Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 23

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

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

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)

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. [1].
In most popular items in classics in the united states (updated hourly) it rated number 1.[2].
In most popular items in Classics (all countries, updated hourly) it rated number 1. [3]
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.[4]

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.[5] 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)

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)

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

has a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is "special" and unique
requires excessive admiration
has a sense of entitlement
is interpersonally exploitative
lacks empathy
is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
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)

It was I think an expression of concern for you, providing an opportunity for you to withdraw from what appeared an extremist position. However I will do you a deal. I will go back and delete that if you will delete all comments you have made about the motivations of other editors. I think that will take me about 5 minutes most of which will be hunting it down, you on other other hand may need to devote a morning to the task. --Snowded TALK 10:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment I quoted wasn't directed at me. And I stand behind everything I've said. There's no question about your motivation. You want to use this article as a forum to take shots at Rand. The essence of what you want it to say is - "well, yeah but no no no DON'T take her seriously - see all these people who don't like her? See? See? (And we'll just ignore all those silly, clearly misguided people who concur with her..)" You have a clear agenda. Admit it - what you and others of your ilk *don't* want is a merely neutral synopsis. You can't offer a scholarly rebuttal, you don't even have a coherent understanding of what she said but you just sort of "feel" she's wrong on all counts, in all possible ways...um, just kinda 'cuz.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher Discussion

(I started a new section because the preceding one was getting cluttered)

Rand is acknowledged as a philosopher by some sources, as pointed out above, and not acknowledged by others (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy)

As a compromise, why don't we describe her in a way that's similar to the way that Encyclopedia Britannica does it (we can't plagiarize them, but we can do something similar): "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic."[6] (this was JReadings' idea a while back, but we got sidetracked by Nilges before we could implement it) Idag (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Her not being included in some sources doesn't exclude her being a philosopher. Please provide a source that says she's not a philosopher. Many good sources (New York Times, encyclopedias, bookys by other major philosophers, articles, papers) have been provided referring to her as a philosopher. She's also known for developing a controversial but popular philosophy. If you can't source your argument, you have to drop it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a compromise, is it? What are those who don't believe she should not be called a philosopher compromising? I don't think anyone was arguing her philosophy of objectivism shouldn't be mentioned. Or am I wrong here?

As I've read and re-read above comments I think there is a major issue of disagreement that hasn't been openly debated. Several have referred to her "cult of devoted followers", but I think we have different views of what this "cult" is. The relevance being that if this cult is "fringe" it deserves to be ignored. That seems to be the stance several here have taken.

So who is this cult?

1. The original members of her social group in New York, the Collective?

2. Current members of Ayn Rand associated institutes?

3. The millions of fans who think she is really, really great, but aren't actively involved in an Ayn Rand network?

Of course, 3 is in no shape or form a true cult, but they seem to be marginalized as a fringe group as if they were members of 1 or 2. Someone above said "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."

I do not believe this to be true (that the wider world does not consider her a philosopher), although it is impossible for either of us to get citations from millions of fans to determine how many consider her a philosopher. But it is TRUE that what she is known as in the wider world is what is most relevant, not whether she is frequently included in collections with other philosophers.

Whether or not she is a philosopher is not a matter of fact. It is a profession without a clear job description. So the question is not what she was, but what she was believed to be. Note that this test doesn't apply to her as a screenwriter, because it is a matter of fact she was a screenwriter and it doesn't change that fact if few people believed her to be one.

I think for us to ever reach anything close to a consensus on this issue, we must first agree what the BEST TEST should be to determine what she is believed to have been (by the wider world of her readers). There is currently no agreement over this test. I suggest we commence debating the BEST TEST and leave aside for a moment the likely outcome of this test. Stevewunder (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I also propose we reference Peter Damian's article posted above, "Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat" -- as a helpful guide for whether sources referenced here should be considered fringe or not. Stevewunder (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research, referring to those who disagree with you as cultist and advocating your POV do not justify the deletion of valid sources... And there are lots and lots of valid sources that show Rand is a philosopher. We are waiting for the end of the ArbCom - not for determinations from the flat earth society. I can't tell you how foolish it looks to keep pretending that any argument that Rand is not a philosopher is more than a teetering pile of loosely stacked nonsense. Talk about people screaming that the earth is flat even after the evidence is in. You said above that whether or not she is a philosopher is not a matter of fact - well, for Wikipedia it is a matter of valid sources. Not Original Research theories about cults and BEST TESTS and the ugly attacks on people as "fringe" and "cult" --Steve (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you might want to review the tone and language of some of your own comments over the last month before you use the phrase "ugly attacks". That aside there have been two positions todate. (i) she is a philosopher but qualified to state that notable sources say she is not and (ii) that she is an author who created a philosophical movement. I remain surprised that you were unhappy with the second as it removed the qualification. However by the time that proposal came up the article was clearly divided so I probably should not be greatly surprised that either side would simply react against a compromise.

