Talk:Ayn Rand

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)

Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature This is poorly phrased. How about: Within the academy, what little attention her work has earned has been critical on the grounds of its allegedly derivative nature. --R.scipio (talk) 19:27, 24 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)

This makes sense. The article should fairly represent its subject. In an article about a subject (in this case, Ayn Rand), certain things are distinctive about them and fundamental to their importance. That Ayn Rand was a popular novelist is in this category, as is an accurate description of the unusual content of her novels. That Ayn Rand had a distinctive philosophy is in this category, as is a summary of the basic and distinctive elements of that philosophy. That, e.g., Rand was born in Russia and emigrated to America is valuable but less distinctive or consequential. But her views on homosexuality, on gender realtionships, and many other matters are derivative of her basic ideas, less-consequential, or less distinctive, and should receive proportionally less space, if any. Gyrae (talk) 23:49, 29 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)

Her work certainly falls squarely within the Wikipedia definition of Philosophy if one considers Wikipedia reliable. The Wikipedia article on Objectivism refers to it as a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand as do many others. It's an exercise in absurdity to propose that the person who develops a philosophy isn't a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:23, 12 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)

• If there are several views on whether she was a philosopher or not, give due weight to them all. In the lead, where they won't all fit, the simplest way to do that is to leave them all out. (As a point of detail, saying that X had a philosophy and that they were a philosopher are not the same thing. I've seen George McClellan credited with a philosophy.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think this RFC was put in a very helpful way - RFCs should be about content, not taking sides. In addition the changes are too broad between the two versions (diff) to easily see what's going on. The only thing I can really say is that the more detailed intro seems better. As for moving forward: I think abandon this RFC and find a way to break the problem down in a way that facilitates discussion, eg by section. If necessary have RFCs on different parts of the issue. Best of luck... Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 14 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).

Support This comes down to the same damn thing time after time. Why the resistance to identifying her as a philosopher? What are we supposed to do when a "real" philosopher, like Quine, rhymes with Ayn about Identity? Should we re-evaluate Quine's status as a philosopher because he agrees with Aristotle too? Who is this Aristotle fellow anyway, was he a "real" philosopher? You see where such pathetic pedantry leads. Yeah, this is probably AGF violation and whatever, but the most idiotic people in the world are those who hate hate hate hate Ayn Rand.User:Philosopher

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). [1]

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)

But do you see my problem with your method? You are taking lack of discussion of the issue as evidence an author picks a side on the issue. That doesn't make sense. The evidence we should consider are those who consider Rand a philosopher, and those who reject her as a pseudo or amateur. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded. As for Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton, I suggest you ask someone in the profession about their reputations; I'm not just opining. --Endlessmike 888 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If something were never an issue for independent third-parties, there would never have been a need to discuss or label it, would there? To take an extreme example, suppose a small handful of religious followers were to consider someone to be a saint -- yet, the majority of sources neither discuss the person's sainthood nor suggested the person was considered by a few to be a saint. Should the lead still insist that the person was a saint? Of course not. That method would constitute undue weight. Indeed, you seem to be asking me to prove a negative -- that Ayn Rand is NOT considered a "philosopher." No one can prove a negative and, in fact, proving negatives are not a terribly useful way to resolve disputes. For the purpose of this encyclopedia entry, what counts are (1) verifiable sources, (2) the preponderance therein, and (3) the context in which those sources were being used as stipulated in undue weight (see WP:UNDUE)). If you were to carefully re-read the linked Archive 14 I mentioned above, you'll notice that several keyword searches looked for several labels of Ayn Rand. Articles in which Rand was only identified as a "novelist" or "writer" excluded the label "philosopher." Surely, we need to look at the preponderance of sources that simply identify her occupation as a useful method. To cherry pick a very small sample of sources to confirm one occupation or another would be terribly dishonest and misleading -- something I don't want to promote. What I do want to encourage is hopefully something that looks at as many sources as possible (not only a few) in order to confirm that no one here is trying to promote a single agenda either for or against the subject. That, to me, is honesty without an agenda. J Readings (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You premise your last post on a disanalogy. It is not a small group of marginal people who consider Rand a philosopher. On the pro-philosopher side, we have cited mainstream leading philosophy encyclopedias, recent books published by leading philosophy presses, and several leading philosophers, all of which consider her a philosopher. This is prima facie reason to consider her a philosopher; no one on my side of the debate is cherry picking. When leading sources from within the profession itself refer to her as a philosopher, this should outweigh some newspaper or magazine articles that simply calls her a novelist and omits the philosopher label. --Endlessmike 888 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Not when we already have verifiable sources which also acknowledge that Ayn Rand is not taught in most philosophy departments in the United States and that her work was (and probably still is) largely ignored in academia. Those citations, in conjunction with the preponderance of other citations I already mentioned collated from LexisNexis, Factiva and JSTOR (not to mention the Encyclopedia Britannica among others), call into question your good-faith assumptions about who is misunderstanding whom in this discussion about undue weight. J Readings (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the source that states Rand is not taught in most philosophy departments? --Endlessmike 888 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

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)

Oppose - whether she is to be called a philosopher is an issue about which there is no consensus here, nor in academia, nor even in the general public. It is an issue that should be dealt with within the article (perhaps as its own section). It is not up to wikipedia to make a declaration one way or the other. --JimWae (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

attempting to create a compromise again

The old text said that she was a philosopher, but then qualified that with a reference to cited material that her status as philosopher was disputed. There is no question that (i) she was a successful novelist and screen writer and (ii) that she created a philosophical movement which she called objectivism (although that term is also used in a very different way elsewhere in Philosophy). We now have a long list of names but no links to citable material and its unclear if the reference is to dismiss her status or to accept it. At least one notable libertarian philosopher accepted her political ideas but dismissed her as a philosopher. So overall its not clear. I was not wild about the compromise but it did seem to serve all parties. It made her primary occupation clear and acknowledged that her work created a philosophical school of thought. That makes the article comparable with that of other novelists. I make no literary or intellectual comparison here but if we look at the page for Dostoyevsky he is not listed as a philosopher. His work however is used on philosophy courses (101 ethics when I read Philosophy was all based around Crime and Punishment). He like many other novelists uses literature to express a clear Weltanschauung. Rand does the same with the model of a hero etc. from which an approach to philosophy was generated. The compromise proposal recognises this, and avoids clumsy references to disputed terms. Maybe we can look at that wording and improve it so that those for whom her status as a philosopher seems of paramount importance can be happy. For example we might state that she was employed as a screen writer, was a successful novelist who articulated an approach to life and politics which became objectivism. I know thats not perfect, but how about trying to find a way to do this? --Snowded TALK 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"We might state that she was employed as a screen writer, was a successful novelist who articulated an approach to life and politics which became objectivism." You strike me as a very reasonable chap, Snowded, and your suggested compromise is something I'm personally okay with. Whether others will accept your compromise is a separate matter. Incidentally, if you were to read the Ayn Rand entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Rand author takes a similar tact. J Readings (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Idag (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An "amateur" philosopher - while an indistinct & biased qualifier - is still a philosopher. Find a primary definition of "philosopher" or "philosophy" that her work doesn't fit. Such as the Wikipedia article on Philosophy. Do the definitions indicate one must be employed in the Philosophy Dept. of a college or university or hold a degree in Philosophy? Is the debate going to be decided on a numerical tally of academicians who do or don't call her a philosopher?

Years ago I was attending a university and decided to stop by the Philosophy dept. I mentioned Atlas Shrugged. This prompted one of the professors to make a comment to the effect of "oh, yeah that Ayn Rand crap..." Further inquiry revealed that she'd never actually read the book - or any others of Rand, but was simply reflecting word-of-mouth bias and had concluded it wasn't worth her effort to investigate any further. Yet her contempt was absolute. This was a paid "professional" in Philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone earlier brought up a comparison to Dostoyevsky, who happens to be one of my favorite authors. I will put aside my extreme distaste for comparing the 'sophomoric' work of Rand with the profound genius of Dostoyevsky in order to make a point. Dostoyevsky was a novelist whose work touched extensively on philosophy. His novels were constructed in such a way as to explore philosophical and psychological concepts: The Idiot was a mocking commentary of what would happen were one to live a near christ-like life, Crime and Punishment is essentially the hero's attempt to disprove the existence of absolute morality, and The Brothers Karamazov deals heavily with Christian philosophy. Rand attempted a similar style, and although I find her characters uninteresting and her fiction strained (I literally burst out laughing at several points reading Atlas Shrugged because of the inanity of the social situations she creates), she nevertheless structures her novels in a way that deals with stating her philosophical views. While Dostoyevsky was an explorer who ultimately drew few conclusions, Rand was a dictator who presented her work as what N.Branden called her "immutable truths"—she believed that her work was absolutely true and necessary by demand of reason and rationality. Dostoyevsky was not so vulgar, but this is beside the point. I type all of this to make a simple point: we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards. Rand's style, more than anything else about her, was entirely Russian. Although I dislike Rand, I believe that she, like Dostoyevsky, was a philosopher in the "Russian style", and while it's true that she's not much of a philosopher in the European sense (Branden states that she only ever produced two works of actual technical philosophy), her work still touched on enough philosophy to deserve the title of philosopher in my opinion. I should also point out that Dostoyevsky, like Rand, was a monster. One of his closest friends called him "The most evil Christian I have ever known." He used to beat his slaves mercilessly. Dostoyevsky was an evil genius, who nevertheless wrote sublime works on morality, philosophy, psychology, and religion. Perhaps Rand was just evil. But she attempted to write on the same subjects, and is a philosopher for similar reasons. CABlankenship (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you recognize she was a philosopher. However many "technical" works of philosophy she wrote, she expressed and outlined her philosophy in her novels as well. Don't know whether she was a "monster", from what I gather she was something of a control freak, probably a good thing she never had children.

"she believed that her work was absolutely true and necessary by demand of reason and rationality" And the argument against her usually goes something like yours - "it's not true...because it makes me uncomfortable, flies in the face of what we all 'know' and it just isn't correct...well, because it just isn't."

"I type all of this to make a simple point: we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards." What do you perceive as the difference between Western Standards and Russian standards? To say we can't view it by a certain standard is also saying "We can't view various barbaric acts within societies steeped in mysticism and superstition by our standards." So we can't view the Holocaust as "wrong" because it stems from a philosophy as it most certainly did. The execution of raped girls in Islamic countries, ethnic slaughter, etc. According to you one can make no value judgement, reach no conclusion. We must simply say "this is what happened because it did". And when someone here decides we should start throwing political dissenters into gulags, or turn America into a Christian theocracy, or reinstitute slavery we can make no judgement.

Seriously, I'm curious what you perceive as the essential difference between Russian and Western standards.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe CAB is advocating moral relativism, nor do I believe that it is relevant or constructive to discuss that on this talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you to be incorrect on both points.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jazz, I'm really unsure how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "we cannot judge Russian philosophy by western standards" would lead to holocaust relativism. In fact, that conclusion is rather bonkers. CABlankenship (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you're unsure I'll clarify it for you. Mankind-orchestrated events like that happen for a reason. There's some motivation, some framework of thought behind them. The Holocaust happened because of the particular philosophy held by the perpetrators. As did the Crusades, The Inquisition, etc. Do you feel the Holocaust was wrong? Or do you just see it as something that "just happened", divorced from any causality? Was it evil? Why? What makes it evil? You can't say it was wrong without condemning the underlying philosophy. One results from the other.

Yet you say we can't judge Russian philosophy by Western standards. Why not? To even state this presupposes that you believe there to be differing standards and have an idea what those differences are. You still haven't clarified what you believe to be the distinction.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point Jazz. It's not "bonkers" when you look to the roots of man-made events. Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is that Rand was a novelist who incorporated philosophy into her stories, similar to Dostoyevsky, as apart from what we typically consider a 'philosopher' (Kant, Hume). My point was that we often discount novelists as not being 'true philosophers', and I was arguing that this might be a mistake. As for your holocaust argument...well, it's no less bonkers after your clarification I'm afraid. Somehow you decided my argument — that novelists are classifiable as philosophers — was equivalent to condoning the holocaust, rape, and sharia law. Quite odd. CABlankenship (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CAB - You already previously asked "Jazz, I'm really unsure how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "we cannot judge Russian philosophy by western standards" would lead to holocaust relativism." which mentions the point but evaded the question regarding it that I posed to you and now you appear to be evading the point altogether (what you declared as your central point) and attempting to substitute something else. The question wasn't how are Ayn Rand and Dostoyevsky similar and how they differ from what "we" supposedly consider to be a philosopher. Your statement that I addressed was "we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards". And, once again, my question is - what do you see as the distinction between Russian and Western philosophy? While you're at it, do you believe the Holocaust was wrong and why?TheJazzFan (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand--namely, the improvement of this article. Jazz and Ethan, I understand that Objectivism has a tendency to obliterate one's capabilities for understanding nuance, but allow me to explain this to you: saying that Wikipedia should not necessarily judge who is and is not a philosopher based on Western standards is not moral relativism. This is a flagrant violation of WP:CIVIL and for that matter of Godwin's Law. And although this probably qualifies as violating WP:DNFT, I'm going to go ahead anyway. When Blankenship writes that "we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards," I assume he means that to analyze and understand Russian philosophy, to get anything useful out of it, we cannot look at it from a western point of view. To really understand it, we have to look at it from a Russian point of view. That does not mean that, after having studied it and understood it, that we cannot criticize Russian philosophies from a Western point of view, or judge it using a Western moral code, whether relativist or absolutist. This should be a simple distinction, one that even an Objectivist should be able to grasp, despite the well-documented ill effects that philosophy has on the human mind's capability to comprehend nuance.

Finally, this issue has nothing to do with the Holocaust, and frankly as someone who lost family to the Nazis--yemach shemam--it is extraordinarily rude and offensive for you to claim that it does. You have no business attempting to usurp their memory for your own ends--especially not in some petty attempt to prove a point. Your attempt to do so is unacceptable and insulting, and you owe everyone here, especially CABlankenship, an apology. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNap - "this entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand" First off, you're wrong and second, it's hypocrisy to make such a proclamation and then proceed to make a long-winded addition to the very conversation you've declared improper.

"saying that Wikipedia should not necessarily judge who is and is not a philosopher based on Western standards is not moral relativism." Whether it is or isn't, that's not the point in question. Go back to "I type all of this to make a simple point:" and rediscover what he said his central, simple point was and which I picked up on to discuss further, but which he's thus far avoided doing.

Additionally, while I'm sorry that members of your family as well as millions of others were victims, in this context you're simply attempting to use heritage as a blanket claim to declare indignance when no such indignance is justified. The assertion that mentioning the Holocaust and its root causes is somehow offensive is non-intellectual nonsense. I haven't denied that it occurred nor that it was an atrocity. My "own ends" are to illustrate the results of bad philosophy. I also mentioned the Inquisition and the Crusades. I imagine many had ancestors involved in those too. I'm sorry that you don't grasp why it's crucial to understand why philosophy matters in relation to the Holocaust or any human tragedy. The fact that you blatantly state it has nothing to do with the Holocaust is a stark admission that you don't grasp the connection. It's not enough to simply see newsreels of piles of bodies and starved prisoners and hear account after account of victims. Yes it was horrific, but WHY did it happen? How it relates directly to this article is that Ayn Rand dissected these kinds of things explicitly to their root. How dare I discuss it? How dare you NOT seek to understand it? Your knee-jerk, un-analytical reaction isn't my fault or problem and I don't grant it any validity.TheJazzFan (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

JazzFan, questions of moral relativism, social constructivism etc. really are complex issues that can not be reduced to your either/or type approach above. You suggestion that human events (tragic or otherwise) happen as a direct result of certain types of philosophy makes assumptions about causality in human systems which are increasingly under challenge from biology, complexity adaptive systems theory and the cognitive sciences. All of this is a part of the richness of the discipline that is philosophy. The statement that Ayn Rand "dissected these kind of things explicitly to their root" illustrates one of the reasons why she is not taken seriously within the bulk of that discipline (aside from Rand-institute funded fellowships and the odd exception. Now while this might become an interesting discussion its drifting off the point. What we have here is a literary figure who also engaged in philosophical speculation and the movement she established is needs recognition. That does not make her profession/occupation a philosopher. One of the reasons for bringing up a series of other literary figures is to try and find a featured article that can act as a role model for this one. --Snowded TALK 10:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded "...complex issues that can not be reduced to your either/or type approach above..." "...assumptions about causality in human systems which are increasingly under challenge..." Do tell. And what conclusion do you envision these challenges reaching that ultimately vindicates the perpetrators of the Holocaust, not to mention the various international slaughter committed by Nazi Germany via their military and ultimate totalitarian goals? Either/or not valid? Was the Holocaust wrong? Yes or no? What 3rd option do you suppose there to be that doesn't involve evasion and equivocation? How 'bout the shenanigans within Stalin's regime?

