Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 24

Opposition to Plato
Ayn Rand claimed to be adhering a more or less Aristotelian philosophy and vigorously opposed Plato. But the article did not even have a mention of Plato. Wandering Courier (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly because Rand's views of Plato/Aristotle/Kant are not taken seriously even by philosophers who take some account of her politics. -- Snowded   TALK  19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As Rand's opposition to Plato is not controversial (i.e. no one disputes that she opposed Plato), I have no problem with it being added in. Though you'll need a better secondary source. Idag (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a small section with quotations from Rand about Philosophers (and her status in that respect)? It would be relevant and might resolve the debate in the above section.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while you are at it, can we have a mention of someone outside the USA (for some reason Plato is on the courses of all Universities who teach the subject)  -- Snowded   TALK  19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Snowded, I can give you cited sources for well respected, published, credentialed, tenured, academic philosophers, e.g., Aristole scholars, who do take Rand seriously in areas like epistemology.  But you haven't show any respect for sources that differ from your opinions so far, which is the heart of the Arbcom currently underway.
 * Steve, you keep giving long lists of philosophers, but no citations. Where I have been able to check the connection its turned out to be spurious.  The one notable philosopher with a citation turns out to have accepted her politics, but rejects her as a philosopher.  I can only deal with the evidence you present.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On a not quite related topic, maybe we should find some material somewhere that discusses Plato, but does NOT specifically state that he was a philosopher. Then we could delete any reference of his being a philosopher from Wikipedia... or if the Plato cultists get upset we could compromise by saying that he was a teacher who had some thoughts that were treated as philosophical in nature. (p.s., The Plato part of this comment is intended as satire.  I'm making that explicit for those who are humor impaired.) --Steve (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But Plato is universally present in any philosophy Encyclopedia. CABlankenship (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that only those listed in all major encyclopedias are philosophers? Is this true for other professions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about whether we should include Rand's view of Plato. Please keep the philosopher discussion in the relevant sections.  Are there any objections to including Rand's view of Plato? Idag (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (tongue-in-cheek) Of course; I thought everyone knew that unless you're listed in the Britannica Encyclopedia of Car Salesmen, you're not really a car salesman. The same way that Plato isn't really a philosopher, because I found XYZ Dictionary that doesn't include him. (/tongue-in-cheek) arimareiji (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Idag, OK, I moved mine to the right section.Stevewunder (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the philosopher discussion here is irrelevant to this section, would anyone mind if I deleted it? This way people will be able to discuss Plato's inclusion in Rand's views without having to first untangle this section. Idag (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
This talk page has yet again gotten ridiculously long. Would anyone oppose an archiving? TallNapoleon (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you wait until ArbCom is over? People have included links to the Talk page that could get messed up by archiving. Idag (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * K, will do. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

During Arbitration
CoM, I support the substance of the edit, but we should wait for arbitration to end. Kja er (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, there are plenty of other edits I would contest, including the following which I believe you added to the lead:

"She based some of her writings on her personal experiences and was a fierce opponent of communism." The problem with this is that she based only We The Living on direct personal experience, so "some" is inaccurate and undue weight. Also, she was an advcoate of reason, hence, egoism, hence capitalism, and an opponent of statism, not just communism. Indeeed, Hitler was a critic of communism.

In essence, I support returning to the DEC 31 lead which was much more accurate, direct and balanced. But in the meantime, no matter how much I support the correct identification of Rand as a philosopher, I suggest we show some restraint and await the results of the arbitration. Kja er (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the DEC 31 version, with the proper citation for philosopher, for you to read if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&oldid=261153197

Iceland is Not an Island
A google search on "(Iceland & country) but not (island)" returns 21,400,000 hits, while a search on "(Iceland & island) but not (country)" returns 840,000 hits. So, at a ration of 2,140 to 84 (more than 25 to 1!) our sources consider Iceland a country, but not an Island. This methodology, discovered here by Idag is wonderful! I'm going to start deleting right now! Kja er (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. It was a Lexis search,and Lexis gives far greater control over the search than Google. 2. The search was limited to articles in which Rand was a significant subject. As for the rest of the sarcastic comment, I'm not dignifying that with a response. Idag (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeat the test then at lexis and let me know the results for iceland there instead of at google - the results will be as absurd. The fact that an article does not refer to iceland as an island is just as irrelevant as the fact that an article does not refer to Rand as a philosopher.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I am sure all of us understand that principle. Kja er (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the encyclopedias of film and theater to see if she's listed as a screenwriter? Kjaer gives an excellent example. We have NUMEROUS quality sources including major encyclopedias that discuss her as a philosopher. We have no reputable sources that argue she isn't a philosopher or explain why she shouldn't be considered one. She wrote philosophy, she was successful at it as a profession and developed a sizable following and legacy. This is confirmed by several major encyclopedias and discussed in the numerous reliable sources discusser her as a philosopher. That some sources have chosen not to include her is irrelevant. There is no policy that says a person's profession is dependent on being listed as such in every source and every encyclopedia and every source. That argument is preposterous and silly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there were encyclopedias of islands in the world and Iceland was not included in the majority of them then there would be an analogy. Guys we keep going round the houses here.  There is little dispute on the facts (she is called a philosopher in some places, she is not called a philosopher in others).  The question of evidence is why this has gone to Arbcom in part because it doesn't just concern this page it affects others and it may require an elaboration of WP:Weight.  If they determine that any mention justifies the inclusion then I'll accept it,  but then that will justify the inclusion of other material.  It may be that notable omissions are also worthy of note, its an important issue of policy for Wikipedia.  For the moment the analogies are getting more farcical every day. -- Snowded   TALK  07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Behold I found an encyclopedia entry listing islands . And what to make of islands not on the list? What should we call them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go and edit it CoM, its a Wikipedia article not a third party source, although I notice that it includes Iceland. -- Snowded   TALK  08:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the example given, you're the one trying to argue Iceland isn't an island, not me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and yet it's articles on islands don't include all of them. This counters your argument that non-inclusion in a particular encyclopedia is proof that a particular qualification isn't met. It's an absurd argument to be sure, and each of your arguments has been refuted. We go by verifiable sources, and there aren't any that support your position. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting a little lost in a sea of analogies CoM. This is (as I thought I said above) an issue of policy in respect of WP:Weight.  Not to be mentioned in the Oxford and Cambridge directories is a serious issue for any claim to the status of a philosopher.  My view is that the Wikipedia is international and that "absence" is evidence however Arbcom may determine that inclusion in one directory permits the use of the term.  I'll live with the outcome of that decision but I don't see any new arguments or refutations above.   Its a more complex issue as well, listing her as an author is uncontested, but her non-inclusion in the Oxford American literary reference would (I think) preclude her being described as having international recognition.  What we have here is a matter of policy, the facts are now fairly clear and we await a decision.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