At the same time there are sources that say she is a philosopher (although your long lists of claims for individuals generally lack citations), there are sources that say she is not and there are notable sources that list philosophers which do not mention her. So this is not a black or white issue. Its a question of weight and also the orientation of the article. What is needed is for Arbcom to determine a process for determining evidence. OK the dispute over Philosopher is there but to be honest its a very minor issue which illustrates the wider questions on the article as a whole, namely how is evidence to be used, how to achieve balance. The sooner Arbcom make some ruling about process and behaviour the better. --Snowded TALK 09:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that Objectivism displays cult-like behavior is not original research; several respectable academic sources have been offered for this position. Not sure where you're coming from on this one. How is it original research to say that there is cult-like behavior in Objectivism when Rothbard, Branden, Shermer, and others have been cited for this view? CABlankenship (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

- if i can build a house, compliant with local zoning laws, structurally sound, etc. but dont have a contractors license, am i a contractor? or am i a contractor without a license? or am i not a contractor at all but can build you a house that is perfectly and soundly built? if i can perform open heart surgery, succesfully, but never went to medical school, am i a doctor? No, i would go to jail. if i was a novelist, that expanded on the philosophical themes in my fiction with non-fiction books on philosophy, am i a philosopher? yes i would be. because there is no philosopher test, no philosopher association of earth that makes you pass a test, no city inspection bureau to approve my work. - if i shove a whip in a guys ass and photograph it can I call it "art". am i an artist? if u hang it on a wall is it art? or do i have to wait for a PHD in art to say "yes, a photograph of a whip in man's anus is art". how many PHDs in art do i have to get? - - i don't give the philosophy PHDs any more credit than, roger ebert's view on "Porky's 3". "well" you say, "how can we decide who is a philosopher?" YOU CAN'T...........but all us PHD's in philosophy agree she is not a philosopher, therefore she is not one. if i crap on a canvass and call it art, then its art. if i write a philosophic tome and call it philosophy then its philosophy. until the philosopher association of earth decides who is and who isn't a philiosopher, and that will be a sad day, shut up.

- oh, and you are all nazi'sBrushcherry (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

sorry, i deleted someones post who was editing at the same time. didnt mean to. still getting the hang of this.Brushcherry (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

I agree with Brushcherry. Stevewunder (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made appropriate changes to the Lead which reflects all sides. Stevewunder (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the latest deletion was in clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Stevewunder/Brushcherry, you're teetering on the edge of behavior that gets people banned. That is, if you haven't already gone over the edge. arimareiji (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That being said, the last paragraph of the lead is very weak. Those sources need to be improved or removed - come on, a blog? Also, the derisive language needs to be toned down. arimareiji (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the philosopher thing, I got the idea from TheJazzFan's suggestion to stick to the facts. Obviously, folks can disagree whether she's a philosopher, so why not just put down the behavior that you believe makes her a philosopher. The argument that she is a philosopher goes like this:

1. She developed Objectivism.

2. Objectivism is a philosophical system.

3. Developing a philosophical system makes one a philosopher.

4. Therefore, Rand is a philosopher.

So why not just say that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism and let the reader decide whether that makes her a philosopher? Idag (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(material moved from earlier thread, same subject, overlapping time): Gyrae (talk) 17:22, 31 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..." [7]
The Biography Base "Ayn Rand ... was a controversial American philosopher and novelist, most famous for her philosophy of Objectivism."[8]
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" [9]

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)

