Talk:Ayn Rand

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 I originally made an edit to simply place the quotations in this section rather than any paraphrase or summary and I still think (other than deletion) that this is the best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. [1]

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. [2] 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.[3] 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. [4] 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)

And yet you just added an entire section on one person's characterization of her following as a cult. So is it too long and needs trimming, is there too much about her success and accomplishments, or do you want to make the article more about her critics? As this article is about Ayn Rand, a section or two for her critics seems more than generous. Also, I wouldn't object to moving some her notable views on homosexuality and gender to the article on her philosophy. But deleting notable and well sourced content doesn't make the encyclopedia better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 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)

One could reasonably argue either way. Frankly I opposed the original insertion for much the reason you gave, and also because Rand's influence (pro or con) is not essential to the gameplay. It isn't significantly different from the brief appearance of The Fountainhead in the hands of a jerk in the movie Dirty Dancing. These illustrate that some minor aspects of our culture are cognizant of Rand, but not necessarily that they reflect an application of the ideas she advocated. Similarly, a lot of the supposed "criticism" appearing in the recent edits to the article and in the Talk page are not based on a sound understanding of what Rand actually propounded. E.g. to be dissed by Chomsky can actually be taken as an honor. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:47, 11 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)

[edit] By the way Rational egoism is not a Randian term - and the SEP doesn't even mention Rand. The article is much better than the Wikipedia version. Peter Damian (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Former Rand disciple Nathanial Branden talks about the cult-like behavior of Randism quite a bit. http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html Rothbard was probably the most vehement: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html Rothbard compares Randism to communist personality cults, and presents Rand as a hypocritical demagogue with deeply flawed views. The Branden article is interesting, as he probably had as intimate a relationship with Rand as anyone. Rand also repeatedly stated that Branden was the foremost expert on Objectivism. His take is worthwhile, as he basically confirms and backs up a great deal of Rothbard's criticisms. CABlankenship (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Note also that the article quotes Rothbard as influenced by Rand without also noting his subsequent apostasy Peter Damian (talk) 17:04, 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)

FWIW As my final minor contribution to this discussion, I think the intro now reads well. I personally am happy with the line it treads on her as philosopher, viz that she wrote on philosophical topics which attracted a substantial popular following (undoubtedly true), but is not generally regarded as a proper philosopher by proper philosophers (equally true). I'm also glad for confirmation of the fact that she is largely unknown outside the US - previously the implication was that she's hugely famous, important and influential, which comes as news to people like me in the UK who wonder who on earth this woman is, why I've never heard of her either in philosophy or in other connections, and why so many people are devoting so much attention to this article. I'll leave you to it. Ben Finn (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it would seem to have the support of four of us so that does not allow a revert by a single editor without discussion here first --Snowded TALK 16:00, 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)

Which is more important, the quality of the article, or winning a bet? The answer to that question will give some insight to why you are here at Wikipedia. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The cult-like behavior of the Objectivist Collective is well-documented by a wide range of sources, including ex-members. CABlankenship (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a reference to cults etc would be appropriate in the influence section. In the lede its a little too provocative. --Snowded TALK 14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I win my bet

If you follow the discussion on Jimmy's talk page, you see I bet him that the article would soon revert to the clumsy mis-spelled ungrammatical and Rand-friendly version there before. I have won. I didnt' think it would be quite so quick, however. I shall not revert Peter Damian (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you think it was important to say she was born in Russia twice and to include her birth year twice in the introduction? Why are you so taken with where and when she was born? Also, as the introduction summarizes the article contents, there was no need for an extensive discussion of particular criticisms. See wp:intro. Maybe you can try to create POV fork article just on criticisms. This seems to be your interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there is apparently discussion about blocking or banning me on Wales talk page and on Wikipedia Review, so, do with the article what you will. How awful to have any criticism in the introduction. Let the introduction merely summarise the positive points about Rand made in the article. Keep the criticism for somewhere low down in the article itself. Good policy. Peter Damian (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag reverted it Peter and it has more than one editor supporting the current version --Snowded TALK 22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but sadly the sole founder of Wikipedia does not support the current version. Try Googling Jimmy Wales Objectivism. Peter Damian (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The article Ayn Rand was frozen for one week in the beginning of January, and has been radically altered with a great amount of material deleted for reasons stated above. The editors making those deletions asserted that there was consensus to make them, but this is disputed. Please comment as to whether there was indeed consensus for these changes since the removal of the freeze. Kjaer (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Template:RFCreli

Oppose keeping the changes made without consensus. The article needs to be reverted to the state when it was frozen. The extensive and radical alteration to this article were made without consensus. Sourced and relevant material was deleted, cites removed, and the tone of the article was altered. Individuals who had previously stated that they were far too biased against Rand to allow themselves to edit the article, joined with others who have openly expressed a dislike for Rand and made changes for which no consensus exists. --Steve (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the article is improving, though it'd be helpful if editors would try to build on the work of the editor before them, rather than reverting wholesale, or changing sections beyond all recognition. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the mass of recent changes are in the face of consensus achieved, in some cases, of years of work and wipe out the results of those editors. Doing that without consensus is a case of wholesale reversion that didn't build on the work done before. --Steve (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was in poor shape — still is — and needs a lot of work. If there was an old consensus in support of that version, it's a consensus that has changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that doesn't mean I support wiping out people's work. We can go back into the history and retrieve the good stuff. What we need is a well-written, well-cited, even-handed description of her life and work that people might want to read, and that those who love her, those who dislike her, and those who don't know anything, might agree is worth reading. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.93.33 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This anon account has only made two edits on Wikipedia (this being one of them). It is, at best, a very inexperienced user and, at worst, a sockpuppet. Would people object to removing this comment? Idag (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone arriving from the RfC page, the competing versions are, I believe, this one from Dec 31, and the current one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose keeping the changes made without consensus. Only the intro has been worked on collaboratively, and I think some progress has been made there. The word philosopher needs to be added back as numerous sources have been provided establishing the term as accurate (including the New York Times obituary) and we haven't seen any good sources suggesting some how she wasn't a philosopher (which doesn't make much sense anyway since she developed a philosophy). If coming up with a popular philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher, what does? The other changes made by self-identified POV pushers should be reverted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The article was changed drastically, with over one eighth of the content removed. Much of the remaining material was changed by a certain group of editors to reflect a hostile opinion of Rand. It is most telling that no new information or positive comments have been added. These edits have not been made on the basis of consensus. There is no RFC above. We should make no changes save spelling without an actual explicit consensus. Kjaer (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I have been thwarted recently from adding references by Ronald Merril in defense of Rand that address the nature of Rand criticism with the explanation that my edit did not meet a "consensus." I do not believe this is fair or neutral. I oppose the recent changes and vote to have them rolled back to the level of December 31st, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaurone (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article attracted a wider group of editors as a result of the freeze, as a result of which is is now better both in respect of NPOV and Weight. The article was prior to this starting to look like a popoganda piece. Any criticism of Rand had to be "explained" a very small number of references from mainly Rand Institute sources was used to support a body of derivative work for which OR would be a complementary description. Any attempt to achieve balance results in the editors concerned being accused of taking a anti-rand position. It was a mess, it is getting better and external review would be helpful. --Snowded TALK 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: It is clear that a new consensus is developing, and there is absolutely no reason for reverting all of the improvements--and make no doubt, they are improvements--to the article. I agree with Snowded that external review by neutral editors--i.e., those who have no strong opinions about Rand, one way or the other--would be helpful. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjsmall (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also an inexperienced user/sockpuppet. Idag (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded & SlimVirgin I suppose you'll want to make your opinions explicit?Kjaer (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: The consensus did not "drastically change after the freeze." Months ago, we were discussing making similar changes to this article. Then Mr. Nilges (and his various sockpuppets) decided to join the discussion, and we had to deal with him instead of discussing and implementing the changes. Now, there's no more distraction and more editors have started editing this article, so this is a reasonable consensus. Idag (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose I agree with Kjaer, Steve, and ChildofMidnight Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose retaining recent changes. The article is overall in worse shape than when I stopped monitoring it frequently upon my retirement on 2008-10-01. The introduction in particular is horrible, containing poorly selected information and obscuring the most important things a newcomer needs to know from a capsule summary of Rand. There have been a few genuine improvements, but also numerous typographical and grammatical errors were introduced, and some information has been altered to promoted particulat POVs. I would suggest reverting to a version that was not being hotly contested from some time before the end of 2008 and incorporating just the few valid editorially neutral fixes. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

