Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 19

RfC: Keep or Remove Raymond Boisvert?
Should Raymond Boisvert be mentioned in the section on Philosophical criticism of Ayn Rand? Previous discussion on this matter has taken place above and in the archives. It seems no consensus was reached, as the question still seems to be the subject of apparently heated edit warring. Please precede your comment with either Keep or Remove. Macduff (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove

The reference, no matter how well published Raymond Boisvert may be, is vague to the point of meaninglessness. A claim (paraphrased - not a direct quote) that someone twenty six years deceased is "out of sync" has no objective meaning or even clear connotation. The reference is to what we must presume to be a local interest story in an Albany, NY newspaper, near Siena College. A google search for "Ayn Rand" returns over 3.5 million hits, a similar search for "Ayn Rand YouTube" [!] returns 198,000 hits, and a search for "Ayn Rand periodical" returns over 30,000 hits. There is no shortage of available comment on Rand! Presumably, there are many newspaper articles on Rand, a few of which may have something more informative to say than that she was "out of sync" with something. The contributor is free to cite a philosophically or literarily relevant journal article, should one exist, by Boisvert on Rand. `There are innumerable critics of Rand who have written uncounted articles and essays about her views, art, and private life. The issue is not Boisvert's supposedly being critical of Rand, which is acceptable, but the utter meaninglessness and banality of the criticism, and its total lack of academic meaning or context. The supposed criticism enlightens the reader in no way whatsoever about the subject of the article. Kjaer (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are innumerable critics of Rand who have written uncounted articles and essays about her views, art, and private life. Kjaer, on this issue, you keep mentioning it, but it would be helpful if you actually cited a few concrete examples to support it, so that they can be considered for the article. I'm asking in good faith, actually. If you (or Macduff) honestly want to make room in the article for other criticisms that you have available (so this one brief sentence--which is certainly not undue weight in the article--can be sidelined), that I could understand a little bit more. Otherwise, this campaign strikes me as being a very subjective personal judgment call on what people can and cannot read by published and notable authors, academics and journalists. That sets a dangerous precedent, consistent with censorship (a Wikipedia no-no). As for Boisvert, he also argued in the same article that Objectivism was a "fairly marginalized movement" but that, too, was removed because another user did not agree with Boisvert's opinion (which, ironically, is consistent with the first sentence in the criticism section anyway). Apparently, no one is allowed to quote an actual well-respected, prolific academic of philosophy stating what is already implied in the first sentence by a journalist because someone did not agree with the criticism--as if agreeing with the quoted substance had any relevance when writing an encyclopedia article. J Readings (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my duty to do your research for you. I criticize Rand myself quite vigorously, where she deserves it, and in a manner that makes sense. But I am not pushing a POV or my own research. I am simply repeating that this comment is of no help to anyone who doesn't know Rand - and that is the ultimate determiner of relevance. Kjaer (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not my duty to do your research for you. Excuse me, but you were the one making the claims that there are so many criticisms out there. Now, suddenly, you're backing away from the assertion without offering any substantiation. Surely you can find at least one, otherwise why make the claim in the first place? But I am not pushing a POV or my own research. And you are implying that I am? J Readings (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove As I have previously stated, the guy is not notable and inclusion of this comment, made in a local newspaper decades after Ayn's death, as a "Philosophical criticism" is laughable. Macduff (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove I agree with Kjaer. Boisvert's criticism was neither notable nor, so far as one can tell from the citation, "argued;" it seems to be just one person's opinion expressed on one occasion, not representative of a significant line of criticism of Rand's ideas. The cited article is apparently not available on line; I searched the newspaper to no avail. I did manage to find a brief faculty page for Boisvert, which says that he has a professional interest in Pragmatism, which is consistent with what was cited. Of course Rand was critical of Pragmatism (which she saw as abandoning all respect for reason in philosophy), so it could be that Boisvert was merely grinding an axe. Anyway, as it stands the text in question contributes nothing useful to the article and has been given undue weight. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep Both Google Scholar and JSTOR show that Boisvert has published numerous philosophy articles and has been cited a number of times. Therefore, he qualifies as a reputable source under WP:V. As a summary of a reputable source, the inclusion of Boisvert's views is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. I am trying very hard to assume good faith here, but particularly harsh critcism of Rand always seems to get edited out with, at best, a marginal reason being given for the removal. Idag (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How does this qualify as "harsh" criticsim of Rand? It counts as laughable and philosophically meaningless criticism of Rand - as stated, an unargued opinion from no matter how 'notable' a source, in a non-scholarly, unverifiable local newspaper article. This reference does not make Rand look bad, it makes the article look bad. Kjaer (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Idag. The arguments here for censorship are a little silly. I realize some people haven't read all of the policies and guidelines yet (that's understandable), but "argued" is the preferred word to maintain NPOV language per WP:AVOID. That's why it's used in the article. And I need to address a couple of other misunderstandings. Newspapers are allowed per WP:RS to cite opinions, not "facts" (which this obviously is). Second, verifiability means that you can go to LexisNexis or Factiva (where I found the criticism) or alternatively a major library and look something up. It's a common mistake to assume that "verifiability" somehow means either "on-line" or "free" or both. But you don't need to take my word for it -- ask any experienced editor on the noticeboards and they should be able to advise. I could even forward some links to where this was discussed recently on the reliable source noticeboard, if you'd prefer. Either way, it would be a nice gesture of good-faith if you eventually restore my comment that was removed above. I don't understand why you deleted it, thoughtfully acknowledged that you did on my talk page (thanks), but never restored it. J Readings (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify my position, I do think that the Boisvert excerpt needs elaboration because it is currently unclear. However, I'm voting "Keep" because this discussion is about whether we should remove it altogether. I vote that we keep it and then elaborate to clarify Boisvert's criticism. Idag (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Remove. "Out of sync" could mean many, many things, and is an extraordinarily vague statement. Note that my opposition is not to having Boisevert--he's clearly notable. My concern is that this is an extremely vague, amorphous criticism. How is Rand out of sync? Why? If a more specific criticism can be found, or some explanation included as to why/how he felt Rand was out of sync, then that should be used instead. Otherwise, I just don't see what this adds to the article. There is plenty of substantial criticism on Rand out there--let's use it. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Remove & replace'. There is no absolutely valid reason to remove it. Calling it "laughable" is incorrect and rather bad form. Nothing at all against citing the Albany Times-Union, but they're not a real "go-to" source for an analysis of philosophy, pseudo-philosophy or literary criticism. Reputable sources (like Boisevert) probably do tend to stay away from publishing comment on Rand, but on the other hand, there's probably better stuff out there. Calamitybrook (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Keep'. Saying there's more substantial criticism available is no reason for removing what we have. First insert the substantial criticisms; maybe at some point Boisevert will become duplicative and superflous.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Keep. The criteria that should be applied are: a) Is there a source reference? b) Is the criticism relevant (not  valid, fair, etc. but relevant. Is it a sustained piece of criticism, not just a snarky sound bite in passing? Yes. Is it directed at objectivism? Yes. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'Remove'. Too vague, suggestions of some animus on the part of the Boisevert, neither the criticism nor the source are appropriate for philosophical criticism (the Albany times isn't where I go for philosophical criticism). The qualitity of the articles calls for keeping this kind of fluff out. Would it make any sense to find a quote from someone in a newpaper that says "Ayn Rand's philosophy is so clearly in sync with our modern times" and put that into the article as a statement for the 'Philosophy: Objectivism' section? I don't think so. --Steve (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem: I am sure many who have criticized Rand also have some "animus" against her and her philosophy. It does not follow that the criticisms are not notable, not valid or irrelevant.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

'Remove.' Agree with points made by Kjaer and others above. The quote was published in a small non-academic newspaper and has subsequently received no attention in philosophical or academic discussion of Rand, and for these reasons it does not belong in a section on philosophical criticisms of Rand. In juxtaposition with the widely cited criticism by Nozick (whose contribution, by the way, a major essay in a very prominent academic monograph), even one sentence on this constitutes undue weight. --Wilanthule (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I've expressed my thoughts already, so there's no need to restate them here. I certainly respect WP:CONSENSUS -- which is part of the problem because I don't know what the take home message should be at this point. Some editors want to include Boisvert; some don't. Overall, I want to emphasize that I appreciated Wilanthule's measured tone in the previous discussion and I, in no way, want to personalize the issue. Whatever the consensus ends up being, I'll certainly respect it without holding anything against the people who raised the objections. Incidentally, someone refers to Boisvert as a "fag" above and wants him removed for that reason. *Sigh* I realize he's being facetious, but really please -- if it's okay with everyone else, let's not add to the problem with that kind of inappropriate talk. J Readings (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove. It's a trivial criticism having almost no content. A sure sign of this is that it's the sort of thing that can be said of pretty much any work. There have to be criticisms of Rand's work more illuminating and concrete than this one -- God knows I can think of quite a few on my own. --72.43.196.198 (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting Record
Ayn Rand’s voting record for all the presidential elections she was eligible to vote in, 1932 (Herbert Hoover   vs.  Franklin Roosevelt)  to  1980 (Ronald Reagan  vs.  Jimmy Carter),  and why she voted as she did,  can be found at  http://ARIwatch.com/PresidentialElections-1.htm.