how many continents are there? europe, asia, eurasia. n america, s america latin america, africa, oceania, australia, antartica. is pluto a planet? is it the sea of japan or the east sea? there are international bodies who determine these things (or pussyfoot around it like the sea of japan). and even these topics are debated on wikipedia. this book says she is a philosopher, this one doesn't. blah blah blah. ayn rand status as a philosopher IS NOT A MATTER OF FACT. it is the opinion of the various editors of various books on philosophy. pro-rand people think their editors are correct. anti-rand editors think their editors are correct. pro-rand people think anti-rand editors don't count, anti-rand people think pro-rand editors don't count. neither of you are ever going to "prove" anything. for all the pontificating about weighting, pov, original research, consensus, both sides engage in in it, accuse the other side of it, claim to be free of it. i am interested in seeing what arbcom comes up with (plus i have no idea what arbcom is). i am continually amazed at the level of bickering on this talk page compared to the abortion page. re: ur all nazi's comment...joke that fell flat that referenced my previous godwins law post. if someone who agreed with me made some bad edits please don't hold that against me. i personally have never edited anything.Brushcherry (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * My grandfather had a farm on Knotts Island in North Carolina. Here is a Wikipedia article on Knotts Island, but here is the Wikipedia List of Islands of America and there is no Knotts Island - does it's absence mean it is NOT an island?  Should we take the absence of its name from a list as proof of it not being an island?


 * Here is a list of Islands in the Atlantic, look under the Canary Islands and you will notice that it does not include the El Hierro which I've seen with my own eyes, or Fuerteventura where I rode a camel - those island are visible on this map. Maybe we should demand that they be edited from the Wikipedia map and from the Wikipedia article on the Canary Island because they are NOT in the list. --Steve (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the word "island" is clearly defined. The word "philosopher" is not. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, TallNapoleon, but island is NOT clearly defined. You tell me whether Australia is an island.

In any case, the analogy is based upon the fact that while many sources call Iceland a country, but not an island, and a few sources call Iceland an island, but not a country, no sources call Iceland NOT an island. Since we would not be justified in removing the word island from the Iceland article because at a rate of 25 to 1 most articles on the net call it a country but not an island, we are not justified in removing the word philospher from this article because there are "only" "340" articles that call her a philosopher but not a novelist while there are an "incredible" 360 articles that call her a novelist but not a philosopher.

