Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 20

Comments on RFC
If you have further comments after your vote please add them here to prevent clutter. Kja er (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Essentially three major changes were made, which I'm going to explain.
 * Influence list -- the old list simply chucked 8 lines of names at the reader with no explanation. The list is now less-cluttered and has more exposition about the names that are on it.  Instead of being a simple list of names, the current version actually conveys a message and makes Rand's influence clearer.
 * Criticism qualifications -- essentially we have to draw a line somewhere. If we start including criticism of criticism, do we also need to include the criticism of criticism of criticism?  Also, to be balanced, would we then need to qualify all the statements that praise Rand in other parts of the article?  Excluding the criticism of criticism is just a good place to draw that line.  In addition, giant chunks of the criticism of criticism violated either WP:OR or WP:Synth.
 * Removing philosopher adjective -- some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. The current edits don't take a side, they simply state the other adjectives that Rand is called and point out that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism.  Its a far better compromise than choosing between "philosopher", "amateur philosopher", and "pseudo-philosopher" (all of which have been proposed in the past with sources to back them up). Idag (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Her work certainly falls squarely within the Wikipedia definition of Philosophy if one considers Wikipedia reliable. The Wikipedia article on Objectivism refers to it as a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand as do many others. It's an exercise in absurdity to propose that the person who develops a philosophy isn't a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Idaq's comments. Peter Damian (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we have seven experienced editors (nine total, two newbies) saying that the supposed consensus to radically change and delete the article did not exist, while we have three experienced editors explicitly sayinv that a consensus for the deletions did exist, and presumably two more who would count as support votes.

Seven to Five That there was  No Consensus. The article goes back to the Dec 31 Consensus verison, and we edit from there - with a consensus first before any deletions are made. Kja er (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I did not take part in the above as I think the question is improperly framed, If I had it would support which would make any decision so close as not to count.  Bring in mediation and stop edit warring in the meantime.  -- Snowded   TALK  03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, I can't believe you have reverted on this. Firstly the RfC process was not agreed to by all editors,  secondly even if it had been then it is too close to call.  Wikipedia does not work on the basis of majority voting.  There have been multiple changes since the article was frozen, not one single change and there have been discussions here on most of the individual points a majority of 1 does not validate your reversion.  An independent admin has been asked to get involved and the sooner the better.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are several views on whether she was a philosopher or not, give due weight to them all. In the lead, where they won't all fit, the simplest way to do that is to leave them all out. (As a point of detail, saying that X had a philosophy and that they were a philosopher are not the same thing. I've seen George McClellan credited with a philosophy.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this RFC was put in a very helpful way - RFCs should be about content, not taking sides. In addition the changes are too broad between the two versions (diff) to easily see what's going on. The only thing I can really say is that the more detailed intro seems better. As for moving forward: I think abandon this RFC and find a way to break the problem down in a way that facilitates discussion, eg by section. If necessary have RFCs on different parts of the issue. Best of luck... Rd232 talk 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to introduction
There have been considerable changes since I rewrote the introduction, not all of them for the better. this is the current version of 11 January, [this is my version of 10 January. Instead, I would like us discuss the changes point by point, please.


