Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 25

A list of resources

 * IEP


 * Wadsworth


 * SEP


 * McGrath

There's my four; now I'm off to have dinner. Next? arimareiji (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, vol 20. Gale Group 2000.  This resource lists her occupation as: Author, screenwriter, and philosopher.  It also states that she was a "visiting lecturer at Yale, Princeton, Columbia, University of Wisconsin, John Hopkins, Ford Hall Forumn, Harvard, MIT, and The United States Military Academy at West Point."


 * "Rand, Ayn." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. 5 vols. St. James Press, 2000.  This resource states, "Few philosophers or philosophies can claim the public recognition and "fan" following of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, Objectivism."


 * Sheehy Benedict, "The Challenge of Objective Ethics: Ethical Thinking in Business, Rationalism, and Ayn Rand" The International Journal of Applied Philosophy 18.2(Fall 2004):p231(10) From this resource: "Arguably the most prominent philosopher of the last century, Ayn Rand, has provided a philosophy of business that is satisfying to many people, not the least of which is Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan."


 * The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Thematic Series: The 1960s. Ed. William L. O'Neill and Kenneth T. Jackson, 2 Vols New York, 2003 This resource lists describe's Rand's occupation as writer, novelist, philosopher and screenwriter.  In the bio it also mentions, "...author, lecturer and philosopher..." Just a few for now... --Steve (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK lets look at these. The first is is not a encyclopedia of philosophy, neither is the second or the fourth.   Lots of people use the word philosophy in the sense that someone is "philosophical" and many authors including ones of far greater note than rand have written philosophical works but are not described as such in WIkipedia.  The third is in the field (although not a major journal) but the author or the paper is a lecturer in LAW not philosophy.  I'll start to believe this when some one shows me a citation in a 4 or 5 star journal in the field.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just getting starting, Snowded. By the way, where is your list of notable sources who state that Rand is not a philosopher, despite all of these sources that say she is?  Personally, I don't beleive that you would admit that Rand was a philosopher even if Aristotle himself came back to life and signed an affidavit in blood saying it was so. --Steve (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If Aristotle did that Steve, I would accept it (or a major international Aristotle scholar) You keep producing lists, I keep looking at them in good faith and end with more questions than confirmations so forgive me if I question your constant assertion of multiple sources.  You still haven't named your emeritus californian professor by the way.   -- Snowded   TALK  00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gyrae (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Already covered it as source 3 in my list, Gyrae - but the mistake is easy to make, since I reduced it to an acronym.
 * Snowded, since you perpetually have questions about Steve's unlinked lists, perhaps you'd like to go back and address the credibility of my previous four 'd ones? It might be easier to scroll down a bit first and look at them in ==Reflist== (refs 3-6) before coming back here to comment. Alternately, it might be good to start working on a similar list of RS's which directly assert she wasn't a philosopher, to counter those which directly assert she was. arimareiji (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Thanks.  Gyrae (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