support retaining recent changes - however I have asked below for detailed comment on the rationale for each of the changes. Peter Damian (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose retaining changes. The old version does need work, and is perhaps a little slanted in the pro direction, but not so much as this is slanted to the opposite. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on RFC

If you have further comments after your vote please add them here to prevent clutter. Kjaer (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Essentially three major changes were made, which I'm going to explain.

Influence list -- the old list simply chucked 8 lines of names at the reader with no explanation. The list is now less-cluttered and has more exposition about the names that are on it. Instead of being a simple list of names, the current version actually conveys a message and makes Rand's influence clearer.

Criticism qualifications -- essentially we have to draw a line somewhere. If we start including criticism of criticism, do we also need to include the criticism of criticism of criticism? Also, to be balanced, would we then need to qualify all the statements that praise Rand in other parts of the article? Excluding the criticism of criticism is just a good place to draw that line. In addition, giant chunks of the criticism of criticism violated either WP:OR or WP:Synth.

Removing philosopher adjective -- some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. The current edits don't take a side, they simply state the other adjectives that Rand is called and point out that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Its a far better compromise than choosing between "philosopher", "amateur philosopher", and "pseudo-philosopher" (all of which have been proposed in the past with sources to back them up). Idag (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Idaq's comments. Peter Damian (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we have seven experienced editors (nine total, two newbies) saying that the supposed consensus to radically change and delete the article did not exist, while we have three experienced editors explicitly sayinv that a consensus for the deletions did exist, and presumably two more who would count as support votes.

Seven to Five That there was No Consensus. The article goes back to the Dec 31 Consensus verison, and we edit from there - with a consensus first before any deletions are made. Kjaer (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record I did not take part in the above as I think the question is improperly framed, If I had it would support which would make any decision so close as not to count. Bring in mediation and stop edit warring in the meantime. --Snowded TALK 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I can't believe you have reverted on this. Firstly the RfC process was not agreed to by all editors, secondly even if it had been then it is too close to call. Wikipedia does not work on the basis of majority voting. There have been multiple changes since the article was frozen, not one single change and there have been discussions here on most of the individual points a majority of 1 does not validate your reversion. An independent admin has been asked to get involved and the sooner the better. --Snowded TALK 12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information was Reverted?

For some reason, when a friend of mine mentioned in the first line of the article that Rand was a nub, it was quickly reverted. This is a very important aspect of understanding Rand, and I do not understand why such a crucial detail would be left out, let alone reverted for some reason once it was added in. Without comprehending, before being given other impressions about Rand, that she is a nub, readers could be greatly confused into thinking that she had any at all validity, or even that she was not stupid and insane. I will now revert the article back to including that she is a nub, and if someone still sees fit to withhold this important information, please reply here as to why, because I can not understand why this would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.65.6 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC) The reason that you can't see is that your friend's comment is a complete mischaracterization. You mention that you placed comment to destroy any attempt by neutral readers to take in the material with an open mind, because you personally decided that she was stupid and insane, and your opinions should dictate what everyone sees on wikipedia? The fact that you're even allowed to seriously post that you're the omnipotent god of the wiki and know all seriously undermines what wikipedia is about. Go start your own webpage if you'd like, this site is SUPPOSED to be impartial.

Lead again

CoM, why did you remove what she meant by rational self-interest? Why did you remove Greenspan? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this kind of editing isn't helpful. You're breaking well-formed sentences up, leaving the writing choppy, and one of your sentences ended up as "Her most fundamental principle is that rational self-interest," which makes no sense. You also earlier wikified Ayn Rand in the first sentence.

Can I suggest that you try to build on each editor's previous work, rather than removing it (unless it's clearly ungrammatical or something), or reverting wholesale to some earlier version? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand certinaly shouldn't be wikified in her own article. Alan Greenspan is no more significant or notable as someone she influenced than the many other public figures. Why would he be included in the introduction? I had several edit conflicts, so I had trouble getting edits done. I have tried to work from the edits of others including Damian, but some people have made reversions of multiple edits, so sometimes it's hard to sort out the good edits that have been added later from the reversions to what was already corrected. Sourcing controversial POV to a blog, for example, is inappropriate and needs to be edited out, especially from the lead. What is the connection between her play being produced on Broadway and her stopping work as a screenwriter? The way that sentence is phrased seems very strange to me. She had success so she stopped doing it? As far as the sentence I clipped, it argues her "fundamental" view based on what seems a very opinionated perspective from one critic. I thought it best to leave it at rational self-interest, which is accurate and supported by the article contents, rather than a more controversial phrasing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence is a very long run on. "Ayn Rand (IPA: /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a popular philosophical system that she called Objectivism." It should be broken into two: Ayn Rand (IPA: /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, philosopher and screenwriter. She wrote the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and developed a popular philosophical system that she called Objectivism." I'm still waiting for a couple good sources arguing she's not a philosopher. The New York Times obituary and dozens of others have been provided saying she was one. Given this issue I was willing to work from Damian's and to revise his intro paragraph. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