 * 1) First para
 * 2) I wrote that Rand was a writer of fiction and popular works on politics and philosophy. Rationale: she did mostly write fiction, and if you link to the site that gives sources for her philosophical theories, they are mostly from her fiction.  The phrase 'popular works on politics and philosophy' bit was an attempt to tread carefully the line between callling her a philosopher and saying nothing at all. The new version reads '[she] developed the philosophical system known as Objectivism'.  I still recoil at calling her work a 'philosophical system'.
 * 3) She wrote many books on philosophy, many books and journal articles on her philosophy have been written, many encyclopedia's call her a philosopher, many professors of philosophy call her a philosopher - these are all valid, citable sources - your personal reaction ("I still recoil...") is personal opinion and, nothing personal, but it doesn't stack up against the preceding sources. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Second para. The main change here is to cut down the length of the biographical material. This may not be important, but I think it is crucial in all biographical articles to give a flavour of the main points of someone's life in the intro.  Most internet people don't read more than the introduction anyway.
 * 5) Third par.
 * 6) I wrote "Her political philosophy, reflected in both her fiction and in her theoretical work, is in the classical liberal tradition", the new version reads "Her political philosophy lies within the general framework of the classical liberal tradition" The rationale for my wording was to emphasise that she was a philosophical novelist.
 * 7) I wrote "Her fundamental principle is that self-interest is the true standard of morality" to ". Her most fundamental principle". I was emailed by Jimmy Wales about this. He claims that both versions are wrong, because rational egoism is not a fundamental principle, but is supposedly derived from her 'epistemology and metaphysics'.  We ought to discuss this - certainly rational egoism seems to loom large in everything that people say about Rand, was it a 'fundamental principle' of hers or not.
 * 8) There is an addition "As such, she controversially promoted the concept of the hero standing against the mob, amid derisive depictions of trade unions, socialism, and egalitarianism." This strikes me as poorly written.  Why begin with 'as such'?  What does 'as such' refer forward to?  Appparently to Ayn Rand, but how can she be 'as such'?  It is incoherent.  The phrase 'hero standing against the mob' seems unnecessarily lurid and unencyclopedic.
 * 9) Fourth para:
 * 10) I wrote "She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America" which is change to "She has attracted a following, mainly in America". Why the removal of 'fanatical'.  There is much evidence that she attracts fanatics (this page is enough).  The introduction to any biography should spell out what makes a person notable, important, interesting, and distinguish that person from others of the same sort.  Thus, Aristotle attracted a following, but not fanatical. Wittgenstein did attract a fanatical following.  Also Nietszche.  But not Bertrand Russell, and so on.  That fact seems crucially important to me, why omit it?  Happy with a compromise like 'devoted following' or similar.
 * 11) There has been some acrimonious comment on the talk page below, can we have some reasoned arguments about whether to put 'fanatical' or 'devoted' or 'loyal' or 'intensely loyal'.  Dont' get fixated on one word, please! Peter Damian (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) I mentioned Alan Greenspan, this is now omitted. I checked on public figures who were influenced by Rand in the sense of Rand being a crucial influence. Greenspan was the only one who fitted.
 * 13) I wrote "Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, who have been scathing about her lack of rigour, the derivative nature of her thinking[3], and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter[4]. " This changes to "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature,[4] a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about ..." Most of the content remains, but I prefer my version for flow - the new version is very lumpy and awkward, and is precisely what you get in Wikipedia when various factions argue about the insertion of a word or phrase, without thinking about style and the 'whole paragraph'.
 * 14) I wrote "Even as a writer of fiction, she has enjoyed almost no critical recognition outside the United States" which has been removed completely. Why?  This was well-sourced.  I went to a number of English reference works on literature and biography (not philosophy).  Rand is mentioned in none of them.  A few other English people on this page have also been asking the question "who is Ayn Rand".  We have an important duty to prevent nationalistic bias in this encyclopedia.  American editors are presenting a person as though universally recognised across the English-speaking world.  That is not true. The introduction needs to specify whether the person is internationally important - writers like Dorothy Parker and Kerouac clearly count - or whether their influence is restricted to the U.S.
 * 15) The only person to respond to this is Dagwyn, who argues that Ayn Rand was 'marginalised' by the academic establishment.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Finally, there is the addition of the fellowship established by the university of Texas. This looks rather like the inevitable thing tagged on at the end to appease the supporters.  I dislike it on stylistic grounds because it is a symptom of the way all contentious articles in Wikipedia look exactly like they were the result of a grand battle, ending up as a list of extreme pros and extreme cons.  Our aim should be an article that looks like the work of a single expert who was striving for neutrality (and who succeeded).  Can we not address by using a phrase like 'with notable exceptions' and then a footnote after 'exceptions' to say what they are, followed by 'her work has achieved little or no recognition' or something like that.