sad little zombie corpse is looking pretty ragged
Sorry, Bruscherry, your claim is false. There is not a list of 340 sources on Lexis that say Rand is not a philosopher. There are indeed plenty of sources that don't call Rand a philosopher, just as there are plenty of sources that don't mention Obama is black, or that Iceland is an island. But negative evidence doesn't matter, reliable sources do. So far we have the New York Times calling Rand a philosopher, and Varicella on his blog saying otherwise. The currently supported DEC 31 version of the article has it right, it calls her a philosopher, drops a note and contains a criticism section where people like the hostile Catholic Platonist blogger Varicella can be mentioned. The only "problem" here is that a certain faction has an a priori POV "I refuse to call it a philosophy' which they want to push, and unable to do so following established WP principles, they want to invent all sorts of new tests that don't apply to anyone else on the site.  The sad little zombie corpse is indeed looking pretty ragged. Kja er (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kjaer, one of these days (maybe with a following wind, but only maybe) you might recognise that what a lot of us are asking Arbcom to do is to determine if negative evidence counts. You assert that it doesn't and if you are right then there is probably a case.  The issue here is of major importance to several sites.  Pathetic remarks about zombies really do not help.  Oh and citing stuff from books by Sciabarra who has an academic association, but actually is running an Ayn Rand institute....   You really need to start addressing the quality of your sources.   Oh, and my views as expressed on my blog (thank you for pointing people to it) are my views which are shared by many others.  You have a pro-Rand position as evidenced by your other "persona".  I don't consider that your position disqualifies you from editing so please reciprocate and address the arguments not the person (although that is a pretty forlorn hope but I thought I might ask)-- Snowded   TALK  22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, Sciabarra is a scholar of the first rank. If you think that the quality of his work is lacking in any way whatsoever you had better look again.  You casually remark that he "has an academic association" but then make a snide comment about the quality of sources.  Maybe you should check before you impugn the integrity or qualifications of someone.  The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which you implied is an "Ayn Rand institute," is a peer reviewed, scholarly, academic journal that is nonpartisan, that is it specifically seeks a balance of pro and anti articles.  Tell me, if someone specialized in Kant, and edited a journal on Kant, and wrote books on Kant, would that disqualify them as a source on Kant?  And I notice that you didn't mention that Sciabarra has also written on Marx and Hegel among others, or that he has written articles for major encyclopedias (the ones that pay - not Wikipedia :-) The main thing we are asking of ArbCom is to judge the bias that is going into the editing.  Maybe it is you that should be whistling up that following wind. --Steve (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am making no comment on his scholarship Steve I am quoting facts. He has an academic association only and he leads a Rand based institution.  I have this general problem that so much of the material on this articles comes from advocates of Rand's views and so little comes from independent sources (maybe because she isn't considered seriously outside her inner circle).  The quality of the scholarship may or may not be high, but he has a declared interest.  Now that might not be a major problem, if it was not characteristic of most of the quoted material.  It would help if you would calm down a bit and think about the balance of the evidence you are presenting rather than just producing lists.  -- Snowded   TALK  00:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you made a snide comment on the quality of sources when speaking of Sciabarra, and you imply that he isn't making independent judgements. How would you like it if people assumed that because you are a Roman Catholic you couldn't possibly make independent judgements about an atheist like Rand?  You accuse Sciabarra of having a 'declared interest' - Wouldn't that be a declared interest on your behalf?  If that is not the case, then how can you make such an accusation of Sciabarra?  You said the 'quality of the scholarship may or may not be high' - does that mean you don't even know!  Telling me to calm down... that is so condescending.  I have presented lists to help - while you have presented Original Research and unfounded complaints.  I, and others, are now presenting fully fleshed out quality cites (again).  While you are providing innuendo and slurs against someone you appear to have never read.  Where are your cites showing Sciabarra's scholarship is less than first rate? --Steve (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not a snide comment Steve (although that is pretty typical of your language). If the only sources on Rand were Catholic then it would represent a lack of balance.  If the sources are mostly from Rand based institutes then there are substantial issues in the same way.  You have presented long lists mostly without citation or links, and when those are checked questions are raised.  Of course I realise that you only present reliable sources and all those who disagree with you only indulge in innuendo, slurs and OR.  How foolish of me to challenge a hero of the cause.  -- Snowded   TALK  07:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