One other note, "As such, she controversially promoted..." should be "She promoted...". ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of your edits are fine, but some of them screw up the grammar and flow of the section. If you make a few edits at a time, that's easy to fix, but when you make a bunch of edits close together, it becomes a nightmare. Idag (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The big problem is your wholesale reversions. If there are aspects you don't like fix them. When you do a big rollback all the intermediate edits are lost. Then more edits are made on this version, and the corrections have to be made again and the whole thing refixed. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher

Most sources refer to Ayn Rand as a philosopher including her obituary in the New York Times. Everyone agrees she developed a philosophical system, so that would seem to be a good indication that she was a philosopher. If you support referring to her as a philosopher, please indicate by saying Support, and if you oppose please indicate that by saying Oppose and provide your reasoning including sources (numerous have been supplied that use philosopher and can be viewed above). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: The last time we had this debate, JReadings and I spent a great deal of time looking at sources to see how Rand was described. Roughly half the sources call her a philosopher while the other half omit that adjective (I'm not hunting down those sources again, the relevant discussion is in the archives). The current compromise is the best way to balance this use of adjectives as it omits the word philosopher while at the same time acknowledging that she developed a philosophical system. Idag (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to even bring this up again. She IS a philosopher and there are a very, very long string of citations that can, and have been put forth - including encyclopedias, academic journals, and published statements by other notable philosophers. These sources take it beyond anything subject to honest questioning. There is no consensus to the contrary - only Orig. Research and bald opinion. One doesn't compromise a cited fact to suit a personal opinion of an editor - and remember, Idag, some of these editors have been very outspoken in their angry statements of dislike for Rand. --Steve (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve supports. I'll ignore the rest as an AGF violation. Idag (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree that she can credibly be called a "philosopher". Even L.Ron Hubbard is often referred to as such. She started her own cult which was based upon philosophical concepts. CABlankenship (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag, there is no AGF violation. I did nothing but point out that some editors have made extrememly strong anti-Rand opinions known, put forth origonal research and their personal opinions and have deleted statements about Rand being a philosopher despite their very solid cites. --Steve (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And that just happens to violate WP:AGF. Attack the argument, not the editors. Idag (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship, the problem is that a number of sources don't call her a philosopher, but, rather, a novelist. Many authors use philosophical concepts in their work and have a devoted following, that doesn't necessarily make them philosophers. My point is that we can acknowledge that she made a philosophical work without making a value judgment that she's a philosopher (currently the article does not say that she either is or is not a philosopher). Idag (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose calling her a philosopher; support saying she developed a philosophical system. We had a similar issue at Lyndon LaRouche, who sees himself as an economist because he writes about economics. But we should only identify people as members of a profession when that profession actively admits them by employing them, promoting and referencing their work, or awarding them academic or professional qualifications. None of this is the case with Ayn Rand. That situation could change, of course, and according to some sources it is changing, but we're not there yet. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, SlimVirgin, maybe you aren't aware, but her income from sales of philosophy books and her fees for public speaking on philosophical issues was extremely high. If you are talking about making a living, being paid, for philosophical work, (which, incidently, is not a good way to rank philosophers), but if you did - she would rank extrememly high. If you are talking about her work being referenced, then again, for someone whose philosophy is disliked by many academics, and is herself, disliked by many in academia, she is referenced quite a bit - as a philosopher. There are many books written about her as a philosopher. Let me ask you, are you personally familiar with this issue? Have you seen the citations? --Steve (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen some of the citations, but there aren't many, not from professional philosophers, though if you have a list anywhere, I'd be glad to look through it. The point is that the profession does not, by and large, regard her as a member of it. Anyone who has studied philosophy (Western analytic philosophy, anyway) would not, in my view, read Rand's work and regard it as philosophy. A case could be made for it, of course, and people have tried to make it. If you can recommend any reading that would show I'm wrong, I'd be happy to read it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On background reading I recommend this which has huge chunks of her work. She has thoughts about number which clearly supersede anything which Frege or Cantor could have said. And here are some profound thoughts about thinking itself. "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. " Indeed. Or on the Analytic-synthetic distinction. Good luck.

• Oppose per Slim. Peter Damian (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: There are enough academic references to Ayn Rand as a "philosopher" to warrant describing her as such in the article. Adding to sources already mentioned previously by others, Rand is included in A History of Women Philosophers - Volume IV: Contemporary Women Philosophers (see excerpts of chapter), edited by Mary Ellen Waithe, a philosophy professor whose work is amply quoted and respected. More important than applying the label "philosopher", however, is to make sure the article reflects why Rand, and women in general are marginalized in academic philosophical circles. Camille Paglia includes Rand in her list of ten great female philosophers, though she feels "female philosopher" doesn't really make sense. She explains that philosophy is a male genre because women thinkers tend toward more applied approaches that provoke cultural change, whereas traditional philosophy is occupied with rhetorical manipulation of terms and concepts that is removed from everyday concerns. Rand believed that the true test of the value in philosophy is its ability to affect the lives of the common man. In essence, Rand's *very philosophy* challenges the values and approach of traditional philosophy; hence, the ensuing conflict between Rand and academic traditionalists. --MPerel 08:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm taking you at your word that you wanted some reading that would be relevant. This is on the rough side, it is decidedly incomplete, and it is a mix of lay material and work of academic philosophers:

---

Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: the Virtuous Egoist (2006, New York: Cambridge University Press.)

Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (1991, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.)

by Chris Mathew Sciabarra, PhD

• Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (1995, University Park, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press.)
• “Ayn Rand’s Critique of Ideology,” Reason Papers 14 (Spring, 1989): 34-47.
• “The Rand Transcript,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, (Fall 1999.)
• “Investigative Report: In Search of the Rand Transcript,” Liberty (October, 1999.)
• Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation (2003, Cape Town, South Africa: Leap Publishing.)

by David Kelly, PhD.

• The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism (2000, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.)

by Douglas Den Uyl, PhD, and Douglas Rasmussen, PhD

• [editors] The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (1984, Urbana and Chicago, ILL: University of Illinois Press.)
• “Nozick on the Randian Argument,” The Personalist, April, 1978, 186-187, reprinted in Reading Nozick, J. Paul, editor, (1981, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.)

by Tibor Machan, PhD, Prof. Emer.

• Ayn Rand (2000, New York: Peter Lang.)

by John Hospers, PhD, Prof. Emer.

• “Conversations with Ayn Rand,” Liberty, July, 1990, 23-36, and September, 1990, 42-52.)

by Louis Torres and Michelle M. Kamhi

• What Art Is: Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Art in Critical Perspective (1996, Chicago, Ill.: Open Court.)

by Mimi Gladstein, PhD

• The Ayn Rand Companion (1984, Westport, CN: Greenwood.)
• [and Chris Mathew Sciabarra, editors] Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (1999, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.)

Philosophical Books, Volume 44 Issue 1, Pages 42 - 52, "Recent Work On Truth: Ayn Rand" Discusses an explosion of academic interest in Ayn Rand

The Journal of Ayn Rand Sudies - a nonpartisan, semiannual interdisciplinary, double-bind peer-reviewed scholarly periodical.

