Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 15

Consensus lead, to be used once the protection is removed...

 * Ayn Rand (IPA: /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Алиса Зиновьевна Розенбаум), was a Russian-born American novelist. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism.


 * She was an advocate of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, and opposed socialism and what she regarded as pernicious altruism, as well as religion. Her influential and often controversial ideas have attracted both admiration and denunciation.

With appropriate hyperlinks and references, of course. - Bert 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the consensus and not what the citeable evidence shows.


 * Bert, I think you're not reading what I've written the past few days:


 * The article listed Rand as a philospher, among other things.


 * Someone changed this (I've forgotten who now.) saying that she wasn't.


 * I have provided multiple (multiple!) reliable and NPOV sources showing that she was indeed considered a philospher.


 * I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. You may want to exclude me because you don't like the evidence I've provided but it is what it is. Attempts to push your POV by claiming consesus will not work Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All of these points have been refuted above. Please don't waste my time repeating what's already been demonstrated to be false. - Bert 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)


 * No they haven't. Saying they have doesn't make it so. Sorry Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I never thought I'd say this, but I actually agree with the first paragraph of Bert's proposal. The problem we have is that a number of sources call Rand a philosopher, but a number of other sources don't call Rand a philosopher.  That first paragraph provides an elegant solution to this problem because it avoids calling Rand a philosopher while at the same time pointing out the fact that she developed a philosophical system.  The second paragraph is too POV though.  Idag (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Idag, do you have any specific objections to the second paragraph? For example, what part is too POV and how would you fix it? - Bert 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What good verifiable third party sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability don't call Rand a philosopher? Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See specifically the section on sources, especially reliable sources. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was looking for more of a general trend. I reran J Readings' Lexis search and got over 100 hits of various news and media sources that did not refer to Rand as a philosopher.  They didn't say that she wasn't a philosopher, they just didn't refer to her as a philosopher.  I also did a search of court documents and got a number of hits in which courts refer to Ayn Rand without the term philosopher.  I particularly like the phrase that one of the courts used: "Shortly after entering the United States, Foroglou, professedly an atheist, began to develop a belief in Objectivism, a philosophy developed by the twentieth-century author Ayn Rand."  Foroglou v. INS, 170 F.3d 68, 69 (1st Cir. 1999).  Other courts have similarly referred to Rand as an "author".  See, e.g., Lane v. Random House, 985 F. Supp. 141, 146 (D.D.C. 1995); Negri v. Schering Corp., 333 F. Supp. 101, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).   Idag (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, Idag. You see, this is precisely why I encourage everyone to check and cross-check the results. I'm not looking to bamboozle anyone. If we have (for example) 100 writers who identify someone as X and only 10 writers who identify someone as Y, it's not a highly advisable idea to pretend that Y is suddenly the majority view. (Incidentally, the number on the search results also depends on the time period involved as well as which keywords are included/excluded). Anyway, this is the whole point of WP:UNDUE. It was designed to stop editors from playing fast and loose with state of public knowledge. Looking at court cases, newspapers, academic books, books for a general reader, academic journal articles, etc. and weighing everything on balance is all part of the process. Thanks to everyone for going to the trouble. It's honest work, J Readings (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethan, please don't ask questions that have been answered. If you scroll up, you'll see that Edward's solution to the problem of calling her a philosopher is in fact based on the Encyclpedia Britannica, which is a highly reliable source. You seem to have a real problem remembering things that don't suit you, so I'm going to keep reminind everyone of what you fail to remember. I don't particularly know or care whether you're playing dumb or not playing, but either way, the game is up. - Bert 19:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be general agreement that Edward's proposed first paragraph is an acceptable compromise, so I've implemented it, making only one minor grammatical change that is unlikely to offend anyone. I've also implemented the second paragraph, though I recognize that Idag has more to say about it. While he can certainly make changes directly in the article, it might be cleaner if we hash it out here first. - Bert 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * Bert, your edit removed the reference from the lede. As you did not mention it in your comment here, I'm going to assume that was an honest mistake. Please let me know if it wasn't. Regards, Skomorokh  19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the reference was to support calling her a philosopher. Since we're now calling her an author who created a philosophy, the reference serves no purpose, so I removed it. If it's useful elsewhere in the article, then by all means move it where it will do some good, but it's not needed in the lead. Rather than edit war, I'd appreciate if you'd do the removing. - Bert 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * There isn't general agreement yet. We are still debating. I supplied J with some information he wanted about my references. We are still discussing the proper lead. Please don't go changing the lead until the debate is done. Thanks Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've withdrawn from the consensus-building effort through your actions, so you need to keep your paws off the article so as to avoid an edit war. - Bert 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * No I haven't and You know it. Stop now Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. - Bert 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * Actually it is. Look at the history and you'll see that we are debating the reference today. Attempting to claim I have left the debate or that their is a consensus is POV pushing and won't help improve the article. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is not part of these events, you should reserve comment about them. Whatever you're doing now, it has little to do with debate, and less to do with building a consensus. You are simply getting in the way of people who are busy. - Bert 12.111.29.12 (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this is consensus. It reflects the pov of editors rather than the tertiary literature (see my comments on this point above). The reference in the first sentence to a reliable source gives credible indication that Rand is considered a philosopher: "throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher." I appreciate that some editors new to the project might not realize that WP:V is a core policy of, and threshold for inclusion in, the encyclopedia. I also appreciate efforts at searching for the use of the various terms, which provide useful rule-of-thumb indicators, but finding that a given article does not use the adjective "philosopher" is not at all proof that the author does not consider Rand a philosopher. Exceptional claims require exceptional references, and so far the anti-"philosopher" arguments have offered precious little in the way of convincing tertiary literature on the question. See my suggestion for how to deal with the leading sentence below. I also strongly condemn efforts to marginalize the good faith efforts of Ethan a dawe. Regards, Skomorokh  21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that literary academica is irrelevant. Philosophical academia does not generally consider her a philosopher. - Bert 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've provided cites showing that some do. Do you have cites showing academic philosophers saying Ayn Rand is not a philosopher? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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

This ignores Wikipedia conventions
I would like to draw your attention to the current lede of the article, which identifies Rand as a "novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter". This is Wikipedia convention (I mean the number of occupations, not the specific ones); see for example Rene Descartes ("French philosopher, mathematician, scientist, and writer."), Thomas Paine ("pamphleteer, revolutionary, radical, classical liberal, inventor and intellectual. "), Albert Camus ("French-Algerian author, philosopher, and journalist"), David Hume ("18th-century Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian"), Edward Said ("literary theorist, cultural critic, political activist, and an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights."), Bertrand Russell ("a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, and pacifist"). I could go on. The point is, any notable philosophical figure (or however you want to phrase it) who is noted for anything other than simply philosophy, is identified as such in the leading sentence. The current version describes Rand best, without attributing undue weight to any of the hats she wore. Skomorokh 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the philosophers you list are uncontroversially accepted as philosophers. This is not the case for Rand, so calling her a philosopher without qualifying that statement is inaccurate.  Call her a non-academic philosopher, if you must call her a philosopher at all.  Otherwise, the result is unacceptable, and not just to me. - Bert 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * Bert, my above comment was not to be pro or anti describing Rand as a philosopher, but to be pro- describing Rand's notable contributions in the various fields, like the gentlemen listed above. So read it as my supporting "Rand was a novelist, playwright, screenwriter and originator of the philosophical system Objectivism" as opposed to "Rand was a writer. She wrote the novels x, y and z and invented Objectivism". I am only arguing here for a plurality of descriptions rather than one or two. Regards, Skomorokh  21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would accept that as a compromise. - Bert 21:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)