Wikipedia in one sense is a digital representation of text and doesn't "know" anything. We editors arrange the text, purportedly to represent facts. The rules say that we don't use our own opinions to do this, but rather we bring to Wikipedia what we find at a reputable source. Wikipedia doesn't know Rand from a turnip. When we say she is a philosopher and a novelist and a screenwriter we cite the source for that. If someone disagrees with something, they can't make a change based upon their opinion, they need to find a problem with the source, or a source of greater weight that contradicts the first. This has to be about the simple fact of putting up cited sourced facts. Some editors are working extremely hard to remove the title philosopher but they don't have any kind of source that would even begin to counter the long and solid sources that have been provided. All of the talk about "what is a philosopher?" and "what does academia think of Rand?" and "Is she known outside of America?" and "what do people think of her philosophy?" are forays into original research and don't change the simple rule of valid, cited sources determine what is put into Wikipedia. Only one reputable, encyclopedia source needs to be cited - that's all. Criticisms of Rand and of her thoughts and of her work are also valid (they to have citable sources) but they belong in the criticism section. There is nothing wrong with strongly defending Wikipedia rules. There is nothing wrong with opposing those who keep deleting sourced material. As to motivations... Just ask yourself, why so much effort to overthrow a valid source? --Steve (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop questioning the motivations of other editors and address the merits of the proposed edits. The Oxford Dictionary to Philosophy, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and the Encyclopedia Britannica do not call Rand a philosopher (this list isn't exhaustive, as I don't have access to LexisNexis at this computer, so I can't run a more complete search). I will readily acknowledge that there are other sources that call her a philosopher, but stating that she is a philosopher in the lede implies universal agreement that she is a philosopher, and this is not the case. Asking for sources affirmatively stating that Rand is not a philosopher is an impossible request, as that would be proving a negative. For example, Rand was not a nuclear physicist, but you won't find any sources stating that "Rand was not a nuclear physicist." (Though there does appear to be an Objectivist website stating that "Ayn Rand readily admitted that she was not a philosopher. It was not her intention to be a philosopher. She was a novelist and knew what she wanted to write about was true heroes with true virtue, about good as the positive, and evil as a negative, and about life that was worth living."[10]) So instead of bickering over adjectives, why don't we simply list the behavior that you believe makes her a philosopher: that she developed a philosophical system. There is no disagreement among the sources for this point, and this way the reader can decide for themselves if that makes her a philosopher. Idag (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SteveWolfer: Only one reputable, encyclopedia source needs to be cited. According to whom, Steve? And also, who determines what is and is not a "reputable" source? I actually think that what you meant to write here is the word "reliable" (not reputable) in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines (which is not a policy) and, to be fair, my long experience on Wikipedia (and academia in general) teaches that to rely on a small sample of (sometimes contradictory reliable sources) does not necessarily indicate that the sample itself is representative of the population of reliable sources, overall. Hence, we come back to my good faith review of countless newspaper, magazine, book chapters, and journal articles (also considered reliable sources). Many sources do not consider her a philosopher. She is identified as a "novelist" or a "writer" or a "novelist-philosopher", etc. Research results do not constitute "original research" in this particular instance because all one needs to do is list the sources in the footnote to support the imprimatur. True, WP:RS guides us in the direction of what is "reliable" -- namely, sources with good editorial oversight. However, as precedent, I would cite Wikipedia's thorny issue on whether to label David Irving a "historian" or simply a "writer" -- something that required a great deal of thought and research. It does not tell us what to do when ascribing weight in the lead and the rest of the article. That is covered under WP:UNDUE (a WP policy, not a guideline) and WP:LEAD (a guideline). Here, undue tells us that we have to look at the sources overall--which includes newspapers, magazines, journal articles, book chapters, books, etc. In short, everything we are aware of at the time of editing. It's honest. It's straightforward. And most important of all, it's devoid of agenda-pushing. See the archives for extended discussions and tabulations of the known reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