If there were a section on her “practical politics” this would be a useful footnote. — Mark


 * The problem is, we can't put that up unless a secondary source analyzed the voting trends. Otherwise that would be original research. Idag (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
I have completely rewritten the introduction. The previous one was inept and ungrammatical, had little or no 'thread', and did not present the key facts about Rand, namely more biographical summary, a coherent description of what she thought, the fact that she is almost unknown outside the US (with citations) and an accurate summary of the views held by the philosophical establishment, with endnotes explaining exactly why they hold this view (it's nothing to do with elitism or liberal viewpoints, she was simply uneducated in philosophy). I have tried to do this in a way that Rand fanatics will recognise as accurate, and yet will still be acceptable to those of us who subscribe to the orthodox and established position. Peter Damian (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an improvement. I believe that linking her to classical liberalism is contentious, however. She is far more often linked to egoism. Her main inspirations were what one would expect from an individual schooled in the Soviet Union: lots of Aristotle and some German philosophy. I believe that this should be removed, as it doesn't represent anything near a scholarly consensus on how to classify her. I suspect many would agree with me that this representation is actually quite misleading and inaccurate in many respects. She bears far more in common with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer than she does with classical liberalism, which is almost universal in its demand for sympathy and altruism. I think this is a subjective claim that should be changed to something less controversial. She created her own school, based upon her own terms (such as rational egoism), and we can simply use her phrasing. CABlankenship (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but was trying to remain faithful to sources. Hicks writes "Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government." On the Aristotle, I don't have any sources that prove she actually read Aristotle.  From what I have read of her actual work, she doesn't seem to have grasped the basics of Aristotelian logic.  Peter Damian (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit] Hicks also writes "Rand's ethic of self interest is integral to her advocacy of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, more often called "libertarianism" in the 20th century, is the view that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. This implies, politically, that governments should be limited to protecting each individual's freedom to do so. In other words, the moral legitimacy of self interest implies that individuals have rights to their lives, their liberties, their property, and the pursuit of their own happiness, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. Economically, leaving individuals free to pursue their own interests implies in turn that only a capitalist or free market economic system is moral: free individuals will use their time, money, and other property as they see fit, and will interact and trade voluntarily with others to mutual advantage. " This may be all wrong, but the point is we have to source from whatever looks reliable. I am suspicious of Hicks, particularly from the way he introduces Rand as a 'major intellectual', but that is all I have right now. Peter Damian (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She obviously misunderstood Aristotle, as Aristotle was an advocate for extreme social welfare and egalitarianism. She still claimed influence from Aristotle, and from what I've read he was either 2nd or 3rd in the Objectivist list of greatest humans ever behind only Ayn Rand, and sometimes Nathan Branden.  Lesser individuals such as Einstein (a socialist) and Newton (a Christian) were of course beneath her intellect.  But honestly, and I'm sure there are plenty of experts who agree, I see her as more of an extension of Nietzschean egoism than of Jefferson, Smith, Locke, or Bentham.  I think this claim is too subjective, and should be removed.  Hicks is only one source, and shouldn't be copied wholesale. CABlankenship (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah yeah, I agree - the first thing that came to mind was Nietszche. But where to source it?  On Aristotle, I did find this.  It contains the wonderful and monstrous "Like Aristotle, Rand ascribes to only a few basic axioms: existence exists, existence is identity, and consciousness is identification. "  Vallicella explains exactly why this is philosophically incoherent here and it certainly resembles absolutely nothing in Aristotle.  By the way, the claim is that the Influence of Aristotle was not the Ethics but the Organon.  But where? Peter Damian (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This contains some interesting, if largely incoherent, material on logic and Aristotle. It reinforces my impression that Rand either read nothing of Aristotle's logic, or grossly misunderstood him. But how to get this into the article, without 'original research'.  Can some of the Randians here actually get us some primary sources from Rand herself?  Peter Damian (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The most obvious thing is to place her in the Libertarian tradition as that will be understood and her follows are in the main a part of the Libertarian parties in the US (look at some of the third largest party nonsense on notability after gaining less than half a percent of the national vote). There is cited material that claims she never read Kant despite her criticism and I am sure the same is true of Aristotle.  However she did claim (and her follows claimed) to inherit.  Whatever the value of the claim it can be listed as one.  Looking at some of the Warwick University stuff (and they make great play of their work on Nietzsche with Pierson) they are looking at issues of ego in the context of philosophy and literature.  -- Snowded   TALK  13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't suggesting that you cite influence from Aristotle in the introduction. I think you should use her terms. She advocated "Rational Egoism", for instance. That's all you need to say. Give a brief rundown of the core assertions, and use Objectivist terminology. She consciously created her own distinct school, and I don't believe that speculations on her influences belong in an intro anyway. CABlankenship (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe in citing claims in quotation marks, as it were, in an introduction, particularly when the terms are obscure or incoherent. I believe the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate and inform, which means explaining as clearly as possible what the author intended.  If they are really incoherent, then I agree that the quotation marks approach is unavoidable.  Let me do a bit more research.  By all means edit the introduction yourself.  By the way, my original claim that Rand attracted an 'almost fanatical' following has been deleted.  Does anyone have a view on this?  I don't believe that this fact could be reasonably omitted from any 30-second characterisation of Rand.  Are there sources - I think Jeff Walker's book discusses this in detail Peter Damian (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit] By the way Rational egoism is not a Randian term - and the SEP doesn't even mention Rand. The article is much better than the Wikipedia version. Peter Damian (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Former Rand disciple Nathanial Branden talks about the cult-like behavior of Randism quite a bit. http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html Rothbard was probably the most vehement: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html Rothbard compares Randism to communist personality cults, and presents Rand as a hypocritical demagogue with deeply flawed views. The Branden article is interesting, as he probably had as intimate a relationship with Rand as anyone. Rand also repeatedly stated that Branden was the foremost expert on Objectivism. His take is worthwhile, as he basically confirms and backs up a great deal of Rothbard's criticisms. CABlankenship (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite. Note also that the article quotes Rothbard as influenced by Rand without also noting his subsequent apostasy Peter Damian (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the rest