 * I wasn't offering it! Just an example to make a point. Skomorokh  21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia's Undue Weight Policy (WP:UNDUE): "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Given the evidence (especially the media evidence), prominence of placement is still troubles me. How authors, journalists, and academics generally identify someone's occupation by name in reliable third-party sources in order to see what label should be prominently placed on the subject is just as important as identifying and attributing specific viewpoints to avoid original research and synthesis. J Readings (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why people are getting so hung up on the "philosopher" term. If we change it to "author who advanced the philosophy of Objectivism", that doesn't imply that she's not a philosopher.  She was an author and she advanced a philosophy.  It is a true and neutral claim that synthesizes the competing sources.  Idag (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it not be a little strange if a host of anonymous IP's showed up demanding that Rand not be considered a novelist because English lit professors supposedly thought her writing was garbage, and if subsequently we changed the lede to "Rand was a writer who wrote novels" instead of "Rand was a novelist". It's just a true and neutral claim as the example you gave, by which I mean subtly not neutral at all. I agree that this issue is of negligible importance (while you all have been discussing it, I have been making sweeping changes to the body of the article), it's on principle that I oppose appeasing motivated (in good faith or not) attempts at inserting POV into the article. Skomorokh  21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "If an idiot says that the sun will rise tomorrow, the statement is not wrong just because the declarant is an idiot." Ultimately calling someone a "philosopher" is a value judgment that some third party sources don't make.  She is certainly an author, by any standard, so let's go with the First Circuit Court of Appeals and call her an "author who advanced the philosophy of Objectivism."  This way, you still have the strong implication that she's a philosopher (she advanced a philosophy), but the reader still makes the final call.  I share your distaste for the source of this debate, but ultimately, he does have a point.  Idag (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. And I only arrived at that conclusion after looking at how the media largely describes Rand. I don't consider myself a partisan one way or the other. J Readings (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My perspective is this: it's not something I would normally argue about. This debate has been had before too. Every few months a sock-puppet of a couple of editors pops up, and/or an anonymous IP shows up and tries to change this article. I disagreed with Edward, first, becasue it's been argued before, secondly becasue he was very rude, and third becasue Hook's piece was written before Rand wrote any non-fiction philosophy books. He was pushing. Bert then joined in calling me rude and a bully. I'm not going to cave to that, considering the only thing he has edited here is Rand and is clearly pushing POV as well. What I did find was that the cite on Philospher wasn't great. Then the whole "rejection by academics" thing came up. So I started looking, not Cherry Picking as Bert says, for how she was dealt with in books about and by philosophers. Those I checked confirmed that she was called a philosopher. I've even provided the publishers for the books to see if they mesured up to good uality standards. Academic press published books by philosophers calling her a philosopher. Even the one that was arguing she was wrong. So, no, it's not a big issue to fight over, but what I've found in fending off POV pushers is that the cites are even better than before. It seems, every time I find a cite, some new anti philosophy thing turns up. So far I haven't seen evidence as to why the article should change, from philosopher. I've only seen evidence as to why it should stay that way. Show me specific cite saying she is not a philosopher! It's good to check articles, but to still be arguing this tangent when it's argued before and no new cites produced suporting Edward and Bert's position. I remain puzzled and frustrated. Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know anything about Edward or any anon IPs or SPAs, nor do I want to involve myself in their affairs. While I don't like rude diatribes filling up pages, either, I hardly consider my actions to be "POV pushing." Speaking only for myself, I'm editing this article because -- well -- I read all of her books, I'm familiar with the subject matter, and I thought I'd contribute in (what I believe to be) a constructive policy-oriented process. I'm not sure what would be resolved by showing one or two articles saying that she is not a philosopher. Someone could easily argue, then, that a minority of publications arguing that someone is not a philosopher is an equal sign that many people must be thinking that the person is (ergo, the need to prove she's not). Believe it or not, that's been argued before. It's pointless. Rather, and I've said this in good faith multiple times, I'm simply interested in WP:UNDUE and WP:V having experienced this problem with other articles. I look at what the reliable third-party sources say en masse as an identification of what she is (novelist, essayist, novelist-philosopher, screenwriter, etc) and balance it against other descriptions. If the journalists calls a subject X, we can't suddenly assume that must have been thinking Y instead. For whatever reason (right or wrong), she was identified as X. You're obviously passionate about this. That's okay. I'm not looking to convert you and I appreciate not having to list all of the articles that identify her occupation. I certainly don't WP:OWN this article, and, believe it or not, I always prefer to take discussions to talk pages rather than disrupt the main page with senseless edit wars. Also, I'm grateful for the list of publishers. I'll try to look up those books tomorrow. I want to examine them.J Readings (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see how calling someone is philosopher is a value judgement, whereas calling them a novelist is a "true and neutral claim". To me "wrote philosophy=philosopher", "wrote stuff=writer", and "wrote novels=novelist" are baldly obvious, analytic, not value, judgements. But I am going to stop debating this as it is a spurious discussion. Let's all pick an unsourced statement in the article and source or remove it, or do something productive instead. Skomorokh  22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Readings, I am quite familiar with the policy, would you like to share with us your interpretation of how exactly it relates to my point? Copypasta isn't particularly helpful. Regards, Skomorokh  21:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't think there is anything really "spurious" about taking policies (all of them) seriously and discussing them in a civil way. Most of us are here to improve the article in good faith. J Readings (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * one of the reasons in my experience why WP:UNDUE is just as important as WP:V is so that we don't have to worry about controversial minority labels being prominently placed in the lead section, the infobox, or elsewhere in the text. To give a few examples of when this has come up on Wikipedia: what if we were to find only a handful of verifiable third-party sources referring to someone as a "Holocaust denier" or a "conspiracy theorist" or a "renegade" or a "terrorist" or a "political agitator" or a "hate monger." Should any of those labels be prominently placed in the infobox or lead section to describe the subject's occupation simply because the articles identifying the subject as such can be verified? I would argue no. For me, it would be a completely separate matter if the preponderance of verifiable third-party reliable sources pointed in that direction. Then, citing a sample in the footnotes would probably suffice for the sake of WP:V and WP:NPOV. But just because we have a few verifiable sources one way and a few the other way does not suddenly mean that we can safely close the discussion, start calling people "POV-pushers" again, and think the legitimate concerns of WP:UNDUE vanish. Indeed, exception claims require exceptional sources. I agree. That's the point of it all. In good-faith, J Readings (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite so. For a controversial point like this, sometimes the best approach is to find a couple of sources that talk about the general perception of Rand within the discipline of philosophy. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know or care if Rand was a philosopher. What disgusts me is your behavior, especially Ethan and tallNapoleon. You remove the contributions to the Talk page when you don't like them and you make a constant issue out of people's behavior without listening to what they say. When people stick up for Edward, you immediately turn on them. I notice he likes to stick up for other people but I guess your fathers never set you this example.