Necessary Factual Truth, by Gregory M. Brown, University Press of America - a notable publication discussing Rand's epistemology

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge; 2000. ISBN 0-415-22364-4 - lists her as a philosopher Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440. (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302. (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Gale's American Philosophers, 1950-2000 (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) History of American Thought (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) The Wadsworth Philosophy Series (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy by Fred Seddon The Logical Structure of Objectivism by Thomas and Kelly

Wallace Matson: Professor Emeritus, Univ of Calif Berkley - https://itunes.berkeley.edu/people/detail/27 author of A New History of Philosophy, Volume I: From Thales to Ockham He produced a journal article reviewing Rand's position on universals. He disagreed with some of what she wrote, but stated that her work in Epistemology merited more study.

Here are three books that mention Rand as a philosopher and include Rand's response to Relativism, Rand on free will, and Rand on selfishness. Two are texts that are collections of primary texts and include excerpts from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness."

• Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options 2006, 10e 4 authors
• Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2007, 6e 3 editors
• Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy reader 2007, 6e Gary Kessler - Kessler's brief bio of her before her excerpt says "Rand was a novelist and a philosopher who began a movement called Objectivism."

(...and she crops up as a philosopher in a wide variety of other recent philosophy textsbooks)

A Rand Primer by philosopher Allan Gotthelf

Reason and Value: Aristotle vs Rand

Professors (mostly professors of philosophy) who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher:

• Aeon Skoble Bridgewater State College
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
• Andrew Bernstein Pace University (or Duke - not sure which is the up to date position)
• Darryl Wright Harvey Mudd College
• David Schmidtz University of Arizona
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Tulane University)
• Fred Miller, Jr. Bowling Green State University
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh or Duquesne University? (I'm not sure of this affiliation)
• Gary Hull, (Duke University)
• George Reisman Pepperdine University
• George Waslh Salisbury State University
• Harold Bloom Yale University
• Harry Binswanger CUNY–Hunter
• Irfan Khawaja University of Notre Dame
• Jaegwon Kim Brown University
• Jan Narveson University of Waterloo
• John Cooper Princeton University
• John Lewis Ashland University
• John Ridpath York University
• Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania or Colgate University - not sure which is most current)
• Julia Driver Dartmouth College
• Leonard Peikoff New York University
• Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
• Madison James Lennox University of Pittsburgh
• Michael Berliner Cal-State University, Northridge
• Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Neera Kapur Badwhar University of Oklahoma
• Paul Griffiths University of Pittsburgh
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
• Richard Janko University of London
• Richard Kamber Trenton State College
• Robert Hessen Stanford University
• Robert Mayhew Seton Hall University
• Robert Nozick Harvard University
• Robert Pasnau University of Colorado
• Roderick Long (Auburn University)
• Shoshana Milgram-Knapp Virginia Polytechnic Institute
• Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
• Stephen Hicks Rockford College
• Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
• Susan Haack University of Miami
• Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
• Tibor Machan, (professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University)
• Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
• Willaim Bechtel Georgia State University

--Steve (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher[footnote] was the consensus for as long as I have edited this article. It is interesting that NOW after the RFC to confirm your supposed "consensus" you ask for a vote. There was never any consensus to chanve the attribute, and I stick by the status quo ante. It is a bit late to start looking for consensus in a panic to support edits which are about to be reverted to the status quo ante. I suggest we drop this charade, and move onto something actually helpful, like dicussing why we need a fleshed out Objectivist Movement section as well as sections on ARI and TAS when these have there own articles? Kjaer (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to. It was reverted. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, thank you for that list; it's very much appreciated. One thing that would be helpful is to compile a list only of professional philosophers who have referenced her. Also, the list you provided includes people who themselves have written about how philosophy departments don't take her seriously. Douglas Den Uyl, for example, who wrote a book about her, says, "There’s a kind of "catch 22" here that is hard to overcome: more serious scholarship on Rand is needed, but is not a ticket to promotion in most departments. Yet because Rand is still not acceptable, it is likely that only those who are promoted will be able to work on her" (my bold). [5]

People can have a personal philosophy, and can even produce philosophical works, without being philosophers, except in a very loose sense. But to read her writing on Kant, for example, is to realize that she almost certainly didn't read him herself. I know that one of her close associates makes that claim too, but even without that, it's pretty clear. So here we have a woman who makes exceptionally strong statements about Kant (he is evil etc), and yet who either hasn't read him, or clearly hasn't understood him. It's the very opposite of the way a philosopher would behave. One of the things you come away with, if you read Kant (especially the Critique of Pure Reason) is respect for him, even if you disagree with it all. In addition to which, she had no qualifications in the subject, was never employed as a philosopher, is nowadays not regarded as one by most philosophy departments, isn't read by philosophy undergraduates, isn't even heard of outside the U.S. And so on.

Given that she's a woman, philosophy departments would normally seize on her, because there's a dearth of woman philosophers. But it would be extremely difficult to teach Ayn Rand — I mean teach her qua philosopher in any kind of rigorous way — because so much of what she wrote is just ... odd. Her writing reminds me of Charlie Chaplin playing Hitler in The Great Dictator, when he's speaking what sounds like German, but what is in fact just noise. What she writes looks like philosophy, and sounds like philosophy, but when you try to work out what she's saying, you realize that it just doesn't go anywhere, and most of all, you realize that she hasn't read any other philosophers, or hasn't read them carefully. You have to be a student of philosophy before you can be a philosopher. It's not just a question of sitting down and thinking. You have to understand the history, the context, who has said what before you, and what was wrong with it, what was right about it. It's difficult. You can't do it in a vacuum. You can't say, "I despise professional philosophers, so I'm just going to ignore them, and write my own thing." You can say that after having spent 40 years reading them, but not before.