and thence to one of the main problems with this article. For several editors if there is a source then material can be included regardless of weight or balance. In addition many of the sources are Randian web sites or dubious (Well known Philosopher X attended a seminar sponsored by Institute Y therefore he must think that Rand is a philosopher, to take one famous one). There is a breakdown on the whole page and related arguments about what does or does not constitute evidence --Snowded TALK 18:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries that have an entry for Rand also don't define her as a philosopher. [11][12] Idag (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I can find many entries for any famous person that do NOT list all of the things that they in fact were. Does every source that discusses Thomas Jefferson mention his presidency? No, but it clearly is not proof that he wan't a president. When a large number of reliable sources say Rand is a philosopher what would be needed would be a weight of sources that say she was NOT a philosopher. Without that, it does not even rise to the level of controversial (except in the minds of some editors). Finding sources that do not say 'yes' or say 'no' is NOT the same thing. Smears of the credentials of some scholars because they are associated with this or that institution is OR. Claims that only "Randian web sites or "dubious" sources support Rand as a philosopher is blatantly false, as well as being OR. --Steve (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, that argument doesn't make sense. I challenge you to find an "Encyclopedia of American Presidents" that does not mention Jefferson. It is of course telling that Rand is left out of major and authoritative philosophy Encyclopedias. CABlankenship (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the same dictionary designating Plato and Kant as philosophers.[13][14], but omitting that designation for Rand[15] Re: Steve- that source also designates Thomas Jefferson as a president.[16] There's also the Objectivist website I cited above that affirmatively states that she wasn't a philosopher.[17] If you look at a similar discussion in the archives, JReadings also found hundreds of sources that omit the philosopher designation. I'd have no problem with calling her a philosopher if it was only one or two sources that omitted this designation, but that's not the case. Idag (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to some comments from below, if this was an omission by only a few sources, then yes, that would be a mistake of omission. However, as this is more than just a handful of sources, it is unlikely that this omission was by mistake. Idag (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Previous Research

(I don't have access to Lexis right now, but JReadings has already done the search, I'm reposting it for comment here) Idag (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

All Results: 203 articles.

Newspapers (142) Newswires & Press Releases (25) Aggregate News Sources (13) Web-based Publications (11) Magazines & Journals (10) Industry Trade Press (8) Newsletters (3) Current Awareness (1) People Directories & Profiles (1) Unclassified Documents (1) Keyword search: “philosopher Ayn Rand” AND NOT “novelist”

All Results: 164 articles

Newspapers (132) Newswires & Press Releases (10) Magazines & Journals (8) Aggregate News Sources (7) Web-based Publications (4) Blogs (3) News Transcripts (1) Newsletters (1) Keyword search: “writer Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher”

All Results: 157 articles

Newspapers (123) Aggregate News Sources (16) Magazines & Journals (9) Newswires & Press Releases (7) News Transcripts (2) Keyword search: “novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand” or “novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand”

All Results: 121 articles.

Newspapers (94) Newswires & Press Releases (12) Aggregate News Sources (6) Web-based Publications (6) Magazines & Journals (3) Industry Trade Press (2) Keyword search: “philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand” or “philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand”

All Results: 55 articles

Newspapers (37) Aggregate News Sources (7) Newswires & Press Releases (6) Web-based Publications (3) Industry Trade Press (2) Magazines & Journals (2) Based on these preliminary search results, it appears that many (most?) journalists tend to identify Ayn Rand as either a “novelist” or a “writer” (if we decide they are synonyms), rather than just a philosopher, more than anything else. 360 articles identify her as either a novelist or a writer, but not as a philosopher. Another 164 articles identify her as just a philosopher, with an additional 176 articles saying that she is both a philosopher and a novelist.

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

Incidentally, according to these results, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe – some of the major nationwide US dailies — tend to identify Ayn Rand as a novelist only.