I have trimmed some fat of the description of the books. They already link to substantial articles in their own right, anyone with the patience and fortitude to follow those can do so. Regarding the 'philosophy' I hardly know where to start. Let's take the reference to Aristotle. Is there any citation to suggest that Rand even read Aristotle? Is there any of her writing that shows she read him, or understood him? Regards Peter Damian (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter, while I welcome the approach you've taken to the lead section (covering the most important points), the claims you included and your comments here make it clear that you are not very familiar with Rand or her philosophy. Skomorokh  13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which bits supposedly show this? I sourced the claims about her 'views' directly from Stephen Hicks article in the IEP.  Hicks is the closest thing to an established philosopher, moreover he is a Randian.  What more do you want? Peter Damian (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer an experienced editor using third party sources, to those who champion a particular philosophy or approach. -- Snowded  TALK  14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW As my final minor contribution to this discussion, I think the intro now reads well. I personally am happy with the line it treads on her as philosopher, viz that she wrote on philosophical topics which attracted a substantial popular following (undoubtedly true), but is not generally regarded as a proper philosopher by proper philosophers (equally true). I'm also glad for confirmation of the fact that she is largely unknown outside the US - previously the implication was that she's hugely famous, important and influential, which comes as news to people like me in the UK who wonder who on earth this woman is, why I've never heard of her either in philosophy or in other connections, and why so many people are devoting so much attention to this article. I'll leave you to it. Ben Finn (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it would seem to have the support of four of us so that does not allow a revert by a single editor without discussion here first -- Snowded  TALK  16:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

fanatical following
The only part that has been removed so far is my claim about 'almost fanatical following'. However, this clearly suggests a fanatical (or cultic) element. However I am not going to correct anything as I have a bet with Jimmy Wales that the introduction will return to its previous biased and incoherent state in a short period, so please let me win my bet. Peter Damian (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is more important, the quality of the article, or winning a bet? The answer to that question will give some insight to why you are here at Wikipedia. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The cult-like behavior of the Objectivist Collective is well-documented by a wide range of sources, including ex-members. CABlankenship (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a reference to cults etc would be appropriate in the influence section. In the lede its a little too provocative.  -- Snowded   TALK  14:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I win my bet
If you follow the discussion on Jimmy's talk page, you see I bet him that the article would soon revert to the clumsy mis-spelled ungrammatical and Rand-friendly version there before. I have won. I didnt' think it would be quite so quick, however. I shall not revert Peter Damian (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you think it was important to say she was born in Russia twice and to include her birth year twice in the introduction? Why are you so taken with where and when she was born? Also, as the introduction summarizes the article contents, there was no need for an extensive discussion of particular criticisms. See wp:intro. Maybe you can try to create POV fork article just on criticisms. This seems to be your interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is apparently discussion about blocking or banning me on Wales talk page and on Wikipedia Review, so, do with the article what you will. How awful to have any criticism in the introduction.  Let the introduction merely summarise the positive points about Rand made in the article.  Keep the criticism for somewhere low down in the article itself.  Good policy.  Peter Damian (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Idag reverted it Peter and it has more than one editor supporting the current version -- Snowded   TALK  22:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but sadly the sole founder of Wikipedia does not support the current version. Try Googling Jimmy Wales Objectivism.  Peter Damian (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bio Shock reference
I know that this is probably OR, but is it proper to list Bio Shock under Rand's influences when the Rand-based utopian society in BioShock is a miserable failure? (The plot of the game is that the society falls apart and then the hero crash lands and shoots it out w/ the bad guys living in the ruins) Idag (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One could reasonably argue either way. Frankly I opposed the original insertion for much the reason you gave, and also because Rand's influence (pro or con) is not essential to the gameplay.  It isn't significantly different from the brief appearance of The Fountainhead in the hands of a jerk in the movie Dirty Dancing.  These illustrate that some minor aspects of our culture are cognizant of Rand, but not necessarily that they reflect an application of the ideas she advocated.  Similarly, a lot of the supposed "criticism" appearing in the recent edits to the article and in the Talk page are not based on a sound understanding of what Rand actually propounded.  E.g. to be dissed by Chomsky can actually be taken as an honor. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment
The article Ayn Rand was frozen for one week in the beginning of January, and has been radically altered with a great amount of material deleted for reasons stated above. The editors making those deletions asserted that there was consensus to make them, but this is disputed. Please comment as to whether there was indeed consensus for these changes since the removal of the freeze. Kja er (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose keeping the changes made without consensus. The article needs to be reverted to the state when it was frozen. The extensive and radical alteration to this article were made without consensus. Sourced and relevant material was deleted, cites removed, and the tone of the article was altered. Individuals who had previously stated that they were far too biased against Rand to allow themselves to edit the article, joined with others who have openly expressed a dislike for Rand and made changes for which no consensus exists. --Steve (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the article is improving, though it'd be helpful if editors would try to build on the work of the editor before them, rather than reverting wholesale, or changing sections beyond all recognition. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, the mass of recent changes are in the face of consensus achieved, in some cases, of years of work and wipe out the results of those editors. Doing that without consensus is a case of wholesale reversion that didn't build on the work done before. --Steve (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was in poor shape &mdash; still is &mdash; and needs a lot of work. If there was an old consensus in support of that version, it's a consensus that has changed. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, that doesn't mean I support wiping out people's work. We can go back into the history and retrieve the good stuff. What we need is a well-written, well-cited, even-handed description of her life and work that people might want to read, and that those who love her, those who dislike her, and those who don't know anything, might agree is worth reading. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.93.33 (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This anon account has only made two edits on Wikipedia (this being one of them). It is, at best, a very inexperienced user and, at worst, a sockpuppet. Would people object to removing this comment?  Idag (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the benefit of anyone arriving from the RfC page, the competing versions are, I believe, this one from Dec 31, and the current one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose keeping the changes made without consensus. Only the intro has been worked on collaboratively, and I think some progress has been made there. The word philosopher needs to be added back as numerous sources have been provided establishing the term as accurate (including the New York Times obituary) and we haven't seen any good sources suggesting some how she wasn't a philosopher (which doesn't make much sense anyway since she developed a philosophy). If coming up with a popular philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher, what does? The other changes made by self-identified POV pushers should be reverted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The article was changed drastically, with over one eighth of the content removed. Much of the remaining material was changed by a certain group of editors to reflect a hostile opinion of Rand. It is most telling that no new information or positive comments have been added. These edits have not been made on the basis of consensus. There is no RFC above. We should make no changes save spelling without an actual explicit consensus. Kja er (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I have been thwarted recently from adding references by Ronald Merril in defense of Rand that address the nature of Rand criticism with the explanation that my edit did not meet a "consensus." I do not believe this is fair or neutral. I oppose the recent changes and vote to have them rolled back to the level of December 31st, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaurone (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article attracted a wider group of editors as a result of the freeze, as a result of which is is now better both in respect of NPOV and Weight. The article was prior to this starting to look like a popoganda piece. Any criticism of Rand had to be "explained" a very small number of references from mainly Rand Institute sources was used to support a body of derivative work for which OR would be a complementary description. Any attempt to achieve balance results in the editors concerned being accused of taking a anti-rand position. It was a mess, it is getting better and external review would be helpful. -- Snowded  TALK  05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: It is clear that a new consensus is developing, and there is absolutely no reason for reverting all of the improvements--and make no doubt, they are improvements--to the article. I agree with Snowded that external review by neutral editors--i.e., those who have no strong opinions about Rand, one way or the other--would be helpful. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose ~ ~ ~ ~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjsmall (talk • contribs) 07:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also an inexperienced user/sockpuppet. Idag (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Support: The consensus did not "drastically change after the freeze." Months ago, we were discussing making similar changes to this article. Then Mr. Nilges (and his various sockpuppets) decided to join the discussion, and we had to deal with him instead of discussing and implementing the changes. Now, there's no more distraction and more editors have started editing this article, so this is a reasonable consensus. Idag (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

oppose retaining recent changes. The article is overall in worse shape than when I stopped monitoring it frequently upon my retirement on 2008-10-01. The introduction in particular is horrible, containing poorly selected information and obscuring the most important things a newcomer needs to know from a capsule summary of Rand. There have been a few genuine improvements, but also numerous typographical and grammatical errors were introduced, and some information has been altered to promoted particulat POVs. I would suggest reverting to a version that was not being hotly contested from some time before the end of 2008 and incorporating just the few valid editorially neutral fixes. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

support retaining recent changes - however I have asked below for detailed comment on the rationale for each of the changes. Peter Damian (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose retaining changes. The old version does need work, and is perhaps a little slanted in the pro direction, but not so much as this is slanted to the opposite. Jomasecu talk contribs 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Information was Reverted?
For some reason, when a friend of mine mentioned in the first line of the article that Rand was a nub, it was quickly reverted. This is a very important aspect of understanding Rand, and I do not understand why such a crucial detail would be left out, let alone reverted for some reason once it was added in. Without comprehending, before being given other impressions about Rand, that she is a nub, readers could be greatly confused into thinking that she had any at all validity, or even that she was not stupid and insane. I will now revert the article back to including that she is a nub, and if someone still sees fit to withhold this important information, please reply here as to why, because I can not understand why this would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.65.6 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC) The reason that you can't see is that your friend's comment is a complete mischaracterization. You mention that you placed comment to destroy any attempt by neutral readers to take in the material with an open mind, because you personally decided that she was stupid and insane, and your opinions should dictate what everyone sees on wikipedia? The fact that you're even allowed to seriously post that you're the omnipotent god of the wiki and know all seriously undermines what wikipedia is about. Go start your own webpage if you'd like, this site is SUPPOSED to be impartial.