Having said that, I'm open to persuasion that her work has value. I'm currently reading it, and I intend to read more, so I'm not dismissing it as unimportant or uninteresting. I'm just saying it's not philosophy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This list is not to be ignored. Jaegwon Kim, Susan Haack, Nozick are names to be reckoned with. I know Robert Pasnau (medievalist and latinist and expert on late scholastic philosophy). I think I will email him. I find it hard to reconcile those people with what I have read of Rand. Peter Damian (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist scholarship is an organization that funds research and scholarship on Ayn Rand. Peter Railton, Geoffry-Sayre McCord, and Nicholas Rescher, are among the many mainstream, well known philosophers who have participated in Anthem conferences. I think it is fair to say that if they are presenting their work to a conference sponsored by an Objectivist advocacy organization they take Rand to have some legitimacy as a philosopher, even though they don't agree with her. Here is a link to info on a recent Anthem conference: http://www.pitt.edu/~hpsdept/news/news/ConceptsObjConf2006.pdf Here is a link to a more recent conference on the philosophy of law: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/content/news/COIL.pdf Notice Michael Moore presented a paper. Leading philosophers certainly don't agree with Objectivism. But they consider it philosophy. Endlessmike 888 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: In addition to the sources Steve cited, the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers published by Thoemmes Continuum lists Rand as a philosopher. Also, Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought will be published in 2009 by Blackwell (a leading philosophy press). Endlessmike 888 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Oppose: I remember spending days reading through literally hundreds of newspaper, magazine, journal, encyclopedia and book references of Ayn Rand produced by LexisNexis, Factiva, JSTOR and Worldcat. The search results can be found in Archive 14 here, including an interesting discussion surrounding how the Encyclopedia Britannica handled the Ayn Rand label. For every citation Steve, for example, can find labeling Rand as a philosopher, Idag and I can honestly produce 2 others that omit the imprimatur. Where does that leave us? Some might call it original research by way of synthesis, but that would only be true if we sought to cite some form of synthesis as a footnote. An equally important policy, overlooked in this discussion, is Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE)). As we all know, it was designed to avoid excessively promoting a fringe interpretation of any subject (especially when the interpretation is prominently displayed in the lead section). SlimVirgin and Idag indirectly mentioned this already above. I agree with them. Given the preponderance of verifiable sources, we cannot simply label Ayn Rand as a "philosopher". A compromise will be needed given the preponderance of sources. J Readings (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The lack of the description "philosopher" in some articles is meaningless. Do a JSTOR search for any random philosopher. What percentage says "as the philosopher Bertrand Russell argued" vs "as Russell argued"? You say Steve is using Undue Weight to prop up fringe interpretations. Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton are not fringe sources for what is and is not philosophy. If there is reason to think that two of the most influential philosophers of the last 30 years consider Rand a philosopher, that should outwiegh the fact that some people simply write "Ayn Rand" instead of "Ayn Rand the philosopher." Endlessmike 888 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Not "some","many." Many label Rand simply as a novelist or writer. I'm simply conveying to the talk page what the sources say in a readable fashion. Academics and students (among others) who have access to these database resources can verify the work Idag and I have already done. As for Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton, I doubt anyone here would base a lead section label on a handful of opinions, regardless of whether or not someone personally opines that they are "two of the most influential philosophers of the last 30 years." It has the potential to become a double-edged sword for all involved. J Readings (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support calling Rand a philospoher. We had this debate before (more than once), and when I checked the dictionary definitions, Rand definitely qualified under several of the definitions. Quite often, she has been described by neutral third parties as "novelist/philosopher" which makes sense since she is famous in both capacities. So far as I have seen, opponents to calling her "philosopher" are also opposed to her philosophy, to the extent that they understand it. (Some have admitted that they don't.) I have no problem with the general idea of the introduction saying more or less that Rand was a fiction writer who developed a philosophical system etc. (And it is a genuine philosophical system, addressing all the traditional areas with an integrated approach. Whether you can find flaws in it is secondary.) Her philosophy has had substantial impact on the culture, and pretending that it is insignificant is counterfactual. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, which is why the current compromise does not mess with adjectives and simply states that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Do you agree with that compromise? Idag (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for reasons previously mentioned. Retract my previous support of the compromise sentence in the lead, as it seems that was taken as support of removing the description "philospher" entirely. What exactly do you call one who creates a philosophy? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist Movement

Assuming there actually is a desire to trim out unnecessary parts of the article, not just parts we don't like, why don't we pare down the Objectivist Movement and ARI TAS sections, which fall under the same in its own separate article. Once the article is reverted to the status quo ante, (the "newyear's version" that would be a good place to start - once we actually have a real and voted on consensus, and not just the assertion of same. I suggest we have just a few sentences, noting the beginning with the collective, the expansion with NBI, the "split", the ARI and TAS. Anyone want to work on verbiage here?Kjaer (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

We had that back around the end of September 2008. Certainly the evolution of Objectivism after Rand's death is of minor importance in a biography of Rand herself. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personality and Objectivist Collective

Perhaps we should expand on Rand's personality as told by those who were close to her. Both of the Branden's, for instance, paint her as a woman who was deeply spiteful and contemptuous of nearly all other human beings, that she consistently refused to admit that she was ever wrong about anything, and that she required complete agreement with her on every subject (from art to philosophy), else she would condemn that individual and cast them out of her collective. She believed that even art was objective, and those who had different tastes in art were considered irrational. Branden also speaks about how Rand consistently used the word "evil" to describe people who disagreed with her about basically anything. While she claimed to value free thought, this came with a caveat: if you disagreed with Rand about anything at all, you were being 'irrational'. I believe this could all go into the "Objectivist Movement" section, which could be expanded to include the views of ex-members such as the Brandens, Rothbard, or her psychologist friend Allan Blumenthal who said that Rand suffered from "several personality disorders". CABlankenship (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting fact from her "intellectual heir" Nathanial Branden: Rand (champion of reason?) was deeply skeptical about the scientific method, and was suspicious of "Any scientific advancement after Newton". She was an evolution doubter, for instance. Rand was deeply ignorant of science, and this is a noteworthy fact. CABlankenship (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just open a section called "Taking shots at Rand because we HATE her" - given that context, any editor would be able to just vent their spleens directly without having to go to the trouble of finding, twisting and torturing some external source. --Steve (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my sources: Murray Rothbard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html Nathanial Branden: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html This review discusses an interview where her follower Blumenthal says that she had several personality disorders: "http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ryan1.html" The Branden article in particular is pretty balanced and I believe offers as close to a neutral inside view of Rand as we're going to get. He was and is clearly a devoted follower of much of her philosophy, and speaks frankly about her flaws both in terms of philosophy and personality. It's a solid source. CABlankenship (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I again beseech editors to think about this in terms of the L.Ron Hubbard page. It's clear that Rand has many cultists (sorry), just like Hubbard. They will of course rabidly object to any unflattering information about her. Regardless, just like with Hubbard, such information is relevant and important. CABlankenship (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article should discuss her personality more. Maybe another subsection under "views"? Idag (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe this should be handled in the section "Objectivist Movement", which could discuss in more detail her break with the Brandens, and her threats and behavior during that time. For instance, she repeatedly threatened to "destroy" Branden, seemingly for no other reason than the fact that he didn't desire a sexual relationship with her (due to her age), and her jealousy over learning that he was seeing another woman. CABlankenship (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Could this section perhaps be moved under Propoganda page above where the editor's opinions of Rand would serve as a context for this, shall I say, wikipedianly unorthodox desire to discuss Rand's "personality"? Maybe we could copy Kant's anal retentive section or discuss Bertrand Russell's bastard children while we're at it?Kjaer (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, neither Kant nor Russell started a cult centered around their own infallibility. There is a lot of convincing evidence that Rand was a deeply disturbed woman. These aren't just outside rumors, they are coming from people who knew Rand quite well. Also important: neither Kant nor Russell were ever widely considered to be intellectual frauds. I think that once someone elevates themselves to the status of icon or hero-worship on that scale, their personality and behavior become important facts. CABlankenship (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article Ludwig Wittgenstein covers the well-known aspects of Wittgenstein's personality. Ray Monk's celebrated biographies of Russell and Wittgenstein hardly cover anything else other than gossip and sexual innuendo. It seems reasonable to strike a balance between the contribution that an individual made, and the details of their private and personal life. and often this sort of detail is a bit of tasty sauce to make the drier stuff more edible. Peter Damian (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

There have been considerable changes since I rewrote the introduction, not all of them for the better. this is the current version of 11 January, [this is my version of 10 January. Instead, I would like us discuss the changes point by point, please.