Boy, this sure is a lot of fun. But unfortunately, you have no notable source to support your desired Original Synthesis, that Rand is not a philosopher. (For those hwo don't see the analogy, it is as if people who disliked the fact that greenland is a country said that they found 360 articles that refered to it only as an island, and 340 articles that refered to it as a country and an island. The problem is, there are no articles that say it is not a country.) I suggest you continue your Original Synthesis elsewhere, and once you get your theory that Rand was not a philosopher published in a notable source, we can quote that as what it would be, one point of view. Until then, verifiable notable sources call her a philosopher, and the DEC 31 text http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&oldid=261153197#cite_note-philosopher-0 reflects this quite properly. Kjaer (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Undue requires us to examine and weigh ALL the sources to see what the prevailing views are. Each of the sources in the Lexis search is a reliable source that either omits or grants Rand the designation of philosopher. The view that Rand is a philosopher is a minority view, but it is a vocal minority. Hence, that minority has published works stating that Rand is a philosopher. Just because the minority has published a number of these works does not make this the prevailing view. Idag (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer: But unfortunately, you have no notable source to support your desired Original Synthesis, that Rand is not a philosopher. Kjaer: I beg to differ. None of the above was original synthesis. Original synthesis has a specific meaning. It was designed to avoid editors from taking article A and combining it with article B to reach conclusion C -- something that neither article stated. On the contrary, what is being discussed here is the stated occupation of the subject in the preponderance of sources -- something very specific. All of it is not only consistent with policy, it has been used -- as I mentioned earlier -- by admins, bureaucrats, and regular editors to deal with the David Irving issue. Should you object to Wikipedia's approach to undue weight and sourcing (and I sense that you do for the very narrow purpose of this article), that's certainly something you can raise elsewhere. I'm not sure what will happen. One thing is for certain: I would be very interested to see someone going up against some of the most established and respected editors on Wikipedia in order to attempt changing the above method with regard to the David Irving page. J Readings (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this: we replace the adjective with a sentence that Rand considered herself a philosopher (which is true) and that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Then we drop a footnote at the end of that sentence stating that some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. Idag (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this: we replace mention of Rand's marriage with the statement that Rand considered herself married (which is true), then we drop a note saying that soem sources refered to her as married to Frank O'Connor, and some don't? Sound absurd? Note that the only people here arguing that the fact that some articles do not refer to Rand as a philosopher implies that they meant to say she was NOT a philosopher (still no sources, I see, J Readings!) are those who personally oppose her - what? Yes, her philosophy. here are two posts from May. Note that this challenge to provide one single notable source that says Rand was not a philosopher remains unmet. The claim is Original Synthesis, and those editors who are engaged in it need to stop editting their POVs, and get them published instead, so we can quote them here. Kjaer (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The undue weight theory doesn't hold water. The weighting of her reputation probably breaks down something like this:

60% novelist

30% philosopher

6% screenwriter

4% playwright

30% is notable enough due weight for mention.

But I do like the point someone keeps ramming about her not being as recognized outside the U.S, since that is so obviously relevant to weight. After all the US is just a small backwater. In the golden age of Greece, the whole known world who recognized Plato and Aristotle was smaller than the US is now.

Why am I arguing on behalf of Ayn Rand being called a philosopher? I am no fan. But despite my complete lack of tact, I have no agenda and am being objective, unlike almost everyone else here -- so I don't know why I'm wasting my time -- but i have a disease which causes me to care a tiny bit about the truth. I agree wholeheartedly with Cherrybrush's "whip in man's anus" point about art and its analog with philosophy. It is not the same as being a lawyer. Rand did more than take a picture of a whip in a man's anus, she wrote a few books she considered philosophy and got them published. A lot of Americans read them. Good enough. The academic world is not the world.

Someone will come back and say:"It doesn't matter what you think. What matter is reputable sources." Then someone else will say there are reputable sources that have been ignored. Then someone else will say there aren't enough and it comes down to undue weight. Which brings me back to my point above, which is that 30% is weight enough. Stevewunder (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The argument about Rand not being popular or well known outside of the US is false:

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 (a few days ago), 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. [18].
In most popular items in classics in the united states (updated hourly) it rated number 1.[19].
In most popular items in Classics (all countries, updated hourly) it rated number 1. [20]
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.[21]

People are 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.[22] A snapshot of sales figures or ratings from a given instant of time, from a single vendor, are NOT evidence of Rand being a philosopher. But they do show the following: 1) Those people buying books by those we all acknowledge to be philosophers (e.g., Kant or Wittgenstein) are also buying Rand's books. 2) They are buying her non-fiction, including the work on epistemology, and they are doing so in countries other than America. --Steve (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, we have two options. We can either, one, beat the same sources over and over again (and I'll bet my car that no one here will change their mind), or, two, we can work out some type of compromise language. So how about my suggestion above. We replace the adjective with the simple statement that "Rand called herself a philosopher" (this is just preliminary wording). Then we drop a footnote stating that some sources call her a philosopher and some sources do not call her a philosopher and link to some representative sources. This suggestion is just to get compromise talks started, so if you don't like it, please be constructive and try to either improve it or think of a better compromise. Idag (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how what almost everyone here has in common is our interest in philosophy. Not novels. Stevewunder (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, I think the problem with compromise is we are arguing over the use of a single word. Stevewunder (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the need to find a way to replace that one word with something that's acceptable to everyone. Otherwise we're going to argue until we're all blue in the face. So what about replacing that word by stating that she considered herself a philosopher? Idag (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's page is of "featured" quality and it calls him, among other things, a painter. If Bob Dylan was a painter then Ayn Rand was a philosopher.