Perhaps an individual who's profoundly effected by a specific disorder like schizophrenia or the like might be held to be not responsible for his actions. (And it's considered a disorder because there's some frame of reference to measure it against) But you apparently don't see the absurdity of what you're suggesting - that something that required long-term planning, technological skill and systematic implementation on a national level as well as the political installation of the regime that oversaw it was rooted in something other than a conceptual framework. Whether all involved wholeheartedly supported it or not or even understood exactly what they were participating in, it was still rooted in a conceptual framework. Or landing a man on the moon, or the development of the period table. What you're calling "the richness of the discipline that is philosophy" is an attempt to say "nothing is really anything", that there's no such thing as human responsibility for actions or that we can ever assert value judgements regarding human actions. You're evading the point that there can be bad philosophy. Rand not taken seriously? And krakens rule the seas on the flat Earth, the concept of microbes is absurd, bleeding is an effective way to remove evil humours, magnetism is witchcraft, heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Others here have documented those who do take her seriously. If you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand you didn't grasp what she said. It's also no wonder that you don't understand that she was a philosopher. No, she wasn't employed by a university philosophy dept. vying for tenure and on their dental plan, but she was nonetheless a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should take offence at this rant, but to be honest my feelings are more of sympathy. --Snowded TALK 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"I suppose I should take offence at this rant" since you're not sure I'll clarify that you have no valid reason to feel offended. Disputed, definitely. I've outlined that I disagree with you and why in specific terms. You've failed to do the same. "but to be honest" Not hardly. If you were honest you'd say you're adopting a dismissive facade in lieu any reasoned response to offer. You, like CAB, can't even declare whether you believe the Holocaust to have been unequivocally wrong.TheJazzFan (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop, you are bringing out the anthropologist in me --Snowded TALK 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. Jazz, your last post was outrageously offensive. I won't be responding to you again. Snowded, it's worth noting N.Branden says that Rand was an evolution doubter. Branden says that Rand was extremely ignorant of modern science and psychology. Napoleon: you are quite right in what I meant (I thought it was obvious, but Jazz still seems confused), perhaps it would be more clear if I had said "We shouldn't judge Russian philosophy by Western standards." I don't have any strong feelings on this opinion, and I think the arguments against classifying her as a philosopher are still quite strong. I simply wanted to suggest that it's possible that we are ignoring her culture of birth, and the style of Russian novelists in combining philosophy with fiction. CABlankenship (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You won't respond because clearly you can't provide a coherent answer to the question I posed. No "confusion" on my part. You're engaging in obfuscation and backpeddling and now joining this absurd indignation conga line that someone else started and that you see as a convenient out. Your words are quite clear. You specifically identified a statement as your central point. Whether it's "can't" or "shouldn't" judge Russian philosophy by Western standards still presupposes some grasp of the distinction but probing that point reveals you're unable to articulate anything of substance about it let alone a reasoned explanation why we can't make any value judgements. You in fact categorize reaching conclusions as "vulgar", so no wonder you're also unwilling to commit to a declaration as to whether the Holocaust was wrong. And you say *I'm* being offensive?

"I'm not sold on the argument I put forth." Me either. "I was simply offering up a different perspective for consideration." Why? To what end? What's the point when there's to be no outcome of such consideration, no conclusion to be reached, that to actually to do so is "vulgar"?

"A convincing argument could be made that she is more of a self-help guru than a philosopher." Really? The validity of the particular proposition aside, convincing means reaching one of those vulgar conclusions you find so distasteful. Why not present an argument that Ayn Rand was a codfish or could turn seawater into basketballs that sing Broadway tunes. What the heck since it's all just so much random conceptual flotsam that we don't dare put to any actual use.

What many here seem to be simply bypassing is the obvious step of examining the definition of philosophy and of a philosopher. There are such definitions to be found. Wikipedia has an article on Philosophy. Whatever Rand's culture was or wasn't has no bearing on whether she was a philosopher. I haven't seen a definition that requires that one meet some standard of infallibility or particular venue of employment to be considered a philosopher. The most common motivation for naysaying seems to be simply they don't like her, of course not necessarily tied to a demonstration of any understanding of her ideas.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jazz, you're going off on irrational tangents and creating absurd straw men. You're attacking arguments that nobody has put forth. I'm unsure whether this is because you somehow failed to understand where I was coming from, even after repeated explanations from myself and others as to your error, or whether this might simply be some sort of silly debate ploy. Perhaps you feel this is a debate, and you're trying to 'win' the argument in some fashion, hence your repeated distortions and mischaracterizations. You're all over the place with your reasoning: triumphantly challenging me to state my position on the holocaust(?), demanding that I answer your absurd straw men, and mocking me for my refusal to do so with the laughably self-congratulatory conclusion that your logic is simply overwhelming us. Needless to say, I find this sort of thing highly distasteful and silly. CABlankenship (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've challenged you to substantiate and demonstrate you have an understanding of what you say. Artificial haughtiness doesn't hide the cowardice you've displayed in failing to even attempt to address a specific point. Since you used certain terms as part of some alleged point, what's the difference between Russian and Western philosophy? -silence- Why do you feel it's proper to avoid reaching a conclusion, "vulgar" to do so? -silence- Do you feel the Holocaust was wrong? -silence- Do you even understand that there IS a connection between an event like that and philosophy? -silence- How ironic and absurd for you to hurl accusations of erecting straw men. You've been erecting air men. I note that you couldn't even hold to your own original commitment to not respond to me again, albeit only to engage in more non-specific mewling. Debate? Hardly. I wish your responses were that substantial. They don't even amount to the most meager attempt, being in essence repeating "you're wrong...um, cuz you are." over and over.TheJazzFan (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will suffer a brief review of your "substantial" claims. You assert that I have not answered you regarding the difference between Russian and Western writing styles. I can only assume that you either ignored my clarification on this issue (that Russians have historically used the novel to express philosophy, where Western philosophy rarely makes use of fiction), or that you somehow failed to realize that this was addressing your claim. You accuse me of ducking your question on whether or not the holocaust was wrong. I believe every sane individual would say that it was one of the most horrible events in all of history. I found your invocation of the holocaust to be distasteful, hence my refusal to comment, as it's beyond banal to have to say that I strongly disapprove of genocide. You interpreted this as a triumph on your part — a testament to your logic perhaps. Such conclusions are easier than facing reality, and more pleasing to oneself. Your final accusation is that I fail to understand that there is a connection between "philosophy" and the Nazis. Indeed, I do not 'even understand' your point on this, as I find comparing the holocaust with philology to be disturbing and 'bonkers' as I said before. This exhausts your "challenges". CABlankenship (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"(the difference is that) Russians have historically used the novel to express philosophy, where Western philosophy rarely makes use of fiction" This doesn't address the difference in the substance of the philosophy, only the medium of delivery. You said "we shouldn't judge Russian Philosophy by our Western standards", you still haven't addressed what you believe to be those standards. I.e. "Western philosophy says that...while Russian philosophy says that..."

"You accuse me of ducking your question on whether or not the holocaust was wrong." No response = ducking. Not declarations of triumph, expressions of aggravation at your non-participation. Okay you feel the Holocaust was wrong. Based on what? You stated by inference that it was "vulgar" for Rand to reach any conclusions - such as that people are entitled to live free from the unprovoked initiation of force by others. You have to - as Rand did - reach certain conclusions to say the Holocaust was wrong. There has to be a conceptual standard by which you make such a judgement. Hitler obviously felt no qualms about his actions. Whose philosophy is correct? The philosophy that says mass-murder based on ethnicity/religious heritage etc. is justified or the philosophy that says that it isn't? Hitler felt that men should live their lives to devotedly serve the state and the will of the Fuehrer - including gleefully exterminating those he deemed not fit to live at all not because of any criminal act but because of their heritage or other characteristics decided on his whim. Individual rights are a non-issue to be subordinated to this end. Ayn Rand said people should live for their own lives, to achieve their own happiness, that the state exists to protect the rights of citizens. Who's right? You claim to hold contempt for Rand - implying that you actually have a grasp of what she said, but it's not clear that you do.

Elsewhere I notice you stated it was banal for Ayn Rand to state that there is a perceivable reality and that man perceives this reality with his senses. Maybe you'e not aware that there are those that claim otherwise and that this isn't a minor point. Or are you in the camp that insists that man's mind is impotent to perceive reality and that reality is just an illusion to begin with?TheJazzFan (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, there's plenty of Americans who use similar styles who are not considered philosophers. For example, would we classify the Wachowski brothers as philosophers because they made "The Matrix"? That movie certainly explores and develops lots of philosophical concepts. There's also Terry Goodkind, who uses and develops Objectivist concepts heavily in his novels. There's probably other writers that I can't think off of the top of my head, but many choose to use philosophical concepts in their works of fiction, that doesn't necessarily make them philosophers. Idag (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CAB, Jazz isn't the one evading and setting up straw men. Nice try at a dodge though. Still, this just illustrates what's wrong with this whole discussion here. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah..what he said. ;-) TheJazzFan (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, that delete was my bad! Thanks for the fix Napolean. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Like I said, I'm not sold on the argument I put forth. I was simply offering up a different perspective for consideration. In truth, Rand is far more similar to a religious guru than a philosopher. This point has been made by Branden, Rothbard, and many others. What she basically offered was a self-help system: a model for how to live. In this she is similar to basically any religion, including Scientology, Christianity, and so forth. A convincing argument could be made that she is more of a self-help guru than a philosopher. CABlankenship (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also perhaps why her followers are so fervent. Anytime someone bases their lives around living in the style preached by a guru, they are going to be defensive about that philosophy. Most people are defensive about their religious beliefs, and in a sense, Objectivism is simply another self-help religion. CABlankenship (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The entire discussion above is largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if everyone here thinks she's a philosopher or if everyone thinks that she isn't a philosopher. All that matters is what do the sources call her. Some call her a philosopher and some simply call her a novelist. We have to find a way to reconcile those. The debate on philosophical relativism is interesting, but irrelevant to making actual improvements on this article. Idag (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• That is a comparison I had been considering myself - but, while D is often considered a proto-existentialist, even read in a few philosophy classes (usually introductory), his categorization as a philosopher is also questioned by many. I know of a philosophy class that regularly had Jonathan Livingston Seagull as the first reading assignment--JimWae (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: Rand is clearly a philosopher and has a recognized philosophy, objectivism, to prove it. She (or it) may not be liked or respected, but that cannot change that basic fact. That some of her followers display cult-like attitudes changes this in no way, as there are other recognized philosophers who have (had) similar devotees: Socrates, Marx, and Shaw spring immediately to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.scipio (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Those examples are unfair. Socrates, Marx, and Shaw didn't teach their pupils that they were infallible in matters of philosophy. It is true that figures such as Marx and Aristotle have been held in divine reverence by their followers, but neither demanded such reverence from their followers during their own time. In this, Rand is more similar to an L.Ron Hubbard or Elijah Muhammad. In the words of N.Branden, she started a "dogmatic religion", and her teachings are more similar to a religion in the sense that they are preaching a certain life style and a way-of-living to follow. CABlankenship (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now read the bulk of the argument re whether Rand should or should not be termed a "philosopher." I note three senses of the word "philosopher" that are being used, and I offer this in the hope that it will streamline the argument: (1) a person who actively worked in, that is, created original material in one or more subject areas of philosophy; (2) a person who earned a living in whole or part through work in philosophy; (3) a person who is part of or "recognized by" the mainstream of the philosophy profession. Gyrae (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Rand authored books with original material in epistemology (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology), political philosophy (Capitalism the Unknown Ideal), ethics (The Virtue of Selfishness), and aesthetics (The Romantic Manifesto), and others, which have sold widely, in multiple languages, in many different parts of the world.

(2) Rand made enough from the sale of the above mentioned books to constitute 'a living' much grander than the average professor - she also was a paid speaker on philosophic topics at universities like Harvard, Yale and West Point.

(3) Her work has been examined and cited by respected academic philosophers:

• Robert Nozick of Harvard University
• Charles King - Ph.D. from Harvard - studied with John Rawls - Taught at Rice University
• Lisa Dolling (Associate Professor and head of the honors program at St. John's University in New York)
• Tibor Machan, (professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University)
• Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
• Douglas Rasmussen (widely published - Professor of Philosophy at St. John's University, New York)
• Eric Mack (Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University)
• Aeon Skoble (Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater MA)
• Tara Smith (Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin)
• Lester Hunt (Teaches philosophy at University of Wisconsin, Madison)
• Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, Department of Philosopy, SUNY Buffalo
• Roderick Long (associate professor of philosophy at Auburn University, author of "Reason and Value: Aristotle Versus Rand")
• Michael Huemer (Associate Professor of Philosophy - University of Colorado, Boulder)
• Jonathan Jacobs (Professor of Philosophy; Director of the Center for Arts & Humanities at Colgate University, has taught at University of Edinburgh; University of Pennsylvania; Georgetown University; Cornell University; SUNY Plattsburgh)
• Wayne Davis (Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University, Ph.D. from Princeton)
• Stephen R. C. Hicks (professor of philosophy and chair of the philosophy department at Rockford College, Illinois
• Gary Jason (professor of philosophy at Cal State University Fullerton
• Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh)
• Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh)

(4) Authoritative sources:

• Encarta - "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher..." [2]
• The Biography Base "Ayn Rand ... was a controversial American philosopher and novelist, most famous for her philosophy of Objectivism."[3]
• Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440.
• Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Routledge, 1999).
• Cambridge University Press has published a volume on her ethical theories.
• Great Philosophers series
• Wadsworth Philosophers Series
• Oxford Companion to Philosophy
• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Philosopher's Index

A Wikipedia editor who teaches philosophy, and does not like Rand's theories, found three different texts that had been used in university philosophy classes that mentioned Rand.

• 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

These books mention Rand as a philosopher and discussions include Objectivism's response to Relativism, Rand on free will, and Rand on selfishness. Each are collections of primary texts include excerpts from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." None of them includes her in discussions of political philosophy, but Kessler's Voices of Wisdom, explicitly ties her take on selfishness and altruism to economic and political considerations and briefly discusses her influence on political Libertarianism. (Kessler's brief bio of her before her excerpt says "Rand was a novelist and a philosopher who began a movement called Objectivism.")

Rand recieves considerable attention from feminist oriented discussions of philosophers.

• Tuana, Nancy (ed.), 1984 and after, Re-Reading the Canon (Series of Volumes of Feminist Interpretations of Individual Philosophers), University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Tuana's series covers major figures in the Western tradition from Plato through twentieth-century pragmatist, continental, and analytic philosophers. Feminists writing in the volumes come from various methodological backgrounds. Although the canonical figures are mostly men, the series includes volumes on several women: Mary Wollestonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand, and Mary Daly.
• Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, Eds. Mimi Reisel Gladstein and Chris Matthew Sciabarra (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press) - multiple articles.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists Rand in their "Bibliography of Feminist Philosophers" [4]

I would respectfully suggest that anyone who asks for more or better sources than this has failed a credibility test. --Steve (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the indexes for the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and there were no entries for Rand. I would hesitate to say that you have "failed a credibility test" if you had not been so eager to throw that accusation at others. CABlankenship (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Cambridge Dictionary of American Biography, 1995, edited by John s. Bowman, describes Rand on p. 596 as "writer, philosopher". Gyrae (talk) 06:11, 31 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)

Clarificatory quote from WP:RFM about timing of requests:

Before requesting formal mediation, parties should attempt informal resolution prior to filing; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected by a member of the Mediation Committee with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Requests for mediation is the penultimate dispute resolution process, and as such prior dispute resolution must have been attempted.

In other words, there is no evidence to suggest anything in the motivations of editors here who Kjaer is making allegations about other than that they were aware of, and were complying with, the guideliens for mediation.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 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)

Kjaer, just as CABlankenship is arguably biased, as an Objectivist you have a COI issue yourself. The point of mediation is to resolve competing views through a neutral party. A person is not barred from mediation simply because they hold a view, the entire point of mediation is to reconcile that view with the article content. As far as the editors that were omitted, as Slim Virgin pointed out, he tried to include everyone, but if they would like to participate, they are free to add themselves to the mediation. I would urge you to join us in utilizing the dispute resolution process so that we can improve this article instead of participating in an endless edit war. Idag (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer does need to come onboard as well for the simple reason contained in this passage found at the beginning of WP:RFM:

The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their acceptance.

