Talk:Ayn Rand

RfC: Keep or Remove Raymond Boisvert?

Should Raymond Boisvert be mentioned in the section on Philosophical criticism of Ayn Rand? Previous discussion on this matter has taken place above and in the archives. It seems no consensus was reached, as the question still seems to be the subject of apparently heated edit warring. Please precede your comment with either Keep or Remove. Macduff (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove

The reference, no matter how well published Raymond Boisvert may be, is vague to the point of meaninglessness. A claim (paraphrased - not a direct quote) that someone twenty six years deceased is "out of sync" has no objective meaning or even clear connotation. The reference is to what we must presume to be a local interest story in an Albany, NY newspaper, near Siena College. A google search for "Ayn Rand" returns over 3.5 million hits, a similar search for "Ayn Rand YouTube" [!] returns 198,000 hits, and a search for "Ayn Rand periodical" returns over 30,000 hits. There is no shortage of available comment on Rand! Presumably, there are many newspaper articles on Rand, a few of which may have something more informative to say than that she was "out of sync" with something. The contributor is free to cite a philosophically or literarily relevant journal article, should one exist, by Boisvert on Rand. `There are innumerable critics of Rand who have written uncounted articles and essays about her views, art, and private life. The issue is not Boisvert's supposedly being critical of Rand, which is acceptable, but the utter meaninglessness and banality of the criticism, and its total lack of academic meaning or context. The supposed criticism enlightens the reader in no way whatsoever about the subject of the article. Kjaer (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are innumerable critics of Rand who have written uncounted articles and essays about her views, art, and private life. Kjaer, on this issue, you keep mentioning it, but it would be helpful if you actually cited a few concrete examples to support it, so that they can be considered for the article. I'm asking in good faith, actually. If you (or Macduff) honestly want to make room in the article for other criticisms that you have available (so this one brief sentence--which is certainly not undue weight in the article--can be sidelined), that I could understand a little bit more. Otherwise, this campaign strikes me as being a very subjective personal judgment call on what people can and cannot read by published and notable authors, academics and journalists. That sets a dangerous precedent, consistent with censorship (a Wikipedia no-no). As for Boisvert, he also argued in the same article that Objectivism was a "fairly marginalized movement" but that, too, was removed because another user did not agree with Boisvert's opinion (which, ironically, is consistent with the first sentence in the criticism section anyway). Apparently, no one is allowed to quote an actual well-respected, prolific academic of philosophy stating what is already implied in the first sentence by a journalist because someone did not agree with the criticism--as if agreeing with the quoted substance had any relevance when writing an encyclopedia article. J Readings (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not my duty to do your research for you. I criticize Rand myself quite vigorously, where she deserves it, and in a manner that makes sense. But I am not pushing a POV or my own research. I am simply repeating that this comment is of no help to anyone who doesn't know Rand - and that is the ultimate determiner of relevance. Kjaer (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not my duty to do your research for you. Excuse me, but you were the one making the claims that there are so many criticisms out there. Now, suddenly, you're backing away from the assertion without offering any substantiation. Surely you can find at least one, otherwise why make the claim in the first place? But I am not pushing a POV or my own research. And you are implying that I am? J Readings (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove As I have previously stated, the guy is not notable and inclusion of this comment, made in a local newspaper decades after Ayn's death, as a "Philosophical criticism" is laughable. Macduff (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove I agree with Kjaer. Boisvert's criticism was neither notable nor, so far as one can tell from the citation, "argued;" it seems to be just one person's opinion expressed on one occasion, not representative of a significant line of criticism of Rand's ideas. The cited article is apparently not available on line; I searched the newspaper to no avail. I did manage to find a brief faculty page for Boisvert, which says that he has a professional interest in Pragmatism, which is consistent with what was cited. Of course Rand was critical of Pragmatism (which she saw as abandoning all respect for reason in philosophy), so it could be that Boisvert was merely grinding an axe. Anyway, as it stands the text in question contributes nothing useful to the article and has been given undue weight. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Both Google Scholar and JSTOR show that Boisvert has published numerous philosophy articles and has been cited a number of times. Therefore, he qualifies as a reputable source under WP:V. As a summary of a reputable source, the inclusion of Boisvert's views is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. I am trying very hard to assume good faith here, but particularly harsh critcism of Rand always seems to get edited out with, at best, a marginal reason being given for the removal. Idag (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this qualify as "harsh" criticsim of Rand? It counts as laughable and philosophically meaningless criticism of Rand - as stated, an unargued opinion from no matter how 'notable' a source, in a non-scholarly, unverifiable local newspaper article. This reference does not make Rand look bad, it makes the article look bad. Kjaer (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Idag. The arguments here for censorship are a little silly. I realize some people haven't read all of the policies and guidelines yet (that's understandable), but "argued" is the preferred word to maintain NPOV language per WP:AVOID. That's why it's used in the article. And I need to address a couple of other misunderstandings. Newspapers are allowed per WP:RS to cite opinions, not "facts" (which this obviously is). Second, verifiability means that you can go to LexisNexis or Factiva (where I found the criticism) or alternatively a major library and look something up. It's a common mistake to assume that "verifiability" somehow means either "on-line" or "free" or both. But you don't need to take my word for it -- ask any experienced editor on the noticeboards and they should be able to advise. I could even forward some links to where this was discussed recently on the reliable source noticeboard, if you'd prefer. Either way, it would be a nice gesture of good-faith if you eventually restore my comment that was removed above. I don't understand why you deleted it, thoughtfully acknowledged that you did on my talk page (thanks), but never restored it. J Readings (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I do think that the Boisvert excerpt needs elaboration because it is currently unclear. However, I'm voting "Keep" because this discussion is about whether we should remove it altogether. I vote that we keep it and then elaborate to clarify Boisvert's criticism. Idag (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Remove. "Out of sync" could mean many, many things, and is an extraordinarily vague statement. Note that my opposition is not to having Boisevert--he's clearly notable. My concern is that this is an extremely vague, amorphous criticism. How is Rand out of sync? Why? If a more specific criticism can be found, or some explanation included as to why/how he felt Rand was out of sync, then that should be used instead. Otherwise, I just don't see what this adds to the article. There is plenty of substantial criticism on Rand out there--let's use it. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Remove & replace'. There is no absolutely valid reason to remove it. Calling it "laughable" is incorrect and rather bad form. Nothing at all against citing the Albany Times-Union, but they're not a real "go-to" source for an analysis of philosophy, pseudo-philosophy or literary criticism. Reputable sources (like Boisevert) probably do tend to stay away from publishing comment on Rand, but on the other hand, there's probably better stuff out there. Calamitybrook (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Keep'. Saying there's more substantial criticism available is no reason for removing what we have. First insert the substantial criticisms; maybe at some point Boisevert will become duplicative and superflous.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Keep. The criteria that should be applied are: a) Is there a source reference? b) Is the criticism relevant (not valid, fair, etc. but relevant. Is it a sustained piece of criticism, not just a snarky sound bite in passing? Yes. Is it directed at objectivism? Yes. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Remove'. Too vague, suggestions of some animus on the part of the Boisevert, neither the criticism nor the source are appropriate for philosophical criticism (the Albany times isn't where I go for philosophical criticism). The qualitity of the articles calls for keeping this kind of fluff out. Would it make any sense to find a quote from someone in a newpaper that says "Ayn Rand's philosophy is so clearly in sync with our modern times" and put that into the article as a statement for the 'Philosophy: Objectivism' section? I don't think so. --Steve (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem: I am sure many who have criticized Rand also have some "animus" against her and her philosophy. It does not follow that the criticisms are not notable, not valid or irrelevant.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

'Remove.' Agree with points made by Kjaer and others above. The quote was published in a small non-academic newspaper and has subsequently received no attention in philosophical or academic discussion of Rand, and for these reasons it does not belong in a section on philosophical criticisms of Rand. In juxtaposition with the widely cited criticism by Nozick (whose contribution, by the way, a major essay in a very prominent academic monograph), even one sentence on this constitutes undue weight. --Wilanthule (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've expressed my thoughts already, so there's no need to restate them here. I certainly respect WP:CONSENSUS -- which is part of the problem because I don't know what the take home message should be at this point. Some editors want to include Boisvert; some don't. Overall, I want to emphasize that I appreciated Wilanthule's measured tone in the previous discussion and I, in no way, want to personalize the issue. Whatever the consensus ends up being, I'll certainly respect it without holding anything against the people who raised the objections. Incidentally, someone refers to Boisvert as a "fag" above and wants him removed for that reason. *Sigh* I realize he's being facetious, but really please -- if it's okay with everyone else, let's not add to the problem with that kind of inappropriate talk. J Readings (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove. It's a trivial criticism having almost no content. A sure sign of this is that it's the sort of thing that can be said of pretty much any work. There have to be criticisms of Rand's work more illuminating and concrete than this one -- God knows I can think of quite a few on my own. --72.43.196.198 (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting Record

Ayn Rand’s voting record for all the presidential elections she was eligible to vote in, 1932 (Herbert Hoover vs. Franklin Roosevelt) to 1980 (Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter), and why she voted as she did, can be found at  http://ARIwatch.com/PresidentialElections-1.htm .

If there were a section on her “practical politics” this would be a useful footnote. — Mark

The problem is, we can't put that up unless a secondary source analyzed the voting trends. Otherwise that would be original research. Idag (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Avalanche

After reading thru over half of today's 44 edits by 72.199.110.160, and seeing such innapropriate edits as adding "popular" before Rand's film Love Letters, wrong capitalizations according to wikipedia standards, and most importantly, changes made with the sole effect of making Nathaniel Branden's position weeker, I have returned the article to the last state before that spate of edits. Some of 72.199.110.160's edits have been helpful, especially in adding references. But this method of editting is simply unacceptable. One cannot spend hours reading minor edits to find the few controversial and unacceptible edits in their midst.

I would suggest that our anonymous editorr chose just one section a day and make as few edits as possible at one time, so that their helpfulness can be evaluated. Any strengthening of the "Valliant" POV should not be accompanied by deleting arguments of the "Branden" POV. Kjaer (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the recent edits (again, far, far too many at once) is that the main point is to introduce a partisan point of view. If we are going to erase the fact that Nathaniel had separated from Barbara (making him look like a three timing monster) and then say that the affair CONTINUED even when he was sleeping with Patrecia, then we have to make clear why Rand knew that there was a problem Branden had stopped sleeping with her! He simply would not reveal to her the reason why, refusing simply to say the affair was over, and submitting to Rand's "counselling". If you want to go there, and I don't, then we are going to go there. I see no point in debating this sordid partisan he-said-she-said matter here. I would prefer that we stick to the plainest facts of what physically happened, and stay away from motivations entirely.

As for the multiple edits, since Idag was happy to take the time to deal with them, I am simply going to move on. But this putting controversial changes within a group of two dozen edits at a time is simply unacceptable. There is a talk page for a reason. look at the history of the war section, and how I made my intended edits clear here long before I did so on the page, and how I made that change in one substantive edit. Future mass edits will be reverted. One cannot make POV edits and use an overwhelming number of changes to get them smuggled in.Kjaer (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and let me add, 72.199.110.160 that most of your edits have been unobjectionable, and some indeed quite helpful. Let me recommend again using the talk page, and editting an entire section at once (i.e., don't save page until you've read the entire section) for typos and style, to avoid the avalanches. Thanks. Kjaer (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also recommend clicking "Show preview" before you save, as that tends to cut down on the typos and various small issues w/ edits. Idag (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough, already. Yesterday, after your last spate of edits, Idag and I left your changes in place. I added a very relevant verbatim quote of Nathaniel Branden's response to Rand's allegations. I did not delete one word of your changes. I added qualifications and further information. You not only re-edited the entire section from scratch, again, you also deleted my verfiable quote of Branbden's letter. This is not good faith editting. You could have tagged any "facts" you found questionable. You could have engaged in debate or simply in discussion on the talk page. You have not done so. Your edits are made with comments in the edit summaries that belong on the talk page, not in summaries that are soon burried in the history because of your incredible number of edits - over twenty today. Since you have deleted Branden's verbatim quote - while protesting LOUDLY IN CAPITALS AS IF THAT IS SOMEHOW MORE PERSUASIVE in your edit summarties you want only the facts - I am a going to take you at your word, and revert to the last version that had that quote in full. If you see any "facts" you want cited, then tag them, and they will be cited within 24 hours. Any changes you want to make, I suggest you make here first in good faith. I believe your intention is too protect Rand. I have no problem with that. But whitewashing and deleting embarassing facts is not acceptible. Kjaer (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon user 72.199.110.160 has received 5 separate messages on his user talk page from User Idag, and has responded to none of them. He also has never entered into discussion on this, or any talk page; this despite being invited to do so in edit summaries. His style of editing is disrespectful to other editors and it is disruptive. The best approach would be a suspension of his editing privileges long enough to get his attention - so that he can learn the proper way to participate in Wikipedia editing. Some people catch on and become valuable editors - some don't. He has to understand the importance of discussing contentious issues on this page before applying it as an edit. And he has to understand the impropriety of making such a large number of edits all at once.--Steve (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So Where to Now?

While I believe that the comments on the affair as they currently stand in the Objectivist Movement section are defensible, I am not happy with either the adversarial nature of the relevant paragraph, nor with its placement in the article.

As to the placement, it is not a philosophical issue, but it falls between a description of Rand's novels above and of the fundamentals of her philosophy below. There is a section on her early life which addresses personal matters, as well as her later life. But this primarily personal matter is thrown in "out of the blue" in a section dealing primarily with her intellectual output and influence.

Second, we have had battling citations with the effect of either strengthening or deleting what amount to partisan counteraccusations. Wherever the affair is dealt with (and it must be, since it is notable, well documented, and had a great effect on the movement which grew up around Rand) I don't think it is best dealt with in this way.

I see a relatively easy solution to the placement issue. Details about the affair should be removed from this section, and mention should simply be made to the end of NBI due to fallout from the end of the affair. Any details on the affair should be moved to either the Later Life section (my preference) or to some other new area dealing with Rand's personal life.

As to the content of the comments, I think at most a brief quote from To Whom it May Concern and from Branden's Letter would be appropriate, with a note that the matter continues to be highly controversial, and the both Brandens have produced their own memoirs, and that Valliant's book has been issued challenging the Branden's motivations and truthfullness. I don't think that any details, quotes, or arguments from any of these posthumous books should be in the article. The general reader will know that there is a matter of controversy, and will know where to look to form his own opinion. It is a battle that need not be settled here.

So, I request comments. Should we not remove all mention of the adetails of the affair, except for its existence and the dissolution of NBI due to its end from the Objectivist movement section? And how shall we deal with the affair elsewhere in the article? Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kjaer's approach. It is a return to writing an article for an encyclopedia rather than a comments section on a controversial blog page. The affair brought about the end of NBI, so that seems the logical place to mention it. Brief explanations of the breakup, as the parties gave them, and explicit mention of the controversial nature of the event while pointing readers to the memoirs and Valliant's book. When people take partisan positions on this, it just turns into mud slinging and it doesn't make for a good article. --67.128.121.194 (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the way that section was before the anon started messing w/ it was fine. It gave a brief overview w/ out going into too much detail, which makes sense in an already-long article. Idag (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Idag, could you revert the article to that version then as a first step? If it is sufficient, we can leave it there or use it as a starting point. And again I invite 72.119 to add his/her comments to the discussion. Kjaer (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any major edits done by others since 72.119 started editing, I reverted to the last version by Jomasecu. Some of 72's contributions (as far as sourcing statements) were fairly useful and I think we should restore them eventually. The more controversial edits need to be discussed, though if 72 doesn't join this talk page, I don't think any of the current editors are in favor of them. Idag (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I actually think 72.119's other edits were quite excellent, and I have restored them. I am simply too tired to trust myself to any further editting tonight. Thanks, Idag. Kjaer (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I applaud both Idag and Kjaer for taking this measured, professional approach. When partisan emotions begin to drive edits, where one side feels the Brandens are being slighted, where the other feels that Ayn Rand is being slighted, the result is a mud slinging contest between partisans that leaves the Brandens, Rand and Objectivism as mud covered innocent bystanders. --Steve (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is she a Philosopher?

This label gets qualified for deleted from time to time and it represents an issue. The lede has a note which explains that the claim to be a philosopher is controversial and I think that is OK. However the information block (i) does not have that qualification) and (ii) is labelled "occupation". In a very general sense anyone who thinks about the world could be called a philosopher but on the basis this label could be applied to many other articles in the Wikipedia and the term would be devalued in the process. To call her a philosopher is to take a position which is not universally accepted. To remove it completely is probably a POV in the other direction, "self-proclaimed" isn't really neutral either. Any ideas? --Snowded TALK 16:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you check the archives, you'll notice a lengthy discussion surrounding this issue over the past year. We've tried almost everything....without success of a long-term, stable consensus. Rather than re-hashing that debate, please re-read those dialogues. It might be useful. For a number reasons, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately. However, the editors interested in Ayn Rayn might be able to offer some workable compromises. Happy Holidays, J Readings (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen at least some of the past controversy and I agree its problematic. As stated I think the lede is OK as its qualified. --Snowded TALK 17:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this particular topic might bear more fruit as a Wikiproject Philosophy discussion. I've noticed that some other articles have a similar issue so maybe we could get a Wikipedia-wide definition of "philosopher"? Idag (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are not being ironic, it might make sense. Which other articles have similar issues? --Snowded TALK 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being ironic. There was a similar issue w/ Dostoyevsky (though that took the form of an edit war instead of a discussion). In addition, if you are going to make edits that you know other editors are going to disagree with, wait until there is a consensus on the talk page BEFORE making those edits. See WP:3RR. Idag (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I joined this when a minor edit war was already taking place! That said the secondary reference is acceptable (as per the edit a short time ago). Please also note that a tag is a legitimate way of indicating a debate even if you don't like it. --Snowded TALK 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to the dubious tag in front of the philosopher, then that tag is not legitimate because this issue has been discussed REPEATEDLY. Please go through the archived discussion and if you want to revisit this issue here, provide a good reason for us to go into it again. Otherwise, I would recommend taking my earlier suggestion and starting a discussion at Wikiproject Philosophy. Idag (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ well we will have to agree to disagree on the use of the tag. Prior discussion can never present an issue being raised. It can argue to keep the established text, but it can't argue against a tag. --Snowded TALK 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is mention by Nozick notable?

I'm moving this discussion re:Nozick article's notability into the article's talk page where it properly belongs:

Look, if there is a dispute over something then tagging it is legitimate while discussion takes place, its not the other way round. Check out the rules, a tag is a legitimate way of indicating disagreement and is a sensible alternative to edit wars. Also your continuous accusations of a POV just because people disagree with you is a clear breech of the need to assume good faith. --Snowded TALK 18:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall accusing you of POV. Your first edit was clearly under discussion, so that was an inappropriate edit. As far as your second edit, you are supposed to explain your tags on the talk page. You did not explain why mention by Nozick, an extremely famous and influential philosopher, was not notable. Idag (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair it was Kjaer not you who used the POV tag. That said I clearly explained the reason for the tag. The fact that a philosopher is famous or influential does not make a particular article notable as such, a failure of logic there. Also Nozick is also a libertarian so there is a reason for him to reference Rand, most philosophers simply ignore her. We now have a form of words which are acceptable however --Snowded TALK 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. An article by a famous and influential philosopher IS notable because of its author. Idag (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all articles written by notable philosophers are notable. In addition fame and influence are relative, doubtless within Libertarian circles Nozick is, but that means we have to be doubly careful here. Most philosophers simply ignore Rand. --Snowded TALK 19:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This article clearly states that most philosophers ignore Rand. A search on GoogleScholar reveals that Nozick's article has been cited in 39 other articles. A similar search on LexisNexis reveals 129 articles. That is certainly notable. Idag (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, your argument that Nozick is only notable in Libertarian circles is specious. He is widely cited and debated in numerous branches of philosophy, as evidenced by the fact that a GoogleScholar search shows that he has been cited over 46,000 times. Idag (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ You are missing the point here. 39 citations does not make an article notable, but even if it did, the question is not about the article. The article does not say "In a notable article" it says "one notable exception ..." That claim is not supported by citation and I will restore it to the earlier version. If you don't accept that then the fact tag goes back on until you provide evidence that the event of the article being published was notable. As to Nozick, my point is a simple one. A Libertarian philosopher referencing a Libertarian author has to be treated with care--Snowded TALK 20:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Noted" rather than "notable" seems fine to me, especially if it serves as an antipyretic. Certainly a better alternative than threats of the comfy chair.Kjaer (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to start with the cushion and work up to the chair --Snowded TALK 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A notable article would constitute a notable exception, but this point is rather trivial, so I'll let it go. Also, FYI, Nozick heavily criticized Rand. Idag (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Skomorokh and Steve Wolfer agree with me that notabel/noted is reasonable wording. Snowded opposes notable, but was willing to compromise with noted. Idag, I think you are now saying you abstain, not favor the change, although you rverted it. I have put back noted on the assumption that we have three in favor, one abstention, and one in opposition. As for my rationale, the qualifying adjective does apply. Even Objectivists who oppose Nozick's view find his criticism worth addressing. And he is respected by non-Objectivists. Imagine if we had a section on people who feuded with Rand. Buckley would be notable, but her neighbor one whose flowers Rand's cat peed would not be notable. So, it would be reasonable to say, One notable person who feuded with Rand was Buckley, who.... Likewise, it is reasonable to say that One notable criticism of Rand's was Nozick.... There are indeed many other criticisms of Rand. I could find dozens on the web that few people would find notable. But in the Nozick case even Rand's strongest supporters would find his criticism notable. So I think it is a useful qualification and certainly not an incorrect one. Kjaer (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position. As I've explained above, I'm fine with using "notable" because it means "important or distinguished". However, I believe "noted", which means well-known or celebrated, is improper here because Nozick's mention, while it is important, is not really celebrated. Hence, if we don't use "notable", I would prefer not using an adjective at all.Idag (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I would argue for notable then, unless Snowded has some reasonable synonym he prefers. Kjaer (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

At the moment notable/noted references the exception not Nozick. If this was the only exception it would be notable, if a third person (this is the WIkipedia) with some reputation wrote that the exception was notable, then and only then could you say it. If you wanted to change the sentence to say that one exception was by notable philosopher Nozick, then again it would need to citation or some qualification inserted; notable because Nozick was himself a libertarian or similar. Notable means "worthy of attention" and is strong than noted which is more about attention. I think it reads better without anything to be honest which was my original and I thought uncontroversial edit. The minute you start making value judgements (like notable) then you need to cite a third party unless all editors are in agreement (and they are not). --Snowded TALK 04:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Notable" seems the best adjective. It is certainly reasonable. Rand is being cited more and more, but Nozick's is one of the most notable - another notable criticism available is the one from the Professor of Philosophy at Berkley - the Aristotle devotee who published a paper on her work in epistemology. --Steve (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument that Nozick's article is not notable because he is a libertarian philosopher writing about another libertarian philosopher is grounded in neither Wikipedia policy nor any verifiable sources. As I've pointed out earlier, this article has been cited numerous times, something that would not happen to an unimportant article. Therefore, I vote for using "notable." Since every editor, except for Snowded, seems to agree with this adjective, I propose putting it into the article. Idag (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I am restoring notable, and am open to a possible change of wording, such as "One exception is prominent philopsopher Robert Nozick..." but oppose outright deletion of any qualifying adjective because Nozick's criticism is indeed important. I'd like any further changes discussed first. Kjaer (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You really haven't answered the question. Ok lets assume Nozick is notable and the article is, but is the exception notable? Thats what the sentence says. --Snowded TALK 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The exception is notable because it was mentioned in a notable article by a notable philosopher. Idag (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Idag - except for Snowded, every opinion has been in favor of notable. Snowded, please suggest alternative wording such as my suggested Prominent philosopher Nozick... rather than just repeating your disagreement. Kjaer (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nozick is up there with Rawls, Hare, Singer and MacIntyre among the pre-eminent analytic moral philosophers of the twentieth century. Socratic Puzzles is one of his few major works outside of Anarchy. Rand was completely beyond the pale of seriously scholarly research in analytic philosophy at the time; libertarianism was almost as irrelevant. For an academic philosopher of Nozick's to choose to seriously engage with Rand's work qua philosophy at that time was remarkable. I don't understand how this is even a point of contention. Skomorokh 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I would accept that Nozick is in the same class as Rawls and Hare , he doesn't merit a mention in Blackburn's Dictionary of Philosophy for example, while they do. I do think we have an issue here over the world context v the US context. Its a bit like Intelligent Design which has to be taken seriously in the US but not really in Europe. Idag's argument that it is notable because it is in a notable article by a notable philosopher is a simple failure of logic. I think that, given Nozick's advocacy of libertarian thinking it would have been notable if he had not mentioned Rand to be honest given the political climate at the time. As it is he dismisses her as a philosopher. However we need to move on. So how about saying that it is "significant"? That I accept. --Snowded TALK 07:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with "significant." In addition, I would ask you to stop the U.S.-bashing as, frankly, none of us care about your perception of the United States. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion and violates WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I will change it later today. Its not US bashing to say that there are differences of emphasis you know. The point on Rand and ID is fully supportable by citation. --Snowded TALK 06:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that its not true, I'm saying that ID, and your other anti-U.S. comments are irrelevant to this article. If you want to discuss ID, go edit the ID article. Idag (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You really think its "anti-US" to point out that Rand and ID are both taken more seriously there than in the rest of world? Its highly relevant to some of the claims you make about the importance of aspects of Rand in this article. Its also a legitimate comparison to make a point. You have nothing that would support your phrase "US bashing". So please stop this pettiness, learn to respect the fact that other editors will disagree with you and stop chucking around groundless accusations. --Snowded TALK 14:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See my post below regarding your behavior. ID has nothing to do with Rand, and again, we don't care about your personal views about what's taken seriously in the U.S. Idag (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky

I would say that Chomsky's opinion on Rand ("Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history") is a philosophical criticism, hence "intellectual history". It seems like an interesting factoid to me, and a worthwhile criticism to feature. CABlankenship (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem becomes undue weight. Hundreds of people have expressed similar personal opinions. If the criticism is not philosophical, it basically becomes a trivia item, and would be more relevant on Chomsky's page then here, becuase Chomsky's opinion establishes a fact about Chomsky, not about Rand. You may be interested to note that Rand came across Chomsky at The New School in NY in the late 60's early 70's and was highly dubious of his linguistic work. I'll try to find where she mentions him to let you know. As for philosophical criticism, it becomes thus when he states it in technical philosophical terms. If he said that she conflates the concepts of X and Y or that she contradicts herself when she advocates the axiomatic theory of Z then it would be philosophical. But he himself says "my opinion" and leaves it at that with absolutely no reason given. Nozick, on the other hand, writes a philosophical article. Look at Rand's comment on homosexuality, which was made at a Q&A. It is relevant in this article, because it tells us about Rand. It is not relevant in the article about homosexuality. Kjaer (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be correct if this page was about Rand's philosophy, but this is a biographical article about Rand. While I agree that this is not philosophical criticism, shouldn't we mention somewhere in the article that a bunch of folks thought that Rand was "evil"? Idag (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Rand actually praised Chomsky's work in linguistics and particularly praised his attack on Skinner and behaviorism. But that's beside the point. Rand's opinions on linguistics are completely irrelevant because she has no expertise in the field. Chomsky is a trained philosopher, and is more than qualified to state an opinion on her philosophy. CABlankenship (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yers, it was the Skinner article. But Rand was dubious of the way he went about challenging Skinner, no? Still have to find the book. In any case Chomsky's opinion of Rand is not expressed as a philosophical criticism. My point is very clear above. I have bolded it, please reread it. Kjaer (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is offering his opinion on Rand's philosophy. He believes that it is thoroughly evil. I think we're in a semantics dispute. Chomsky is offering a personal value judgment on Rand's philosophy. CABlankenship (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is that "Chomsky is a philosopher. He made a criticism. So it is a philosophical criticism." This follows as surely as does the argument Chomsky is a philosopher. He made a fart. So it is a philosophical fart." I grant it is an opinion. I will grant that Chomsky is a notable personage. But a mere opinion not expressed and supported using philosophical terms is not a philosophical criticism.

Here is what Chomsky said, emphasis added. Please explain how it counts as a criticism philosophically:

"I strongly dislike the figures you mention. Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history. Friedman was an important economist. I'll leave it at that.

Nozick, who I knew, was a clever philosopher. He did call himself a libertarian but it was fraud. He was a Stalinist-style supporter of Israeli power and violence. People who knew him used to joke that he believed in a two-state solution: Israel, and the US government because it had to support Israeli actions.