I doubt Bob Dylan is called a painter in any major reference book, but Wikipedia, because of its peculiar nature, is going to yield different results than a paper book. Remember: "WP is not a paper book"! WP is not a democracy either, but because of its collaborative nature it is has to operate at least a bit more like a democracy than Paper Book editors would. Otherwise no progress gets made. We will clearly never have a consensus on this issue. I will posit that WP must, to be effective, err on the side of being too inclusive, err on the side of giving too much weight to fringe elements, err on the side of populism, err on the side of saying yes. The guidelines might say otherwise, but in practice we have to resolve controversial issues somehow. Otherwise, the stubborn strict and narrow interpreters of truth will merely clog the system, despite their good intentions. No, the earth is not flat -- not completely -- but it's got to rest on top of all those tortoises somehow! Stevewunder (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Stevewunder (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As you've pointed out,the guidelines say otherwise and we are required to follow them. You can of course suggest changes to the guidelines, but this isn't really the place to do it. Does anyone have ideas for how to word the philosopher thing to satisfy both groups of sources? Idag (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here is my proposed compromise. We call her an "intellectual, who wrote novels, philosophical works, screenplays and plays." I think giving her one composite title of intellectual is best. If we call her a novelist, playwright.. it reeks of omission that she isn't called a philosopher. Also, "intellectual" gives a whiff that she had influence as a personality and not merely a writer, which is in fact the case. Stevewunder (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The nub of this argument appears to be an issue of what counts as evidence in the Wikipedia context. In the (long) threads on this, there have been several, alternative principles proposed:

Factual, primary evidence (e.g. that Rand created a philosophic system, that Rand termed herself a philosopher, etc.)
What is generally accepted practice in journalism (e.g. New York Times, various books, etc.)
What experts or established figures in the field say

On these, the arguments appear to be

Pro: Rand addressed core philosophic issues and created wholly new approaches and ideas in them. Con: Most academic philosophers do not cite Rand as a philosopher.
Pro: Many popular and professional sources cite Rand as a philosopher. Con: Many important academic sources do not.
Pro: Many experts who have specialized in Rand's work cite Rand as a philosopher. Con: Most academic philosophers do not cite Rand as a philosopher.

If this is true, then the obvious conclusion is both that Rand *is* a philosopher and also that Rand approached philosophic issues outside the framework that predominates in academia. Gyrae (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gyrae: *Pro: Many popular and professional sources cite Rand as a philosopher. Con: Many important academic sources do not. Actually, on this particular point, I would reword your formulation differently. Many popular and professional sources identify Rand's occupation as a philosopher. Many other popular and professional sources only identify her occupation as a novelist. One other niggle: Pro: Rand addressed core philosophic issues and created wholly new approaches and ideas in them. "Wholly new approaches and ideas in them"...according to which source(s)? J Readings (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re the content of Rand's ideas, a good, web-accessible site is http://www.aynrandsociety.org/, the web page of the Ayn Rand Society, affiliate of the American Philosophical Association. For a more detailed, systematic presentation, consider Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. For a popular account, consider Gotthelf's On Ayn Rand. For a recent, academic treatment of Rand's approach to meta-ethics, consider Smith's Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. Gyrae (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Which of these sources would you consider to be independent third parties not affiliated with Ayn Rand or Objectivism? It's not a trick question; I'm just interested in your opinion. J Readings (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These are sources relevant to answering the first possible criterian, namely answering questions about the actual content of Rand's ideas. It is important here to bear in mind that Rand's philosophy, in approach as well as content, differs substantially from that of current, academic philosophy. This is not an evaluation of Rand's philosophy or of current academic practice, just a reminder that they have very different histories. Given that, we should not be particularly surprised to find that the people who have written the most thorough expositions of Rand's philosophy are people who have spent a great deal of time studying it, and that implies motivation to study it, and that implies at least a conviction that her philosophy is important. So we should expect to find a high correlation between people who have written extensively on Rand and those who are "affiliated" in your terminology. Conversely, people whose philosophic thinking lies within the framework of academic philosophy will not find in Rand any similarity of approach, will not observe Rand doing many of the things that constitute their approach to philosophy, will tend to not find Rand's work relevant or important to their philosophic issues, will thus not be motivated to study it, and therefore will not write extensively and knowledgeably on it. So, again, we should expect to find a high correlation between people who do not believe that Rand's philosophy is important and those who do not write extensively and knowledgeably about it. To the extent that our purpose is to understand and evaluate Rand's aproach to philosophy and the content of Rand's philosophy, we should anticipate finding that we will find the proponderance of the testimony among those who have made their business to study it, that is, predominantly among those who are "affiliated." This is hardly a disqualifier.