 * Shame on all of you!


 * Lilith Lilith2396 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read his posts? He did nothing but hurl insults at myself, Ethan, and pretty much the rest of Wikipedia. I try to assume good faith, but I was sick and bloody tired of being continuously insulted by this person. This was not a matter of "standing up for people"--this was a matter of one person taking over a talk page with off-topic rants and continuous denigration of other users. I took action by removing his contributions; if an administrator wishes to revert this then I will gladly abide by that decision.


 * I see that you are a new user, and so I will try to follow WP:BITE, but please understand that this is a very sore topic. Now, please see WP:ATTACK and WP:FAITH. Personal comments about me, my father or anyone else are not appropriate, and are one of the reasons why I removed Edward's content, which you can see if you read through the edit history. I would advise that you look at some of the things Edward wrote before you start launching blanket condemnations of the rest of us, and ask yourself: if you were the target of his profanity-laced tirades, would you feel any differently about the matter? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Edward typically posts carefully reasoned analyses which are verbose because he's trying in fact to be fair and polite. He's then met with incomprehension and dismissal because, you appear to reason, he "must" be a "troll": it can't be that complicated: you must be permitted to make judgements based on what you remember from survey courses: anything deeper must be trolling and original research.


 * You treat him with the utmost disrespect by calling him a name, and he feels that he's been told, not that he's wrong for good reasons, but that "no Irish need apply": people with his style, again an effort, to me, at intellectual honesty, just don't belong.


 * Guess what: he fights back, and then you label him further as being uncivil.


 * I'd say yours is the incivility. You want to stay on the surface of things. Because Ayn Rand says she's a philosopher, and because she was commercially successful, and had a big mouth, you believe her and suspend your critical faculties.


 * For shame!

*golf clap*

Your uncivil personal attack on Lilith is typical of how you treat anyone who thinks this article could be a little bit more neutral. Oh, and congratulations on upholding the Wikipedia tradition of pestering genuine experts, such as Edward, until they react with justified anger, and then using their angry remarks as an excuse to run them off. Keep it up and Wikipedia will soon be the most trusted authority on Airbender, and nothing else. Lilith, while perhaps new to Wikipedia, was quick to pick up on how things work here and correctly identified your abusive behavior, and honest enough to call things as they are. They should be lauded, not abused. The reality is that the article is currently biased towards Rand, so a neutral version is necessarily going to look anti-Randian in your biased eyes. - Bert 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you look through the edit history, you'll see that Edward was angry and insulting in his very first posts here, we did not "pester" him into it.  If you wish to civilly contribute a criticism of Rand without edit-warring then do so - especially because reasonable minds can differ.  But if you're on here to simply insult other users and refuse to engage in any kind of a dialogue (which is what Edward was doing), then there's no need for you to be here.  In addition, Edward is not an expert.  All he has done is write a book about computer programming.  That may arguably qualify him to edit the computer programming material, but I have yet to see any substantive peer-reviewed philosophy articles credited to his name Idag (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Edward is all the expert you deserve. I have confirmed his claim to have taught philosophy at uni level and to have published, but more than this, you only have to examine his writing style and ability to reference philosophy, as well as his careful style of analyses to confirm that while he's a layman, he is the best philosopher here.


 * Furthermore, it is paradoxical that wikipedia should be founded by an autodidact as a way for uncertified and not fully certified people to participate in scholarship, yet the discussion boil down to, not debate over Edward's broad, tolerant, and yet meaningful definition of philosophy as a "big tent", one that includes Carnap and Heidegger but refuses admission to Rand, but his certification and your feeling "insulted".


 * Edward was in fact the person wikipedia was created-for, because most of us have families to support and/or no money to pursue graduate studies, but some of us read books on the way to work instead of staring dully out into the rain. The lesson being that you wouldn't know real freedom if it bit you in the butt, since all it means to you is the perverted liberty to label and then torment people.


 * There is something rather intriguing about Edward. It is that he is willing to defend other people's reputations and to come to their aid, something very rare today both on wikipedia and also in "real life". I mean, I've seen people laid off and escorted weeping to the door by Security while fat and pompous "technical experts" make themselves scarce and blame the victim, whereas Edward went to bat both for Kathy Sierra and Herb Schildt when the manufactured consensus was that she was "alleging" harassment and that he was "mistaken about C" and a liar.


 * You are slaves, working for free to make Jimbo Wales rich in your absurd hopes that the Great Elder Brother, he who killed the Father, will single you out and let you be a house nigra some day, and you try to display chops primarily by showing your willingness to kill people's good names.


 * Such argumentation speaks for itself. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes indeedy it does. You people piss us off. You've long used the rules to get rid of people and to endanger reputations in the real world, and you act like the marginal and deviant people you are in reality, who have erected this slave republic not to create anything (you are a worldwide joke to editors and teachers) but to play a child's game of "grown up", without having to earn your chops in the real world. That's why you label people and pretend this stops discussion of their contributions: you admitted the depth of Edward's analysis but refused to engage it because he's now and forever a "troll": a real timesaver, you "reason".


 * Edward is off-topic, of course, and you roll your eyes in disdain because now your precious time is being wasted. But as he's observed on usenet, one thing is always on topic: and that is the politics of personal destruction, in which Bert and Edward are supposed to either slink off or beg forgiveness for having minds. But if your rage is on-topic then so is The Tempest.


 * You fools! I and my fellows
 * Are ministers of Fate: the elements,
 * Of whom your swords are temper'd, may as well
 * Wound the loud winds, or with bemock'd-at stabs
 * Kill the still-closing waters, as diminish
 * One dowle that's in my plume: my fellow-ministers
 * Are like invulnerable. If you could hurt,
 * Your swords are now too massy for your strengths
 * And will not be uplifted. But remember--
 * For that's my business to you--that you three
 * From Milan did supplant good Prospero;
 * Exposed unto the sea, which hath requit it,
 * Him and his innocent child: for which foul deed
 * The powers, delaying, not forgetting, have
 * Incensed the seas and shores, yea, all the creatures,
 * Against your peace. Thee of thy son, Alonso,
 * They have bereft; and do pronounce by me:
 * Lingering perdition, worse than any death
 * Can be at once, shall step by step attend
 * You and your ways; whose wraths to guard you from--
 * Which here, in this most desolate isle, else falls
 * Upon your heads--is nothing but heart-sorrow
 * And a clear life ensuing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should note just once, for the record, that practically nothing asserted in the above is true (i.e., it does not correspond to reality). Also, it is off track; this page is for discussing possible editorial changes to improve the associated article, not for name-calling and so forth. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, but it is. Edward posted an analysis of why it is controversial, hence NNPOV, to identify Rand as a philosopher, and even some of his enemies were forced to admit that the analysis, although censored despite his request and his committment to only comment in that section, was journal article quality.