Lead again
CoM, why did you remove what she meant by rational self-interest? Why did you remove Greenspan? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this kind of editing isn't helpful. You're breaking well-formed sentences up, leaving the writing choppy, and one of your sentences ended up as "Her most fundamental principle is that rational self-interest," which makes no sense. You also earlier wikified Ayn Rand in the first sentence.


 * Can I suggest that you try to build on each editor's previous work, rather than removing it (unless it's clearly ungrammatical or something), or reverting wholesale to some earlier version? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ayn Rand certinaly shouldn't be wikified in her own article. Alan Greenspan is no more significant or notable as someone she influenced than the many other public figures. Why would he be included in the introduction? I had several edit conflicts, so I had trouble getting edits done. I have tried to work from the edits of others including Damian, but some people have made reversions of multiple edits, so sometimes it's hard to sort out the good edits that have been added later from the reversions to what was already corrected. Sourcing controversial POV to a blog, for example, is inappropriate and needs to be edited out, especially from the lead. What is the connection between her play being produced on Broadway and her stopping work as a screenwriter? The way that sentence is phrased seems very strange to me. She had success so she stopped doing it? As far as the sentence I clipped, it argues her "fundamental" view based on what seems a very opinionated perspective from one critic. I thought it best to leave it at rational self-interest, which is accurate and supported by the article contents, rather than a more controversial phrasing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence is a very long run on. "Ayn Rand (IPA: /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a popular philosophical system that she called Objectivism." It should be broken into two: Ayn Rand (IPA: /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, philosopher and screenwriter. She wrote the best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and developed a popular philosophical system that she called Objectivism." I'm still waiting for a couple good sources arguing she's not a philosopher. The New York Times obituary and dozens of others have been provided saying she was one. Given this issue I was willing to work from Damian's and to revise his intro paragraph. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One other note, "As such, she controversially promoted..." should be "She promoted...". ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of your edits are fine, but some of them screw up the grammar and flow of the section. If you make a few edits at a time, that's easy to fix, but when you make a bunch of edits close together, it becomes a nightmare. Idag (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The big problem is your wholesale reversions. If there are aspects you don't like fix them. When you do a big rollback all the intermediate edits are lost. Then more edits are made on this version, and the corrections have to be made again and the whole thing refixed. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist Movement
Assuming there actually is a desire to trim out unnecessary parts of the article, not just parts we don't like, why don't we pare down the Objectivist Movement and ARI TAS sections, which fall under the same in its own separate article. Once the article is reverted to the status quo ante, (the "newyear's version" that would be a good place to start - once we actually have a real and voted on consensus, and not just the assertion of same. I suggest we have just a few sentences, noting the beginning with the collective, the expansion with NBI, the "split", the ARI and TAS. Anyone want to work on verbiage here? Kja er (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We had that back around the end of September 2008. Certainly the evolution of Objectivism after Rand's death is of minor importance in a biography of Rand herself. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personality and Objectivist Collective
Perhaps we should expand on Rand's personality as told by those who were close to her. Both of the Branden's, for instance, paint her as a woman who was deeply spiteful and contemptuous of nearly all other human beings, that she consistently refused to admit that she was ever wrong about anything, and that she required complete agreement with her on every subject (from art to philosophy), else she would condemn that individual and cast them out of her collective. She believed that even art was objective, and those who had different tastes in art were considered irrational. Branden also speaks about how Rand consistently used the word "evil" to describe people who disagreed with her about basically anything. While she claimed to value free thought, this came with a caveat: if you disagreed with Rand about anything at all, you were being 'irrational'. I believe this could all go into the "Objectivist Movement" section, which could be expanded to include the views of ex-members such as the Brandens, Rothbard, or her psychologist friend Allan Blumenthal who said that Rand suffered from "several personality disorders". CABlankenship (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting fact from her "intellectual heir" Nathanial Branden: Rand (champion of reason?) was deeply skeptical about the scientific method, and was suspicious of "Any scientific advancement after Newton". She was an evolution doubter, for instance. Rand was deeply ignorant of science, and this is a noteworthy fact. CABlankenship (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just open a section called "Taking shots at Rand because we HATE her" - given that context, any editor would be able to just vent their spleens directly without having to go to the trouble of finding, twisting and torturing some external source. --Steve (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my sources: Murray Rothbard: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html Nathanial Branden: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html This review discusses an interview where her follower Blumenthal says that she had several personality disorders: "http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ryan1.html"  The Branden article in particular is pretty balanced and I believe offers as close to a neutral inside view of Rand as we're going to get. He was and is clearly a devoted follower of much of her philosophy, and speaks frankly about her flaws both in terms of philosophy and personality. It's a solid source. CABlankenship (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I again beseech editors to think about this in terms of the L.Ron Hubbard page. It's clear that Rand has many cultists (sorry), just like Hubbard. They will of course rabidly object to any unflattering information about her. Regardless, just like with Hubbard, such information is relevant and important. CABlankenship (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


