anonymous editors. Let them then wail about it on Ed's Yahoo Group. It' takes far less time to delete their posts than it does to make them (even though they have cut and pasted the same comments back several times.) Eventually they'll either get bored with being disruptive or create other accoutns and become constructive. In any case, I do not care. They are not worth my time. I'm still not going to bother editing this article as it's not worth the effort required to dig through the BS. If someone wants anything looked up though, feel free to post to my talk page and I'll see what i can find. Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

With some trepidation I have added an observation to Rand's view of the LP, from her letter of April 17, 1947, stating that an agreement to forego the initiation of force would suffice for a Utopia on earth and would provide enough of a practical moral code. (Letters of Ayn Rand, hardcover, p. 366) I studied under Tara Smith and worked for Petr Beckmann and keep a site at jhenryphillips.com where I show graphically that all major changes in US laws have come from the platforms of minor parties. The edit reflects verifiable facts. I have tired of restoring the summary of what she taught as three bullet points because it was repeatedly effaced by persons I took to be vandals of the looter persuasion. translator (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Atlasphere

With good intentions no doubt, an editor just added this sentence to the influence section on the main page:

"The Atlasphere," an online community devoted to admirers of Rand, maintains a blog citing Rand's influence on popular or newsworthy figures who cite the influence of Rand's works on their lives."

Am I alone in thinking this addition is really not appropriate for this biography? Policies and guidelines aside (and I can think of at least a couple that discourage us from adding "fan sites" to BLP pages, not to mention the issue of blogs themselves and their notability), the linked page indicates that it's primarily a dating service. I'd like to remove it unless I'm overlooking something. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote to remove itEthan a dawe (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it. It's a link to a dating site. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it does not offer a unique resource beyond the article. Skomorokh 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a similar external link previously, but at some point most such links were removed, and I generally approve of the policy of minimizing links to incidental (though related) sites. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Hi, IMHO Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life - a documentary based on her life ought to find a mention in the Film Adaptatinos section of the article. The documentary was nominated for The Best Documentary Oscar in 1998. IMDb page link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/ The documentary finds a mention in reference numbers 2 and 13, but not in the main article. Also, the link given to the synopsis of the documentary is rotten. 59.178.180.73 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A link is probably appropriate, but not in the Film Adaptations section, since this wasn't one of Rand's works, but rather a work about Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Racism question

I have a lot of difficulty with the idea that Rand was not a racist. I'm not sure how it can be addressed in the article. Like a lot of her philosophy she suggests axioms that seem ethical and then she contradicts these axioms once she elaborates on what they mean. One of these views that really stands out is her view of racism.

Despite what she has stated in her literature about racism, there are several aspects in her writings that contradict her public position. First, in novels such as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged all of the intellectual elite are Caucasian. She does not remotely entertain the notion that a Negro could be an intellectual. Second, in her own argument against racism she states that Negroes are "Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas" which suggests that all black people are a collective of pin-heads, which is definitely a racist outlook. Whether or not she agreed with affirmative action, its ridiculous to espouse the view that all black people got together made this political decision.

I'm just wondering if there is an acceptable way to address that her views toward racism are contradicted in her writings. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd certainly like to be set straight. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever come across substantial accusations of racism on Rand's part, but if you can find reliably sourced criticism I'm sure we can add it to the article. Sincerely, Skomorokh 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, you can't put your own thoughts/research into the article, but if you find an authoritative third party who makes these assertions, then we can put that party's views in. Idag (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I understood Skomorokh. However, I was hoping someone would be able to clarify the issue instead of simply saying something like "well, I've never read that she was racist, but if you find something let us know". My whole point was that her very own words in her article on racism seem to indicate that while she says her philosophy is not racist, the fact that she considers all black people a collective is, in fact, racist. I was just hoping someone on here with more philosophical acumen than I could either shoot that point down or possibly shed better light on it with a reference I might not be aware of. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm afraid you are in the wrong place; this is a talkpage for discussing improvements to the Ayn Rand article, not a forum for discussing the topic. What you are looking for is the Humanties reference desk, where Wikipedians answer reader questions; you might have better luck there. Regards, Skomorokh 05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In some ways Rand's personal views reflect the default assumptions of the culture she grew up in, unless something happened to cause her to examine her assumptions. In particular, her characters reflect her own imagination, and naturally she imagined mainly people resembling the actual and fictional characters that she was familiar with. I wouldn't fault her for not giving special treatment to people of a particular race (e.g. blacks). If you understood her analysis of what is wrong with racism (namely, that it treats an individual on the basis of accidental characteristics rather than on the basis of what he has volitional control over), you would also understand that singling out particular races for reparational favorable treatment is every bit as racist as singling them out for hatred. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate quotation marks

"Rand supported Israel during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which she saw as an attack by "a primitive society" on a government that supported individual rights."