1. First para
   1. I wrote that Rand was a writer of fiction and popular works on politics and philosophy. Rationale: she did mostly write fiction, and if you link to the site that gives sources for her philosophical theories, they are mostly from her fiction. The phrase 'popular works on politics and philosophy' bit was an attempt to tread carefully the line between callling her a philosopher and saying nothing at all. The new version reads '[she] developed the philosophical system known as Objectivism'. I still recoil at calling her work a 'philosophical system'.
      1. She wrote many books on philosophy, many books and journal articles on her philosophy have been written, many encyclopedia's call her a philosopher, many professors of philosophy call her a philosopher - these are all valid, citable sources - your personal reaction ("I still recoil...") is personal opinion and, nothing personal, but it doesn't stack up against the preceding sources. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Second para. The main change here is to cut down the length of the biographical material. This may not be important, but I think it is crucial in all biographical articles to give a flavour of the main points of someone's life in the intro. Most internet people don't read more than the introduction anyway.
3. Third par.
   1. I wrote "Her political philosophy, reflected in both her fiction and in her theoretical work, is in the classical liberal tradition", the new version reads "Her political philosophy lies within the general framework of the classical liberal tradition" The rationale for my wording was to emphasise that she was a philosophical novelist.
   2. I wrote "Her fundamental principle is that self-interest is the true standard of morality" to ". Her most fundamental principle". I was emailed by Jimmy Wales about this. He claims that both versions are wrong, because rational egoism is not a fundamental principle, but is supposedly derived from her 'epistemology and metaphysics'. We ought to discuss this - certainly rational egoism seems to loom large in everything that people say about Rand, was it a 'fundamental principle' of hers or not.
   3. There is an addition "As such, she controversially promoted the concept of the hero standing against the mob, amid derisive depictions of trade unions, socialism, and egalitarianism." This strikes me as poorly written. Why begin with 'as such'? What does 'as such' refer forward to? Appparently to Ayn Rand, but how can she be 'as such'? It is incoherent. The phrase 'hero standing against the mob' seems unnecessarily lurid and unencyclopedic.
4. Fourth para:
   1. I wrote "She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America" which is change to "She has attracted a following, mainly in America". Why the removal of 'fanatical'. There is much evidence that she attracts fanatics (this page is enough). The introduction to any biography should spell out what makes a person notable, important, interesting, and distinguish that person from others of the same sort. Thus, Aristotle attracted a following, but not fanatical. Wittgenstein did attract a fanatical following. Also Nietszche. But not Bertrand Russell, and so on. That fact seems crucially important to me, why omit it? Happy with a compromise like 'devoted following' or similar.
      1. There has been some acrimonious comment on the talk page below, can we have some reasoned arguments about whether to put 'fanatical' or 'devoted' or 'loyal' or 'intensely loyal'. Dont' get fixated on one word, please! Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
   2. I mentioned Alan Greenspan, this is now omitted. I checked on public figures who were influenced by Rand in the sense of Rand being a crucial influence. Greenspan was the only one who fitted.
   3. I wrote "Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, who have been scathing about her lack of rigour, the derivative nature of her thinking[3], and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter[4]. " This changes to "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature,[4] a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about ..." Most of the content remains, but I prefer my version for flow - the new version is very lumpy and awkward, and is precisely what you get in Wikipedia when various factions argue about the insertion of a word or phrase, without thinking about style and the 'whole paragraph'.
   4. I wrote "Even as a writer of fiction, she has enjoyed almost no critical recognition outside the United States" which has been removed completely. Why? This was well-sourced. I went to a number of English reference works on literature and biography (not philosophy). Rand is mentioned in none of them. A few other English people on this page have also been asking the question "who is Ayn Rand". We have an important duty to prevent nationalistic bias in this encyclopedia. American editors are presenting a person as though universally recognised across the English-speaking world. That is not true. The introduction needs to specify whether the person is internationally important - writers like Dorothy Parker and Kerouac clearly count - or whether their influence is restricted to the U.S.
      1. The only person to respond to this is Dagwyn, who argues that Ayn Rand was 'marginalised' by the academic establishment. Peter Damian (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
   5. Finally, there is the addition of the fellowship established by the university of Texas. This looks rather like the inevitable thing tagged on at the end to appease the supporters. I dislike it on stylistic grounds because it is a symptom of the way all contentious articles in Wikipedia look exactly like they were the result of a grand battle, ending up as a list of extreme pros and extreme cons. Our aim should be an article that looks like the work of a single expert who was striving for neutrality (and who succeeded). Can we not address by using a phrase like 'with notable exceptions' and then a footnote after 'exceptions' to say what they are, followed by 'her work has achieved little or no recognition' or something like that.