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

I personally believe this should be handled in the section "Objectivist Movement", which could discuss in more detail her break with the Brandens, and her threats and behavior during that time. For instance, she repeatedly threatened to "destroy" Branden, seemingly for no other reason than the fact that he didn't desire a sexual relationship with her (due to her age), and her jealousy over learning that he was seeing another woman. CABlankenship (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Could this section perhaps be moved under Propoganda page above where the editor's opinions of Rand would serve as a context for this, shall I say, wikipedianly unorthodox desire to discuss Rand's "personality"? Maybe we could copy Kant's anal retentive section or discuss Bertrand Russell's bastard children while we're at it? Kja er (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness, neither Kant nor Russell started a cult centered around their own infallibility. There is a lot of convincing evidence that Rand was a deeply disturbed woman. These aren't just outside rumors, they are coming from people who knew Rand quite well. Also important: neither Kant nor Russell were ever widely considered to be intellectual frauds. I think that once someone elevates themselves to the status of icon or hero-worship on that scale, their personality and behavior become important facts. CABlankenship (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Ludwig Wittgenstein covers the well-known aspects of Wittgenstein's personality. Ray Monk's celebrated biographies of Russell and Wittgenstein hardly cover anything else other than gossip and sexual innuendo.  It seems reasonable to strike a balance between the contribution that an individual made, and the details of their private and personal life.  and often this sort of detail is a bit of tasty sauce to make the drier stuff more edible. Peter Damian (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
If there are objections to the introduction please discuss them. As introductions summarize article contents, they are not normally cited. But if there is something questionable, please add a citation needed tag. If you're going to remove the word philosopher you need to provide evidence that the prepoderance of sources make the claim she is not a philosopher. Good luck with that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are introducing radical new text, so the onus is on you to discuss it. This paragraph is a major issue. After growing up in Saint Petersburg during the Russian Revolution, Rand emigrated to the United States. She embraced the values and political system of her adopted homeland, and strongly objected to communism and socialism. Her work celebrates the individual and promotes the idea of hero innovators contrasted with anti-union, anti-mob, and anti-egalitarian feelings. She is championed by many on the political right and abhorred by those on the left. Several Ayn inspired groups work to promote her ideas and legacy.  It represents OR at best and is a political statement by you not citable material appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I suggest you remove it and try and make a case here.  The most clearly OR statement is in bold -- Snowded   TALK  18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on which part you think is OR. The text is a summary of some the most notable sections of the article. Please be specific about which part you have a problem with? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine Snowded objects to the sentence that he put in bold: "She is championed by many on the political right and abhorred by those on the left." That statement is blatantly incorrect as a gigantic chunk of this article's criticism section comes from those on the political right. Idag (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the remaining text that you want to add, most of that information is already contained in the introduction. Idag (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with rewording that sentence. It was a first try, so some tweaking is to be expected. If there is a consensus that the sentence is wholly unsalvageable, then please remove it. As to the rest of the paragraph, the intro says she was born in Russia, but doesn't explain her growing up and going to University there or its significance in her views. Adding some political context is important and is extensively discussed in the article. As to Peter Damian's comments, all I can say is that it's unfortunate he is unable or unwilling to improve the Quizmaster Quinn's article. That would be a lot more helpful to the encyclopedia than trying to exert his bias and POV on this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted CofM's edits, more on the grounds that they are incompetent and inept. This person is making any sort of progress impossible. The introduction is now a mess.  Why 'popular, influential and controversial'.  These adjectives do not go well together without any sort of explanation.  Note that it is against policy to use the term 'controversial' to imply a person was controversial within a particular discipline, as though the controverial views were part of the peer-reviewed literature. Rand wasn't any of that.  She simply wasn't accepted as a philosopher, period.  Her 'philosophy' was and is a joke and a laughing stock. This may be a view held in the academic 'ivory tower', and possibly that is result of a conspiracy against her.  None of that would matter, even if it were true.  Wikipedia has to represent 'academic consensus', that is policy, and that is that. Peter Damian (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking over the text, the only new information is that she grew up in St. Petersburg. I moved that to another part of the intro.  As for the rest, information about her philosophy was already contained in the lede and the statement that some folks on the right and left are opposed to her adds nothing.  Therefore, I deleted a chunk and support Snowded's deletion of the remainder. Idag (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in the intro does it discuss her opposition to communism and socialism or address her substantial role in politics? Also, I'm still waiting for sources supporting the exclusiong of the word "philosopher" to describe her. Numerous sources calling her a philosopher have been provided. If nothing is provided soon I will restore that wording and treat reversions as vandalism. We can't edit articles based on personal animosities, we use sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to Communism and Socialism:
 * "She advocated individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the pursuit of rational self-interest, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion."
 * As far as substantial role in politics: (1) her role, if it existed, was not substantial; and (2) your edits did not discuss her involvement in politics but merely stated that some folks on the right and left opposed her. That statement added nothing to this article. Finally, with regard to her being labelled a philosopher, that label was replaced by Ghmyrtle's compromise which stated that Rand developed Objectivism.  This is a compromise that you agreed to. Idag (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As written the paragraph CofM proposed is far too hagiographical. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed my mind. And several editors agreed that it was ridiculous NOT to call her a philosopher. If it didn't make the sentence too long it might have been a better compromise, but there's no need to compromise because lots of good sources refer to her as a philosopher and no one has yet provided a source indicating it would be inappropriate to refer to her as such. As far as the introduction, I'm sure we're all aware that it's meant to summarize the article. If you go through the article you'll see that my summary was based on a weighting of the sections, many of which are not represented in the introduction. Finally, notable information that is well sourced doesn't need to be "summarized" thank you very much, why not expand some of the big-time philosophers I keep hearing so much about????? Their articles stink, and I hope the lack of interest shown by Damian and others isn't an indication that they are non-notable and not worth the time. If so I suggest we combine them into a list or AfD them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To say that she is championed by the political right is just objectively wrong. She has a fringe following on the right, but has been roundly rejected by most of the mainstream; the evangelicals and other Christians in particular. Republican icons such as Buckley have denounced her on numerous occasions. CABlankenship (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it was revised to "some" on the political right. Fringe is your POV, she has a substantial following as this article makes clear. Adding a bit summarizing some of her views is exactly the kind of thing the intro needs. I don't know that she fought much with the religious right, so going by the sections in the article I think other sections are more notable. But I'm quite flexible and happy to collaborate and compromise. Clarifying her differences with the right would be a welcome tweak to my addition! Unfortunately it's been taken out completely now which doesn't make the article better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be useful for your education (ChildofMidnight) for you to attempt to combine or AfD the articles you think stink. An encyclopedia is designed to given an overview in its articles, not to provide too much (referenced or otherwise) which forms a poor half way house between an autobiography/criticial work and a good summary.  -- Snowded   TALK  07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many I would nominate on the basis of stinking, but that's not a criteria for deletion. Do you have any ideas on how to get fans of these marginally notable philosophers to fix those articles instead of trying to tear down the well developed, though imperfect, articles of more popular and successful persons? I would like to write articles and add content instead of having to fight efforts to "summarize" notable content about the achievements of people that aren't liked by some "academics" who apparently haven't bothered to read her work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one making statements such as "marginally notable" and "stinking". You were given some examples of competent articles about people at least as notable as Rand.  My suggestion was that you might learn something from those articles, or for engaging with  editors involved that might help you here.  -- Snowded   TALK  08:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your point? We have a fairly complete article here that could use some tidying, and it's under attack by people who don't like or respect her work. The "experts" they refer to in order to attack her have articles that aren't even in paragraph form, have little content, and are poorly written. So if those are the philosophers they respect and think are accomplished, why not spend time fixing their articles? It seems very simple to me. What would I learn from putting crappy article up for AfD? How would that be useful? ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think on reflection you are right. You would not learn anything from the suggested process.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The articles we're comparing this one to are featured articles, that is to say, the best articles on wiki. We're asserting that this article should be more like those that are highly rated. You seem to think this article is good, and we're trying to make it worse. That's not the case. The article has been found to be sub-par by outside judges, and we're trying to discuss how to make it more readable and in-line with superior articles. That means that we need to remove all of the redundant information, superfluous sub-sections, and enhance the areas that actually talk about her work with reliably sourced summaries. The point is not that Issac Newton and Darwin don't have long legacy sections because they aren't "popular" or "successful"—those are featured articles. The point is that there is too much pointless information that makes the article boring and unreadable to the average user. Articles on wiki are not for dumping every piece of fringe information about an individual for their superfans, it's to create factual summaries for the average user. CABlankenship (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to make any improvements to the article when unsourced reversions and wholesale deletions are repeatedly attempted. I've tried very hard to collaborate and to compromise, and when those efforts are returned in kind I'm sure we can make good progress improving this article. If you think there is an example of fringe information please present it here. The disucssion of her views on homosexuality and the well established organizations carrying on her legacy are not fringe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone trying to add in unsourced material. Many people here feel that the article is too long and contains too much redundant and superfluous information. You are resisting and reverting any effort on this regard. Let's see how you handle this latest addition, just for kicks. CABlankenship (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet you just added an entire section on one person's characterization of her following as a cult. So is it too long and needs trimming, is there too much about her success and accomplishments, or do you want to make the article more about her critics? As this article is about Ayn Rand, a section or two for her critics seems more than generous. Also, I wouldn't object to moving some her notable views on homosexuality and gender to the article on her philosophy. But deleting notable and well sourced content doesn't make the encyclopedia better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature This is poorly phrased. How about: Within the academy, what little attention her work has earned has been critical on the grounds of its allegedly derivative nature. --R.scipio (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)