which specific claim is false? i tend to ramble and can't remember what i said to to multitude of arguments here. my basic argument is that both sides are full of it. my personal OPINION is that ayn rand is a philosopher. her lack of standing in the elitist halls of academia not withstanding. i acknowledge her lack of standing in "professional" philosophic circles. i am also am aware that i view her as a philosopher, as do lots of other people. although i view her as a philosopher, i am not myself, an objectivist. she has many fine points to make but seems a little nutty sometimes. i think the catholic church is nutty, that doesn't mean its not a religion. what very few people here are willing to do is say "its my OPINION" that ayn rand is or is not a philosopher. they have their sources that support their opinion, and all other sources be damned. "I HAVE PROVED THAT AYN RAND IS (or is NOT) A PHILOSOPHER" based on this or that. lets just use peer reviewed journals....but wait...what peer reviewed journals snowded wants to know. are they peer reviewed journals that support his (or her..new here) opinion. of course any peer reviewed journal that disagrees with snowded is suspect. if leonard peikopf says she is a philosopher and the ayn rand institute says she is a philosopher, that doesnt mean sh** either. once again i would like to point out that both sides are full of s.......not being objective (no pun intended). you are never going to prove that she is or isnt a philosopher!!! there is no definition of philosopher.......spare me your resources that define phillosopher that support your viewpoint, we've all seen them already. back to bifurcation....either she is a phillosopher or she is not a phillosopher. other options are available. she is a pop phillosopher? bad phillosopher? amateur phillosopher? rouge philosopher? aspired to be a philosopher? rebel philosopher? delusional author that called herself a phillosopher? phillosophical cult leader? idealogue? obnoxius bitch that offended my sensibilities? bad author that exspoused crazy ideas? great author that went a little nutty?Brushcherry (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * While I am sure you enjoyed that stream of consciousness Brushcherry, but it misrepresents the point and is hardly helpful in moving things forward. I am not interested in only finding peer reviewed journals that support my view, but in sorting out this mess.  That means that the peer reviewed journals need to be balanced (ie not from all one source, Catholic or "objectivist") and respected within the field of Philosophy.  I await a reasoned contribution to that debate, ideally without too many asterisks.  -- Snowded   TALK  08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * you prove my point. you do not accept peer reviewed journals that are not "balanced" in your opinion, no objectivist peer reviewed journals not catholic peer reviewed journals (not sure where that came from) but ayn rand is not a phillosopher peer reviewed journals are ok?  i did in fact enjoy that stream of conciousness.Brushcherry (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * This is getting really tiresome, but respecting WP:bite I will reply. If you read the threat you will see where the Catholic comment came from (I'll give you a hint its in one of Steve's contributions and my reply).  We are assessing if she can be called a philosopher or not.  I am suggesting that this should be a balance of encyclopedia/dictionaries of Philosophy and journals which are respected in the field.  The aim here is to try and find some objective approach.  -- Snowded   TALK  09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is really getting tiresome, "respected in the field"? what's that?  who exactly is respected in the field?  why are they respected in the field? who is in charge of philosohy in the secret world govt? Brushcherry (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * If you don't understand the various status of different journals in a field then there is little I can do to help you further. You might want to look at the earlier references to wikipedia pages and you will see the issues of authority etc. laid out.  It would be a minor investment of your time that would save considerable effort which will otherwise have to be expended by your fellow editors.  -- Snowded   TALK  11:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * poor little me, so uneducated to understand the status of different journals. what is the status of of various journals in the field? please enlighten me. no doubt they agree with your point of view.  hmmmm. yes i looked up some random issues of authority and found snowded is correct. ayn rand is a the anti-christ.Brushcherry (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brrushcherry
 * Hi Brushcerry -- maybe I can explain this a little bit because it's unfair to assume that everyone here is a professional academic. For serious and/or professional academics (to say nothing of philosophy departments), publishing in the "right" journal matters. Usually, the "right" journal matters for obvious reasons: future job employment, not to mention securing such things as tenure, wage increases, and other job benefits. The more one publishes in the "right" journals, the more likely it will be that recent PhDs will secure "post-docs," and post-docs will secure "assistant professorships" and assistant professors will secure "associate professorships", etc., etc., etc., up the food chain. What are the "right" journals? Usually, the "right" journals are those which are subject to a high degree of independently conducted blind peer-review in which the reviewers don't know the authors and vice versa. The more rigorous the vetting process, the greater the quality of the publication...at least in theory. University publications usually fit the bill. Nowadays, "respected" journals can be measured by way of publicly available citation indexes. The higher the number of citations to a specific journal, the more "respected" the journal is said to be. Now, here's the problem. Wikipedia considers a reliable source to be anything with a high degree of editorial oversight. A glance at the guidelines clearly indicate that "academic" sources matter. HOWEVER, with all due respect to others on this list, they are NOT the only reliable resources. Other reliable sources are acknowledged in the guidelines as independent third-party sources such as newspapers and magazines. Blogs obviously don't count nor do partisan websites and publications pushing an agenda. So, to get back to the issue at hand, what does one do with the serious policy issue of undue weight. How many sources does one need to state an undisputed "fact" as opposed to an "opinion"? 1? 2? 10? 20? Wikipedia policy states clearly that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints (emphasis added) that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to (emphasis added) the prominence of each." The policy continues by stating quite clearly: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources (emphasis added), not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. (emphasis added)" And therein lies the rub. This whole situation is about prevalence in reliable sources -- respected journals, university publications, newspapers, magazines, etc. The whole shoot and match. Some editors here --- for reasons I don't quite understand --- seem to have forgotten what the policy says, only to get caught up in side issues about whether a handful of sources stated XYZ. In all good faith, I believe they were missing the white elephant in the middle of the room. The prevalent view of Rand in reliable sources was to describe her as, first and foremost, a novelist. That is not my opinion, by the way. It's simply the prevalent view among reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As always, the devil is in the details. Hypothetically, let's say that someone neutral does such a meta-survey, and finds that 62% of philosophy-concerned RS's mention that she is a philosopher and 38% don't. We round it to a 3:2 ratio, and use a representative sampling of the most reliable ones on each side. Based on this, we insert into the appropriate section of the body of the article: "Sources differ in how they refer to Rand. For example, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Allan Gotthelf in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series, and her New York Times obituary all referred to her as a philosopher, while the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and the New York Times Arts & Culture section both refer to her, but not as a philosopher." I don't think anyone could argue the verifiability of that, though some might argue its notability.
 * But it would be erroneous to use this hypothetical meta-survey as a basis for saying this in the lead: "Her supporters' claims that she was a philosopher are widely disputed; almost half of all sources say she's only an author." Going from "they mention her but don't use the word philosopher" to "'they say she's not a philosopher" is false attribution. You can't assert that a source "really meant" something other than what they actually said. arimareiji (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, let me state firmly that I am neutral in my editing. To suggest that I'm not is a little insulting, but I'll take it in good faith that you weren't suggesting that I wasn't neutral and we'll leave it at that (not to be raised again, if that's alright with you). Second, one's occupation is easily discernible by way of a qualifier "so-and-so X" or "X, the known so-and-so". It's an easily verifiable way to determine how reliable sources identify a subject -- which ultimately is the question and is consistent with the verifiability policy. Was Ayn Rand known for being a novelist or a philosopher or perhaps something else? For the lead, the identification of one's occupation matters. Third, and perhaps most important to this discussion, no one is suggesting that we place a footnote documenting original research. What I am suggesting is that we take the undue weight policy seriously after reviewing all of the known verifiable reliable sources. I identified the appropriate policy passages above. The rest is up to ArbCom. There isn't any need to use adjectives like "meta" or "false attribution" in this particular discussion. J Readings (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the prefix meta- disturbs you, it might be helpful to read the WP entry on it. It's not particularly pejorative, but rather it's descriptive of the level on which debate or analysis occurs.
 * In my opinion, it is indeed false attribution to insert wording of "she's not a philosopher" (or remove RS-backed assertions of "she is a philosopher," which is the same) based on reading this reasoning into sources who actually 1) omit the word philosopher or 2) provide a listing of philosophers which doesn't include Rand (unless they assert that their listing is comprehensive). I believe this is true whether the sources and reasoning are explicitly attributed or implicitly attributed. If you disagree, you disagree. arimareiji (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Life Section citation issues
A lot of the cites in the Life section are to questionable sources. I think Sciabarra's book, The Russian Radical, discusses most of Rand's life, so we could replace a bunch of the current sources in this section with cites to Sciabarra's book. Does anyone who has the book want to give this a shot? Idag (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is best if we wait for the ArbCom to complete before resuming editing. But Sciabarra's book would be good for those. --Steve (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its an uncontroversial edit, hence no real need to wait (I'm not proposing changing the info, just updating the reference sources). Does anyone here have access to the book? Idag (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes upgrading to a more reliable or more authoritative source can result in a loss for the reader. For example, if the current reference is to an on-line biography of decent quality, it is better to either leave that, or to add Sciabarra so as to have two sources - one of which can be verified with a click of the mouse instead of a visit to a library, and as an instant path for more information if they desire. --Steve (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