 * Nonetheless, because your feelings were hurt, you allowed a pre-existing label, applied to him unethically by amerindianarts, to stop discussion of the important issue he'd raised.


 * As it is, the ordinary educated reader, once she hits the "philosopher" claim, will stop reading since the only people who dignify Rand with this title are her phollowers.


 * Edward is right. A "philosopher" is someone with whom you can disagree with and yet still acknowledge is a philosopher. Rand does not meet this criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that I can participate in editing this article is patently absurd, as I've been prevented from so much as fixing your typos, much less correcting your many biases. Wikipedia neutrality is a farce. - Bert 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)


 * Damn right, Bert. Hasta la victoria siempre!

Two important citations of Rand as a philosopher have been missed. (1) Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers (Thoemmes Continuum, 2005) (This entry is available on the Ayn Rand Society website (www.aynrandsociety.org) (2) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a forthcoming entry on Ayn Rand. The SEP website is http://plato.stanford.edu/ If you look at the TOC under "R" you will find "Rand, Ayn (Neera Badhwar and Roderick Long)"

Also, I saw zero references to Tara Smith's 2006 book "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics." The book is a discussion of Rand as a philosopher, and is published by Cambridge University Press. That is an instance of a top philosophy press considering her a philosopher.

Hope that helps. Endlessmike 888 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A phony philosopher may represent a serious philosophical problem to a real philosopher (a philosopher peer-accepted into the trans-temporal conversation). Thrasymachus and Hitler would both merit mention in a comprehensive philosophical dictionary, because Thrasymachus represented a serious alternative to Plato's theory of justice, and Hitler "influenced" an entire generation of Critical Theorists...who sought ways to account for the rise of radical evil and to prevent its return.


 * Therefore you need a way to disambiguate two types of cites. In type (1) we cite the philosophical layperson and in type (2) we incorporate another's thought.


 * As to the Stanford entry, the process of actually reading Rand is incredibly painful. It's like grading English papers in a junior college. My guess is that whatever unfortunate grad student got the job regrets it and the entry isn't appearing because he's drinking himself to death.


 * Lilith2396 (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources moved from ex links section
I have removed the following from the external links section per WP:EL. If editors feel that any of these constitute reliable sources that may be of use, they are free to integrate them into the article as in-line citations:
 * Critical views
 * Big Sister is Watching You by Whittaker Chambers, originally from the National Review
 * A Half-Century-Old Attack on Ayn Rand Reminds Us of the Dark Side of Conservatism by Robert Tracinski, rebutting Chambers's review
 * The Concerned Novelist by Alper Ecer, (originally published in the Turkish academic magazine "Liberal Thought" of Association of Liberal Thinking)


 * Audio, video and transcripts
 * "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" &mdash; Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York - March 6, 1974
 * American Writers: Ayn Rand C-SPAN 2002 RTSP videos.
 * 1961 interview with Ayn Rand
 * Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5
 * The End of the Road - 4 Apr. 1968 broadcast on WBAI
 * Campus Or Battleground: A Report on the Events at Columbia University - 15 Oct. 1968 broadcast on WBAI
 * The Invasion Of Czechoslovakia - 30 Oct. 1968 broadcast on WBAI
 * The Invasion Of Czechoslovakia - 30 Oct. 1968 broadcast on WBAI

Regards, Skomorokh  20:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cult criticism
This really applies to the Objectivist movement (where its explored more fully), but I still think some mention of this should be made in this article. Idag (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's right there in the Objectivist movement section:

"Several prominent critics of the movement accused it of being a cult,[35] claiming that it exhibited typical cult traits, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrine and extreme adulation of the founder. Objectivists counter that even if some of Rand's followers have acted like cultists, this was not intended by Rand, and note that Rand explicitly condemned "blind followers"[36]"


 * Do you think more needs to be added? Skomorokh  23:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Most biography articles have criticisms of the person's work as well. See, e.g., Karl Marx and Hegel.  For length reasons, I don't think we need to hash it out in the article, but just put in something that says "hey, this criticism of her philosophy movement exists".  Idag (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are talking past each other, but the cult criticism is mentioned in this very article - Ayn Rand. I've quoted from the relevant section above. Could you be a little clearer? Skomorokh  05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it (I thought you were referring to the Objectivist article). Its all good then =)  Idag (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Word
I've provided multiple cites and reasons why the reference to philosopher should remain. It seems the majority of posters here are more willing to consider the posts of Edward, the block dodger and insult hurler, and Bert, the POV pusher. I've repeatedly asked for Good Faith and repeatedly daelt with arguments from good faith editors reasonably. I've read the Wikipedia guidelines and produced high quality sources, and people make barely a mention of them before breazing over to Edward and Bert's POV that goes against these sources. What this means to me is that this article is waste of time. The POV hatred of Rand is more important than wikipedia guidelines. I'm used t having insults hurled at me and have tried to be as calm and cool as possible, but the guidlines appear to be a joke. Trolls and insult hurlers get heard more than people who provide real valid quality sources? It's sad. I salute Skomorokh who spent the day making positive edits and contriutions to the article, he represents the ideal of what a good wikipedia editor should be. Now I'll give Bert and Edward what they really want, I will really step away from the debate so they can have there fake POV view put up. Im unwatching this article and leaving it for others to waste time over. Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been positive and we are certainly not ignoring your sources. We're just trying to come up with a compromise solution that incorporates all the sources (notice that Bert and Edward haven't really provided anything to this debate). J Readings and I have found sources that call Rand an "author" and, per Wikipedia policies, we are simply trying to fomulate a neutral lead by essentially stating what Rand did and letting the reader decide what adjective to call her.  Personally, I hope that you will return to this article since you have provided many positive edits.  Idag (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Edward provided a very neutral lead which I promoted and cleaned up, and both of us have contributed to this discussion by expressing a non-Randian view. In any case, Ethan isn't so much acting as an individual as a willing tool of the ARI, so his absence only means that others of his (hive) mindset will take over. - Bert 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)


 * By the way, if you delete the above paragraph again, I'll report your censorship and have you banned. That is your only warning, so pay attention to it. - Bert 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried incorporating the few reasonable-looking suggestions for improvements to the lead (excluding those that were ill-conceived), but none of them produced a better result than the original. For editorial consistency with other lists I added a comma to the list of professions. The article has a readable, interesting lead which concisely captures just the subject's essentials, and it even flags the profession "philosopher" with a note explaining her relation to academia, which satisfies legitimate concern about possible misunderstanding. I don't want to join into the argument, but I note that the term is being used correctly according to reliable dictionaries. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like Bert was right: Ethan ran off and brought in another Randroid, DAGwyn, to take advantange of the biased "protection" on the article. Oh, and I'm not a night owl, I just work shifts. 19:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Unsourced assertions removed to talk page
"Ashland University in Ohio, Cambridge University, and the University of Pittsburgh. "

"At the University of Pittsburgh the research is headed by professors James Lennox and Allan Gotthelf, both of whom are renowned for their illuminations of Aristotle's writings."