It might have shown that this "debate" were a matter of good faith if, for example, the same editors who think they are justified in removing a cited reference to Rand as a philosopher had first challanged the uncited reference to her as a screenwriter. But, of course, some people just [| refuse to call it a philosophy]. They are entitled to their own personal opinions on their own web pages. But at wikipedia, notable sources matter, and no amount of Original Synthesis entitles such pushers to decide to call someone an intellectual or a writer as opposed to a philosopher because that makes them more comfortable. Sometimes the truth hurts. But that's something we all learn as we grow up. Kja er (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * From said article "This is a partial list of islands of the United States," please note the word partial. Brushcheery sort of has it right though and its the same point as TallNapoleon makes, this is a matter of Wikipedia policy.  Once that policy is settled then the issue is resolved (or should be).  -- Snowded   TALK  09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any meta-analyses of how many books list Rand as a philosopher versus how many don't, or versus how many list her as an author, or how many search engines can dance on the head of a pin, miss one key point: We're not supposed to be doing original research to come up with conclusions that we then insert into WP. arimareiji (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence the substantial question of policy (which is not just this article) as to what constitutes evidence and how to prove a network. Its an issue on pseudo-science and cult pages as well and is coming up as wikipedia matures.  Its going to be interesting to see how Arbcom handle it  -- Snowded   TALK  16:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather that they tackle the question of echo chambers and tag-teaming (both being well-exemplified in the CAMERA affair and associated sourcing), but that's just me being perverse. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the first, more important than this storm in a teacup and fixing tag teaming would help many pages including this one. -- Snowded   TALK  16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thing is, ArbCom is unlikely to address this content dispute, so sooner or later, we'll have to craft a compromise ourselves. My personal view is that we should try to eliminate all adjectives from that sentence, as most adjectives are, ultimately value judgments.  I actually agree with JazzFan on this, if we simply list the facts of what she did instead of those adjectives, then no one can dispute those. Idag (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As Snowed notes above, this is primarily an issue of what constitutes evidence. As Idag notes, we will need to create the solution ourselves. However, I doubt that any crafty wording will resolve the issue (except perhaps temporarily). For example, suppose we did agree on some wording that skirts the issue: what then about Rand's occupation? what classification? what is to stop the whole issue from being re-raised repeatedly in various new forms?  Instead, I suggest that we should tackle the problem head-on: first reach agreement on what the criteria are that should classify someone as a philosopher, then apply those criteria consistently.  In doing so, we should take seriously the point that Arimareiji makes above about not doing original research. Thoughts?  Gyrae (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is, analyzing how many books call her a philosopher is required under WP:Undue. That policy requires us to determine whether a view is a prevailing or a minority view and to give it the appropriate weight.  How are we supposed to make that determination if we don't first examine how many secondary sources take that view seriously? Idag (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's WP:OR. If it's in dispute, say that XYZ most reliable source on side A says yes, and ABC most-reliable source on side B says no. Wikipedia describes disputes, we don't engage in them. No one ever wins a POV war. arimareiji (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Three things no one ever wins: 1) a war 2) a divorce 3) a car accident. Any other resemblance between the three is purely coincidental. Maybe. arimareiji (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a pseudo-issue. There is no call for editors to define anything. That is called Original Research. Editors report what notable verifiable sources say. Neither is this a matter of weight. There are no notable sources which assert that Rand is not a philosopher for us to weigh. If we were to take this supposed criterion seriously, we would require that all sources say absolutely everything possible about a subject, or find that absolutely nothing could be said. Indeed, by thois criterion we are not entitled to call Iceland an island.

I note that Idag has not bothered to tell us the results of his experiment with the keywords Iceland island and country at lexis nexis. I await the results impatiently.