An additional source is always better than an alternative source. Indeed, if they agree, then what is wrong with the old source? The more the merrier. Kja er (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For those sources that already meet WP:V, that's fine. But there are a number of sources in that section that do not currently meet that criteria, and should therefore be replaced. Idag (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lay off Edits til Arb is over
Yes, the flow was better with the sentences moved, and even the flagged comments removed by the editor who has recused himself from editting need support.

But editors like myself are holding off on any edits. I even reverted CoM's addition of philosopher out of good faith, not due to my objection. So let's all be grown ups, and waite for the ruling. If you really have to act now, ask for a vote first. Kja er (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * why do people make edits that they know are going to be removed anyway? its not like everyone is gonna go away for a weekend and for a few days you get to define ayn rand.Brushcherry (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Just to say that I support Kjaer in this and acknowledge that his reversal was in the spirit of the current state of the Armcom process. (Brushcherry I also formated your comment)  -- Snowded   TALK  08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * thankyou for formating my comment. Brushcherry (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * My understanding of ArbCom's refusal to full-protect this page was that we could make edits that would not lead to an edit war (hence my uncontroversial edits). If people would prefer to refrain from all edits, then I'll lay off. Idag (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My specific issue with your edit, Idag, was that while the flow was improved, the second sentence should just be deleted. It is not true that "some" of Rands books are based on experience.  Only one is, and it is fiction.  Also, she considered herself an opponent of statism, not communism, so that statement is inaccurate/undue weight.  But to address that I would have to start editting the entire lead.  So I would just prefer we hold off.  Like I said, if there is consensus and no objection to a change as controversial here first, I would have no problem. Kja er (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the second sentence needs to be deleted entirely. I was holding off on deleting anything though. Idag (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We should begin identifying sections, OR, &c., which harm the ability of this article to attain Good Article status. Two examples would be the misleading insertion of Rothbard (without qualification) as being influenced by Rand (when, if anything, he came away with a greatly negative impression of Rand, so any influence ended up hostile), and the claim that she has an "intellectual kinship" with Locke, which is unsupported and extremely questionable.  CABlankenship (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, what's the deal, CABlankenship? Do you want me to restore all the people deleted from that list? First, show some adult restraint, and lay off the substantial edits. You know this section is disputed. also, how in good faith are we supposed to sya that Rothbard's being an economist, or influenced by Rand is OR? did you read his article? I suggest you take your own advice, and edit where you can do so helpfully. Kja er (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was a "substantial" or "disputed" deletion. Rothbard was obviously hostile to Rand, and compared her to communist personality cult leaders. You ask me if I read "the article".  I can only assume you mean this one: The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard . I also didn't feel that deleting original research was substantial or disputed. I have been unable to verify anything like the claim that she had an "intellectual kinship" with Locke.  I personally find that phrasing absurd, as Locke (like Jefferson, Madison, &c.) derived their concept of natural rights only from the presupposition of a "good and just" creator. None of them would have agreed that natural rights could be derived without such a clause. It's misleading and, more importantly, unverifiable.  I deleted it because I didn't consider it substantial or disputed.  Do you feel that the original research section on Locke, and the claim that Rothbard was influenced by her (which is misleadingly thrown in with people whose reaction to her was positive), are substantial aspects of the article?  CABlankenship (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could the various camps Identify themselves?
who is a rand fan? who is a rand hater? who is tired of rand fans and rand haters? who is in between? don't accuse anyone of being anything. don't cite references to prove your case. i am only asking about you. from 1 to 10. 1 being "ayn rand is an evil b****"..to 10 being "she is right up there with aristotle".Brushcherry (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * This article has enough issues with WP:AGF already without attempting to formally divide ourselves into "factions". Read the comments of the various editors, I'm sure you can sort it out for yourself. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * well there are 17 archives, and a very very very long argument about the same topics. I am not attempting to formally divide you into "factions".  you are already divided into factions.  i just want to know where everyone stands.Brushcherry (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Can I strongly recommend that as a new editor you spend some time reading the various wikipedia help pages which have lots of relevant material that will help you understand just how inappropriate that request is, and might also help you with some of your other edits. WP:CITE and WP:AGF would be a good starting point.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I strongly recommend that you, as an old editor, do the the same. Assume good faith.  This article is a train wreck.  Do you deny that?  There is clearly two camps having an edit-war.  Show yourselves and let arbcom decide.Brushcherry (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * No -- Snowded  TALK  11:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yesBrushcherry (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * four edits, three via an IP just to say "yes"? Impressive dedication to the cause. -- Snowded   TALK  11:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * so sue me. you should all all ignore brushcherry  because he did four edits, three via an IP just to say "yes"Brushcherry (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