Hayek was the kind of "libertarian" who was quite tolerant of such free societies as Pinochet's Chile, one of the most grotesque of the National Security States instituted with US backing or direct initiative during the hideous plague of terror and violence that spread over the hemisphere from the 60s through the 80s. He even sank to the level of arranging a meeting of his Mont Pelerin society there during the most vicious days of the dictatorship." Kjaer (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand. I'm arguing that Chomsky has made a value judgment on Rand's philosophy, and that this value judgment is interesting and relevant to other criticisms of her work. In the view of Chomsky, Rand's philosophy is immoral. Given Chomsky's status as a moral philosopher, this seems to me to be a relevant value judgment. When Chomsky says "modern intellectual history" he is clearly speaking of modern philosophy. So, Chomsky is saying that Rand's philosophy is among the most evil in modern philosophy.CABlankenship (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjaer, your last edit was a bit emotional. How about we settle down and discuss this without petulant edits. CABlankenship (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I would suggest removing the "Notable Quotes" section and sticking Chomsky somewhere in the criticism section (though it seems to be criticism of Rand as a person rather than her philosophy). When I see "Notable Quotes", I think that these are quotes that were made by Rand, not quotes about Rand. Idag (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the quote, IMHO. Chomsky's opinion of Rand--even if addressed in an off-the-cuff manner--is shared by a number of people. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the quote, I just don't think that it should be in a "Notable Quotes" section, as that section is traditionally used for quotes by the subject of the article. Idag (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a number of people who think Rand's evil, maybe we could have a wikipedia reader poll? (I don't know if there's a WP template for that.) Or maybe a "people who hate Rand" section? And there are also a lot who associate her with kinky sex. The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson says Rand (presumably her writing, not her person) is the object of masturbation for pimply faced boys. That seems like a notable quote. I say we stick with a quote section, but rename it if there is a protocol for quotes about the subject, rather than by her. Kjaer (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTE; sections devoted to quotations are not a good idea. I think the idea of the sexual themes of Rand's writing is one that should be explored further if that could be verified; it is quite interesting. Skomorokh 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I accept Kjaer's point that Chomsky's comment is not explicitly philosophical (nor indeed a criticism), it must be read in context; Chomsky is, as CABlankenship points out, trained in contemporary analytic philosophy, and is well-informed enough on the issues here for his comment to be a substantive assessment of Rand's philosophy. The Philosophical criticism section is not the best place for the quote, but it will do for now. Skomorokh 02:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjaer, you're just being flat out unreasonable at this point. Clearly many people find this quote interesting and relevant. Your modifications to the quote context were also accepted without argument. Be reasonable. CABlankenship (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That quote is from a blog. Since when are blogs considered valid sources? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If Kjaer wants to create a new section called "invective" for pimply faced boys to contribute too then I think I would accept it subject to citation and no OR. Now here we have a comment by a notable (sic) philosopher which is dismissive (as were many philosopher's) or Rand. It is thus correctly placed. Of course it has to be validly sourced. As far as I can see, while it is a blog it is a report of an email conversation published with permission. Its also a blog within a publishing house which is normally accepted in Wikipedia --Snowded TALK 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Invective is a good word, maybe that would be better than "ideological criticism."

CABlankenship, please let's do without the name calling. I am neither bitter (unless that means greatly amused) nor do I "reject" the quote, I simply am not so obtuse as to fail to see that it is neither philosophical, nor a criticism. By all means, let's have both a cheerleading section and a detractor's section. Ayn Rand is unique enough for us to violate WP's policy on her behalf. But let's not equate one off-the-cuff, non-academic and unsuporrted visceral reaction with carefully argued criticisms published in journals and anthologies. Kjaer (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One of these days I am going to run a course on understanding irony for americans. This section is about the response of philosophy to Rand. Most chose not to even treat her as a serious contributor to the field. Nozick agreed politically but felt constrained to rebut the Philosophy. Chomsky when asked gave a moral response. You may disagree with it but its a valid statement. Rand by the way is not particularly unique. There are a whole pantheon of ideological authors who have varying impact over the years. --Snowded TALK 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, why would a scientist of Chomsky's caliber bother with an academic critique of Rand? Her 'theoretical content' is little more than childishly banal assertions. Rand instructs us that the world is real, and not just an illusion of the human mind ('Objectivism holds that reality exists independent from consciousness'), that we use our senses to navigate the world ('that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception'), and that truth can be derived from such perception ('human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation'). Deep stuff. Deeply inane, even. We can sum these 'theories' with the following profound conclusions: The world exists. We use our senses to examine this world. Truth can be gained through our senses. There are clever toddlers who could produce such 'philosophy'. Chomsky was asked about Rand, and produced a moral judgment of her philosophy. There is no reason why it should not appear in the 'philosophical criticism' section. CABlankenship (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your POV, gentlemen. The point remains that the statement is an unsupported opinion, not an argued criticism. I find it ironic in the extreme that while I am happy to leave the quote in, just to have it properly located, it is you who are unable to make the distinction between an actual philosophical criticism, and a mere statement of dislike. The fact that his dislike mirrors yours seems to be all you care about. Oh, and once again, please leave out the persoanl remarks, such as your obvious envy of Americans. Kjaer (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

First remove the POV in your own eye before you talk about the POC in others. Dislike can be a philosophical criticism by the way - read Plato. An criticism of a approach can be ethical in nature, it offends against the good. Chomsky's quote is thus valid and correctly placed, unless if course you want to sanitise the image. As to the American thing, well, I will add a lack of humour to a failure to appreciate irony. Lighten up Kjer. --Snowded TALK 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dislike can be a philosophical criticism by the way - read Plato." -- Clever and funny. I wouldn't expect Rand disciples to get the joke, however. They're still blowing their minds with the profound idea that the world is real and that our senses can examine that world. CABlankenship (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that is just plain wicked. --Snowded TALK 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that a one sentence staatement calling a person evil does not constitute an academic criticism. Skomorokh agrees, and you offer no argument otherwise.

This comment belongs elsewhere, and your behavior has degenerated to mere gainsaying.

Plaese actually read the comment as editted in the popular influence section. Kjaer (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's clear, Kjaer, that you have passionate views on this semantic dispute. I am fine with the current edit, trivial as it is. CABlankenship (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I offered an argument Kjaer, you just didn't read it, or possibly failed to understand it. You really need to calm down a bit and realise that disagreeing with you is not the same as "gainsaying". We may be there now however.

I would actually agree that Chomsky's statement can be considered a philosophical criticism. Chomsky stated that Rand was one of the most "evil figures of modern intellectual history." While the phrase is somewhat ambiguous about whether Chomsky was referring to Rand as a person or her philosophy, its the phrase "intellectual history" that tips it to the philosophy side. If Chomsky wanted to just criticize Rand personally, that phrase would not be in there. Now I understand that he did not direct specific arguments at Rand's philosophy, but that is not really necessary. It is the logical equivalent of my saying that "after reading this Talk page, it is obvious that Snowded and CaBlankenship are being EXTREMELY uncivil, even though their underlying arguments are correct." Now I haven't directed specific arguments for why they're uncivil or cited any specific posts, but it is obvious that I am criticizing their behavior. I think the same argument could be made for Chomsky's critique. Though I am slightly uncomfortable sticking the phrase under philosophical criticism because of its ambiguity, I agree with Skoromokh that this is the best we can do at the moment. Idag (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Idag. To all concerned: no-one is interested in your personal opinions of Rand, Objectivism, or anything else for that matter. If you want to play armchair critic, there are plenty of internet forums out there. This page is for discussions on how to raise the standards of the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 04:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And to achieve a good article requires balance Skomorokh. Calling people uncivil and accusing them of having a POV when they bring that different perspective is silly at best. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not asking you not to have a view, we're asking you not to discuss your view here. This page is for discussing substantive edits to the article, it is not a soapbox and it is not a forum for your personal views on Rand. Idag (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You are becoming tiresome Idag. The points I have made are valid ones you just don't agree with them. There is nothing above which constitutes soap boxing or the expression of inappropriate views. Please learn to live with disagreement, this is an encyclopaedia article not a fan club page and the sooner you learn that the better. --Snowded TALK 14:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, the following is a list of quotes from you. I would be happy to find out how they are civil and/or relevant to this article. As I've stated earlier, I agree with your underlying arguments, but you should be respectful of other editors in the way in which you express them.

"If Kjaer wants to create a new section called invective for pimply faced boys to contribute too..."

"One of these days I am going to run a course on understanding irony for americans."

"As to the American thing, well, I will add a lack of humour to a failure to appreciate irony."

"Its a bit like Intelligent Design which has to be taken seriously in the US but not really in Europe." Idag (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear or dear, that's being anti-american! I promise to do my very very best to remember just how seriously you take yourself next time round. --Snowded TALK 15:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can the sarcasm and act civil. Idag (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Can it? You want to buy some? Sorry Idag I just can't take this seriously. --Snowded TALK 16:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:TALK; check out that sentence at the top of the page in bold text. You have a cited, relevant, and notable criticism of Rand and you'd like to discuss its inclusion in the article? Please do. But your blatant POV and incivility is not appropriate. —Jomasecu (t•c) 20:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ Well everyone is entitled to their opinion I happen to disagree with you on both points. On the POV issue I suggest we keep to citations rather (than as with the recent edit) try and reduce the impact of the citation. Given the succession of POV accusations every time anyone tries to introduce some objectivity and balance into this article, editors need to take a look at themselves and attempt to maintain a sense of humour. If that isn't possible then objectivity at least is needed. --Snowded TALK 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

My previous comment pertains only to your talk page edits. Your most recent comment comes with the summary POV seems to mean "We don't like it". You are correct; that is an example of POV. So is "We like it." Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS the amendment by Skomorokh is a good one. I support that --Snowded TALK 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I, and a number of editors here, have no issue with most of your edits, and I even agree with your underlying arguments. However, the tone that you are using is disrespectful. You may believe that you are using light-hearted humor, but it is simply not funny, especially to those of us from the United States. You will find that we do not make "lighthearted fun" of Europe on this talk page, and we would appreciate the same courtesy. Idag (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll note the differences in cultural views of humour, although I spend about a third of my time in the US and I don't think you are typical of the people I meet and work with. Either way, lay of the POV accusations and you are less likely to provoke the normal intellectual discourse of a European common room. --Snowded TALK 21:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

stated and said

Kjaer I don't think I am going to make another change but I am confused. When the phrase was "stated" you said that represented a POV and substituted a convoluted phrase instead. You have now replaced "said" with "comment" on the grounds that "comment" is more neutral. Now for the life of me I cannot see how "stated" is POV or "said" is anything other than neutral. Perhaps you would care to explain? --Snowded TALK 19:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Who cares, it's fine now. I'm sure there are many more problematic sections of the article. Ahem. Skomorokh 19:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it changed again after your comment and the various changes I reference above are disturbing. If such words are considered POV I would like to know why as the issue is likely to come up again. --Snowded TALK 21:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note that we have yet another edit desired to reduce the impact of the quote. Chomsky is a philosopher, cognitive scientist, linguist, author and political commentator. In this context the fact that he is a philosopher and scientist is more relevant and I have restored those words. --Snowded TALK 21:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sticking my hand into this fight, but for what its worth, why not just remove all the adjectives and simply say that "Chomsky said X." Since there's an internal link to Chomsky in that statement, if the reader is curious about who Chomsky was, they can just read his article. Idag (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Possibly, but then references to philosophers and scientists who are stated to have been influenced by Rand would have to be edited in the same way. --Snowded TALK 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a compromise, I have placed the quote in the "criticism" section, but outside of the "philosophical criticism" section. This seems reasonable. The quote really doesn't belong in the "popular interest and influence" section. CABlankenship (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving the Chomsky criticism to criticism with the addition of Buckley is helpful. But one cannot describe Chomsky as a Scientist (sic) when his article calls him a linguists. And philosopher is misleading. He published no works of philosophy - he has had influence in philosophy - so I think author is more accurate - but it's debatable.

As for the quote of gordon gekko, the source is simply laughable. The quote is not veryu accurate. You can't say "Rand’s relationship with the right has always been at best cold and at worst, openly hostile" when she is admired by such people as Reagan, Ron Paul, and Clarence Thomas. Some on the religious strongly dislike her - while others ignore her atheism. I won't remove the quote for now, but it has to be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky merits an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, something that Rand cannot achieve or several of those referenced as philosophers in the "influenced" section. I have therefore changed his description to match that Dictionary with the citation. As to the Gekko quote I am not qualified to comment on that, however brief research over the last day or so has started to turn up a fair amount of criticism from sources on the left and right. Some expansion of this section, to balance with the positive stuff above is needed for balance. --Snowded TALK 22:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is a "linguists" (sic) but he's also a scientist who has published heavily in the fields of biology and cognitive science. You're also correct that "some on the religious" (sic) strongly dislike her, while others on the right admire her. You can remove that part if you wish.CABlankenship (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As it stands the description of Chomsky amounts to undue weight. Besides Rand, no other person in this article is described with more than one attribution. Paglia, Buckley and Limbaugh are not described at all. Branden is a psychology student, greenspan fed chairman. Each could be described as author, objectivist, etc.... Chomsky should be described as a linguist and at most, one other thing. That should be either activist (this is why he opposes Rand) or the broader author. He can be described as a philosopher, in that his linguistics has affected cognitive philosophy - but this is not relevant to his opinion of Rand, which he holds for political, not epistemological reasons. So, we can call him an activist or an author or a philosopher, in addition to a linguist, but not all three of these things. Remembefr, this article is about Rand, not the idee fixe of the moment. I am going to restore linguist as his claim to fame and activist as the relevant hat here, but will settle for author or philospher instead of activist. Kjaer (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem confused Kjaer. An "epistemological" objection would be one where the author would be accused of asserting something beyond the scope of human knowledge or ability. This can't be what you mean. An "idee fixe" is an idea which turns into an obsession. Again, this can't be what you mean. This is getting comical, frankly. CABlankenship (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjaer, you seem obsessed with removing Philosopher. You started off with the assertion that Chomsky was not one so I put it a fully CITED description. I could also with ease find a citation for Scientist by the way. For the moment please leave cited material in place. --Snowded TALK 07:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon edits re: Branden

I'm afraid I missed the discussion earlier, but I gather that the dispute with the latest anonymous editor is primarily one of conduct rather than content. Could we retrieve anything useful from this edit? I'm not familiar with the sources and so cannot be sure of the accuracy here. Skomorokh 21:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Brander affair is that there was so much mud slinging on both sides that if you try to include all of it, the section blows up out of proportion to its importance. And its difficult to include only chunks of it because then you're toeing the line w/ NPOV. I tried messing w/ it a bit before the anon went out of control, but I'm still not sure about the best way to handle that section. Idag (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot written by those close to the matter, but are there no reasonably objective and neutral third party sources we can draw from? Skomorokh 21:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I put a formal warning on his user page - we will need to escalate through those levels if the behaviour continues as a cautionary block is going to be necessary. Without those warnings it will not be possible to report the behaviour and get a temporary block. --Snowded TALK 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick search and couldn't find a good source that incorporated enough of the mudslinging that we wouldn't be obligated to supplement it. What about including a simple timeline of the affair, saying that both sides place blame on each other, and then making a separate article with all the muddy details? Idag (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Academic philoosphers generally dismiss it...

I think such a specific description of how she was dismissed is non-NPOV. I deleted it but the delete was reverted so I brought the issue to the discussion page. Every accusations that exists has been used to describe her. I'd like to know the exact text of the paper source cited for that summary, to see if it is an actual summary. Besides, even if the source is reliable and that an honest representation, it seems like a non-NPOV summary itself being made by that source, which can't be used, or else The New York Time's and Wall Street Journal's editorial pages could each have their opinions held as fact. I know that the printed article isn't describing her philosophy as sophmoric and preachy itself, but even a summary of someone else's opinions can be non-NPOV if made so easily and is so strongly in one direction. A printed opinion that "everyone loves/hates someone" would still be considered NPOV, even if from a reliable source that does not necessarily hold that opinion itself. D prime (talk) 08:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The source (which is not an editorial) is here. The idea that an otherwise reliable source becomes non-neutral when it goes "so strongly in one direction" relies on your idea of what position is the neutral one; using this heuristic would thus guarantee original presentation of material, whereas using the material directly from the source is fully in line with WP:V. Skomorokh 10:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That article: writes "objectivist" without capitalizing it; says that her phiosophy "scorns charity," which it doesn't; says that "objectivism" champions "ruthless self-interest, a disdain for the poor," which it doesn't. Surely a degree of quality control is necessary even when using reputable sources; it is clear that this article is written with an apathy to accuracy to what Objectivism is. I understand that we're not here to see what's accurate but to see what's verifiable, but the article is setting a precedent for itself with so many facts that are obviously contradicted by other verifiable sources, including the spelling of Objectivism and the content of Objectivism. I think that puts it in a state such that the generalization I'm disputing cannot be taken from it as fact. Further, it says "Academic philosophers dismiss it..." not generally dismiss it. Which is a terrible generalization as several tenured philosophy professors at US universities are Objectivists. The Wikipedia article doesn't say that, but here the statement itself is clearly wrong, and could simply be contradicted by citing the verifiable sources that those Objectivists hold academic positions. With the generally, we got a non-contradicted statement that isn't verified, because that's not what the article says. But without the generally, the fact is verifiable, but clearly wrong and contradicted by many other sources. I think WP:Synth might be present here as well. As for "so strongly in one direction," how are we supossed to tell the difference between citing (sourced, verifiable) opinion and citing facts if we can't evaluate what's neutral? I think that summary of the academic reponce to "objectivism" is clearly an opinion; the writer of that article tosses in many. Perhaps there is a way we can cite the article's summary while adding other information to help contextualize it and its potentially dubious nature? D prime (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. This is a verifiable source that expresses a viewpoint and it is not our job to censor it. Idag (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no question of "censoring" Sara Dabney Tisdale. The problem is that she is not a notable person herself nor a notable commentator. A google search show no other writing by her on Rand. Her work here does suffer from the inaccuracies D Prime mentions, and more. She does not site her statement or tell who these academics are who find Objectivism sophomoric. So far as we can tell, she may have read the cliff notes. Indeed, if we edit the article to read "Sara Dabney Tisdale in a blog at USNews and World Report says..." then there will be no objection, but that would show the banality of the source. Kjaer (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Under that theory we would have to add qualifiers to a huge number of sources on this page as many of them do not cite other sources for their statements. The reader can tell where the source comes from by clicking on the corresponding link, so I believe extra qualifiers are unnecessary. Idag (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RS#Statements of opinion, if it's considered notable enough to merit inclusion, which I don't think it is, it must be directly attributed as on opinion of the author in the text of the article itself, not in a ref. Example: "According to U.S. News reviewer Sara Dabney Tisdale, academic philosophers generally..."Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 05:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That source is not a statement of opinion. While the author does not actually cite the sources that she's discussing, it is clear what she's discussing. For example, the "sophomoric" comment comes from Chambers' review of Rand's work. Other unflattering comments about the book were all taken from other people. Since the work is a discussion of other criticisms of Rand, it should not be labelled as opinion. Idag (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

concur --Snowded TALK 19:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's clear what she's discussing, i.e. who she means, wouldn't it be better to source the individuals who used those adjectives and then rephrase it to summarize them more accurately? It doesn't matter if it's clear to us; it should be clear to the reader. We can't ignore the other errors on the article or the obviously doubious nature of the way she summarizes it. The fact that it's not an opinion of Rand is misleading in making one believe that it's not an opinion at all. It's an opinion of people's opinions of her because it's such a strong statement about them, that is contradicted by the fact that there are academics with contrary opinions, which it doesn't allow for. I understand that indicating the academic negativity about Ayn Rand is necessary, but couldn't we find a better way to do it? Saying that "academics have generally dismissed Rand as" implies that those particular insults are general, which they aren't; there hasn't been nearly that much consistency. The article itself proves the dubious nature by not even bothering to use generally. Why don't we say that "academics have been generally hostile towards Ayn Rand," which is true, and *then* cite those particular adjectives to their specific writers. "Academics and literary reviewers have been generally hostel towards Ayn Rand. X person described her/her work/this title as y; z person described her/work/title as a; b person described her/work/ttle as c." And down-grade the criticisms section (while not ignoring the high degree of criticisms available) and shift it to "criticisms of Objectivism" and criticisms of particluar works. Perhaps we can add a link to criticism of Objectivism (if there isn't one already)? I understand that it is a fact that Ayn Rand received a hostile reception, and it would be biased of me (as a supporter) to try to surpress that in the article, but I think we can find a way to treat her more fairly than this that wouldn't be biased in her favor. We don't need to simply delete that sentence; there are more objective replacements possible. D prime (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of an editor of encyclopedia article, the criticism section is a mess. It should be thrown out and redone from scratch. Nothing should be let back in that isn't specific as criticism of a position (and, no, that does not include ad hominem rants) and they should be from a notable source. Is Chomsky notable, yes. Does he give us a specific criticism of a philosophic position? No. His criticism would receive an "F" in the most forgiving of undergrad courses. That section is a POV eyesore. --Steve (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:POV requires us to include all valid points of view. Editors of this article may disagree with the thoroughness of Chomsky's criticism, but until a secondary source addresses Chomsky's criticism, our personal points of view are irrelevant. Idag (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:POV requires us to exclude material put up for the sole purpose of expressing a personal point of view, which clearly is what much of the so-called 'criticism' section is composed of. It is also good editing to remove material put forth as 'criticism' when it is just a rant. If I find a notable source that says Chomsky is an idiot, it would not be relevant as criticism on his page. We need to set the bar higher than we are to be an encyclopedia rather than something resembling angry blog comments about so and so is evil. --Steve (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chomsky, Buckley, Tisdale, and Nyquist 'criticisms' should be tossed out completely if this is to be an encyclopedia article and not a debate page or blog commentary for posts by fans and non-fans. --Steve (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Since for some reason you do not wish to actually read WP:NPOV, here is the relevant passage:

"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV.'" (emphasis in the original)

Under this policy, article content that passes the WP:V and WP:OR threshold cannot be excluded from the article, regardless of your personal opinion. Idag (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:STRUCTURE: "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, can result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".

This section of WP:NPOV seems to me to suggest that we should not have a Criticism section at all, rather specific criticsms of her philosophy, lifestyle, etc. included in the relevant sections. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Jomasecu has stated the case very clearly. A good article welcomes notable, relevant observations on the philosophy or literature - that kind of critique. But, as he stated, the back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents violates WP policy. And it damages the article. --Steve (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First, under WP:Structure, we would not remove the criticisms, but incorporate them into other sections. Second, plenty of Wikipedia articles have a separate criticism section, though if someone wants to use the Sandbox to propose a reasonable incorporation of that section into the article, I wouldn't be averse to looking at it. Idag (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to having a criticism section, I object to seeing the article plagued with partisan bickering instead of brief descriptions of intelligent critiques. There are people who have said what they believe to be right and what they believe to be wrong about her philosophy - like the Nozick material. Why not use that as an example of what is a valid form of a criticism? --Steve (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, just because someone is notable does not make everything they say notable. Throwing insults at someone has no relevant place in an article other than a Criticism section. As for your second point, your argument is that many articles break this policy so it's okay? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky's comment is interesting and noteworthy. There is plenty of empty praise in the article which would also have to be completely removed by your standards. You seem to be in favor of short comments that praise Rand, but not in favor of short comments that are critical of her. This betrays your agenda. CABlankenship (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Plenty of empty praise" Such as what? Such as "Rand appears on a 33 cent U.S. postage stamp,[80] which debuted April 22, 1999 in New York City"? Please give three examples, unless you define two as plenty. Kjaer (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about comments praising Rand. There are other issues with the article, I kept my comments limited to the topic at hand. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation review

I started to look at the list of those influenced by Rand. Fore example Petr Beckmann is an engineer not a scientist and Robert Efron has no page and seems a minor figure (or at least attempts to find references are not very successful. The philosophers listed all seem to have a degree in the subject and some lecture but notability must be in question is some cases. Nozick responded to Rand, but I am not sure the implication of his inclusion in this list is correct. He did after all reject Rand as a philosopher while agreeing with her politically. In the general list we have the inclusion of Paul DePodesta (born December 16, 1972) is a baseball front-office assistant for the San Diego Padres; please tell me how that it notable? In addition well over half of the names could have the fact tag added as neither the Wikipedia entry not a good search shows evidence of influence from Rand. I don't want to trigger an edit war here so I thought I would start by raising a question as to what should be the criteria for inclusion? --Snowded TALK 08:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This should definitely be reviewed and cut down to reasonable notations of influence. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And another case. Will someone please tell me how this supports the statement "there has been an increase in academic interest in Ayn Rand's work". Also this merely speculates about what might happen in the future and does not establish growing interest. --Snowded TALK 08:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to support it. I think this article needs to be paired back to more biography. The discussion of philosophy, the objectivist movement, and criticisms of each should be in their own articles linked back here. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also this is a 2001 grant (hardly current) and this is an internal programme which hardly justifies the implication of academic acceptance. It actually says in respect of accreditation: No. The feedback we have received from our students is that accreditation is not a driving factor in their decision to apply to the program. A few students in the past have been successful on their own in getting their colleges to give them credit for taking a course with ARI. The "a few students" hardly justifies the statement in the article and is dubious anyway. It could just be marketing hype. --Snowded TALK 09:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it belongs under the Oism article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article definitely needs to be cleaned up as far as citations. Though I think that some discussion of Objectivism is necessary, as that is Rand's life's work. Idag (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with that, and her influence needs to be demonstrated. I'll go through the list and tru and group them into notable/not notable/notable but proof of influence needed. --Snowded TALK 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

• The statement "However, since her death in 1982, there has been an increase in academic interest in Ayn Rand's work" is not supported by the citation, which just shows the number of books about or by Rand. Since her death the number picked up, peaking at 15 in one year, but generally hovering around 6-7. No reference is made to the academic nature of those books. I therefore propose changing this to "Since her death in 1982 several books about Rand's work have been published" supported by the same reference. I did think about referencing the numbers but they are low.
• The reference to Sciabarra does not support the statement and is dubious anyway. It does support a statement that various people in 1999 thought that interesting in Rand should/would increase. However that it not notable and this should probably be deleted. An alternative is to add to the sentence above "in 1999 several academics speculated that interest in Rand would increase." Its all the citation will support and is weak.
• The statement "Courses of the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Academic Center now earn university credits" is dubious as it is a partial claim by the institute itself and unsupported by third party material. This has to be deleted.
• List of those influenced by Rand - this requires significant pruning and some explanations as to notability and/or nature of influence. I will go through that later and make proposals.

Given the controversies on this page I will leave the above for comment for 24 hours before taking any action. I assume that there may be better citations and or wordings that can be proposed. --Snowded TALK 07:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I cannot comment on the factuality of university credits for ARI courses. But Sciabarra is an NYU professor with many published works. He is not an Objectivist. He is the founding editor of the peer reviewed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. His work, and books such as What Art Is and Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, both of which have collections of essays by established scholars sympathetic to and hostile to Rand,show the increase in interest in Rand since her death. As for those influenced by Rand, if you question them, then I suggest you google them and look for a reference. If you find none then flag them. Most are published authors or well known public figures. The fact that you question the notability of Bob Barr and David Kelley or Rand's influence on Angelina Jolie is telling. Your own personal infamiliarity with Objectivism or American politics or culture does not amount to a lack of notability of subjects treated here. Kjaer (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to accept Sciabarra as an authority. My point is that the article referenced does not state that something has happened (as implied by the words) but instead gives his opinion that she will attract increasing academic interest. On that basis I am happy to amend the text to say something alone the lines of "In xxx Sciabarra predicted increasing academic interest in the work of Rand" That way we match citation to text.

In respect of Bob Barr I stated that I didn't see six years of congress as qualifying for notability. If there is another reason for notability then please tell me.

David Kelly is clearly notable within Randian circles, but not really outside them as far as I can see. He failed to gain tenure and is now part of an Objectivist group. I doubt if anyone outside the Randian group would know him but I am happy to be proved wrong if there is evidence.

Again with Jolie, no question about her notability but there needs to be a citation to support the fact that she is influenced. Accepting a role in the film of Atlas is not enough for that and as far as I can see from a google search those are the references, plus the odd comment in an objectivist forum which does not count and hostile comments like this.