I will do nothing for now, but I would like us to discuss these changes, please. The new introduction was not the work of a few moments, but the result of careful thought about phrasing, balance and fairness. If no one discusses, however, I will revert. Peter Damian (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You mention that your introduction was not the work of a few moment... Please keep in mind that the introduction that was shredded a few days ago, with this avalance of edits, none of which arose from consensus, replaced an introduction that was achieved through many, many months of effort where most of the words and all of the sentences had been subjected to scrutiny. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course she has a 'fanatical following'. This is well-documented. Objectivists often believe (and were required to believe) that Rand was the greatest human being in history. Rand convinced her husband and Barbara Branden that she had to have an affair with Nathan Brandan because they were the two most brilliant people alive, and that it was just logical and rational. She told them that if they used their reason, they would understand why this was so. They agreed. It's almost comical, really. Yes, she has fanatical followers, this should not be controversial, it's obvious. CABlankenship (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CABlankenship adds only attacks, ridicule, sarcasm - he should not be posting on this article or this talk page since his 'contributions' can only serve to disrupt. He clearly cares nothing for WP Good Faith editing. --Steve (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While that seems to be largely true, experience shows that it is usually more effective to simply ignore uninformed rants and instead present your own, reasoned argumentation. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply discussing facts. It's a perfectly respectable and widely-held opinion that Objectivism is very cultish and based on dogma. Even some of her closest disciples have said this. You object to this simple fact, and yes it is unflattering, but truth is not determined by what facts you find pleasing and what facts you dislike. I'm defending a respectable stance: that Rand was a cultist, and that Objectivism is a dogmatic cult. I have many strong sources on my side for this stance. There simply isn't a diplomatic way of discussing this stance with Rand admirers without creating some offense. Nevertheless, some offense cannot be avoided if we are to come to a realistic portrait of this woman, whom for so many is a larger-than-life idol. CABlankenship (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a complete overhaul. We probably need a neutral editor with a lot of experience in crafting featured articles to take charge. We can then give that person advice and links to sources, but let them have the final say. CABlankenship (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I find that in this situation it is best to sit down on the talk page, and agree on all the points that should go in the introduction, i.e. all the points about the subject (in this case, Rand) you would like the reader to take away on the assumption that they will only read the introduction. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Leads should be written as stand-alone summaries. I think we should add that she's sold 30 million books, at several thousand a year currently. We need to make clear that she's regarded as a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, regardless of how she saw herself. We also need to make sure that anything positive we say about her isn't mealy-mouthed or fawning, but just factual. And I would say we should unpack what's meant by self-interest, though every time I do that it's reverted. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
Since it doesn't appear that a consensus will result from the above RfC, I propose that we submit this to mediation. For those who oppose the recent changes, could you briefly describe which specific changes you oppose? (So that we don't submit uncontroversial edits with the controversial ones) Idag (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems the logical choice. I have itemised the changes point by point above, I will add a further set of indentations so that people can comment.  Peter Damian (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the RFC shows quite clearly that your repeated edits and deletions were NOT made with a consnsus. The article will be reverted to the Dec 31 version, and we can work from there. You cannot present us with your non-consensus fait accompli and then say that no further changes can be made without mediation. Try again! Kja er (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Try WP:Civil. As far as the original consensus, most of the editors who support your view did not participate in the discussion (or express any opinions) when we first discussed the changes.  Therefore, the original consensus was valid.  As far as what you're seeking, which is to mass-revert this article, there is a clear split among the editors, and, therefore, you don't have a consensus to do that. Idag (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs to go to mediation and may need Arbcom the way things are going. For the moment the consensus is clearly not to return to the version Kjaer/Steve are happy with.  Consensus does not require all editors to agree and I agree with Idag that there are multipe breeches of WP:Civil here that could warrant short term intervention  -- Snowded   TALK  03:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert to Consensus Version
Well, the most generous vote to assert that there was a consensus for the recent edit orgy fails, seven to five. Indeed, the explicit vote is nine to three that the supposed consensus did not exist, but let's exclude the newbies and add in votes of those who chose to stay silent.