(undent) I don't think it can be broken down that simply, Brushcherry. For example, as I just said a little earlier, "I don't particularly like Ayn Rand or her conclusions. I don't much know her from Adam's housecat; the little I know about her, I don't find impressive. But I find no common cause with those who would turn her Wikipedia page into an attack page, or with those who would strip her of her accomplishments (such as they are) without any RS basis." If I were to score myself under your system, I would probably fall between 3 and 4 - but to the 1's and 2's around here, I probably look like an 8. arimareiji (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BrushCherry, this has never been about pro or anti Rand camps. It is about editing according to bias, or not.  It is easily possible for someone with a dislike for Rand or for her ideas to still do neutral and quality editing.  And it is also easily possible for someone who likes Rand and who agrees with most of her ideas to still do neutral and quality editing.  The ArbCom revolves around a couple of points, but the only really important one is a claim that some editors are consistently not choosing to be neutral in how they edit.  As to having people declare themselves, well, I hope that you can see that doesn't make any sense given that what needs to be identified are those who say they are being neutral, but really aren't.  That is why there is an ArbCom.  Beyond that, you are on your own trying to figure stuff out. --Steve (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to apoligize if my posts come off as tirades. "those who say they are neutral, but really aren't"  that's my point.  you (the false neutral editor..not steve) can quote all the wikipedia policies you want, it is clear to everyone else that either are anti-rand or pro-rand. so why don't you just go away a quit being a pest.  who are the people who constently add/remove stuff?  Brushcherry (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry


 * Openness in communication, rather than doublespeak, is a good thing. It allows us to directly talk to each other. The longer you can stay that way rather than becoming jaded, the better - but unfortunately, in the Wikipedia world it can be a vulnerability.
 * I think you might find this essay to be amusing; it shows that you're not the only one who feels these frustrations. arimareiji (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of both Ludwig van Beethoven and Pedro Almodovar. Kja er (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite fond of deviled ham and "The Godfather"Brushcherry (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Bruschcherry seems to be the one sane voice standing against the fools here. (I'm in the Brushcherry camp) i give her a 3.5. I am also one of the people who adds and removes stuff. why not? it's no more pointless than adding stuff to the talk page. Stevewunder (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * woo hoo.i got someone in my camp. wait....i dont have a camp.  adding/removing stuff from the main article affects millions of users of wikipedia.  the talk page just affects people with nothing better to do do than edit talk pages.  (that is, all of us reading this)Brushcherry (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry

Randites and P@pists, no doubt
While I am unaware of any registered users here sympathetic to Rand calling the Jews or Catholics here names, we have quite a history of people using the word cultist to refer to editors here as well as other derogatory terms. So, under the assumption that everyone wants to keep the dialog out of the gutter, just as we do not use slurs against Catholics and Jews and others, please do not make up derogatory names to describe us Objectivists. Other terms are a violation of WP:CIVIL.
 * I am curious, are you saying that "Randites" is a form of abuse (your second citation)? Objectivism has other meanings in Philosophy and I for one am really not prepared to allow its use as an exclusive label for people who follow Rand.  Have you other suggestions?  Now if you want to talk about cults in the Catholic Church then that is fine by me (there are several) and the word is used in respect of Rand in various sources including [ http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Cult-Jeff-Walker/dp/0812693906 this]. Are there collective names other than "Objectivism" which you are happy to accept.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also stopped using the term "Objectivists" for the group. I usually refer to her followers as "Randians". It's not a slur, anymore than calling evolutionary biologists "Darwinists" (even though many evolutionary biologists dislike the term) is a slur.  There is no reason to be overly-sensitive. I do find the comparison of Randism to other religious groups to be appropriate, however, and your point is well-taken.  Not that I believe that faith-based groups deserve undue respect, nor do I believe that it's objectionable to call Randism a cult (numerous respected academic sources have been cited for this opinion), rather, I believe that referring to editors here as cultists is unhelpful to progress.  However, if someone says that Randism is a cult, backs it up with solid sources, and her followers become angry, that's very difficult to avoid.  We cannot ignore relevant and verifiable facts (such as the fact that many respectable academics consider Randism a cult) simply because those facts might offend a small group of people. If I'm wrong on this score, point me towards the wiki guideline that such facts violate. CABlankenship (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I was always rather fond of "Papist". That kind of slur has character :D TallNapoleon (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True, now Fenian B****** or Filthy Taig is an insult, Papist has never worried me. -- Snowded   TALK  19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All of this dancing back and forth on what to call each other, with the names intended to be derogatory, while somehow staying inside of WP, but clearly violating its spirit, misses the whole point. Everyone has a POV - unless they are brain dead or in a coma.  But to get a good article requires editing that is not attempting to circumvent WP for the purpose of sneaking in or slanting the article towards a particular POV. --Steve (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, nobody suggested that we change "Objectivism" to "Randism" in the article, or anything like that. You'll need to identify actual evidence that people are editing for a POV, not merely make the accusation.  For me, I think misleading assertions (Rothbard thrown in with admirers in the influence section, disingenuous original research on Locke), and resistance towards the removal of such content, is an example of "sneaking in or slanting the article towards a particular POV", namely, trying to fabricate a relationship between Randism, Empiricism, and anarcho-capitalism which simply doesn't exist.  CABlankenship (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's an interesting problem: are users obligated to refer to the followers of Ayn Rand as "Objectivists" on this talk page? Is there any clear evidence that "Randian" is generally a derogatory term? I ask because Snowded makes a valid point that "objectivism" has multiple distinct meanings in philosophy, comparative religion and sociology. A quick glance at JSTOR, a scholarly database, confirms the existence of close to 4,000 peer-reviewed articles on the subject -- none of them mentioning Ayn Rand or her movement as the subject of the term. I'm just wondering what the proper etiquette should be in these types of situations. J Readings (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You might like to go over to Schools of Philosophy and make the point there! This issue is where much of the current debate started with the attempt to rename Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as Objectivism.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I might visit that page, but I haven't read enough of these articles to state anything definitive. I will say that I just read an interesting paper entitled "Professor Hayek's Philosophy" published in Economica, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 47 (Aug. 1945), pp. 149-162. It was a publication of Blackwell Publishing. Its author A. H. Murray discusses the school of economic thought known as objectivism that Hayek supposedly critiqued. Ayn Rand is never mentioned in the paper and, considering that Rand published The Fountainhead in 1943, I thought he might be referring to her. But no. Her work is never mentioned once. There are many, many papers like this discussing a school of thought known as "objectivism" without Rand ever being mentioned. J Readings (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CABlankenship, I didn't think of the sections labeled "Influence" as being only "admirers." I see Rothbard as having been influenced during his time with Rand (and he mentioned as much), as were all of those individuals who spent some time as part of the inner circle. Rothbard learned from her, then they disagree and break, they repudiate one another, they express different positions in some areas, and some of what Rothbard says after that is the kind of material that would go into a "Criticism" section.  I'm not trying to eliminate that.  Rand clearly was not a part of the Anarcho-Capitalist movement and I'm astounded to think that you believe I'm trying to slant the article that direction.  I'm not familiar with what you are referring to regarding Locke.  And I'm not intending to smuggle any POV or to fabricate any relationship that doesn't exist.  You on the other hand were quite clear in your statement that you were far too biased to ever do any neutral editing on this article. --Steve (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthew 7:15 again Steve, deal with the facts not the editor and heed your own advice earlier in this thread -- Snowded  TALK  21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind about being too biased to contribute to the article. I took a break and found that my contempt for Rand was replaced with mild amusement.  CABlankenship (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, take another look. Nothing in my post is other than a reference to a fact.  Your short little post, on the other hand, is just an implied statement that I did not stick with facts and am attacking an editor. Don't believe me?  Find one fact in your little post. --Steve (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ "far too biased to ever do any neutral editing on this article" for starters Steve. you and Kjaer are very quick to tell other people not to edit, or to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of bias. Hence my biblical reference. -- Snowded  TALK  22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're correct that "far too biased" is his characterization and hence opinion of CAB's post, rather than a fact per se. Saying someone is "biased" is indeed an opinion.
 * However, it is a verifiable fact to note that immediately after being asked to stop calling his opponents "Randites" for civility's sake, CABlankenship immediately 1) referred to "Randism" four times, 2) called it a putative "cult" thrice, 3) and alluded to "followers" and "cultists" who 4) coincidentally happen to "become angry" at being called a cult.
 * Just my personal opinion, but repeatedly skirting the edge of WP:CIVIL in such a fashion is hardly wise while under the scrutiny of ArbCom. At some point, they'll conclude that they have a duck on their hands.arimareiji (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I said, "...far too biased to edit..." I was quoting CABlankenship and he was talking about himself, he made that comment on DDStretch's talk page. That wasn't me giving my opinion, I was stating a fact, that he himself had said he was too biased to do neutral editing here. --Steve (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter for discussion
This is not a joke or a matter for discussion. I am Jewish by descent and have been confirmed in the Catholic faith. All forms of name calling must cease, and debating whether on can call people a name is just as offensive as the act itself. Kja er (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
A new editor has repeatedly vandalised the article: 12. I have warned him on his talk page. Kja er (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Invisible Vandalism
Well, saw some vandalism, decided to help pretty the name of Anonymous Editor. Unfortunatly, I can't find the actaul vandalism in the page source. It's not there. Could someone else take care of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.145.24 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