Unless Kjaer agrees to join in with the RFM, the matter may have to be escalated further if any kind of resolution is desired on the part of a significant number of editors.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out, per Kjaer's concern, that Dagwyn and Jmaurone both invites to the mediation. [5][6] Idag (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why I would be disqualified from having input into the article simply because I hold a mainstream stance. I'm not suggesting that the whole article should be geared towards discussing the fact that many observers and former disciples of Rand believe that she started a dogmatic cult. However, her prize disciple and lover says that Rand "encouraged dogmatism" and that Rand's world view was: "Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." This is information that deserves a thorough treatment. I suggest the following layout:

1 Life

1.1 Youth - discuss her early years and education

1.2 Immigrant - discuss her immigration to the U.S. up to her breakthrough with ::fountainhead

1.3 Collective - discuss the time period during the establishment of her collective and ::her meteoric rise of success and wealth

1.4 Break with Branden - discuss the fracture of her collective and the break with the ::Brandens

1.5 Later years and death

1.6 Personality and style

2 Novels, philosophy, views

2.1 Novels

2.2 Objectivism

2.3 Politics

2.4 Screenplays

3 Legacy 4 Bibliography 5 Notes 6 Further reading 7 External Links CABlankenship (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think mediation is premature. Radical changes have been pushed in various directions and as there has been a flurry of editing, it's not surprising that there have been numerous reversions. Here are my comments on the mediation which I see I'm not allowed to post there: Several editors have objected to wholesale changes, many of which were made without any consensus or discussion. The introduction has been worked on with some collaboration, although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and I think good progress is being made there. So I think that area of the article would be good to move forward on, and then other areas can be addressed. I don't think all efforts to reach compromises over the issues have been exhausted, and I'm reluctant to support a bureaucratic procedure seeking to address such a broad range of issues, many of which haven't been properly discussed yet on the talk page. Strong POVs and agendas have been stated, and it's no surprise that this has created some dispute. Major changes have been attempted by various parties (myself included) and have been reverted, but eventually appropriate compromises seem to be getting worked out. I think there is a middleground and some patience is required from all involved. There are certainly ample areas for improvement in the article, but removing large tracts without discussion and adding new sections that have limited sourcing is too radical an approach for many of the good faith editors involved, as is indicated by the push for a general roll back. I suggest a focus on the introduction (the most important part of any article) and to proceed from there. More general suggestions for broad changes to the article don't seem me to be workable as they have been disputed, so let's try a more measured approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Several editors have objected to wholesale changes, many of which were made without any consensus or discussion."

There was discussion and consensus on each change that was made. For example, for the Nature of Criticism section, TallNapoleon made a section on the talk page proposing the removal of that section. Four or five of us responded in the affirmative with no one opposing the removal. If you'll look through the talk page, you'll see that each major edit was discussed.

"The introduction has been worked on with some collaboration, although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and I think good progress is being made there."

That introduction has had more reverts in a short time than I have ever seen on a Wikipedia article.

"I'm reluctant to support a bureaucratic procedure seeking to address such a broad range of issues, many of which haven't been properly discussed yet on the talk page. Strong POVs and agendas have been stated, and it's no surprise that this has created some dispute. I think there is a middleground and some patience is required from all involved."

First, as discussed above, the changes WERE discussed on the talk page. Second, the strong POV's are what make mediation necessary and mediation will help achieve that middle ground.

"There are certainly ample areas for improvement in the article, but removing large tracts without discussion and adding new sections that have limited sourcing is too radical an approach for many of the good faith editors involved."

Have you seen the stuff that was removed?! Giant chunks of it violated WP:OR and WP:Synth. Also, I'm not aware of any new sections that have been added (unless you count the stuff in the intro but the revert war on that is so heavy that you can't expect stable content there right now). Idag (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to point out that most of the issues that need to be addressed are recurring. They have been raised repeatedly in the past and will continue to be raised in the future if we don't address them definitively. The disinterested admin below also seems to have recommended mediation. Idag (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully urge CofM and Kjaer to accept mediation, because otherwise this is almost certainly going to ArbCom. It is clear that we are failing to reach consensus here, and that a lasting, permanent solution is needed. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:20, 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 article in the last 24 hours. I have protected the page for two weeks. I have commented once on 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 who 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 a NPOV perspective, to be civil and to avoid edit warring. --Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this protection? I see a violation of 3RR by TallNapoleon during the "appalling" 24 hour period. I am sure the warning he has received should be sufficient sanction. I see no other edit warring, unless the admin wants to characterize the refusal of a faction to abide by the results of the RfC as edit warring.

I am quite sure that we can work from the last consensus version of Dec 31 and shorthen such sections as Objectivist movement which already have their own article, rather than deleting unique and accurate material such as Rand's notable personal (and certainly not flattering) stance on homosexuality, or her personal influence, which does not currently have its own article. I see the request for this protection, as well as requests for arbitration and mediation as attempts by a certain faction to avoid the obvious conclusion of the RfC. I invite the admin to remove the protection. I invite the editors who have expressed there personal dislike of the "godless" "fourth-rate" Rand to deal with the fact that this article will indeed contain such horribly prejudicing material as a claim, (shamelessly backed up by dozens of references in sources as notable or moreso than the NY Times) that Rand is considered, among other things, a philosopher. Kjaer (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The language in your post Kjaer is probably the best indication of why protection was necessary. --Snowded TALK 10:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, you're just making stuff up now. The only person to say anything like "godless" on this page is yourself, in the post above. Nobody has mentioned anything of the sort. I did, however, call Rand a fourth-rate philosopher. CABlankenship (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer that RfC was grossly deficient: (1) you (and not a neutral admin) closed it after only one day; (2) the wording on how to vote made no sense (how can a new editor vote to determine if there was a consensus before he arrived here?); and (3) the vote was split 7-5, which does not a consensus make. Frankly, this wasn't even an RfC, it was a straw poll and a 7-5 split on a straw poll doesn't yield any "clear" results either. Idag (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Again

This talk page is still very long, which makes working here difficult. I would propose archiving ALL discussions that are no longer active, so that we can make a fresh start, as it were. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent idea...all things considered...gotta start somewhere..Modernist (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just archived all conversations up to Jan. 10 in Archive 17. Unfortunately, this talk page is STILL 160+ kb, which is still long. Oh well. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

start over

this is my first post ever to wikipedia. i'm sure i'm gonna get yelled at for violating all sorts of rules. i promise to read more about editing sites and such, i just created my account. I don't know how i ended up on the ayn rand page, i tend to roam around clicking on various links that look interesting. i know i started out trying to look up "syzygium paniculatum"( which my wife just purchased). i never found a protected fom editing page before, and i was intrigued. i started reading the discussion page and i think there are alot of pro and con zealots here. i went to the abortion and iraq war pages and there was less debate. i have read atlas shrugged and the fountainhead and enjoyed them, but i would not describe my self as a devotee. again i'll research editing rules, but at what point does wikipedia or the adminstrator just say enough is enough? intellectial freedom and the nature of wikipedia is fine, but there is clearly a fight between "rand is a hack" and "rand is the greatest philosopher ever" camps. whoever had the authority to "protect" this page, why dont you rewrite it as you see fit? with verifable sources, no original research, opinions, etc. whatever the guidelines for a "good wikipedia article " are. i understand the democratic nature of wikipedia and the importance of reaching a consensus, but if the abortion and iraq war pages can do that but the ayn rand page can't...something is wrong.Brushcherry (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

You should include the "simply want neutral biographical accuracy" camp. Let the reading audience make up their own mind. I notice even at the ARI website, I don't find effusively worded PR regarding Rand.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If this goes to ArbCom, my understanding is that that is basically what will happen. Naturally, this would be a last resort. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Three issues before we move to content

On reflection I think we have three basic issues.

• Firstly all editors have to cease ascribing motivations to other editors. There are people here who do not like Rand (declared and undeclared) and people who advocate her views (declared and undeclared). In Wikipedia all have equal rights to take part if they follow wikipedia rules. I strongly suggest that a monitoring admin uses judicious short term blocks to enforce this or we are not going to move forward.
• We have to address the issue of citations, OR and weight. At the moment we have a very small number of sources being used for multiple purposes. For example a grant in 2001 to the University of Texas generates a Guardian article. The grant came from a Rand reserach institute (which means it cannot support a statement that the UofT established a fellowship in her honour). Its also in 2001 and there are no subsequent ones. The Guardian article reports this and suggests that this may lead to an increase in interest. Neither 2001 reference can really support a 2009 status. Two notable philosophers attend a seminar on a subject linked to objectivism, sponsored by a Rand institute. True, but it does not mean that the implication can be drawn that those philosophers endorse the position that Rand is a Philosopher. She may or may not be, but that type of citation does not support it.
• As an extension of the above; the bulk of the citations come from Rand institutions of various types. There are few if any third party ones, or international ones. This gives rise to multiple problems of proving a negative. So Rand is not mentioned in several directories of Philosophy, but she is in one US one, other encyclopedia's avoid any precise statement. I would strongly suggest that mediation (or a monitoring admin) forms a neutral third party to assess questions of citation and source as they are presented on the talk page.

I am pleased to see that the RFA appears to have opened up the possibility of mediation again. Hopefully all will now sign up. --Snowded TALK 11:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with you on all of this, and especially the need for a third party to assess questions of citation and source as they are presented on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral

I said I wouldn't comment further on this article, but at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, I can't help drawing the moral that it's a perfect illustration of Wikipedia's biggest flaw. To quote someone above:

Our aim should be an article that looks like the work of a single expert who was striving for neutrality (and who succeeded).

And I agree. The trouble is, this article is written by dozens of people, of whom only maybe one or two (quite possibly none) have a genuinely expert knowledge & understanding of the whole subject-matter (I do not pretend to be one of these); many have a rather incomplete knowledge & understanding, but are trying their best; and some are idiots who think they are experts, or who just have strong opinions and want to get their way.

And as they all get an equal say, the idiots outweight the experts - oh no, wait a minute, the ones who get the biggest say are those who are prepared to stay up late at night making the most edits and reversions. In an ideal world these would be the experts, but the statistics entail they're more likely to be the non-experts, or even more likely still the idiots who think they're experts or who want to get their way. (Particularly idiots for whom Wikipedia may be the main outlet for their ideas & pet theories; experts are more likely to spend their writing efforts on books or published articles which idiots won't be able to jump in & mess up.)

So what do you think is more likely to be the end result - an article which looks like the work of a single, neutral expert on the subject, or one which... (I will refrain from mentioning monkeys & typewriters at this point ;) ).

And much as I like & use Wikipedia, this is why for the foreseeable future so much of it will remain strong on quantity, weak on quality. Ben Finn (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone deleted the whole of the above as 'irrelevant and uncivil'. It seems entirely to the point. Does anyone really doubt that there are idiots on Wikipedia? (I didn't say there were large numbers of them, nor mention anyone; it wasn't directed at anyone in particular.) And that this article is plagued with the problems I outlined? Or is everything just wonderful?

It seems somewhat totalitarian to delete criticism. Ben Finn (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag, you have no right to play censor with talk page material. There are many, many people who have said offensive things. If their remarks become sufficiently abusive they can be blocked by an admin. I agree with what Bfinn said, in general, but I have no clue as to whether he has cast me or you as a monkey - that is, I don't know who's 'side' he is on, but his observation of this article not looking like it was written by single, neutral expert is true.. DO NOT DELETE PEOPLES COMMENTS ON A TALK PAGE. --Steve (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not on anyone's side, other than the side of the quality & accuracy of articles. I know nothing about Ayn Rand (other than from this article!), and have made no edits to it at all. I do know a fair amount about philosophy, and suspect she should not be classed as a philosopher (lacking the necessary credentials), but that's a relatively minor point; she is perhaps a borderline case. As for the monkeys, they are the idiots in the above metaphor (if that wasn't clear), and I'm not calling anyone in particular an idiot; though I'm certain very few of us are experts (say, PhD or beyond) on Ayn Rand, political philosophy, and/or American literature, and that fact (as well as the idiots) is the main reason for the major disagreements on this article. (Experts may also disagree with each other, of course, but at least rarely in an idiotic way.) [Edited, and below, as I see Objectivism is wider than just political.] Ben Finn (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There will always be problems on articles that deal with revered cult leaders. There are few people who are neutral on Rand. Presenting sources that depict her in something other than a saintly light will meet with attempts to marginalize this data or turn it into a vague blurb. Huge portions of Rand's life where she behaved rather oddly are barely discussed. Rand was a very interesting character, but many people find her so interesting because it seems she was quite mad. Others want to downplay the sources where her close followers describe her as being irrational and emotional. And of course, to the Randian, it's always a sore spot when you bring up the fact that her prized disciple called Rand's philosophy a "dogmatic religion". I haven't been engaging in any edit wars to put in this information. I've been trying to discuss it on the talk page, as I know if I were to enter it (even heavily sourced), one of these guys would delete it within minutes. This creates an unacceptable atmosphere, where certain people are way too hardcore about keeping unflattering facts out of this article, even though these facts are extremely entertaining and fascinating. It's "juicy" stuff, as one editor said, and it's something the average article browser would like to read. This article is not a propaganda page for Ayn Rand, it's supposed to be a fact-based discussion of her life and work. CABlankenship (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, why is nobody running to delete the above and other CAB comments that so fly in the face of AGF? Oh, I get it! Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried to delete this whole section once only to have it reverted. Nothing in this section has anything to do with improving this article, and it is a violation of WP:Talk, WP:Soap, and WP:Civil. In response to Steve, I don't care if the insults are directed at me or someone "on my side", this entire section violates a host of Wikipedia talk page policies, and, therefore should be deleted. In the future please read the actual policies before starting rants about censorship. Idag (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The way to improve the article would be to try to deal with the problems I outlined, if they're accurate. So, as a positive suggestion, is there anyone on here who does have relevant expertise (ideally, say, PhD level) in Ayn Rand, or else in (say) philosophy or American literature? If so, perhaps we should hear their suggestions for improvements to the article. They will know what they're talking about far more than the rest of us.

(I own up to having insufficient expertise, so have not made and will not make any edits myself; I think the extent of my expertise would only be to sub-edit for grammar and style - as I have worked as a professional proof-reader. Does anyone else own up to not having sufficient expertise?) Ben Finn (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll own up to not being an expert in the sense that my PhD isn't in philosophy (though that was my second major in undergrad). Consulting with experts won't resolve our dispute because the dispute concerns presentation, not substantive knowledge. Also, Bfinn, would you mind deleting everything above your last post as it is not constructive and violates numerous discussion policies. Idag (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it untrue, though? (I am trying to be helpful, albeit in a provocative manner.) Re experts, even if there's nothing factual under dispute (which is not completely clear to me), experts in a domain are probably better at presenting material within their domain in a more careful, objective, and neutral way. I would give far more credence, for example, to a proposed intro drafted by someone who'd done a PhD on Ayn Rand. Ben Finn (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag why on earth did you delete Ben's comments? He strikes me as a person of great good sense. As you are one of the other people who have made positive contributions to this discussion, and who seems to have their heart in the right place, I am doubly surprised. Let the comments stand. On my own credentials, I have a PhD in philosophy, I taught the subject for some years, and have a number of publications in linguistic philosophy. I wrote the articles Medieval philosophy, History of logic Metaphysics (Aristotle) and quite a few more. I only became familiar with Ayn Rand last week (after Snowded mentioned this page). I have since read the stuff she wrote on Metaphysics and it strikes me as unadulterated rubbish. The rest I don't know about. Her prose style strikes me as florid and overblown, but I know very little about literature. Peter Damian (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ben also made one of the best and most perceptive comments on this page [7]. Peter Damian (talk)

Ben, I think that experts may ultimately help break this deadlock (though I still think its a non-substantive issue of presentation), and, Peter, thank you for the compliment. My problem with the original post was not the idea it expressed, but, rather, the overall wording (e.g. calling some of the editors here "idiots"). I personally don't care about it, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that someone is going to take offense at it, and, given the amount of rancor on this talk page, getting a consensus is already going to be difficult without having to deal with more bruised egos. Idag (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise - there are no idiots on Wikipedia. (Hey, I didn't say who was an idiot! Why should their egos be bruised?!) Ben Finn (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Experts may help as long as they stick to good sources and avoid OR. We've had too much OR and "consensus" replacing sources. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Experts are welcome on the Flat earth theory page as long as they stick to good sources and avoid OR. We've had too much OR and "consensus" replacing sources. Peter Damian (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? The earth is flat, who would say otherwise? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Only fringe religious fanatics. Omnians, probably. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Flat Earth Society seems to be active and notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it. There are webpages for it, and so on, if one searches Google as well. I recall a few years ago, there was a BBC piece on the radio about a UK Flat Earth Society as well. Just because it has references, ad all that...  DDStretch  (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey if this guy says so it must be flat [8] he writes for the NY Times...it must be so..:) Modernist (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, look at yourselves. too many of you are too concercned with ayn rand. or rather you are too concerned about winning an argument about ayn rand. quit being pus**** and write an encyclopedic entry for the damn womanBrushcherry (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Homosexuality/Gender and Sex

