Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 13

Atlas Shrugged
Under this heading the author writes: "Atlas Shrugged has been cited in numerous interviews as the book that most influenced the subject.[27][28]", but does not identify "the subject" (which I assue is Objectivism). Needs a minor edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.3 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I belive "the subject" refers to the person being interviewed, i.e. the subject of the interview, but I agree that it seems a bit unclear. Also none of the sources seem to support this claim (the sources talk only about the survey being exaggerated). Tengfred (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it meant the subject of the interview. The reference for the survey being exaggerated is obviously not also a reference for the influence of the book; references can be found for the latter, but generally only one interview per reference, which would be a lot of work.  For a more "aggregate" view, the reference used for the list in the "Popular interest and influence" section might be appropriate. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Criticism POV
"In 1963, Rand wrote an essay titled "The Goal of My Writing" in which she states the goal of her fiction is to project her vision of an ideal man: not man as he is, but man as he might and ought to be. Her 1969 book, The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature, explores more fully the differences between Rand's aesthetic views and those of the academic mainstream." This passage is not a criticism of Rand's work and should either be moved to another section of the article or deleted altogether. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoever put that text there (it wasn't I) evidently intended it as "counter-criticism"; i.e. to balance the criticism, which was primarily based on standards and values that themselves merit critical review. If that text were to be relocated, it would need to be augmented by an observation that Rand's aesthetic principles differed substantially from those of the "establishment", which is true but comes close to OR.  It may be best to leave the text where it stands, as it serves a useful purpose there. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could add some kind of transition? I'd do it myself, but I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to be a response to criticism of her prose.  The way this passage is currently phrased is just confusing.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reorganized the existing text to provide a better transition and to remove one level of indirection from the quotation (although the reference stays the same). I don't think it would be useful to add much more wording for the connection. — DAGwyn (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rand being a Jewish writer
Did Rand ever officially renounce Judaism or convert to another religion? Because if she did not, then she is a Russian Jewish writer. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1) In Judaism, someone born as a jew is in principle a jew forever, even renouncing the faith. So this is immaterial; 2) "Jewish" in the wikipedia categories that you mentioned or that had recently been removed from the article, is actually more of an ETHNIC than a religious classification, so much so that they include professed atheists and sometimes even converts. And there is no doubt that she was ethnically a jew. So, what is the problem with including Rand in these categories?Justice III (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that she vociferously and unequivocally denounced religion as mysticism, entirely incompatible with her intensely-held beliefs. So as a religious identifier, it is entirely unacceptable. As an ethnic identifier, it is also inappropriate, as per Wikipedia convention, when wiriting about specific groups and individuals we always use the terminology which they themselves would use. So how things are named "in Judaism" is irrelevant, as to endorse that would be to poison the well by already classifying Rand within the framework of Judaism in order to determine whether or not she was a Jew, which is patently absurd. Rand was an Objectivist, fiercely individualistic and resistant to the notion that people should be classified using collectivist terminology. Regards,  скоморохъ  22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am asking is did Rand specifically state that she herself was no longer Jewish. Her opinion on religion is one thing, if she never specifically renounced her own religion, then she was Jewish.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards - surely if she didn't declare her Jewishness she was not Jewish. You can argue that one can be born with a Jewish ethnicity, but it is farcical to argue that one can be born with religious beliefs. The burden of proof is on the claimant; if we find somewhere Rand said "I am a Jew", and no sources that said she renounced her supposed Jewishness, then we should include the category. Until then, скоморохъ  03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For identification purposes, one who is born into a religion is identified as a member of that religion until they either renounce that religion or convert. There are plenty of Jews who don't believe in God, but are still identified as Jews.  Likewise for many other religions.  Either point to a source where she said "I'm no longer Jewish", or we state that she was Jewish based on the fact that she was born to Jewish parents.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "For identification purposes, one who is born into a religion is identified as a member of that religion until they either renounce that religion or convert."
 * Oh yeah, says who? Since all individuals are born Pastafarians, we should identify her as a Pastafarian unless a source says she isn't. Since she was born in Communist Russia, we should include her in the category Communists until we find a source that says otherwise. Since she was born an infant, we should...etc. Burden of proof. скоморохъ  04:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Under Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish. 70.21.38.201 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Under Objectivist ethics, you are whoever you damn well please, within the constraints of reality and reason. So that doesn't get us anywhere. скоморохъ  05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise then. Something like "Even though Rand herself was not religious, her birth to a Jewish mother makes her Jewish under Jewish law."  70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, that would be fine if we were discussing what text to include in the article. But as far as I am aware, the issue is whether or not to include the article in Jew-related categories. скоморохъ  05:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the compromise text into the article. As far as the categories, that's a tough one and depends on whether the Jewish category is defined by religion or ethnicity/culture.  Are the classifications of other Jewish people in that category done by religion or ethnicity?  70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I expressed myself sloppily; that text would be acceptable if it were cited (and not WP:SYN) and relevant. As DAGwyn notes, what ethnicity/religion Rand would hypothetically be categorised under is less than relevant here. Readers want to know what she thought - see undue weight.
 * Another point is that the article already mentions that her parents were non-observant Jews, and the new text added no new information, just editorializing. Such a remark is probably appropriate for an article on Judaic law, but not in this article, in which Jewishness plays no role. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rand didn't "convert to another religion", because she never professed any religion, insofar as the historical record shows, and as an adult, she definitely "renounced" all religions, as well as all forms of racism and of classification on the basis of accidents of ancestry. Rand did not call herself Jewish, and nobody who knew her would have dared to call her Jewish. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One sentence in a giant article about Rand's Jewish ethnicity does not give it undue weight. As far as avoiding synthesis, how about this source:
 * "Ethnically, yes, Rand was Jewish. She was born into a Russian Jewish family (see question 4.1 above), although her parents were not particularly observant. As an adult, Rand did not practice Judaism as a religion, since she became an atheist at an early age. A number of Rand's close associates over the years, including Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, and Alan Greenspan, have also been ethnic, but non-religious, Jews." http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.9  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to put to fine a point on it, but isn't this the precise source you want omitted from the Cult section due to its unreliability? скоморохъ  06:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want that source omitted for the cult criticism because it cites Rand's letter as the basis for its opinion on that subject (this is my new account btw, thanks for the tip :-). I assumed that its opinion of Rand's Jewish ethnicity is not based on Rand's writings, but if it is, then we'll need to find another source.  Also, since Rand's Jewish ethnicity has no bearing on objectivism, there's no conflict of interest in objectivist research on this issue as opposed to the issue of whether objectivism is a cult. Idag (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Rand did not call herself Jewish, and nobody who knew her would have dared to call her Jewish." Do you have a source for that? 70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can quote me, if you wish. It's not something that ever occurred to me to ask her on the few occasions when I met her, nor in correspondence, but I have heard and read nearly everything she said on the general issue, and have heard and read what her closest friends and associates had to say about her lack of tolerance for such categorization.  I am sure that she never called herself Jewish; if you think otherwise. then please exhibit a contrary quotation so that we may all be enlightened. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rand was ethnically Jewish (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q6.9) and your personal opinion to the contrary does not constitute a reliable source under WP:Sources. Idag (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why what Richard Lawrence has to say matters, but in any event, he just repeated the well-known fact, already present in our article, that Rand was born to non-observant Jews, and that she herself was an atheist. This is not personal opinion, it is recorded fact.  The "opinion", given by скоморохъ above as well as others recently and earlier in the editing history, is that it is inappropriate to categorize Rand as a "Jewish" anything.  Perhaps you could explain what purpose is supposed to be served by such categorization of "ethnic" Jewishness?  Are there categories for Jewish policemen, Jewish Quakers, Jewish criminals?  It seems to me that somebody has an inappropriate agenda for claiming Jewishness no matter how irrelevant it might be, and it could hardly be less relevant than in Rand's case.  It is misleading in the extreme to label someone as a "Jewish writer" when her writing has nothing to do with Jewish identity and is in fact opposed to that whole notion. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The importance of including Rand's Jewish ethnicity is that this is a biographical page not a page that is devoted solely to Rand's thinking (Objectivism has its own article). Rand's ethnicity is certainly relevant to Rand's biographical information.  As far as categorizing her as a "Jewish writer", I suggested earlier that we take a look at what types of people are currently classified as Jewish writers and go from there (I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure how to accurately browse the categories at the moment).  Idag (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also would be interested in finding out what criterion has generally been used for such classifications in WP, but my point about it being misleading still stands, and we can decide on the basis of reasonableness as well as on precedent. — DAGwyn (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I still have problems browsing through the ton of category articles, but I did find an interesting one. Baruch Spinoza was born Jewish, but he was extremely critical of the Jewish religious texts and was even cast out of the Jewish community, yet he is listed under the Jewish categories.  Idag (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cult Criticism
The second half of Cult Criticism violated both WP:POV and WP:Sources and when I fixed it, someone reverted it for "POV Vandalism". What I object to is the following passage in the Cult Criticism section: "The Biographical FAQ of the Objectivism Reference Center website discusses these allegations and refers to a letter in which Rand replies to a fan who wrote her offering cult-like allegiance by declaring "A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult"".