click on the numbers [1] and [2] above under the other Vandalism head to see the vandalism in the history. It has been deleted from the live article, and the user has been warned. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes i just made make the article better. If you disagree, please explain why. Stevewunder (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some very obvious, simple changes that could be made to the article that would improve it immediately. Mainly, get rid of the negative tone in the lead. I have attempted to do this and place the criticism under criticism, but of course that has been viewed as vandalism. you can't say i haven't discussed this matter here and that others haven't agreed with it -- but the stupid philosophy debate is holding everything else up.


 * Since we have all proved ourselves incapable of holding a mature discussion here, the best thing we can do is for ALL of the current editors to abandon the article and hope that the next group that comes along will prove more mature. I count myself in the current immature group, but i am no worse than the rest of it. Stevewunder (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A warning to all parties. The purpose for this page is discussion of the article.

Warnings are not a subject for discussion. Please read WP:NPA. Offensive terms are unacceptible, as is debate. Do not comment further. Further comments can be a violation of WP:NPA and off point discussions are abuse of the talk page. Please limit your discussion to improvement of the article. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is The Ayn Rand Talk Page
Thank you for your comments on how to improve the article. <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. JBsupreme (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit break
At the risk of heresy, why are both not possible? It's pretty evident that she's referred to as a philosopher, whether those who are opposed to her like it or not. Find an RS who says she isn't, or leave it alone. Likewise, we have at least two RS's saying that specific academic philosophy departments held her in low regard, whether those for her like it or not. Include the assertion she was held in low regard by some academic philosophy departments.