So this was one of the contentious changes I've made. It is my opinion that the section on Homosexuality was too long, as Rand's views on the matter were an extremely minor part of her philosophy and definitely not what she is primarily remembered for. To have an entire subsection on it, equal in length to the subsection about her politics, which she IS well remembered for her politics and her economics. Similarly, Rand's views on gender are likely of very little interest to the average reader. They are not primarily what she is remembered for, although they have garnered some attention from feminists. As such I propose that this section be trimmed. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

does the george washington page comment on his homosexuality views? mel blanc? the muppets? isaac newton? u2? kurt vonnegut? emperor hirohito? steve jobs? yassar arafat? jesus? once again.....if the jesus wikipedia can avoid comments on homosexuality views why cant the ayn rand page. Brushcherry (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Incidentally Jesus never expressed an opinion on homosexuality, so far as Scripture records. Rand's philosophy did involve sex, so mentioning it may be appropriate. This much, however, is not. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ. This would explain why Ayn Rand, whose work had clear - perhaps minor, but not so minor as to be completely disregarded - elements of sexuality (whoever could forget the touching rape scene in Atlas Shrugged The Fountainhead - just to name the most obvious example) intertwined with the rest of her views, has a section in her Wikipedia article regarding her views on homosexuality, while Jesus Christ, whose scope - regardless of whether he was the true son of God or was just an interesting chap - dwarves this particular issue, does not. Additionally, you might find that Mr. Christ has an entire section (and multiple sub-articles) devoted to just how "real" (in a secular, flesh-and-blood, existential sense) he was, while there are no such sections or sub-articles for Ms. Rand. Badger Drink (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The homosexuality section is not especially long. Personal opinion on how significant this information is seems irrelevant to me. It's been substantially covered and is notable, so it should be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now the section on gender longer than the ones on economics and politics combined, which flagrantly violates WP:UNDUE if you accept, as I do, that Rand's most important impact was political. Inclusionists on this page keep throwing the word "notable" around. Unfortunately, if we were to include everything that were notable about Rand we wouldn't have an article, we would have a book. We have to pick and choose, which requires that we rely on "personal opinion". I would also note that, unlike many of the other sections, this one might be a good candidate for a separate article, because of the relatively significant amount of work examining Ayn Rand from a feminist perspective. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Given that there appears that mediation is not going to be accepted by the vast bulk of the editors taking a pro-Rand position, should we re-open the arbitration request to agree process? --Snowded TALK 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until the mediation is actually rejected (according to the rules its 7 days after filing if there's no universal agreement). People may change their minds before then. Idag (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point and hopefully they will. If not I suggest a collaborative effort on stating the problem. --Snowded TALK 13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I appeal to Endlessmike 888, Kjaer, ChildofMidnight, and SteveWolfer to sign up for the mediation before the deadline. [9] The only alternatives are continual disputes and protection, or an ArbCom case, which may bring sanctions, and which really shouldn't be necessary. An uninvolved mediator (assuming a mediator accepts the case, which is another hurdle) will help us sort through the issues, and will make sure the article ends up neutral and accurate; respectful of Rand, without unnecessary criticism or adulation. If we all enter the process in good faith, I'm certain we'll find it beneficial. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Kjaer's recent RFC was very problematical, and its results have not been accepted for a number of reasons. However I feel he raised a valid question. I would therefore like to pose an RFC, worded as follows:

"Should Ayn Rand be reverted to its state on Dec. 31 before it was protected?"

Simple, clear, to the point, and it should allow us to settle the issue once and for all. I would also seek to have a neutral admin close the RFC after an appropriate length of time. Since I'm not really sure how one goes about setting up an RFC, I would like to gage people's interest. Also, does anyone have any recommendations for a neutral admin to run it? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend a separate RfC for each section that was effected. This way if someone likes one section but hates another, they wouldn't do a blanket denial (its also easier to read when looking at the diffs). Idag (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing problematic, apparently, is that your faction, which asserted repeatedly that there was a "new consensus," lost. You had no consensus to make the over 100 unilateral radical POV motivated alterations that you did, and yours is the faction that engaged in 3RR and every aspect of an edit war in response. Now that you know you will be reversed once the freeze is removed, now you want to vote, vote, vote again? Let us simply go back to the Dec 31st version, retain all referenced comments, and if you truly think the article is too long, lets split it up into sub articles in accord with wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not call for losing factions to request repeated RfC's until it's side wins. Until the terms of that RfC are honored any other RfC would be a sham. Kjaer (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, for a number of reasons which have been explained repeatedly, many of us have serious issues with the way that RFC was handled. In particular, it was poorly worded, you should not have closed it, it was not a straw poll, we were not voting, and the conclusions you've drawn from it are baseless. I've had it. Frankly, at this point this should go to ArbCom. Only once the issues of behavior on this page are sorted out do we have any hope of making any progress. I will urge everyone, one last time, to sign up for mediation. But if this mediation request dies then Arbcom will need to step in. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The refusal to accept mediation other than under "conditions" is indicative of the issues here. A separate and properly administered RfC is one option but I think we are past that and it needs to go to ArbCom --Snowded TALK 09:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my understanding is that Arbcom is in something of a state of chaos right now... mediation may well be our best bet to reaching a resolution. I would therefore again urge Steve and Kjaer to accept mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that Snowded's very valid points are about interpretation of policy, and given that mediation committee does not have the remit to deal with technical issues like these, I think Arbitration the best. I may be wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Science

In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand says of modern science that "in the field of scientific theory, unable to integrate or interpret their own data, scientists are abetting the resurgence of a primitive mysticism." This is particularly remarkable, as these comments came during the greatest period of scientific revolution in the history of mankind. The 20th century was the undisputed golden age of science, and so Rand's comments (she strangely seems to feel that pre-19th century science was superior) are exceedingly odd. Branden remarks that Rand in general was skeptical of any science since the time of Newton. It appears that Rand was profoundly ignorant of science. The fact that Rand was an evolution doubter should also be mentioned. N.Branden discusses this fact in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". CABlankenship (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

rand is not a scientist, this is a irrelevant rambling. she is a philosophist, what is notable about her is her views on philosophy and the economy, all else is "trivia". --66.158.232.98 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised to know that one's views on science are generally held to be a part of any philosophy one propounds, even for novelists. --Snowded TALK 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone makes such remarkable claims about their own wisdom and knowledge as Rand, we must call into question her beliefs and statements on a wide range of subjects. Rand and her disciples claimed that she was one of the most brilliant people to ever live, and that she and N.Branden were the two greatest geniuses of their age. She started a "dogmatic religion" based around her own teachings and infallible wisdom. Therefore, her tremendous errors deserve special attention. CABlankenship (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand.

Note some of the arguments discussed there appear on this very page. Peter Damian (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand and the Native Americans

I seem to recall reading, at some point, a quote from Rand where she basically said the Native Americans had it coming. I'll look it up when I can, but that might be relevant. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be consistent with her Anglophilia. CABlankenship (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like unsubstantiated innuendo to move an intellectual discussion along, eh? Don't worry, just back it up when you get around to it...maybe. Of course, no doubt we'll see the same (lack of) accuracy I've come to expect regarding these so-called "quotes" you reference.TheJazzFan (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." --http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/09/fifty-years-of-moral-illiteracy.html

I'll find a better source when I'm not about to get on the road. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its in the question/answer session after the West Point lecture. Its pretty damning. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the myriad inconsistencies of Wikipedia is what's considered a reliable source. I've seen blogs declared as unreliable sources. Was it electronically or at least reliably stenographically recorded or just someone's general recollection of what she said? I'll bet TallNap couldn't have said when he tossed out this "quote" as fact. I bet he still can't. It's not specified on the blog.

Another quote I see by this same blogger -

"My first direct experience with Ayn Rand's prose came when a fellow English major offered me his copy of Atlas Shrugged with John Galt's unreadable, 70-page radio address helpfully marked with a paperclip and what I continue to hope were mere coffee stains. I lasted about five pages before deciding that John Galt was the libertarian equivalent of Jonathan Livingston Seagull..."

So, he read part of a section, with perhaps no concept of the story it was set within, and dismissed it without really examining it intellectually. Since it's one of the all-time best sellers, I guess his ADD was just more pronounced than millions who found it perfectly readable? But, this is exactly the mindset of many bashers, who just as I've seen here, dismiss something they can't even clearly explain. This blogger is apparently unaware that Rand didn't support Libertarianism.

But let's say it's an accurate quote, it deserves examining. *Did* the NA's have specific property boundaries? If one asked them to show *exactly* what their property boundaries are, could they have done so? Or was it more on the lines of they kind of occupied area sort of in some general vicinity unless of course they had a conflict with another tribe over who got to use a particular valley or the like? Did they understand the dimensions of the continents they lived on? If they don't have clear delineation of boundaries, why not claim the entire planet as their potential hunting grounds? That's assuming they grasped the concept that they lived on a planet.

So, you come across territory that's being disputed by warring tribes. They're killing each other over it. Okay, whose is it? None of this is to say that the way it played out shouldn't have been handled differently, but there are conceptual points of this alleged quote that aren't so easily dismissed.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many so-called "Native" Americans (maybe more accurately called Asian-Americans in honor of their even earlier roots?) would be all for living *exactly* as their ancestors did and likely still would be if not for European influence. Chasing buffalo, warring with other tribes, crapping in the woods, no modern health care, contact lenses, toothpaste or satellite TV. Critical problem during childbirth? Serious infection, colon cancer, etc? Tough, you die in agony. Just like I notice there doesn't seem to be a mass exodus of indignant black folks clamoring to live in Africa.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Europeans at the time of the settlement of America had similar issues as I remember it, in fact prior to smallpox and other epidemics there is evidence of better health etc. in native american populations. Europeans crapped in the woods, had no anaesthetics and as as far as I recollect had no satellite TV. Your last sentence ignores the context of history and is borderline racist. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "borderline racist"? It either is or it isn't. At any rate it's simply speculation on your part that you present as if fact, and doesn't address the question.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a question, just an ill informed set of assertions. I'll stick with "borderline" as an act of generosity. --Snowded TALK 12:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need your generosity, I'd be happy with less slant on your part. I pondered a specific point - would NA's today rather have a life birth to death exactly as their ancestors lived or be enjoying the benefits of Western thought? Note, I didn't say mass slaughter was a good idea, I didn't say there wasn't inhumane treatment, neither of which were new concepts to the NA tribes. Ever heard variations on the phrase "gonna kill 'ya Indian style?" No, Europeans didn't start laying fiberoptic cable as soon as they set foot on the soil, but they were certainly more technologically advanced than the NA's. They were on an intellectual path that the NA's weren't, as evidenced by their very presence.

It's also a fact that there isn't a massive movement by American blacks to move to Africa. Presumably because life here is more appealing than the third world, no matter how their ancestors got here. Speaking of historic context - sure, Africans were brought here as slaves. The context *you're* ignoring is what their lives would have been back across the pond. They would have been slaves, that is if they weren't killed outright in tribal warring. They were sold by fellow Africans. They'd been killing and enslaving each other long before white man showed up. So they were slaves in an advancing nation where their descendants would have opportunities unimaginable to those back in Africa living little removed from the stone age, where slaughter and strife is a fact of life to this day. Absolutely not a justification of slavery, but fact nonetheless. And you may have heard, not everyone in the US approved of slavery. In fact, they had a bit of a spat over it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Millions of Native Americans were killed by whites up through the end of the nineteenth century, and millions more perished due to European diseases. See Population history of American indigenous peoples#Genocide debate. In addition, the whites brought with them the scourge of alcoholism, and engaged in what can only be termed ethnic cleansing, herding Native Americans into "reservations" often with little to no consideration of the human cost. And you think Native Americans should be grateful to the whites for bringing them "civilization" when it killed 9/10 of their ancestors? Give me a break. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They may have brought alcohol, but you don't "bring alcholism". Anyway, your rant doesn't address the question that was posed.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So when the British smuggled opium into China they had no responsibility for drug abuse? --Snowded TALK 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of people around the world consider the genocide of the Native Americans to be horrifying. Fringe ethics and apologetics are meaningless on wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No question was posed, that I can see. I simply believe that Rand's statement is notable. Surely, if you feel that she is right, you should have no problem with it appearing in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to care about is whether the quote is accurate, or complete enough to give the full context. As user Steve demonstrated in the section below, it isn't. JazzFan was proven right in their prediction that your "documentation" would turn out to be baloney...once again. You've decided you want to paint Rand as a racist and you'll throw any crap on the wall you think might stick. I don't have a problem with Rand being examined honestly but you don't care about facts, you care about pushing a preconceived agenda - while not demonstrating even a baseline comprehension of her ideas. Any high school kid versed in Objectivism would eat you alive in a debate, that is if they could stop laughing long enough. At some point the moderator would probably be moved to say "Um, Mr. Gelotopoios, I'm sorry, perhaps it wasn't made clear to you that the debate today would be on Objectivism?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this quote might be found in "Ayn Rand Answers", edited by Robert Mayhew. Unfortunately there is no Google Books preview to confirm. According to Amazon it would be around page 103 or 104, though. Are there any editors here who own the book and could confirm it?

For a different source, try Jensen, Derrick (2005). Endgame: The Problem of Civilization. Seven Stories Press. p. 220. ISBN 158322730X. The included URL is to the page in Google Books. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

With all this indignation over how evil white American settlers were, show of hands of how many of you have signed over your property to a NA tribe? I mean, it's rightfully theirs, right?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as Senator S. I. Hayakawa put it, "We stole it, fair and square." -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I consider myself and Objectivist, but don't agree with how the native americans were treated. So much for my religious dedication to Rand. What about every war and land grab in history? I chock most of her comment up to the ignoirnce of that piece if history especially in that time. Real religions have been guilty of doing (rather than just commenting on) most of what people are so indignant about here. You folks want to fill up Rnad's artcile with every comment that yo think will make people hate her? Have at it. I see you and see your hypocrisy. You are exemplars of your philosophies. Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it on | Wikiquote... apparently someone there transcribed it from Ayn Rand Answers, edited by Robert Mayhew. If anyone has access to the book and would like to confirm it, I would greatly appreciate it. Here is the quote, in its entirety, without those oh-so-offensive ellipses:

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquerthis country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

Frankly I don't think this paints her in any better light. However it's a bit long to post to the article. I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions--as opposed to personal attacks. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism. This is not a forum for general discussion about t

Hmmmm....Ayn Rand hates Native Americans??? Her fiction and non-fiction must be irrelevant then. Let's just delete her from wikipedia lest the weak minded stumble across her. Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

68.125.217.117 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

An article about a person on the Wikipedia, regardless of his or her qualities, will naturally include material about that person's views, especially when they espouse political views. In addition the Native American issues casts an interesting light on her views on property and its protection by the State. So if someone says one thing in one context, but contradicts it in another then that is worthy of note and is not an ad hominem. Now if this was an article on the philosophy derived from Rand (called Objectivism) then pointing out contradictions in Rand's personal approach as an objection to objectivism would be ad hominem argument. In a biographical page about the author it isn't. I think you are somewhat confused as to the context here in your argument above. Hopefully this helps. --Snowded TALK 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Snowded, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship were using inuendo to paint Rand as a racist. Which is consistent with their remarks being uniformly negative about Rand. Then, and I'm referring to the Native American section above, Snowded goes so far as to call another editor a "borderline racist." When one reads the exchange they can see that there is no justification for that kind of character assasination. Again, I hope that ArbCom can look into this kind of editing. --Steve (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply provided a direct quote that I considered to be notable. Frankly it's not racism that bothers me about it, and I actually believe Rand when she says she is not a racist. What bothers me is the attempt to justify democide and ethnic cleansing, and I imagine that many readers would be interested to see that quote. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with direct quotes? OK they may or may not reflect well on the individual but they are a part of that person and much is made of the West Point speech. What we have here (yet again) is the question of balance and the tendency of a view editors to react with POV accusations when ever anyone takes a view that does not praise the subject. I think the interesting thing about the quote is the light it sheds on her views on property. The other's editor's comments speak for themselves and I am surprised that Steve wants to associate himself with them. --Snowded TALK 10:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon did NOT provide a direct quote. He provided a hacked up, inaccurate, out of context paraphase of an answer she gave during the question period at a lecture in 1974 and managed to butcher the heart of what she said. Her statement, which is too long for me to type, gives a different picture. She was asked, "When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during WW2, how can you have such a positive view of America?" She said, in part, "America is the country of individual rights. Should America have tolerated slavery? Certainly not." And she went on to describe the early compromises that failed to implement individual rights eventually led to the civil war, and she stated that as long as Americans held the concept of individual rights it was going to lead to the overthrow of slavery. Everything she was saying was addressing individual rights.