That said, your question does make it clear that we cannot make further progress on deciding whether Rand should be termed a philosopher by Wikipedia without getting very clear on what the criteria are for that decision. Broadly, there are these possibilities for the criteria:

Content of the philosophy. Method: Examine Rand's writings and compare against the definition of philosophy.
Generally accepted but non-specialized practice. Method: Cite instances of popular usage, e.g. NYT.
Practice among specialists. Method: Cite instances of specialist use. Here there is a problem, though, in that the following don't overlap a lot:
- Those who have devoted subtantial time to studying Rand
- Those who constitute the bulk of academic philosophy

Can we focus on reaching agreement on what the criteria are? Gyrae (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher Thing

Idag posted the below to my talk page, but since it involves an issue all should be aware of, and not my own personal behavior, I am posting his comment and my response below.Kjaer (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't want to put this on the talk page, but I wanted to discuss with you a part of the pro-philosopher argument. Here's my thinking about the sources and feel free to point out where I'm going wrong:

There are three ways a source can discuss whether Rand is a philosopher:

1. Affirmatively stating that Rand is a philosopher

2. Stating nothing.

3. Affirmatively stating that Rand is not a philosopher.

There are no notable sources for number 3. However, no one is suggesting that the article take the number 3 approach. We can all agree that there is a split between number 1 and number 2. The dispute seems to be how to interpret this split. In my mind (again, feel free to point out possible errors) there is a contradiction in the pro-philosopher argument. On the one hand, people are saying that if the article leaves out the word "philosopher", then the article is implying that Rand is not a philosopher. However, when secondary sources are shown omitting that very word, then those secondary sources are ignored because they do not belong in category number 3. To me that just doesn't make sense. If people were arguing that the article should say that "Rand was not a philosopher" then I would agree with you that we need sources affirmatively stating this. But I think omitting something that secondary sources also omit is acceptable. Again, I don't have strong feelings about this, the pro-philosopher argument, it just doesn't make sense to me, so please feel free to point out where I'm going wrong. Idag (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer that this be on the talk page so that all can benefit. Kjaer (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand is described as a novelist, philosopher, screenwriter and playwright. Any argument to omit reference to her as a philosopher because only 340 articles out of 700 refer to her as such applies much more so to her as a playwright or screenwriter. So we call her simply a novelist. But this is ridiculous when we compare her to Sartre, etc. They get an epansive list, and she is limited to just one title. Why? Why does a special criterion apply to her? A hint might be found when we look at the comments of those who question whether she should be listed as a philosopher:

"Secondly a increasing pathetic set of encounters with a Randanista editor on the Wikipedia whose extreme right wing views are typified by this scary article. Said editor is now vandalising the Knowledge Management article in an attempt to get me to stop preventing his attempt to define objectivism by the ideology (I refuse to call it a philosophy) of Ayn Rand. Now I engaged with the Knowledge Management article about two years ago at the request of others and got it into some sort of order and have protected it since. However I am not sure I have the energy for dealing with this as very few other people seem interested in the article. So if no one else gets involved I am going to abandon it to the vandals." Dave Snowden, http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2008/11/red_eye_randanistas_recovery_p.php#comments

I don't care if someone disagrees with Rand. But refusing to call Rand a philosopher because you don't like her philosophy is simply childish gainsaying. I am sorry if I refuse to allow an article to be mutilated on that basis.

The only issue of any validity here is should Rand's status as a philosopher be qualified. And it is and always has been. The footnote from the DEC 31 consensus version^[1]</ref>makes it clear and the text makes it clear. There is a criticism section. It is made quite clear that Rand is not an academic professor of philosophy. No one who has been accused of being a Rand glorifier among the registered editors wants to claim, for instance, that her honorary degrees make her a PhD. But we do have people who insert the word 'amateur' because it is prejudicial and there is one academic who has published his own personal theory of popular philosophy. That epithet is a theory of one person, and might have a place under criticism, if indeed it is a criticism. But placing it in the lead of the article as if it is anything other than his opinion is simply POV partisanship. Just as is saying "I refuse to call it a philosophy."