You make some very broad assumptions about my familiarity with the subject. However that is beside the point. The WIkipedia is not an encyclopaedia for those familiar with objectivism, American politics or culture it is an encyclopaedia for the world based on citation. For someone to be listed as notable and influenced by Rand, both the notability and the influence have to be citable and verifiable. --Snowded TALK 10:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Those influenced

I have been through the current list and grouped them along with brief descriptios:

Notable, influence by Rand clear

• John Hospers Prof. of Philosophy and 1972 US Presidential candidate for the US Libertarian Party
• Tibor R. Machan Chair of Business Ethics and economics, visiting professor West Point
• George Hamilton Smith Author (he's not a philosopher, founding your own institution does not count)
• Allan Gotthelf, Philosopher and one of the founders of the Ayn Rand Society
• Tara Smith, Philosopher holder of BB&T Chair for the Study of Obectivism
• George Reisman, Economist
• Edward Cline author (being generous here hardly a major author)
• Terry Goodkind author
• Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Justice
• Jimmy Wales co founder Wikipedia

Not notable remove

• Harry Binswanger - degree in philosophy but limited teaching. Now providing unaccredited courses
• David Kelly - degree in philosophy some teaching but failed to obtain tenure, now within the institute
• Louis Torres - no Wikipedia article
• Douglas Rasmussen no Wikipedia article
• Douglas Den Uyl
• Petr Beckmann Electrical Engineer but nothing special apart from a controversial book on Einstein
• Robert Efron no Wikipedia article
• Edwin Locke no Wikipedia article
• Martin Anderson no Wikipedia article
• Edith Packer no Wikipedia article
• John Lewis no Wikipedia article
• Anne Wortham no Wikipedia article
• Edith Efron Minor US figure
• Peter Schwartz (writer)
• Bob Barr 8 years in congress does not make notable
• Sinan Çetin
• Roy Childs
• Mark Cuban being rich and owning a football team does not make you notable
• Paul DePodesta being a baseball executive does not make you notable
• Erika Holzer minor author not notable
• Mike Mentzer
• Robert Ringer minor author
• Tracey Ross Daytime soap star not notable
• Kay Nolte Smith minor author

Notable, influence by Rand not clear remove if no citation to support

• Robert Mayhew, Canadian politician and Diplomat
• Eric Daniels CEO of Lloyds
• James Clavell author
• Christopher Cox SEC makes notable, no reference to Rand
• Steve Ditko
• Hugh Hefner
• Angelina Jolie
• Billie Jean King
• Anton LaVey not sure on this one as there are citations linking satanist to Rand but played sage and put it here
• Frank Miller (comics)
• Ron Paul Clear that he is a libertarian but Rand influence not clear
• Neil Peart
• John Stossel (not really sure he is notable but no Rand reference anyway)
• Vince Vaughn actor

Remove covered elsewhere in article

• Nathaniel Branden
• Robert Nozick
• Alan Greenspan

Unclear for various reasons

• Murray Rothbard, Economist, ararchist etc (not sure about this one as he knew Rand, but he repudiated his relationship with Rand, and his intellectual influences seem elsewhere
• Robert Hessen, again linked with Rand but not clear if thought directly influenced to a notable degree.
• Charles Murray notable for the Bell Curve and a Libertarian but not clear on Rand connection

As you can see people whose teaching and other credibility is based on working in objectivist institutions I have marked as non-notable. I have also taken the position that no Wikipedia article means non-notable. Also a failure to mention Rand in their Wikipedia article means that additional information is needed. --Snowded TALK 08:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Agree with all these changes. The list of names is ugly as is and hides relevant people inside a storm of who-are-yous. The ref for the sentence about university credits doesn't contain the word "university" or "credit" and in fact specifically mentions that they are not accredited. I like the "since her death" bit, but you're right that sources do not support it. Hopefully, sources can be found to bring it back later. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT agree. The list of names does need attention, but I am opposed to wholesale changes being made by an editor acting on an anti-Rand agenda. Snowded has decided that he knows what constitutes notable, and what is credible, and puts forth his list of "proposed" changes which would sweep away many valid entries based upon the observation that some are not notable. Our problem here is that Snowded is lacking a familiarity with the subject matter and has a clear agenda. --Steve (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Agree I stated my opinion above, and agree with Steve. The connections of people such as Jolie, Barr, Paul, Cuban and the like to Rand are common knowledge and a simple search of their name plus Ayn on google will confirm this. Almost all the listed names are immediately familiar to anyone at all familiar with Objectivism or American culture or both. As an example, search for "mark cuban" returns 1.9 million hits. search for "mark cuban" "ayn rand" returns 6,460 hits:

There is no way to support this wholesaleattempt at censorship. Editors with knowledge of the subject have added these names in good faith. Kjaer (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 6,460 for "mark cuban" "ayn Rand". (0.17 seconds) Search Results Nba: Mark Cuban's Crush On Ayn Rand Nov 15, 2005 ... In a new story as part of college week on Slate com various famous people talk about the books they. deadspin.com/sports/nba/mark-cubans-crush-on-ayn-rand-137464.php - Similar pages - Mark Cuban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mark Cuban (his family's last name was shortened from Chabenisky when his grandparents ..... a b Dancing With The Stars; ^ Mark Cuban's Crush On Ayn Rand ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban - 116k - Cached - Similar pages - Mark Cuban's Ayn Rand populism | SocialistWorker.org Nov 25, 2008 ... The controversial owner of the Dallas Mavericks is in trouble with the SEC-- maybe because of his conflation of populism with personal ... socialistworker.org/2008/11/25/mark-cuban-and-ayn-rand-populism - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Mark Cuban - Libertarian May 19, 2006 ... Add Mark Cuban -- billionaire businessman and owner of the Dallas ... Ayn Rand with inspiring them to become American success stories. ... www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/mark-cuban.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages - Political Affairs Magazine - Mark Cuban: The Perils of Ayn Rand ... Nov 25, 2008 ... It's amazing how an eight-minute phone call can cloud a charmed life. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, like Martha Stewart before him, ... www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7796/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Mark Cuban on a New Fountainhead Movie - Ayn Rand Meta-Blog Jan 27, 2006 ... Member directory (with an online dating service) for admirers of Ayn Rand's novels the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/453.php - 19k - Cached - Similar pages - Pro Libertate: Free Mark Cuban! (Significant Update, November 18) Somehow, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban ended up on the floor at the periphery .... If only the scenario depicted in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged could take place. ... freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/11/free-mark-cuban.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages - Money & Business: Best Business Books: Mark Cuban's Picks - US ... May 13, 2007 ... Mark Cuban, owner, Dallas Mavericks. ... The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand (1943). In this sprawling novel about ego and capitalism, ... www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070513/21best.cuban.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Chicago Daily Observer | Billionaire Ayn Rand Fan Could Buy the Cubs Speaking as Mark Cuban the Objectivist, he gave portfolio.com’s Lloyd Grove the Ayn Rand perspective on baseball. When Grove recently asked Cuban to clarify ... www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/billionaire-ayn-rand-fan-could-buy- the-cubs,525/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - FreeCapitalist Daily » Blog Archive » » Ayn Rand Center: Drop the ... ARC, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights | Billionaire Mark Cuban is under investigation for “insider trading” by the SEC. ... daily.freecapitalist.com/2008/12/drop-the-sec-investigation-against-cuban/ 902 - 39k - Cached - Similar pages -

Kjaer (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not censorship to go through a list and say "on the face of it the evidence shows this". It is also Wikipedia policy that uncited material can be deleted without consultation. Given the fractious nature of any edits on this page I have not done this but presented a list. If editors have added those names in good faith then they should be very happy to provide citations to show either/or the link with Rand or the fact that they are notable. The statement that the names "are immediately familiar to anyone at all familiar with Objectivism or American culture or both" does not constitute evidence in Wikipedia terms. I did not suggest that Cuban was not influenced by Rand, (Kjaer has provided evidence for something which is not disputed) I put him on the non-notable list. Money and owning a baseball club do not make you notable. The SEC investigation might but would then have to be mentioned. Neither can you confine edits to people who in your opinion have knowledge of the subject.

Aside from complaining about the fact that I have produced the list, and creating evidence for something which has not been disputed neither of you (Steve and Kjaer) have addressed the actual proposal for name changes, or the three proposed changes (on the basis of poor citation). You are also both failing to abide by WP:AGF. Please engage with the evidence above, if you are not prepared to then I am going to tag the whole article as POV take the whole issue Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here --Snowded TALK 06:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(moved to bottom to avoid edit conflict) - What I never understood is why exactly do we need a full list of people that she influenced? I seriously doubt that any reasonable reader of this article will actually go through and read all the names in that list when they're reading the article. What about just saying something along the lines of "Rand and her philosophy influenced numerous people including [list three or four of the biggest names]." This way we keep the content reasonable and also avoid continuing debate on this subject (by my count this is the fourth major dispute about the "influenced" list). Idag (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point Idag, it is surely in the interest of those who support Rand's ideas to have a clear list of internationally notable people rather than what looks like a random collection of names. If this is the fourth time its come up then it may be better to go to mediation, happy to do that if other editors will buy in. --Snowded TALK 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we can bypass mediation if we just trim that list down to three or four of the biggest names that have a clear influence. This way there'll no longer be any need to debate every name on that list. If other folks want to keep the lengthy list, then I think mediation is the best option because, regardless of what we decide, this debate is going to pop right back up in a few months. Idag (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I have reached the end of my toleration for breech of WP:AGF and reversals of cited material. If we can all, from our different cultural and political perspectives to work on this article then it could be considerably improved. --Snowded TALK 07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF "...does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence" and further, "[m]aking accusations of bad faith [as you are] can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute." --Steve (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve, you seem to assume that anyone who does not agree with you is defacto biased or (to use your words) has an agenda. I have presented a view for discussion on this page together with specific arguments in respect of that. Asking you to comply with WP:AGF is a valid response to your comments above and is not inflammatory. I strongly suggest that you engage with those arguments rather than attempting to dismiss then either because you don't like them, or because you have a view as to my motivations in raising the issues. Having reviewed my comments I am very happy to subject them to independent review if necessary. --Snowded TALK 07:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, any editor can see that your very accusation of bad faith involves attacking my motives - where is YOUR good faith? It appears that you are quick to attempt to use the WP policies to falsely brand others with actions better attributed to your posts. You say that I "assume that anyone who does not agree with [me] is defacto biased" yet that is specifically what you are doing to me, right here, right now. I'm surprised that you think that works! --Steve (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(I indented your comments). Steve, all you have to do is engage with the actual arguments above that I spend some time assembling. Actions speak louder than protestations. --Snowded TALK 09:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about we compare the influenced list to other philosphers pages and see how it compares? Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the controversial issue of whether Rand should be called a philosopher or not. I did a quick scan and few even have a section under that name. I can't see any equivalent of a long list of names. The section on Kant (please do not compare Rand with Kant in status) has a description in the main on his influence on schools with some names and multiple citations. For this article (and any other) its very simple. Any material which is not cited and is challenged can be removed and removal does not constitute censorship. My view on this section is that it would be a lot better to have a few clear names whose notability is not in question (internationally) and whose influence by Rand or her writings can be cited. That should have some text around it not a long list of names. A sensible and balanced couple few paragraphs on this (no one can doubt her influence whatever one things of it) could then incorporate more context and deal with the Greenspan and Chomsky issues at the same time --Snowded TALK 16:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also for practical reasons, can any of you honestly say that the first time you read this article, you actually read that entire list of names? The best compromise would be to say that Rand influenced a number of people and, as examples, put up a few of the most famous folks who she clearly influenced. Idag (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's an influenced list in the little sidebar at the top that can be expanded. Anyone who can be verified can be left there, and readers will be able to find the big list if they want it, but four lines of names in the middle of a paragraph is ugly, does not inform readers (because who will read it?), and bad for the article. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable approach. Anyone where influence can be cited and meets some minimum standard of notability (say a page in Wikipedia) goes in the long list which people can read if they want. The main article lists a limited number of major players with some text to describe their role and the nature of the influence. The negative text from major figures could be incorporated there in one informative paragraph. --Snowded TALK 20:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the reason for challenging the notability or link with Ayn Rand of the above noted persons is not inability to document such, but POV (being rich doesn't make you notable i.e., being rich makes you not notable) and unwillingness to check info readily known to anyone with knowledge of Objectivism or American culture. Again, those unfamiliar with such common knowledge are invited to do a simple google search, which will return tens of thousands of hits for most of the above when searched for "their name" and "ayn rand" in quotes. It does not surprise me that someone from outside the US would not, for instance, recognize the notability of Bob Barr. But that is why one depends upon those with actual expertise in the subject to edit the article. Demanding individual documentation for commonly known names and easily verifiable information is not a means of improving the article - it is a means of making absurd demands, whern the person making the challenges is capable of his own good faith effort to verify what is common knowledge to Americans. Demanding proof of the notability of people such as Stossel (best seller, award-winning and well known TV investigative journalist, on top rated TV show for two decades) shows the lack of expertise and effort of the person making the demand. Inform yourself, flag anyone who remains obscure, and after that good faith effort, those who know will be happy to take on a reasonable task.

As for the "ugliness" of the list? That is simply POV. People do read such articles to find people of interest for further research. If a list is ungainly, it should not be censored, but rather expanded into a separate article if such is warranted.Kjaer (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why Jomasecu suggested sticking the full list into a sidebar so that people who are interested in it can follow up. Please read the entire discussion before accusing others of POV. Idag (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Idag, POV doesn't always mean an agenda or a violation of WP - it also means one person's view of things - something is ugly to some and not to others. That is how I read Kjaer's comment. A comment I agree with because it doesn't seem ugly to me. There is a problem with taking those names and stuffing them into a pop-up in the sidebar box - it has no room for any explanations - and those explanations are the meat of the case with Rand who is not an ivory tower philosopher. She had and still has an effect on our culture and that is an important aspect of her - hence, of her article. It is a fairly unique aspect of Rand and should be an important part of the article - not something pushed off to the somewhere else. --Steve (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Kjaer (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

List items are still subject to policies of notability and verifiability. Notability, in the case of a larger list, can be established simply by having a Wiki article. Their link to Rand needs to be verified, as does anything. The number of Google search results combining two names means nothing. The argument that any American can recognize a name also has no bearing. As for the placement of the list, I don't think the appearance and readability of the article has anything to do with POV. I simply suggest that the list in the article be made easier to read and more informative to someone not familiar with the subject. I fully support a seperate article for the List if enough of the people on it can be verifiably linked, and that article could be linked at the top of this section. If not, something like See sidebar at top could be put in. (Can we link that?) Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the current list does not contain any explanations, it is just a list. Therefore, nothing would be lost by moving it to a sidebar. Idag (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as making a separate article, I think a list of people who Rand influenced would run into notability issues. That's why I'd prefer keeping it in a sidebar, unless there's a lot of secondary scholarship on this topic. Idag (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ I think we need a basic education in Wikipedia. No article is subject to decisions by those who declare they have knowledge in the subject. In this respect there are two tests (i) is the person notable and (ii) if so is there citable evidence that they were influenced by Rand. My approach here was fairly simple. Check one, is there a WIkipedia page for the individual? if not they are not notable. Check two does that Wikipedia page mention an influence by Rand? If no mention what comes up on a simple Google search. Of those who are left then we get more into opinion as to what is or is not notable. Some were obvious, a minor baseball official is not notable, a tenured professor in a relevant discipline (Economics, Philosophy, Business) is. I find it frankly amazing that my saying "being rich and owning a baseball club does not make you notable" is held as evidence of a POV. :Kjaer states that this means I am saying "being rich makes you not notable" which is very basic error in logic. A does not necessarily equal B is not the same as notA means notB.

The list is offered for discussion and was created using the criteria above. I expected reasonable editors to disagree with parts and offer evidence for that disagreement. I stated mine. Beck is a congressmen but so are many others. He also attracted less than half a percent of the popular vote in the last presidential election. That may make him notable in Libertarian circles but in terms of the World less so. Stossel was one I hesitated over, but the nature of the books and the programmes did not seem to be such as to survive beyond the immediate presence. Can I repeat again, the WIkipedia is an international encyclopaedia and decisions of notability take place in that context, not simply the context of America, or the context of the Libertarian Movement in America.

I will remain patient on this, despite repetition of POV accusations which seem to be motivated by (i) a failure to understand the criteria for inclusion of material in WIkipedia and (ii) a simple case of "I don't like it". The criteria I emboldened above represent an objective way of making decisions with some discussion to take place at the boundary line between notable and non-notable. I would like to ask Steve and Kjaer to engage with this process. However I also want to remind them that uncited material can be removed without consensus on this page and reversion constitutes vandalism. I have laid out four changes above which are based on the citable evidence not opinion. For the moment I am holding of making the changes on the basis that other editors may be able to improve the citation or may make other suggestions (I have responded to one already). --Snowded TALK 06:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

First, Snowded, please refrain from hysterical posts to personal talk pages about assuming good faith. I will assume good faith when you show it by actually trying to document readily available information rather than threatening to censor the article based on your own ignorance of or infamiliarity with the topic. You too must assume the good faith of those who have added these names and the knowledgeabilty of those of us who have not challenged them.

I have added references showing the link to Ayn Rand of those people cited in the article who do not yet have their own Wikipedia entry. This is not offered as proof of notability, nor is it a concession on my part that any such proof is necessary. Verifiable does not necessarily mean verified. My good faith effort is simply meant to show how easy it is for someone who truly wishes to find such information to do so.

So far as I am concerned, this matter is settled. Anyone who is concerned that those people who are listed in this article might in some way be more dubious or in need of documentation than, for instance, the various dead soccer players who form the bulk of the content of the recently deceased page at the main portal, can show good faith and find that documentation themselves. Kjaer (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this matter is not settled. We still have not really addressed the issue of moving this list to the sidebar. As of now, there is no reason for this list to be in the main body of the article, as it is only a list and it disrupts the flow of the article. Contrary to Steve's assertion there is no elaboration for most of the people on that list, and, frankly, no elaboration will be necessary in the future. If we move the whole thing to the sidebar, it will be more prominently visible (for those editors who are concerned about that) and it will stop disrupting the flow of the article. It will also reduce the amount of time we have to spend debating this thing in the future. So let's just cut the rhetoric on both sides and discuss moving the list to the sidebar. (I'm not proposing trimming the names, merely moving this list to the sidebar, if we want to, we can discuss the names on there once the move is accomplished) Idag (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it 'disrupts the flow of the article' - it is the content that makes up the essence of that section - in that section it is the article. And that isn't an unimportant section. Her philosophy has its roots in popular culture rather than academic journals - hence the nature of the list of people influenced. As to the concern over the time spent in debate, that is best solved by just leaving it as is, or making small edits that clean it up - not wholesale changes that move an important piece of the article into a sidebar. Before discussing the names, we need to finish discussing the reasons for not doing a move. --Steve (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please participate in discussions in good faith: we are not "discussing reasons for not doing a move", we are "discussing reasons concerning whether we should do a move." Also, generic rhetoric about "POV" and the "roots" of Rand's work is not helpful when we are discussing the best way to convey a message. My proposal consisted of moving the list to the sidebar, then, in the main body of the article, having a statement indicating that she influenced a number of people with the top three or four names of people that she influenced. This way, the idea is still conveyed in the article and the full list is prominently displayed in the sidebar. Steve, if you choose to respond, please address the specifics of that idea. Idag (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Idaq, accusing me of not participating in good faith is not helpful - to make an accusation like that, when it is false, as is the case, is itself a failure of good faith. You were talking about the move as if it was a done deal. I pointed out that it is not a done deal, and that it is still being discussed. There is no lack of good faith in that! You are talking about "conveying a message" and I am saying that because of Rand's popularity in the culture at large, the message needs to about that aspect of her influence. Are you unclear by what I meant when I referred to her writing for the culture at large rather than in academic journals, or why that changes the nature of message an article about her must convey? I understand your proposal. I am saying that this material should not be 'sidebared' - it is too much the heart of that section. I have been addressing the specifics of that idea. --Steve (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have not addressed the specifics of the idea. You seem to be under the belief that the list would be entirely deleted from the main article. In fact, as I have repeatedly stated, the list WOULD NOT be removed completely from the main article. It would be replaced by a statement that Rand has influenced numerous people and it would list out a REPRESENTATIVE CROSS-SECTION of those people. The cross-section would convey the types of people that Rand influenced while the word "numerous" would convey the fact that she influenced a large number of those people. This would convey the importance of Rand's influence (which you have repeatedly emphasized) far more effectively than a simple four-line list of names that we currently have. For people who are interested in the full list, they could simply look over to the sidebar to see it. This edit is actually very pro-Rand as the cross-section would consist of the really big names, which would highlight the importance of her work far more than a four-line list that no one fully reads. Now, Steve, if you still disagree and would like to respond, what I am looking for is why a four-line list of names is better than a sentence or two that summarizes that list, with the list itself being kept in a sidebar. I don't want to hear about my "anti-Rand POV", I don't want to hear about Rand's imporance and influence (I agree that she's important and influential), and I don't want to hear about "the heart of the section" (my edits would still keep the list at the "heart of the section). All I want to hear is an analysis of why a long list of names would convey the idea of Rand's influence better than a summary combined with a cross-section of that list. Idag (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What's good for Chomsky is good for Rand. The paragraph separates people by their fields. Doing this in a side bar would be unreadable. And look at this, from Chomsky's article:

Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from universities around the world, including the following:

University of London University of Chicago Loyola University of Chicago Swarthmore College University of Delhi Bard College University of Massachusetts University of Pennsylvania Georgetown University Amherst College University of Cambridge

University of Buenos Aires McGill University Universitat Rovira i Virgili Columbia University Villanova University University of Connecticut University of Maine Scuola Normale Superiore University of Western Ontario University of Toronto Harvard University

Universidad de Chile University of Bologna Universidad de la Frontera University of Calcutta Universidad Nacional de Colombia Vrije Universiteit Brussel Santo Domingo Institute of Technology Uppsala University University of Athens University of Cyprus

Discussion cont/d

Kjaer as far as I am aware there were no hysterical posts to personal pages. I have simply followed Wiki processes in giving you progressive formal warnings. You need to engage in the argument. I laid out clear and objective criteria which I had used to draw up those lists (and please remember there are three other changes that I intend to make if no one comes up with any evidence. I didn't escalate to the next stage of warning on Steve's page because he stopped making accusations. Be aware that the only stage left after this is an ANI report. Other than that point Idag has made the critical responses for me. If you want to go and challenge something as uncited on Chomsky's page then please do so. The way you do that is to list the ones you doubt on the talk page and give other editors time to respond (oh, thats what I did here). I'll put the page under watch now and support you if you do OK? Steve has made an interesting point, arguing that Rand's influence was on "ordinary" people rather than academics and others. I can see some value in that but they should not be listed as notable. I really do that that not having a wikipedia page disqualifies someone from even going on the list however and I freely admit I didn't both checking actual influence in those cases. Of course having a wikipedia page does not automatically mean that you are notable in this context (subject to the Steve variation above) and several of those with WIkipedia pages were in one of my exclusion categories as those pages did not mention Rand. Incidentally Kjaer, I'm not sure why you went to the effort of showing a link between people without a wikipedia page and Rand, the contest there is notability not influence. You don't need to do it in the article per se, they could be listed in a section here and that could be referenced in the future if they were challenged.

I am leaving this for another 24 hours then I plan to start work on the first three changes, taking into account comments and evidence presented since. I'll also redraft the lists based on what has been presented as evidence so far. --Snowded TALK 07:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Incentive: incidentally guys, if we can sort out things like the list, citations etc. there is a half way decent change of getting this article back to good status. Having a balanced set of editors from different perspectives, respecting citation and notability tests will all contribute to that. Kjaer I respect your disclosure of interest in archive 15, hopefully you will see that it is in the interests of supporters of Rand's views for this to take place. ( freely declare I am not a supporter, and by the way I'm no fan of Chomsky or any libertarian from the right or the left. --Snowded TALK 08:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as the list on Chomsky's page, I never edited that article and I don't know why they chose a list format for that article, all I know is that it is not necessary for this article. A more appropriate example is the Immanuel Kant influence section that contains an explanation of his influence and a representative cross-section of names and disciplines that he influenced. In fact, read the Kant influence section and then read the Rand influence section and tell me which one you think is better written. Idag (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I made up an example of the sidebar option. It's got some spacing problems; I'm not too familiar with wiki code, but I'm sure someone could clean it up if this is what we decide on. It also doesn't address problems like citations, and the arrangement of the names could probably use some work. It's mostly just to illustrate that something like this is more readable. It shows readers the most important names as they read the article and gives them easy access to the rest of it if they want to see it.

Rand has had an influence on a number of authors from different fields. Examples include philosophers such as John Hospers, George H. Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Robert Mayhew and Tara Smith, economists such as George Reisman and Murray Rothbard, psychologists such as Nathaniel Branden, historians such as Eric Daniels, and political and sociological writers such as Charles Murray.

Many other notable individuals have acknowledged that Rand significantly influenced their lives, including former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, U.S. Congressmen Ron Paul and Bob Barr, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 04:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this supposed side bar option has no rationale other than a questionable concern for the "flow" of the article. At first we have the proposition that people like Barr, Jolie or Cuban are of questionable notability or relevance. We have an editor who has repeatedly expressed his hostility to Rand, and who lectures Objectivists (a term he refuses to spell properly) on what they need to do to be taken seriously, wanting to censor a list of people who do take Rand seriously, based not on his expertise, on his own personal lack of knowledge of Objectivism and American culture. Comparison with other articles such as Chomsky's show that simple lists may be the best way to provide such information. It seems that the reasoning is we should minimalize this inforamtion by hook or by crook. If calls to censor the section outright fall a bit flat, since the evidence of the notability and relevance of those people is either widely known or easily found, yet good faith effort to do so is beyond the would-be censor, then we will resort to hiding the inconvenient information in a sidebar. This is simply not Wikipedia policy. Articles with sections that become large are split into separate articles, not collapsed into sidebars. Kjaer (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know to whom you are referring, but I suggested the sidebar option, and I don't recall showing a hostility toward Rand. (Not that this should have any relevance to this discussion, but I am an Objectivist.) I have also said I would not be opposed to a seperate article. As to your accusation that I'm trying to hide and censor, I think the sidebar stands out more than a mid-paragraph list or a seperate article.

The list I think you are referring to in Chomsky's article is universities that have honored him. They all hold equal relevance to the subject and picking out the most notable of them would be more difficult than a list like this, which shows a good deal of people who don't even have an article. Most importantly, however, it's not a mid-paragraph blurb of comma seperated values. The Rand list in question would also benifit from a bulletted list—and I would not be opposed to changing the sidebar into one—but I think that it's important to keep the most relevant people in the paragraph, with context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomasecu (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jomasecu with the added caveat that a separate article about the people who Rand influence would probably be deleted under WP:Notability. Kjaer, your previous post was an ad hominem attack. This should not matter, but I have made a number of pro-Rand edits to this article and I have also repeatedly defended this article from anti-Rand edits that violated Wikipedia policies. Jomasecu and I are not attempting to minimize Rand's influence, to the contrary, we are attempting to clearly explain her influence instead of just chucking a list at the reader. Please take a few minutes and actually think about the merits of the idea instead of simply drawing battle lines in the sand. Idag (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky being an anarchist

I left that in for now, but, in my opinion, its irrelevant, as he's criticizing her philosophy and not her political leanings. If anything this makes Chomsky more sympathetic to Rand, as they were both in favor of less government intervention. Idag (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. Even the quote refers to right wing libertarian Nozick and right wing economist Friedman. This is why I supported calling him a linguist and activist. Linguist is his expertise, activist is the relevant hat for his POV. I agree with Steve above that the section should include only actual academic criticsims. This would leave only Nozick so far as I see. I would also suggest that fans of Chomsky look at his article and see what standards are held there regarding criticism. It is simply not allowed in his article. Kjaer (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Rand is no friend of the anarchist because she gives moral and philosophical support to a concept of government. But no matter what Chomsky's psychology at the time of that utterance, his "criticism" is NOT worthy of report, and should be removed completely, because it is not a philosophical (or political) criticism. It is an unsupported rant. Where is the observation of a philosophical difference or the reasoning supporting a defined position or the illumination of the details that make up a fallacy he claims to see? Saying someone is evil is all fine and dandy, but to be taken seriously one needs to say why... and it is that 'why' that constitutes an intelligible critque. --Steve (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What's absurd is suggesting that Chomsky's attack on Rand was motivated by his anarchism. This would only follow if he consistently referred to all statists as "evil". He seems to despise Rand because of her philosophy as a whole, not simply her laissez faire ideals. After all, Chomsky has never been all *that* critical of laissez faire (to the point of calling all adherents 'evil'), usually merely commenting sarcastically that it "might be a good idea", implying that it's an unrealistic fantasy. I totally disagree that Chomsky is attacking Rand as a political activist, it seems clear to me that he's attacking her philosophy as "evil", given its Nietzschean perspective. Egoist philosophy has long been held in disdain by real philosophers (Russell despised Nietzsche), and so Chomsky's opinion on this matter is pretty par the course for respectable philosophy. CABlankenship (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First, this is an article about Rand, so personal attacks on Rand are relevant. I agree that this criticism may be irrelevant in the Objectivism article, but this is not the Objectivism article. Second, what does Chomsky being an anarchist and a linguist have to do with his criticism of Rand? Rand may not have been an anarchist, but she was not pro-government by any means (she was more anti-government than the Libertarians), and she was not involved in linguistics in any way. The only relevant adjective is Chomsky being a philosopher, as he is calling Rand an "evil intellectual figure." Chomsky's backgound in philosophy is necessary to properly evaluate that statement, but the other adjectives are completely irrelevant. Idag (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As these Chomsky adjectives are getting ridiculous, perhaps we should just remove all of them and let the quote stand with his name alone. People who wish to know more about Chomsky can visit his article. CABlankenship (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would keep "cognitive philosopher" as that is relevant to his statement, but chuck out the remaining adjectives as irrelevant. Idag (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Current description of chomsky is accurate and cited, and as concise as we will get since you insist on philosopher. Do not revert cited and accurate self description of political opponent. Kjaer (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I never stated that "linguist" and "anarchist" were inaccurate, I stated that they were IRRELEVANT and, therefore, a violation of WP:Undue Weight. Idag (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These adjective wars are tedious and silly. CABlankenship (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very difficult to sum up a man as complex and widely influential as Chomsky in a few specific terms. I personally feel that "scientist and philosopher" comes closest to a succinct description of the man. CABlankenship (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I support removing entirely as ad hominem - simply not an academic criticism of philosophy, just one sentence off the cuff name calling. But as for Chomsky, suggest "linguist activist" to replace "anarchist, linguist, cognitive philosopher." Kjaer (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ref to which you refer, which proves Steve's & my point:

"Noam Chomsky", by Zoltán Gendler Szabó, in Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860-1960, ed. Ernest Lepore (2004). "Chomsky's intellectual life had been divided between his work in linguistics and his political activism, philosophy coming as a distant third. Nonetheless, his influence among analytic philosophers has been enormous due to three factors. First, Chomsky contributed substantially to a major methodological shift in the human sciences, turning away from the prevailing empiricism of the middle of the twentieth century: behaviorism in psychology, structuralism in linguistics and positivism in philosophy. Second, his groundbreaking books on syntax (Chomsky (1957, 1965)) laid a conceptual foundation for a new, cognitivist approach to linguistics and provided philosophers with a new framework for thinking about human language and the mind. And finally, he has persistently defended his views against all takers, engaging in important debates with many of the major figures in analytic philosophy..."