What this is essentially saying is that in response to accusations that objectivism is a cult, objectivists have stated that they are not a cult. This is obviously not a reliable third party source as required by WP:Sources, so can we either find a better source for this or delete it? 70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you're not suggesting that Rand and her defenders not be given chance to respond to the accusations? That does not seem at a neutral point of view. скоморохъ  03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Sources requires that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources" This article is not a forum for Rand and her defenders to respond to criticisms.  This article is a collection of information, both positive and negative, about Ayn Rand.  Per the WP:Sources requirement, if you find a reliable third-party source that responds to the cult criticism, then by all means, we can include it.  However, including a general denial of cult status from the person accused of founding a cult doesn't really add anything to the article.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Conversely, a section which includes only accusations of culthood violates the same policy, by failing to fairly represent all majority and significant-minority viewpoints. скоморохъ  04:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you misunderstand the policy. I have no problem with using a response to the criticism, as long as that response comes from a reliable third party source as required by WP:Sources.  The current response does not come from a third-party source and thus violates established Wikipedia policy.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't misunderstand the policy the first time, so I could hardly have done so again! Nothing in your latest reply addresses my last comment. Regards, скоморохъ  04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticisms of culthood come from third-party sources. The response is from Ayn Rand, who is not a third-party source.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, we've established that. We face the prospect of a well-referenced section containing accusations of culthood with no response at all (if we are to delete Rand's/Objectivist's response). Such a section would violate WP:SOURCES by failing to fairly represent "all majority and significant-minority viewpoints." This leaves us with only three logical options: include a section that violates the policy, remove the section entirely, or find reliable material covering all significant viewpoints. Which do you prefer? скоморохъ  05:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A logical reading of WP:Sources is that it requires reliable third-party sources that represent these viewpoints. As I stated earlier, if there's reliable third-party material that responds to the cult criticism, then by all means, let's include it.  Rand's response however, doesn't cut it under WP:Sources.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I say we should get rid of the section. While it is certainly true that some followers of Rand have acted like cultists, it is equally true that many others in no way qualify as cultists. This "cult" accusation primarily serves as a way for detractors to denigrate Rand's ideas by associating them with an irrelevancy rather than addressing the ideas on their merits. That might be a popular political ploy, but it's not a valid form of criticism. I note that another recent posting here similarly proposes to eliminate a response to criticism of Rand's literary aesthetic, and there have been other suggestions that the article must not contain Rand's own statements, but only those of "third-party" commentators, who as it happens are largely allied against Rand. I find that a willful misreading of WP policies. Certainly Rand's denunciation of a cult following is important information concerning this topic, and there simply is no better source for her views on this than her own statement. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policies have not been misread. Here are the two relevant provisions of WP:Sources: 1) "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and 2) "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."  Applying these criteria to the cult criticism, a significant number of reliable third-party sources have leveled this criticism at Rand's philosophy and should therefore be included as significant viewpoints addressing that philosophy.  As far as third-party commentators being allied against Rand, we must represent viewpoints with regard to their prominence.  I'm sorry that there are so many anti-Rand third party sources, but until that changes we have to fairly represent those sources and not our own personal biases.  As far as using Rand in rebuttal of criticism, under WP:Sources, there are multiple criteria that must be satisfied if you want to use a non-third party source and Rand's response to her critics does not satisfy that criteria.  Again, I'm sorry if you don't like Wikipedia's policies, but the entire point of these policies is that this is an encyclopedia that represents outside scholarship and not the personal opinions of its editors.  70.21.38.201 (talk) 06:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can "prove" almost anything by quoting out of context and interpreting out of context. The paragraph containing (1), which is but one part of the policy on verifiability, reads in its entirety: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources."  Thus, the rationale is to substantiate/support claims and to give credit — not to exclude relevant factual information about what the subject of the article said.  In fact, that quotation was not Rand's response to her critics, but a reliable third party's response to her critics; Rand herself was responding to a misguided admirer.  None of this constitutes "personal opinion of the editors"; it is verifiable statement of relevant factual information.  Taking all of the major WP policies and their rationale into account, your anonymous "contributions" (all of which have been attached to the Ayn Rand article and its Talk page, according to the WP logs) are not representative of WP guidelines, and in my view seem suspiciously biased toward establishing an unbalanced negative POV in this article.  I think it has had pretty good balance recently, presenting the main information neutrally, including significant criticisms and a small amount of counter-criticism, and would like to maintain that. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is none of your business which articles I choose to edit. I make my edits in good faith, so please keep your ad hominem attacks out of this discussion.  As far as the rationale for the article, your response makes no sense.  The policy clearly requires third party sources to back up claims within an article.  To address your concerns, an exception is provided to this rule if the information is 1) relevant to the article's notability, 2) is not contentious, 3) is not unduly self-serving, etc.  WP:Sources.  In this case, the information is clearly contentious and since the subject matter is the cult status of Rand's own philosophy, her writings on the matter would be self-serving. Idag (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "self-serving" → "relevant".
 * It is our business if you are pushing a particular POV and trying to misrepresent legitimate WP policy to justify your agenda. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we're obviously not going to come to a consensus, I've submitted the matter for a third party opinion. As far as personal attacks, I have assumed that your edits are being made in good faith even though you very clearly have an objectivist bias.  I would appreciate the same consideration.  Idag (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion
Here is my opinion as a neutral third party: third party sources are not necessary when the article is quoting the opinion of a particular individual. Since the section is dealing with the perception of Rand's following as being a "cult", Rand's own personal thoughts on this are very much relevant. However, the sentence itself needs to be re-written so it's more NPOV. (language such as "However" and "Rand itself" are not needed). -- MisterHand  (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I got rid of the "however" and split the Rand quote off to another paragraph, since it's not a response to the first quote. Tempshill (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation key needs a normal dictionary-like pronunciation on how to pronounce her first name, as opposed to the current IPA guide, which, statistically speaking, nobody understands and nobody uses. Tempshill (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

500,000 books per year

 * Rand's books continue to be widely sold and read, with more than 22 million copies sold (as of 2005), and 500,000 more being sold each year.

I put a fact tag on this because although there is a citation that gives the 500,000 number, it comes from an interested party. The statistic needs a different source if one can be found. Tempshill (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any party with accurate information on anything is likely to be an "interested party". The figure seems about right in the context of all the other sales figures I encountered while researching this for another purpose. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Zogby Study
User:DAGwyn, maybe you don't understand what I'm getting at. In the revision note you said No reason to doubt cited reference, which is supported by others (e.g. Economist in 1991, also in article). Zogby info relevant to stated poll challenge. Don't clutter text with ref info. This is where you added back the statement: The Zogby poll result can be checked by simple arithmetic: Roughly 8 million copies of Atlas Shrugged had been sold in America by that time; there are around 200 million adult Americans who might be considered the sample space; if 2 people read each copy (fewer than for most magazines), then 8% is the right fraction. In the article I see the reference to the Economist but it only talks about the number of sold copies. That's fine, but I'm more concerned about the "simple arithmetic". If you are performing this arithmetic then it's considered original research. Otherwise you need to cite your source for this statement. Even if your self-performed calculation was allowed, you still don't cite your source for "200 million adult Americans who might be considered the sample space", and "fewer than for most magazines".