Regards, J Readings (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Duke University's professor Gary Hull is a member of the Ayn Rand Institute and has lectured courses incorporating Objectivist literature and discussion. Professor Gotthelf has identified certain trends in contemporary academic philosophy which make philosophers more receptive to Objectivist ideas: chief among these are the notions of essence and concept as epistemological, developments in virtue ethics, and current projects in normative philosophies of science and logic."

The above paragraph is also unsourced and it currently reads like original research. J Readings (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably also mention that the first two sentences in the "Rand's work and academic philosophy" section also strike me as being either original research or original synthesis (though I could be wrong), but I'm leaving them for now.J Readings (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Want real bias? Check out this sentence:
 * "While in general Rand's work has had little effect on academic philosophy—her followers being largely drawn from other professions—there has been an increased scholarly interest in her work in recent years."
 * Look at how hard this sentence bends over backwards to say that Rand's followers come from "other professions". Professions?  Wait, you mean none of them are blue-collar workers?  Even if they're professional doctors and programmers or whatever, they're not professional philosophers.  At most, they're amateur philosophers, if not mere clueless poseurs.  Incidentally, so was Rand, so it all fits.
 * What's sick is that high school and college kids are flattered into thinking they're philosophers when all they've learned is Rand's very twisted outsider's view of the field. They master a Bizarro version of philosophy without ever encountering the real thing.  And by the time they do run into real philosophers, they can only discuss them in terms of how they err by disagreeing with Her Holiness.
 * It's a cult, not a philosophy, and this article is a hagiography, not a biography. All of your well-meaning but decidedly minor improvements amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. The phrase "her followers being largely drawn from other professions" was added by an opponent of Rand's ideas, but in any case Rand would be irrelevant if the majority of her followers were professional philosophers.  The phrase serves no neutral purpose and should be removed.  — DAGwyn (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith

 * I have had it. My time has been wasted with the utmost in ex nihilo incivility and bad faith. A troll posts anonymously and insincerely: I have identified myself and I mean what I say. But I shall no longer interact with this page. Instead, I shall rip this issue a new asshole in the form of an article in a philosophy journal. Good bye. - Nilges

While I slept, an administrator with a terrible track record has decided to take sides and silence at least three particpants in the consensus-building process by putting a stealth semi-protection on the article. As far as I know, placing any sort of protection without a notice in the article is against the rules, as is doing so without announcing your actions to other admins. Moreover, the last time someone used a semi-protection here, it was recognized as biased, and therefore upgraded to a full protection. It looks like nothing has been learned, and we're back where we began.

At this point, the semi-protection has to go, either removed entirely or replaced with full protection that affects all participants without singling out those who do not wish to sign up for accounts. - Bert 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The page has been protected to prevent editing by a user who has been indefinitely blocked and is now getting around his block by editing anonymously. Unfortunately, this is the only way to deal with him because if we block a specific IP, he'll just edit from a different computer.  I am sorry that you are sharing his company, but just make an account.  You're signing your posts with your name anyway, so it really won't make any difference and you'll be able to edit. Idag (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This happens not to be true. Edward is supposedly blocked, but he's agreed on his own not to edit the article and to limit his contributions to this talk page.  In addition, there's been no evidence to link him to any other account that's editing here.  Therefore, the semi-protection can't have anything to do with stopping Edward.  And let me remind you that I am under no obligation to create an account, and neither is that night owl anon. - Bert 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That night owl anon has vandalized this page . You are of course under no obligation to create an account, but then you will be affected by the semi-protect that has been put in place to protect this page from vandalism. If you feel that strongly about creating an account, then let me remind you that there still plenty of noncontroversial pages on Wikipedia that you can edit anonymously. Idag (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your subjectivity is dominating your judgement.

This page is full of strong words, and many remarks are entirely uncivil. In particular, Ethan is frequently guilty of this, to the point where a third party recently felt compelled to edit out one of his more offensive statements. The comment you keep deleting is far more civil than almost everything that Ethan wrote, so if you were at all consistent, then this page would be empty. Instead, you're judging me under a tougher standard than you apply to Ethan, which is a type of perceptual bias. My comment is strong, but civil.

Just as you falsly equate comments you dislike with attacks, you falsely equate article edits you don't like with vandalism. The night owl did not replace the article with "Ayn Rand sucks!" or anything else that patently degrades the quality of its content. Instead, he or she rolled the contents back to the last edit before the wrong version got frozen into place. This necessarily undid all the changes that were snuck in while the unfair semi-protection lock was on, including many drastic changes that were made without prior discussion, much less consensus. For that matter, this editor has participated in disucssions here and has justified these actions. In short, while you may not like that bit of editing, it is anything but vandalism.

Finally, the current semi-protection is based on stated claim that a banned editor is hiding under an IP, but that's flatly false. There's no evidence to suggest that either the night owl or myself are banned or blocked or whatever. The only one who's banned is Edward, and he's agreed not to edit the article.

In short, on three issues, you are completely out of touch with the truth. - Bert 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticking in "I love Kevin" into an Ayn Rand article is vandalism. As far as Ethan, he has made many constructive edits to this article. Looking at your edit history, all you have done so far is get into edit wars and insult the editors on the talk page. You have not sourced a single unsourced statement or made any other edit that this article needs. Looking again at your edit history, it appears that you have yet to make a single constructive edit to ANY article on Wikipedia. Unlike you, Ethan has made a number of edits that have improved this article, he has not called you names and has not accused you of being a "hive mind" and therefore he is not judged under a "more lenient standard". Idag (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kevin edit is random vandalism that doesn't come from the night owl or from anyone who's banned. It's irrelevant noise that you'd like to use as an excuse for a one-sided semi-protection.  All of my edits here have been constructive; I'm an NPOV pusher whose job is to keep this article honest. - Bert 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Kevin edit was made by 69.113.176.28, please see the link I posted earlier which identifies the source of the edit. Please point to a single (non-edit warring) constructive edit that you have made to this article.  Idag (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. The Kevin guy is a random, drive-by vandal, not a persistent problem. The only other anon edit was by me, and I explained why I rolled back all the changes since the admin bias kicked in. There's no excuse for this semi-protection and I will roll back all changes once it's gone. 19:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Propose Archiving
This talk page has yet again gotten ridiculously long. Would someone be willing to archive it soon? It appears many of these conversations are no longer significantly active. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the latest vandalism and banned user's remarks have been removed, might it not be a good time to archive much of this page? Someone who's been here longer than I might be able to judge how and whether to do this. Kjaer (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have begun removing extraneous material. If people object to anything I remove, put it back and post a note here in a new subsection and we can reach consensus on whether to keep it where to put it. Also, I have rewritten the second paragraph of the lede to be more neutral. I would appreciate it if this section remain free of any discussion as to whether or not Rand is a philosopher. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Influences
In her 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from, she replied:

"Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgment of a debt to Aristotle, who was the only philosospher who ever influenced me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.253.19 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is largely correct, although oversimplified (as one might expect for a TV talk show). Rand claimed to derive the rest of her philosophical system step by step from its metaphysical basis, along with specific observations about the characteristic nature of certain entities (such as man).  She attributed her metaphysical basis essentially to Aristotle: primacy of existence, law of identity, law of noncontradiction.
 * Are you suggesting some change in the article text? If so, what and where? — DAGwyn (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this could be used as an additional source for the statement that she never read Kant. Idag (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's not. Rand certainly read writings of some philosophers other than Aristotle; it's just that his influence was the only one she thought she owed a debt to. — DAGwyn (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that Rand "certainly" read writings of any philosophers? Branden said she didn't read Kant.