She said that she believed that most portrayals of the savage treatment of settlers by indians was not just Hollywood but fact. She stated that one should not believe that some people are entitled to something just because of their race. Most of her statement flowed from describing a country that believed in individual rights, whose settlers were being attacked by aggressors, who belonged to tribes that did not respect individual rights - and that rights are lost by aggression. She made a distinction that all individuals have rights, but a nation does not have rights, particularly if it does not respect any of its member's rights. I've condensed and paraphrased this to about 1/20th of its size. She was opposed to the relocation of the Japanese Americans and pointed out that this was FDR's call who she opposed as an enemy of free enterprise. All of this was from a speech given at West Point in 1974. The heart of what she was saying is that those who do not respect individual rights can not expect to have theirs respected. And out of that hacked up misquote, he painted her as a racist and an advocate of violating peoples rights, and the anti-Rand crew leaped aboard! --Steve (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And in all of that you show the many contradictions of the woman which should be reflected in the article. What is evident is that there has to be some oversight here of what does or does not constitute evidence. Your rejection of mediation has made that difficult and the failure to assume any good faith in your post here is why this article needs some type of intervention. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What I 'showed' was an inaccurate, harshly prejudicial, POV reference to Rand. What I showed was that some editors here are ready to declare Rand guilty of genocide and racism or to go along with those absurd claims. I haven't rejected the concept of mediation, as I've made clear. What I rejected was THAT mediation request - but you know that. Which is why your accusation of my lacking good faith is so wrong. When accusations are made that are wrong - there IS a failure of good faith, but it isn't mine. I look forward to intervention by a neutral party. --Steve (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that among those you're debating is at least one who's outright declared reason to be an improper "idol"?TheJazzFan (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still not quite grasping that concept. I was hoping that TallNapoleon would post his paper and I was sorry that he deleted it from your user talk page. I understand that in the paper he discusses his take on Rand, and that seems like it would be appropriate for us all to read - given our extensive debates here about her article. --Steve (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve - if you've seen the back & forth on my talk page you've seen the heart of what he has to say, such as it is. It's just more of the same. If you find the portions I quoted and what he has to say there (or elsewhere) to be illogical, fallacious, full of undefined terms, floating abstractions, factually wrong, demonstrative of fundamental non-comprehension of what he purports to be addressing, I doubt you'd feel any different seeing the entire text, just more tired. Ayn Rand held reason to be of primary importance. He says that's making an "idol" of reason, which he says is wrong. The only alternative is to state it *isn't* of primary importance, that there's something that trumps reason. Following reason per se - along with pursuing personal happiness (which he's decided subsumes murder and theft) and admiration of heroes (he calls it "idolizing" and makes no distinction between admiration based on values and blind obeisance to an insane, murderous dictator) - leads *inevitably* to slaughter. Noting that these three concepts are what he's decided defines Objectivism. Yup, that's what 'da man said. He believes what makes reasonable men happy is wanton bloodshed. How he "knows" this is anyone's guess - certainly not through reason whether viewed from his own code or observation of his methods. The only thing that's proper to "idolize" is God, though he states emphatically that religion has nothing whatever to do with his position. You'll notice that below he's carping about the "careless treatment" his (alleged) work received, ignoring that an effort was made to show it exactly as presented, to eliminate any question of context or content.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you're the one providing a paraphrase. If you have a full copy of the original quote, PLEASE, post it here. I should very much like to see it. Oh, and I may wind up posting the article on a blog or something, in which case I will link to it. However I would need to make changes to the format first, and I have no intention of releasing it under the GFDL. Considering the careless treatment it has thus far received and your demands that it be restored despite my objection as the author--demands which frankly smelled of harassment and personal vendetta--I have no intention of forwarding it to you whatsoever. And btw, my argument is not that reason is an idol but that Rand idolized it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Rand idolized reason per se. She claimed to idolize reason, but what she really idolized was the Ancient Greeks. In reading over her metaphysics, she does little more than spout 2400 year out-of-date Greek science as dogma. It's almost hilarious to see her repeat their mantras, blissfully unaware of the revolution in physics going on around her. Philosophy without science is usually flawed, and Rand was very inept at science. Indeed, she seemed to flat out mistrust science. Compounding the irony is that a man like Aristotle, were he alive to see the evidence, would have instantly dropped his erroneous way of thinking in favor of the triumphs presented to him by modern science. Rand lacked either the wit or the erudition to understand modern science. Oh no, I'm posting comments about Rand. Sorry. CABlankenship (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, I was just curious about what you wrote in your paper. You were arguing it so vehemetly, but now you've gotten all shy about showing your beliefs about Rand and about your theories. My paraphrase is true to the context - yours wasn't. I have the book and the section in question, which is an answer given at the microphone after a speech, and it's too long to type in, and it is probably too long to meet the fair use exceptions to the copyright law. That is why someone who understands Rand's context at this WestPoint speech and can follow the thread through to that answer could do a proper summary or paraphrase. The place you took it from is a web site of a rabid, self-annouced Rand hater. Weren't you even the slightest bit suspicious that he might have hacked it up till it was a lie? Get a copy at a library and you will have most of the context (her speech isn't in there, you have to get that elsewhere). --Steve (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually saw the exact same version of that quote reproduced all over the internet; I was in a rush so I didn't particularly check the exact source. The fountainhead, as it were, appears to be the book that Arglebargle posted. You have my apologies that I was unable to find an exact quote earlier. However, all appearances to the contrary, I do actually have a life, you know. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

george washington owned slaves, j edgar hoover was a transvestite, bill clinton ejaculated on an intern, hitler liked puppies, aristotle beat his wife (ok i'm guessing there). is the george washington page all about his rabid "damning" racism? is the j edgar hoover page all about his "damning" homosexuality? is bill clinton's page all about his "damning" hatred of woman? is hitler's page all about his love of animals? is aristotle, and all greek philosophy, "damned" because they mistreated woman?.............and you pro ayn rand people...she is a popular author with a small following in political/philosophical circles, she is not the greatest phillosopher of all times. get over it. both pro and con .68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)bruahcherry68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

and for you anti ayn rand people, she is a popular author with a small following in political/ philosophical circles. get over it.68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

One would expect the articles on Washington, Hoover (a transvestite? really? kind of makes sense) and Clinton to include those foibles, to provide a fair image. But in terms of damning... well there's a difference between owning slaves in an era when this was common, or having slightly unusual sexual proclivities, and standing up and in 1974 that the Native Americans had it coming. That's an important detail about her, in my opinion. Unfortunately it may also be an overly long detail about her, and I'll be the first to say that the article can't include everything. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Steve has rejected mediation, and every indication is that Kjaer would as well. That is most unfortunate. I now see no recourse other than ArbCom. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply following wikipedia policy would be a viable option. There was no consensus for the changes since Dec 31, the edits shoulkd be reverted. Referenced materials should be retained. The article should be made smaller by splitting it into sub artciles, rather than deleting material objected to by one faction. Very simple, orthodox, and easy, if there is no POV motive to radically rewrite the article. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to go to ArbCom. Kjaer, you are simply saying that there would be no problem if people agreed with you and that the rest of us have a POV motivation. Its that sort of statement which means it has to go to Arbcom given a refusal to accept mediation (which I just don't understand). FYI I have already raised an ANI hereon a related issue relating to Schools of Philosophy linked to the Steve and Kjaer and the same issues. It maybe that this was premature and ArbCom need to deal with all the Rand page issues. Ideally an admin or neutral party should draft the request. --Snowded TALK 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed all along that ArbCom was needed. Snowded you continually accuse Kjaer and me of a POV motivation for our edits - when it is you that have stated your dislike for Rand. There have been many, many others here who have opposed your consistent efforts to delete sourced material, to go against consensus, to make trouble with your accusations, and to abandon attempts to create a NPOV article. You run about trying to get people blocked for things you do, you run around trying to get admins to enforce your wishes. You are a smooth writer but you aren't directing your energies to making a better article, instead you appear to me to be trying to game the WP system. --Steve (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you live on another planet if you really believe all of that. At least you agree it should go to ArbCom. --Snowded TALK 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, perhaps a more honest planet? After all I just listed some simple and verifiable facts. --Steve (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New ArbCom request

I have made a new ArbCom request. I will serve the effected parties shortly, but, just in case, I'm also posting the link here. [10] Idag (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice for a neutral admin to help with this. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper place for expounding on Objectivism and criticisms

There might actually be too much about the details of Objectivism in this article as it is, when there are entire articles devoted specifically to Objectivism. It should certainly be made clear in this article that there IS an article on Objectivism.

If you believe there are errors in Ayn Rand's thoughts and you feel you're qualified to make definitive statements about them, the place to expound on them at length would be a blog, article, discussion forum, your own book etc., not in a biographical summary.

An article on Ayn Rand should factually touch on her life and works, an article on Objectivism should be a neutral, factual summation of the points of Objectivism as they're stated - she believed this, she proposed that, an institution devoted to her ideas exists etc. all of which is factual and verifiable. Even a controversy like the Kelley/ARI split is a verifiable event. Fine, include it.

I'm not convinced that it's proper to go into criticism - NOT - as some of you will no doubt jump up and down shrieking - because of some blind devotion but because of the difficulty of doing so in a balanced way and the utter enormity of the topic. An Encyclopedia entry isn't the place to promote an agenda in any direction. Stating certain facts about Ayn Rand's life and the facts of the content and history of Objectivism is relatively straightforward, demonstrating whose disagreement is worthy of including isn't. If someone doesn't know anything about Objectivism to begin with, how are they supposed to make heads or tails of criticisms of it? If someone IS versed in Objectivism, they're likely going to be aware it has its detractors. Debate with dissenters is just part of the milieu of Objectivism. Such debates are available for sale.

However, a problem with Wikipedia is this populist, liberal-leaning tendency that's woven into the fabric of its structure. It's said that "consensus" should be reached, even if some of those included in the process are FOS. Whatever handful of like-minded editors and an aligned administrator or two who happen to have the time to devote to their cause makes "consensus". How does including the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about due to some notion of "fairness" improve an article? If professionals who've devoted a large part of their lives to studying and supporting Ayn Rand and Objectivism can't reach a uniform consensus, I find it incredulous to suppose some motley assemblage of random users with wildly differing levels of knowledge, comprehension perhaps even sanity are going to do better. You think you're going to settle the issues here on Wikipedia, that it's going to be somehow regarded as definitive? Hardly.

To say "Ayn Rand said so-and-so" isn't taking a position on its validity. She did in fact say so-and-so. But to expound on criticisms of what she said is by default introducing the element of point of view. The argument might be made that certain criticism that's integral to the history of Objectivism has to be included - again such as the reasons for the Kelley/ARI split. It would be ridiculous to say there was a schism but not give some summary of why. But there are verifiable statements by both sides that explain why it happened.

It will likely forever engender acrimony from parties both qualified and unqualified to even comment on the subject, even among those supposedly on one particular "side". As mentioned, even among Objectivists there are disagreements. How do you propose to wade through all the factionalism when the warring parties are the ones making the edits? You might as well task PLO members and Israelis to come to a consensus on an article on the claim to the territory of Israel. Without even looking I can be sure there's endless debate in the discussion of Wikipedia articles on those topics as well.

I see there's actually an entire article devoted to criticism of Objectivism - yet oddly it doesn't seem to have the same raging debate that this one does.

My take is that the Rand bashers are incensed by the notion that anyone will take her works seriously and feel they have to get their licks in and see this particular article as a primary port of entry. They want it made clear that there are dissenters and see Wikipedia as a relatively accessible place to form their protest line, hoping to prevent anyone from actually going over to "the dark side". They don't want people to make up their own minds. No doubt what they REALLY want is to have every word she ever said deleted from existence and human memory. But a Wikipedia article isn't - or at least from what I understand isn't *supposed* to be a platform for an agenda.TheJazzFan (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognise the motivations that you attribute to those of us who want some balance in this article. I do agree with you that the discussion of objectivism per se should take place elsewhere and in practice it would make sense to merge the Ciriticisms article with the main one. However here on this article we need a balanced approach to a summary of a person, who in the US at least has been influential. That means it must not read like a fan site; at one point in this debate any criticism of Rand was subject to edits to "explain" the reasons for their criticism (too liberal, a catholic etc). In the majority of cases on Wikipedia consensus does work and citation and evidence have a common understanding. What has happened here is that there is no agreement on what constitutes evidence or weight and that needs third party intervention. Too much effort goes into attributing motives to people and not enough to the arguments and eliminating OR. Part of the problem (and this is a major one) is that very few people devote any time to studying Rand other than those who are supporters or advocates of her position. This produces a problem with citation and getting to a NPOV. From the perspective of a large part of the world she is a minor literary figure with a US political following. For others she is one of the leading thinkers of her age. When you get that polarisation you end up in ArbCom, just as in the articles on the Troubles in Ireland and elsewhere. My recommendation to you (as a fairly new editor with a clear political position) is to engage in that process. --Snowded TALK 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How new I might or might not be isn't particularly cogent to either my opinion of Ayn Rand or Wikipedia.

"I don't recognise the motivations that you attribute to those of us" Okay.

"very few people devote any time to studying Rand other than those who are supporters or advocates of her position." So you think that those who are ignorant of her works should be granted equal status in voicing an opinion on them to those who aren't?

You want "balance". What's unbalanced about factually stating what she's said or recounting events in her life? There's no "point of view" to it. It isn't synonymous with agreement or endorsement. The only valid disagreement in that case is if there's some question whether it's verifiable that she said it or what the source of a biographical anecdote is.

"From the perspective of a large part of the world she is a minor literary figure with a US political following. For others she is one of the leading thinkers of her age" None of which, nor what her influence is or isn't, has any bearing on whether she said what she said.

There's nothing TO balance. She said it or she didn't. She was married or she wasn't. By "balance" you mean exactly what I stated - you want to use it as a forum to voice opposition to her thoughts. You think she sucks, I agree with much of what she said. Neither has any bearing on whether she said it. Stick to verifiable facts and you eliminate all point of view. Debate the merits of her philosophy elsewhere.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to verifiable facts is what most of us have been trying to do. Please STOP attributing motivations. If you want to know I consider Rand as a very minor figure who does not really need active opposition. I do monitor several sites (and this is one) which are in danger of becoming fan sites. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Please STOP attributing motivations" You mean like insisting I'm an "...editor with a clear political position..."? I'm not even going to get into the accuracy of your use of "political", but you're being hypocritical.

I have a misunderstanding of your motivation? Okay, why are you even here? To voice your boundless enthusiastic agreement with her philosophy? No, you like others are here because you want to voice opposition to her philosophy. You'd like to cloak it with the spongy term "balance", but what it really means is opposition. The question is, is this the proper forum to do so? Nope.