If you still disagree and think your statement is allowable without citing the (non-original) source, then we'll have to go the admins. --WayneMokane (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously dispute that those approximations are near the correct values? Or that arithmetic is objective?  Since somebody added a note in the main text that the validity of the polls has been disputed, the objective, NPOV footnote directly relevant to the validity of the result of one of the impugned polls is not only appropriate but necessary.  (The other two polls are indeed suspect, and I previously added refs to support that claim.)  It seems that you want to justify perpetuating an incorrect implication of the current text. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about what I think is correct or accurate. It's about Wikipedia's policy (including no original research and verifiability).  Discussing whether those policies are good to have is beyond the scope of our little discourse here.  The fact is they are established at the moment and must be followed in articles.  The only point worth debating here is, whether or not the arithmetic you are doing is considered original research (I honestly thought it was but reading over the policy it may be exempt).  We will need some more senior input on this (see here).  Now, assuming it is allowable, you still need to cite your sources for the other claims I mentioned above.  If you're allowed to multiply a*b=c and use c as a conclusion, then you need to have a verifiable source for a and b.  Make sense?  --WayneMokane (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It didn't seem necessary to add references in a footnote to well-known and easily verified approximate parameters such as number of adult Americans at the time of the poll. The number of book sales can be estimated in various ways and has been reported in several places, not always in a ready-to-use form.  My point is, the Zogby poll results do not appear to be significantly biased, and the 8% figure is an interesting, relevant, and reasonably accurate factoid.  Another way of dealing with this would be to move mention of the Zogby poll past the scope of the text and footnotes pertaining to the suspect methodology of the other polls.  However, I think the simple calculation is useful for the context. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it is interesting and may bear mention in a certain context. I have read a few other articles this week that do something similar as well.  The only concern I have is the same one mentioned on the link I posted above, which basically says that the assertion the poll may be flawed (forgetting the arithmetic for a moment) is itself considered original research unless we can find some other verifiable source which disputes the accuracy of the poll.  The way I read the current policy, I honestly do not believe this footnote can be left in its present form without such a reference. --WayneMokane (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I implemented the slight reorganization that I previously suggested, since the only challenges to Zogby polls that I found were merely unsubstantiated allegations on the basis of a priori disagreement with Zogby's purported point of view. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cult Criticism POV
As much as most editors on here love Rand, the latest edits to the Cult Criticism section are ridiculous. Regardless of your views on Rand, it is a fact that a number of prominent figures have accused Objectivism of being a cult. It is our job to accurately represent their views. Thus, when a Cult Criticism section has a one sentence blurb about their views followed by a giant block quote that presents a counter-argument to their views, that's just a tad unbalanced. See WP:Undue Weight Again, I don't care how much you love Rand, your insistence on maintaining bias in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article is keeping this from becoming a better article. Let the facts stand on their own without watering down the facts that you don't like. Idag (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the cult accusations are based on erroneous ideas and mis-attributions, should we not mention quotes that show it? As much as you obvioulsy don't like Rand, I think it's ridiculaous and POV to say that any accusation should stand without rebuttal because someone notable said it and you happen to agree. Let the facts speak for themsleves indeed, I agree! So would Rand I expect. How about you? Ethan a dawe (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That those ideas are erroneous is the view of one Objectivist author. That author should not be given more space in a CRITICISM section than the actual critics.  I'm not saying remove the rebuttal, I'm saying don't stick it in a giant block quote.  As for me personally, I don't care one way or another about Rand, I'm editing articles whose subject matter I know something about.  Since this article has repeatedly failed the Featured Article nomination due to its bias against Rand's criticism, I'm trying to fix that.   Idag (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That a blanket "cult" label is erroneous is not just one person's opinion; it is the opinion of many people who have been in a position to know. My own impression, not expressed in the article, is that people who insist that Objectivism is a "cult" do so because they are unable or unwilling to rebut it rationally, and so they resort to smearing it as an excuse for not treating the ideas seriously, with the hope that they can discourage newcomers from looking into it.  The quote from an insider gives useful information not presented elsewhere in the article that bears directly on the validity of the criticism.  Leaving out the quote would give critics the last word, which I'm sure is what they want, but that would give undue weight to the claim (doing a disservice to the general reader) since it is so easily rebutted.
 * Nathaniel Branden has provided much more intelligent and informed criticism pertaining to psychological risks of following some of Rand's ideas, which perhaps should be mentioned here, but he has not used that as an excuse to dismiss most of those ideas. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dagwyn, just because you personally disagree with the criticism doesn't give you the right to water it down. I did some research and most of the notable people who are "in a position to know" and dispute this criticism are Objectivists.  Clearly, they are going to say only positive things about the movement and they do not deserve more space in a criticism section than notable third party critics.  While you may believe that their criticism is "easily rebutted" a number of notable authors happen to disagree with your opinion.  Idag (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Idag you seem to have missed the point. If the criticism is refuted it's refuted. A notable person may think the earth os flat, but that doesn't change the facts that it isn't. There is plenty of room for good criticism, but fallacious criticism should be noted as such. POV people insist that this be included becasue the person who said it is notable, but allowing it to stand as untouchable because of the speaker's notoriety is beyond reasonable. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't mind us including a rebuttal. What I care about (and what WP:Undue Weight requires) is that we not give the rebuttal more space than the actual criticism.  Whether the rebuttal actually rebuts the criticism is a value judgment, but a one-sentence summary of the criticism followed by an in-depth exploration of the rebuttal is unbalanced.  Since this section was a big weakness when this article was nominated for Featured Article status, I'm trying to make this section as NPOV as possible so that this article can become better than B-class.  Idag (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
←From 3O: According to WP:UNDUE, all viewpoints should be fairly represented. At present the rebuttal to the cult criticism appears to be fairly represented, but the actual cult criticism isn't. Increasing the length of the cult criticism section to be at least as long as its rebuttal would properly satisfy WP:UNDUE and the rest of WP:NPOV. Might I suggest inserting a longer summary or even a quotation from one of these critics?
 * http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
 * http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml — BradV 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that you can find much beyond merely lengthier assertions saying the same thing that we have already noted in the article. It is certainly true that some of Rand's followers have in the past behaved much like cultists.  That doesn't make the philosophy as a whole a cult, and numerous other followers have not behaved like that.  I think the Branden criticism would be worth adding, and deserves extra weight because he has observed the movement at first-hand (heck, he was even responsible for a lot of the problems) and has provided a reasoned criticism instead of a simplistic label. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rothbard's spiel is filled with easily recognizable anti-Rand-bias vocabulary and puts forth so many outright untruths about the Objectivist movement that it doesn't deserve citing. Like so much supposedly intellectual discourse of modern times, his preconceptions have badly distorted his perception and logic.  Shermer's article, by comparison, deserves to be cited as a reference, although since he based his conclusions primarily on what he thought Branden wrote in "Judgment Day" he is not the right person to be quoted. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know very little about the subject - I'm just responding on style issues. It seems to me that if we can't fully cover a particular criticism on a topic it is extremely POV to cover the rebuttal to the criticism. And if we can't find a reliable source to quote then the whole section should be removed. — BradV 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went back and re-read the cult-criticism section of the article. It does cite the Rothbard and Shermer articles, along with another critical article.  The interested reader can easily access their lengthy argumentation.  The amount of coverage given to the criticism seems balanced in the context of the whole article; expanding it would be to give it undue weight.  What the Sures quotation does is illuminate Ayn Rand's actual views, as opposed to the incidental behavior of any of her followers or the opinions of third-hand observers, and that is appropriate since this article is biographic.  (There is a separate article about the Objectivist movement, which is really where the cult discussion belongs.)  Despite what has been maintained by the anti-Randists, this isn't a matter of "POVs" and "sides", it's about reporting the truth, which has multiple facets.  The current section does that quite well.


 * Dagwyn, not everyone who disagrees with you is an "anti-Randist". If you do not like a certain criticism, then you have no right to water it down and spin it just to comply with your point of view.  For example, if you look at the Fourteenth Amendment article, the article goes into great detail about the controversy over the Amendment's ratification.  Do most of us think that this "controversy" is baloney?  Sure, we do.  But this "controversy" was advanced by several notable members of society, so we fully summarized their views.  At this point you have two neutral editors telling you that views that you disagree with need to be set forth in this article.  I've expanded Rothbard's view (feel free to add in a caveat about his personal bias) and we can add in the other criticisms that you referred to previously.  This will allow us to keep the block quote and make the section NPOV.  Idag (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the change?
"Her influential and often controversial ideas have attracted both enthusiastic admirers and scathing denunciation."

The word "admirers" used to say "admiration". Why was it changed to a noun? I don't see what advantage the change confers upon the sentence; in fact, it seems to not read as smoothly.


 * Good point. I've made the requisite change.  Idag (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
So I find that a lot of that list appears to be apocryphal. I checked every entry in that list who I was not sure about, and if their article did not mention Ayn Rand, I removed them from the list. Michael Paxton does not have a Wikipedia Article, ergo I don't think he's terribly notable. I also removed the soap opera star--that's really just not terribly interesting or important. A lot of the Objectivist thinkers mentioned in the original article, such as Cline, the Brandens, etc. are simply not that well known--having them in a list with celebrities and politicians strikes me as dubious, which is why I moved them out to a philosopher's list--although I suppose technically not all of them are philosophers, which is why I renamed it to "philosophers and thinkers". TallNapoleon (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I am aware, there was nobody on the original list who didn't qualify as having publicly stated (usually in some published interview) that their lives were significantly influenced by Rand's ideas. WP is not the only available source of information, but even so too many names had been removed for whom their WP articles state definitely that they were significantly influenced by Rand.  It might be fair to ask for further references if the person isn't supported by the original reference or their WP article.)  I don't think the division into "philosophers/thinkers" and "others" is either fair (who says the others aren't thinkers?) or sufficiently well-defined.  The Infobox already singles out under "Influenced" just the people who seem to fall into the philosopher/thinker category.  (Attempts to add others there have led to complaints from WP-philosophy-category editors.)  So I suggest that anybody already in the Infobox list can and should be left out of the popular-influence list, which should consist of a single list.  As to Michael Paxton, I suppose we can leave him out until somebody creates his WP article.  The "soap opera star" is more "interesting and important" than some of the others, to some people; you shouldn't filter based merely on your own personal interests. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Flame Wars
There have been enough flame wars on this talk page and it needs to stop. I will delete *any* further attempts to restart them or replies thereto myself. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Under Early Works, I added her first book "we the living" . . . question about my addition
Added the following quote and description of the book from Aynrand.org, do this mentioned of Soviet tyranny violate wiki NPOV policy?: "The most autobiographical of her novels, it was based on her years under Soviet tyranny." It is me i think (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * nevermind It is me i think (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The tyranny has been well documented, and in any case, the premise that it was a tyranny is central to the plot, so it is appropriate to so describe it in this context. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

=Rework Article=

This article is very long as many have noted. I think we could reduce it by shrinking a lot of the Objectivist philosophy and Objectivist Movement parts. There are separate artcile for those that are better places for a lot of the material. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This seems sensible, but we want to watch whether shrinking some sections gives undue weight to others - it would be odd if the philosophy section were shorter than the philosophical criticism for example. Overly long sections at the moment include the Gender/Sex/Race and Further reading sections. Another means of cutting down the article size would be to move content that is better suited to other articles - the "Cult criticism" section for example seems far more relevant to the Objectivist movement than to Rand personally. Another idea would be to split the Bibliography into a separate article, as is common for articles on prolific authors. Skomorokh  22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was reading someone's comments on talk richard dawkins that criticism section were bad, and that inline integrated criticism bit would be better. I agree that the cult criticism section would be better in the Objectivist Movement article, though I want to be careful not to upset balance by removing any pieces of criticism altogether without a great deal of consensus. Perhaps a first step is to divide the work into blocks that are easy to do. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that we can cut down on both the movement and the criticism. A one or two paragraph summary for the movement and another one for the criticism, each with links to the corresponding main articles would do it. Idag (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think another good area for cutting down is the section under philosophy on influences. All those sections are better placed under Objectivism. Thoughts? I'm going to try and come up with a draft of changes. Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Boisvert
A user asked why we should keep reliably sourced material per WP:ATT that he personally doesn't like? A strange question, I thought. The obvious answer would be simply that the quote was attributed to a reliable source and that one crisp sentence outlining Boisvert's opinion of Ayn Rand in the Criticism section of this article is neither overloading the article per WP:UNDUE nor providing any other red flags per Wikipedia policy. That should be enough for anyone. But in case it's not, students of academic philosophy might remember Raymond Boisvert for his book John Dewey: Rethinking Our Time(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), which was favorably reviewed in The Philosophical Quarterly (Vol. 49, No. 195 (Apr., 1999), pp. 270-272) and Philosophy East and West (Vol. 48, No. 4 (Oct., 1998), pp. 671). Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's that noteworthy, but a one-sentence concise summary is consistent with Wikipedia policies. Idag (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand why a couple of editors want to remove concisely sourced reliable and relevant material, but aren't interested in removing the far more problematic unsourced material in this article. In any case, regarding Boisvert, I checked Worldcat, The Philosopher's Index, LexisNexis, Factiva, and other academic indeces. If notability is an issue, I'd like to read from which exact policy statement on Wikipedia they're basing that claim. Beyond what was already mentioned, Boisvert wrote several academic books on philosophy and also was reviewed in other academic journals such as Metaphilosophy. The Philosopher's Index, which provides indexing and abstracts from books and journals of philosophy and related fields, also indicates that he's published over thirty academic journal articles on philosophy and that his work is cited in such journals as the American Journal of Education, The Journal of Philosophy of Education, and The American Historical Review (among others). According to LexisNexis, journalists have quoted him on issues pertaining to philosophical subjects in the past.  Apparently, he's also won a Fulbright Award. Unless someone can think of a good reason why we need to delete reliably sourced material from an academic philosopher on Ayn Rand, I'll restore the sentence. J Readings (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATT does not say that the only criterion for including text is that it be properly sourced. (It asserts essentially the converse.) So far as I know, nobody has challenged the sourcing. What has been challenged is whether Boisvert's comment adds value to the article, which is already too long. The cited position doesn't appear to represent a commonly expressed view in the literature, so why should his personal opinion be recognized here? In fact there is an easy counterargument, namely "The greater the complexity of life, the greater the value in simplifying principles." (There is substantial philosophical tradition along those lines.) Without the opinion having entered into that sort of academic debate, why should it be granted special recognition? It sure smacks of unsubstantiated POV, and doesn't help the reader understand anything. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An important academic commenting about Rand's philosophy is notable. "Simplifying principles" is not a policy of Wikipedia and we are not going to start excluding valid and important sources simply because you don't like them. Idag (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DAGwyn, you appear to be fairly new to Wikipedia, so it's not my intention to WP:BITE. In fact, I admire your gumption on what you believe to be worthy of inclusion in this article (especially the criticism section), but instead of engaging in an edit war, a more diplomatic (not to mention persuasive) approach would be to bring your concerns to the talk page in the form of an amicable discussion of policy. Constantly reverting the reliably sourced text because you happen to disagree with it, not only creates disruption, it resolves nothing. Speaking of disruption and policies, you currently have reverted that cited third-party text four times within a 24-hour period, thus breaking WP:3RR. I understand that mistakes sometimes happen and you probably just didn't realize your mistake, and to be honest, I don't want to have to report you, which I guarantee will lead to you being blocked for at least 24 hours. If you self-revert right now, I'll let it pass without a second thought. Please let me know what you want to do on that score. As for the substance, I'm at a loss to why you are dead-set against such a small sentence being added, when you're real concern (assuming you're sincere) should be on removing the reams of unsourced material in the earlier as part of an effort to decide what stays and what goes. I would be happy to discuss those areas in another section, if you'd prefer. J Readings (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not new to Wikipedia. My sole concern is to improve the quality of the article, which is hard to do since there are so many people trying to use it to push their personal POV (one way or the other).  I stated my criteria previously, but they are essentially (1) readability; (2) factuality; (3) accuracy; (4) significance; (5) relevance.  Boisvert's comments are no more noteworthy nor relevant than hundreds of other dismissive statements about Rand, and inserting his name into the main text makes it stand out like a sore thumb, raising all sorts of questions in the neutral reader's mind.  The sort of commentary does not belong in a biographical article.  I attempted to leave it in as a reference supporting the accurate and relevant general statement that academia has largely tried to marginalize Objectivism (which attempt has been largely successful in academia, much less so in the general culture).  I have also created an article "Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" where commentary such as Boisvert's can be aired without disrupting the readability of the biography.