 * Let's take a look at her *magnum opus*, "For the New Intellectual".


 * Hmm. No index: no bibliography. Bitch too lazy? An index and references are a minor but real prerequisite in a scholarly book. My Goddess, she doesn't even meet your standards.


 * OK, so she read Aristotle? Let's see what she says:


 * Plato's system was a monument to the Witch Doctor's metaphysics - with its two realities, with the physical world as a semi-illusory, imperfect, inferior realm, subordinated to a realm of abstractions (which means, in fact, though not in Plato's statement: subordinated to man's consciousness) with reason in the position of an inferior but necessary servant that paves the way for the ultimate burst of mystic revelation which discloses a "superior" truth. But Aristotle's philosophy was the intellect's Declaration of Independence. Aristotle, the father of logic, should be given the title of the world's first intellectual [ta da], in the purest and noblest sense of that word. No matter what remnants of Platonism did exist in Aristotle's system, his incomparable achievement lay in the fact that he defined the basic [tan tan tara] principles of a rational view of existence and of man's consciousness: that there is only one reality, the one which man perceives-that it exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the consciousness, the wishes or feelings of any perceiver)-that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not create, reality)-that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not create reality...that A is A.


 * If submitted anonymously as part of a paper in any good Philosophy 101 class, the teacher would fail the student, because what she has written gives no evidence of reading either Plato or Aristotle.


 * 1. The student gives no evidence that she knows that many Platonic dialogues presented "his" philosophy as the words of Socrates, who far from being a "witch doctor", claimed to know very little: to think without illusions. He asked people questions to undermine preconceptions.


 * 2. Plato didn't posit two realities. He said that ordinary sensory reality is a shadow of Reality as derived and evanescent as the shadows on the wall of a cave lit only by fire. The abstractions were his only reality, and they were, as is mathematics, independent of man's consciousness. In fact, Plato would be offended by Rand's charge that his World of Forms was consciousness-dependent. That's precisely what the Forms are not.


 * 3. Plato found evidence, in trying to teach slaves and women, that the ability to comprehend demonstrations was rare, almost mystical. But calling it mystical doesn't make it mystical, since for him each step in awareness had to be justified by reason. There is evidence for this "anti-anti-intellectualism" that confronts teachers when they actually try to use formal methods in class, and here (when people use misinterpretations of administrative rules to avoid thought).


 * [The origin of the inability of slaves, women and thugs like Thrasymachus to follow dialectics was a consequence of evolution and their struggle for survival: Plato's Guardians are supported by the state merely to avoid the self-interest of slave thought. Anthropology tells us that for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, homo "sapiens" was only sapient enough to use tools but could not make tools: this may be an evolutionary explanation of why even today, people learn at second-rate uni to "use" the results of Enlightenment while in effect being forced by administrative tricks not to participate in a continued enlightenment.]


 * [Although the administered world sets its face against Islam, it says "the gates of itijihad are closed to its little computer tenders" and this reification is so attractive, promising as it does access to the megafortunes of the computer thugs while of course withholding that promise in virtual slavery, that wikipedians, thirsting for alienation, construct play-pens in which they reproduce the miserable conditions of their work.]


 * [Texts like Rand contain of course nothing like logic, and are reassurances, despite their lack of even such basic apparati as indexes and references, that their reader is an intellectual, especially if he sends the embedded postal card to the "Ayn Rand Institute", whose 1984ish O'Briens will, he is reassured, be in touch with him in order to reassure him he's not a complete fool. ]


 * 4. Aristotle did not posit a unitary sensory reality, for the very good reason that we are deceived by the senses and he knew this. Furthermore, Rand makes a real howler. If reality is independent of "consciousness, wishes, and feelings" then it can not only not be created, it cannot be changed. Without apparently proofreading, Rand has said literally here that no part of reality can be altered by the will. Which flies in the face of common sense, expressed in the Serenity Prayer: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference".


 * For example, Rand had a childish love of choo-choo trains and was thrilled to take the controls of a New York Central train as a temporary giant phallus. Yet precisely when she published her magnum opus, the American railroad passenger system destroyed itself, and what was so solid to her, such an unquestionable reality, is now a collection of rusted rolling stock through which the field-mouse trots in a peaceful spot, surrounded by whispering ears of corn, in Union, Illinois, at the "Illinois Railroad Museum".


 * Rand is no philosopher, nor had she read philosophy. Please use the lead Edward Nilges has proposed.


 * Lilith2396 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC

It's obvious that Lilith is simply a troll looking for attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.24.252 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering if she is a sock puppet for Nilges, since the argumentation is so similar (and so similarly misguided). I learned long ago, the hard way, not to attempt to refute such argumentation point by point.  If I thought it might be somebody seriously trying to understand an issue through dialogue, then I'd be much more sympathetic and probably enter into discussion so long as progress seemed likely, although in another venue since this is not a proper forum for such discussions.  However, her/Nilges' mischaracterizations of both Rand's ideas and this article's discussion history lead me to doubt very much that truth or understanding are among her goals. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Philosopher:" some definitions and some mainstream sources
The dictionary (AHD4) defines "philosopher" as "1. A student of or specialist in philosophy. 2. A person who lives and thinks according to a particular philosophy" and defines "philosophy" as:
 * 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
 * 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
 * 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
 * 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
 * 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
 * 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
 * 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
 * 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Obviously Rand meets many of those definitions. Personally, I'd say she is a "student of or specialist in" in philosophy in its meanings 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, but not 5 and 6. Whether you label her a "philosopher" or not is a matter of opinion.

It is a "fact about opinion" that some sources use the label "philosopher" and some do not.

The Columbia Encyclopedia does not label her a "philosopher" but does say that "Her novels are romantic and dramatic, and they espouse a philosophy of rational self-interest that opposes the collective of the modern welfare state."

Britannica opens with the sentence "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic."

Encarta opens with "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate."

Her obituary in The New York Times opens with the sentence: "Ayn Rand, the writer and philosopher of objectivism who espoused "rational selfishness" and capitalism unbound, died yesterday morning at her home on East 34th Street."