I will do nothing for now, but I would like us to discuss these changes, please. The new introduction was not the work of a few moments, but the result of careful thought about phrasing, balance and fairness. If no one discusses, however, I will revert. Peter Damian (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You mention that your introduction was not the work of a few moment... Please keep in mind that the introduction that was shredded a few days ago, with this avalance of edits, none of which arose from consensus, replaced an introduction that was achieved through many, many months of effort where most of the words and all of the sentences had been subjected to scrutiny. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course she has a 'fanatical following'. This is well-documented. Objectivists often believe (and were required to believe) that Rand was the greatest human being in history. Rand convinced her husband and Barbara Branden that she had to have an affair with Nathan Brandan because they were the two most brilliant people alive, and that it was just logical and rational. She told them that if they used their reason, they would understand why this was so. They agreed. It's almost comical, really. Yes, she has fanatical followers, this should not be controversial, it's obvious. CABlankenship (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship adds only attacks, ridicule, sarcasm - he should not be posting on this article or this talk page since his 'contributions' can only serve to disrupt. He clearly cares nothing for WP Good Faith editing. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While that seems to be largely true, experience shows that it is usually more effective to simply ignore uninformed rants and instead present your own, reasoned argumentation. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply discussing facts. It's a perfectly respectable and widely-held opinion that Objectivism is very cultish and based on dogma. Even some of her closest disciples have said this. You object to this simple fact, and yes it is unflattering, but truth is not determined by what facts you find pleasing and what facts you dislike. I'm defending a respectable stance: that Rand was a cultist, and that Objectivism is a dogmatic cult. I have many strong sources on my side for this stance. There simply isn't a diplomatic way of discussing this stance with Rand admirers without creating some offense. Nevertheless, some offense cannot be avoided if we are to come to a realistic portrait of this woman, whom for so many is a larger-than-life idol. CABlankenship (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a complete overhaul. We probably need a neutral editor with a lot of experience in crafting featured articles to take charge. We can then give that person advice and links to sources, but let them have the final say. CABlankenship (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I find that in this situation it is best to sit down on the talk page, and agree on all the points that should go in the introduction, i.e. all the points about the subject (in this case, Rand) you would like the reader to take away on the assumption that they will only read the introduction. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Leads should be written as stand-alone summaries. I think we should add that she's sold 30 million books, at several thousand a year currently. We need to make clear that she's regarded as a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, regardless of how she saw herself. We also need to make sure that anything positive we say about her isn't mealy-mouthed or fawning, but just factual. And I would say we should unpack what's meant by self-interest, though every time I do that it's reverted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Since it doesn't appear that a consensus will result from the above RfC, I propose that we submit this to mediation. For those who oppose the recent changes, could you briefly describe which specific changes you oppose? (So that we don't submit uncontroversial edits with the controversial ones) Idag (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This seems the logical choice. I have itemised the changes point by point above, I will add a further set of indentations so that people can comment. Peter Damian (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the RFC shows quite clearly that your repeated edits and deletions were NOT made with a consnsus. The article will be reverted to the Dec 31 version, and we can work from there. You cannot present us with your non-consensus fait accompli and then say that no further changes can be made without mediation. Try again! Kjaer (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:Civil. As far as the original consensus, most of the editors who support your view did not participate in the discussion (or express any opinions) when we first discussed the changes. Therefore, the original consensus was valid. As far as what you're seeking, which is to mass-revert this article, there is a clear split among the editors, and, therefore, you don't have a consensus to do that. Idag (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs to go to mediation and may need Arbcom the way things are going. For the moment the consensus is clearly not to return to the version Kjaer/Steve are happy with. Consensus does not require all editors to agree and I agree with Idag that there are multipe breeches of WP:Civil here that could warrant short term intervention --Snowded TALK 03:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert to Consensus Version

Well, the most generous vote to assert that there was a consensus for the recent edit orgy fails, seven to five. Indeed, the explicit vote is nine to three that the supposed consensus did not exist, but let's exclude the newbies and add in votes of those who chose to stay silent.

Since there was no consensus for the deletions and edits, the article reverts to the long standing verison at which it was frozen Dec 31.

It is time to make small, incremental improvements wityh consensus to avoid another POV edit war. Let's hear it here first, and have a consensus first before any controversial changes. Kjaer (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See comment above. You do not have a consensus to do a mass revert. Idag (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to revert. Please use the current version as the basis for further improvement. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for such a drastic revert exists, especially since many of those who "voted" in it did not take part in the discussions concerning the changes that were made. Furthermore Wikipedia does not work by voting but by consensus, and saying "7 to 5 I win we revert" is NOT consensus. Mass-reverting changes that have been extensively discussed is not the way to improve this article. At this point I think we need mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Escalation up the ladder of mediation facilities is the minimum that needs to happen now, and with some urgency, I think, for all concerned.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In situations like this, it is better to ask an uninvolved administrator (obviously not me) to do the closing, as otherwise, to use Kjaer's own principles, the change back would be clearly biased. However, I am sad to see that Kjaer has already reverted it. Not good, and a report to an appropriate place may result in him being censured for so doing. I urgently advise him to revert it back and ask someone else to do the closing and assessment.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything to close. If we want to have a straw poll, we'd have to set one up; an RfC isn't a straw poll. And editing isn't done by straw poll anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So, the RfC was a used as a means to assess consensus: thoroughly botched by the wording used and the type of responses demanded - if so (and I think it was), it is even more the case that Kjaer should have not reverted but should have discussed more.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to attract fresh views on the issues, and to move forward; not to ask editors already involved to judge whether an old consensus existed, and to move back. :-)

I think we should file for mediation, and in the meantime we should all be studying Rand so that we're in a position to produce a really good article. Hopefully, that aim will end up uniting us. We could even try for FAC. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The reversion was necessary. Changes were being made without proper concensus. This was never going to stand with a controversial subject. Mediation is a good idea. The other good idea is to accept that the article is where it was when it was unfrozen, and to find a reasonable way to move forward - with consensus. --Steve (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just stunning. I again say that we need similar steps to whatever was done in the case of the L.Ron Hubbard article. This is getting bizarre. CABlankenship (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:OWN

It appears to me that many of our Objectivist editors have serious issues with COI and ownership. The unwillingness to compromise, the insistence on maintaining even the mostmarginal material, the apparent determination to inflate Rand's reputation by any means possible, the attempts to water-down or remove any and all criticism of her, and consistent refusals to assume good faith have gotten tiresome. Objectivist editors here need to stop pushing their POV, and start working to make this article better, especially by modeling it after one of the FAs. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, you should not engage in that kind of WP:AGF violation. The constant stream of edits made in an abusive way that totally ignored any consensus were all anti-Rand in nature. It isn't any supporter of Rand who is pushing POV. I'll work with you, if you really want to make the article better. The first step is to examine the article as it was when frozen, then seek consensus on what to change, before engaging in a wholesale avalance of edits without any consensus. --Steve (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Take Your Own advice

I am sorry, but those putting comments on my talk page that 7 to 5 does not a consensus make fail to realize that by the exact smae logic 5 to 7 (or 3 to 9) does not a consensus make. DD Strectch should take his own advice now deleted from, but still in the history of CABLankenship's talk page.Kjaer (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Each of those deletions was made by consensus with those discussing here. If people did not take part in those discussions then they are welcome to reopen them. However, a mass revision of the article requires consensus IN FAVOR. If no consensus is reached, then it doesn't happen. Period. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In this context, I have not made any comments on your talk page about this latest tiresome edit war you are involved in, Kjaer, though I advise you to stop, your block history may make for a longer block next time, and I think you should try to work more within the guidelines and policies of wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer's previous block was questionable - I'm not so sure it was a proper action. But if we are stepping back and looking at this, the only proper move is to put this page back where it was when you froze it for a week and freeze it again till mediation lifts. TallNapoleon says that the edits were made with concensus of those here - he doesn't realize that we were in the middle of trying to get consensus from the freeze. I appreciate that, as an admin, you don't push your own personal dislike of Rand, and along those lines, I ask that you step back and see that Kjaer is NOT the one doing the avalanche of editing that disrespects the very idea of consensus. --Steve (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, that comment is a joke. While nobody can blame you for resisting the input of people who don't care for one of your heroes, you have consistently proven impervious to logic and reason. You and your crowd have been unwilling to compromise on anything at all.