This entire issue is a red herring simply asserted over and over by a certain faction who have stated a priori their hostility to Rand. They should get their opinions published so that rather than being original research conducted on this talk page they will be a notable minority view worth citing in the criticism section. As it stands we have a few contrary editors simply repeating the same nonsense over and over. I will occasionally stop to point that out. Have fun filling up the talk page in the meantime. Kja er (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there genuinely is no WP:RS which asserts Rand is not a philosopher (which is completely different from "doesn't assert she is"), that's different. But if there is one, and it represents more than a tiny portion of WP:RS statements on the matter, it can be cited. arimareiji (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) As I've stated previously, I don't have access to Lexis at this computer, these results were from a search that JReadings ran. I'll happily run one for you on Tuesday.  I also agree that editors defining standards is OR.  But editors seeing how many sources adopt a particular view is not OR, its a determination of whether that view is the prevalent view.  Otherwise, the L. Ron Hubbard article would say that he is the greatest human being of all time because Scientology sources advocate that view and no one else takes it seriously enough to dispute it.  The problem with these types of views is that many of the sources who discuss it, are the ones who favor adopting it.  That doesn't mean that those sources are the prevailing view, all that means is that those sources are vocal. Idag (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Four points:
 * 1) The claim that 'such and such' is the prevalent view is OR, because it is based on an assumption of why 'philosopher' isn't present on this source or that - we can't read the minds of those writers or editors.
 * 2) Counting sources that did not list 'philosopher' without being able to show why they did so is just a variation of that OR.
 * 3) The fact that many of the sources who discuss Rand as philosopher are those in favor adopting it (i.e., treat Rand as a philosopher) is irrelevant. Sources aren't given a qualitative judgment that is based upon their 'side' - they have to be judged on their reliability and merit.  For example, some pro-Rand sources have solid academic credentials, just as some pro-Plato sources have solid academic credentials.  Credentials and pro-versus-anti are two different things.
 * 4) Academic sources carry weight, but they aren't the entire world of sources - particularly with a philosopher who chose to introduce her work to the culture at large rather than to the academy, and especially since a documented animosity exists between Rand and academics. --Steve (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that assert Rand is not a philosopher. None. Maybe someone will find one some day and we can discuss it against the numerous reliable sources including encyclopedias and the New York Times that note she was a philosopher, but until that happens we need to move forward and follow policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be correct if the proposal was for the article to state that "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher." However, the proposal is to omit the word "philosopher" from the description of Rand.  Then the relevant analysis is to see which secondary sources omit that word from their description of Rand. Idag (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The question, Idag, is what is your basis for removing the word "philosopher" when it cites valid sources? That is where you do not coming up with anything valid - that is where you finding yourself engaging in OR.  That is where you find yourself in violation of WP.  You can not get around the fact that 'omitting a word from a source' is not demonstrative for purpose of deleting material that is properly cited. --Steve (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, citation is only one of the policies for inclusion. If that were the only policy, we would have articles listing as facts things like the lunar landing conspiracy and that the government monitors you if you don't wear a foil hat.  There's plenty of verifiable sources for each of these, but they are not listed as universal facts because that is not the prevalent view, which is what another policy WP:Undue requires us to consider.  While there are sources stating that Rand is a philosopher, that is not the universal view and we would be misrepresenting the sources if we stated that.  Though, as I've stated earlier, I'm open to compromise as far as using philosopher with a qualification or replacing all adjectives with a summary of what Rand is famous for and letting the reader decide. Idag (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the WP goal is to represent the prevailing view (and fairly represent significant, differing views). The difficulty in this particular case lies in applying the idea of a prevailing view without engaging in OR. Specifically, we need to identify which target population (aka "secondary sources") the view should be prevalent among. If the population is mostly people other than specialists in philosophy, we have a fairly straightforward way to proceed: look at common journalistic practice (e.g. NYT).  However, if we decide that the relevant population is not the broad population of people who have written on Rand but instead specialists, then we need to decide 'which specialists'.  Narrowing our lens to people who specialize in philosophy, but including all such people whether then are experts on Rand or not, we find that most do not describe Rand as a philosopher (if they describe her at all).  But applying the principle of representing specialist view still further, and narrowing our lense to people who have specifically studied Rand's philosophy, we find that they (including those such as Heyl, 1995, who presumably disagree with the content of Rand's philosophy) do describe Rand as a philosopher.  So selection of the relevant population, if it is a specialist population, is an expression of OR.  (I believe that this difficulty lies behind many of the arguments over which authorities count as verifications.)  From this I conclude that the way to avoid OR is to have WP reflect current journalistic practice.  Thoughts?  Gyrae (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You bring up a good point. Though if we do that, I suggest moving this discussion to one of the policy or Wikiproject pages as wider community input would be necessary. Idag (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what aspect of the NYT policy you find to be attractive or compelling, but we cannot adopt any outside standard that might conflict with Wikipedia policy. We can use any outside policy as a way to clarify or discuss the application of WP.  The intial thoughts I had about NYT policy is that given recent events it is more a work of fiction :-)  A better approach might be to take what you see in the NYT policy, bring it here to the talk page, and ask if that is not an approach that is acceptable under WP. --Steve (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The logical fallacy that not saying "XYZ is true" is the same as saying "XYZ is not true" has already been shot to pieces, and its sad little zombie corpse is looking pretty ragged. If there's a WP:RS which says Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, please bring it out. If there isn't, there's no rational basis for discussion. arimareiji (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Arimareiji is correct. I am astounded that people still think that beating this long dead horse will get them anywhere. --Steve (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not denying the antecedent, its denying the consequent.
 * 1. If a source considers Rand a philosopher, then it will use the adjective philosopher.
 * 2. The source does not use the adjective philosopher. Idag (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue specifically which form of logical fallacy it is; it was an offhand comment and I could certainly be wrong. But I believe philosopher is actually a noun. arimareiji (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Denying the consequent isn't a logical fallacy, as evidenced by a similar method successfully being used to determine what adjectives to use to describe David Irving. Idag (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, dictionary.com disagrees. arimareiji (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, no it doesn't.


 * You might want to re-read this thread of conversation before continuing, Idag. I promise, I'm not making it up - philosopher really isn't an adjective. arimareiji (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, my mistake. Yes, you are correct, philosopher is not an adjective. Idag (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone slips, myself certainly included - it happens. And everyone, myself certainly included, sometimes compounds it by continuing to argue against what they've mentally characterized the other's position to be. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag said, "If a source considers Rand a philosopher, then it will use the adjective philosopher." WRONG - that is mind reading and clearly OR. --Steve (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This statement is not OR: "The following sources discuss Ayn Rand in a significant way and call her a novelist or a writer, but do not call her a philosopher." (I can give you 360 verifiable sources for this proposition) Idag (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you success, Idag, in creating your article, List of sources which discuss Ayn Rand in a significant way and call her a novelist or a writer, but do not call her a philosopher. Until then, please stop beating the [| zombie baby]. Kja er (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got no problem with that. ArbCom will decide who's beating what. Idag (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, if those 360 sources also don't call her a woman, do we edit out any mention of her gender? If they don't mention that she was married, do we edit out her marriage? If they don't mention that she wrote screenplays, do we edit that out? Should we be happy that also don't declare her to be from outer space, since that would awkward. This new method you have for determining all the things that a person is not... How can you not see how badly flawed it is, and purely OR! --Steve (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This really is getting very silly. It is true that it is a logical fallacy to go from "not saying that X is true" to "X is untrue. Its a nice little diversion although the self-congratulatory side posts between allies on their talk pages is hardly an edifying sight.   It is equally a logical fallacy to say "X, Y & Z say that C is an D means that C is a D, especially when nearly all the other Ds do not acknowledge C.  Weight, balance and policy. We need to know what the convention is here. It is pretty obvious that Blackburn and his fellow editors at Oxford did not (and do not, I checked) consider Rand a Philosopher. It is equally true that some US sources are happy for the noun to be so used. What Wikipedia has to decide is the basis on which it accepts evidence. The status of Women and islands can be physically verified, that is not the case with the role of Philosopher. Now if Arbcom do determine that a single authoritative citation can permit the use of a name, then the precedent can be used elsewhere in the article (including the criticism sections). We are getting a lot of new editors by the way, interesting -- Snowded  TALK  20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That happens when you get an RfC. arimareiji (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Just for reference, the above is only wrt your last sentence.) arimareiji (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True, although there are some interesting connections when you look through the edit histories -- Snowded  TALK  21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make them. I'm no fan of sockpuppetry no matter whose "side" they're on, and I have nothing to hide. But be careful not to bite off more than you can chew; making a case for SPI is a lot of work. arimareiji (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ArbCom won't resolve the underlying content dispute though. Is there somewhere we can go to get a definitive interpretation of content policies? Idag (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The proving the negative issue is coming up on multiple articles. If it is not resolved here then it will come up again elsewhere.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, you might find these citations to be of interest. In addition to Oxford, I came across this article in The Jerusalem Post discussing Ayn Rand's obscurity in Israeli philosophy departments:


 * "“Rand remains an obscure figure in Israeli academia even though many Israelis read her novels in their teens and 20s including Prof. Elhanan Yakira head of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University. ‘I don't know anyone with us that really teaches her philosophy he said. There could be people that deal with her but I don't really know. Sometimes people mention her name but not a lot.’ He can't comment on whether her lack of representation stems from any antipathy to her ideas.” -- Orit Arfa, “The nexus,” The Jerusalem Post, FEATURES, July 13, 2007, pg. 26."


 * I hope that helps in the editing of the article a bit. Also, I came across this article discussing Rand's obscurity in American philosophy departments:


 * "“Ayn Rand generally held little regard for academic philosophers, and philosophers have tended to return the favor.”"


 * …and from the same article…


 * "'It used to be the kiss of death to your career to say that you liked Ayn Rand,' says Jurgis Brakas, an associate professor of philosophy at Marist College, whose work is not supported by any Rand-affiliated foundation. He suggests that a much broader revival of interest in Aristotle -- whose realist and rationalist theories of cognition harmonize with Rand's -- is partly responsible for the recent uptick in scholarly interest in objectivism. --David Glenn, “Advocates of Objectivism Make New Inroads,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 13, 2007, RESEARCH; Pg. 7 Vol. 53 No. 45"


 * I've also read similar articles discussing Rand and her ideas as being obscure topics seen without having any value in the philosophy department of, for example, Stanford University.