Most mainstream sources consider her a novelist first, philosopher second; e.g. the Time obituary's headline is "Ayn Rand, 'Fountainhead' Author, Dies." Dpbsmith (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which essentially is what I (and one or two other established editors) have been saying all along, hence my suggestion to use a database review (complemented by how other secondary and tertiary sources describe her en masse) to confirm how she was (and is) identified in the reliable third-party media. Unfortunately, focusing on what these sources say ON BALANCE in this discussion has been marginalized by the somewhat understandable, but constant need (?) to react to (rebut?) anon IPs. It's a shame, really. Personally, I've refrained a little from editing the article until the dust settles. I'm afraid this article still needs a lot of work in terms of balanced substance, correct wikification, cleanup, and lead writing if it ever hopes to get an upgrade, but we can discuss those details in other sections. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When this issue came up previously, I found similar definitions in a different dictionary, and noted that Rand is properly termed a "philosopher" on several counts. Thanks for the additional references showing that she is widely regarded as one by the general public.  This issue is ironic, since if the member-of-the-club definition were operative, then Rand would not have wanted to have been so labeled anyway, due to her low opinion of the contemporary state of that profession.  (A view shared by many academics in other fields.) — DAGwyn (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the appellation a person is given should be based on what they are known for. For instance, "Ayn Rand, cat-fancier" would be inappropriate, since it isn't what people think of when they think of her, even though it's accurate.  I think she is known for her philosophy almost as much as for her novels, and that grants her the title of philosopher.  To recall something mentioned earlier, noone thinks "Mao, the philosopher" when asked to recall Mao.  Plenty of people think "Ayn Rand, philosopher" when asked to recall Ayn Rand, particularly when in an academic environment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.86.104 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was making a slightly different point, although it seems that we are in general agreement on the "philosopher" issue. It would be correct to say "Rand was a cat fancier," since in fact she met the requirements to be included in that category based on the most common meaning(s) of the term.  It merely wouldn't be correct to imply that that is the primary thing she is known for.  (By the way, she was also a philatelist.) — DAGwyn (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In case the issue of "Is Rand a philosopher" pops up again, here is another cite. Or sort-of cite. The book "Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought" will be published by Blackwell in their companion series. The volume is being edited by Allan Gotthelf and Greg Salmieri. Its publication date is 2010, so it doesn't count until then. But keep it in mind any way. Endlessmike 888 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Well, her summation of Plato is pretty good, and Rand's is really bad. Plato as anti-rational? That's rather odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P97dav45 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Talk Page Semi-Protection
Almost all of the problems that have taken place here are due to editors operating from anonymous IP addresses. Nilges' filibustering has by and large prevented any other discussion from taking place on this page. I understand that this is something of an extraordinary step, but I think that we should consider having this talk page semi-protected. This is less than desirable, but I'm afraid it may be necessary to stop the incessant trolling here. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think its necessary just because the main article is semi-protected. There have been constructive anon contributions in the past and I'd hate to completely strip all anons of a chance to contribute to this article just because of a few bad apples. Idag (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Idag. As much as I find "Bert" and Edward/Lilith to be annoying, disruptive, and insulting I think it's fine to just delete their posts/edits rather than block all anonymous editors. Let them then wail about it on Ed's Yahoo Group. It' takes far less time to delete their posts than it does to make them (even though they have cut and pasted the same comments back several times.) Eventually they'll either get bored with being disruptive or create other accoutns and become constructive. In any case, I do not care. They are not worth my time. I'm still not going to bother editing this article as it's not worth the effort required to dig through the BS. If someone wants anything looked up though, feel free to post to my talk page and I'll see what i can find. Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

With some trepidation I have added an observation to Rand's view of the LP, from her letter of April 17, 1947, stating that an agreement to forego the initiation of force would suffice for a Utopia on earth and would provide enough of a practical moral code. (Letters of Ayn Rand, hardcover, p. 366) I studied under Tara Smith and worked for Petr Beckmann and keep a site at jhenryphillips.com where I show graphically that all major changes in US laws have come from the platforms of minor parties. The edit reflects verifiable facts. I have tired of restoring the summary of what she taught as three bullet points because it was repeatedly effaced by persons I took to be vandals of the looter persuasion. translator (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Atlasphere
With good intentions no doubt, an editor just added this sentence to the influence section on the main page:

"The Atlasphere," an online community devoted to admirers of Rand, maintains a blog citing Rand's influence on popular or newsworthy figures who cite the influence of Rand's works on their lives."

Am I alone in thinking this addition is really not appropriate for this biography? Policies and guidelines aside (and I can think of at least a couple that discourage us from adding "fan sites" to BLP pages, not to mention the issue of blogs themselves and their notability), the linked page indicates that it's primarily a dating service. I'd like to remove it unless I'm overlooking something. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd vote to remove itEthan a dawe (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. It's a link to a dating site. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it does not offer a unique resource beyond the article. Skomorokh  18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a similar external link previously, but at some point most such links were removed, and I generally approve of the policy of minimizing links to incidental (though related) sites. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life
Hi, IMHO Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life - a documentary based on her life ought to find a mention in the Film Adaptatinos section of the article. The documentary was nominated for The Best Documentary Oscar in 1998. IMDb page link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/ The documentary finds a mention in reference numbers 2 and 13, but not in the main article. Also, the link given to the synopsis of the documentary is rotten. 59.178.180.73 (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A link is probably appropriate, but not in the Film Adaptations section, since this wasn't one of Rand's works, but rather a work about Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Racism question
I have a lot of difficulty with the idea that Rand was not a racist. I'm not sure how it can be addressed in the article. Like a lot of her philosophy she suggests axioms that seem ethical and then she contradicts these axioms once she elaborates on what they mean. One of these views that really stands out is her view of racism.

Despite what she has stated in her literature about racism, there are several aspects in her writings that contradict her public position. First, in novels such as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged all of the intellectual elite are Caucasian. She does not remotely entertain the notion that a Negro could be an intellectual. Second, in her own argument against racism she states that Negroes are "Instead of fighting against racism, they are demanding the establishment of racial quotas" which suggests that all black people are a collective of pin-heads, which is definitely a racist outlook. Whether or not she agreed with affirmative action, its ridiculous to espouse the view that all black people got together made this political decision.

I'm just wondering if there is an acceptable way to address that her views toward racism are contradicted in her writings. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd certainly like to be set straight. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've ever come across substantial accusations of racism on Rand's part, but if you can find reliably sourced criticism I'm sure we can add it to the article. Sincerely, Skomorokh  23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you can't put your own thoughts/research into the article, but if you find an authoritative third party who makes these assertions, then we can put that party's views in. Idag (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood Skomorokh. However, I was hoping someone would be able to clarify the issue instead of simply saying something like "well, I've never read that she was racist, but if you find something let us know". My whole point was that her very own words in her article on racism seem to indicate that while she says her philosophy is not racist, the fact that she considers all black people a collective is, in fact, racist. I was just hoping someone on here with more philosophical acumen than I could either shoot that point down or possibly shed better light on it with a reference I might not be aware of. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I'm afraid you are in the wrong place; this is a talkpage for discussing improvements to the Ayn Rand article, not a forum for discussing the topic. What you are looking for is the Humanties reference desk, where Wikipedians answer reader questions; you might have better luck there. Regards, Skomorokh  05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In some ways Rand's personal views reflect the default assumptions of the culture she grew up in, unless something happened to cause her to examine her assumptions. In particular, her characters reflect her own imagination, and naturally she imagined mainly people resembling the actual and fictional characters that she was familiar with.  I wouldn't fault her for not giving special treatment to people of a particular race (e.g. blacks).  If you understood her analysis of what is wrong with racism (namely, that it treats an individual on the basis of accidental characteristics rather than on the basis of what he has volitional control over), you would also understand that singling out particular races for reparational favorable treatment is every bit as racist as singling them out for hatred. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate quotation marks
"Rand supported Israel during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, which she saw as an attack by "a primitive society" on a government that supported individual rights."