You wave away strong sources that paint unflattering pictures of Rand as examples of editor bias. For example, my sourced quotation from one of her closest followers (the psychologist Blumenthal) that Rand had "several personality disorders" was ignored and discarded, and you asserted that presenting such sources was merely an example of my own bias. While this is surely true, as I advocate a dispassionate view of Rand, her life, and her work, you have not put forth even the semblance of an argument as to why such sources should be marginalized or left out. CABlankenship (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveWolfer writes: "Kjaer's previous block was questionabl" You are correct in so far as it was capable of being questioned, as are all actions, even yours. My action was questioned, and I even asked for comemnts about it on WP:AN, here. The response from a totally uninvolved administrator was that, whilst the block on Idag was probably too long (which I quickly remedied), the one on Kjaer was entirely right and proper. responses on WP:AN DDStretch  (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A report to WP:AN/I

Given the actions of the past hour or so, a report has been posted to WP:AN/I#Urgent action by uninvolved admin required at Ayn Rand and its talk page for an uninvolved admin to give assistence. Comments welcomed.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Although this has been an interesting study in personalities, it's clear that progress simply cannot be made between the various individuals here. I think we need to all agree on a neutral authority to have the last say in content, and abide by the rulings of this judge. CABlankenship (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I've filed an RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. I've included as parties those whose names appear in recent article history, except for vandalism reverts or to add a dab page. If anyone wants to add or remove their name, please feel free, and if I missed anyone, or included someone who'd prefer not to be involved, my apologies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I edited substantive content on the article, but I am happy to go along with the mediation request.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree to a request for mediation which includes CABlankenship (see his disqualifying comments in propoganda pave above) or DDSTretch who expressed his lack of neutrality on CABLankenship's talk page (The comment has been erasde, but is in the history) nor can I accept am RfM that excludes DAgwyn or Jmaurone who have expressed an opinion. Frankly, the recent edits have been made with an assertion, always challenged by me, that there was a consensus for this spate of meritless deletions and openly hostile comments on Rand. Now that we have objective proof that these edits were not made on the basis of consensus, and that the page should revert to the prior actual consensus, now, you ask for mediation? Sorry, you should have done that in the first place, not now only that you fear your agenda is about to topple. Kjaer (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Why single out myself and another editor for this demand for exclusion, when plenty of others (including yourself) have not been neutral at all! This strikes me as unsustainable as a reason.

2. The reason mediation has not been asked for before is that certain things have to have been shown to be tried before mediation is applied for. WP:MEDIATION contains the relevant information.

3. I think the following is the message on the relevant talk page that has caused so much outrage on the part of Kjaer. I wonder how well it matches up with other comments made on other talk pages by certain others?

Having read some of her stuff, and also studied philosophy during the course of my degrees, I agree with your assessment of her material. As for the state of the article: my opinion is that the least said the better. I am trying to remain neutral, and would be extremely happy if someone else took over the protecting, etc role here, so I could now walk away from it. I may still just walk away, as I have better things to do with my time on wikiepdia.

(The full reference is here: here. I think it is mild compared with some comments about this article I have read on other people's talk pages, quite frankly.)  DDStretch  (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, you really need to realise that you cannot exclude other editors who act in good faith. Your own support of Rand is very clear and others are entitled to criticise. Engaging with that would make fr a better article . This article really needs people who are philosophically aware but have not studied Rand in depth (the motivation to which would not be philosophical but political in my opinion). That is how we get to a NPOV. I have three times now edited some of your summaries to conform with the actual material in the citation. That is part of the editorial process. I think your polemic against too respected editors above deserves a ANI reference, but the in spirit of the mediation request lets see what happens and hold off in the mean time. --Snowded TALK 03:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer is quite correct to ask that CABlankenship exclude himself from the mediation, as he said he was going to do with editing. He has stated that his bias towards Rand is too strong to be objective. A real mediation needs to be between the parties that are the primary editors whose differing views have resulted in a deadlock. I don't know why DAgwyn and Jmaurone were excluded - they need to be put back in. The other thing that is needed for an honest attempt at conciliation is to freeze the article at the point it was when last frozen. Then, out of mediation, we can, hopefully, resolve the issues that clearly were not taken care of back then. There has yet to be an honest admission that the recent spate of post-freeze edits was without consensus, and it must be understood that the RfC was a valid justification for reverting to that version. Calling people vandals is out of line, violates WP and is certainly not helpful. Accusing people of POV when it isn't evident is wrong, and it is especially inappropriate coming from any of the various editors here who have made it clear that they dislike, even dispise, Rand. And it is unconciounable that TallNapoleon, knowingly violated the 3RR rule just to have it his way! That kind of attitude will never help achieve any progress. --Steve (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. I reverted thrice, and shan't do so again per the rule. And that RFC was not and is not a valid justification for anything. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon is right that he was not in violation of the 3RR rule - my mistake, feel free to erase my comment from your talk page. But you are totally and significantly wrong in your approach to the RfC - that is our best hope for true consensus - lasting consensus. Going back to where it was frozen, then mediation or any other form of reaching an agreement BEFORE unleasing an avalance of one-sided edits is the only way to get a stable, quality article. I would hope that you will give that some thought. --Steve (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch: Kjaer has had a vendetta against me for awhile now. It's bizarre. He came to a completely unrelated article that I had been working on and started making a fuss about one word. He hadn't the foggiest clue what he was talking about, yet he created a huge edit war over it. He then filed a false sockpuppet charge against me for no reason at all. He has absolutely no qualms with the sort of low tactics we are seeing here. CABlankenship (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction: "no attention" and communism

I added a bit about her writing being based on her personal experiences and growing up in Russia as it relates to her becoming a fierce opponent to communism. It probably could be phrased and integrated better if someone wants to have a go. It's discussed extensively in the article and is important to understanding her perspective and providing historical context for her views. Also, the introduction says she has received "no attention in academia". This is sourced to an attack piece and clearly isn't true (it's contradicted by the very next sentence). I tried a few times to include a more reasonable and accurate assessment that "Her philosophical work is not part of most academic curricula, and she has received strong criticism from some in academia." If someone wants to tweak that or reach a compromise I'm fine with that. But saying she has received no attention ignores the fact that her work is included in some business school classes and philosophy courses and has been controversial in academia. There was recently a controversy at West Carolina University, for example, about whether to include her work. If the article is reverted to an older version I think this information would be good to add. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I am appalled to see the level of edit warring on this page in the last 24 hours. I have protected the page for two weeks. I have commented once of this page (to urge a BLP policy based direction for editing), but do not consider myself involved. I urge all participants to engage in mediation. Contrary to various posts above about who should and shouldn't participate in editing this page and in the mediation, all editors, whether they might be considered pro or anti Rand, are needed to help write a balanced NPOV article, and all editors are expected to edit from this perspective, to be civil and to avoid edit warring. --Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)