The quotation marks amount to the author inserting his own verdict of her statement. She considered it a primitive society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.165.27 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate thing to do here would be to find a full quote and let that speak for itself. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The preface "she saw as" obviates the need for quotation marks, since it is already made clear that that was her own view. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-partisan Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

Here and in the Objectivism article, this journal is described as "non-partisan". Given the affiliations and interests of the editorial board and their advisors, this is a controversial claim which needs a supporting citation. I know the editors themselves call it a non-partisan journal, but that really isn't sufficient for Wikipedia. Does anyone have independent support for the claim?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Just check out the authors who have so far been published in the journal to see that many of them are definitely not Objectivists. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't work that way. If I carry out that enquiry and draw my own conclusion, it's OR and hence a waste of time. Is there an independent, authoritative cite?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That's a distortion of the intent of the Wikipedia policy, which was meant to resolve editorial dispute about fact. If you actually follow my advice above, you would see what the fact is. Under your interpretation, you could cite my claim above (or a similar one made elsewhere) as a reference, and any counter-claim as a conflicting reference, etc. and end up with an article that conveys nothing factual, just random utterings! — DAGwyn (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't really understand much of that. By "reference", do you mean citation? Obviously you can't use the claims of Wiki editors as citations. The simple point I am making - which distorts nothing - is that it is not the business of Wiki editors to determine what the facts are. Wiki requires an authoritative citation, and a citation from the magazine itself, touting its own virtues, is not appropriate.

This is easy really. Either there's an authoritative citation or there isn't.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I disagree. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to present the most significant facts concerning the targeted range of subjects. The Wikipedia policies about citations were specifically meant to address the problem of arbitrary claims; supporting documentation adds weight to a claim. However, in many cases the facts are so easy to verify that nobody "authoritative" has bothered to write them up. Practically every Wikipedia article contains several factual claims in that category.

In this particular instance, the Table of Contents of the Journal list all authors' names, several of which should be familiar as non-Objectivist scholars. (And naturally many others are Objectivists to some degree.) But even easier, just click on the link given as a reference: You get a page full of reviews of the journal, with many comments on its content and contributors. For example: "'The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances,' wrote Mr. Bernstein ..." (a well-known "hard-line" Objectivist). Thus the existing reference is exactly what is needed to justify the claim made in the text. I considered other ways to word it, but the current text is nicely phrased. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If the conclusions from the link are obvious, then there's no need for us to synthesize them. We've included the link and since the non-partisan nature of the source is evident from the link, then we can just leave the link up there and let interested readers click on it to draw their own conclusions. What's the point of adding our own two cents? Idag (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Idag on this issue. There is no point in engaging in original synthesis to make a point. That's clearly against policy. On the other hand, we are not supposed to be promoting one journal over another with self-serving adjectives like ("non-partisan") unless a reliable third-party source also makes the claim. That is the point that (I think) KD Tries Again is trying to make and I agree with him. I second Idag's motion to remove the POV adjectives and just leave the link. Let readers make up their own minds. J Readings (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with omitting the adjective is that there are a lot of readers like KD who would assume (without further investigation) that the Journal is simply one-sided propaganda, and thus would dismiss a valuable resource for gaining further understanding of the subject. "Non-partisan" is the simplest wording we could use to deter that misimpression. It's not POV, it's an accurate description. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you've arrived at that conclusion by synthesizing data available on that site and that violates WP:Syn. If its truly non-partisan, there should be a source somewhere mentioning that fact (maybe an author citing this site as a reliable source in an article?). Idag (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as "one-sided propaganda", I think that our mention of the fact that its peer-reviewed takes care of that bias. Idag (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Two problems with DAGwyn's position. First, anyone inclined to assume that the journal is one-sided propaganda is not going to have their fears allayed because someone claims it's 'nonpartisan'. Quite the opposite. The very phrase 'nonpartisan' provoked my curiosity. You don't see anyone talk about the 'nonpartisan' Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. The term protests too much. Second, it's not Wiki's job to promote the journal as a useful resource. Agree with keeping the link and losing the puff.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

"Peer-reviewed" is insufficient if the reader is likely to assume that the "peers" are all advocates. In my most recent edit to the article, I moved the "nonpartisan" descriptor to be adjacent to "peer-reviewed," which I think works best; part of the qualification now adheres to the peers with less emphasis on the Journal. As to what the Wikipedia's job is, first and foremost must be to be a good encyclopedia. Part of that is to minimizing opportunities for the general readership to form a counterfactual impression based on the phrasing. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rand's support for WWII

In the Wars section it is asserted that Rand opposed involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Korean war. The only documentation of this claim is from an uncited argument piece in a an advocacy site, ARI Watch. ARI watch is an anonymous issue site (apparently intended to oppose military action in Iraq) with no physical address, contact information, or affiliation given. While Rand's support for WWI and the Korean War would need to be documented, and she is obviously critical of the reasons given by Roosevelt and Wilson for entering the world wars, there is no documentation whatsoever to show that she actively opposed entry into WWII. To the contrary, in her Journals, p 315, she states:

"And what about this last war? Who started it? The alliance of two dictators - Hitler and Stalin. Now observe a most significant point: the American-British strategy throughout the war was to destroy the production centers of the enemy and knock him out - because America and England were not after loot, they had nothing to gain by the war, they were the productive nations and were merely defending themselves."

Note Rand identifies America and Britain as acting in self-defense, a primary issue of her politics. She does not criticize the war as a matter between Germany and England. Rather, she defends Britain's strategy throughout.

This assertion of Rand's having opposed WWII is unproven and undocumented. The claim is made nowhere except on an anonymously hosted issue site, ariwatch.com, with the self-serving implication that Rand would have opposed US military action in response to the September 11 attacks, since she 'opposed' WWII. Using an anonymously run issue site which exists to oppose the Ayn Rand Institute's support for a military action that began twenty years after Rand's death as the sole documentation for such a controversial and dubious claim is unacceptable.

In the spirit of self-disclosure, I am an active poster at rebirthofreason.com, my username there being Ted Keer. I am critical of ARI and not affiliated with that organization or any other. My sole concern is that this highly dubious (I would say false) claim be removed from this otherwise excellent article. Kjaer (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)