Further, it isn't the adjectives that are irrelevant, it is the entire comment. Calling someone 'evil' isn't relevant criticism - it is an emotional outburst put into words, and without an explanation or a reason, it never rises any farther. Simple ad hominem doesn't become relevant as criticism just because it's made by someone notable. --Steve (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't 'prove your point' at all. It establishes Chomsky's status as a philosopher, and the profound impact he has had on a wide range of philosophical issues. I think we should remove all adjectives and end this inane debate. Those who wish to learn more about Chomsky can visit his page. The ad hominem argument simply doesn't hold water -- just a few days ago, Kjaer was agreeing with us that it was a valid quotation, now suddenly he wants it removed. You have a semantics objection to Chomsky's attack on Rand's philosophy. Calling it an "emotional outburst" is amusing. Chomsky has said similar things about Rand in private correspondence I have had with him, including calling her "outrageous" and a "monster". It's a considered opinion on his part. CABlankenship (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'd rather keep the philosopher part, but if we can't agree on adjectives, let's just remove them all. Chomsky's opinion does not have to be meticulously written out, it is an opinion not a dissertation. As far as the ad hominem argument, that is irrelevant because this article is about Rand not her philosophy. Therefore, personal criticism of Rand is relevant. Though, as I've pointed out above, the statement is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it criticizes Rand or her philosophy. Idag (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, I always wanted it removed, for the exact reason that "evil" is not a criticism. Read above. So long as it's here, it must be as accurate and relevant as possible. But politics is the art of the possible. Now that people who were visiting friends or otherwise busy over Christmas are back, what is possible has changed. Kjaer (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the adjectives not the criticism. Calling someone "evil" is certainly a criticism of that person. Idag (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also Kjaer please remember that WIkipedia is not about majority voting, its about citation and balance along with other things. --Snowded TALK 08:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

American?

In the header, people keep removing the word American from the first sentence:

"...was a Russian-born American novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter."

We have references saying she was an American citizen. Not seeing the problem here. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Snowded and I already discussed this (I was trying to keep this off the talk page since we have more important things to debate). In essence, under Soviet law at the time, Rand was still considered a Soviet citizen, so the citizenship criteria doesn't really work. As far as whether she was a Russian or American writer, some sources call her an American writer while other sources call her a Russian writer.[1] This is all a very minor point because the body of the article makes it clear that Rand was an American citizen. Idag (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

For those who are interested, this provides a nice overview of the Soviet citizenshp law.[2] After I became a U.S. citizen, they kept sending me threatening letters for not fulfilling my duty to the mother country and serving in the Russian military :-) Idag (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian-American. Don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. People with similar histories, such as Isaac Asimov, have almost identical first sentences. Asmiov's was so even when it was a featured article. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it was personal! The difficulty is that all her books were written after she became an american citizen, but her formative period was in the context of a Russia to which she had little affinity. You could compromise and get rid of both Russian and American from the sentence in the lede. They are both covered later. --Snowded TALK 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not personal. It's just logical there. Taking out Russian-born as well is a poor comprimise as they both apply. We've established that she is an American, the only argument I've heard against it being there is that she's also a Russian, but that's already in the same sentence. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the personal comment was to Idag (his experience with Russia). --Snowded TALK 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... that seems obvious now. :P Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Russian-born, as that is correct. However, since the sources categorize her as both a Russian and an American writer, if we start picking sides, that'd be somewhat OR. Her citizenship can't be used as a criterion because under Soviet law, she was a Soviet citizen, while under U.S. law, she was a U.S. citizen. I think the best way to resolve the secondary source split is to just keep it out of the lede and then clarify early on, as this article does, the she became a U.S. citizen. As far as the personal thing, I loved getting those letters, it made me feel like a dangerous fugitive =P Idag (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as Asimov, he moved to the U.S. in the early '20s before the Soviet citizenship laws were enacted. Idag (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the lead sentence, putting her Russian birth name after her place of birth - in the Early Life section, a better place for that. I put 'American' back into the lead sentence which is what she was at the time she was a novelist, philosopher, etc. It makes it cleaner and more appropriate. --Steve (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion before making unilateral changes. As I've pointed out above, numerous sources call Rand a "Russian writer." I'm willing to compromise on "Russian-born" because that's factually accurate, but we should avoid using labels, such as "Russian writer" or "American writer" in the lede when the sources for those labels are inconsistent. Idag

I did read the discussion. She was American by choice, by immigration, by length of residency, by political philosophy, and the country she dies and remains buried in. And she wrote in English, publishing here in America, where she lived. Remember that Wikipedia is international - we need to identify her country - which was America. And, in the appropriate section, 'Early Years,' it gives the specific details of her birth - city and country. --Steve (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any deletion of either Russian-born or American is so absurdly partisan and needless that it should be reversed without comment. Kjaer (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please look at my change before calling it partisan. I put American back in, the fact that she was born in Russia is down but a few inches - in the Early Years. See if it doesn't read better and isn't more appropriate. But if people are adamant about "Russian-born American" - fine, that's not a big thing. --Steve (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(I said "deletion" is "partisan", not change.) Kjaer (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your idea that "she was American by choice" is just that, your idea. Some sources support you, others do not. When there is a conflict of sources (i.e. some sources calling her a "Russian writer") an encyclopedia article should not take sides in that conflict. Kjaer, I would remind you of WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like an example of how a lede for a multi-country person looks like, check out the Albert Einstein article. Idag (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There are references to Rand stating that she is an American by choice. It is better to ask someone if it is just their idea than to make false observations. This isn't "taking sides" this is avoiding partisan writing, sticking to the facts, and putting them down in a clean, crisp fashion. --Steve (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show me a reference where Rand states that she is an "American by choice". In the meantime, the following references state that she is a Russian writer (this is after only a brief search, I'm sure there's lots more): [3], Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. Idag (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rand said this many many times. There mere fact is obvious. Did she accidentally board the oceanliner to New York? Did the CIA drug her and force her to apply for citizenship? "Rand planned to make her American visit permanent" (Ayn Rand, Britting, p. 29) Upon arriving in NY and seeing the skyline she cried "tears of splendor" (Ibid., p. 31) Kjaer (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No one's saying that she didn't love America, but the fact that she had a Russian heritage that shows up heavily in her philosophy supports the view that some sources have that she is a Russian writer. Many Russian writers were rabidly anti-Soviet and anti-communist, far more so than their American counterparts, because they personally got screwed over by communism. You have not provided a reason for why we should ignore valid sources (I personally believe that she was an American, but a view that she was a Russian writer is justifiable and I am trying to fairly represent the outside sources). Idag (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand wrote, “I am an American by choice and conviction. I was born in Europe, but I came to America because this was the country based on my moral premises and the only country where I could be fully free to write.” That is in the section titled “About the Author” in the appendix to Atlas Shrugged, (New York: Signet, 1957), p. 1085. --Steve (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll agree to "Russian-born American." Could you change the reference in the lede to correspond with what you've written here? Idag (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

War

As for the question of the reliability of ARI watch as a source, I can vouch for the correctness of the matter that was supported - i.e., Rand's view of war. I did research in Rand's Journals and elsewhere at the time of my edit of the section which paralleled the claim. I do not happen to have the Journals with me at my New York residence. Since the only effect of the flag is to imply that the information the refernce supports is dubious, and since that information is not dubious, and since I see no way to prove that the source is not dubious, I am again removing the tag. My action should simply be taken as the informed opinion of a twenty-plus-year student of Rand. Not an ARIwatch partisan.

Sorry but the assertion of an individual editor that he has done the work does not count as evidence. I am happy to accept your assurance that you have done the work and accordingly will not delete the section but simply restore the tag until you or someone else either validates the source or provides some other reference than can be verified in accordance with Wikipedia procedures. The other option is to remove the reference and simply insert a fact tag instead. --Snowded TALK 08:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But what counts as validating the source? This is apparently a doubt that cannot be assuaged. Tell me how ARIwatch can be shown to be a valid source, and apply the same reasoning to the blog which is the source of the Chomsky quote. Kjaer (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In our shoes I would go back to the journals and cite them with page numbers. Then everyone would be happy. The tag can stay there in the meantime. The Chomsky blog is a news agency interview with the man which is someone different from a blank web page with text. I think you have a clear and safe route forward here and I would certainly oppose anyone deleting the statement while you get the citation right. --Snowded TALK 20:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Having just been through the ARI reference in detail it ends with the statement "It is abundantly clear to the sincere reader that Ayn Rand was against America entering WW II." How is this compatible with the statement in the article that "she approved American action when strictly justified in response to an attack"/ Would someone elaborate? --Snowded TALK 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that she was opposed to entering the war up until Pearl Harbor, but in favor of it from that point on. I'll see if I can find some solid references for whatever her positions were. --Steve (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Rand Criticism Section

Giant chunks of this section sound like original research. Idag (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it gets a couple of days with the fact tags in place, and if not cited it goes --Snowded TALK 06:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a tag on the claim that gotthelf smith and sciabarra have tried to introduce rand into academia? This is evident from their articles, chairs, published works. What do you want? The title of their books? Of JARS? What is disputed or questioned in this sentence?

As for Nyquist, is the self-published nature of his book not relevant? I would certainly not remove the comment on him. There is a review by Seddon review that treats the book as notable, but questions its value. Kjaer (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. The "tried to introduce" should be easy to cite, some of the other comments less so. Remember we rely on secondary sources not OR on primary sources. That one fools a lot of people (it did me when I first got involved). Adding "self-published" to the reference would be reasonable. --Snowded TALK 06:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If the only citation for most of the assertions in this section is Merrill's book, then it is undue weight. A single book should not have its own section in this article. If there are no other sources, I propose deleting this section and adding a sentence or two to the criticism section stating that Merrill has questioned the motivation of Rand's critics. Idag (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The references provided to support the tagged statements are just that - references. They cannot replace the plain text, since other references can be provided to support the same plain text. For example, both Sciabarra and Merrill support the first sentence. Do not revert the text, snowded. You have once again been warned of 3RR. Kjaer (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop issuing 3RR warnings on one or two reverts its a clear attempt to intimidate other editors. You need to read WP:OR and maybe realise that I improved this by using the actual quotations. --Snowded TALK 20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make one last attempt to get you to understand the OR point. Your text has the phrase "many of the criticisms directed towards Rand are not directed with the same hostility towards other philosophers" and you say this is supported by the citation "It is not so much that academic philosophers are hostile to Objectivist ideas (though they very definitely are) as that they just don't think in that way". There is nothing in the citation to support the statement that other philosophers are treated in a more hostile way. Get it? You have also foolishly removed the pipelinks to the authorities cited. There is also a more general point that a very small number of authors are being used as authorities to support all sorts of statements in various sections. It may be necessary to tag sections or the whole article as OR at this rate and move to dispute resolution. Please read the first part of this, read WP:OR. Incidentally the edit you (K) just made is 3RR in practice but I have better things to do than report you for it --Snowded TALK 20:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The RS Tag

This is getting silly. Established news sites are reliable sources, a sub page on a site dedicated to the ideas of the article's subject is not. --Snowded TALK 06:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Qualification and Balance

More silliness. If every critic of Rand is going to have their reasons for that criticism subject to OR speculation (he had a long time grudge, he was a catholic) then we going to end up with the same for every pro (Tara's grant at the University of Texas), People who are dependent on Rand Insitutions for their livelihood. Lets just keep this balanced shall we, rather than creating a fan site.--Snowded TALK 08:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Rand's and Buckley's feud, his opinion of the importance of his Catholicism, and her having chided him for it. I suggest you read the refs. Until then, removing citations, no matter how much you don't like them, is vandalism, and you have been warned of this and your repeated violations of 3RR. Kjaer (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do know there was a feud and its worthy of inclusion, maybe even a section. However what you are doing here is to take any negative point and qualify them with a explanation. I made this point above and you have not responded to it. Controversial edits even if cited have to be discussed which is why I opened this section and its not vandalism. You seem very unwilling to confirm with this basic principle of Wikipedia.

I have never in my edit history broken the 3RR rule and the only warning comes from you and there were only two reverts at the time. You are now engaging in personal abuse. In fairness I think its late at night for you and you seem to have worked yourself up somewhat, however please withdraw that accusation. --Snowded TALK 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The real silliness is letting Buckley's quote stand as a serious critique - no context, no substance, and the product of a long-standing feud (that itself isn't even noteworthy) - and it is brought in as if it had some value to add to the article - some tiny mote of information - but it doesn't. There is adequate reference for his motivation being their religious differences - it that a sacred cow? Are we not permitted to say that he is in print as detesting atheists? Anything that Buckley said that constituted actual critique would be proper. You seem to imply that Tara Smith is just writing books and papers to get grant money - a kind of university whore - do you have any reference for that kind of accusation? Where is the statement of Tara Smith's that you object to? That kind of unreasoning approach to motives won't work. Most of us earn our living based upon a developed expertise. If we look at the leading expert on Chomsky, or Aristotle, and see that they earn their incomes by that expertise, do we discredit them? That would be silly. Let's start looking at content and context and what the section's story is and good encyclopedia writing. I don't want a fan site, nor am I happy with anyone using it as a shooting gallery for taking pot shots at ideas they don't like. If anyone shows that they are as eager to remove cheap shots, they'll find me as eager to remove fan site trash - that is balance --Steve (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am making a point on balance Steve by way of illustration I was not making a proposal. I think it would a nonsense to refer to her (Tara) funding; imputing an unworthy motivation would be wrong. It is equally nonsense to take any criticism of Rand and attempt to ascribe to some motivation or label the individual in some way. This was done with Chomsky as well if you remember. The Rand/Buckley debate may be worthy of a section in itself as its a key debate on the right. I think the recent edits were "fan site" and suggested bringing the discussion here. That way we get some objectivity. If you could persuade your more volatile colleague to calm down and calm down a bit that night help.--Snowded TALK 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, Snowded, it appears that your edits, including reverts are all proper - according to you, but if anyone reverts you, they are failing to follow policy - according to you. Please go back and take a look, I'm sure your intent isn't to foster a double standard. --Steve (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No Steve, I am trying to move a discussion to the talk page if its controversial. Restore to starting position if conflict is a basic good practice. --Snowded TALK 08:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Snowded, but that 'starting position' that you discuss is always the one you favor. Kjaer isn't 'my colleague' he is one of the editors here. And he has reason to be miffed - you deleted some valid, sourced material - that is not a proper thing to do. There is material that is valid, sourced and not POV slanted for Rand or against her - that is what we want to have here. If the Buckley comment is left in, it needs some context - that isn't hard to grasp. I think it is better left out. Discussing the animosity Rand generated on the left, the right, and in academia could be a valid section on its own - but only where it isn't handled as a series of cheap shots. When someone is spewing venom instead of a critique, then there has to be some context, some explanation. --Steve (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

II wouldn't say that Buckley is "spewing venom", he is not swearing. The position is pretty clear. Uncited material can be deleted. Cited material is not automatically included, it is subject to tests for weight etc. The position in the event of a dispute is to revert to the previous position and then discuss. Now I think the Buckley-Rand issue is an interesting one and there is a case to include it. However the argument for context applies both ways. If "context" is to be applied to the anti-comments then it should also be added to the "for" ones at which point everything can become silly. I'll think about some wording during the course of the day or tomorrow to see if we can resolve this in the meantime I have other things to do. --Snowded TALK 10:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First, if there is a secondary source explicitly stating that Rand and Buckley had a conflict and that Buckley's criticism was motivated by that conflict, I think we should include it. However, I looked into the sources that were cited and none of them discussed Buckley's criticism in connection with his conflict with Rand, making this whole thing OR (at least with the current sources). Second, if there is a source for this qualification, we should NOT use the wording that Kjaer and Steve have tried to use. That wording is definitely not neutral and it is so ridiculously one-sided that when I first saw those edits, I thought someone was vandalizing the page. That first sentence about Buckley not being sufficiently devoted to his conservative principles is borderline libel (Buckley is dead and its an expression of opinon so its not libel, but we should still avoid things like that). Idag (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection

I noticed the appalling levels of edit-warring on this article over the past few days, and have had no hesitation in fully-protecting it for one week. I suggest that editors take the time to coolly and calmly discuss the matters under dispute in the ways good wikipedians are supposed to employ. As always, protecting at this point does not indicate that I support or reject the version that has been fixed by the protection. I do not expect to see any toing and froing of accusations of "he/she did this", "no he/she did this", or "it is all his/her fault", etc either. Behave better and resolve the matter by abiding by WP:AGF and the job of reaching WP:CONSENSUS. Confine yourselves solely to the specific talk of improving this article. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda page

It's clear that Rand followers have no interest in making this a balanced, neutral, and informative article. What I see is an attempt at propaganda. This is rarely seen to this degree on other pages. For instance, Noam Chomsky has many followers, yet they are far more accepting of rational criticism. I added a section very critical of his stance on the evolution of language, which has yet to be challenged by his fans. A similar thing on this page would be instantly contested to an unreasonable degree by Rand cultists, who are determined to remove, question, or add apologetics for any reasonable criticism of Rand. There are a few editors on this page who have no interest in anything but turning this article into a propaganda piece for objectivism. This is most unfortunate. To the people who are fighting these individuals: you are more patient and dedicated to improving this page than I could ever be. Rand disciples are probably among the most irrational lot I have ever seen, which is ironic considering the claim by their hero that rationality is to be held in the highest esteem. What's obvious is that they are far more interested in repeating another aspect of Rand's work — poor and biased scholarship. It's very unfortunate that a handful of dishonest and disruptive superfans of Rand continue to stand in the way of balance and neutrality. CABlankenship (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky followers are rational? Really? You honestly believe that? Syntacticus (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a calm, cool, and neutral description of the subject-matter of this article. Although I appreciate your frustration, if you could merely point out the most seriously deficient section with reasons, doing this may give a chance for calm and cool discussions about how to improve the content of that part. Of course, you may think all of it is equally poor, in which case, I appreciate your problem in suggesting just a single section, but ask that you could merely choose one at random. The important point is to start some discussion: the absence of any since the protection came into force does not bode well for the article, and may not show the participants on the edit warring in a particularly good light. This last point will especially come into play if edit warring without any discussion here resumes once the article comes out from full protection.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed myself from this page for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article. I find her to be a fourth-rate philosopher consisting of banal assertions: "The world is real", "we can use our senses to examine reality", dressed up in pseudo-philosophical language, and without anything resembling rigorous logical argument. With this in mind, I don't think I can remain neutral. I just want to point out that a few editors here are, to the same degree, far too jealously devoted to Rand to contribute to the neutrality of this article either. I'm not sure what wiki policy is in such cases, but it's a real problem for this article, and for any figure which has a cult-like following. I'm not sure how matters were resolved on figures like L.Ron Hubbard (which is a pretty neutral article), but similar steps will probably have to be taken here. CABlankenship (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough. Congratulations in recognising your own biases situation here and then knowing what action you think you need to take as a result. It is a pity that others do not show as much self-knowledge or committment to the ideals of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best illustration of this the insertion of a body of text designed to "explain" the motivations of those who criticise Rand. The text appeared to be OR and was tagged (in an attempt at compromise). References were then inserted that did not match the text so I amended it (in the spirit of compromise) to contain the cited text only. This was immediately reverted. If you look above you will see that other editors were appalled at this blatant NPOV. Earlier I attempted to present a summary of issues on the talk page, including some detailed work on the very long list of names who were influenced by Rand. Again some editors engaged the Kjaer and Steve (who appear to operate in tandem on this and other articles) made a series of spurious arguments (the names have been put there in good faith by people who know about Rand). The real nonsense came with people I had listed as possible non-notables (no dispute about if they were influenced). Here huge numbers of references were put into place relating to their influence by Rand and I was berated for not having done research. On another occasion I amended a poorly written paragraph to reflect the actual source material (inserted with quotes) and had it reversed by Kjaer with an accusation that I not read it. When I pointed out the error he reverted again with an assertion that his summary was more accurate. In parallel with all of this we have the insertion of Objectivism as a school. The same two editors are engaged there to prevent that school being linked to the disambiguation page, while there are insisting that objectivism=randism. It is very very difficult not to get sucked into edit wars with these guys. I was in the process of preparing a ANI report to request intervention. I have by the way freely confessed by dislike for Rand in the past, but have argued that editors both pro and anti are needed to get some form of balance here. However when you attempt (and invest time) in presenting evidence on the talk page and it is ignored you start to loose hope. --Snowded TALK 08:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I'm sorry, but I find that your description of recent events does not match my recollection. You keep making condescending remarks about the editors that disagree with you. You keep setting yourself up as THE authority, saying this is what we will do, you brook no opposition, you refer to any suggestions to the contrary as nonsense, you revert cited material. You came perilously close to violating the 3RR rule - twice. I have tried to let you know in a civil and polite fashion that this insistent demand that you be seen as always in the right and those with a different opinion are always wrong is, in itself a problem with trying to create a good article. You say you were berated for not doing any research... actually, it was your declaration that if others didn't go out and find adequate support for names you would delete the names (it's in the comments on this page). People did attempt to find references, and now you are objecting to that as if it frustrates your desires. I have worked hard to avoid any edit wars, I complemented you on the modification to an edit I made. I have stated repeatedly that I do not want an Ayn Rand fan page. I don't want propoganda - not for or against. I and others here have pointed out that your edits do tend to support your dislike for Rand. What is needed are people whose edits don't have an agenda. --Steve (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actions speak louder that words Steve, its not what you say you want that counts, its how you edit. To deal with the one specific, I clearly stated that notable names with no evidence of influence by Rand should under Wikipedia rules be deleted. I listed the names for discussion. Todate no one has provided any evidence of influence for those on the notable list, just lots of (undisputed) data on the influence on people who were on the non notable list. Your response here is pretty typical, you have decided to make a series of statements about another editor (me) which I don't think match the facts but allow you to avoid engagement with the data. Constant repetition will not make those statements true whatever you believe. On Schools of Philosophy you are actively edit warring against the use of the disambiguation page (supported by three editors over two). I don't think this is going to get anywhere until people engage with the text and things like WP:OR. I am increasingly of the opinion that a NPOV is not possible without third party intervention.

Without casting aspersions on any one editor, I agree that the article's biography is overly hagiographical. Any criticism is watered down by "responses" and criticisms of the criticism. Excluding Chomsky's criticism is, in my opinion, totally unjustified, because many philosophers, theologians, thinkers, etc. DO believe that Objectivism is evil. There are also a number of grammatical problems that need fixing once the page is unprotected. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon:I agree that the article's biography is overly hagiographical. The understatement of the year, I'm afraid. I think the amount of wikilawyering to remove genuinely verifiable criticisms from reliable sources and notable authors is unfortunately par for the course on this and similar articles. I laughed when I just noticed today that someone is now trying to remove the US World and News Report citation in the Criticism section because one editor considers the nationwide publication to be "an unreliable source" for any criticism of Rand. Now I've read everything. Too funny. J Readings (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actions speak louder that words Steve, its not what you say you want that counts, its how you edit. To deal with the one specific, I clearly stated that notable names with no evidence of influence by Rand should under Wikipedia rules be deleted. I listed the names for discussion. Todate no one has provided any evidence of influence for those on the notable list, just lots of (undisputed) data on the influence on people who were on the non notable list. Your response here is pretty typical, you have decided to make a series of statements about another editor (me) which I don't think match the facts but allow you to avoid engagement with the data. Constant repetition will not make those statements true whatever you believe. On Schools of Philosophy you are actively edit warring against the use of the disambiguation page (supported by three editors over two). I don't think this is going to get anywhere until people engage with the text and things like WP:OR. I am increasingly of the opinion that a NPOV is not possible without third party intervention.