 * None of these are my opinions of Rand, by the way. I am simply reporting what the sources said. To be honest, I don't want to be the focus of ad hominem attacks by a couple of editors here or have to read sarcastic comments that citing this material is somehow unwelcome. Those types of responses are really off-putting. I just want to contribute to the article. J Readings (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think those all represent the dilemma here (although I find it incredible that anyone who had studied Aristotle could say his views harmonised with those of Rand). The vast bulk of academic philosophy (and a lot of literature) simply ignores her.  A lot of the US presence is funded by Rand Institutes (see the Texas material).  It is however undoubtedly the case that some reputable sources call her a philosopher.  Hence the issue of policy.  You won't avoid ad hominems and abuse if you are dealing with a cult.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it incredible that anyone who had studied Aristotle would fail to see the harmony. Most of the interest in Rand has nothing to do with Rand institute funding, and it is really very questionable to impugn the integrity of scholars who accept grants without some kind of evidence, however flimsy - after all this kind of accusation isn't being made about any other academician who specializes in the study of some other philosopher.  I personally find that the Objectivism is not a cult, even though some members act like cultists.  Just as the Roman Catholic Church is not a cult (although it certainly comes much closer to being one), even though some of its members behave like cultists.  And it is clear that there is some cultist-like behaviors to be found among some of the anti-Rand folk.  I find that I am subjected to ad hominems and abuse despite being unfailingly civil in my posts.  Go figure. --Steve (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve you obviously have found some new meaning of the words "unfailingly civil" that I am unfamiliar with. Its not ad hominem to point out that a significant amount of the evidence you have produced and which is cited in the article arises from funding from Rand Institutes.  The Texas grant (and the consequent Guardian article) being examples.  If you are using these positions (and the seminars) as evidence of academic interest in Rand it is reasonably to point out that the source of the funding is relevant.  The position that Randism is a cult is not uncommon and is as I recall cited.  Her own demands of her followers would be evidence enough for most people.  As to Aristotle, well you are entitled to your opinion  -- Snowded   TALK  22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Where am I uncivil? Why would you accuse me of being uncivil? Who said that it was adhomineum to discuss that evidence - perhaps you are confused?  As I said, there is a great deal of academic evidence unrelated to the Texas grant and the Rand institute.  The source of the funding is relevant if the scholarship is questionable - and that isn't what has been put forth.  The position that Objectivism is from two non-academic sources of very disgruntled individuals.  Her demands of her followers was that they exercise independent reasoning.  And as to Aristotle, I have not only my opinion but the opinion of the professor emeritus, dept. of philosophy, Univ. of California at Berkley. --Steve (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Shifting ground always confuses Steve and I am afraid my original comments on your multiple lists of supporting professors without citation to specific papers stands. Which member of the Emeritus faculty are you talking about?  Happy to check it out -- Snowded   TALK  23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, is the question in front of us the quality of objectivist scholarship, the motivations of objectivist scholarship, or the existence or lack thereof of verifiable, reputable sources that term Rand a philosopher? (I think the latter.)  If it is the latter, then we should work on establishing whether or not there are such sources.  Steve has prepared a long list, but it lacks some specificity.  How about we work on checking Steve's list, and, if it turns out to be accurate, accept that there is verifiable, reputable evidence that Rand is referred to as a philosopher?  Gyrae (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some checking on Steve's list although it is difficult as it is just, that a list. The first mentioned Nozick accepts her political views but dismisses her Philosophy.  A reference to Warwick University (where I have a fellowship) relates (and it is a minor engagement) to its inter disciplinary centre for Philosophy and Literature.   Others attended seminars sponsored by various Rand Institutes but that is about the limit of what I can find.  That said I have no difficulty in agreeing that there is verifiable reputable evidence that Rand is a philosopher, the issue is (as has been said several times) one of policy in respect of weight and evaluation of evidence.  She simply does not appear in the majority of reputable encyclopedias or dictionaries of Philosophy and if you eliminate fellowships sponsored by institutions  set up to promote her ideas, and members of those institutions with other academic associations then even in the US the evidence is sparse.  One compromise (to say that she is an author who created a philosophical movement) seemed promising to me but has been rejected.  Another compromise might be to leave the information box as "author/screen writer" but in the lede acknowledge that in the US she is considered a philosopher in some circles.   All of that aside, this is really an issue for Arbcom and affects lots of articles which have nothing to do with Rand.   That issue is simple - does not reliable citation validate a statement?  and the linked "If there are no citations in authoritative sources are one or two citations enough.  That is the real issue and all the emotion being displayed here adds little to it.  If the decision is that one or two citations are sufficient then I will happily accept a move back to an earlier version where she was called a philosopher, but with a reference to the controversy over that.  I personally think that we need some ruling from Arbcom on this for the WIkipedia as a whole.  The Ayn Rand article when push comes to shove is a minor one, the issue of Wikipedia's authority is on the other hand major.  -- Snowded   TALK  07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, your post is misleading. The list you mention was intended to show that there would be no problem finding solid sources supporting the category of philosopher for Rand. Editors are deleting valid, reliable sources in this article. I put the list up more for others, since I suspected that you would not be happy with any source. Nozick disagrees with Rand's argument, he does not state or indicate that she is not, or should not be considered as a philosopher - he responded to her ideas as those of a philosopher (one he disagreed with). You keep mentioning seminars sponsored by Rand institutes. This is some form of original research on your part, and a mis-statement of the contents of the list. The list was simply to show that there are encyclopedias, philosophy text books, journal articles, scholarly works printed by university presses, and many professors of philosophy who consider her to be a philosopher. It is disengenous of you to keep painting this false picture of only a limited circle of Rand supporters, and only in the United States, who see her as a philosopher. The dislike for her in a significant part of the academic world is real, but it does not extend to saying that she is not a philosopher. She does not receive as much attention in the academic world as some other philosophers, but that also is not the same as saying she is not a philosopher. I've pointed out before that the sales of her non-fiction philosophical works have been reprinted in many languages, and show heavy sales in both in the United States and overseas. This includes her work on epistemology which makes it peculiar to say that she is only a novelist. I have not seen any source supporting your position that being popular, and not courting academic credentials, disqualifies one from being a philosopher. You keep mentioning emotion, but that has nothing to do with the issue of valid, verifiable, reliable sources having their cites deleted. I've pointed out before that declaring Rand is not a philosopher because some sources discuss her, but don't categorize her as such is not valid evidence - nothing in those sources say she isn't a philosopher. I have pointed out before the degree of original research being used to attempt to justify deletion of references to her as a philosopher. Your statement, "If there are no citations in authoritative sources are one or two citations enough," is shameful in how badly it mis-states the case. Editors keep finding one citation after another - verifiable and reliable and editors delete them. Does that list look like "one or two citations"? Then you say that an absence of the declaration of her as a philosopher in a source that you find is the same as saying she is not a philosopher, all the while denying the sources that do call her a philosopher. You ignore the sources where she is taught in philosophy text books. You ignore the philosophers that have no affiliation with a Rand institute. You impugn the integrity of respectable professors of philosophy because they associate with the Rand institute. I do hope that Wikipedia authority is asserted. --Steve (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, you give me a massive list with no specific citations, I check a few and report my findings. Nothing wrong with that.  I've asked you to give me the name of the California professor and more citations on your long lists.  So I am demonstrating a willingness to check sources and report the results.  As to the rest of your arguments, sorry I think you are failing to address the policy issue and focusing too much on the one specific issue of Rand.  You are also (as is normal) making various suggestions to the effect that any challenge or question involves "impugning the integrity" which is arrant nonsense.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On the definition of philosophy
The subject of defining philosophy has come up on the Philosophy talk pages more than once. We still have theTalk:Philosophy/Quotations page containing a long series of definitions. We reached a consensus that while the genus of philosophy is deep and fundamental questions (which mystics, spiritualists, objectivists and philosophers all address), the differentia is an approach by rational and logical methods, often using formal predicate logic (in modern analytic philosophy). Ayn Rand tries to address the fundamental questions certainly, and is a 'philosopher' in the broader bar-room, cocktail-party sense. She really doesn't have a clue about the other bit, though.