 * Interesting. Until now, I didn't realize that you were claiming to speak for all readers of Wikipedia. I'll be changing it back, of course, because the quote is attributed to a reliable third-party source per WP:ATT by a noted academic philosopher. Please feel free to continue your edit warring, if you're convinced that it will somehow make a point. Or we can persue mediation from outside (something I welcome). Either way, it's incorrect to distort the quote and the citation based on your own POV. I'm sure you realize that when you say "I don't like it" that is not part of Wikipedia policy. J Readings (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be speaking as if he owns the article personally, so his subjective opinion is more important than the objective facts. As part of correcting other defects, I will make sure that your improvements are not lost in the shuffle. - Bert 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * I do have a personal interest in the quality of this article, among others that I regularly monitor; I have stated my editorial criteria. I note for the record that the above commenters appear to apply some mental model of what they think of as "Randianism" to avoid considering the actual motives or argumentation of anyone who opposes the insertion of biased and disruptive propaganda into the Rand biographical article.  WP:NPOV does not require inclusion of either pro- or anti-subject POV, unless they pertain to a disputed factual assertion.  Indeed, that's why I tried to recast the Boisvert reference as a supporting reference for such an assertion. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted all section by Edward Nilges blocked user
After consulting with and on advice of admin I have removed all of Edwards comments and related ones. All further will also be deleted. he is a blocked user. Ethan a dawe (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments of a blocked user have been deleted for violating WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

censorship
It's bad enough that you keep deleting Edward's comments, but it looks like you wiped out some other inconvenient truths while you were at it. In specific, you erased this exchange:


 * In any case, I was looking at the footnote justifying Rand's description as a philosopher, and the quote only says that she's considered one in literary academica. That may be so, but philosophy is not literature, so that is no more relevant than Rand being considered a medical doctor by street cleaners. You have one day to find a better citation to support this claim, or I'm going to relabel her, tactfully, as a lay philosopher. Good luck and the clock is ticking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as for labelling her a lay philosopher, that category was shot down on wikipedia awhile ago. It's POV by it's very nature. So, POV title, no consensus, no change. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The neutral solution is to rephrase it so that the article simply says that she considered herself a philosopher and that some people agreed while others disagreed, without expressing a judgement. Then, by referencing some of the different views as to her status as a philosopher, citing notable figures on all sides of the issue, the article can provide enough information for the readers to decide for themselves. Of course, it is extremely relevant a number of people who are unambiguously philosophers, including Edward's Hook, decided she wasn't. After all, who better than philosophers to decide who qualifies as a philosopher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One place you may want to look is at the debate here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_political_philosophers#Ayn_Rand Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just one of several on the topic, I recommend you search them all out and read them. As for the Hook piece. It was written BEFORE Rand wrote her non-fiction philosophical pieces. THERFORE it does not take into account those works. THERFORE it does not support the point you are making. Now I've done far more than I've had to. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked there and did not see any sound counter-arguments. Gesturing in the direction isn't going to cut it. If you think you have a refutation, you're going to need to explicitly present it. Failure to do so constitutes a concession.


 * I suggest you read the previous archived discussions on Rand being a Philosopher. The debate has been had and closed. Saying you don't agree and asking me to do your research for you is not reasonable, or nice. Before you go changing things I suggest you research the history here and get consensus. ThanksEthan a dawe (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only am I going to rescue the words you erased, I'm going to jump into this fray to remind Dawe that no debate on Wikipedia content is ever closed, at least not until Wikipedia 1.0 is shipped. Your claim that there was some discussion in the distant past carries no weight, even if it were supported by evidence instead of lazy hand-waving.

That's because we are not bound by its conclusions today; the current consensus controls the content, not some arbitrarily chosen historical one that favors your biases. Everytime someone new comes here and questions the content, you need to fight all over again for your view, and you need to win again. You don't get to just declare victory without ever entering the field of battle.

If you were right the in the first place, then all you'd have to do is repeat those sound arguments, trot out the irrefutable citations and bowl us over with the force of your scholarship. If you weren't, and you only won by exhausting, bullying or assasinating your opponents (alas poor Edward, I knew him not at all), then the consensus changes and the article changes.

I second the challenge: show that Rand is considered a philosopher by philosophical academia, not merely literary academia. If you can't do this, then I'll personally change the article to read "amateur philosopher".


 * Actually, that is incorrect. Once a clear consensus has been achieved (as it has on the philosopher issue) it is not up for debate unless you can think of a very good NEW point that has not been previously discussed.  Otherwise, we are not going to rehash the same arguments over and over again because that would be a waste of everyone's time.  I would recommend going to the archives and you will find that all of Edward's arguments have already been discussed ad nauseum.  Idag (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is untrue. I contributed a distinction between an institutional "academia" and the actual community of peer review which you did not even understand and never addressed.


 * Furthermore, I hope YOU don't pose as a philosopher, for one characteristic of the non-philosopher is a demi-Fascistic hatred of actual texts. Key phrases he uses are in fact "ad nauseum".


 * This world-weary view is unearned by people, who haven't read the canon, to refer to the canon as something they are so familiar with as to be unutterably weary with it. It's a pose.


 * Rand took this pose with respect to philosophy, selecting certain philosophers who she thought might support her case (although how you get from Aristotle to a free market is quite a stretch and then, dismissing the unread remainder as the self-interested and crypto-totalitarian rantings of dead white males.


 * Real philosophers are interested above all in ideas with which they may very well disagree. Rand instead pioneered a pose made by many members of the ACADEMIC elite today who have through celebrity removed themselves from the common herd of the merely tenured, the merely assistant professed, the privat dozent.


 * Rand in fact pioneered the gestures of a Paglia or Harold Bloom. While unlike Rand having secured the commanding heights of academia owing to a neoconservative movement that was only gathering steam at the time of Rand's death in 1982, they profess from that Olympian height, as would Rand had she attained some sort of "Ayn Rand Chair" to despise the actual work, the actual writing, the ink-stained wretchedness of academic work, and piss on the bulk of its output as the ravings of people with the bad taste to be liberal saps.


 * I deleted Edward's comments on advice from an admin, Atlan and took all the rest of the comments with them as they would be out of context. Edward is a blocked user. Enough said about that. Please note Idag's and my response to you that the philosopher discussion has alread been had. It's in the archives. Please assume good faith, I did not delete anything do get rid of truths that I didn't like. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Edward's comment has been deleted for violating WP:Civil and WP:Attack. Idag (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I don't want to be as dick about this, but I simply cannot believe you. There's assuming good faith and then there's being a sucker, and I'm not going to be a sucker here.  Assuming good faith is, as I've read, not a suicide pact.  And let's be honest here: there's no more civil way to say that you guys have shown plenty of bad faith and dirty tricks, including erasing my demand for evidence and getting one of your enemies banned or blocked or whatever.  So if there are some compelling arguments for calling her a philosopher, you're just going to have to show them to me.  If you wave your hand and pretend it's my job to read your mind, I'm simply going to fix the article.  And if I don't, it looks like there are plenty of other people who are willing to jump in and do the right thing.