As the original contributor of the Chomsky quote, I'm strongly in favor of it remaining where it is. But I would phrase it: "The scientist and philosopher Noam Chomsky", as I originally produced it. I completely agree that Chomsky's statement is representative of a widely held opinion in academia. Allowing a moral philosopher such as Chomsky to be the voice for this opinion is only natural, but what followed my original contribution was a bitter edit war with the Randians over Chomsky's title, where the quote should be placed, and whether it was even worth keeping. The attempts to get rid of, move, and cast doubt on this citation are simply disgraceful bias, and a clear example of someone who is trying to turn this page into an idealized portrait instead of a coldly neutral presentation of Rand. Any criticism is bitterly challenged, while on the Objectivism page, we see nothing but fawning quotes from her obscure followers. I have yet to see another philosophy page about anyone else that is so shoddy. And obviously, the removal of any one of those pointless quotes from little-known and obscure sources—that are admitted followers—would meet with an edit war. The problem is sources. Very few professors feel that Rand is even worth handling. Most of them would be embarrassed to even have their names associated with her. For this reason, we see very little scholarship on her (laughably poor) work. What we do find is the aforementioned fawning quotes from her followers and a few blurbs from Nozick, the only professor of any respect at all that has given her the time of day. CABlankenship (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, you don't get it. You admited that you don't like Rand, you only make edits critical of her, then you propose a wholesale change to the article, then you declare that if people don't jump to and fulfil all of your requests for evidence (your giant list) you will just remove the names (not leaving sufficient time to research a long list), then you get upset when you are opposed. You get upset when someone reverts your changes, but you revert other peoples changes. And I can't imagine why someone wants to spend time being in contention with others, wailing and whining about how things are, attempting to edit an article for someone they don't like. That bewilders me. It isn't like there aren't any other articles - ones that you like the subject matter or ones that you are neutral to, or ones where you have some expertise to lend. But here you are, with your cohort CABlankenshp who states that he despises Rand. You keep making nasty statements about me, but you never point to the terrible actions that would back up those false accusations - please have the decency to point to a particular action that violates WP. And if you want to talk about 'edit warring,' who is the other person I'm alledgedly 'edit warring' with? - and who initiates the exchanges. As to your 'influenced' list, that sentence in the article says, "Many other notable individuals have acknowledged that Rand significantly influenced their lives, including...." There is no problem finding the statements where those individuals have made that acknowledgment - but I don't other editors getting it all done in the 1 to 2 days you benificently offered, before dropping the axe. I have no problem with removing any name that can't be validated - I have lots of problems with your attempts force your dislike of Rand onto the article and with your criticism of me. When I first saw your list, I just laughed - you have Bob Barr down as not notable - he was the presidential nominee for President from the largest of the minority parties. You did know that didn't you? Those of us with some expertise in this area found it hard to take your list seriously. --Steve (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't get it in your sense of the word Steve (neither do I think I ever want to). The list is up there for discussion. Two of you think Bob Barr is notable. Ok that is a discussion and yes I did know he was candidate for the Libertarian Party and secured under one half of a percentage point. I note by the way that you use more of less the exact language of the Libertarian Party web site with this "largest of the minority parties". I don't see that as making him notable others may - that is what discussion is about. As for the rest, I think I'll let the facts speak for themselves. I see that so far no one has addressed any proofs on the list of "notable but no evidence of Rand influence" where I expected your expertise to come into play. I'm putting things up for discussion, if you don;t want to play then wiki process comes into play and uncited and unnotable material goes. I am going to do one more summary on this next week based on what has been said upto that point (which will be well over a week by the way). I will also address the OR aspects of some of the recent insertions. I'll do all of that on the talk pages and we will see what happens. --Snowded TALK 19:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee, all this bickering sure is helping us improve the article. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, as I've said before here, I consider myself an objectivist. I don't consider myself a Randist, Randroid, or whatever. The bile and umbrage on both sides of this discussion as well as the wiki inability to handle it drove me from editing this article. I was always fine with criticism sections as long as it was not to over-balanced turning a bio piece into "Oism/Rand is evil" piece. Criticism is needed. balnce is needed. For me the end was the arguemtn about Rand not being a philosopher. Hate her. Hate her philosophy. Whatever, but to say it isn't one is just nit picking petty BS. People on both sides here haven't stopped hurling accuations even with the Full protection and the warning that accomanied it. At this point I don't care anymore what us said here. Whether this article says something neutral, positive, or negative about Rand, her work stands on it's own and is still being read and debated. No puff piece will make more people read her and (despite the hopes of many) no negative piece will prevent it. The fact that commentators drag her name out every year to wail upon shows just how much people fear her and her work, while almost every time misrepresenting what she said. In the end it doesn't matter what is said here. I say the more negative this article is the better and have surrendered any hope of a Neutral bio-piece with accurate facts and criticism. I merely offer the occasional opinon and revert any edits by a certain banned user named Edward Nilges. Let the haters have it and fill it up to their liking. Free minds read and decide for themselves rather than trying to push a POV they hpe will sway peope to one side or the other. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed the debate about whether or not she was a philosopher. There are probably reputable sources that tag her as a "philosopher", so our opinions don't matter unless an equally reputable source can be produced casting doubt on the use of this term as a title for Rand. I would opine that this is an overly flattering title for a writer so unaccomplished. Was L.Ron Hubbard or David Koresh a philosopher? Well, they certainly devised systems for living—like Rand. Is L.Ron Hubbard a scientist simply because he used a lot of pseudo-scientific jargon? We throw the term 'philosopher' around way too loosely these days. I think that the Hubbard-Rand comparison is instructive. CABlankenship (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jomasecu, improving the article wouldn't be hard at all - but keeping people from degrading it because they don't like Rand is a lot harder. I'm open to suggestions. --Steve (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Right...but I'm sure Scientology followers believe that the L.Ron Hubbard article was "degraded" by people who "don't like" Hubbard. CABlankenship (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to worry: I'm never going to edit this article again. Perhaps you should step away from it also. I see a note at the top that we should refrain from posting our personal opinions on Rand and Objectivism here, so I will take my leave.CABlankenship (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving the Article

Actually improving the article is not hard. All the time that is spent trying to censor the article, and wated upon invective on the talk page could just as easily be applied making a good faith effort to confirm the information that certain critics of Rand find unfamiliar. I made a good faith effort and found references for the most "obscure" (i.e., lacking their own article) people challenged as belonging in this article. Yet the editor who favors censorship, based not on his knowledge of the subject matter, but based on what he does not know, continues to call for the deletion of people who show the influence of a philosophy whose influence and status as a philosophy he questions. Some good faith and self education on the subject matter of the article one finds oneself qualified to edit would be most welcome. Feel free to actually add to this article. Kjaer (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, In respect of your evidence I have not disputed any of it, what I dispute is the notability of the individuals you have researched. In respect of my "Notable but no evidence of Rand's influence" I have not seen anything from you. Where you have raised a question in respect of notability (such as Presidential Candidate of the Libertarian Party) then I have responded. Other editors may agree or disagree on the the notability of that individual and a consensus can be achieved on that individual. To go in and carry out mass deletions might be considered censorship, to create lists of "undisputed" etc and invite comment is to follow good practice. I also suggested in expanding the commentary around those who are notable and influenced. A little good faith engagement with that process might help rather than throwing out another set of accusations. --Snowded TALK 08:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence Section

All right, this is going to get ugly, but here goes. I am listing here every person listed in the influence section so that we can deal with this systematically. Moving this to a subpage may be a good idea. Regardless, it needs to be culled.

• John Hospers +

• Harry Binswanger

• David Kelley +

• Tibor Machan

• George H. Smith

• Robert Nozick +

• Louis Torres -

• Douglas Rasmussen -

• Allan Gotthelf

• Robert Mayhew

• Tara Smith +

• Petr Beckmann -

• Robert Efron -

• George Reisman +

• Martin Anderson (U.S. government) -

• Murray Rothbard

• Edwin Locke -

• Nathaniel Branden -

• Edith Packer -

• Eric Daniels -

• Robert Hessen +

• John Lewis -

• Charles Murray -

• Anne Wortham -

• Edith Efron

• Peter Schwartz

• Bob Barr +

• Sinan Çetin +

• Roy A. Childs

• James Clavell +

• Edward Cline

• Chris Cox -

• Mark Cuban +

• Paul DePodesta -

• Steve Ditko +

• Terry Goodkind +

• Alan Greenspan +

• Hugh Hefner -

• Erika Holzer +

• Angelina Jolie -

• Billie Jean King -

• Anton LaVey +

• Ira Levin -

• Mike Mentzer +

• Frank Miller -

• Ron Paul +

• Neil Peart

• Robert Ringer

• Tracey Ross -

• Kay Nolte Smith

• John Stossel -

• Clarence Thomas +

• Vince Vaughn -

• Jimmy Wales

Now, there has to be some way to begin culling this list. Perhaps make a table and vote on each entry to begin to get an idea of the consensus? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Also, the first thing I'd propose doing is removing any redlinked or nonlinked name. Then remove actors, actresses, and sports figure--who cares if Angelina Jolie likes Ayn Rand? Next, every single one of these names needs to be independently sourced. Objectivist publications do not count as independent, as they have a vested interest in magnifying Rand's and influence. Next, we should remove all but the most influential Objectivist thinkers, as it is a pretty fair assumption that they were all influenced by Rand anyway. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If a name is notable and if there is a valid reference that they were influenced - not just read the books, but it had an effect on their life, then they stay. That is simple WP. I don't care about movie stars or sports figures but it will be decided by WP not by fiat. If a reference from an Objectivist publication stands up to scrutiny - it is valid and carries the same weight as any other publication. If it is a comment in a Objectivist blog or something like that, it doesn't have weight. If someone isn't able to show that the publishers of the Objectivist publication in question was not making factual statements then they should assume good faith and treat that publication the same as any other. TallNapoleon, you said, "Next, we should remove all but the most influential Objectivist thinkers, as it is a pretty fair assumption that they were all influenced by Rand anyway." The section is on people that were influenced and their notablity and references are all that are needed to determine their inclusion. --Steve (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the list you created you said this will get ugly. I'm not clear as to what that means. And where you say, "Regardless, it needs to be culled." If you have any standards other than notability and a valid reference that they were influenced, we had better deal with that before doing anything else. --Steve (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "importance"? Yes, I know that's a subjective judgment call, that it's open for debate etc. etc., but the section as of right now is indiscriminate and too long, like one of those bloody "In popular culture" sections. Another criterion: the extent of the influence. Someone saying they read Rand and liked her, or that it even influenced a few of their views, really doesn't matter. What matters is if Rand has had a major influence on their work, and if their work is notable. Peikoff, for instance, is important, for founding ARI, and Kelley for founding TAS. Is Binswanger important though? Harder to say. Certainly, the red and non-links probably aren't. I would also say that if the article about the person does not mention they were influenced by Objectivism, then the influence likely wasn't substantial enough to be very important. Another issue is that the section as written does not distinguish kinds of influence. Rothbard disliked Rand intensely, and Nozick did too (although granted he features prominently in the criticism section). I'm sure there are other similar dubious cases present.

Now, consider Kant for a moment. Kant has had a huge influence on the philosophical world--far greater than Ayn Rand ever has or, God willing, ever will--yet his Influence section certainly doesn't follow the criteria you described: "If a name is notable and if there is a valid reference that they were influenced - not just read the books, but it had an effect on their life, then they stay." So no, we shouldn't list everyone who was ever influenced by Rand, even everyone notable. Oh, and incidentally Wikipedia is a collection of fiats. Get enough of them together, and that forms consensus.

Speaking of consensus, I have an idea for !voting on the list. Put a + sign next to a name if you want to keep it, and a - sign if you don't. Please keep them separate; put + signs before - signs. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the usefulness of an 'influences' section but if it must stay get rid of the celebs unless there is some powerful justification for them being included. It's just trivia. This means dump Hugh Hefner, Angelina Jolie, Billie Jean King, and Vince Vaughn for starters. Syntacticus (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but various editors personal opinions on lists and what they see as trivia is simply not relevant. It is also quite interesting that those who continuously repeat their doubt as to the notability and influence of Ayn Rand (see the previous edits and talk pages of such editors for their comments on Rand) are the ones who want to censor this material. Wikipedia policy is not to minimize an article subsection by removing it to a side panel, but indeed by expanding it into a separate article. See Wikipedia:Article size. "I don't like it" is not a relevant point here. Any attempt to censor this information or to minimze it rather than to expand it into a separate article will be nothing other than POV vandalism. Deciding such matters as whether John Stossel is influenced by Rand by the votes of people who don't know who the man is are pointless POV nonsense. I grow weary of repeating the same comments. Perhaps we could see some good faith and discussion by those who claim they are concerned by the flow of the article about following policy and creating a sub article. Kjaer (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is the same as with popular culture lists: huge numbers of people, including large numbers of notable people, have been influenced by Rand. As this section stands, it says nothing about the nature of that influence, and people are included indiscriminately. The red links and non-links need to go. So do the movie stars and sports figures. And crying censorship isn't going to do you any good. Frankly, the only purpose I can see to this list is "Look! Look! Look how influential Ayn Rand is!" It's not a serious attempt to discuss the impact of her influence, it's just designed to enhance her standing. That is POV. Now, you and Steve can either keep throwing arround accusations of bad faith and censorship and vandalism--in which case this article will remain protected until the cows come home--or you can work on reaching some kind of compromise consensus. Start by voting--it's the only way we'll begin to figure out a consensus on who should be included. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point we need to put this to a vote. I propose the following: We have a paragraph stating that Rand influenced a number of people, and, as examples, we cite a few people from each field that we all agree are notable and have been heavily influenced by Rand. The remaining parts of the list can be put into the sidebar once we decide on the proper criteria. Please vote and provide a concise (and civil) explanation of your vote. Idag (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer: I believe Ayn Rand was/is much more influential than her critics are willing to admit. My point was who really cares what some airhead Hollywood celebrity thinks? I also wonder about Jimmy Wales' bona fides. Wales claims to be a big Objectivist and yet he allows WP to operate on the basis of consensus. Rand abhorred the idea of 'consensus' and the 'mainstream.' Syntacticus (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence isn't limited to one's converting to the Church of Rand. One can be influenced personally, artistically, and so on. I don't think people would take Jolie being listed as "influenced" by Rand as meaning that Jolie considers herself an Objectivist, orthodox or not. But if the article gives the impression that those listed as merely influenced by Rand would describe themselves as Objectivists, you could suggest some verbiage to address that possible ambiguity. As for Jolie herself, I haven't watched any of her movies or really followed her at all, so I have no opinion on her intelligence. But she's a very notable top earning top billed star with an Oscar. She has made many public statements as to Rand's influence on her. That seems clear cut enough for me. Kjaer (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag, your proposal has my support and I in effect voted with my earlier set of lists (and was more than open to accepting amendment). Some criteria are needed however. When I researched Jolie it would appear that the first time she read Rand was when she planned to star in a forthcoming film. Now there may be more but that was all a search threw up. I have been holding back from updating those lists hoping someone else who is perceived as more neutral would take it on - along with the OR/Citation issue that was raised by several of us. --Snowded TALK 07:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Church of Rand? Syntacticus (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with Idag; I even threw up a very rough example in a previous section. A section like this will show the scope of her influence better than a blurb as stands, while still presenting all verifiable information. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Jomasecu's phrasing, though I think we should replace two of the names with Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas, as those two are extremely notable and have been heavily influenced by Rand. Maybe add Terry Goodkind, as his writing is premised completely on Rand's philosophy? Idag (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to support that with the Idag amendments. --Snowded TALK 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They're in the second paragraph, but as they are possibly the biggest names there, perhaps they should be in the first. It also needs someone more familiar with Wiki code to neaten it up as the spacing in the sidebar lists is weird, unless this is just an Opera thing. Of course, any names where influence is in question still need to be reffed, and I also think the Others section needs sorting/trimming. Redlinks, unless perhaps a clear and very important link to Rand is established, should be removed. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If the above is a tangible edit that is desired, then so long as I can be sure that no edit-warring will immediately result, I would be inclined to lift the protection early to allow it to go ahead. However, it would be good if more evidence in its favour was seen first. Keep within the rules, and abide by WP:TALK and all should be well.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Mill

Categories

How about adding Rand to the Russian-Americans category, or Russian-American Jews category? She would fit. Xolom (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see the archives of the talk page. Kjaer (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Now that the predictable spasm of petty insults, blame games, and so on that happened since I protected the article have died down, I strongly suggest that editors turn their attention solely to the problem of improving the article. As an example of unacceptable behaviour (I could have chosen others, but I have chosen just the last one I read here now), it is quite wrong to routinely dismiss a call for some content to be removed as "censorship" or "POV vandalism" either on this talk page, or in edit summaries, as it does not assume good faith on the part of those whose suggestions are so labelled, and it is disruptive, given the nature of this article, its controversial character, and the history of dispute and conflict surrounding it. Editors are required to assume good faith, and if they cannot, they are advised that it might be better for them to withdraw from editing or commenting on this article, or they may be withdrawn from doing either and more for a while.

Now, are you all going to confine yourselves to comments solely to the matter of improving the article, which can involve both removing content as well as adding to it so long as reasoned arguments that reach consensus are engaged in which fall within the accepted standards of discussion on wikipedia, or is more action required?

Any concerns you may have about editors you should either keep to yourselves, or take them to the editors' talk pages in the first instance. They should always be kept away from this page. Now, do I make myself clear?

I am inclined to extend the full protection unless I see clear evidence of people being willing to work together here or of withdrawing from editing the article if they are unable to moderate their behaviour. Any "gaming" of the system in operation now by those whose preference is for the current protected version by perpetuating the dispute thus attempting to make me decide to extend the protection will also be looked upon as being disruptive, and may backfire. I am sorry to have to add this last rider, but my reading of the past disputes involving this article makes me think such a warning would be advisable.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From assume good faith:

Reminding others to assume good faith

Care should be taken not to over-invoke this guideline in discussion. Reminders to "Assume Good Faith" may be taken as offensive if one was not actually doing otherwise, and can even be seen as assuming bad faith by failing to assume the assumption of good faith. Short of an explicit accusation of bad faith, consider noting another applicable guideline or policy which mentions the expectation to Assume Good Faith.

The simple fact of the matter is that those who would censor the article (or call it what you will) have repeatedly lectured editors on what they should do if they want objectivism (sic) to be taken seriously, and have posted innumerable references to their contempt for and disagreement with Rand. I can understand a good faith effort by serious editors to make sure material is sourced and relevant. I invite editors who are unfamiliar with Rand or her influence to educate themselves. I remind everyone again of WP policy on splitting articles when the content becomes to large, and invite those who are supposedly concerned with this matter propose a new article to handle such an expansion. I for one would not oppose such an expansion.

If someone personally question Rand's notability and influence he should not take action to censor valid information that demonstrates her notability and influence. It makes it very difficult for me and others to continue assuming one's good faith if one wants to remove just such data as one denies exists.

I remind the administrator that not to have commented to people about their admitted biases on their private talk pages does not mean one is ignorant of such. I find repeated hysterical attacks on talk pages quite annoying (see the comments all by one editor on mine) and hence, since I would not be done unto I will not do to others.

The requirement that editors assume others' good faith is not license for others to freely exercise their own admitted POV secure in the knowledge that a policy of see no bad faith speak no bad faith will cover their actions.

Frankly, repeated accusations made against myself and others as Randroids are beneath response. No rand-hostile editor has ever congratulated me or another non-hostile editor for our opposing attempts by certain Randians to remove embarassing details of Rand's personal life or to whitewash her actions.

I invite everyone to add to, expand, and clarify this article. I would be quite happy to continue not responding to personal attacks on my talk page and to continue providing our readers with more information about the subject of the article. Kjaer (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last time that I will respond to a good faith/personality post. A number of editors (including myself, Jomesacu, and TallNapoleon) who support the changes that you currently oppose have repeatedly fended off anti-Rand edits that violated Wikipedia policies. In the past, I have spent HOURS reasoning with (and discussing in dispute resolution) anti-Rand editors whose goal was to push a POV. I agree with the proposed edits not because they are anti-Rand (personally, I don't care about Rand one way or another) but because they make sense and because they improve the readability of this article. Please stop throwing POV and censorship accusations around and participate constructively by addressing the merits of the ideas that have been presented. Idag (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Idag, you have certainly shown your good faith in helping me retain material embarrassing to certain pro-Rand factions, as I am sure you will say about me.

I have made my opinion of the edits quite clear above. There is no reason to remove people who are indeed influenced by Rand from the list, and the policy of WP is to create another article when a section becomes too big, not to remove valid sections because in the words of some, "I don't like it.". How much more clear can I make that? So, if the section is too big, those who believe so should show what new article they would create. As for bad faith, I am simply tired of having to repeat myself. Tired of having hysterical posts to my talk page by one single admittedly anti-Rand editor, and tired of wasting time on this quite overlong discussion that could be spent creating or editing other articles. I did not start this discussion with a long list of complaints. I am only back in because some editors think a call for discussion means a call for discussion on how to continue with disruptive plans for the article. Look at all the people-oriented posts here since the article was frozen. How many dozen were made before I felt it was necessary to voice again my opposition to deletions which were already seen as controversial and unnecessary. Indeed. Let's stay away from accusations, and let's see those editors who want to delete material based not on their knowledge but on their unfamiliarity of the topic show good faith by doing what I did and provide whatever further documentation they need to show that John Stossel is a famous author, TV journalist, editorialist and talking head (although not in the UK, or Zimbabwe, obviously, but at least as notable as the four footballers whose obituaries have appeared here in the last four days) or that Angelina Jolie, a fan, has been pushing for years to play the lead role in a movie adaptation of Rand's magnum opus. Certainly no one could question the good faith of the Rand-critics if they were to improve the article thus. Kjaer (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of the above two editors who have continued after my warning have been blocked for 24 hours.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I thought I would poke my head in here after someone I know (whose name I see on this page) mentioned it. I find as usual that after a quarter of an hour diligently reading through the arguments in the talk page above, some of which are remarkably heated, that I am still no wiser as to what they are about. Is it whether Ayn Rand is a philosopher, or whether a notable philosopher? To the latter I would say surely not, since notability implies some degree of fame or well-known-ness, and I had never heard of Rand until I found Wikipedia. I am intrigued to see that there is more material on Rand annd here works than there is on Aristotle and his. How about 'novelist-philosopher'?

I was also intrigued that Robert Nozick and John Hospers, both of whom are well-known names to me at least, and arguably notable, were influenced by Rand. As I have read none of Rand's works, I don't think I can really comment on this discussion. But, again, what are these arguments about? Regards Peter Damian (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The context issue

One other issue arising is the question of the qualification paragraph inserted to provide reasons for criticism of Rand. Overall we have not added context or explanations as to why people support or were influenced by her so in balance I think think this recent addition should just be deleted. If it does stay (and in the spirit of compromise I would accept that), then it needs to be citable rather than OR. For example the text currently says that "many of the criticisms directed towards Rand are not directed with the same hostility towards other philosophers". When a fact tag was added a citation was added which said "It is not so much that academic philosophers are hostile to Objectivist ideas (though they very definitely are) as that they just don't think in that way". There is nothing in the citation to support the statement that other philosophers are treated in a more hostile way. I originally made an edit to simply place the quotations in this section rather than any paraphrase or summary and I still think (other than deletion) that this is the best solution. I know that Idag also expressed some concern about this earlier. Any comments/proposals? --Snowded TALK 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that section should go. Let the criticism stand on their own. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Snowded, please delete that original research. It's unnecessary. J Readings (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion, the material cited, the freeze on the page, the length of this talk page, and the material in that section are all testimony to Rand generating a lot of heat - there is a particular nature to the criticism of Rand. The section needs to stay, but it should be subject the same WP as any other section - anything that might be mistaken for OR needs changing or cites. I appreciate that Snowded is offering to compromise. TallNapoleon, the cultural uproar over Rand IS part of the article. The influence section shows the positive (pro-Rand) influences, and the section dealing with the nature of the criticism explains the anti-Rand critisim. They are notable aspects of Rand's effect. Because removing this would be contentious, I'd also suggest not addressing it any further till those of us working on this article get better at working together - In other words, let's not throw fuel on the fire that we are hoping to put out. --Steve (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, since endorsements of Rand's ideas are not qualified, there should not be a separate section criticizing Rand's criticism. I vote that the section goes. Idag (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence Section Agreement

The current arguments over the proposed changes to the Influence section resolve around two concerns about intentions that may not be resolvable. One side sees the other as unwilling to remove any name, even if it is not notable or the person was not influenced in any significant fashion - this position is portrayed as being dogmatic in support of Rand to the extent of building a fan page as opposed to an encyclopedia article. The other side to the dispute is seen as containing some who wish to make minor changes involving removing a few names and some changes in appearance, but also containing those who wish to remove as many names as possible, to reduce the perceived influence of Rand, because they dislike her. These pro-Rand, anti-Rand positions are not reconcilable, but it doesn't mean that a working arrangement can't be found. I suggest that we not make further comments on motivations and take an incremental approach to resolve this dispute. Let those who most want to delete names, pick those that they beleive MUST go, and let's agree on a format (sidebar, adjunct article, etc.). Because Rand is not an academic philosopher, and also not a philosopher from the dusty past, her popular influence has been strong and it is a proper, notable aspect for the article to represent. Even if the length of names is reduced, agreement has to be reached on the importance of her powerful popular influence. --Steve (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I invite everyone to list the names here that MUST go, in their opinion, and accepting that the rest will stay (in some form). Let those who disagree, find references and concensus can be invoked to resolve the remaining difference. Then we can address the format. This incremental process will be more likely to build consensus and get things moving. --Steve (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As to Angelina Jolie, she is definitely notable - world-wide, but, when was she influenced? and, to what degree was she influenced? Those are reasonable questions. I suggest removing her name from the Influence section and adding a short bit under the film adaptations section that mentions on-going talks about producing Atlas Shrugged involving her - and quote what she said. --Steve (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion on Jolie is a good one. On the exclusion/inclusion issue I still prefer the Idag proposal of a short list of major figures with some description of the nature of the influence. On the issue of "popular powerful influence" then getting a third party quote to that effect would be more effective than a list of names. --Snowded TALK 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The format issue would be easier to resolve if the contention level could be dropped by an agreement on the names that MUST go. That is where most of the heat is coming from. If people know that a name isn't being dropped, they become less concerned about where it is being displayed. A good encyclopedia article has lots of tidbits that can be followed up, and these names, when they are notable and were influenced, fit that category. It is much more important to not leave a name out than it is to have a "short" list for the sake of shortness - that would be like throwing away information for a minor aesthetic gain. Do you have a short list of name that MUST go? --Steve (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this would be much easier if we agree on names that must stay. As Jomesacu and I proposed, the list would be pared down to a few names. We have put up the list of people that should stay. By implication, the remaining names would either be moved to the sidebar or removed completely. I suggest we hold off on discussing the composition of the sidebar until we nail down the wording of the main article. Idag (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur --Snowded TALK 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict per SteveWolfer) In addition to the ones already rightfully (in my opinion) slated for removal (i.e., Jolie, Hefner, Torres, Rasmusen, Hessen, Stossel, Vaughn, Ross, Miller, and Levin), I think that another candidate for the chopping block would be (and should be) Jimbo Wales. Jimbo is not an intellectual indebted to Rand (sorry Jimbo) -- I see no evidence of his intellectual debt excluding a brief interview mention by Jimbo himself that claims some influence on Jimbo's "thinking" and "work." It's one thing to say that Friedrich Nietzsche was heavily influenced by the philosophy of Arthur Shopenhauer. It's quite another to create a hagiography in which any vaguely brief mention of Rand by someone suddenly gets included in this encyclopedia entry, thus creating a sprawling list devoid of all meaning. As the old saying goes, "Less is more." If the argument becomes "it's all good" then I would respectfully insist that Prof. Raymond Boisvert's criticism of Rand and her work be re-included using the same "it's all good" thinking. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are moving in the direction of a stalemate. Without some agreement, people attempting to remove cited, valid material will find themselves strongly opposed and the argument going on forever. I ask again, is no one willing to move in incremental stages on this? No one will gain concensus for removing names if the attitude is dump all of them but a few, and we can figure out what, if anything, to do with those dumped sometime later. I strongly oppose that direction. At this point, NO names are "slated" for removal - I am trying to get a consensus. --Steve (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Getting a consensus" does not mean that you get veto power over a proposal that everyone else (with the possible exception of Kjaer) agrees to. If you would like to provide reasons for why a list is more readable than a statement that conveys the list's meaning, please feel free to do so. Idag (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my hope that we can all come to an agreement here - that is what I'm trying to do. Answering your question: I'd say that the article will discuss her influence regardless, and it will provide some names as examples, but if notable people who were influenced are removed, then information has been thrown away. Why throw away information that is pertinent to the section, that is about people that readers find notable. One of the wonders of Wikipedia is that it isn't restricted to just so many column inches like a paper encyclopedia. It is capable of holding that extra 1/2 inches, or so. Also, if we can agree not to delete large numbers of names, it will be easier to get the agreement to delete those that are weak and to make a format change. That is why I'm inviting editors to join in this approach - the other approach wasn't working, it breeds antagonism and extreme positions. --Steve (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should agree on a standard for inclusion rather than just vote on individual names. My idea: If the person is highly notable and has a clearly verified and at least somewhat substantial influence by Rand, they go in the paragraph. For inclusion in a sidebar or bulletted list: (a) Is there a verifiable influence by Rand? (b) If so, do they have a Wikipedia article? (c) If not, is Rand's influence on this person in and of itself notable to Rand's article regardless of the notability of the person in question? I don't expect many/any to pass c, but I feel it's worth inclusion for completeness. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a standard is a good start - but then we need to apply it so as to get the names we can agree on - if our purpose is to get past this deadlock. I would only drop the word "highly" from Jomasecu's description since "highly notable" becomes subjective. To be notable should be enough as long as there is, as he says, clearly verified and significant influence by Rand. To start with, lets not discuss who goes where - that is about format and that discussion will happen easier if we can come to agreement on who stays and who goes. --Steve (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In respect of (b) I think having a wikipedia article is necessary but not sufficient. The individual must be notable in the content of Ayn Rand. So Philosophers, Economists, Authors are obvious as are major public figures. Others are not (my favourite example here is the Baseball team administrator) I think (c) is a good idea but will be interested to see who it covers. Overall this process of inclusion rather than progressive exclusion seems more likely to succeed. Todate neither have been tried so its too soon to make judgements about what isn't working or what might be antagonistic of extreme. Key is to get the core list of truly notable and influenced together with some words. It looked like you (Jomasecu) and Idag were more or less there on that and a draft might be in order? I checked through that against the draft lists I drew up and I can live with any differences. --Snowded TALK 00:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded stated more eloquently what I tried to state above. Philosophers, Economists, and Authors (falling in the notable category, of course) are obvious candidates for inclusion. The others are not, in my view. J Readings (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur. To that end, I suggest Jomasecu's proposed language as a beginning (apparently he had already mentioned individuals that I thought belonged in the list, so I apologize for missing it the first time I read through it)

Rand has had an influence on a number of notable people in different fields. Examples include philosophers such as John Hospers, George H. Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Robert Mayhew and Tara Smith, economists such as George Reisman and Murray Rothbard, psychologists such as Nathaniel Branden, historians such as Eric Daniels, and political and sociological writers such as Charles Murray.