There was, of course, never any consensus to remove the cited apellation of philosopher. We held an RfC to see if there was such a consensus, and since the view that there was a consensus was supporrted by only 3 of 7 established editors, it seems that there was not. Hence, it is only out of good faith for the arb com process that the majority of editors are acting with restraint, while a minority engages in a rather ridiculous bit of Original Research by comittee, attempting to find proof that Rand was a perhaps a sociopath or an advocate of genocide. Unfortunately, that is pre-established conclusion-driven synthesis, not verifiable notable fact. It is now over a month that this charade has continued. And it has been a waste of time for all. Kjaer (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The final paragraph is unclear to me. Who *specifically* are "the majority of editors who are acting with restraint" and who specifically are the "minority engaging in a rather ridiculous bit of Original Research by committee, attempting to find proof that Rand was a perhaps a sociopath or an advocate of genocide"? Can we please have all of the names here for clarity? Thanks, J Readings (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with Idag at this point in seeking a compromise so that we may move forward with the rest of the article. Is anyone else? Stevewunder (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My proposal: We call her an "intellectual, who wrote novels, philosophical works, screenplays and plays." I think giving her one composite title of intellectual is best. If we call her a novelist, playwright.. it reeks of omission that she isn't called a philosopher. Also, "intellectual" gives a whiff that she had influence as a personality and not merely a writer, which is in fact the case. Idag, what do you think? Stevewunder (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually would strongly object to calling her an intellectual, because that's an even more poorly defined word than philosopher and one I doubt we'd find many sources supporting. As I have said before, I am inclined to support calling her a philosopher, but I also like "created the philosophy of Objectivism". No one can object to calling Objectivism a philosophical system. No one can object to the claim that Rand created it. Someone who believes Rand is a philosopher will probably read that into the statement, someone who doesn't probably won't. It's an elegant solution to the problem and one that I would be willing to accept. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It remains the least controversial possibility and I would support it. It involves some compromise in that "objectivism" is unqualified but it context it is fairly evident that it means the Randian version thereof. There is a possible addition that might make it more acceptable to some. Namely insert the language (I don't have it hand) of her being the greatest Philosopher post Aristotle or something similar. --Snowded TALK 10:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how bout a "Writer, who authored novels, philosophical works, screenplays, and plays."? I just have a problem with calling her a Novelist, screenwriter, etc. .. because it gives undue weight to her being a screenwriter and not being a philosopher. I tend to believe few of you are serious about making progress and are merely having fun believing you are standing against the mob. By the way, both factions are engaging in group think. Stevewunder (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we omit all adjectives and simply state what she actually did? Something along the lines of "Ayn Rand wrote a number of bestselling fiction books in which she developed the philosophy of Objectivism. She also wrote the following screenplays:..." However, I would also support using "intellectual" as a compromise. Idag (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be unusual on a bio page not to give the person a main descriptor. If you noticed, the featured page yesterday was Samuel Johnson, who wrote many various works, and he is called an author. How about we call Rand an author, who..."? Stevewunder (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the best opening sentence is simply "Ayn Rand was a Russian-American author." That follows the Samuel Johnson model. If we all agree on that, then we can discuss the second sentence. Stevewunder (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Every recognized philosopher except Socrates was an author, so I don't believe the word gives any implication that she wasn't one. Stevewunder (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

^ Her New York Times obituary (May 7, 1982, p. 7) identifies her as "writer and philosopher." She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a "philosopher," others prefer language such as "espoused a philosophy." One writer comments: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right." (Jenny Heyl, 1995, as cited in Mimi R Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra(eds), ed. (1999). Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Penn State Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-271-01831-3. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

[philosopher-1] Her New York Times obituary (May 7, 1982, p. 7) identifies her as "writer and philosopher." She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a "philosopher," others prefer language such as "espoused a philosophy." One writer comments: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right." (Jenny Heyl, 1995, as cited in Mimi R Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra(eds), ed. (1999). Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Penn State Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-271-01831-3. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

[1]