This has caused quite a stir in the philosophical community. William Vallicella has a series of posts on the Wikipedia debate, as follows: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The last one is quite funny, because Harry Binswanger, who is the closest thing to a bona fide philosopher, turned up, and even he got irritated by the Rand camp-followers and their incoherent ranting ('Randing') and interminable non-sequiturs. Peter Damian (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ok, so you are saying she is a philosopher in the broad sense, but not the academia sense????? is that the problem here?  we've all been debating two different things.  does the philosophy department of "insert your school here" of which you are a member, think she is a philospher, or do thousands of randist, and millions of normal people who enjoyed her fiction think she is a philosopher? i don't think scientology is a religion and its all a big scam.  same for christianity, hinduism, islam, shinto, etc. but somehow the religious "authorities" deem some belief systems religions or cults.  just because a billion people beleive in a giant white haired man lives in the clouds controls the universe or a 8 armed elephant does, does not make their religion any more valid than animist or scientolgists. (not a scientolgist, just using them as an example as a wack job religion, i know they have issues with wikipedia) how many political parties are there in the united states?  2 of course....replubican and democrats...ask anyone.  pundits say it, polls say it, media says it, the usa is a two party system.  of course the various other parties barely get any votes, BUT THEY DO EXIST.  rand hardly shows up on the philosopher radar, but SHE DOES EXIST.
 * and why is this page part of the wikipedia philosophy project? Brushcherry (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

It indeed seems like a blogger's got a bug up his ass. But why anyone who cares so little for Rand, and is not involved here, would care so much is difficult to fathom. I truly am quite to surprised to see such animus on the internet.

But to stay on topic, I am sorry, I couldn't find where Harry Binswanger comments about this talk page and the non sequiturs here. Could you provide a quote or direct link? Kja er (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Irving Comparison
People have brought up the issue of David Irving, and whether he should be considered an historian. Unfortunately I don't feel it's a valid comparison, because unlike Rand there is a preponderance of sources stating that he should not be considered an historian. The issue with Rand, where some sources call her a philosopher and others simply don't, seems to be a very serious issue that ArbCom should issue some guidance on. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * like trying to define philosopher, historian can be problematic. to 99.99% of us the holocaust is an an historic fact, universally condemned.  what about the genocide of native americans?  how many pre-1960s historians have been denied "historian" status because they glossed over, or ignored, or denied, or justified the genocide of native americans.  david irving is clearly an idiot for his holocaust denial.  he is not the first or last idiot "historian".  is yasser arafat a freedom fighter or a terrorist?  why for the love of a god, that i don't believe in, do you people keep trying to "prove" that she is or is not a philosopher?Brushcherry (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Because we have to decide whether to call her one or not, and frankly there doesn't appear to be a guiding policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * what is Bifurcation?Brushcherry (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * See Bifurcation? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i did, do you? she is either a philospher ala aristotle or she is not one ala "the crazy guy on the highway off-ramp. there are many other options in between.Brushcherry (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * At the moment all I see is a user who is not making much sense and frankly not being very constructive. Those of us who take these issues seriously would greatly appreciate it if other editors did as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * at the moment all i see is a user who has made the same arguments over and over. yet the ayn rand page is still a mess.  Constructive??  this page is a perpetual edit war with all you serious editors taking it seriously.  go to the abortion page and ask those editors how they reached a consensus on anything.Brushcherry (talk) 09:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Speculation: On the abortion page, people are arguing about what are essentially religious beliefs (i.e. ensoulment). Contentious, for sure. But here, people are arguing on the basis of their ego. Much worse. Although far too many people are killed in the name of religion, I would say several times as many get killed in the name of ego. Ask any policeman which he thinks is more dangerous. arimareiji (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for Answering the Question
(Split from "The Irving Question") Gyrae (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose that a constructive way forward would be to establish the criteria for answering the question. Namely: What is the test that Rand would need to satisfy to be termed "philosopher" in this article? Conversely, what is the test that would disqualify Rand? If we can agree on the tests, then we can proceed to apply them. If we cannot agree on the tests, then we can seek guidance on what tests should apply. OK? Gyrae (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn you and your Vulcan logic, Spock! That would require us to use standards that can be objectively cross-applied to show the invalidity of our arguments! (Such as by Obama =/= president.) arimareiji (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about published in peer reviewed philosophy journals AND cited by others in articles published in peer reviewed philosophy journals? Rklawton (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I happily concede that such references exist. No one is disputing that.  The argument is about balance, and policy in respect of balance.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Step 1: propose a list of journals.  Create a weighting factor for each if necessary.
 * Step 2: propose the citation threshold (I suspect # published isn't as significant as # cited)
 * Step 3: debate/discuss/finalize.  Rklawton (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have some proposals on the table. Before we proceed, let's see if we agree on them.
 * * I believe that the proposals are not aimed at answering whether Rand is a philosopher, but rather whether Rand is 'referred to' as a philosopher within 'a certain population'. Is that correct?
 * * The citations may be either direct references to Rand as a "philosopher" or references to Rand in a context where the topic is clearly philosophy. Is that correct?
 * * The suggested population is authors of articles and citiations within peer-reviewed journals. Is that correct?
 * * There is (implicitly) some number of articles and citations needed to establish Rand as a philosopher. Assuming agreement on all the forgoing (which has yet to be confirmed), we would need to agree on this number. Is that correct?
 * Gyrae (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you are not addressing the key question, how do we handle the failure to reference her? In addition "peer reviewed journals" is a very ambiguous phrase it can mean anything. -- Snowded   TALK  18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the problem is, pro-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that say she is not philosopher, anti-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that says she is.  anti-rand references generally are from the academia, reflecting rands lack of standing with the phd/philosophy community, pro-rand references tend to be more populist, reflecting the view that if people think she is a philosopher then she is a philosopher.  both sides have multitudes of references, but neither side accepts the others references.  this talk page is one long "is not! is too!"Brushcherry (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * If it meets WP:RS, then it's a reliable source. If someone spouts off on their blog that they think Rand is the Antichrist, that's not usable. But if they say it in a peer-reviewed journal (best case) or at least a major periodical, then of course it's usable.
 * I'm relatively new to this, but the closest I've seen to someone bringing up a reliable source for saying Rand isn't one was "Hey did you hear someone who says he's a famous philosopher wrote some nasty forum posts about Rand?" What I have seen a lot of is "Rand isn't a philosopher because XYZ didn't say she is," which in my mind is completely-backwards logic. "Didn't say she is" =/= "said she isn't."
 * If you'll note, Brushcherry, my provided references below are from scholarly sources of high reliability. I knew they'd be subject to close scrutiny, so I tried to make them airtight. arimareiji (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you believe that the proposed tests are wrong, please propose tests that you think are right and let's discuss them. Gyrae (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I request that this section be used for discussing the tests that should be applied to determine whether Rand is to be termed "philosoper" in the article. Please use other sections to discuss actual evidence, debate the merits of the evidence, or other material not directly related to deciding what the criteria are that, if satisfied, would either warrant or disqualify terming Rand "philosopher."