Many other notable individuals have also acknowledged that Rand significantly influenced their lives, including former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, U.S. Congressmen Ron Paul and Bob Barr, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas. Idag (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, concise, informative and balanced. We may be able to shrink the crit section a bit into the same style once this is complete . --Snowded TALK 01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end, the person is or isn't justifiably, verifiably notable with or without an article. If they are notable and were influenced by Rand in a significant way, then they meet the context of this section and no more is required. Without agreement on the application of an agreed upon standard, we don't know which names stay in the article in some form - that needs to be our focus here. That language doesn't address the issue of what is proposed for the other names. That must be addressed. --Steve (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The other names would be excluded from the main article. A few paragraphs higher, Snowded has addressed your reasons for opposing this change. Idag (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By what reason would Tibor Machan or John Stossel be deleted? They have Wikipedia pages, they are notable, they have been significantly influenced by Rand, they even fit the content area (Philosopher and a political journalist/writer). this is why the names should be considered before doing a wholesale deletion that will violate WP and generate ill will. --Steve (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is that I would include Tibor Machan in the text although he is not a philosopher, but Business Economics and West Point. Of course he is also Cato Inst. Stossel I think is too culturally specific in respect of notability but would deserve a place on the longer list. Others may well have a different opinion however. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By what Wikipedia Criteria?

Snowded, thanks for your personal opinion on Dr. Machan. But I am wondering if there is not some Wikipedia Principle upon which we can make such decisions, rather than people's personal opinions? For instance, if you ask any American, he will likely tell you that yes, Pele is a notable soccer player, and that he is not at all a football player. David Beckham might be notable, since he married Posh Spice. But surely you see this is absurd. As it standds, there is no Wikipedia based reason for the proposed changes above. Kjaer (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:People its where I went when I first went through the names. Machan DePodesta may or may not satisfy those criteria in respect of baseball, I leave that to others to decide. However we are talking here of an article about an author (and for some people a philosopher). In that context I don't see how being a baseball administrator makes you notable. Ditto Beckham or Pele. Of course if reading Rand had led them to develop a better way of scoring goals and that was subject to third party citation it might just count. Not sure why you use the "absurd" word in this context. --Snowded TALK 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, that doesn't make sense to me. Tibor Machan doesn't have anything to do with baseball. He is a philosopher, a notable person, notable in appropriate content areas, and strongly influenced by Rand, and this is all easily cited. --Steve (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of correcting when I got an ec. Hope it is clear now (and as you see I would include Machen) --Snowded TALK 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My analogy was meant to clarify. Had you not changed the head under which I posted, perhaps my point would have remained more clear. I repeat, based not upon regional notions of notability, (th epoint of my soccer analogy) or personal opinion, please clarify by what Wikipedia principle you would exclude Dr. Tibor Machan from the article. Kjaer (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing the head under which I posted. You may post elsewehere if you like. Kjaer (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to structure it a bit Kjaer (the headings). As far as I can see I have said three times that I think Tibor Machan should be included. Is there something I have missed? --Snowded TALK 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You say that he is in, but in all of the proposed text, and in all of the proposed lists he was listed as out. When I asked why, you said, he wasn't a philosopher. Can you see why I was confused despite your saying, "My personal view is that I would include Machan in the text although he is not a philosopher"?

I didn't say he was in Steve, I said that in my opinion he should be. Other editors may disagree. If you check he was on my "notable and clearly influenced list". Personally I would call him more of a political/management scientist than a philosopher given his background and responsibilities but others may have a different view. (you missed signing a post by the way) --Snowded TALK 09:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues on specific names

Tibor Machan

My personal view is that I would include Tibor Machan in the text although he is not a philosopher, but Business Economics and West Point. Of course he is also Cato Inst. Stossel I think is too culturally specific in respect of notability but would deserve a place on the longer list. Others may well have a different opinion however. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why it is important to consider these name carefully. Tibor Machan IS a philosopher. He is listed as one here on Wikipedia. He is professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University. He has been lecturing on political philosopy for decades. Machan also writes in the field of ethics and epistemology.

• BA in philosophy - Claremont McKenna College, 1962-1965
• MA in philosophy - New York University, 1965-1966
• Ph.D. in philosophy - University of California—Santa Barbara, 1966-1971

He has over 1,000 hits on Google scholar. He has published 30 single-author books (that I was able to find). Here is just one of those:

• Introduction to Philosophical Inquiries (Allyn & Bacon, 1977; University Press of America, 1985).

He has written 15 edited books that I found. Here is just one of those:

• Political Philosophy: Essential Selections [w/A. Skoble] (Prentice Hall, 1998)

Here are a few of the invited essays or contributed chapters:

• “Human Rights,” in S. J. Fodero, ed., The Academic American Encyclopedia
• “Capitalism,” in J. J. Chambliss, ed., Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia (New York: Garland, 1996)
• “History of Political Philosophy,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 2005, f/c).
• “Property,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 2005, f/c).

And the list of invited papers goes on so long I didn't even want to take the time to count them. Here are a few of those:

• "Epistemology and Moral Knowledge,” Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 36 (1982), pp. 23-49.
• “A Reconsideration of Natural Rights Theory,” American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 19 (1982), pp. 61-72.
• “Moral Myths and Basic Positive Rights,” Tulane Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 33 (1985), pp. 35-41. --Steve (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

John Stossel

Stossel should be included. He is a notable person. He has a Wikipedia page. Entering "John Stossel" in Google brings up 984,000 hits. He is a best selling, author of several books on politics and popular culture. He is a co-anchor of ABC news, and a co-anchor of 20/20, a major national news program. He writes a widely syndicated column and Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards. Entering "John Stossel" and "Ayn Rand" brings up 13,800 hits on Google. It is easy to find cites that show significant influence. Snowded mentioned that Stossel was "too culturally specific in respect of notability" and I don't understand that. --Steve (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider: what if the overriding influence in Stossel's life and work was Immanuel Kant? Would he get a mention under Kant's influence page? Of course not! The place for something like that to go would be on STOSSEL'S page. I'm also in general opposed to the "influenced by" list, because it doesn't explain what the influence is, and thus looks like resume padding for Rand. We should stick to the most important figures--especially in philosophy, politics, and economics, maybe also in art if there are any big names--that have been strongly influenced by her. We should also attempt to briefly summarize just what that influence was in each case we decide to include. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you on Kant. But this section on Rand is about popular influence and that is appropriate because she has had a very significant popular influence. Any encyclopedia article on Rand that left that out would be remiss. An article on Kant would be remiss if there were no mention of philosophers who were influenced by his work as time went on. Ideas should be followed by the wakes they leave. Kant and Rand don't compare in this respect of popular influence. I agree that the nature of the influence should be briefly mentioned. Discussing the powerful cultural effects that Rand has had is just good reporting, and not 'resume padding' - not if it is done right. Leaving it out altogether would be doing it wrong. --Steve (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to have third party citations i.e. not Rand institutions and apologists, on that "significant popular influence" statement Steve. FAD I am not using apologist in any negative sense here. Her books sell well and the impact is certainly higher in the US than elsewhere; there are a small number of academics for whom there is evidence of influence but I don't see anything that would make her iconic in popular culture. Should such a citation exist it would be better than listing names. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we supposed to list everyone who was influenced by Rand? That'd make it as bad as one of the popular culture sections... we have to draw the line somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned the influence she's had on pop culture figures is of minimal concern. If people want to talk about her impact on pop culture, by all means do so, but such a section should not be an indiscriminate list of people she influenced any more than it should be an indiscriminate list of television episodes that mention her. And Snowded, within the United States she's something of a cult figure, and has had a notable impact in popular culture, and has developed fairly significant positive and negative reputations. I wouldn't necessarily call her iconic, but it's still pretty substantial. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK US position noted, but then we need to state that as internationally the position is very different. (I'll do a bit of personal research in Alabama and DC next week but I know that won't count!) Happy to agree substantial if there is a third party source. --Snowded TALK 11:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I note Thomas Aquinas article has no comparable list of people he influenced, despite his having influenced many more people, possibly including Angelina Jolie. Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we don't list everyone who Rand influenced, only those either generally notable or of relevance in their field. The comparison with Aquinas is not very apt. Although see List of Jesuit scientists. See a better comparison with a more contemporary subject of controversy below. Kjaer (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the comparison with St Thomas not very apt? And if there is a List of Jesuit scientists, why isn't there a List of Randian scientists? Or List of Randian philosophers? Peter Damian (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way St Thomas was not a Jesuit, nor could he have been a Jesuit. He was a Dominican. Peter Damian (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Time Out

This discussion is missing the vital first step of verifiability: some reliable sources (ie not Randian websites or blogs) spelling out that these individuals either consider themselves or are considered by other significant sources to have been influenced by Rand. Note that this is critically important as many of the people listed are living, and the information in the article therefore comes under the realm of the WP:BLP. policy. First, verify which of these names can actually be listed here, and then step 2 can be to consider the issues you are discussing above.--Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand v. Che Guevara

I admit to being a bit new to Wikipedia, its processes, editing, and so forth, but how is it that the page for Ayn Rand - a Russian-born, fiction (primarily) writer - contains more "criticism" and "controversial" elements than the page for Che Guevara? I don't ask that rhetorically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.173.98 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A very good question. The Criticism section should deal with actual serious critiques, i.e., thought out scholarly or professional statements that take the subject seriously and make observations based on some theoretical framework. Nozick does just that, offering a philosophical critique in philosophical language. Comments such as those by Chomsky and Buckley, while perhaps of interest, are not critiques, but simple statements of hostile opinion. I suppose Buckley and Chomsky could have offered an actual critique if pressed, but what we have here is unsupported bile. Kjaer (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But at the same time as stating this approach to criticism of Ayn Rand, you are arguing for the inclusion of all names of anyway howsoever influenced. How is this different? You are also making assumptions about the degree of thought which had gone into the comments. Chomsky made the statement in the context about the question of his use of "Libertarian" for example. A moral judgement on Rand is not necessarily unsupported bile and the fact that two respected and notable thinkers from the left and right came to similar conclusions is notable. --Snowded TALK 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm the person who raised this sub-issue of Rand v. Che Guevara yesterday. Thank you for your responses. I feel that I didn't do a good job of asking my question. First, let me mention that I care not at all about Che Guevara, one way or another. But here's my question: how is it that Che Guevara, who (I believe I'm right on this, let me know if I'm not) actually executed people, receives less "criticism" and "controversy" than Ayn Rand? There isn't even a section under Che Guevara mentioning "criticism" or "controversy." Conversely, here we have a Russian-born, self-taught, fiction writer who is has a not-insignificant amount of her Wikipedia page devoted to criticism and controversy. I have no ill will towards Che Guevara, and I have no loyalty to Rand. I simply don't understand - non-rhetorically, non-hyperbole - how Ayn Rand is treated with such overt hostility while someone like Che Guevara is treated with such overt joy and homage. Again, thanks for your comments earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.173.98 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are always free to go and edit that page. Balance requires both cited praise and blame. --Snowded TALK 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that executing people is clearly wrong, and criticism of it is usually not especially notable, and criticism of it need not have such detailed reasoning behind it. Harksaw (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a convention that wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. In a parallel way, it is also perhaps not a good idea to use the relative content of different parts of, say, article A to guide article B's content, except perhaps in the case of Featured Articles, where looking at what seems to be present in Featured Articles can sometimes give hints and clues as to what may be required in other articles. However, even in these cases, we must be extremely cautious as what is good for one article need not always be good for another. In the case of Che Guevara, it is not (now) a featured article, and the absence of criticism is noted and is a current point of discussion on Talk:Che Guevara (see the opening templates on the talk page as well). In which case, I don't think one can hold that article up as a model to which this article should strive to become: the possible deficits in articles (such as Che Guevara) need to be dealt with by attending to those articles directly rather than believing that other articles (such as this one) should be made more like them. In this one respect, perhaps the question ought to be asked on Talk:Che Guevara why it is not more like the Ayn Rand article as it is now?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Che Guevara was an influence on Angelina Jolie, so perhaps you are not far from the truth. Peter Damian (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. Worry not; this will be my last intrusion into this topic. Thanks again for your responses to my question. Snowded - That's a neat sentence you wrote, but it doesn't answer my question, and it also appears insincere and placating as both the Rand and the Che Guevara pages are protected from editing best I can tell. Harksaw - I would like to hire you as my criminal defense attorney if I ever need one. DDStetch - Thank you for taking the time to respond as you did. You make your point well, and I agree; entries shouldn't necessarily be compared as I compared Rand and Che Guevara. I guess the beauty and the tragedy of Wikipedia is that it is at the mercy of the populous, and apparently the populous would prefer to spend more time criticizing a fiction writer than a murderer who mugs well for middle schoolers' tee shirts. Peter Damian - Quite funny. Not exactly sure what you were driving at, but I think I get your point. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.173.98 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

back to "by what Wikipedia standard?

Well, lets compare someone more recent than Aquinas. How is this list of Honorary Degrees of Chomsky's any more notable than Rand's influence on the world's biggest box office draw, who wants the starring role in Atlas Shrugged? Kjaer (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic achievements, awards and honors In the spring of 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1970 he delivered the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi; in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1988 the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto titled "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies". In 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town, among many others.

Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from universities around the world, including the following:

University of London University of Chicago Loyola University of Chicago Swarthmore College University of Delhi Bard College University of Massachusetts University of Pennsylvania Georgetown University Amherst College University of Cambridge

University of Buenos Aires McGill University Universitat Rovira i Virgili Columbia University Villanova University University of Connecticut University of Maine Scuola Normale Superiore University of Western Ontario University of Toronto Harvard University

Universidad de Chile University of Bologna Universidad de la Frontera University of Calcutta Universidad Nacional de Colombia Vrije Universiteit Brussel Santo Domingo Institute of Technology Uppsala University University of Athens University of Cyprus

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others. He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language"

He is a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences.

Chomsky is a member of the Faculty Advisory Board of MIT Harvard Research Journal.

In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.

In 2007, Chomsky received The Uppsala University (Sweden) Honorary Doctor's degree in commemoration of Carolus Linnaeus.

In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. He reacted, saying "I don't pay a lot of attention to polls". In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time".

I don't understand this at all. My point was that, in the article on St Thomas, there is no list of people that St Thomas influenced, even though he influenced many people, including possibly Angelina Jolie. Nor is there any list, in the article on Chomsky, of the people that Chomsky influenced. So I don't see the relevance of this. Nor is there a List of Chomskyan scientists. So what are you talking about? Are you mad? Peter Damian (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oh pardon me there is a section Aquinas#Modern_influence which does include three people that Aquinas influenced. But none of these is Angelina Jolie. Nor would that be appropriate. If you are writing about influences, you are typically writing about people belonging to a certain school that was influenced, or the school itself. So you wouldn't in include Angelina Jolie, unless she herself had contributed in a notable way to the tradition of Aquinas' thought. So I am deeply puzzled by this. Is the purpose to make Ayn Rand herself seem more notable? But then why would including Angelina Jolie's name help that cause? It might make me take her far less seriously. For example, if the article on Wittgenstein said that Wittgenstein had been a notable influence on Angelina Jolie, that would cast Wittgenstein in quite a different light, wouldn't it? Or perhaps it would suggest that the author of the article was a barking lunatic, eh Kjaer? Peter Damian (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I would probably pare down that thing from the Chomsky article, too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would again point everyone to the Immanuel Kant article for an example of a good influence section. The section does not contain a gigantic list of every single person who Kant influenced, but is instead limited to the major people. Also, for each person listed, it discusses that person and cites a verifiable third party source instead of just chucking a name at the reader. Idag (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is a majority for a "Kant" approach as opposed to "Chomsky" (and I agree with TallNapoleon that a similar pairing down might be appropriate). However even then it is different. This is a verifiable list of awards by institutions not a list of names influenced. --Snowded TALK 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have agreement on this? And now Jimbo is "watching" can he confirm (notability not disputed) the influence or otherwise of Rand on him? --Snowded TALK 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not, Kant as opposed to Chomsky is not a Wikipedia principle. See above.Kjaer (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there's a consensus to call Rand a philosopher in the first sentence without qualification? It seems to me that that expresses a POV rather than reporting a fact. Usually, we call people philosophers (or economists etc) only when they're regarded as such by other philosophers.

So far I've found only one print philosophy encyclopedia with an entry on Rand, and it was written by a political scientist, not a philosopher (Chandran Kukathas in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Douglas Den Uyl is a philosopher who's written a book about her — The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand — and even he acknowledges that she isn't really recognized within academic circles. [4]

Would it be more neutral and more accurate to call her a political theorist?

Also, some of the sources in this article are a little odd e.g. [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue is done and settled see the archives. It would be bizarre to call he a political theorist. She wrote a book on aesthetics called The Romantic Manifesto, supplemented by her Art of Fiction. She wrote a monograph entitled Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which deals with her theory of Universals. She had a philosophical system with positions on every major issue in every major branch. And she said: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. This – the supremacy of reason – was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism." Kjaer (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Kjaer, point taken. I think calling her a philosopher as though it's a fact is an NPOV violation, as she's largely not regarded as a philosopher by other philosophers, or at least wasn't when I last checked, which admittedly was a few years ago, so maybe things have changed. Also, these issues are never "done and settled" on Wikipedia. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While Kjaer is correct in that we should be cautious in using non-featured articles as examples for this article, when another article has a very well-written section, that article can still serve as an example. The Influence section in the Immanuel Kant article is clearly superior to the one in this article, which makes it a good example. Idag (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

One measure of notability and influence is how much space a philosopher is given in an important reference work. In SEP citations, Rand comes sadly at the very bottom of a list of influential philosophers. Aristotle I am glad to say is still easily the top.

• Aristotle 974
• Kant 683
• Locke 390
• Wittgenstein 302
• Aquinas 290
• Quine 289
• Geach 108
• Goodman 106
• ockham 101
• Ayn Rand 7

Measured by kilobytes in the imporant reference work Wikipedia, the natural order of things seems almost reversed:

• Kant 103k
• Ayn Rand 87k
• Wittgenstein 82k
• Aristotle 66k
• Aquinas 49k
• Locke 33k
• Quine  ??
• Geach ??
• Goodman ??
• Ockham ??

(The last 4 were so small I couldn't find out the size). Peter Damian (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In the earlier days of Wikipedia it was often argued that this was a temporary state of affairs and that as new editors arrived and added material, the natural balance would be restored. It seems not. I am not a little disturbed by the effect this is having in a world where everyone has free access to 'knowledge'. Peter Damian (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"One measure of notability and influence is how much space a philosopher is given in an important reference work" - says who? It's a hopelessly simplistic measure by any standard and thus must be original research; as you said to Jimbo, "bollocks", or if you prefer, WP:PROVEIT. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not entirely unreasonable as a starting point to look for interesting imbalances of coverage. I doubt if the talk page of this article is the right place for this discussion, but here we are, so I have a quick question. How did you get the data on coverage in Wikipedia? It seems to me to be flatly wrong. Our article on Quine for example, seems to me to be not "so small" that we can't find out the size.

Peter, if the point of your exercise is supposed to be criticism of how much coverage we have of Rand, I think it's pretty unpersuasive. Rand was not just a philosopher, she was a best selling novelist, and cultural phenomenon in her own right. So while I think the exercise is somewhat interesting, at least in Rand's case, it would seem to me to be misleading.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To Rod, the measure of SEP is far from perfect, but it roughly coincides with any reasonable and informed person's judgment about the relative importance of these philosophers. To Jimbo: the article on Rand clearly begins with the statement that she is a ‘philosopher’. I would have called her a ‘novelist-philosopher’ but as is well known on this page if you attempt some statement of the truth, out comes some evil-smelling troll from the woods and changes it back and then there is a ghastly edit war with people being clubbed to death. No reasonable person would endure this, and thus … By the way, I apologise for the word ‘bollocks’ and have altered it to something less offensive Peter Damian (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether she should be called "novelist-philosopher" or just "philosopher" is an interesting one to be sure. (I happen to agree with you that novelist-philosopher makes more sense.) But it has little to do with the question of how long this article should be. My point is that Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a specialist encyclopedia, and so we should not expect our coverage percentages to approximate theirs in cases like this, where someone is of general interest and of philosophical interest. As an aside, I see no reason for you to be so hostile in so many of your remarks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think an encyclopedia of philosophy would be expected to give substantial coverage to philosophers. There's also academic bias to consider. But let's not forget that Ayn Rand is an influential author and this is a general encyclopedia. It seems to me that statistics are like opinions, and you know what opinions are like? Robert Pirsig should have a large entry here also. He's not considered among the great philosophers of all times. But his book is one of the most influential works that deals with philosophical issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The relative size of the article points toward one thing, not removing information, but splitting the article into sub articles. I have suggested this repeatedly.

One of the purposes of Wikipedia is comprehensiveness. It is an aspect of Wikipedia that is special and well beloved. For example, for years, I had searched the internet in vain for a phrase I had heard in one of Heinlein's books, the "Pauper's oath." For perhaps ten years I had searched for this in vain. Where did I find it? Wikipedia. That was one of the main impetuses in my deciding to edit here. (Please don't blame the article.) And it is my main reason for opposing deletionism, especially deletionism based upon personal aesthetic preferences and upon personal opinions of the merit of a topic. I remind people of a banner which tops this talk page - this is not the place for criticisms of Rand and her philosophy. So, if it were perhaps stated that Rand was a major influence of Chomsky, that could be opposed on factual grounds. But this continued discussion of whether to delete references to Angelina Jolie because she is in the opinion of certain editors a "mere" movie star is simply not germane. In that case, notability and verifiability prevail. Consider the reference to Sinan Çetin in the popular influence list. Who is he? The name is as unfamiliar to me as it appearsJohn Stossel's is in Wales. I checked, in the spirit of good faith, to see if he might be a candidate for exclusion. But lo and behold! I was educated. Ayn Rand has influential fans in Turkey, and they even vote for the AK! That party which I had read was the bastion of militant fundamentalists. I read and learned about the AK, and it opened my opinion! That is the glory of Wikipedia. It is not limited by the weight of paper volumes, or by the personal opinions of editors who would rather exclude or ignore certain topics. By all means let us challenge the false. But let us not exclude the truth without damn good reason. Kjaer (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography reached such Perfection that the map of one Province alone took up the whole of a City, and the map of the empire, the whole of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps did not satisfy, and the Colleges of Cartographers set up a Map of the Empire which had the size of the Empire itself and coincided with it point by point. Less Addicted to the Study of Cartography, Succeeding Generations understood that this Widespread Map was Useless and not without Impiety they abandoned it to the Inclemencies of the Sun and of the Winters. In the deserts of the West some mangled Ruins of the Map lasted on, inhabited by animals and Beggars; in the whole Country there are no other relics of the Disciplines of Geography." --Jorge Luis Borges

We cannot include anything; encyclopedias, like maps, are meant to summarize concisely. Attempting to list everyone--even everyone notable--who was influenced by Rand in some way shape or form, inside this page or not, is neither feasible nor desirable. This kind of radical inclusionism leads to monstrosities like Adolf Hitler in popular culture--huge, sprawling trivia pages, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And let's be perfectly clear here: this list signifies nothing, because it does not say a single, solitary word about the nature of the influence Rand had on those cited. Is it just that they really liked her books, as seems to be the case with Mark Cuban? Or is it that she significantly shaped their outlooks, which had a major impact on their actions, as is the case with Alan Greenspan.

I will ask again: are we to list every person--even every notable person--who was influenced by Immanuel Kant? And if we are to do this for the Rand page, then why shouldn't we include the criticisms of Rand that have been so summarily dismissed as "bilious"? Finally, I would also like to remind everyone here that inclusionism is not Wikipedia policy. We pick and choose what we believe is most notable, because we do not want to end up like Borges' cartographers. To be useful, Wikipedia articles must be concise, which means they must be defined as much by what it excludes as by what it includes. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.Damian: the article could use a trim. It's way too long, and points are belabored to an annoying degree. Entire sections are devoted to subjects which could simply be a sentence in a more universal section. The "Legacy" section is a fine example of this, as numerous sub-sections are created to discuss minor points about little-known and fringe organizations devoted to Rand. Significant space is devoted to discussions on the aims and policies of these marginal groups. I would basically suggest cutting out a lot of the propaganda and what-not in favor of a more orderly and structured discussion on her writings. This alone will cut down on the size of the article a great deal, as Rand's world-views can be easily formulated in just a sentence or two. In short, there are far too many sections and sub-sections which do not convey useful or meaningful information. It's a waste of wiki space in my opinion. CABlankenship (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a lot of articles tend to get overloaded with unencyclopedic trivialities, and I give thanks that The Simpsons or Family Guy have not (as far as I know) sought comedic inspiration from Ayn Rand; my problem is that I spend far too much time writing as opposed to reading, and as a philosopher, her works have passed me by. Having said that, if a popular culture outlet points towards deeper issues, I don't have a problem with that, and properly directed and sourced "Cultural References" may be valuable in expanding the experience and education of our younger readers. The problem in this regard, though, is original research in that whereas knowledgeable editors may realise the references, unless anyone else has done so, and reliably, we are stuck. But to CABlankenship, yes, minor influences should be pruned. Should they become major, they are replaceable. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it notes that the Rand article is a featured article on the Hebrew Wiki. As we can see, it's quite short and to the point: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%93 I believe the editors here should go for a similar length. CABlankenship (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that although I think the question of how long this article should be is not settled by Peter's argument by reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I am not arguing that it is too long or too short. I haven't even looked at the actual article, I'm just discussing the general argument about how we should approach comparative metrics to other works, a question I find quite interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of this debate relates to another controversial article Objectivism (An Rand which deals with the various ideas that arose from Rand and her associates thinking. There we have a general issue in that Rand has been largely ignored by the philosophy community. One of the few main line Philosophers who wrote about her, while accepting many of her ideas more or less dismissed her philosophical thinking. Otherwise we have work from philosophers in Rand based institutes, the odd funded position (Texas) and several respectable Economists and Political Scientists with Philosophy in their background. There are enough to support the statement that she is (at least for Wikipedia) a philosopher but the general sparsity of evidence, and its almost total US centricitiy do not argue for any major emphasis. As a novelist (internationally) and as an influencer of a part of the Libertarian movement in the US she is clearly notable. The issue of comparable lengths indicates the nature of wikipedia, its about interest and there are some people who care a lot about this and related argument. Enthusiasm builds Wikipedia articles, criticism improves NPOV and the current debates here are about working out that balance.

This whole discussion strikes me as radically elitist. If the articles on philosophers are too short expand them. Trying to recategorize Ayn Rand or to suggest she isn't notable because the academic elites don't have a high opinion of her is silly. When the Ivy Leaguers start selling millions of books and maintain an international, multi-generational following and exert substantial real world influence, it will be a lot easier to add to their articles. Until then they'll have to be content with their insular world of unaccountable tenure as opposed to the meritocracy the rest of us inhabit. Should they even be considered philosophers? :) People actually read John Paul Sartre and Plato. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, or cares, does it make a noise? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, people actually read John Paul Sartre and Plato (though I expect pretty few of the general public), and they are studied in academic philosophy - because they are regarded as philosophers by other philosophers. People actually read Rand, yet she is not studied in academic philosophy, because she is not. Selling millions of books and being influential (to a list of people many of whom I've never heard of, FWIW) doesn't make you a philosopher, any more than it makes you a dentist - it makes you a successful writer. The only people qualified (literally, with appropriate qualifications and expertise) to assess whether someone else is a proper philosopher is another philosopher, and these days almost all philosophers happen to be academics; for in the modern world there is not another route to becoming a professional philosopher, and by definition, if you're not professional you're an amateur, and likely to be amateurish with it.