Since there was no consensus for the deletions and edits, the article reverts to the long standing verison at which it was frozen Dec 31.

It is time to make small, incremental improvements wityh consensus to avoid another POV edit war. Let's hear it here first, and have a consensus first before any controversial changes. Kja er (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See comment above. You do not have a consensus to do a mass revert. Idag (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus to revert. Please use the current version as the basis for further improvement. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus for such a drastic revert exists, especially since many of those who "voted" in it did not take part in the discussions concerning the changes that were made. Furthermore Wikipedia does not work by voting but by consensus, and saying "7 to 5 I win we revert" is NOT consensus. Mass-reverting changes that have been extensively discussed is not the way to improve this article. At this point I think we need mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Escalation up the ladder of mediation facilities is the minimum that needs to happen now, and with some urgency, I think, for all concerned.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In situations like this, it is better to ask an uninvolved administrator (obviously not me) to do the closing, as otherwise, to use Kjaer's own principles, the change back would be clearly biased. However, I am sad to see that Kjaer has already reverted it. Not good, and a report to an appropriate place may result in him being censured for so doing. I  urgently  advise him to revert it back and ask someone else to do the closing and assessment. DDStretch   (talk)  01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's anything to close. If we want to have a straw poll, we'd have to set one up; an RfC isn't a straw poll. And editing isn't done by straw poll anyway. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So, the RfC was a used as a means to assess consensus: thoroughly botched by the wording used and the type of responses demanded - if so (and I think it was), it is even more the case that Kjaer should have not reverted but should have discussed more.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of an RfC is to attract fresh views on the issues, and to move forward; not to ask editors already involved to judge whether an old consensus existed, and to move back. :-)


 * I think we should file for mediation, and in the meantime we should all be studying Rand so that we're in a position to produce a really good article. Hopefully, that aim will end up uniting us. We could even try for FAC. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reversion was necessary. Changes were being made without proper concensus.  This was never going to stand with a controversial subject.  Mediation is a good idea.  The other good idea is to accept that the article is where it was when it was unfrozen, and to find a reasonable way to move forward - with consensus. --Steve (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just stunning. I again say that we need similar steps to whatever was done in the case of the L.Ron Hubbard article. This is getting bizarre. CABlankenship (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:OWN
It appears to me that many of our Objectivist editors have serious issues with COI and ownership. The unwillingness to compromise, the insistence on maintaining even the mostmarginal material, the apparent determination to inflate Rand's reputation by any means possible, the attempts to water-down or remove any and all criticism of her, and consistent refusals to assume good faith have gotten tiresome. Objectivist editors here need to stop pushing their POV, and start working to make this article better, especially by modeling it after one of the FAs. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * TallNapoleon, you should not engage in that kind of WP:AGF violation. The constant stream of edits made in an abusive way that totally ignored any consensus were all anti-Rand in nature.  It isn't any supporter of Rand who is pushing POV.  I'll work with you, if you really want to make the article better.  The first step is to examine the article as it was when frozen, then seek consensus on what to change, before engaging in a wholesale avalance of edits without any consensus.  --Steve (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Take Your Own advice
I am sorry, but those putting comments on my talk page that 7 to 5 does not a consensus make fail to realize that by the exact smae logic 5 to 7 (or 3 to 9) does not a consensus make. DD Strectch should take his own advice now deleted from, but still in the history of CABLankenship's talk page. Kja er (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Each of those deletions was made by consensus with those discussing here. If people did not take part in those discussions then they are welcome to reopen them. However, a mass revision of the article requires consensus IN FAVOR. If no consensus is reached, then it doesn't happen. Period. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In this context, I have not made any comments on your talk page about this latest tiresome edit war you are involved in, Kjaer, though I advise you to stop, your block history may make for a longer block next time, and I think you should try to work more within the guidelines and policies of wikipedia.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer's previous block was questionable - I'm not so sure it was a proper action. But if we are stepping back and looking at this, the only proper move is to put this page back where it was when you froze it for a week and freeze it again till mediation lifts. TallNapoleon says that the edits were made with concensus of those here - he doesn't realize that we were in the middle of trying to get consensus from the freeze. I appreciate that, as an admin, you don't push your own personal dislike of Rand, and along those lines, I ask that you step back and see that Kjaer is NOT the one doing the avalanche of editing that disrespects the very idea of consensus. --Steve (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, that comment is a joke. While nobody can blame you for resisting the input of people who don't care for one of your heroes, you have consistently proven impervious to logic and reason.  You and your crowd have been unwilling to compromise on anything at all.