I believe that the proposal so far is:


 * The tests are not aimed at answering whether Rand is a philosopher, but rather whether Rand is 'referred to' as a philosopher within 'a certain population'.
 * The citations may be either direct references to Rand as a "philosopher" or references to Rand in a context where the topic is clearly philosophy.
 * The suggested population is authors of articles and citiations within peer-reviewed journals.
 * There is (implicitly) some number of articles and citations needed to establish Rand as a philosopher. Assuming agreement on all the forgoing (which has yet to be confirmed), we would need to agree on this number.
 * We have an open question whether or to what extent statements that Rand is not a philosopher count.
 * We have an open question whether or to what extent the absence of citations of Rand as a philosopher in contexts that are large lists of philosophers count.

Is this essentially correct as a fair representation of the proposal on the table?

Gyrae (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am really not sure what you are trying to achieve here and I am not endorsing the process as you currently outline it. Some comments:  (i) peer-reviewed journals is too broad and can mean too many things  It would have to be journals recognised as professional journals in the field of philosophy and reviewed by a broad range of views. (ii) you can't assess this by number, it has to be by weight which would have to be by comparison to say philosophers working in the same period whose status is not in question.   (iii) The final two points you make are probably at the heart of the debate and the issue we have here (as on other pages) is that Rand is simply not mentioned in most philosophy.  That is the issue of policy.  -- Snowded   TALK  00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for you to propose a clearly defined test that, if met, you would agree should result in Rand being termed "philosopher"? Gyrae (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about appearing in a majority (of maybe a significant minority) of encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophers from major institutes? That she appears in some (Stamford female philosophers as stated below for one) that she doesn't appear in most is the point several of us are making.  The nature of the entry should also acknowledge her as a philosopher not as a literary figure who influenced the development of a philosophy.   Another would be that articles acknowledging her as such appear in the major journals of the field.  -- Snowded   TALK  07:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded - I severely doubt that you would AGF if I (or an admin, any other editor without an ax to grind) went to the library and looked up five random dictionaries/encyclopedias of modern philosophy and came back to report the results, unless the results were "none or one mentioned her." Could you explain how "most" can be verified objectively? arimareiji (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Likewise, could you explain your qualification of "not as a literary figure"? Does that mean that if the entry mentions that she was an author anywhere in the entry then she's disqualified; does it mean that does it mean that it's acceptable as long as it doesn't say some variation of "she wrote books that caused others to come up with a philosophy"; does it mean something else entirely? arimareiji (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So we have, as one proposal, Rand's "appearing in a majority (or maybe a significant minority) of encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophers from major institutes" and "not as a literary figure." There is an observation that Rand appears in some but not in most and that Rand, while cited, may be being referred to as a literary figure, not a philosopher. Some objections are raised above to this proposed test. I would add another criticism, by contrasting the proposed test to a similar one, "cited as a philosopher, not as a literary figure, in the majority (or maybe a significant minority) of the citations appearing in encyclopedias and dictionaries of philosophers from major institutes." The difference between these two tests is that the former measures two things while the latter test measures only one of them. The former measures whether the compilers think that Rand is notable enough to mention, and also whether Rand's relevance is as a philosopher; the latter measures only whether, in those cases (however many or few) where Rand is thought notable enough to mention, Rand's relevance is as a philosopher. Phrased differently, the former test measures both popularity and function; the latter only measures function (as a philosopher). Phrased differently yet again for clarity, the former measures whether the compilers say that Rand is an important philosopher while the latter test measures whether the compilers believe that Rand is a philosopher. If we can agree that there is a valid and important distinction between these tests, then we can debate their merits. Gyrae (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)