Jump to content

Talk:Ayn Rand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Idag (talk | contribs) at 22:28, 20 January 2009 (→‎New ArbCom request: fixing link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleAyn Rand was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 7, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 2, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 4, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Philosopher

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Steve supports. I'll ignore the rest as an AGF violation. Idag (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And that just happens to violate WP:AGF. Attack the argument, not the editors. Idag (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
Agreed. Idag (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I believe you to be incorrect on both points.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Please stop, you are bringing out the anthropologist in me --Snowded TALK 18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah..what he said. ;-) TheJazzFan (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, that delete was my bad! Thanks for the fix Napolean. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just wanted to point out, per Kjaer's concern, that Dagwyn and Jmaurone both invites to the mediation. [2][3] Idag (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ben also made one of the best and most perceptive comments on this page [4]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you serious? The earth is flat, who would say otherwise? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only fringe religious fanatics. Omnians, probably. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Hey if this guy says so it must be flat [5] he writes for the NY Times...it must be so..:) Modernist (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I appeal to Endlessmike 888, Kjaer, ChildofMidnight, and SteveWolfer to sign up for the mediation before the deadline. [6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
I think its in the question/answer session after the West Point lecture. Its pretty damning. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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? And if a particular tribe occupies an area because they happen to be the latest in a succession of groups who slaughtered or displaced those that were there before, does this give them a valid claim? 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [7] Idag (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice for a neutral admin to help with this. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&oldid=265369684"