"Sticking to verifiable facts is what most of us have been trying to do" That someone says they disagree may be a fact, but the problem with citing criticisms is who's to say which - if any - are even valid? It's easy to find critiques of her that reflect little or no real comprehension. I guarantee if you put "Ayn Rand" into a search engine you'll find an endless ocean of bashers. But then you get into a whole sub-debate on that. They're right, no they're not. It's all dependent on making a value judgement regarding her philosophy and this isn't the place for it. TheJazzFan (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a whole set of procedures to handle issues of balance etc. It's also not uncommon for advocates of a person or an idea to insist that they are the experts and others should stay out of things. Its not how WIkipedia works. If you make a claim then anyone can check the citation, see if it supports the statement or if that statement is OR. There is a body of this stuff that you can find on the help area if you want to see how its done. This page is as you say not a place to make a value judgement about her "philosophy" but it is a place to provide a balanced report on what third party sources say about that "philosophy" including relevant facts, with due weight as to if she is considered a philosopher or not, based on third party sources. Any opinion by you or me or anyone else is OR and should not be there. I do suggest (as you are new to WIkipedia) that you spend some time in the various help pages. There is a lot of useful material there. --Snowded TALK 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you parse and dance you can't get around that the very act of choosing a criticism to cite involves making a value judgement regarding the subject. Factually citing what the subject of the article has said does not. You're still not being forthcoming about your motivations.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not parsing or dancing, just trying to be helpful. The advise stands on reading up on WIkipedia stands but that ball is in your court. --Snowded TALK 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud TheJazzFan for what I believe to be a very accurate and well stated exposition of the current situation and its roots. (Snowded's snide comment about him being a 'new' editor carries no weight, since it is the quality of his edits, his comments, and his intent to create a good article that matters - and from what I've seen, I hope TheJazzFan stays around.) I hope that the ArbCom underway at this time, examines TheJazzFan's comments in this section as a part of the review. Again and again I see people talking about 'balance' but meaning an agenda based criticism. I see people loudly proclaiming this or that Wikipedia policy when what they are doing is hiding an intent to edit from a personal agenda. More than anything I'd love to see a truely neutral admin block all zealot-editors (both those who edit like Rand cultists, and those who edit as Rand-haters) from ever editing on Objectivist related articles. There is no problem with having people who disagree with most of Rand's positions, or people who agree with most of her positions, working as editors - when they don't have an agenda to distort facts and to game the Wikipedia policies to do so. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, not something to be manipulated into a propaganda organ for or against some ideology. --Steve (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know the really scary thing about this? I think you are being genuine in what you say. --Snowded TALK 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing alert

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And? So what? I believe it's referred to as the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" (whether they know wth they're talking about or not). Do you feel that should only mean those who stumble in randomly? Apparently you have a problem with people who actually know something about Objectivism offering input? The title of the section should be - Rand-Bashers to your battle stations!! The evil minions of the wicked, terrible, awful, nasty she-novelist are going to attempt to participate and we who feel righteous indignation regarding her must do all in our power to repel them!! Yeah, no agenda there. Jeezus.TheJazzFan (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its why I politely suggested on another page that as a new editor you should spend some time on understanding the way WIkipedia works. That would have brought you to WP:CANVAS. --Snowded TALK 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what WP:CRAPTASTICNONSENSE says. You think it's proper or even possible to try and police how people communicate outside of Wikipedia regarding Wikipedia? How would you even know who saw what on what blog, website, Google group, e-mailing, magazine article, TV show, lecture, etc.? Why don't you propose that to participate on Wikipedia one must have a real-time feed of all their internet activity going to a Big-Brother-WikiBrain which will decide whether they chose to participate in an article because of "unacceptable" motivation? And again, all this paranoia would be a moot point if the article were limited to factual statements unrelated to any critique of the topic of the article. TheJazzFan (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty blantant attempt at WP:Meatpuppetry. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And low and behold we have a clear link between the canvassing and one of the more aggressive editors on this page. Kjaer is Ted Keer and here we see see multiple examples of Ted Kerr canvassing for people to come in on his side. --Snowded TALK 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay guy, you sit right there and keep track of the invaders. Nighty night. (pat you on the head)TheJazzFan (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You join a community you follow the rules, simple really and Kjaer/Keer's actions are in breech of WP:Meatpuppet. Lay of the Secret Police accusations by the way; I'll follow WP:Bite in the hope that you will follow WP:Civil --Snowded TALK 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You never did answer JF's question whether you think it's possible to enforce or right-minded to begin with. In fact, I've noticed you dodge a lot of good questions that are posed to you. What do you think would happen if the same kind of thinking were applied to political elections, trying to tell Asians in some state they can't vote because they were urged to by campaign workers? I realize a presidential election isn't nearly as important as some pissing contest on Wikipedia but hey. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever failed to answer a coherent question and in the main I avoid rhetorical ones. Now this is not the place to discuss it but there is a case for compulsory voting and banning opinion polls and canvassing in national elections. However that really is not the point. A community has its rules and if you don't like them you either (i) seek to change them (ii) leave (iii) rebel and take the consequences. If you do the later you should at least have the honesty to tell people which Kjaer did not. This community has decided that meat and sock puppets are a bad idea. It also opposes polls in favour of consensus and generally takes an emergent approach to meaning and agreement. I am happy with those rules and abide by them. If there was a movement for change I might consider my position. --Snowded TALK 18:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty flagrant meatpuppetry, and absolutely calls into questions the results of the RFC. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

If you're comments are unrelated to the contents of this article, please take them elsewhere. This is not an Admin noticeboard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about such things (noticeboards). I just wanted to do the right thing when I spotted the canvassing. --Turnsmoney (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it should also be posted at WP:ANI I would say that it was probably appropriate to post it here as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I placed it on ANI, but Turnsmoney is entitled to post it on the talk pages so other editors are aware. Given that it turns out Kjaer is the person doing the canvassing it is relevant. --Snowded TALK 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Result

So with all these self-important committees, arbitration this, policy that, concerns over (so-called) "balance" and consensus - (yeah just how much unsubstantiated b.s should be mixed in just to be "fair" and inclusive?), trying to police the entire web to make sure people aren't talking to each other about an article - this whole glorious process has resulted in - a locked-up article that no one can edit until "disputes have been resolved".

Uh huh.

You know when the controversy over Ayn Rand is going to end? Never. It didn't happen within her lifetime, the broad's been dead 27 years and the battle rages on. Not gonna happen within the lifetime of anyone reading this. The Klan will dedicate themselves to preserving the legacy of MLK first. If mankind finds another place to live and a way to get there before the Sun goes red giant and fries the planet, I guarantee Earth's refugees will be debating at least two things on their voyage - Digital -vs- LP's & Objectivism.

As long as this forum is available it's going to keep going through these paroxysms over essentially the same issues - with endless time wasted on meaningless arbitrations that aren't going to resolve anything when virtually all of it could be bypassed by following suggestions already made.

Or keep doing it the way it's being done.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated, but please try to keep your posts constructive and relevant to edits that need to be made on this article. See WP:Soap and WP:Talk. If you would like to discuss behavior issues, there's room to comment on the ArbCom case, there's no need to do it here. Idag (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you don't grasp that my comments are precisely about editing the article. I understand, I've gone outside the parameters of your programming.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Dark One's right, and what's unfortunate is that no one seems to be content with an article that really seems quite fine (upon skimming, at least). Perhaps it's the bickering on this talk page that is the problem. I suggest keeping to the basic principle of this project: that acclaims and criticisms of Rand cannot be chosen at whim; both need to be well developed throughout the surveys of Rand and her work. And there are many well-developed themes. (For example, does her quote about Native Americans, discussed above, meet that standard? No.) Build theses from the literature and spend less time debating whether so-and-so's scathing critique or glowing appraisal of Rand is worth mentioning. Neither Rand (by direct quote) nor the editors here inform what is proper to include in the article; the secondary sources do. –Outriggr § 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be helpful advice, Outriggr, but the problem is that no one is making any glowing appraisal of Rand. Unless you thinbk to call her what hundreds of reliable sources call her, a novelist and philosopher, is glowing praise. The dispute we have here is not between a faction that wants to praise Rand, and one that wants to damn her, but between one that has decided, since she's evil, her article needs to be censored, bawdlerized and rewritten, and a faction of experts who want the article to be helpful, factual, and inclusive. Look at the last month of incredibly unuseful talk. Look at the section in archive 16 or 17 entitled "propoganda pa[g]e." You will see hundreds of remarks about how Rand is not so good, and how this article needs to be cut down to size (avainst wp policy of splitting larve articles) and how we have to let people know how evil Rand really was. Look at the notable section on Rand's very notable opinion on homosexualty (the subject of books, chapters of books and academic papers) - not flattering - that was removed by editors who simply don't like anything Rand, and who then engaged in an OR POV orgy about a fictional quote of Rand on that most notable of subjects, her opinion of the nature of political rights and the more primitive of Indian societies.

What we have here is not a dispute between those who want to glorify Rand and those who want to damn her, but between those who want to tell as much as is helpful, and those who want to tell only what reflects their own personal negative POV.

That POV groups is in the minority. There has been no consensus in their favor. And you are right in the end. We do not need arbitration, we simply need adherance to wp policy. Kjaer (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the above comment, Outriggr, the problem with secondary sources for some of the topics in this article is that there aren't any. For better or worse, Rand has never caught on to mainstream academia, which means there aren't a lot of papers/books written about some parts of her life and some of her views. This has resulted in big parts of this article relying on questionable sources. Its a thorny issue and hopefully the arbitration will allow us to make some headway on it (or at least develop a process to make some headway on it). Idag (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the quote posted was NOT fictional. Furthermore I *repeatedly* asked anyone who might have access to the full quote in context to post it, until I finally found a transcription on WikiQuote, whose accuracy I would still like to see confirmed. Personally, though, I believe that the abridged version of the quote is true to the spirit of her arguments. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I said before, I'll say it again. I have the book. The statement is too long to post. And you don't have to believe me, but that misquote does NOT represent the spirit of her statement. You can go ahead and believe otherwise - without any proof whatsoever. If you want, you can believe a burning bush told you it is true. That is all up to you. However, most people would NOT declare that it is accurate until they had checked for themselves (do you live in area without any libraries? They can order books they don't have.) You mention that you "*repeatedly* asked anyone" for verification - I responded, no one else did - and that is your idea of validation? Most people wouldn't be making outrageous comments about things as serious as genocide on the basis of unvalidated, dubious information. But that is me. I guess you have different standards. --Steve (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where it might belong is in a debate or discussion in a different forum where you could properly examine the larger picture of her thoughts on property rights, it doesn't belong in a biographical article period any more than large quotes from her radio programs or a transcript of her Mike Wallace interview. What might belong in the Objectivism article is a summary of her thoughts on property rights. In the context of this article this particular quote would serve only as bloat clumsily shoehorned in for the sole purpose of serving an agenda. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to | this, Steve, when I was asking for validation. Evidently you missed it. You have the book. That appears to be the full quote, with adequate context. Is it accurate? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a philosopher?

I'm just finding this page for the first time, and noticed the revert war over calling her a "philosopher". I'm curious what motivated this. I've read some of her non-fiction, and find it quite similar (in subject-matter and analysis) to the writings of Aristotle, Locke, Price, Paine, Reid, etc. Are these people philosophers? I understand that that is OR on my part to make that connection, but it would also seem that these books and these journal articles have got it all wrong...? She likewise takes up a large chunk of the book Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond, for example. There are also her television appearances over the decades, Mike Wallace, Donahue, Tom Snyder, etc (that's just what I could find on YouTube), where she is popularly considered a "philosopher". Until these can be discounted as unreliable, I don't see any evidence that is not simply original research. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 13:56Z

What started it? Ironically, some folks who unlike her believe reason isn't an absolute have reasoned that she absolutely isn't a philosopher in defiance of facts and find it unreasonable to call her one.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Phil Donahue introduced her as a philosopher. Debate over. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't personally consider her a philosopher (I think she is more of a life-style guru), she did make humorous attempts to take on Kant and Hume; she is called a philosopher by many sources; she attempts to make use of philosophy as the grounding basis for her life-style doctrines and dogmas. Furthermore, one definition of philosopher is: "a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc."<Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.> For these reasons, I remain of the opinion that she can fairly be called a "philosopher". As could L.Ron Hubbard, for that matter. Or Farrakhan, for example. CABlankenship (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion. While you certainly are entitled to your own opinions of Rand, the measure of whether a statement should be included in Wikipedia is whether it is used in reliable sources. So those sources that I linked to are either reliable or we need to show that they're not. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 16:23Z

Amused at the conceptual disconnect between CAB's not considering her a philosopher but then declaring she can be fairly called a philosopher. He demonstrates that his denial is strictly about acrimony not intellectual evaluation. Oh wait, I already knew that.TheJazzFan (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "philosopher" has many definitions, and means many different things to people all over the world. Another example would be that I don't personally consider Rand a "liberal", even though she could fairly be called by such a term. There is no contradiction, merely a realization that my opinion is not an objective truth, and that there is room for fair disagreement. In other words, I don't think you're necessarily wrong to consider her a philosopher. It just so happens that I wouldn't personally use that term to describe her. CABlankenship (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course the world's just a big bag of floating abstractions, ain't it. What Ayn Rand said and wrote is fixed, it doesn't change. What you and other are trying to do is claim she's not a philosopher not by anything as courageous as asserting a definition, but by a sniveling act of avoidance - apparently insisting that "a philosopher is whatever Ayn Rand isn't". As "substantiation" you can only offer another non-assertions - a tallying of those who haven't said she's a philosopher, still avoiding taking any responsibility for being held to a standard.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the debate its also about her prime identity. In a sense all novelists are philosophers in some sense of the word. We have made reference to several taught on philosophy courses around the world whose pages do not use the term. The compromise suggestion was to give her a primary designation as author and screen writer and state that she founded a philosophical movement known as objectivism. That avoided the prior position of footnote qualifications. --Snowded TALK 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The debate is NOT about her "prime" identity - that, I believe is just Snowded's insertion. Here is the essence of the debate: Some people here do not accept any of the many, many valid sources that can (and have been) cited that show her to be a philosopher as well as a novelist and screenwriter. --Steve (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. Idag (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Absence is not evidence, though. If reliable sources go into detail about why they think she is not a philosopher, then that should be discussed in the article, but if she is popularly considered a philosopher, as my original post shows, then she should be considered a philosopher in the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 16:23Z
    • Actually, her exclusion from notable comprehensive reference works of philosophers is evidence. Obviously they're not going to put in a detailed analysis for why they excluded the people that they excluded and to ask for one would be to request proof of a negative, which is impossible. If the majority of sources called her a philosopher, I would have no problem calling her as such on this article, but that is not the case. Idag (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
      • If they have not stated the reasons for excluding her from their directories, we cannot presume to know what those reasons were. Books, for example, may exclude due to space limitations. Websites may exclude due to lack of a writer knowledgeable on Rand on their staff. Or maybe they just haven't come across her. Absence of content is not an argument, as I said. And again, if there is a reliable source that argues that she is not a philosopher, they should be included, but if popular media calls her a philosopher, she should be considered such in the article. It is original research to make the connection that you have made, namely, "she is not a philosopher because sources X, Y, Z don't list her as a philosopher". If a reliable source makes that claim, however, we can include it in the article. It would read something like this: "Writer John Smith contends in his book History of Philosophy that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, because she doesn't appear in the directories of philosophy X, Y, Z." — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:01Z

And the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy does not mention her at all. Proving a negative is difficult although there is cited material that at least one notable libertarian philosopher while agreeing with her politics dismissed her "philosophy". Within a US context she has more prominence. I haven't had an opportunity to check the Stamford lists an entry for Rand, but none for Objectivism. I haven't manage to get access to that yet to check what it says but it may constitute evidence and needs to be checked. The fact they don't list objectivism itself is significant. If she was a philosopher of any note, then you would expect all major international dictionaries to list her. There is no question that she is an author (although again outside the US she does not appear in directories even of American Literature) and that is the primary claim. Also you need third parties, papers from "inside the movement" can result in undue weight. I still think the compromise of her creating a philosophical movement is supportable and does not require qualification. listed her as a philosopher when large parts of the world do not recognise as such would . --Snowded TALK 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dismissing her philosophy is an acknowledgment that it is a philosophy, no? (Unless he dismissed it as not being a philosophy.) — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:01Z

(1) he didn't call it a philosophy when he dismissed it (it was more akin to a dismissal of an argument); and (2) he was one of, at best, a handful of major philosophers to acknowledge that Rand even exists. Idag (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so then it's not even relevant to this discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:14Z

I understand your position, and yes it makes sense. Maybe we'll see compromise here, but I doubt it. I don't think it's a big deal. Far more important, in my opinion, is elaborating on her ideas, life, and what she said. For instance, she claimed that Kant was "the most evil man in mankind's history." She blamed him for Hitler, Stalin, and all of the crimes of the 20th century. She claimed that without Kant, the philosophical climate would not have permitted such acts. This is crackers, as I'm sure we all believe, but it's this type of interesting fact that I think deserves attention. It's fascinating stuff that the casual reader would find interesting. CABlankenship (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe she blamed Kant for Hitler, Stalin. Those guys did their own things and are to blame for their own actions. Kant, according to her, simply opened them up to that line of reasoning. You'll need to provide some quotes for what you call "crackers" - I haven't seen it suggested that "without Kant", things would be peachy. What you may be doing is taking her words out of context, and setting up a straw man that, while being convenient to attack, is ultimately counterproductive to our discussion. It's one thing to say that parallels can be drawn between Kant's philosophy and the opinions of Marx, Hitler, Stalin, but quite a different thing to say that Kant directly caused them (which assumes those individuals have no free will of their own), and that "therefore" without Kant we would not have had them. I need to see quotes in context to back up your statements. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 16:23Z

Leonard Peikoff agrees with my analysis. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv I can find other sources also. Peikoff says that:

In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history.” [...] She held that Kant was morally much worse than any killer, including Lenin and Stalin (under whom her own family died), because it was Kant who unleashed not only Lenin and Stalin, but also Hitler and Mao and all the other disasters of our disastrous age. Without the philosophic climate Kant and his intellectual followers created, none of these disasters could have occurred; given that climate, none could have been averted.