But the two aren't connected, and no amount of stretching and pulling will make the latter transpose over the former. arimareiji (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am in favor of a compromise for a variety of practical reasons, but I agree that ArbCom needs to make a ruling about policy in general. Either one can extrapolate from one reliable source or one cannot. For example, in the citations above and elsewhere, specific philosophy departments are not mentioned in the wording. General statements were (and can be) cited about academia in general. Either we accept the general cited statements or we do not. If it's the latter, it makes little sense to me (and I suspect others) to accept wording that states that only "some philosophy departments hold her in low regard" while, at the same time, extrapolating from other reliable sources to state that "everyone" considered Ayn Rand to be a philosopher in the form of a general statement. As I said before, I am neither for nor against Ayn Rand and I always thought it was irresponsible to start dragging our personal preferences into this discussion. That said, what matters is policy, how one interprets it, and its consistent implementation therein across Wikipedia. I would be surprised if anyone here disagreed. J Readings (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arimareiji I think the "both possible" was behind the idea to say that she was an author who created a philosophical movement. Otherwise it is nothing to do with whether you like Rand or not, its an issue of how to interpret WP:WEIGHT, so does any authoritative source validate it?  Most schools of Philosophy simply don't even have her on their radar (its not a matter of saying held in low regard), most Directories do not include her.  All of this is aside from the need to examine sources such as Steve's lists to validate them.  Its an issue on other articles not just this one.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm content with the dictionary.com definition as authoritative on the matter - she pretty clearly fits into defs 1 and 3, and whether she fits the rest is (pardon the pun) academic. arimareiji (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But isn't what you are suggesting also Original Research, Arimareiji? Where is Ayn Rand mentioned in that dictionary definition? J Readings (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "A" dictionary definition. Another says a person engaged or learned in philosophy, esp. as an academic discipline.  The OED says  1. a. A lover of wisdom; an expert in or student of philosophy (in various senses); a person skilled or engaged in philosophical inquiry. Formerly also: a learned person, a scholar (obs.).  Originally denoting an expert in or student of any branch of knowledge, including the physical and natural sciences, alchemy, prophecy, the occult, etc., but in later use applied chiefly to those versed in the metaphysical and moral sciences. In the 20th cent. the term was generally restricted to those studying the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. as an academic discipline.  My bold.  You can't just call someone a philosopher because they have an opinion on ethical or other matters.
 * However I really think you are missing the point here. How do we balance some authoritative citations with an absence of mention in multiple sources where, if the condition was true, you could expect to find it.  Summarised as the "prove a negative" question it affects many articles, especially ones like intelligent design and pseudo-science sites.   My interest is in resolving that, the Ayn Rand status is a minor incidental.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * J Readings - Perhaps it is OR. But if it's OR to look in a dictionary and see that one of the listed definitions of philosopher is something that even her fierce critics concede is true of her... then what is a meta-analysis of how many search engines and dictionaries mention Ayn Rand and don't use the word philosopher?
 * By that line of reasoning, Barack Obama's not the President of the United States because The Seattle Times, Reuters, and the LA Times all mention him by name (in stories posted within the last hour), but never use the word President. At the very least we can assume that these extremely reliable sources are asserting he's not the President, aye? arimareiji (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded - dictionary entries are inclusive, not exclusive. Otherwise, I could say that you're not an editor because you're not "a device for editing film or magnetic tape." arimareiji (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Oh please, the definition of the President of United States is capable of verification by the electoral college etc. Ditto Island and other the other false analogies. Let me put this really simply for you: If there are say 5 authoritative  dictionaries/enccyclopedias of Philosophy which list individual philosophers and only one includes someone and the others don't then are they a philosopher? That is the question and its a question of policy for the wikipedia. If the policy is one source then I will accept the label. If weight means looking at the balance of sources then we need either a qualified statement or a compromise such as "her writing inspired a philosophical movement known as" or similar. As to your "editor" comment, I really don't think I am going to dignify that with a comment -- Snowded   TALK  17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Your words were "'A' dictionary definition," followed by a different one which you prefer. This indicates you think that if someone doesn't fit all possible definitions of XYZ, they aren't XYZ. By that line of reasoning, you aren't an editor - because one of the definitions of editor is "a device for editing film or magnetic tape." QED. arimareiji (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't indicate any such thing, you said "the" I pointed out you should have said "a". Simple really but I see from elsewhere that you enjoy this style of game playing so I think I will let my comments stand and not indulge you further.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If by "game" you mean "Wikipedia" and by "playing" you mean "engaging in logic-based debate," then I have to plead guilty. And I think it's amusing that you enjoy wikistalking so much, given this and other comments you keep making about looking through other people's edit histories. Stalk away, it's not my time you're wasting - all you'll find is that I'm a stubborn old man who edits a variety of topics. arimareiji (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Arimareiji I really do think you are missing the point here. Which is, the question of how to balance some authoritative citations with an absence of mention in multiple sources where, if the condition was true, you could expect to find it. Summarised as the "prove a negative" question it affects many articles, especially ones like intelligent design and pseudo-science sites. We should be striving to resolve that. By the way, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, does not mention Rand at all, except in the article 'amateur philosophy'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had enough experience of sock and meat puppets on controversial pages to check out recent edits on any new editor. Its part of the transparency of WIkipedia and helps give you a quick view of the editors style of engagement and how one should respond.  Call it stalking if you want but you are not using that word in the  Wikipedia sense of the word.  As to your guilty plea, sorry I did not mean "Wikipedia" or "logic based debate". (now I've broken my resolution and indulged you, damn)  -- Snowded   TALK  18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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? Gyrae (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For the anti-Randers the primary criteria she would need to meet is that she not be Ayn Rand. Trying to pin these folks down to any objective standard is an exercise in pointlessness. They don't want her to be called a philosopher despite that she was philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of only one professional philosopher; he works as a "philosophy consultant". The rest are all teachers. Rklawton (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)