 * I did not get Edward banned, he was banned previously for being rude and disruptive. His current posts were an attempt to get around the block. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I and another have pointed out, the arguemnts are in the archive. You calim we have to find them for you, but that's not my job. Please go look for yourself. If you ignore what I've said and edit the article, I will be forced to revert it. I'd rather not get in a n edit war over something that is already settled. If you have new information to add to the existing arguemtns please provide it. I'll gladly consider it. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have until the end of day today to come up with justification for calling Rand a philosopher. Feel free to copy and paste tried and true research here, but don't wave your hands at me.


 * Please consider what I've said above, and don't put deadlines on things. Assume good faith. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I already explained myself, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating it all over again. You show me the arguments right here and we'll see if we can come to a consensus. Otherwise, you've done nothing to refute the fact that the citation for calling her a philosopher is invalid.

Good faith doesn't mean waiting forever and it doesn't mean accepting hand-waving and "go fish" in the place of rational argumentation. It's not my job to find counter-arguments against my argument; that's your job and if you can't do it, then you fail. Time's a-wasting.


 * Obviously somebody has a chip on their shoulder to whatever end. As discussed numerous times, there is no universal definition of a "philosopher", a course that you take or a body that "approves" the description.  Rand put forth a broad philosophy in her novels and non-fiction work that has had a wide ranging impact, she is a de facto philosopher.  I disagree


 * with some of the fundamental positions of Kant, or Jesus or Neitsche, but disagreement does not mean that they are not philosophers. In any case, most philosophers are "amateur" philosophers in the sense that they are not paid for "philosophizing", per se.  Attempting to force your definition of "philosopher" on this topic is fruitless, it's your POV,

and that's fine, but it's not mine and not that of many, many, many other people. Should we now review all philosophers posted on Wikipedia to determine whether they fit your criteria, and re-label everything according to Hook, or whomever? The answer is clearly NO. Philosophy, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. You may believe that a blob of paint is a work of art and I might believe that it's pig crap - but I certainly wouldn't edit the page to state that the piece of art is not art, because I have a source that defines art by a different standard. Is this coming across to you? I doubt it. Grazen (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I read this twice and I didn't see any place where you actually addressed the argument. Please try again, only this time, don't miss the target. To remind you, Kant and Nietzsche, while they may be completely wrong on everything they ever wrote, are generally accepted within the academic philosophical community as philosophers, and rather significant ones at that.


 * You should read it a third time then. Your standard, to quote: "are generally accepted within the academic philosophical community as philosophers" is the problem.  You are assumming that the "academic philoshphical community" is somehow the standard bearer for who or what may be defined as a "philosopher" - which is inherintly your POV.  If you have evidence that the "academic philosophical community" (a term that would also require a definition) holds this view (aside from an article here or there) - perhaps a broad study of such from a verifiable and trusted source, then hey, toss it in as a point.  Otherwise, you have not met the burden of proof.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazen (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The academic philosophical community was defined earlier in terms of achieving degrees from and teaching at accredited institutions. For example, Alvin Plantinga has a PhD in Philosophy from Yale, teaches the subject at Notre Dame and has been published in numerous peer-reviewed philosophical journals. He is unambiguously a philosopher, even though his philosophical stances amount to nothing more than Catholic apologetics. In contrast, whatever value there might be to Rand's ideas, she has none of these qualifications and simply fails to be a philosopher, as much as Plantinga fails to be a medical doctor or even a plumber. There's no shame in not being something, only in pretending to what you're not.

At this point, I don't believe this is in any way ambiguous or genuinely controversial. In fact, I don't see any credible alternative, and you're not proposing one above. Do you actually have an argument here or just an assertion? Let me know immediately.


 * I agree with Grazen's comments above. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good to have friends. Maybe you can be his friend by doing him a favor: help him find some sort of credible definition for the status of philosopher. I suggest this because, right now, he's got nothing and I just called his bluff. It would be in your rational self-interest to bail him out, if you can.

Rand is not. Instead, people like Hook question whether she's any sort of philosopher, and it's doesn't seem that she met any of the basic requirements, such as holding a degree, teaching the subject at an accredited college or getting published in a peer-reviewed journal. All this points to the fact that she's simply not a philosopher. She's a novelist who touches on philosophical (and, to be clear, mostly political) topics in an amateurish and unprofessional way.

She may be right or she may be wrong, but she's not a philosopher, and it's not a neutral POV to blandly claim otherwise. Please come back with evidence that addresses these points, or I will charitably assume you have none.


 * I can't make you see if you won't look. Sorry, but Grazen's points are well taken. This argument is a red herring anyways. Was Socrates a philosopher, or a corrupter of the youth? Do YOUR research on Rand and anyone else here labelled as a philospher, I'm not going to do it for you. Let's focus on more important things like getting this article into a tighter package. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what's not there and I won't accept the blame for your inability to defend your views on their own merit. The real red herring here is that you are applying an irrelevant standard. If I said that Hippocrates, the father of medicine and originator of the oath that bears his name, wasn't really a doctor because he didn't have a license to practice in California in 2008, that would be patently absurd. It's just as absurd to say that Rand would have qualified as a philosopher under the standards we apply to Socrates. We need to apply only the standard that is most relevant to the time and place, not go fishing for a favorable venue, as you have done. In any case, the article doesn't suffer from bloat, it suffers from one-sidedness, so any attempt to shrink it by making it even less balances is unacceptable and will not be allowed. You have in no way made your case, nor have you refuted mine. Please address the argument.


 * I pointed out before that Rand demonstrably meets several of the alternate definitions (in Merriam-Webster online) for "philosopher". One who makes a substantial income doing plumbing is a plumber, whether or not he is a member of the plumber's union. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand made substantial income as a novelist, not a philosopher. Philosophers write peer-reviewed papers that contribute to the academic field and are paid to teach in accredited institutions. Rand made some money as a professional speaker, and her writings were never even submitted for peer review in relevant journals. Applying the principle of charity, the best you can possibly hope to accomplish with this line of argument is to support the idea that Rand was an amateur philosopher, in much the same way that someone who fixes their stopped-up toilet is an amateur plumber. You have failed to address the argument against calling her a philosopher plain and simple, without qualifying the term with a disclaimer.


 * This debate has been archived and is available for all to see. Please take a look at that and if you have any NEW points to discuss, we can discuss them.  However, if you simply start vandalizing this article because we haven't given you "evidence" then we will revert your edits and you will be banned for being disruptive.  To quote a legal maxim "the person who wishes to change the status quo bears the burden of providing the evidence."  Idag (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I've raised a new point that is not addressed in the archives. If I'm mistaken, you'll need to explcitly point out where they are, rather than waving your hand. Another maxim is that failure to address an argument amounts to admitting that it is correct.


 * I have checked the archives and you have not raised any new points. Since you are clearly too lazy to do your own research, I am not going to do it for you.  Your argument has already been addressed and we are not going to go through another lengthy debate when you have not raised a single new point that needs to be discussed.  Idag (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible for me to prove that something is absent, other than to point out that I looked but did not find. This tosses the burden back into your lap; you now need to show that I didn't look hard enough by pointing to the part I should have found. If it's true, it should be easy, but failure to do so, even when hidden behind uncivil claims of my laziness, amounts to a concession.

Since you have stated bluntly that you will not show me any evidence, I must accept your concession. If nobody else comes up with evidence, then I will make the agreed-upon (and you did agree by conceding) change. I hope this proves to be a valuable lesson to you on the nature of academic discussion and debate, and I hope it serves you well if you should enter the academic world.


 * Sigh, last time I checked academics did their own research. Refusing to answer someone who is blatantly wrong is not the same thing as agreeing with them.  Your argument is that Rand is an "amateur philosopher", so here is a sample quote from the archived debate


 * "why is it an issue, there are professional philosophers and lay philosophers. she is not a professional philosopher, so she is a lay philosopher. it is purely a matter of clarity. yes, many literary figures give lectures at universities, that doesn't make them philosophers in any sense of the word. why isn't she a lay philosopher? it seems to be a clear categorization to me. it isn't derogatory like pop-philosopher, which is really more appropriate in some ways"


 * Does this sound familiar? Like I stated earlier, do your own research. Idag (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And if I told you I was only an amateur proctologist, wouldn't you be just a little bit more reluctant to bend over and cough for me than if I were a licensed professional? Clearly, these oh-so-subtle qualifications are meaningful, and their omission can be deeply misleading. If we simply label Rand a philosopher without admitting that, no, contrary to a reader's reasonable expectations, she is not an academic philosopher in any sense, then we are being thoroughly dishonest.

Note that it's not enough to bring up trivially refutable arguments that have been made in the past. You need to present arguments that defeat my own, whether they're novel or not. All you're doing is showing that you've disagreed with my conclusion before, which is hardly newsworthy, while simultaneously demonstrating the patent inadequacy of prior counter-arguments. This does not suffice.


 * First, please sign your posts. Second, no one claimed she was an "academic philosopher" She is a philosopher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We all agree that she's not an academic philosopher, and yet that is the false impression the article used to convey by omitting an qualification to the term. If I say I'm a proctologist, you'd imagine that I'm licensed. If we say she's a philosopher, readers would reasonably expect her to be qualifed academically, which she is clearly not. You are conceding my point, yet edit-warring with the apparent intention of misleading the public. Please stop.


 * Your argument is that you are raising new points. You are clearly not doing so.  Since your points have already been discussed (in a much more thorough and insightful manner) we are not going to discuss them again.  If you have new matters to raise, then do so, otherwise, read up on why your points have been rejected in the past. Idag (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My argument is unrefuted by past or present counter-arguments. If there is a basis for rejecting it, you have yet to offer it, so I went ahead and made the change. You've had a day to come up with something -- anything -- and yet you have nothing. In addition, I would say that "non-academic" is a much nicer term than "amateur" and a clearer one than "lay", so I stand behind my article correction as being neutral and fair. If only people weren't such huge fans of her novels that they felt a need to lie about her qualifications...
 * Lol, I've now been called an "anti-Randian" and a "huge fan of her novels". I love the ad hominem attacks that crop up when you attempt to follow Wikipedia policies. Idag (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, not everything is about you. Try to assume good faith instead of taking generalizations personally. By and large, the people who are censoring this article are doing so because they're partisans for Rand.