You wave away strong sources that paint unflattering pictures of Rand as examples of editor bias. For example, my sourced quotation from one of her closest followers (the psychologist Blumenthal) that Rand had "several personality disorders" was ignored and discarded, and you asserted that presenting such sources was merely an example of my own bias. While this is surely true, as I advocate a dispassionate view of Rand, her life, and her work, you have not put forth even the semblance of an argument as to why such sources should be marginalized or left out. CABlankenship (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SteveWolfer writes: "Kjaer's previous block was questionabl" You are correct in so far as it was capable of being questioned, as are all actions, even yours. My action was questioned, and I even asked for comemnts about it on WP:AN, here. The response from a totally uninvolved administrator was that, whilst the block on Idag was probably too long (which I quickly remedied), the one on Kjaer was entirely right and proper. responses on WP:AN DDStretch    (talk)  10:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A report to WP:AN/I
Given the actions of the past hour or so, a report has been posted to WP:AN/I for an uninvolved admin to give assistence. Comments welcomed. DDStretch   (talk)  02:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Although this has been an interesting study in personalities, it's clear that progress simply cannot be made between the various individuals here. I think we need to all agree on a neutral authority to have the last say in content, and abide by the rulings of this judge. CABlankenship (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation
I've filed an RfM at Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. I've included as parties those whose names appear in recent article history, except for vandalism reverts or to add a dab page. If anyone wants to add or remove their name, please feel free, and if I missed anyone, or included someone who'd prefer not to be involved, my apologies. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I edited substantive content on the article, but I am happy to go along with the mediation request.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree to a request for mediation which includes CABlankenship (see his disqualifying comments in propoganda pave above) or DDSTretch who expressed his lack of neutrality on CABLankenship's talk page (The comment has been erasde, but is in the history) nor can I accept am RfM that excludes DAgwyn or Jmaurone who have expressed an opinion. Frankly, the recent edits have been made with an assertion, always challenged by me, that there was a consensus for this spate of meritless deletions and openly hostile comments on Rand. Now that we have objective proof that these edits were not made on the basis of consensus, and that the page should revert to the prior actual consensus, now, you ask for mediation? Sorry, you should have done that in the first place, not now only that you fear your agenda is about to topple. Kja er (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Why single out myself and another editor for this demand for exclusion, when plenty of others (including yourself) have not been neutral at all! This strikes me as unsustainable as a reason. 2. The reason mediation has not been asked for before is that certain things have to have been shown to be tried before mediation is applied for. WP:MEDIATION contains the relevant information. 3. I think the following is the message on the relevant talk page that has caused so much outrage on the part of Kjaer. I wonder how well it matches up with other comments made on other talk pages by certain others?"Having read some of her stuff, and also studied philosophy during the course of my degrees, I agree with your assessment of her material. As for the state of the article: my opinion is that the least said the better. I am trying to remain neutral, and would be extremely happy if someone else took over the protecting, etc role here, so I could now walk away from it. I may still just walk away, as I have better things to do with my time on wikiepdia." (The full reference is here: here. I think it is mild compared with some comments about this article I have read on other people's talk pages, quite frankly.)  DDStretch    (talk)  02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarificatory quote from WP:RFM about timing of requests:"Before requesting formal mediation, parties should attempt informal resolution prior to filing; disputes that have not attempted informal resolution may be rejected by a member of the Mediation Committee with the direction to attempt informal resolution. Requests for mediation is the penultimate dispute resolution process, and as such prior dispute resolution must have been attempted." In other words, there is no evidence to suggest anything in the motivations of editors here who Kjaer is making allegations about other than that they were aware of, and were complying with, the guideliens for mediation.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, you really need to realise that you cannot exclude other editors who act in good faith. Your own support of Rand is very clear and others are entitled to criticise. Engaging with that would make fr a better article. This article really needs people who are philosophically aware but have not studied Rand in depth (the motivation to which would not be philosophical but political in my opinion). That is how we get to a NPOV. I have three times now edited some of your summaries to conform with the actual material in the citation. That is part of the editorial process. I think your polemic against too respected editors above deserves a ANI reference, but the in spirit of the mediation request lets see what happens and hold off in the mean time. -- Snowded  TALK  03:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kjaer is quite correct to ask that CABlankenship exclude himself from the mediation, as he said he was going to do with editing. He has stated that his bias towards Rand is too strong to be objective.  A real mediation needs to be between the parties that are the primary editors whose differing views have resulted in a deadlock.  I don't know why DAgwyn and Jmaurone were excluded - they need to be put back in.  The other thing that is needed for an honest attempt at conciliation is to freeze the article at the point it was when last frozen.  Then, out of mediation, we can, hopefully, resolve the issues that clearly were not taken care of back then.  There has yet to be an honest admission that the recent spate of post-freeze edits was without consensus, and it must be understood that the RfC was a valid justification for reverting to that version.  Calling people vandals is out of line, violates WP and is certainly not helpful.  Accusing people of POV when it isn't evident is wrong, and it is especially inappropriate coming from any of the various editors here who have made it clear that they dislike, even dispise, Rand.  And it is unconciounable that TallNapoleon, knowingly violated the 3RR rule just to have it his way!  That kind of attitude will never help achieve any progress. --Steve (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't. I reverted thrice, and shan't do so again per the rule. And that RFC was not and is not a valid justification for anything. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TallNapoleon is right that he was not in violation of the 3RR rule - my mistake, feel free to erase my comment from your talk page. But you are totally and significantly wrong in your approach to the RfC - that is our best hope for true consensus - lasting consensus.  Going back to where it was frozen, then mediation or any other form of reaching an agreement BEFORE unleasing an avalance of one-sided edits is the only way to get a stable, quality article.  I would hope that you will give that some thought.  --Steve (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DDStretch: Kjaer has had a vendetta against me for awhile now. It's bizarre. He came to a completely unrelated article that I had been working on and started making a fuss about one word. He hadn't the foggiest clue what he was talking about, yet he created a huge edit war over it. He then filed a false sockpuppet charge against me for no reason at all. He has absolutely no qualms with the sort of low tactics we are seeing here. CABlankenship (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kjaer, just as CABlankenship is arguably biased, as an Objectivist you have a COI issue yourself. The point of mediation is to resolve competing views through a neutral party.  A person is not barred from mediation simply because they hold a view, the entire point of mediation is to reconcile that view with the article content.  As far as the editors that were omitted, as Slim Virgin pointed out, he tried to include everyone, but if they would like to participate, they are free to add themselves to the mediation.  I would urge you to join us in utilizing the dispute resolution process so that we can improve this article instead of participating in an endless edit war. Idag (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer does need to come onboard as well for the simple reason contained in this passage found at the beginning of WP:RFM:"The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation; parties are given seven days from the time of the initial request to indicate their acceptance."Unless Kjaer agrees to join in with the RFM, the matter may have to be escalated further if any kind of resolution is desired on the part of a significant number of editors. DDStretch   (talk)  15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