Isn't Peikoff the "intellectual heir" and "foremost authority" on Rand? I do not believe that I'm using Rand "out of context" or that I am introducing straw men. I believe this is accurate. CABlankenship (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the difference: you first stated that Kant caused Hitler. Now in your quote from Piekoff, it is apparent what was meant is that Hitler's opinions were so readily absorbed by the public because of an intellectual climate that can be traced to Kant. Do you see the difference between these two things? Also, given that this is the article on Rand, not the article on Piekoff, I would prefer actual quotes from Rand, and not simply from her "intellectual heir", who has his own opinions. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:08Z

"Do you see the difference between these two things?" Does he comprehend? I'll take that one - no.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just stating a fact.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(why are you using * by the way not :? its confusing). We are meant to use third party sources rather than summarise her which means Pelkoff's views are relevant. --Snowded TALK 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

After years of experience, I've come to favor bullets for replies. For example, the quote above could be confused for a reply. I did not say Piekoff wasn't relevant, just that direct quotes from her are preferable. Please reread my post. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:24Z

Ah (on the * I see but I still find it confusing). I agree that direct quotes are appropriate (and I had read that). My point was that we are really meant to source from third parties and here we have a generic problem on the whole article in that independent ones are notable by their absence. --Snowded TALK 17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have shown you a source (well-respected by Objectivists) that makes exactly the same claim that I made, which you denied. As you say, original research is not allowed, so we should defer to the published expert on Rand, not our own interpretations. So from that, we can say that Peikoff believes that a proper interpretation of Rand is that she believed without Kant's philosophy, there would not have been a holocaust, mass murders by Stalin and Mao (how did Kant influence Mao and China?), and so forth. I think this is crackers, as I said. But that doesn't matter. The point is to reference and source expert interpretations, is it not? We can obfuscate. We can set up straw men, as you did when you attempted to draw me into a semantics debate on the word "caused". Note that nowhere in my original post did I mention the word "caused" as you claimed. We can say that "what she really meant was..." and so forth, but she still had some fantastical notion that Kant's philosophy was in some large way responsible for the horrors of the 20th century. This is an eye-brow raising and interesting fact. CABlankenship (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You make two claims, but only cite a source for one of them. You claim she said Kant is to blame for Hitler and Hitler's actions. You claim she said Kant caused an intellectual climate that was acceptable to Hitler. I've seen no evidence to support your first claim, and the ambiguity of your quoted source does not help - ie, what is meant by "unleashed"? — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 17:54Z

I consider this to be unreasonable semantics, but I acquiesce from the word "blamed". It's not important. Just out of curiosity, do you think she was wrong on this score? CABlankenship (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not nit-picking on my part, but the ambiguity of the word "unleashed". That word could be used to justify any variety of opinions on what she meant, so the quote should be avoided as a reference. As for my opinion - I don't know enough about Kant or the history of world culture to say for certain if I can trace a connection between the two. Hitler is responsible for his own actions, as are anyone else who was involved with his campaign. It is certainly true that, for example, the selflessness/charity preached by Jesus and his followers has had a huge effect on the acceptability of certain philosophies to the public, so I think it is certainly possible that Kant could have had a similar effect on society. Everyone is still accountable for their own actions, though. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:11Z

So you think it's possible that she was correct in calling Kant the most evil person in history, worse than Stalin and Hitler? CABlankenship (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say that? Were we even talking about that??? — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:14Z

(In response to comment before change by Brian) What do you think she meant? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kant...to Rand, Kant is easily the most "evil". I think she meant that Kant was "worse than any killer" because he "denied reality", thus — in the deranged opinion of Rand — somehow made "possible and necessary all the atrocities of our age." I'm frankly astonished that you even hold this out as a possibility. CABlankenship (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this from... It's certainly true that Jesus' teachings paved the way for the Crusades. All that says is that ideas influence people. It's likewise possible that Kant's ideas influenced people to the point that Hitler's opinions were more acceptable to them. Regarding what is most "evil", if violation of individual rights is the standard, then Hitler is definitely the more evil. I don't know what Rand meant by "evil", and there are at least 10 definitions for the word in the dictionary. Again, you're wallowing in ambiguity. Unless you can determine exactly what was meant by words like "unleashed" and "evil", this is all an exercise in futility. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 18:37Z

Agreed. Still, the part on Rand vs Kant should elaborate on her extreme position. CABlankenship (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree provided that it is more specific than we have been so far. We should avoid ambiguity at all costs in an article. If her opinion is only extreme when taken out of context, or it is not clear what the context of her opinion is, then it only degrades the article to include it at all. We should instead stick to explaining why exactly she disagreed with Kant, and how she believes Kant's views spread and influenced society. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 19:15Z

By the way, I wasn't agreeing in any way to the idea that it's plausible that Kant's philosophy had anything to do with the holocaust or other 20th century atrocities. I think it's quite a mad idea, actually. I was agreeing with you that we should avoid ambiguity. I think that it's relevant that she said crazy things about Kant. For instance, Ben Stein recently made a film suggesting that Darwin paved the way for Hitler. Rand's accusation seems similar as regards Kant. Unless you just don't take Rand seriously at all, or think that she was being a joker, I think her astonishingly extreme language in attacking Kant should be discussed. Very rarely do we see such a thing between academics or philosophers. CABlankenship (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In that respect, it is best if we defer to a third party analysis of the veracity of her claims. Continuing to call her opinions "crackers" on the article talk page distracts from the discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 19:27Z

Yes, my quandary is in how to introduce such a matter. In this sense, I am introducing something into consideration for inclusion on the grounds that it seems crackers. So I think in this case, it was relevant for me to include why I thought it noteworthy. I did specifically ask for your opinion on the matter, and should have done that on your talk page. But you see, her mental condition is one of the factors we're discussing. For instance, one of her closest followers, the psychotherapist Allan Blumenthal, says that she suffered from "several personality disorders". Similar things are heard from other sources, including Rothbard, Branden, and so forth. Maybe there is a more gentle way to introduce this for discussion, and in such a way as to not offend her fans, but this can be difficult. Regardless, just as with a figure like Nietzsche, their relative sanity and mental conditions are relevant to a page about them. CABlankenship (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Such content would be relevant under a "Personal life" section, but certainly not under a "writings", "philosophy", or "Objectivism" section. The soundness of her arguments is not dependent upon her personality. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-01-22 21:35Z

Well a broader section on her philosophical views would make sense but we really need third party plus some quotes and we are then back to the problem of the limited number of sources and nearly all the philosophy ones coming from Rand related institutions or Rand type instituted funded seminars or research fellowships. Outside of the US you see nothing really, well maybe a funded seminar at Warwick University but that is nothing. No one denies she created a philosophical position which some people have taken up almost exclusively in the US. But that is not the point. --Snowded TALK 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I despise the works of Rand but to argue she is not a philosopher is arrogance. That she may be considered laughable by the academic community is irrelevant. What is accepted in the academic community is NOT the standard. I will prove this. I can state that Kenny G is not a musician. I dare anyone to find an academic that takes him seriously as one. Ergo, he is not a musician on WP? That Ayn Rand is known POPULARLY as a philosopher is enough. Almost anyone with any awareness of Ayn Rand knows that she is considered to be a novelist and philosopher, however untalented and misguided. If a million hacks consider someone a philosopher then that is what they deserve to be called in an encyclopedia. Let the academic world take care of its own. Stevewunder (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you Steve(wunder). However I would be happy with a compromise saying she created a philosophical system. That's what Britannica does, and it gets us around the controversy. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no real controversy. There are some people who hate Rand and want to diminsh her. Anyone who accepts valid sources for material doesn't even question that she is a philosopher. She has journal articles written about her philosophical works. She is called a philosopher by some encyclopedias (and only one is enough). As to the Britannica... If someone is the creator of a philosophy, they are a philosopher. If that philosophy spawns a movement that results in the sales of hundreds of thousands of books, and they are mentioned in philosophy text books as a philosopher... they are a philosopher. When professors of philosophy write scholarly books on her philosophy, she is a philosopher. When the professor emeritus of the department of philosophy, in a major school like Univ. of Calif. Berkley says in an article on Epistemology, that, though he disagrees with some of her position on universals, he considers her work worthy of study, she is a philosopher. Those who keep arguing against this position, after seeing these sources, prove they only want to edit from a negative POV. --Steve (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism section should mention that many academics do not consider Rand a philosopher. That way we cover different external POVs and remain N here. But to not call her a philosopher in the beginning and mention later that many consider her a philosopher would be awkward. It is not relevant that she is not an IMPORTANT philosopher. She is not an important novelist either. Stevewunder (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But if we must compromise here is my olive branch: if she isn't called a philosopher, she shouldn't be called a novelist either, because she does not write proper novels, but novelistic propaganda. Stevewunder (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I've seen her referred to as "novelist-philosopher" or "writer-philosopher" in a few places. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Stevewunder, and its a brave wo/man who enters a controversial page on only their second day as an editor! We had a position which qualified all mention of her being a philosopher with a note to the effect that she was not so considered by the bulk of academic philosophy and it was OK but clumsy. Remember we are talking about two entries here, the info box and the lede. The compromise solution as t recognise that she was an author and script writer who founded and/or was the inspiration for a philosophical movement. This followed another encyclopaedia which means we are using a third party source. I don't think you can say she is not an important novelist by the way, but the quality of any philosophy that she produced was dismissed even by fellow libertarians (recognised as philosophers). SteveWolfer (we cant just say Steve any more or even SteveW!) has previously produced a long list of philosophers who he says endorse his point of view, without telling us exactly how. I checked a couple and they has simply turned up at a seminar sponsored by a Rand institution of some type. --Snowded TALK 09:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just don't see how, by the same standard, she can be considered a novelist. I don't think you will find many in the academic community who take any of her novels seriously. And I don't think an encyclopedia makes a good source for another encyclopedia, otherwise what is the point here? If Rand considers herself a philosopher and novelist and her millions of fans do the same, then she deserves to be called that -- then we can sling all the mud we want at her in the Criticism section. I think that is a NPOV, even if it is only my second day as an editor! Stevewunder (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:CITE to get a sense of what is involved here. Our opinion of her as a novelist does not really matter. Slinging mud would be entirely inappropriate. Personally I rate her less than Dan Brown but that is irrelevant and a quick check around a cocktail party in Connecticut last night revealed that most people had read Atlas (and in many cases enjoyed it) as adolescents but could not imagine an adult taking her seriously. None of those statements would be appropriate for the article unless they were made by a notable critic and published (even then they would be questionable.

That she is a novelist can be established by citation and book sales. The question of her being a Philosopher however is more problematic, especially given the way that word is used. She is simply not mentioned in the vast bulk of the literature. If you then eliminate Rand Institute funded positions and seminars (which I think you have to) there is precious little left. Its also difficult to know how many fans of her as a novelist are even aware that there are people who consider her a philosopher (a minority group even within US Libertarians). Other Encyclopaedias can provide guidence, as can other articles in the WIkipedia. So given her primacy as a novelist, we need to look to other novelists with a philosophical bent to see how they are treated and I haven't found one yet who is designated as a philosopher. Hence the compromise to say that her ideas founded a philosophical position called Objectivism by its adherents. I can also imagine by the way (In response to the other Steve) even a Professor of Philosophy suggesting that her novels be read in connection with understanding political extremism of various types. When I read Philosophy back in the 70's we were encouraged in Ethics and Political Philosophy to read all manner of material which did not originate from Philosophers. In fact that reflection is part of the philosophical process. --Snowded TALK 12:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi ya'll. Why is it so important to have 'philosopher' in the Infobox? Isn't mostly everybody, philosophical? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are using the word "novel" in the loosest sense, considering a novel as simply a work of fiction. In a narrower sense her didactic fictions are outside the tradition of the Western novel, just as her philosophical non-fiction may be outside the tradition of Western philosophy. She is not listed as a novelist in the vast chunk of literature having to do with literature. Try to find a citation of Atlas Shrugged by a respected literature professor! I don't see why the title Philosopher here has to have a capital P, while the title novelist gets thrown in the shit bucket. If book sales of her fictions have meaning, then book sales of her philosophical non-fiction should have meaning as well. My argument is that it is obvious that she is popularly considered to be a Novelist and Philosopher -- there are many citations of both (however lowbrow)-- and that not referring to her by what she is popularly considered to be is not a NPOV. What the academic field thinks doesn't matter on these labels, otherwise we shouldn't call her a novelist either. A hundred years ago we could have been having this argument over whether Nietzsche should be considered a Philosopher.

Other persons on Wikipedia called Philosophers include: Karl Marx, Alan Watts, Robert Anton Wilson, and Kahlil Gibran. Stevewunder (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I do agree it should be OK to simply say "writer" in the info box, as it currently does. Stevewunder (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An aside: Rand has a huge following among many Wall Street execs who fancy themselves heroes out of Rand's novels. These people take her seriously to a degree that is scary. They name their children after Rand characters, etc. They will quote her constantly in their own rhetoric. If you make the mistake of suggesting to one of these (highly educated) people that Rand is not a philosopher, the response is like that of a Muslim who has seen a cartoon of Allah. I realize that this alone does not qualify her as a philosopher, I merely point it out as an example of how many people take seriously the notion she is a Philosopher, albeit outside the academic world. It is representative of popular culture. I think thus her status as philosopher is analogous to Kahlil Gibran or Alan Watts, neither of whom are philosophers in the Western tradition. Stevewunder (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about all those Rush lyrics? Don't they mean something? Stevewunder (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources show Rand as philosopher

In an earlier post, Snowded said, "Proving a negative is difficult," rather than impossible - that is an interesting philosophical position. In his quest to prove a negative, he has to first throw out all valid cites that get in the way, since they would constitute positives that show the contrary - that she is in fact a philosopher. But he has original research to explain to us why this or that publication did not write whatever they did not write. And he keeps pointed out reasons why those who did write that she was a philosopher must be ignored. Then, he expands his proof of a negative argument to tell us about Rand's popularity that doesn't exist outside of the US (I await the argument that she isn't popular outside of this galaxy). After that he launches into his original research on otherwise notable sources not being notable because they are "inside the movement" - as he puts it. As if someone who dedicated a significant portion of his or her professional life to a study of Aristotle is not a valid source - because of that dedication. And if that scholar accepted a grant given by an institute funded to study Aristotle, then that scholar would be doubly disqualified. Here is just a tiny bit of evidence that she is of influence around the world:

• Rand's nonfiction, technical work on epistemology, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," has been translated into the following languages: German, French, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Welsh. In the UK this book ranks 260,108th in the UK in sales by Amazon.uk (that doesn't sound like much, but it puts it ahead of the other million or so titles available).
• Also in the UK, Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness' was ranked #39 in the sale of philosophy Books in their automated, hourly update - that beat out "On Certainty" by Wittgenstein, E. O, Wilson's "Consilience, "The Contruction of Social Reality," by Searle, and Kant's "Critique of Judgement (Oxford World Classics)."
• At the moment I checked, Amazon.com's hourly update of most popular books shows this 52 year old novel that puts forth a philosophy outselling all but 77 of the millions of books available. [11].
• In most popular items in classics in the united states (updated hourly) it rated number 1.[12].
• In most popular items in Classics (all countries, updated hourly) it rated number 1. [13]
• In most popular items in all of literature and fiction (all countries, updated hourly) it rated #17.
• In most popular items in 20th century, UK, updated hourly, it is #63.[14]

Snowded is wrong about Rand not being that well known out of America. Atlas Shrugged sells in great numbers around the world. It has been translated into 14 languages.[15] Sales figures only show the following: Those people buying books by those we all acknowledge to be philosophers (e.g., Kant or Wittgenstein) are also buying Rand's books. They are buying her non-fiction, including the work on epistemology, and they are doing so in countries other than America.--Steve (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're getting too carried away over the retail sales of one particular chain (in this instance, amazon). The top sellers on Amazon's philosophy list (outselling Rand) include Ron Paul, a book called Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao, and so forth. Her sales on Amazon are barely notable. You are putting too much stock into this sort of thing. The biologist Richard Dawkins has several books listed in their philosophy section, far out-selling Rand. You don't see his readers running to his page to brag about this new evidence of people buying his books. It's not interesting information, or something the average reader is going to care about. This is extreme fan-page type information, and I'm not sure what it brings to a wiki article. At some point, it just seems like an attempt to construct and over-hype a legacy for Rand which doesn't really exist. She's a successful and influential novelist. But I think that it's a bit disingenuous to try to invent influence for her in philosophy which simply doesn't exist. CABlankenship (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post more carefully. I said that sales figures only show a popularity - no more. I was, as I said, countering Snowded's claim, that Rand is not popular outside of the US. Please don't imply "fan-like" behavior to me. I was quite specific in pointing out what arguments I was countering. Snowded has claimed that she is not a philosopher and gives a number of arguments - I have been countering those arguments. Her work is popular outside of the US. Please don't be so sloppy in your language as to say that I was attempting to invent influence for her in philosophy which doesn't exist. In my post above, I never claimed more than her work has popularity outside of the US and that Snowded's arguments are flawed. --Steve (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that amazon book sales back up your claim that her philosophy is popular around the world. CABlankenship (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, this issue is not about how popular she is, its whether she is deemed a philosopher. If we determine ourselves whether she is a philosopher, regardless of which criteria we utilize for this determination, it would be original research. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether secondary sources call her a philosopher. Some of those sources do just that. Many others do not. If we call her a philosopher without any type of qualification, we would be ignoring the sources that deny her that label, and that is something we cannot do. What we should be focusing on is how to word the lede so that it does justice to both sets of sources. Idag (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Idag. Steve I think you want something to be the case too much and you are filtering the data through that. You keep giving long lists of things (like your list of philosophers) that do not actually back up the assertions you are making. If we are looking at her recognition as an author (lets forget philosopher for a minute) she doesn't even appear in some European directors of American Literature. Sales, well I bought a copy of Atlas and read it as an adolescent. I also (ironically) read one book by Terry Goodkind but no more. What matters here is the third party sources, not inference and OR --Snowded TALK 20:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Steve makes a good point about considering sources "inside the movement" as invalid creates a catch-22 where virtually every source gets automatically tossed. Is the New York Times now considered "inside the movement"? I think this argument boils down to: high-brow academic sources vs. lower brow sources including pop culture. The lower brow sources should be considered valid, particularly if there are a lot of them, which there appear to be. Also, I think my point about her philosopher status being analogous to Kahlil Gibran, Alan Watts or Robert Anton Wilson, all called philosophers on WP, is valid. I doubt any of those three are held to be Philosophers by much of academia, but there are nevertheless enough lower brow sources to earn them that label. If they are called philosophers, so should Rand, by the argument that following other WP precedents is a good way to go. Stevewunder (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No one says to toss the New York Times, I explicitly acknowledged, in my above post, that there are sources that name Rand a philosopher. However, there are many other sources that do not give her that designation. Simply calling her a philosopher would ignore the multitude of sources that do not call her as such. As far as the articles that you are citing for precedent, none of them are featured articles. When we look at other Wikipedia articles, we only look at the ones that have reached Featured Article status. These are articles that meet certain criteria of excellence. We can look at other articles for ideas, but they are by no means precedential, as they lack one or more of the criteria that make for an excellent article. Idag (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The multitude of sources that don't call her a philosopher mean nothing. I can find a multitude of sources that don't call Goethe a poet. Does that mean he was not one? What you need is a multitude of sources saying "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher", if you want to counter the multitude of sources that say she is one. Stevewunder (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that you will find any major book or reference tome about the field of poetry that does not mention Goethe, whereas the comparative books on Philosophy are very light on mentions of Rand. The issue is one of WP:Weight.

--Snowded TALK 08:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But your focus on a "major book or reference tome" is the problem! Ayn Rand is not likely to be mentioned in such because she is no great or significant philosopher. But her lack of greatness or significance does not mean she is not one. Every field needs mediocrity! Ayn Rand is indeed a philosopher, just a bad one. Stevewunder (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of mediocre philosophers are mentioned in those books. For her to be called a philosopher in the article requires due attention to weight. The argument is not about her quality as a philosopher or an author (you keep raising issues of your opinion of the quality of her work and its not relevant) but about the citation support, and its not enough to have one citation we have to give balance to the overall weight. This argument anyway is going no where. There was an obvious solution proposed some time ago, which is to acknowledge that she was the inspiration of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). --Snowded TALK 09:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the argument is going no where. But if she isn't a philosopher -- which is her main legacy -- I don't think she is worth an article here at all. Cut the baby in half!!!! Stevewunder (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely does NOT follow that someone who is not a philosopher is not notable. I would argue her main legacy is her cult of devoted followers, including one recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve, in addition to the energizing effect she had on the libertarian movement. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that someone is not notable if they are not a philosopher, but Ayn Rand would not be notable if not for her philosophy. She is currently described in the article as: "novelist, playwright and screenwriter". I find that odd since she published more non-fiction books than fiction, and her "cult of devoted followers" are more likely to be caught reading her works on philosophy than watching the plays or movies she wrote. Stevewunder (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ We don't judge the nature of her notability by the orientation of her "cult of devoted followers". In the wider (considerably wider) world she is know as a novelist. --Snowded TALK 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Several major sources have been put forth to establish she is a philosopher. The only argument proposed to counter this argument is that she isn't mentioned or included in some anthologies and listings of major philosophers. This isn't good enough. Unless major sources can be provided that state she is not a philosopher and why, there are clearly ample sources and a body of work discussed as philosophy that is more than enough to establish the use of this descriptive term. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Every major encyclopedia I have checked (Columbia, Britannica, &c.) refer to her as a "writer". I've yet to find one that calls her a philosopher. Snowded and Idag have a strong case, and they seem to be quite correct in saying that Rand is primarily known as a writer and novelist. The "philosopher" adjective is not cut-and-dry with Rand. CABlankenship (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Many major newspapers never ran an obituary for Rand. Should we remove the fact that she died from the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "Dr.Dino" Kent Hovind a doctor and a scientist? He's authored books on science. Where do we draw the line on these adjectives? CABlankenship (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well as you know there are specific credentials involved in being a doctor that do not exist for philosophers. But when sources such as the New York Times identify someone as a philosopher, when they've published successful works of philosophy, when they are discussed and criticized by other philosophers for their philosophies, that would seem to do the trick. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If those newspapers purported to be comprehensive lists of everyone who died, then that might work. Here, you have comprehensive lists of philosophers that omit Rand. Its a bit strange to expect these sources to have a separate list stating that "these are the people who are not philosophers." Idag (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But that's just the point, the sources you describe aren't comprehensive lists. Are you arguing that only those included in those sources is a philosopher? Anyone not included doesn't qualify? That's ridiculous. It's like saying someone is only a poet if Norton Anthology includes them, oh and even if the New York Times writes them up as a poet and the New Yorker includes them, that's still not good enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem. For instance, the NYT obituary didn't exactly refer to her as a philosopher, it called her a "philosopher of objectivism". In the same sense that L.Ron Hubbard is a "philosopher of Scientology". While Rand can be fairly called a philosopher in my opinion, I'm not sold on the idea that this should be prominently displayed as one of her primary adjectives without qualification. Idag and Snowded are reasonable when they ask for compromise, such as "espoused a philosophical system known as Objectivism". CABlankenship (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that she is primarily known as a novelist. But she is known as a philosopher more than she is known as a playwright or screenwriter. So get rid of those adjectives. Oh - that's right. I forgot the term Philosopher is Holy to some of you -- and that all Philosophers must be anointed with the academic secret sauce, while the terms novelist, playwright and screenwriter properly belong in the general shit bucket. Stevewunder (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. They are nouns. And Idag and Snowded -- if that is their real names -- are not being reasonable.Stevewunder (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a philosopher doesn't automatically make someone a saintly person. Martin Heidegger colluded with the Nazis during WWII, but no one would seriously challenge the fact that he was not only a philosopher, but an extremely influential philosopher. One can dislike Ayn Rand, but stating she's not a philosopher doesn't hold any water. Wandering Courier (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ and now we have a really silly statement from Stevewunder about people's real names and an even more silly statement about holiness. To our wanderer, Heidegger will be found in every philosophical directory and encyclopaedia around the world. This is not an issue of like or dislike, its a question of notability. --Snowded TALK 07:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Here's why I would say Rand is a philosopher. Regardless of what academic philosophers think, millions of people believe that she is a philosopher. In addition she quite clearly developed a philosophy. That is reason enough to call her a philosopher, in my opinion. Certainly, calling her a philosopher doesn't imply any judgment as to the quality of her philosophy. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, no more silly statements. Starting now! Wait: one more! As long as we are assuming other encyclopedias have the final word, why not just have the article read: See Encyclopedia Britannica.? But on a very, very, mortally serious note: more egregious than not calling her a philosopher in the intro is the insta-criticism that appears in the intro: "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature, a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about". In the INTRO! This clearly belongs under Criticism. Setting the tone this negative is obviously meant to defame her. And it is silly. Stevewunder (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is John Galt?

How about placing this picture

Who is John Galt?

in the section 'Atlas Shrugged'.

The contrast of the text on the wall is really pretty poor, so I'm not sure. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done The page is not protected. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad citation

Note 2 ("A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club...") should be replaced with a proper citation that actually gives the name, date, etc. of the article referenced. --Nog lorp (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

The following passage was recently added to the end of the Atlas Shrugged section:

In the novel, the author achieved a consistency of vision and depth of execution unparalleled in the freedom movement for individual's rights. Theme and plot consonance, the agreement of character and action create a symmetry of structure, a unity of purpose and its achievement that has rarely ever been accomplished

I think this passage should be moved into the Literary Criticism section, as that is where we currently have the reviews of Rand's books (both positive and negative). I think we also need to cut this passage down to one short sentence, as the majority of the reviews are negative, so giving so much space to a single positive review would be undue weight. Idag (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should really be left alone until after ARbcom have ruled. But overall I agree the edit you reference above is excessive and some the other additions although cited don't really seem to make sense, although ironically the editors other main interest seems to be Scientology! --Snowded TALK 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Protect Article

I agree that the article should remain unchanged pending the arbitration. Can someone contact an admin?Kjaer (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We are agreed on this at least - I will reverse recent edits with that suggestion. --Snowded TALK 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Idag (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I reversed the last two and added a note on the editors page - you guys might want to reinforce this. --Snowded TALK 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in a request for protection from the admins and it was declined. Hopefully Arbcomm will protect it. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all sides in the dispute are agreed on this so we can act collectively! --Snowded TALK 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Power to the people! Overthrow the evil capitalist bourgeois running-lackey admins! Or something. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand Was Probably a Psychopath

My perfectly factual and reasonably NPOV edit was reverted solely on the basis that it might "violate consensus." Whatever happened to "edit boldly"? Anyway, the claim was referenced, that Rand was a psychopath (and that Objectivism is a religion for psychopaths) is hardly contentious anywhere except among Objectivists themselves (who seem to be camping this article), and Albert Ellis is a widely-recognized expert in the field, heralded as one of the founders of cognitive psychology. SmashTheState (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If its cited and hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, I'd have no problem adding it to the criticism section. Though I agree with TallNapoleon, that this statement should not be added to the lede per WP:Undue. If I remember right, I think Branden also made a psychological criticism against Objectivism at one point. Idag (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what do convenience store clerks have to do with Ayn Rand, this article, or anything being discussed here?evildeathmath 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nilges has been blocked from editing. He likes to come back using anon accounts, so its best to just ignore him and delete his posts. Idag (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

His comment happened to be largely correct, however. The notion that Objectivism is a religion for psychopaths is hardly a "fringe" theory. It may, in fact, represent the majority view. Furthermore, it's been propounded by people with actual, uncontroversially recognized psychiatric expertise, like Albert Ellis. Given that the person with the keys to Wikipedia's server room is a notorious Randroid, it's highly unlikely this view will end up in the Ayn Rand article, but I just thought I'd point out that Rand being the psychopathic leader of a religion for psychopaths isn't some bizarre out-in-the-wilderness conspiracy theory or something; it's probably the most commonly-held belief. And in an ideal world, the article would reflect that. SmashTheState (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear tell she liked to kick puppies too

Yeah, sure looks lots better now. This article is a testament to what's wrong with Wikipedia.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

This edit [16] removed several sourced pieces of information that seem entirely appropriate to include. Is there any reason this content shouldn't be added back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

They were fairly major changes posted without any discussion. Apart from that, everyone seems to be in agreement that we should hold off on all major changes until the ArbCom thing finishes. Idag (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I suggest a compromise: omit the title "philosopher" in the lede, just leave writer/screenwriter/novelist/whatever there, but use the standard philosophy box, because the philosophy box is so much better aesthetially than the standard writer box. This can emphasize Rand's influence in popular philosophy, while insists that her main achievement is in the profession of novel-writing. How does that sound? As a sidenote, just because she didn't have a philosophy degree or it isn't her main profession, doesn't mean it automatially rules out the possibility that she is a philosopher. Karl Jaspers, one of my favorite thinker, was trained as a psychiatrist but is still regarded as a philosopher. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Especially if we mention the fact that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Idag (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Wandering Courier's intent to find middle ground, and he is correct in his observation that the philosophy box is better aesthetically (and it also provides more info), and he is right that neither a degree nor a faculty position are required to be a philosopher. But clearly, she clearly was a philosopher and many, many solid sources have been cited to prove that.

• Rand spoke on her philosophy at several top universities and conducted seminars for philosophy professors.
• Many philosophy text books list her as a philosopher.
• There are encyclopedias that list her as a philosopher.
• She wrote books on philosophy.
• Her ideas have been discussed by recognized, academic philosophers.
• There is an academic, peer reviewed journal devoted to her ideas in philosophy.
• There are scholarly books written on her philosophy.

Currently there is a Request for Arbitration where evidence is being gathered to determine, if in fact, there are individuals who are editing out of a bias on the Ayn Rand article (said editing would include things like deleting "philosopher" along with valid refererences). It would not be right to ignore evidence of OR, POV, disruptive editing, and the deletion of valid, sourced material to continue. --Steve (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

she clearly was a philosopher Yup, of course she was. You know that, I know that, a lot of other people know it. What some pseudo-intellectual clowns in Jimbo Wales' Circus Of Dysfunctionality whose influence will never be a fraction of a fraction of Ayn Rand's, whose entire argument amounts to a petulant "nuh uh" have to say about it won't change that. TheJazzFan (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales created out of an idea, an idea that others would have laughed at back then, something that will make all of the seven wonders of world pale into insignificance. Next to the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food to sustain us, nothing could be as important as knowledge, and never before has there been so much knowledge, so widely available, so easily accessed, at so little a cost. History will look back and point to this as the key to much of what follows. Eventually, good admins will begin to reign in those clowns that make the controversial pages look like circuses of dysfunctionality. In the mean time it helps to remember that they are but a few and for the most part only infect the controversial pages. The best thing we can do is to point our fingers and say, in a very civil fashion, "there is one of them" and resist their attempt to game Wikipedia policy to suit their twisted agendas. --Steve (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Clowns," "twisted agendas," "gam[ing] Wikipedia," "dysfunctionality (sic)," "circuses," "Jimbo Wales' Circus of Dysfunctionality (sic)." Sigh. J Readings (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So apparently calling a spade a spade bothers you? We have folks on here making no secret that they harbor some deep-seated resentment toward Rand's ideas though displaying no genuine grasp of the concepts she wrote about, even explicitly rejecting the concept of reason - there's no "accepting it a little" you either do or you don't hold reason as a primary value. The terms you "sigh" over sound apt to me.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that the insults and the name-calling of other editors on Wikipedia needs to end, TheJazzFan. Obviously you disagree. Otherwise, you wouldn't try to defend the name-calling. A helpful policy to read is WP:CIVIL, especially the section entitled "engaging in incivility." Regards, J Readings (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it becomes sort of like citing Bible verse, you can find something to support anything. I notice there's also something about "ignore all rules". And from what I've seen the so-called "rules" are routinely shaped to serve the agenda of a particular clique. But when someone jumps around making a ridiculous noise and spectacle about something they seem to have little actual understanding of - "clown" is certainly apt. "Jester" doesn't fit because a Jester is supposed to be witty. Presenting a reasoned, informed argument is one thing, the kind of evasive, anti-intellectual cowardice I've seen on the part of many of the Anti-Randers is pathetic. I reserve civility for those who deserve it. For any who the big floppy shoe fits, wear it with my compliments. TheJazzFan (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I should add flat-out dishonest to the list of attributes I've observed, such as one of the aforementioned clowns making changes to my comments claiming an unsubstantiated, b.s. rationale.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, Karl Jaspers is an odd example. I am not saying you need a degree / faculty position to be a philosopher, but that's what he was: a professor of philosophy (along with psychology). --Nog lorp (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, his philosophical accomplishment is acknowledged later in his life, but for his earlier career he studied psychiatry and was a practicing psychiatrist. You wouldn't imagine today a psychiatrist in a mental institution would have a philosophical proclivity. Wandering Courier (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Just FYI. -- SmashTheState (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

yes ayn rand is a narcissist...and she hates native americans...therefore we must protect the poor uneducated from her work. delete her from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be constructive and follow WP:CIVIL. No one is advocating deleting Ms. Rand from Wikipedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're following WP:FACETIOUS.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

you are correct. No one is advocating deleting Ms. Rand from Wikipedia. half of you, want to demonize her, half want to bestow on her genius. it's the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 09:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine to simply have a neutral, factual article with no evaluation in either direction and not bogged down with technical detail about Objectivism as I've advocated. That concept clearly scares the anti-Randers.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's Law

How about any "pro-Rand" poster who violated Godwin's Law gets ostracized. Same for the "anti-Rand" people. as i am new here, and the "discussion page" is extremely long, i am sure the regular posters know who has violated Godwin's Law. maybe it won't solve all the edit wars, but will take out some of the zealots.

have you ever accused someone of being hitler?.....you shouldn't be editing wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brushcherry (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Laff! I'd never heard of Godwin's Law but have observed similar. Well, I've already seen one of the Anti-Randers insist Ayn Rand's methodology - you know all that silly focus on reason - is what led to the Holocaust. TheJazzFan (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even more useful would be a ban hammer on any editor who comments on editors rather than content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea --Snowded TALK 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? To quote you "You know the really scary thing about this? I think you are being genuine in what you say."TheJazzFan (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)