The quotation marks amount to the author inserting his own verdict of her statement. She considered it a primitive society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.165.27 (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the most appropriate thing to do here would be to find a full quote and let that speak for itself. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The preface "she saw as" obviates the need for quotation marks, since it is already made clear that that was her own view. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-partisan Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
Here and in the Objectivism article, this journal is described as "non-partisan". Given the affiliations and interests of the editorial board and their advisors, this is a controversial claim which needs a supporting citation. I know the editors themselves call it a non-partisan journal, but that really isn't sufficient for Wikipedia. Does anyone have independent support for the claim?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Just check out the authors who have so far been published in the journal to see that many of them are definitely not Objectivists. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiki doesn't work that way. If I carry out that enquiry and draw my own conclusion, it's OR and hence a waste of time.  Is there an independent, authoritative cite?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * That's a distortion of the intent of the Wikipedia policy, which was meant to resolve editorial dispute about fact. If you actually follow my advice above, you would see what the fact is.  Under your interpretation, you could cite my claim above (or a similar one made elsewhere) as a reference, and any counter-claim as a conflicting reference, etc. and end up with an article that conveys nothing factual, just random utterings! — DAGwyn (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I don't really understand much of that. By "reference", do you mean citation?  Obviously you can't use the claims of Wiki editors as citations.  The simple point I am making - which distorts nothing - is that it is not the business of Wiki editors to determine what the facts are.  Wiki requires an authoritative citation, and a citation from the magazine itself, touting its own virtues, is not appropriate.


 * This is easy really. Either there's an authoritative citation or there isn't.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I disagree. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to present the most significant facts concerning the targeted range of subjects.  The Wikipedia policies about citations were specifically meant to address the problem of arbitrary claims; supporting documentation adds weight to a claim.  However, in many cases the facts are so easy to verify that nobody "authoritative" has bothered to write them up.  Practically every Wikipedia article contains several factual claims in that category.
 * In this particular instance, the Table of Contents of the Journal list all authors' names, several of which should be familiar as non-Objectivist scholars. (And naturally many others are Objectivists to some degree.)  But even easier, just click on the link given as a reference: You get a page full of reviews of the journal, with many comments on its content and contributors.  For example: "'The so-called Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is filled with writings by people with whom I refuse to knowingly associate under any circumstances,' wrote Mr. Bernstein ..." (a well-known "hard-line" Objectivist).  Thus the existing reference is exactly what is needed to justify the claim made in the text.  I considered other ways to word it, but the current text is nicely phrased. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the conclusions from the link are obvious, then there's no need for us to synthesize them. We've included the link and since the non-partisan nature of the source is evident from the link, then we can just leave the link up there and let interested readers click on it to draw their own conclusions.  What's the point of adding our own two cents? Idag (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Idag on this issue. There is no point in engaging in original synthesis to make a point. That's clearly against policy. On the other hand, we are not supposed to be promoting one journal over another with self-serving adjectives like ("non-partisan") unless a reliable third-party source also makes the claim. That is the point that (I think) KD Tries Again is trying to make and I agree with him. I second Idag's motion to remove the POV adjectives and just leave the link. Let readers make up their own minds. J Readings (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with omitting the adjective is that there are a lot of readers like KD who would assume (without further investigation) that the Journal is simply one-sided propaganda, and thus would dismiss a valuable resource for gaining further understanding of the subject. "Non-partisan" is the simplest wording we could use to deter that misimpression.  It's not POV, it's an accurate description. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you've arrived at that conclusion by synthesizing data available on that site and that violates WP:Syn. If its truly non-partisan, there should be a source somewhere mentioning that fact (maybe an author citing this site as a reliable source in an article?). Idag (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as "one-sided propaganda", I think that our mention of the fact that its peer-reviewed takes care of that bias. Idag (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two problems with DAGwyn's position. First, anyone inclined to assume that the journal is one-sided propaganda is not going to have their fears allayed because someone claims it's 'nonpartisan'.  Quite the opposite.  The very phrase 'nonpartisan' provoked my curiosity.  You don't see anyone talk about the 'nonpartisan' Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society.  The term protests too much.  Second, it's not Wiki's job to promote the journal as a useful resource.  Agree with keeping the link and losing the puff.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * "Peer-reviewed" is insufficient if the reader is likely to assume that the "peers" are all advocates. In my most recent edit to the article, I moved the "nonpartisan" descriptor to be adjacent to "peer-reviewed," which I think works best; part of the qualification now adheres to the peers with less emphasis on the Journal.  As to what the Wikipedia's job is, first and foremost must be to be a good encyclopedia.  Part of that is to minimizing opportunities for the general readership to form a counterfactual impression based on the phrasing. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rand's support for WWII
In the Wars section it is asserted that Rand opposed involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Korean war. The only documentation of this claim is from an uncited argument piece in a an advocacy site, ARI Watch. ARI watch is an anonymous issue site (apparently intended to oppose military action in Iraq) with no physical address, contact information, or affiliation given. While Rand's support for WWI and the Korean War would need to be documented, and she is obviously critical of the reasons given by Roosevelt and Wilson for entering the world wars, there is no documentation whatsoever to show that she actively opposed entry into WWII. To the contrary, in her Journals, p 315, she states:

"And what about this last war? Who started it?  The alliance of two dictators - Hitler and Stalin.  Now observe a most significant point: the American-British strategy throughout the war was to destroy the production centers of the enemy and knock him out - because America and England were not after loot, they had nothing to gain by the war, they were the productive nations and were merely defending themselves."

Note Rand identifies America and Britain as acting in self-defense, a primary issue of her politics. She does not criticize the war as a matter between Germany and England. Rather, she defends Britain's strategy throughout.

This assertion of Rand's having opposed WWII is unproven and undocumented. The claim is made nowhere except on an anonymously hosted issue site, ariwatch.com, with the self-serving implication that Rand would have opposed US military action in response to the September 11 attacks, since she 'opposed' WWII. Using an anonymously run issue site which exists to oppose the Ayn Rand Institute's support for a military action that began twenty years after Rand's death as the sole documentation for such a controversial and dubious claim is unacceptable.

In the spirit of self-disclosure, I am an active poster at rebirthofreason.com, my username there being Ted Keer. I am critical of ARI and not affiliated with that organization or any other. My sole concern is that this highly dubious (I would say false) claim be removed from this otherwise excellent article. Kjaer (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the text to reflect Rand's stated support for the US/UK World War II stratey as expressed in her Journals. "While Rand often criticized conventional motivations for U.S. involvement in World War I, World War II,[31] and the Korean War, she approved American action when strictly justified in response to an attack, as in World War II.[32]" Kjaer (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)