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

I don't understand why I would be disqualified from having input into the article simply because I hold a mainstream stance. I'm not suggesting that the whole article should be geared towards discussing the fact that many observers and former disciples of Rand believe that she started a dogmatic cult. However, her prize disciple and lover says that Rand "encouraged dogmatism" and that Rand's world view was: "Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." This is information that deserves a thorough treatment. I suggest the following layout:

1 Life
 * 1.1 Youth - discuss her early years and education
 * 1.2 Immigrant - discuss her immigration to the U.S. up to her breakthrough with ::fountainhead
 * 1.3 Collective - discuss the time period during the establishment of her collective and ::her meteoric rise of success and wealth
 * 1.4 Break with Branden - ''discuss the fracture of her collective and the break with the ::Brandens
 * 1.5 Later years and death
 * 1.6 Personality and style

2 Novels, philosophy, views
 * 2.1 Novels
 * 2.2 Objectivism
 * 2.3 Politics
 * 2.4 Screenplays

3 Legacy 4 Bibliography 5 Notes 6 Further reading 7 External Links CABlankenship (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think mediation is premature. Radical changes have been pushed in various directions and as there has been a flurry of editing, it's not surprising that there have been numerous reversions. Here are my comments on the mediation which I see I'm not allowed to post there: Several editors have objected to wholesale changes, many of which were made without any consensus or discussion. The introduction has been worked on with some collaboration, although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and I think good progress is being made there. So I think that area of the article would be good to move forward on, and then other areas can be addressed. I don't think all efforts to reach compromises over the issues have been exhausted, and I'm reluctant to support a bureaucratic procedure seeking to address such a broad range of issues, many of which haven't been properly discussed yet on the talk page. Strong POVs and agendas have been stated, and it's no surprise that this has created some dispute. Major changes have been attempted by various parties (myself included) and have been reverted, but eventually appropriate compromises seem to be getting worked out. I think there is a middleground and some patience is required from all involved. There are certainly ample areas for improvement in the article, but removing large tracts without discussion and adding new sections that have limited sourcing is too radical an approach for many of the good faith editors involved, as is indicated by the push for a general roll back. I suggest a focus on the introduction (the most important part of any article) and to proceed from there. More general suggestions for broad changes to the article don't seem me to be workable as they have been disputed, so let's try a more measured approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Several editors have objected to wholesale changes, many of which were made without any consensus or discussion."
 * There was discussion and consensus on each change that was made. For example, for the Nature of Criticism section, TallNapoleon made a section on the talk page proposing the removal of that section.  Four or five of us responded in the affirmative with no one opposing the removal.  If you'll look through the talk page, you'll see that each major edit was discussed.
 * "The introduction has been worked on with some collaboration, although there are still some issues that need to be resolved, and I think good progress is being made there."
 * That introduction has had more reverts in a short time than I have ever seen on a Wikipedia article.
 * "I'm reluctant to support a bureaucratic procedure seeking to address such a broad range of issues, many of which haven't been properly discussed yet on the talk page. Strong POVs and agendas have been stated, and it's no surprise that this has created some dispute. I think there is a middleground and some patience is required from all involved."
 * First, as discussed above, the changes WERE discussed on the talk page. Second, the strong POV's are what make mediation necessary and mediation will help achieve that middle ground.
 * "There are certainly ample areas for improvement in the article, but removing large tracts without discussion and adding new sections that have limited sourcing is too radical an approach for many of the good faith editors involved."
 * Have you seen the stuff that was removed?! Giant chunks of it violated WP:OR and WP:Synth.  Also, I'm not aware of any new sections that have been added (unless you count the stuff in the intro but the revert war on that is so heavy that you can't expect stable content there right now). Idag (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I also forgot to point out that most of the issues that need to be addressed are recurring. They have been raised repeatedly in the past and will continue to be raised in the future if we don't address them definitively. The disinterested admin below also seems to have recommended mediation. Idag (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully urge CofM and Kjaer to accept mediation, because otherwise this is almost certainly going to ArbCom. It is clear that we are failing to reach consensus here, and that a lasting, permanent solution is needed. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction: "no attention" and communism
I added a bit about her writing being based on her personal experiences and growing up in Russia as it relates to her becoming a fierce opponent to communism. It probably could be phrased and integrated better if someone wants to have a go. It's discussed extensively in the article and is important to understanding her perspective and providing historical context for her views. Also, the introduction says she has received "no attention in academia". This is sourced to an attack piece and clearly isn't true (it's contradicted by the very next sentence). I tried a few times to include a more reasonable and accurate assessment that "Her philosophical work is not part of most academic curricula, and she has received strong criticism from some in academia." If someone wants to tweak that or reach a compromise I'm fine with that. But saying she has received no attention ignores the fact that her work is included in some business school classes and philosophy courses and has been controversial in academia. There was recently a controversy at West Carolina University, for example, about whether to include her work. If the article is reverted to an older version I think this information would be good to add. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection
I am appalled to see the level of edit warring on this article in the last 24 hours. I have protected the page for two weeks. I have commented once on this page (to urge a BLP policy based direction for editing), but do not consider myself involved. I urge all participants to engage in mediation. Contrary to various posts above about who should and who shouldn't participate in editing this page and in the mediation, all editors, whether they might be considered pro or anti Rand, are needed to help write a balanced NPOV article, and all editors are expected to edit from a NPOV perspective, to be civil and to avoid edit warring. --Slp1 (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this protection? I see a violation of 3RR by TallNapoleon during the "appalling" 24 hour period. I am sure the warning he has received should be sufficient sanction. I see no other edit warring, unless the admin wants to characterize the refusal of a faction to abide by the results of the RfC as edit warring.