For what it's worth, I have two philosophy degrees (though I am not a professional philosopher), and I'd never heard of Rand before coming across this article. It seems to me that the role of Wikipedia is not to champion people who some Wikipedians - most of whom are amateurs in the subject matter in question - feel have been unjustly ignored in their fields. That is the role of experts (qualified professionals) in those fields: no doubt if Rand is a decent philosopher, then sooner or later she will be recognised as such by and start being championed by a number of philosophers, and will eventually be heralded as a true genius. (Though I suspect that day will never, ever come.) Ben Finn (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Larry Sanger is a professional philosopher - has anyone asked him whether he thinks Rand counts as a philosopher? ;) Ben Finn (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So someone who paints for a living but holds no professional degree in painting is not an artist? Or someone whose paintings other painters do not like is not an artist? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has two degrees in philosophy, but has never come across Rand that is a testament to academic bias and generally I would refrain from advertising my being ignorant of something so significant in my field of "expertise". I don't mean to be rude, but if someone hasn't heard of the people who have been influenced by her writings and philosophy they need to get out more. This encyclopedia doesn't require that people with advanced degrees be the ones to write articles. Thank goodness, if that were the case I suspect the encyclopedia would be wholly unreadable and largely worthless. Have you read the nonsense that passes as "academic" papers these days? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is interesting, it is pretty much irrelevant to edits that need to be made on this article. Would anyone object to moving it to Wikiproject philosophy? Idag (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the focus should be on article improvements. Let's hope future discussion is related to sourcing and content without the distraction of personal and professional agenda advocacy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Buckley

So, now that the article is unprotected I removed the bit about Buckley's Catholicism. It doesn't really flow right, and people can find out all about that on his page. What Buckley is most notable for is founding the National Review, and a big part of what he was trying to do was to rid the conservative movement of the "kooks"--a category which he believed included Ayn Rand. There is a great deal of material about Rand and Buckley available that should be able to provide a richer context than just implying that he didn't like her because she was Catholic. Rand actually figured into a novel he wrote about the early days of the conservative movement, and he discusses her fairly extensively in this interview. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand and he had a longstanding feud with her saying he was too smart to believe in god. It's quite relevant and sourced. If you'd like, it could be expanded to explain the relevance. Don't remove it. If you want it expanded, let me know. Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the secondary sources state that Buckley's criticism was motivated by the feud. Idag (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know that is not the root of the feud, either. Buckley thought Rand and Robert Welch were kooks, and believed that for the conservative movement to succeed they would have to be excluded. And having read the refs, the only way you can reach that conclusion is by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that other editors read the interview linked to by TallNapoleon, as it contains some interesting context for Buckley's criticism of Rand. Some of it could go into the article. CABlankenship (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

gary merrill

This statement needs to be put where it belongs, under criticism, not response to criticism. Are we going to have a response to the response to the response to criticism section? Also, who is gary merrill, other than someone with a web page? His notability should be explained, or he should be removed as undue weight. Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Merrill's criticism was notable enough to be included on the Objectivism Reference Center's webpage.[6] As for location, a separate section that's a response to criticism is superfluous, IMO, but if we're going to have a section like that, it should also include qualifications. Idag (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

nyquist flag

Why was the flag removed? Should I add Seddon's review of Nyquist as a response? Nyquist's reliability as a self-published author has been questioned. If the flag comes down, then the Seddon response will go up. Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shorten the Article

Indeed, wouldn't one good way to shorten the article be to create a criticism of Ayn Rand article? Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be very careful with that, as it would be easy to create a POV fork. Would you like to make a Sandbox proposal? Idag (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection again

I have indefinitely protected the article. Can I suggest that reversion of material from editors who have been discussing the matter here prior to discussing the advisability of its placement is not helpful at all. Yes, I know it is allowed by wikiepdia rules, but to start to do this again on the part of one editor is just helping create an atmosphere where there is no assumption of good faith (again). I do not expect to see this behaviour again. Kjaer: you need to raise the issues BEFORE you revert people from now on, and guage the responses. You seem to having serious WP:OWNership problems with this article. To the others: please discuiss adding or editing material more prior to editing the article. The history of the edit-warring on this article means that it is especially important to be extremely careful about this when one is dealing with edits made by established editors who disagree on this very talk page. From now on, you need to get consensus (which is not the same as unanimous) agreement for changes that are to be made on the article. The first job should now be to discuss the edits that happened today to see whether they should be re-established.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed all the details of this but it looks very much like fringe-friendly Wikipedia again. An admin steps in to protect against 'edit warring' when the real problem is fringe editors messing up articles. Just ban these people. Peter Damian (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators cannot ban people: they may institute blocks, but they are rather different animals. I have warned Kjaer here about reversions being made of established editors' edits without discussing them in advance, and pointed out that the history of this article means that any changes other editors want to make should be discussed prior to implementing them. That is sufficient for now.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Indef block is easy. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is merely a wrangle over terminology, but some get very heated about it. Admins can institute indef blocks, but in this case, I think it would be quickly overturned. Bans are community-based banishments, in effect; and by definition cannot be done on the decision of a single administrator. As I said, just a game of definitions, but some think it is important.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the full-protect. Most of the editors of this article, have agreed on a set of edits that are necessary for its improvement. Kjaer and Steve are the only editors who disagree (the need to change the Nature of Criticism section was discussed above and Kjaer was the only person who disagreed). Full-protect is an extreme remedy that is unnecessary here where there is a general consensus and only two editors are being obstinate. Idag (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will review the matter and get back to you all about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've unprotected it; sorry for the wrong decision here. I do think Kjaer was wrong to revert the edits without prior discussion, given the history of edit-warning, and the fact that he has been blocked for edit-warring before. Let the changes be reimplemented if it is certain that they are the correct way to proceed. Can I suggest that if they reimplemented, they must not be reverted without discussion and agreement that they should be reverted again here.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Does my restoring the relevant cited qualification of Buckley, which had indeed been discussed between myself and Snowden count as a reversion? I should think deleting a sourced comment counts as a reversion at least as much as restoring it. I added back in the relevant sourced remarks on Buckley and moved - did not delete - the gary merrill comment, which was a criticism, from "response to criticism" to "criticism".

As for Buckley, simply presenting his stillborn remark without qualification, as if he were a neutral disintersted party, is quite misleading. Read the citations. Rand and he had a long standing feud due to her hostility to his religion and his to her atheism. We can expand this if necessary. Kjaer (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded and I both disagreed with your treatment of the citation in the Nature of the Criticism section. Just because you discussed it does not give you license to keep it when every other editor disagrees with you. As for moving the other cite, the Nature of the Criticism section heavily discusses Rand's treatment by the academia. The sentence I added provides an alternative cited reason for why the academia has dismissed Rand. I will restore to my last edit so that we can discuss the relevant changes. Idag (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Buckley, Kjaer's proposed edits violate WP:Synth and the language is so full of weasel words that its borderline libel (if Buckley was still alive). Idag (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. We cannot get into the position where every critic of Rand has some motivation ascribed to them (Chomsky is an activist, Buckley is a Catholic). Unless there is clear and direct third party (not a Rand site) citation its just plain wrong. If there was a debate between Buckley ad Rand then that could be notable (if referenced) but should be elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vallicella on Rand

My friend Bill Vallicella has some excellent criticisms of Rand in his blog: on her misunderstanding of Kant and on whether she was a good philosopher (clearly not). Sadly of course it is a blog ergo an 'unreliable source'. But that is a classic problem of fighting the fringe on Wikipedia. Reliable sources rarely discuss unreliable sources. Peter Damian (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not including blogs is a problem that encourages fringe content? I beg to differ. It seems your argument is based largely on your rejection of the accolades and recognition Ayn Rand and her works have recieved in the mainstream. May I be so bold as to suggest you and your friends in the academic fringe may simply be out of touch and ignorant of the importance and significance of philosophical subjects. This appears to me to be a classic case of Ivory Tower syndrome. Maybe you should spend more time among the plebes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It is not a case of elitism. She was simply a very bad philosopher. Vallicella finds 4 logical errors in a single sentence. Rand argues, in effect: A. If some facts are not necessary, but contingent, then B. No fact is necessary. Therefore C. Nothing is certain. Therefore D. Anything goes. Each of these inferences is invalid. It is a contingent fact that there are nine planets, but it is not a contingent fact that water is H2O. So B does not follow from A. Nor does B entail C. Necessity is not the same property as certainty. The fact that I am now thinking is not necessary,but it is certain: see Descartes. Finally, C does not entail D. If nothing is known with certainty, it does not follow that there are no absolute truths; what follows is merely that we who hold them hold them fallibly. Go back home and do some homework, do some proper philosophy, which requires hard work, and is nothing to do with sitting in ivory towers. Come back when you have learned something useful Peter Damian (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you can use William Vallicella's self-published blog as a source on philosophy under our policy, WP:V. He need only be regarded as a specialist in his field, and he must have been previously published in that field by reliable third-party sources. Both of those seem to apply here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

However, it is clearly an opinion piece and should be treated as such. Also note that you have taken some of it out of context. Rand did not argue that "nothing is certain" or that "anything goes". Those concepts are in fact quite antithetical to her views. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinton on Rand

Found it. A cast iron reliable source Anthony Quinton writing in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, in the article Popular philosophy. He defines 3 kinds: general guidance about life, amateur considerations of standard philosophy, and philosophical popularisation. Rand falls into the second class. He says 'amateur philosophy presupposes the existence of professional philosophy to define itself against'. Amateur philosophy is the creation of the 19th century with its mass literacy and self-eduation. He mentions Herbert Spencer, J.H. Stirling. In the 20th century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print; most of them languish in typescript and photocopy (Quinton was writing just before the Internet, and Wikipedia). But there are, he says, the works of LL Whyte and George Melhuish (a truly terrible philosopher, the latter) and 'in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest'. There you go. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to add the page numbers to the ref you edited in? In general, there are some references throughout the article that need some attention as well so that the relevant places can be more easily found, and some web-based references are not complete.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth including a bit about how academics and scholarly philosophers whose works go largely unread and unrecognized, and who are almost uniformly leftist politically, don't like Ayn Rand. I hope you'll quote this fellow, his writing makes for wonderful reading and is a good indication of why Ayn Rand is notable and he not especially so. I imagine it must have taken him many years of careful study and practice to state something so simple in such a complex and pedantic manner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added edition and date and page number to the OCP ref Peter Damian (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lord Quinton is a conservative philosopher and was made a baron by Margaret Thatcher. Not really a leftist. Vallicella, whom I mentioned above, is a well-known conservative philosopher. Attention to and respect for logic are irrelevant to political divide Peter Damian (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And the only Libertarian Philosopher to write about her, Nozick while supporting her politics does is a critic of her philosophical capability. --Snowded TALK 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing in Quinton's article suggesting he's conservative or that his work has been especially notable. Apparently he did have some notoriety as a quiz show host. I think his criticism might be more appropriate to an article on Alex Trebek? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are using Wikipedia as an authoritative source on philosophy - the only encyclopedia that rates Ayn Rand higher than Aristotle? Next, you will be arguing against citation of Aristotle. What next. Peter Damian (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I have heard of the philosopher Anthony Quinton, I hadn't heard of Rand in any capacity. In this statistical sample of one, he is more notable than she. ;) Ben Finn (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The other amateur philosophers

Lancelot_Law_Whyte has his own entry, it seems. George Melhuish sadly doesn't, but wrote the excellent Death and the Double Nature of Nothingness Peter Damian (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Influence section change

I have changed the section in accordance with the discussion above. While I've probably missed a major philosopher or two, let's avoid turning this section into the giant list that it was before. I'm also hoping that we can elaborate on Rand's influence for each of the figures that are included in the current list. Idag (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Criticism

This section should go. Here's why. Rand's philosophy is about Rand. Rand's critics are responding to Rand. The people responding to Rand's critics are neither Rand, nor responding to Rand. Furthermore, it reads like an attempt to water down the criticism section. It should go. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Idag (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, and its mostly OR. The statements do not match the source. --Snowded TALK 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not. Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Political and Social Views

This section needs to be pared down dramatically... I would argue that Rand's views on race, homosexuality and gender simply aren't that important for the sake of this article, and maybe deserve one-line explanations rather than whole subsections. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional

As per the dictionary: "am⋅a⋅teur   /ˈæməˌtʃʊər, -tʃər, -tər, ˌæməˈtɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-uh-choor, -cher, -ter, am-uh-tur] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional. "

I know philosophers are talented contortionists of logic, but until they rewrite the dictionary we shouldn't be adding falsehoods to this article. Rand was clearly a professional in her literary and philosophical pursuits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CoM, I reverted your edit, because "amateur" is precisely the term that the source, Anthony Quinton in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, uses of her. We should perhaps look to see whether the others he classifies in the same way are called philosophers by Wikipedia: C.G. Stone, L.L. Whyte, George Melhuish, James Hinton, the eighth duke of Argyll, A.J. Balfour. Had she been regarded as a philosopher proper, she'd have been given her own entry, rather than being mentioned under "popular philosophy." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

George Melhuish was my landlord when I was a student in Bristol in the 1980's. He was very sweet, but a terrible philosopher. And as SV says, 'amateur' is precisely the term that Quinton uses. Peter Damian (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And, correct, Rand is not mentioned in the very authoritative Oxford Companion. Quinton was on the editorial board. He was made a baron for his services to education. Peter Damian (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be partly a USA/UK difference thing, but only in part: I certainly know of Quinton more than I know of Rand, and I strongly suspect he might be more prominent in the UK than the USA, and that he is probably more prominent that Rand in the UK. If asked, I would certainly state without hesitation that Anthony Quinton was a philosopher who ended up being largely, popularly known for his contributions to "Round Britain Quiz"though, as Peter states, he is known for his contributions to education as well. However, I am a UK person, and I did study philosophy at university (though not as the main degree subject), and have worked on the boundaries of that field subsequently within academia.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal of amateur. The arguments against calling her a philosopher or for calling her an amateur have thus far been that she was a bad philosopher. A bad sports team is still composed of professional sports players. As to the source, it sounds to me that it is expressing an opinion, and using "amatuer" to mean "bad". Other sources reffed also are quoted calling her a "writer and philosopher". Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the citations (third party)? The original position was that "philosopher" was accepted but was always qualified as something disputed. It may be time to sort this out. --Snowded TALK 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Concise Routledge encyclopedia of Philosophy (2000 edition) has for her entry: "Ayn Rand was a Russian-born US novellist and philosopher who exerted considerable influence in the conservative and libertarian intellectual movements in the post-war USA. Rand's ideas were expressed mainly through her novels; she set forth a view of morality as based in rational self-interest and in political philosophy defended an unrestrained form of capitalism." It is written by Chandran Kukathas, and references a book: Den Uyl, D.J. and Rassmussen, D. (eds) (1984). The philosophic thought of Ayn Rand Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Just thought I'd add that as extra information. For myself, if I need or want to, I tend to look at the Oxford Companion more than the Routledge.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that source above, DD, and noted that Kukathas is himself not a philosopher.

Amateur simply means that she wasn't paid by anyone to be a philosopher, which used to be the case for almost all philosophers, of course, but nowadays people are called philosophers only when paid to be such. We have to go by what the reliable sources within the field say, and it's clear that other philosophers don't regard her as a philosopher. Added to which, if you read e.g. this, you'll see how far we'd be stretching things to call her a philosopher. She seems to feel, for example, that Kant was evil, and that "[f]or some two hundred years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his confidence in the power of reason."

Agree, and read Vallicella's scathing view of her misunderstanding-of-kant Peter Damian (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If people don't want to use the term "amateur philosopher," we could simply leave out philosopher entirely, and add something to the lead about how the extent to which her writing could be regarded as philosophy is controversial, or something like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The sources are always going to be split on this. The best solution is to put "writer + philosopher", with the latter qualified by academic criticisms of her philosophy (which is, and I speak as a sympathiser, not terribly coherent). Moreschi (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The citation that is there says, "identifies her as 'writer and philosopher.' She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a 'philosopher,'."

So even the citation that is currently used confirms that she was a writer and philosopher. It strikes me as a contortion of logic to try and argue that her profession was something else, and I don't think she made her living as a college professor as many "philosophers" do, so writer and philosopher seems quite accurate and there's no doubt about what her profession was. We don't mischaracterize people based on our personal preferences and selective sources. Or we shouldn't anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

She was an amateur in the sense that she didn't make a living from publishing academic philosophy - which is the only kind there is. CofM your recent edits and comments here amount to trolling, and are damaging the efforts of those who are trying to turn this into something resembling an encyclopedia. Can you stop please. Peter Damian (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, people. This is a bona fide debate, albeit over a minor point, so we need to conduct it civilly. Re some other points, she may not have made a living from academic philosophy strictly speaking, but heck, why did people buy her books? Rand's great plots? Or Rand's stirring defense of libertarianism? Methinks the latter. It's worth nothing that Friesian has a (pretty cutting) page on her as a philosopher, while also praising her basic point. Moreschi (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(many c/e and a reply to SlimVirgin) Ah, sorry" I missed that. My own view is that she was a novellist first, and that amateur philospher to additionally describe her is fair.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While I have the highest regard for your views, :) that's inconsistent with what the sources say and the definition of amateur. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way about the "amateur" label. I think her situation is a little like Iris Murdoch, for example, though Murdoch did have the extra factor of formally studied philosophy as well as publishing formal philosophy critiques (of Sartre, for example), which is what has veered me to using "amateur" (for Rand: added afterwards for clarity!). Of course, Murdoch is also probably better known in the UK than the USA (as I commented about Quinton, above.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Murdoch took post-graduate studies in philosophy, and taught philosophy at Oxford for 15 years. She wrote the first book in English on Sartre. She became better known as a novelist, to be sure, but she was a philosopher first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! This difference is what primarily what veers me always back to using "amateur" when this is discussed. In fact, I think my views are becoming a bit more strong about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there is doubt as to if she is a philosopher and most Philosophical Directories that I checked do not even mention her. As a novelist her notability is clear, as a philosopher are evidence is slight and in the main narrow (from what I have seen) more linked to political ideology than philosophy. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slim Virgin, however in place of amateur you might use self styled or self appointed philosopher.Modernist (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is no doubt that she was a philosopher, and only weak arguments and opinion that she was an "amateur". Let's move on and leave the POV out. She was a philosopher, whether she was any good or not is certainly a matter of opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, academic consensus is pretty clear that she was a sucky philosopher (even Nozick, who I guess she's closest to) but that's tangential to this discussion. Moreschi (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, if you want to call her a philosopher, can you list a few academic philosophers who refer to her as such (and not as an amateur), or who write about her work in a way that makes clear they feel they're writing about one of their peers? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See Robert Paul Wolff's Philosophy textbook "About Philosophy" 5th edition pages 139-143. Wolff refers to her as "novelist and philosopher" Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ethan. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a totally fair test. Rand was tremendously rude about contemporary philosophers and philosophical trends: if academic philosophy has marginalized her this is not really surprising...Moreschi (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand could have been as rude as she wanted about philosophers; they wouldn't have ignored her if she'd produced good work. On the contrary, there would have been more interest in her work if she'd made herself controversial, but the reality is that many or even most philosophers have never or barely heard of her. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Slim, every source I can find calls her a philosopher, including the one already in the article. It's also a point of fact, as per the definition of amateur, that this charecterization doesn't fit. I just did a google book search of Ayn Rand amateur philosopher before even reading your comment, and there is scant evidence of this description being used. Certainly her detractors call her ideas amateur, but there doesn't seem to be any dispute that she was in fact a philosopher in every possible way. She is most notable and made her living writing on philosophical topics and, as is clearly evident from this discussion, her philosophies are much discussed and controversial. What is the point of calling her amateur? Are you suggesting that there is some official body that determines who is and who isn't a philosopher? What are the criteria for inclusion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We need some names from you, CofM. Can you name some philosophers who call her a philosopher (and not an amateur), or who write about her in a way that makes clear they see her as a fellow philosopher? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that as Damian makes clear, she was absolutely NOT an academic philosopher. Per her own definition of herself and that of others I would be happy for this to be made clear. If there is some satisfaction in pointing out that she wasn't a part of academia, by all means let's make that clear. She seems to have relished rejecting the intellectual dogmas of her time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider just passing through, why don't you just change it around to read something like: Ayn Rand ... was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, who is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a popular philosophical system called Objectivism. That makes it clear that she was a writer who developed philosophical views - whether or not she was "amateur", or indeed a "philosopher", can be discussed further down the article. Sorry to butt in... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Ghmyrtle, and thank you for butting in. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea as well...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That is a good suggestion, Ghmyrtle.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That works. Moreschi (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Ghmyrtle. Don't be sorry for butting in, sometimes a new perspective is just what's needed in any debate. :) Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. I'm happy to do my part to alleviate the pain and jealousy of the self-styled philosophers who are forced to work as college professors since they can't give away their books. I'm sympathetic to the fact that those in academia might be aggrieved in recognizing the awesome achievements of a female philosopher who doesn't share their academic background and is outside of their narrow circle of friends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight, it seems to me you have some grudge against academia, and since (whether we include Rand or not) almost all research and development of philosophy in the modern world is conducted within academia, it seems tantamount to having a grudge against almost all modern philosophy - which I don't think lends your contributions a lot of credibility. Ben Finn (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like consensus, so I made the edit. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If only life was always this simple.... :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, I encourage you to explain your disagreement here. If you'd like to point out a previous talk that would perhaps influence the more recent consensus, please do so. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that I do agree with you on this and many other things, but in order to reach consensus I am willing to comprimise. Simply reverting will, in the end, have less effect on the article's outcome than a calm, rational discussion. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued endlessly. There is no more recent consensus, just an assertion of such wholly by editors hostile to Rand. The last consensus as of July can be seen at archive 15. The whole point of the footnote was to qualify the statement in a way acceptible to all sides. Even CABlankenship who has retired from editting due to his bias (see his statemnt "propaganda page" above) calls her a philosopher, if only a fourth rate one. Frankly, if this is the trajectory of editting, not to improve the article, but to regress to people's hostility toward Rand, I think the article needs to go back under protection.Kjaer (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are ten separate sources from google scholar calling Rand a philosopher. There is no consensus to remove the description of her as a philosopher, of six months standing. There are innumerable references calling her a philosopher, and when any proof of her being a philosopher is offered, it is deleted with the non sequitur that there is consensus that there is no source to call her a philosopher. There is no justification for the original reversion. The description must be put back on, and if those who oppose it want it removed they can pose a request for comment. Kjaer (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

and as a philosopher who developed a system she called Objectivism.

Professional cont'd

Perhaps a better compromise would be to refer to her as a philosophical writer, since her books were obviously espousing a philosophy. I don't agree with the recent removal of philosopher from her infobox, as that lacks the context of her philosophical system.Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

She didn't even have a degree in philosophy as far as I'm aware. Her bio states that she attended a 3-year degree program for history. She's pretty clearly an amateur philosopher, without training or expertise in the field. Her degree isn't even recognized as granting her authority or expert status in history, let alone philosophy. She has a minor 3-year degree in history. CABlankenship (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't go away yet Ghmyrtle

What about this bit of nonsense, "While her writing has received little attention from academic philosophers,.."? There is a whole section in this article and a substantial separate article discussing the reaction of philosophers to her views. Isn't that what we've been discussing? And yet now someone is trying to have the article say she's been ignored? If so, and there's no notable reaction, let's do away with the criticism section. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I AGREE! :-) This whole thing is so humorous. It's fun to see the Primacy of Conciousness in action! We need sources! Here you go. Oh....Well we have a consensus to ignore that :-) Have at it folks. That's why I stopped editing the article. Indeed. The criticism section should go since it's clearly by those who ignored her. All those article in papers and magazines. All those times she gets dragged out on NPR and such. Yes indeed. Not a philosopher! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I cited a Philosophy Textbook written by an academic philosopher. Anyone? Anyone? HAHAHAHAHA :-) Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those weren't the sources they had in mind I guess? In their caste system only the elite who spend a lifetime in academia (apart from hosting quiz shows) are worthy of consideration. Although I can't help but note how much time they spend "ignoring" Rand. A strange obsession this ignoring has become. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind you both that we are supposed to be discussing the improvement of the article here in accordance with WP:TALK. If you wish to disparage "them" or indulge in mockery, please do so on each other's talk page and not here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now now! After listening to snowded and CAB you want to tell me to be nice? Be consistent. Regarding the article does consensus override souces? That seems very close to OR to me. Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am asking you to abide by the well-established guidelines for behaviour as outlined in WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS, and not to indulge in edit-warring. That goes for everyone, by the way.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are rules on Wikipedia about POV and bias. If people can't be objective in working on this article then they should move on. Numerous sources were produced calling Rand a philosopher, yet a compromise that avoided using that word had to be agreed to. Where are all these good sources that say she isn't a philosopher? And furthermore we have a totally biased bit that says she's been ignored. If pointing out the irony and absurdity of that is a crime, I am guilty as charged. Presenting the argument in a humorous manner may be the only way to stay sane. If only those attempting to belittle Rand and her accomplishments would actually ignore her we could all go back to improving articles. Would you please consider addressing the point that's been made suggesting that she has been ignored? Where is the source for that? Do you think that's a fair statement? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there was consensus for alternative wording, but not for the removal of the ciation describing how she is characterized. Please restore this citation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Anyone who's formally studied philosophy knows she has been ignored. Douglas Den Uyl, who wrote a book about her philosophical views, concurs; see the link I provided above. We're obviously not going to be able to produce of list of philosophers who've written, "I'm ignoring her," and "So am I!" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If he wrote a book about her isn't that the opposite of ignoring her? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. :-) But he writes that he's one of the exceptions, though from what I can tell this is slowly changing, and it may well be that in another few years time, she'll be more mainstream. There's a Guardian article to that effect listed in the article. I'll find it and post it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional to SlimVirgin's point, there seem to be disagreements within the sources about the various other claims under discussion. The problem then is what to do under these circumstances. A number of strategies have been generally suggested on wikipedia, but there are the issues of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and the possibility of representing all viewpoints fairly to be considered. There are rarely black and white answers, so quick accusations of inappropriate intentions or of bias or POV impositions in other editors is especially not advised. We then run into the problem that Rand appears to some to have a far more prominent reputation within the USA than probably the rest of the world. If this is so, then how would we factor this into the problem of weighting?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I ain't got nothing to say on the topic, except for this: outside of the US she is a completely unknown entity, and if she is known, she is not taken seriously as a philosopher (sorry, CoM)--she is seen as a fairly typical propagator of American exceptionalism and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-ism. (These are not my opinions, by the way.) And I speak as a former philosophy student from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam... Drmies (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A look through the talk archives of this article will show the extreme abuse that's been hurled at many editors, not the least of which I am one. I've dealt with trolls and sock-puppets for a long time now. I've stopped editing the article and most of wiki because of what I've seen here. The system is being gamed constantly to push all sorts of POVs. I've agreed that the Rand article should include criticism and needed work. I'm no mindless Rand worshipper. I can deal with honest criticism of her. I've had some myself. I've supported a NPOV bio. But this whole "philosopher" argument is so much smoke and mirrors. It's meaninless and those trying to remove the title from her piece need to know that as many many many sources have shown it is a proper title for her. To try and change that pbased on dislike of her and her ideas is just petty. In the end it changes nothing. If this happens here and is supported by Admins what does that say about the valiodity of wikipedia? Soon it will as relevant as conserapedia, in other words, not at all. Those of you who claim academic degrees and knowledge on thsi subject, and those of you who are administrators only sully yourselves by this pettiness. You've just made wiki less accurate, less relevant. You haven't challenged one of Rand's ideas or claims. You haven't prevented her from being read. You have simply made your encyclopedia less accurate. I can't invest my time in such a waste of bandwidth. Sleep well an know that all your hard free work is worth just that much less today. You have torn down your own work just because you didn't like what they said. Think about that and know that it reflects on every single piece you edit. You have diminshed your work and yourselves. Go to my talk page and post a warning now about how I'm not assuming good faith. I am not fooled. Others won't be fooled. You are not even fooling yoursleves. You know what the sources say. Consensus doesn't change reality. I'm one less honest editor who will leave now like so many others. Quick, time for an archive. Ethan a dawe (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Idag's last reversion of the referenced reference to Rand is his third reversion of the day. I am npot sure how many other people have that many reversions. I suggest we end this orgy of removing sourced material, or request the protection be returned to the article. Kjaer (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page when you requested that the article's previous protection be extended to indefinite, I think you need to discuss the reversions of discussed changes prior to reverting them. That is the justification why your reversions have themselves been reversed. If you have a problem with that, I suggest three things you should do: (a) engage fully in the discussion here on how to improve the article, where improvement can lead to material being removed as well as added, and, (b) additionally, if you have a problem with another editor's actions in editing the article, discuss it before reverting it, especially when it is clear on a merely cursory glance that the changes have been discussed on this page and gathered strong arguments in its favour. (c) You should also consider raising the matter on the talk page of the editor who removed the material you think should be included.

Remember that wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS which relies on sufficient discussion to reach a negotiated agreement about what to do, and a consensus need not be a unanimous agreement.

Tread carefully, and please engage more in the process rather than merely relying on agreements that many here consider have been superceded recently to justify your reversions of recently agreed-upon edits. If you do that, I am sure that with an effort to always have an assumption of good faith that all the editors here are all trying to work towards improving the article, then further problems can be avoided. Careful reading of and thought about a previous message by another editor about a short story by J.L.Borges concerning cartographers would be most beneficial to many here.

In any case, I am too involved now to take any action as an administrator.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

==Influential?==

The lead says that, "While her writing has received little attention from academic philosophers, it remains both influential and controversial in popular culture."