 * I have reported 65.170.159.12 for his behavior. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, and that's a false report, as I've explained. It is proper behavior to edit the article in a manner that is consistent with uncontroversial facts. It is uncontroversially true that Rand is not an academic philosopher, and yet that is the false impression that you apparently wish to convey. You've offered no sound argument in support of your edits, and yet you dare claim the moral high ground. I am amazed, but not surprised.


 * If I could just mention something important. I have no idea what kind of report Ethan a dawe filed and with whom (as a future courtesy, Ethan, it would be nice to have a link), but User:65.170.159.1265 did break the three-revert-rule which warrants a 24-hour block regardless of merit. That rule was implemented years ago to avoid precisely what's happening now among a few users here: disruption, page instability, and edit warring on the main article page. (Note: WP:3RR doesn't apply to the talk page.) We should all continue the discussion here.


 * As for substance, I haven't researched enough articles yet to formulate an opinion as to whether Rand should be called a "novelist-philosopher," "a novelist and philosopher," a "philosopher," or just "a non-academic philosopher." According to LexisNexis, I found 212 articles in mainstream English-language newspapers and magazines referring to Rand as a "novelist-philosopher." Then again, we also get quotes like this from Thomas Hurka in The Global and Mail (Canada): “A more accessible piece is On the Randian Argument, a critique of Ayn Rand, the novelist-philosopher who is immensely influential outside academic philosophy but regarded as a crackpot within it.” (Thomas Hurka, “The philosopher as gadfly Robert Nozick is a distinctive voice in contemporary philosophy: inventive, funny, and often contrarian,” The Globe and Mail (Canada), July 5, 1997, p. D10.)


 * Obviously, Ayn Rand is not an accredited academic philosopher. User:65.170.159.12 is correct. Unlike Arthur Shopenhauer, for example, she didn't earn a doctorate in Philosophy. That's a simple statement of fact that no one can dispute. Then again, Nietzsche (Sorry, Nietzsche did get one eventually), Kant, and Sartre -- to name a few -- never as far as I know received doctorates in Philosophy either. Does that mean that they're not formally recognized as philosophers? No. Why? Because the latter writers are all recognized as such by the academic establishment. And I think that's really the point here: does the academic establishment consider her to be a philosopher? And here, I think the answer is largely no. They don't consider her to be one. She's more or less in the same stylistic boat as fellow novelist-philosopher Albert Camus (minus his Nobel Prize in Literature!), but without the same level of respect that most academics have for Camus.


 * The bottom-line is that I'm not sure myself how the lead should read yet. Sorry if that sounds too non-committal. Regards, J Readings (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He "reported" to me. I'd like to note that while I've dealt with Edward Nilges many times in the past, I'm not familiar with this particular subject matter. I'm fine with people asking me for help though. Back on topic, this issue seems to be one of semantics: What definition of philosopher can we all agree on? Does this definition require the approval of the academic establishment?--Atlan (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Atlan, I reported him to you as you came to mind as being the one who answered my request previously about Edward. I appologise to whomever asked for a link, I should have added it. I want to note that I have been calling for good faith. This user entered in the midst of Edwards barrage with this post http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=207190268 and, despite being asked to be polite, hasn't really been dealing with the rest of us here in good faith. It's hard to deal with someone who posts stuff liek this. Ever few month it happens on this article. Someone comes long with snarkiness and edit warring. Often they turn out to be sock puppets of previous trolls. It's tiring. This article needs a lot of work and this stuff just doesn't help, especially when it seems to be the same two or three people showing up in different guises. It's getting sickening. I think I'm done trying to make this a better article. The anti-randists are far more nasty than the randists, and the moderates are just stuck in the middle. Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happily awaiting the admins attention. The record stands and I've seen these things come and go many times. It's unfortunate that time gets wasted thus, but such is life on wiki! Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Something is only "uncontroversial" when most reasonable minds do not disagree about it. Here, you have at least two reasonable editors who disagree with you.  Therefore, your edits are not "uncontroversial" and they are certainly not supported by a consensus. Idag (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, just to be clear: This entire discussion seems to boil down to the addition of "non-academic" to the article, am I right? I wonder what exactly the net value of that addition is? It seems like a hollow phrase to me. All it states is User:65.170.159.12's dislike of Rand being called a philospher in the article. We can either agree with that and not call her a philospher, or disagree and continue to call her a philosopher. The way this discussion is going, it seems like consensus is on the side of her being called a philosopher. I suggest User:65.170.159.12 focuses their efforts on convincing the other editors of their viewpoint (by reliably sourcing their claims, e.g.) rather than edit war at the article. Saying "but it's a fact" is really not good enough.--Atlan (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I support this addition because philosophers are normally understood to be highly-trained academics, and Rand was nothing like this. I suggest that you do a bit of research into who and what Rand was before you defend her status as a philosopher. I think you'll be surprised by what you find.

If you start with the very citation that's supposed to support her being called a philosopher, you'll find this quote: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right."

Look at it carefully and you'll see that it admits explicitly that she is not an academic philosopher and that Objectivism is "regularly omitted from academic philosophy". It then goes on to say it's considered philosophy by literary academia, which is interesting but not particularly important. The very quote that's used to justify calling her a philosopher explicitly supports calling her a non-academic one. It's not that someone is shouting "but it's a fact". Instead, it's a fact that nobody, not even the author of the justfiying citation, can deny. As another person wrote, it's uncontroversial, so why is there such a controversy here?


 * Rand stated in her non-fiction works that the reason that she needed to create a philosophical system (Objectivism) was so that she could create the perfect hero. To create this "hero" (largely referring to John Galt) she needed to answer the question of what a "hero" is, and in return, what is a "man", and from that, what is man qua man, and what is the nature of the universe that he exists in?  From that she developed her theories on metaphysics, epistimology, ethics and so forth that became know as "Objectivism" and that were highlighted in detail in John Galt's speech.  In as such, I believe that it is most accurate to refer to her as a novelist-philosopher rather than as a novelist, or as a philosopher.  If we are building toward that consensus (which just may be the case), then you can count me as being "on side".Grazen (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll second the "novelist-philosopher" clarification. It seems to be pretty accurate and clarifies what type of philosopher she is.  Idag (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think these would set bad precedents. We'd have to change the Albert Camus page for one. Just leave her as a philosopher. I think there's a reasonable argument that if enough people think you are a philosopher, then you are one--just not necessarily a good one. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an entirely safe precedent because we're bending over backwards when we pretend that Rand is any sort of philosopher at all. It's like that Simpsons joke where incompetent lawyer Lionel Hutz is asked if he has any evidence to offer and he responds with "Well, 'hearsay' is a type of evidence, right?". If "incompetent amateur" is a type of

philosopher, then Rand is a philosopher. But if we leave out the adjectives, we're just plain lying by letting people think she's a genuine, academic philosopher who's capable of, you know, actually reading and understanding Kant before declaring his ideas worthless. People might even think she was published in a peer-reviewed journal or that her ideas can even briefly withstand the level of criticism that professional philosophers are capable of leveling. I think that Rand is a very special case, and I don't see her setting any precedents that apply to people like Camus.


 * It's POV to say that she couldn't. Granted, it's a POV I happen to agree with, but it's still POV. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV; Edward proved it by quoting Hook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Camus was a novelist but he was also an academic philosopher with an advanced degree in the subject, so he's totally unaffected by any precedent we set here. His status as a philosopher is uncontroversial, though it's not entirely clear whether it's fair to call him an existentialist. Rand is, according to the very quote used to justify calling her any sort of philosopher at all, not an academic philosopher.

There is no original research involved; it's spelled out right there in the quote and supported consistently by her uncontroversial biographical information. She can't possibly be an academic philosopher without at least one degree in the subject, and she clearly lacks even that. Calling her a philosopher without qualifying the term would be dishonest, as it would certainly mislead readers into thinking she was a philosopher the way Camus was. So far, nobody has offered anything that might even look like a credible rebuttal, much less a sound one, so I'm going to give my fellow editors a bit more time to prove that I'm not rushing anything, then reinstate the term "non-academic".

It's also come to my attention that certain individuals, unable to face my argument on its merits, are trying to use trickery to have me silenced. Recently, my edits were combined with those of another "anonymous" user to create the false appearance of 3RR violation, so as to justify blocking us both. Talk about original research! Still others have tried to equate me with the recently-banned Edward and with various editors who were banned long ago. These efforts are disingenuous and doomed to failure, as the the truth is entirely on my side. I wholeheartedly encourage any honest and transparent attempt to objectively test these claims, so that they can be dispensed with and we can move back to dealing with the real issues. You do yourself no favors by sinking so low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that User:65.170.159.12 is directing his comments on the WP:3RR to me. Actually, 65.170... the policy is quite clear. It reads (my emphasis):


 * "The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."


 * You reverted material on the Ayn Rand page more than five times within a 24-hour period, here, here, here, here, and here.


 * And incidentally, I'm not looking to "block anyone," create an atmosphere of hostility, notch up the level of unproductive rhetoric used in editing this article, or insult anyone. These policies are firmly in place precisely to avoid that kind of disruption and to provide some transparency. In fact, what I'm looking to do here is for people to bring the discussion to the talk page, be rational and civil, tone down the rhetoric, and simply work together to create a balanced article based on policies and guidelines. For what it's worth, you're not the only 3RR violator in editing this page over the past 24 hours, and I haven't reported any of you (yet). I'm assuming in good-faith that some people simply weren't aware of the rule. Also, I happen to agree with you, 65.170..., that this article could use a little more balance, needs better sources, and could stand some lengthy chopping of unsourced material. This discussion doesn't have to be an "us" versus "them" battle. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In a bit of irony, my attempt to avoid personal insult by being nonspecific has led you to the mistaken belief that my comment was about you. Yes, you did make accusations of 3RR violations here, but while you were clearly mistaken in your interpretation of the rule (as administrators have officially confirmed), I also think it was an honest mistake, and it didn't go any further than this discussion forum so no great harm was done. This is not the case for Idag's submission of a formal request to have me blocked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:69.121.221.174_and_User:65.170.159.12_reported_by_User:Idag_.28Result:_No_violation.29), which was based on combining my edits with that of another "anonymous" user make it seem as if I violated the rule. This was a dirty trick, and contributes to the atmosphere of hostility against editors who come to this article with hopes of restoring some measure of balance. In contrast, once I was warned of the rule, I made a point of not violating it, and I continue to follow the rules to the best of my understanding and to the best of my ability. In any case, I apologize if anything I said insulted you, as that was not my intent at all.

As it turns out, I've been repeatedly directed to look in the archives and histories to find a refutation against my argument. While I've found nothing even approaching such a thing, I did find ample examples of hostility by Randians against anyone whose suggestions appear to threaten their status quo. This is not a new thing, and it's certainly nothing I originated. I'd be thrilled if we could tone down the hostility (and I've even edited my own comments towards that direction), but I think we've been caught up in an ongoing problem: a history of violence against people like us. I suspect that there will be further efforts to falsely accuse us of rule violations, including the creation of false links among us and already-banned users. This is how things are done here, and to a large extent, it has worked for them. While I am, by nature and philosophy, a pacifist, I am not a fool, so I will not pretend that there is no conflict here, that there is no us and no them. I can only hope that rationality prevails over partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh has suggested that being a guest lecturer makes Rand an academic. It doesn't, but as far as I can tell, she was actually just a popular guest speaker, a role often filled by writers. This is consister with her being a professional writer and an amateur philosopher. Since Skomorokh's stated justification has been refuted, I've reverted the change, pending further justification here.


 * I for one don't care to argue anymore over the philosopher versus non-academic philospher point. Googling non-academic philospher on wikipedia returns interesting results. The unnamed IP user entered this discussion rudely and in support of a blocked user who was spouting insults. Any pretense at civility from him is not beleived by me. He can have his little war over the word and hope against hope that it changes reality to suit him. There is no good faith to be assumed from someone who enters a heated discussion in support of someone who intiated rude behavior and champions that persons rude behavior. This can easily be seen bu lookin gthrough the edits time wise on the talk history page. Clearly, if we are to assume good faith an appology would be in order from this rude person. I'm waiting and not holding my breath. THe article needs work and it needs consensus, not partisan bickering over ultimately meaningless terms. Rands work speaks for itself. I'd rather someone read it and judge for themselves it's worth than to hope to dissuade them for fear of them reading it. User 65.170.159.12 has yet to prove himself worthy of the assumed good faith he was shown, has yet to show good faith, and is not fooling me. Apologize and show good faith and that can change. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Even under my most charitable interpretation, I cannot arrive at a reading of your comment that renders it civil, true or constructive, so I can only acknowledge that you have written something and move on to more productive activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The truth is in the edit history of this page and I'm sure interested parties can read it. That's all I'm going to say about it. Your answer is as expected. Lesson learned. Enough said, on to better things. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Charity
Rand's view of charity has already been discussed. Cathy Young's article as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_10#charity

Unless JReadings has something new to add, I'm removing the Cathy Young citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're just going to have to show me, right here, and then convince me and everyone else who's part of the consensus. Even if it was the consensus once, that doesn't mean that we're bound by that today.


 * I don't believe that Cathy Young is really a serious or reliable enough source to justify her opinion on a biography of Ayn Rand. It's that simple - we're talking about a journalist that published an opinion piece on what would have been the 100th birthday of Ayn Rand in a publication with limited circulation.  To be clear, who cares about what she said?  It doesn't meet the standard of relevance to warrant inclusion.Grazen (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

She's a journalist who's published in Reason magazine. That makes her views of Rand notable. You may not agree with them, and you're certainly welcome to include other notable opinions for balance, but censoring her violates NPOV. I've been reading up on this, and I've yet to see a more clear example of NPOV violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can hold of on the reverts with regard to Charity. I think that most of that section should be moved to the artcle on Objectivism where it rightly belongs. thoughts? Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we care about Cathy Young as such (publishing in Reason is not especially noteworthy). However, the way I edited the text makes a good lead-in to what follows, and I have no problem citing her as a reference. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ethan. Looking at the policies for length, I think we're going to have to significantly shorten the objectivism sections to keep this article from getting out of hand.  Therefore, let's hold off on making possibly controversial edits in those sections until we get this issue sorted out.  Idag (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Idag, I'm less concerned about quantity than quality. If moving Objectivism sections out into the article for that topic helps improve the quality of this one, then I'm all for it. What matters to me is that, in all that shuffling around, we don't "accidentally" lose the sentences that provide balance and truth. It seems to me that some people here, while they may well be trying to maintain intellectual honesty, see the world through Rand-colored glasses and don't necessarily recognize their own bias. It's our job to help them keep this article credible by including all notable views, not just pro-Randian ones. In the meantime, we need to leave the balancing sentences in the article, so that they aren't misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I suggested up above that when we shorten the sections, we do a few paragraphs for an Objectivism summary and a few paragraphs for the criticisms. I have a feeling that if we agree right now that a criticism summary will get its own couple of paragraphs, then we'll have fewer fights about the exact wording of the sections. Idag (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of format, it's often clearer to intermix opposing views, rather than relegating the opposition to a ghetto of sorts.


 * I would say that it depends on what's being mixed. Either way, I would suggest that we keep the criticism separate when we first trim this article down just to avoid conflict about weasel words and how things should be phrased.  Once we come to a consensus about the proper trimming of this article, then we can go through and fine-tune it and incorporate the criticism into the main sections in places where it would improve the article. Idag (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the entire section on charity was removed, so I put it back.

Philosopher
Since nobody's even arguing against calling Rand a non-academic philosopher, I'm changing the article back. If you disagree, you have to discuss it here before making any changes, or I'm sure someone will revert you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has agreed to change it to "non-academic philosopher". You are the only person who wants to do it, so stop going against the consensus.  Idag (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has come up with any support at all for calling her an academic philosopher, and as that is the default meaning of the term, it is up to us to prevent misconceptions by making the article more clear. Also, you may want to pay closer attention to IP's. If you do, you'll find that this is not a solo effort.

If enough people call you a philosopher, you are one. Enough people call Rand a philosopher. Therefore, she is one. It's that simple. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's actually not true, but it's also not important since I didn't say she wasn't a philosopher, I said she wasn't an academic philosopher. And it's not just me sayying so; the very citation we use to justify calling her a philosopher points out that she's not an academic one. The consensus is that we should call her a non-academic philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a consensus of one, apparently. The "non-academic" label is ambiguous. "Non-academic" certainly does not mean "eschewed by academics." It could mean that she developed her philosophy outside of academia, which is hardly relevant, and certainly not a point to make in the first line of the article. Or it could mean that she practiced philosophy in a non-rigorous manner. That is a POV and also not fundamental to her status as a philosopher; that it is an opinion held by some is already covered in the article. Mwickens (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I explained above that there are at least two editors who support this change, and I explain below why that number is irrelevant. For now, I'll focus on the fact that the quote that supports calling her a philosopher specifically mentions that she is not an academic philosopher. There is no ambiguity here because all of the definitions you suggested are factually correct. Again, this is in no way a matter of my opinion. That Objectivism is eschewed by academics is stated explicitly in the article, and supported by quotes from academics. That she developed Objectivism outside of academia and its rigorous standards is incontrovertible and quite relevant. That notable academics, such as Sidney Hook, have judged her philosophy to lack rigor is also beyond any doubt. No matter how you slice it, she is not an academic philosopher in any sense of the word, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise even through omission.


 * And I pointed out three times now that Hook's opinion was written before all her non-fiction philosophical works. Hook's piece is irrelevant because it was based on the facts of the day that have long since changed. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't actually help your cause. First of all, the Objectivism that Hook analyzed in her fiction is the very same Objectivism found in her non-fiction.  His opinion was of Objectivism, not of a particular essay or story.  Hook analyzed Objectivism in terms of its core principles, narrowed them down to a handful of core ones, then proceded to poke holes in them.  In a perfect world, Rand might have read Hook's criticisms and responded by either fixing the acknowledged errors or putting up a credible defense against those arguments.  We do not live in a perfect world, as she did neither of those things.  Such behavior would be par for the course were she an academic philosopher, but she was not, so she her non-fiction just codified the very same ideas that Hook had identified as erroneous, failing to address any of his arguments.  You'll note that Hook did not repudiate his own views once her non-fiction works came out, so we can safely infer that he did not detect any significant improvement.


 * A deeper problem is that I used Sidney Hook as but one example of academics who judged Objectivism as lacking in academic rigor. Even if you were somehow able to survive the arguments in the previous paragraph, I could bring out a seemingly endless queue of academic philosophers (pretty much everyone but Tara Smith and a few die-hard crypto-libertarians) whose views are consistent with Hooks, yet were formed and/or maintained after the non-fiction writings came out.  As far as I can tell, this is because academics react poorly to polemics and expect sound arguments.  Of course, you can argue that there is some other reason why academics think so little of Rand's work, but you cannot pretend that they hold her ideas in high esteem.  Most fundamentally, you cannot come up with anything that even looks like an argument for Rand being an academic philosopher, so you're reduced to bad-faith conspiracy theories about why the truth of the matter must not be published here.  I suggest you ask yourself whether you are here to make sure the truth is written or just that Ayn Rand looks good.


 * On the face of it, your argument is merely factually wrong on all counts. That is sufficient reason to disregard it.  Curiously, you accuse the person who made the last change of pushing a POV, which suggests you're seeing this change as an attack against your POV, as opposed to a clarification of facts.  I suggest that you assume good faith and stop playing the partisan in all this.  Whether the truth makes Rand look wonderful or horrible, I support writing the truth.  Can you honestly say the same?  That's a rhetorical question for you to contemplate as you consider whether you have the ability to remain neutral and objective on this matter.


 * consensus - majority of opinion. 69, please be kind enough to point out the majority of users that agree with you.  Until then, please stop making this disruptive "non-academic" edit.  In the meantime, feel free though to be productive and make other non-controversial edits to this article.  Idag (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, consensus is not about opinion or majority. Nor is consensus the only thing that matters. More important is the requirement that we source all of our statements, never exceeding the source. The citation here says she is a non-academic philosopher, so implying otherwise is against Wikipedia rules, regardless of head count.


 * You do not have a third party citation stating that she is a non-academic philosopher, that is merely your own wording. See WP:Verifiability  As for consensus, almost every other editor on here is against your version of the edits (I would also like to point out that a number of editors on here have made substantial contributions to the sections that criticize Ayn Rand and are not "biased censors" as you repeatedly claim). Therefore, please stop making edits until after you obtain a consensus.  If you believe that the current consensus is incorrect, then feel free to utilize Wikipedia's dispute resolution instead of making disruptive edits.  Idag (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article contains these snippets: - Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. - Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas, and Atlas Shrugged in particular, as sophomoric, preachy, and unoriginal. - Rand has also been accused of misinterpreting the works of many of the philosophers that she criticized in her writing. - Objectivism is a fairly marginalized movement ... seen as being out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life

Academic philosophers have academic degrees, teach accredited classes and are published with peer review. She fails on all three counts, which is why these quotes and others (included the suppressed Hook quotes) identify her as non-academic. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has even come close to putting for a credible argument for Rand being an academic philosopher, and some have openly conceded this matter. This is not the least bit controversial or open to interpretation or subject to the whims of the myth of consensus by majority. The only issue that remains is whether we placate the Randians by sweeping the truth under the carpet or we tell the truth instead. I suggest the latter. What do you think? - Bert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that we should clarify what type of philosopher she was, but disagree with your terminology. "Non-academic philosopher" has negative connotations (even though there have been fantastic "non-academic" philosophers).  I propose something along the lines of "writer-philosopher".   My opinion is only one of many though, so please wait to make the changes on this until other editors have had a chance to weigh in.  Idag (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Influences under Objectivism
I removed the detailed portion of the influences section. These are mentioned in the intro paragraph and are also detail in the main Objectivism article. It's a lot of overlap and isn't really necessary in terms of biography on Rand. Hope no one disagrees to strongly. It should make the article a bit tighter. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly; Objectivism is a philosophical position (or series of them) that can be held by anyone. Rand's views are her own. Her philosophical relationships to Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche are very much personal, and are crucial in understanding her philosophical development, which is the most important part of this article. Skomorokh  15:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? I think her views are embodied in Objectivism, as it was her personal philosophy. The influence intro mentions all thos people, and the Objectivism article details them as well. It seems like to much of an overlapping parallel. I'll let your revert stand until more discussion happens, my interest is in merely making the artcicle betterm and this seemed like a good prallel place to cut. What do others think? Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, the Kant section is ridiculously long. It needs to be reduced to one or two paragraphs at most in order to be consistent with the other sections, preferably summarizing her thinking without having to quote streams of text. The lengthy quotes are excessive and off-putting. I support a complete re-editing of that section and I agree with Ethan a dawe. J Readings (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I concur that the Kant section needs trimming. Right now it seems to be a bit of a hodgepodge.  Idag (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a comment here but apparently the server ate it. I am definitely in favour of a summary article on Rand's philosophical view, a la Philosophy of Max Stirner, Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche etc. The problem is, the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article defines a philosophical position - the analogy with Nietzsche would be perspectivism, with Stirner ethical egoism. Many people may adopt, develop, refine a given position - even Objectivism. So if a new article was made on Rand's personal philosophy, or if the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) was turned into such an article, I would support a move of most of the philosophical (and social/political) content from this article. The problem is that we need an article describing Objectivism as a position and its intellectual development (incl. Neo-Objectivism, Branden's psychology, Open- and closed- Objectivism, the David Kelley crowd). Objectivist movement could be that article, but it's not explicitly philosophical. I'm unsure as to address this. Skomorokh 22:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Identity
It seems that, on the Internet, A is not always A. Today, my IP changed without warning, and it may well change again. Thus far, I've avoided giving my name, because it's irrelevant, and I have no intention of ever creating an account. However, I also have no intention of misleading anyone about my identity or violating 3RR. For this reason, I would like to acknowledge that what I've posted here has shown up under both 12.111.29.12 and 65.170.159.12. There is also another editor, posting from 69.121.221.174, who has sometimes agreed with me and has been mistaken for me by less observant people. From now on, to make this a little simpler, I will be signing my posts with my first name. If a new post doesn't have my name, it's not from me, and if I notice someone else trying to confuse things by signing my name, I will correct the problem. Remember, an IP is just a location, not a person. -Bert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider creating an account. It takes less than a minute and allows us to associate you with an identity, prevents misunderstandings (such as the one that happened with the 65 ip), and gives you access to more powerful editing tools.  In addition, if you do not have an account, messages that are sent you when you are on one IP do not transfer over when you sign on from a different IP.  Idag (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

After due consideration, I'm going to have to turn down that suggestion. If you want to contact me, I'll be watching this talk page. - Bert 65.170.159.12 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on whether to add anything about Rand being a philosopher
To put this debate to rest once and for all, please state whether you support or oppose adding anything to the introduction about Rand being a "non-academic" philosopher (simply state whether you "Support" or "Oppose" and provide a one-sentence reason). To prevent possible sock puppets, anonymous IPs who have not made ANY edits to this article before today (April 25, 2008) will not be counted in the vote:

Oppose: Placing a qualification in the introduction would violate WP:Undue Weight. Idag (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Placing a qualification in the introduction would violate WP:Undue Weight. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: WP:Undue Weight, no precedent elsewhere. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: WP:Undue Weight, would imply a controversial POV (lack of rigor) that can't simply be stated as fact. Mwickens (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as completely irrelevant given the long history of highly respected mainstream philosophers outside the academy, and undue weight as above. Skomorokh 11:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Support: its important and should be included - Edward G. Nilges

Abstain:  I'm not going to participate in a pretend consensus where all the Rand fans vote to make Rand look as good as possible, no matter what the facts are. All of them get one vote in total, since they're a hive mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That does not reflect the policies of Wikipedia. Each non-sock puppet editor gets one vote regardless of their views.  That is why we will be counting Edward's vote even though he's banned.  Idag (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy of Wikipedia is supposed to be that verifiability beats consensus, and consensus is not just a vote. This policy is being violated here, particularly in the repressive use of semi-protection to favor one side of a content dispute and the blatant censorship of Edward.  Since you're not following your own rules, I won't pretend to be participating in an orderly decision-making process.  This is a sham.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
After this consensus debate closes, I will archive this talk page; it has gotten ridiculously long.
 * Actually, I would prefer that you keep the Boisvert section on the page as it is still active. We are not done with that issue by any means. One of the editors here has a serious WP:OWN issue and it needs to be addressed in an open and policy-oriented manner before things spin out of control. My two brief well-sourced, well-attributed sentences have been repeatedly and deliberately deleted to suit his own POV-pushing and ownership issues on this article. He's also implied that I'm a vandal in his edit summary because I disagree with his novel interpretations of Wikipedia policy (and believe me, they're novel!), which is highly insulting. After watching how he behaves, I really should have reported him for his first WP:3RR violation a few days ago, but I let it pass. Now, I'm inclined to start proceedings outside this article (either requesting opinions from third opinions from outside this article) or doing something else. We have three editors who think the cited Boisvert opinion should be included because it conforms with policy, and one editor who chooses to WP:OWN the article with the sole argument that he doesn't like it (ergo, it does not merit inclusion). Not only is that irritating, it's petty. Wikipedia is all about WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS (among other policies). Reading this talk page, an outside editor would be forgiven for getting the impression that it's not about those policies at all. Instead, editing this article is about original synthesis to push a viewpoint AND WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTCARE and other personal points of view. Folks, I'm sorry to tell you this: these things have absolutely nothing to do with editing a tertiary source like Wikipedia. It's not about your personal "truth" (right or wrong), it's about reliable third-party reference "verifiability." Ultimately, the reader is allowed to decide what is "truth" after reading through all the material, not the editor. J Readings (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to check the edit-log comments and previous discussions in this page can determine that the above misrepresents the history re. the Boisvert clause, which I maintain reduced the editorial quality of the article. Further, even changing the citation into a supporting reference for a useful, relevant, and factual textual assertion was evidently not acceptable to the actual POV pushers, who evidently think they can "game the system" by displacement (attributing to others motivations similar to theirs), then lock out attempts to remove their POV pushing from what ought to be a neutral article.  The comment re. "vandalism" merely echoed previous claims from the POV pushers (their pretense), and was spurred by my frustration due to their repeated unthinking reversions, which have destroyed attempts to raise the article quality in several areas (applying objective editorial criteria which I have listed twice before.) — DAGwyn (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely agree with you there. This page has gotten difficult to navigate though, so once the "philosopher" debate is laid to rest, how about we archive this thing and then repost the major open issues? FYI, in the past we have taken advantage of third-party opinions to break through an impasse with the editor that you're referring to.  Idag (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to me, I've only been involved in one such dispute, in which the third party supported my position and offered additional editorial suggestions, which were reasonable ideas which I then implemented in the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm fine with that. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice on removed comments
I have removed the recent comments of Edward G. Nilges. Before anyone cries foul it needs to be stated that he has an account under the name spinoza1111. He has an indefinite block for being rude http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Spinoza1111 If he wants to post on wikipedia, he needs to get unblocked. Using his IP address to post is a direct violation of wikipedia policy as he is dodging the block. He lost the privledge of posting and editing for his behavior. Removing his posts is not censorship, it is merely enforcing the rules of this site. If he gets his account unblocked I will not delete any posts he makes. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And again. I did leave his vote. Users wondering at my insistence may want to note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INDEF#Indefinite_blocks Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional editorial improvements
The article edit protection has interfered with making further editorial improvements to the article. The following should be non-contentious:

In the Ayn Rand article's section "Objectivist movement" section, somebody added a "Fact" tag (requesting a reference) to the first sentence in the fourth paragraph: "After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses." There are several possible references for this; changing the Fact tag to the following should suffice:
 * ✅ seresin ( ¡? ) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)