I am quite sure that we can work from the last consensus version of Dec 31 and shorthen such sections as Objectivist movement which already have their own article, rather than deleting unique and accurate material such as Rand's notable personal (and certainly not flattering) stance on homosexuality, or her personal influence, which does not currently have its own article. I see the request for this protection, as well as requests for arbitration and mediation as attempts by a certain faction to avoid the obvious conclusion of the RfC. I invite the admin to remove the protection. I invite the editors who have expressed there personal dislike of the "godless" "fourth-rate" Rand to deal with the fact that this article will indeed contain such horribly prejudicing material as a claim, (shamelessly backed up by dozens of references in sources as notable or moreso than the NY Times) that Rand is considered, among other things, a philosopher. Kja er (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The language in your post Kjaer is probably the best indication of why protection was necessary. -- Snowded   TALK  10:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, you're just making stuff up now. The only person to say anything like "godless" on this page is yourself, in the post above. Nobody has mentioned anything of the sort. I did, however, call Rand a fourth-rate philosopher. CABlankenship (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kjaer that RfC was grossly deficient: (1) you (and not a neutral admin) closed it after only one day; (2) the wording on how to vote made no sense (how can a new editor vote to determine if there was a consensus before he arrived here?); and (3) the vote was split 7-5, which does not a consensus make. Frankly, this wasn't even an RfC, it was a straw poll and a 7-5 split on a straw poll doesn't yield any "clear" results either. Idag (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Again
This talk page is still very long, which makes working here difficult. I would propose archiving ALL discussions that are no longer active, so that we can make a fresh start, as it were. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is an excellent idea...all things considered...gotta start somewhere..Modernist (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just archived all conversations up to Jan. 10 in Archive 17. Unfortunately, this talk page is STILL 160+ kb, which is still long. Oh well. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Three issues before we move to content
On reflection I think we have three basic issues. I am pleased to see that the RFA appears to have opened up the possibility of mediation again. Hopefully all will now sign up. -- Snowded  TALK  11:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly all editors have to cease ascribing motivations to other editors. There are people here who do not like Rand (declared and undeclared) and people who advocate her views (declared and undeclared).  In Wikipedia all have equal rights to take part if they follow wikipedia rules.   I strongly suggest that a monitoring admin uses judicious short term blocks to enforce this or we are not going to move forward.
 * We have to address the issue of citations, OR and weight.  At the moment we have a very small number of sources being used for multiple purposes.  For example a grant in 2001 to the University of Texas generates a Guardian article.  The grant came from a Rand reserach institute (which means it cannot support a statement that the UofT established a fellowship in her honour).  Its also in 2001 and there are no subsequent ones.  The Guardian article reports this and suggests that this may lead to an increase in interest.  Neither 2001 reference can really support a 2009 status.  Two notable philosophers attend a seminar on a subject linked to objectivism, sponsored by a Rand institute.  True, but it does not mean that the implication can be drawn that those philosophers endorse the position that Rand is a Philosopher.   She may or may not be, but that type of citation does not support it.
 * As an extension of the above; the bulk of the citations come from Rand institutions of various types. There are few if any third party ones, or international ones.  This gives rise to multiple problems of proving a negative.  So Rand is not mentioned in several directories of Philosophy, but she is in one US one, other encyclopedia's avoid any precise statement.   I would strongly suggest that mediation (or a monitoring admin) forms a neutral third party to assess questions of citation and source as they are presented on the talk page.
 * Strongly agree with you on all of this, and especially the need for a third party to assess questions of citation and source as they are presented on the talk page. Peter Damian (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Moral
I said I wouldn't comment further on this article, but at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, I can't help drawing the moral that it's a perfect illustration of Wikipedia's biggest flaw. To quote someone above:
 * Our aim should be an article that looks like the work of a single expert who was striving for neutrality (and who succeeded).

And I agree. The trouble is, this article is written by dozens of people, of whom only maybe one or two (quite possibly none) have a genuinely expert knowledge & understanding of the whole subject-matter (I do not pretend to be one of these); many have a rather incomplete knowledge & understanding, but are trying their best; and some are idiots who think they are experts, or who just have strong opinions and want to get their way.

And as they all get an equal say, the idiots outweight the experts - oh no, wait a minute, the ones who get the biggest say are those who are prepared to stay up late at night making the most edits and reversions. In an ideal world these would be the experts, but the statistics entail they're more likely to be the non-experts, or even more likely still the idiots who think they're experts or who want to get their way. (Particularly idiots for whom Wikipedia may be the main outlet for their ideas & pet theories; experts are more likely to spend their writing efforts on books or published articles which idiots won't be able to jump in & mess up.)

So what do you think is more likely to be the end result - an article which looks like the work of a single, neutral expert on the subject, or one which... (I will refrain from mentioning monkeys & typewriters at this point ;) ).

And much as I like & use Wikipedia, this is why for the foreseeable future so much of it will remain strong on quantity, weak on quality. Ben Finn (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see someone deleted the whole of the above as 'irrelevant and uncivil'. It seems entirely to the point. Does anyone really doubt that there are idiots on Wikipedia? (I didn't say there were large numbers of them, nor mention anyone; it wasn't directed at anyone in particular.) And that this article is plagued with the problems I outlined? Or is everything just wonderful?