Is it true that her work is influential in popular culture, and if it's true in the U.S., is there any evidence that she's influential elsewhere? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That evidence was recently removed from the article, see popular influence section prior to removal of protection. Kjaer (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for some reason the entire section seems to have been removed. This looks like vandalism to me. Do you want me to post it here so you can read it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do--I think this is worthy of some discussion. Incidentally, I believe that sentence in the lead to be true. And so does Neil Peart, I think. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The section is still there, if it's the one I just edited, and yes, I read some of the sources, and it's clearly accurate to call her influential in popular culture. I did remove that she'd influenced the Church of Satan though. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would have expanded that section, no? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting till after midnight. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Slim what's your take on the "While her writing has received little attention from academic philosophers" bit? Surely there is a better way to phrase this statement (as in, change it into something that's actually true). And if you think it's fair to say she hasn't received attention try reading the intro to Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (which I have not altered) without experiencing a severe case of irony. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"He work continues to be popular, influential and controversial, but is not part of most academic curriculums and has generally had a poor reception in academia." I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. It's not that she hasn't gotten attention from academics, it's that they hate her and what she stands for and don't want to include her. There's a big difference. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not like there's a conspiracy to destroy her reputation, and it's a bit too easy, in my opinion, to put it all down to them hating her. (You HAVE to consider the possibility that they're right, and you're wrong! ;) ) I think that statement you have there above is pretty decent. Good luck on this contentious issue--I'll go back to lurking on Anarchism and Marxism, hoping that someone will turn that first-grade language into something philosophical. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Academics don't make a secret of their disdain for her and those who agree with the thrust of her arguments. She's as popular with the Ivory Tower elite as Sarah Palin is amongst the Kennedy crowd. And yet every year her books keep selling. I guess we average folk just ain't smart enough to appreciate dat good philosophy of dem book smart collegians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone just needs to take charge and start getting rid of all the superfluous information. In particular, there are way too many sub-sections that simply don't contain enough info to warrant having its own header. I again point to the legacy, politics, and philosophy sections. These really don't need sub-sections, and a small paragraph summarizing these points could easily be created, while simultaneously cutting down on the original research. We also do not need a half-dozen references to how many books she sold, yet this is mentioned over and over. CABlankenship (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Ethan's complaints above, no one is using force to stop those of us who see the various deletions and other changes being made to the article as ridiculous. The sole responsibility lies with those editors who oppose the changes to speak up. We have perhaps four editors simply asserting that there is a consensus for such nonsense as Rand's not being a philosopher. All we need is for people who oppose this view to state it out loud and show what the consensus is. With certain editors having recused themselves as unable to work past their bias to edit the article fairly, that should not be impossible to do. So let's hear it. Is there a consensus to revert the article to the state during the freeze, when Rand was a philosopher with a footnote, when the satanists had their say, and when yes, Chomsky's hate and Buckley's scorn were noted even in the midst of such mere people as Angelina Jolie? That is was there ever really any consensus at all to make the recent spate of deletion s? Speak up, and don't blame the state of the article on the evil motives of others when you won't support it yourselves. Kjaer (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you Support or Oppose reverting the article to its state while it was frozen?

Support No consensus was reached (show me any such vote or RFC) and no actual wikipedia principle other than mob rule was proposed. Kjaer (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: It is clear that a new consensus is developing. Furthermore, neither a vote nor an RFC is necessary for this. However, I believe we should refer to her as a philosopher in the lede, as a large number of third party sources do. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is general agreement that this article is unsatisfactory. This was also stated by a neutral editor review. It needs cleaning up. What cannot be debated is that she attempted work in philosophy. She without a doubt wished to be viewed as a philosopher. However, her efforts in this regard are almost universally seen as inadequate. Her attempts to criticize Kant are seen as confused — she seems to have completely misunderstood the material she was attempting to analyze. Calling her a philosopher is fine, so long as it's noted that she is widely considered a very poor philosopher. She was a successful novelist whose work touched on philosophical concepts. It would be just as inappropriate to try to overstate her status as a philosopher as it would be to ignore the fact that her work did touch on philosophical concepts. CABlankenship (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In which work does she discuss Kant? Are you confusing her with someone else? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure the choice is clear. How about indicating support or to oppose to calling her a philosopher (along with all the major media and other established and reliable sources)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a new consensus developing. Idag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn whether the subsection on homosexuality is well sourced. Rand's views on homosexuality were an extraordinarily minor part of her overall philosophy. It violates WP:UNDUE to give them so much space and to include so much discussion, apologetics, etc. about them. This article needs to be shortened, and her views could easily be summarized in one sentence, so I suggest that this is as good a place as any to start. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that this is a current issue within those who follow Rand and is therefore subject to debate. However I agree with you its a sentence at most--Snowded TALK 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TallNapoleon. This is exactly the type of thing that should be part of a summary paragraph. This doesn't deserve any more than a blurb at best, and certainly shouldn't have its own sub-category. I suggest getting rid of all of the sub-categories in Legacy, Political and social views, Fiction, Objectivism, &c. — combining the information into short and well-sourced summary paragraphs. Obviously this is my subjective opinion, does anyone feel that the sub-categories add something to the article? CABlankenship (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The subsections are notable and well sourced. Rand may be the most popular and influential philosopher of our time and she is a lightning rod for controversy. So covering her views and the various controversies in some detail is warranted. I thought you guys were going to work on Anton Quinn or whatever his name is, the quiz guy's article so it would be more believable that he's notable and his opinions are worthy of consideration? Did you get sidetracked? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinton's a well-known and highly respected philosopher, though thanks to your edit summary, I had a middle-aged moment and called him Anthony Quinn in mine. :-) I think the lead now strikes a good balance, with us not expressing the POV that she's a philosopher without qualification, but also making clear that at least one philosophy dept is seriously interested in her. I agree with CAB that the legacy section could be tightened, though not as much as it has been. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Most popular and influential philosopher of our time"? I'm sorry, but have you gone mad? And as I have said before, I do not care if the subsections are well-sourced. Considering that Rand spent very, very little time talking about homosexuality, for us to devote a full subsection to it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and furthermore a waste of space. It can be dealt with in one sentence, if it is to be mentioned at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand as Philosopher

Well that was some exchange to wake up to. To try and sumarise:

1. She thought of herself as a philosopher
2. No one has produced a notable academic philosopher who takes her seriously as a philosopher (including the one libertarian philosopher of note who commented on her work
3. She is taken seriously as a political thinker by a broad range of notable people
4. There are a range of institutes that study her work, and these include people with philosophical
5. She created a philosophical movement which calls itself objectivism (but is not the only use of that term)
6. Her main fame was as novelist and that was her "occupation"
7. Those novels propose a world view or philosophy which has gained popular support mainly in the US

So can we look again at Ghymrtle's suggestion a variation which acknowledges both her work and what came afterwards. Ayn Rand ... was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, who is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She also wrote in the fields of politics and philosophy and created a philosophical system which is called Objectivism. That acknowledges that she wrote and created in the area and philosophy. It avoids judgements as to the quality of that work. --Snowded TALK 07:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion from today more carefully. Numerous sources and references were provided showing the she is almost universally referred to as a philosopher including by numerous other philosophers. The "compromise" sentence is grotesquely verbose. She was a philosopher, get over it. Or please provide sources suggesting that the argument that she is an amateur philosopher or not actually a philosopher (perhaps she was an auto-mechanic?) is anything but a fringe view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Very many philosophers don't think she qualifies as a philosopher.

Fact: She is very frequently referred to in media as a philosopher, novelist-philosopher or writer philosopher.

Fact: I don't see any easy resolution to this problem.

Conclusion: Why don't we leave the article as is for now and deal with this later? It seems like we have a number of more pressing issues. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I once heard actor/writer Peter Ustinov described as a philosopher (I think this was in his capacity as a raconteur). I once interviewed an applicant for the Cambridge University philosophy degree who was under the impression that novelist D H Lawrence was a philosopher. Many people - not least journalists - don't have a very clear idea what philosophy is, and are inclined to use the term very loosely, applying it to people who say or write 'philosophical-sounding things' - rather as I once heard Einstein referred to on the radio as a mathematician (presumably because he did 'mathematical-sounding things'). The fact that the media refers to someone as a philosopher does not make them a philosopher; the media frequently makes mistakes. Though I think the current solution of saying she 'developed a popular philosophical system' is a good one - as 'philosophical' is a looser term, and 'popular' implies (to me) that its significance may arise primarily from its popularity rather than its academic rigour. Ben Finn (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we have one editor who is refusing to accept the compromise of saying that Rand created a philosophical movement. Said editor requires people to prove a negative (that she was not a philosopher). She made her living as novelist not as a philosopher. She gained no acknowledgement with the community of philosophers and references to her in the media are common for authors who explore ideas in their books. If we take another author, John Fowles who writes philosophical novels, he is not described as philosopher. In Rands case a philosophical movement arose from her writing. That is acknowledged in the compromise version. It includes the ambiguous word "popular" which in this context can be justified in the sense of non-academic but not as a mass movement and we might need to clarify that. However its a sensible lede. --Snowded TALK 09:23, 10 January 2009

Kjaer, TallNapoleon and I have provided numerous sources indicating she was referred to as a philosopher. Developing a philosophical system is also a good indication of being a philosopher. You can make statements until you're blue in the face, but if you can't provide sources supporting your position, I'm afraid your out of luck. She was a philosopher. Let's move on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your earlier statement that "Rand may be the most popular and influential philosopher of our time" rather damages your credibility you know. If you look back over the conversation you will find that the majority of editors supported the compromise. You have not addressed arguments from Bfinn myself and others. Just providing some citations where she is called a philosopher fails to the Ustinoff argument above. To call someone a philosopher in the lede requires a bit more --Snowded TALK 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead

Child of Midnight, I tweaked your tweak of the final lead sentence. I also want to add that the situation with academia may be changing, using the Guardian article I mentioned earlier as a source, but its website seems to be down at the moment, so I'll add it later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you got the reference? The one I saw used some days ago was a speculative piece and fairly old anyway. You would expect something more current. This is however a general problem with this article, it relies on a very limited number of sources outside of the various Rand institutes etc. --Snowded TALK 08:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Guardian piece is from 2001, and is here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin, in case anyone else wants to comment) Slim, I made a very reasonable compromise suggestion for the lead. After no objections were raised I added it. Now you've altered it dramatically and changed the meaning. I would ask you to revert yourself and discuss why you are changing the phrasing so dramatically. If you want to add a bit about the Texas endowment that's fine. The Intro certainly needs expansion. Her influence is not limited to pop-culture as is made clear by her influential supporters, so the change you've made is misleading. Your alteration also eliminated the clarity of her dispute and outsider status vis a vis academia. This is an important point that has been removed from the revised statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I honestly didn't see my change as substantive — more of a copy edit (apart from the addition of the fellowship, which I felt was important because it marked her being taken seriously by a philosophy dept). I'll take another look about how I might have changed the meaning of what you wrote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no substantive change here, just a tidying of the writing. [7] What do you see as the change? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin) Well, I'm tired and given the efforts to "summarize" the article now going on, it's all a bit much. If you read the source you just posted you'll see the hostility pointed her way from academia was substantial and the feelings were mutual. Those who seek to diminish her refuse to recognize her achievements and try to label her as a pop-philosopher or amateur as we've seen. I welcome good criticism, but that type of smearing is beneath considerate and intellectual people. Take care, good night, and party on. And let me know if you can tell me, Who is John Galt? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you object to this as 'smearing'. You seem to take academic philosophy in low regard, so why are you also opposed to Rand being regarded as doing popular philosophy? On the one hand it seems you'd like her to be depicted as a proper, full-blown philosopher, but on the other hand, you don't like the fact that the proper, full-blown philosophers out there (who are almost all academics) say she isn't one. If you are opposed to academic philosophy, surely you shouldn't have a problem with distancing her from them? Or are you trying to say there is some further kind of proper philosophy which isn't academic and isn't merely popular? Ben Finn (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bfinn, I have no objection to making clear that she isn't well liked by academica and that the feeling is mutual. But people have attempted remove the description of her as a philosopher all together or to call her an "amateur" philosopher. As we base articles on reliable sources, these changes can't be justified. My concern isn't whether people like her or not, but to make sure the article accurately reflects what the sources say. If someone wants to expand the information about her disputes with academia they have my blessing. But her ideas not being well liked or respected by academics does not make her an auto mechanic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the last sentence of the lede, frankly, does not belong there, and that the lede was best as originally written. Regardless, the 300k grant is not of such importance as to go in the lede, imho. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Example of summarizing

I'm just going to make a brief edit to the 'Legacy' section to show you what I have in mind. So much of the information in that section is redundant, pointless, uninteresting, and verbose. Revert it whenever you wish, I'm just doing this as an example of how easy it would be to summarize these over-long sections. CABlankenship (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of notable content was lost. Please revert back and consider using a sandbox next time. Play time is over. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to be snippy with him, Midnight. I agree, however, that her legacy is substantial enough to deserve more than a one-line summary. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's snippy? I think my comment was quite reasonable and in good humor. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, redundant information is one of the major space hogs on this article. For instance, the criticism that she is ignored by academics is repeated several times, as is the praise for how many books she sells. There are at least a half-dozen mentions of the fact that she sells lots of books. Lengthy discussions of this fact take place in several different categories. Most of the information I deleted is either redundant or better handled in refs. I don't see how yet another in-depth discussion on her book sales is notable content. Also, I've found that this sort of thing encourages edit warring and bickering that isn't present in shorter and more to-the-point articles that contain simple unembellished facts. Repeating information over and over just makes for a boring read. CABlankenship (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some featured articles as examples. Rand's legacy section is over 3x as long as Isaac Newton's. It's easily twice as long as Johannes Kepler's. It's 3x longer than Pascal's. Emily Dickinson doesn't even have a legacy section. Neither does Darwin. But for some reason, on this article we need 6 separate mentions of how many books Rand sells, detailed lists of the obscure academics who were influenced by her, and one or more paragraphs dedicated to every organization that is influenced by her writing. The article is too long and contains too much information that the casual reader doesn't care about. Only hardcore Rand superfans would care about most of this stuff. There are other places to find out that information if you are a budding Rand superfan. The article should summarize the important information about her views and writings along with the most notable facts about her (such as her appearance on a stamp). CABlankenship (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would take your suggestions more seriously if your previous efforts to improve the article didn't amount to one sentence summaries of entire sections of well sourced and notable content. I don't think anyone objects to removing redundancies or trimming extraneous text. As far as the length of sections, I'm sure you're aware that you need to gain consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of that content may be well-sourced, but that does not make it notable. Even if it *is* notable, that is not necessarily reason enough to keep it. The article is too long, and the legacy section is too long, which means that material--even notable material--needs to be cut. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are serious about improving this article, you should take seriously the examples of featured articles. CABlankenship (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just made some improvements to the recently inserted lists of institutes (and schisms). I can see the value of that material but it is again lengthening the article and might be a lot better as a single paragraph with pipelinks to other articles. Overall I agree with CABlankenship, the article is simply too long. --Snowded TALK 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

If there are objections to the introduction please discuss them. As introductions summarize article contents, they are not normally cited. But if there is something questionable, please add a citation needed tag. If you're going to remove the word philosopher you need to provide evidence that the prepoderance of sources make the claim she is not a philosopher. Good luck with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You are introducing radical new text, so the onus is on you to discuss it. This paragraph is a major issue. After growing up in Saint Petersburg during the Russian Revolution, Rand emigrated to the United States. She embraced the values and political system of her adopted homeland, and strongly objected to communism and socialism. Her work celebrates the individual and promotes the idea of hero innovators contrasted with anti-union, anti-mob, and anti-egalitarian feelings. She is championed by many on the political right and abhorred by those on the left. Several Ayn inspired groups work to promote her ideas and legacy. It represents OR at best and is a political statement by you not citable material appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I suggest you remove it and try and make a case here. The most clearly OR statement is in bold --Snowded TALK 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on which part you think is OR. The text is a summary of some the most notable sections of the article. Please be specific about which part you have a problem with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine Snowded objects to the sentence that he put in bold: "She is championed by many on the political right and abhorred by those on the left." That statement is blatantly incorrect as a gigantic chunk of this article's criticism section comes from those on the political right. Idag (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the remaining text that you want to add, most of that information is already contained in the introduction. Idag (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with rewording that sentence. It was a first try, so some tweaking is to be expected. If there is a consensus that the sentence is wholly unsalvageable, then please remove it. As to the rest of the paragraph, the intro says she was born in Russia, but doesn't explain her growing up and going to University there or its significance in her views. Adding some political context is important and is extensively discussed in the article. As to Peter Damian's comments, all I can say is that it's unfortunate he is unable or unwilling to improve the Quizmaster Quinn's article. That would be a lot more helpful to the encyclopedia than trying to exert his bias and POV on this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted CofM's edits, more on the grounds that they are incompetent and inept. This person is making any sort of progress impossible. The introduction is now a mess. Why 'popular, influential and controversial'. These adjectives do not go well together without any sort of explanation. Note that it is against policy to use the term 'controversial' to imply a person was controversial within a particular discipline, as though the controverial views were part of the peer-reviewed literature. Rand wasn't any of that. She simply wasn't accepted as a philosopher, period. Her 'philosophy' was and is a joke and a laughing stock. This may be a view held in the academic 'ivory tower', and possibly that is result of a conspiracy against her. None of that would matter, even if it were true. Wikipedia has to represent 'academic consensus', that is policy, and that is that. Peter Damian (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the text, the only new information is that she grew up in St. Petersburg. I moved that to another part of the intro. As for the rest, information about her philosophy was already contained in the lede and the statement that some folks on the right and left are opposed to her adds nothing. Therefore, I deleted a chunk and support Snowded's deletion of the remainder. Idag (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where in the intro does it discuss her opposition to communism and socialism or address her substantial role in politics? Also, I'm still waiting for sources supporting the exclusiong of the word "philosopher" to describe her. Numerous sources calling her a philosopher have been provided. If nothing is provided soon I will restore that wording and treat reversions as vandalism. We can't edit articles based on personal animosities, we use sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Communism and Socialism:

"She advocated individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the pursuit of rational self-interest, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion."

As far as substantial role in politics: (1) her role, if it existed, was not substantial; and (2) your edits did not discuss her involvement in politics but merely stated that some folks on the right and left opposed her. That statement added nothing to this article. Finally, with regard to her being labelled a philosopher, that label was replaced by Ghmyrtle's compromise which stated that Rand developed Objectivism. This is a compromise that you agreed to. Idag (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As written the paragraph CofM proposed is far too hagiographical. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind. And several editors agreed that it was ridiculous NOT to call her a philosopher. If it didn't make the sentence too long it might have been a better compromise, but there's no need to compromise because lots of good sources refer to her as a philosopher and no one has yet provided a source indicating it would be inappropriate to refer to her as such. As far as the introduction, I'm sure we're all aware that it's meant to summarize the article. If you go through the article you'll see that my summary was based on a weighting of the sections, many of which are not represented in the introduction. Finally, notable information that is well sourced doesn't need to be "summarized" thank you very much, why not expand some of the big-time philosophers I keep hearing so much about????? Their articles stink, and I hope the lack of interest shown by Damian and others isn't an indication that they are non-notable and not worth the time. If so I suggest we combine them into a list or AfD them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that she is championed by the political right is just objectively wrong. She has a fringe following on the right, but has been roundly rejected by most of the mainstream; the evangelicals and other Christians in particular. Republican icons such as Buckley have denounced her on numerous occasions. CABlankenship (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it was revised to "some" on the political right. Fringe is your POV, she has a substantial following as this article makes clear. Adding a bit summarizing some of her views is exactly the kind of thing the intro needs. I don't know that she fought much with the religious right, so going by the sections in the article I think other sections are more notable. But I'm quite flexible and happy to collaborate and compromise. Clarifying her differences with the right would be a welcome tweak to my addition! Unfortunately it's been taken out completely now which doesn't make the article better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for your education (ChildofMidnight) for you to attempt to combine or AfD the articles you think stink. An encyclopedia is designed to given an overview in its articles, not to provide too much (referenced or otherwise) which forms a poor half way house between an autobiography/criticial work and a good summary. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many I would nominate on the basis of stinking, but that's not a criteria for deletion. Do you have any ideas on how to get fans of these marginally notable philosophers to fix those articles instead of trying to tear down the well developed, though imperfect, articles of more popular and successful persons? I would like to write articles and add content instead of having to fight efforts to "summarize" notable content about the achievements of people that aren't liked by some "academics" who apparently haven't bothered to read her work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making statements such as "marginally notable" and "stinking". You were given some examples of competent articles about people at least as notable as Rand. My suggestion was that you might learn something from those articles, or for engaging with editors involved that might help you here. --Snowded TALK 08:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? We have a fairly complete article here that could use some tidying, and it's under attack by people who don't like or respect her work. The "experts" they refer to in order to attack her have articles that aren't even in paragraph form, have little content, and are poorly written. So if those are the philosophers they respect and think are accomplished, why not spend time fixing their articles? It seems very simple to me. What would I learn from putting crappy article up for AfD? How would that be useful? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think on reflection you are right. You would not learn anything from the suggested process. --Snowded TALK 09:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The articles we're comparing this one to are featured articles, that is to say, the best articles on wiki. We're asserting that this article should be more like those that are highly rated. You seem to think this article is good, and we're trying to make it worse. That's not the case. The article has been found to be sub-par by outside judges, and we're trying to discuss how to make it more readable and in-line with superior articles. That means that we need to remove all of the redundant information, superfluous sub-sections, and enhance the areas that actually talk about her work with reliably sourced summaries. The point is not that Issac Newton and Darwin don't have long legacy sections because they aren't "popular" or "successful"—those are featured articles. The point is that there is too much pointless information that makes the article boring and unreadable to the average user. Articles on wiki are not for dumping every piece of fringe information about an individual for their superfans, it's to create factual summaries for the average user. CABlankenship (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to make any improvements to the article when unsourced reversions and wholesale deletions are repeatedly attempted. I've tried very hard to collaborate and to compromise, and when those efforts are returned in kind I'm sure we can make good progress improving this article. If you think there is an example of fringe information please present it here. The disucssion of her views on homosexuality and the well established organizations carrying on her legacy are not fringe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone trying to add in unsourced material. Many people here feel that the article is too long and contains too much redundant and superfluous information. You are resisting and reverting any effort on this regard. Let's see how you handle this latest addition, just for kicks. CABlankenship (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bio Shock reference

I know that this is probably OR, but is it proper to list Bio Shock under Rand's influences when the Rand-based utopian society in BioShock is a miserable failure? (The plot of the game is that the society falls apart and then the hero crash lands and shoots it out w/ the bad guys living in the ruins) Idag (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Well-sourced"

I've said this before, but I think I need to say it again: "That section is well-sourced" is NOT a reason to keep it. Many of these "well-sourced" sections are overlong, and violate WP:UNDUE among other guidelines. Rand's views on homosexuality are of minimal importance; a full subsection describing them is unnecessary. Similarly, FOUR subsections discussing the various schismatic groups is unnecessary. Two paragraphs discussing her beliefs about gender... unnecessary. This article needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia articles are NOT intended to give a subject deep coverage, but to summarize the important information in a balanced manner--in other words, to provide an introduction. People who are more interested are perfectly capable of reading her books themselves, or following any of the sources we cite or links we provide. I am deleting the homosexuality section again, because currently only one person objects. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and accusing anyone who removes material of vandalism is not helping your case, either. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we use the featured article James Joyce as a template and model for this article. CABlankenship (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I further suggest merging the 'criticisms' and 'legacy' sections into a few summary paragraphs under the title "Legacy", similar to the Joyce article. Contentions claims should be removed (such as polls where the validity is in question). CABlankenship (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Complete re-write

Introduction

I have completely rewritten the introduction. The previous one was inept and ungrammatical, had little or no 'thread', and did not present the key facts about Rand, namely more biographical summary, a coherent description of what she thought, the fact that she is almost unknown outside the US (with citations) and an accurate summary of the views held by the philosophical establishment, with endnotes explaining exactly why they hold this view (it's nothing to do with elitism or liberal viewpoints, she was simply uneducated in philosophy). I have tried to do this in a way that Rand fanatics will recognise as accurate, and yet will still be acceptable to those of us who subscribe to the orthodox and established position. Peter Damian (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an improvement. I believe that linking her to classical liberalism is contentious, however. She is far more often linked to egoism. Her main inspirations were what one would expect from an individual schooled in the Soviet Union: lots of Aristotle and some German philosophy. I believe that this should be removed, as it doesn't represent anything near a scholarly consensus on how to classify her. I suspect many would agree with me that this representation is actually quite misleading and inaccurate in many respects. She bears far more in common with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer than she does with classical liberalism, which is almost universal in its demand for sympathy and altruism. I think this is a subjective claim that should be changed to something less controversial. She created her own school, based upon her own terms (such as rational egoism), and we can simply use her phrasing. CABlankenship (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but was trying to remain faithful to sources. Hicks writes "Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government." On the Aristotle, I don't have any sources that prove she actually read Aristotle. From what I have read of her actual work, she doesn't seem to have grasped the basics of Aristotelian logic. Peter Damian (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hicks also writes "Rand's ethic of self interest is integral to her advocacy of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, more often called "libertarianism" in the 20th century, is the view that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. This implies, politically, that governments should be limited to protecting each individual's freedom to do so. In other words, the moral legitimacy of self interest implies that individuals have rights to their lives, their liberties, their property, and the pursuit of their own happiness, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. Economically, leaving individuals free to pursue their own interests implies in turn that only a capitalist or free market economic system is moral: free individuals will use their time, money, and other property as they see fit, and will interact and trade voluntarily with others to mutual advantage. " This may be all wrong, but the point is we have to source from whatever looks reliable. I am suspicious of Hicks, particularly from the way he introduces Rand as a 'major intellectual', but that is all I have right now. Peter Damian (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

She obviously misunderstood Aristotle, as Aristotle was an advocate for extreme social welfare and egalitarianism. She still claimed influence from Aristotle, and from what I've read he was either 2nd or 3rd in the Objectivist list of greatest humans ever behind only Ayn Rand, and sometimes Nathan Branden. Lesser individuals such as Einstein (a socialist) and Newton (a Christian) were of course beneath her intellect. But honestly, and I'm sure there are plenty of experts who agree, I see her as more of an extension of Nietzschean egoism than of Jefferson, Smith, Locke, or Bentham. I think this claim is too subjective, and should be removed. Hicks is only one source, and shouldn't be copied wholesale. CABlankenship (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I agree - the first thing that came to mind was Nietszche. But where to source it? On Aristotle, I did find this. It contains the wonderful and monstrous "Like Aristotle, Rand ascribes to only a few basic axioms: existence exists, existence is identity, and consciousness is identification. " Vallicella explains exactly why this is philosophically incoherent here and it certainly resembles absolutely nothing in Aristotle. By the way, the claim is that the Influence of Aristotle was not the Ethics but the Organon. But where? Peter Damian (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This contains some interesting, if largely incoherent, material on logic and Aristotle. It reinforces my impression that Rand either read nothing of Aristotle's logic, or grossly misunderstood him. But how to get this into the article, without 'original research'. Can some of the Randians here actually get us some primary sources from Rand herself? Peter Damian (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The most obvious thing is to place her in the Libertarian tradition as that will be understood and her follows are in the main a part of the Libertarian parties in the US (look at some of the third largest party nonsense on notability after gaining less than half a percent of the national vote). There is cited material that claims she never read Kant despite her criticism and I am sure the same is true of Aristotle. However she did claim (and her follows claimed) to inherit. Whatever the value of the claim it can be listed as one. Looking at some of the Warwick University stuff (and they make great play of their work on Nietzsche with Pierson) they are looking at issues of ego in the context of philosophy and literature. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't suggesting that you cite influence from Aristotle in the introduction. I think you should use her terms. She advocated "Rational Egoism", for instance. That's all you need to say. Give a brief rundown of the core assertions, and use Objectivist terminology. She consciously created her own distinct school, and I don't believe that speculations on her influences belong in an intro anyway. CABlankenship (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe in citing claims in quotation marks, as it were, in an introduction, particularly when the terms are obscure or incoherent. I believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate and inform, which means explaining as clearly as possible what the author intended. If they are really incoherent, then I agree that the quotation marks approach is unavoidable. Let me do a bit more research. By all means edit the introduction yourself. By the way, my original claim that Rand attracted an 'almost fanatical' following has been deleted. Does anyone have a view on this? I don't believe that this fact could be reasonably omitted from any 30-second characterisation of Rand. Are there sources - I think Jeff Walker's book discusses this in detail Peter Damian (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the rest

I have trimmed some fat of the description of the books. They already link to substantial articles in their own right, anyone with the patience and fortitude to follow those can do so. Regarding the 'philosophy' I hardly know where to start. Let's take the reference to Aristotle. Is there any citation to suggest that Rand even read Aristotle? Is there any of her writing that shows she read him, or understood him? Regards Peter Damian (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, while I welcome the approach you've taken to the lead section (covering the most important points), the claims you included and your comments here make it clear that you are not very familiar with Rand or her philosophy. Skomorokh 13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Which bits supposedly show this? I sourced the claims about her 'views' directly from Stephen Hicks article in the IEP. Hicks is the closest thing to an established philosopher, moreover he is a Randian. What more do you want? Peter Damian (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer an experienced editor using third party sources, to those who champion a particular philosophy or approach. --Snowded TALK 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

fanatical following

The only part that has been removed so far is my claim about 'almost fanatical following'. However, this clearly suggests a fanatical (or cultic) element. However I am not going to correct anything as I have a bet with Jimmy Wales that the introduction will return to its previous biased and incoherent state in a short period, so please let me win my bet. Peter Damian (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)