 * It seems somewhat totalitarian to delete criticism. Ben Finn (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Idag, you have no right to play censor with talk page material. There are many, many people who have said offensive things.  If their remarks become sufficiently abusive they can be blocked by an admin.  I agree with what Bfinn said, in general, but I have no clue as to whether he has cast me or you as a monkey - that is, I don't know who's 'side' he is on, but his observation of this article not looking like it was written by single, neutral expert is true..  DO NOT DELETE PEOPLES COMMENTS ON A TALK PAGE.  --Steve (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm not on anyone's side, other than the side of the quality & accuracy of articles. I know nothing about Ayn Rand (other than from this article!), and have made no edits to it at all. I do know a fair amount about philosophy, and suspect she should not be classed as a philosopher (lacking the necessary credentials), but that's a relatively minor point; she is perhaps a borderline case. As for the monkeys, they are the idiots in the above metaphor (if that wasn't clear), and I'm not calling anyone in particular an idiot; though I'm certain very few of us are experts (say, PhD or beyond) on Ayn Rand, political philosophy, and/or American literature, and that fact (as well as the idiots) is the main reason for the major disagreements on this article. (Experts may also disagree with each other, of course, but at least rarely in an idiotic way.) [Edited, and below, as I see Objectivism is wider than just political.] Ben Finn (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There will always be problems on articles that deal with revered cult leaders. There are few people who are neutral on Rand.  Presenting sources that depict her in something other than a saintly light will meet with attempts to marginalize this data or turn it into a vague blurb.  Huge portions of Rand's life where she behaved rather oddly are barely discussed.  Rand was a very interesting character, but many people find her so interesting because it seems she was quite mad.  Others want to downplay the sources where her close followers describe her as being irrational and emotional.  And of course, to the Randian, it's always a sore spot when you bring up the fact that her prized disciple called Rand's philosophy a "dogmatic religion".  I haven't been engaging in any edit wars to put in this information.  I've been trying to discuss it on the talk page, as I know if I were to enter it (even heavily sourced), one of these guys would delete it within minutes.  This creates an unacceptable atmosphere, where certain people are way too hardcore about keeping unflattering facts out of this article, even though these facts are extremely entertaining and fascinating.  It's "juicy" stuff, as one editor said, and it's something the average article browser would like to read.  This article is not a propaganda page for Ayn Rand, it's supposed to be a fact-based discussion of her life and work.  CABlankenship (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gosh, why is nobody running to delete the above and other CAB comments that so fly in the face of AGF? Oh, I get it! Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already tried to delete this whole section once only to have it reverted. Nothing in this section has anything to do with improving this article, and it is a violation of WP:Talk, WP:Soap, and WP:Civil.  In response to Steve, I don't care if the insults are directed at me or someone "on my side", this entire section violates a host of Wikipedia talk page policies, and, therefore should be deleted.  In the future please read the actual policies before starting rants about censorship. Idag (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The way to improve the article would be to try to deal with the problems I outlined, if they're accurate. So, as a positive suggestion, is there anyone on here who does have relevant expertise (ideally, say, PhD level) in Ayn Rand, or else in (say) philosophy or American literature? If so, perhaps we should hear their suggestions for improvements to the article. They will know what they're talking about far more than the rest of us.
 * (I own up to having insufficient expertise, so have not made and will not make any edits myself; I think the extent of my expertise would only be to sub-edit for grammar and style - as I have worked as a professional proof-reader. Does anyone else own up to not having sufficient expertise?) Ben Finn (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll own up to not being an expert in the sense that my PhD isn't in philosophy (though that was my second major in undergrad). Consulting with experts won't resolve our dispute because the dispute concerns presentation, not substantive knowledge.  Also, Bfinn, would you mind deleting everything above your last post as it is not constructive and violates numerous discussion policies. Idag (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it untrue, though? (I am trying to be helpful, albeit in a provocative manner.) Re experts, even if there's nothing factual under dispute (which is not completely clear to me), experts in a domain are probably better at presenting material within their domain in a more careful, objective, and neutral way. I would give far more credence, for example, to a proposed intro drafted by someone who'd done a PhD on Ayn Rand. Ben Finn (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Idag why on earth did you delete Ben's comments? He strikes me as a person of great good sense.  As you are one of the other people who have made positive contributions to this discussion, and who seems to have their heart in the right place, I am doubly surprised.  Let the comments stand.  On my own credentials, I have a PhD in philosophy, I taught the subject for some years, and have a number of publications in linguistic philosophy. I wrote the articles Medieval philosophy, History of logic Metaphysics (Aristotle) and quite a few more.  I only became familiar with Ayn Rand last week (after Snowded mentioned this page).  I have since read the stuff she wrote on Metaphysics and it strikes me as unadulterated rubbish.  The rest I don't know about.  Her prose style strikes me as florid and overblown, but I know very little about literature. Peter Damian (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ben also made one of the best and most perceptive comments on this page . Peter Damian (talk)


 * Ben, I think that experts may ultimately help break this deadlock (though I still think its a non-substantive issue of presentation), and, Peter, thank you for the compliment. My problem with the original post was not the idea it expressed, but, rather, the overall wording (e.g. calling some of the editors here "idiots").  I personally don't care about it, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that someone is going to take offense at it, and, given the amount of rancor on this talk page, getting a consensus is already going to be difficult without having to deal with more bruised egos. Idag (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise - there are no idiots on Wikipedia. (Hey, I didn't say who was an idiot! Why should their egos be bruised?!) Ben Finn (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Experts may help as long as they stick to good sources and avoid OR. We've had too much OR and "consensus" replacing sources. Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Experts are welcome on the Flat earth theory page as long as they stick to good sources and avoid OR. We've had too much OR and "consensus" replacing sources. Peter Damian (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? The earth is flat, who would say otherwise? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Only fringe religious fanatics. Omnians, probably. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Flat Earth Society seems to be active and notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it. There are webpages for it, and so on, if one searches Google as well. I recall a few years ago, there was a BBC piece on the radio about a UK Flat Earth Society as well. Just because it has references, ad all that... DDStretch   (talk)  21:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey if this guy says so it must be flat he writes for the NY Times...it must be so..:) Modernist (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, look at yourselves. too many of you are too concercned with ayn rand. or rather you are too concerned about winning an argument about ayn rand. quit being pus**** and write an encyclopedic entry for the damn womanBrushcherry (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry