Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 28

Rand in Popular Culture?
With the recent addition of the mention of Rand by a character in a video game we see an example of an unending phenomenon. Would it not be reasonable to create a Rand in Popular Culture article, and redirect such additions to that article? I know that some people would object to this aesthetically, but is it against Wikipedia Policy? Kja er (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GOD NO! Kill it! Kill it with fire! Whenever you think of making an "in popular culture" article, see WP:TRIVIA and this, and then DON'T. Those articles are abominations before God and man, they add absolutely nothing of value to the encyclopedia, invariably becoming horribly written collections of utterly irrelevant trivia. Any kind of serious analysis of a figure's portrayal in popular culture, which might be notable, gets buried in the trivia (see Adolf Hitler in popular culture for a particularly instructive example). And even meaningful analysis on these figures portrayals in pop culture runs into immediate problems with WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH. This has nothing to do with my opinion on Ayn Rand, incidentally. I loathe pop culture lists with the firey burning passion of a thousand white hot suns, and I almost always try to get rid of them wherever I find them. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * seems a bit flippant.Brushcherry (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

It might help, TallNapoleon, if you could make your opinion a bit more clear here. I would clarify that I didn't want to entitle the article "Serious Analysis of Rand in Popular Culture" and would not be unhappy with "Utterly Irrelevant Trivia regarding Ayn Rand in Popular Culture". I tend to be an inclusionist, but not so much an inclusionist as to think these perennial additions will stop. If there were another article for this, no one would be forced to read it. Once a bit of stuff had been added, no one would be tempted to add it again. On the other hand, if we exclude the latest trivia here, it will certainly be added again within a few weeks, along with the Futurama porn reference, the Ayn Rand School for Tots (notable, I would say) and the South park Chicken Fucker episode. The problem being that some people don't see this as trivia. Kja er (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the additions don't stop we can just keep reverting them. See here's my opinion of pop culture lists: X mentions Y doesn't tell us anything about X. Unless X mentioning Y is notable in its own right, there's no reason to have it mentioned on WP. I tend to be a deletionist, and tbh I actually think that my conflict with you and Steve is much more about inclusionism vs. deletionism. What we might consider doing is adding a section called Cultural Significance, and include only one or two of the most notable references, in the main article. I did this for Dodo about a year ago, removing a bloated popular culture section in the process, and it fairly successfully discouraged recreation of that section, and it also implies that only significant references should be placed there. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dagwyn and I were both against the video game addition. In the game, Bio Shock, the Rand-based society falls apart before the main character even gets there (the game consists of the character going on a shooting spree against the bad guys living in the ruins).  Apart from saying that this society fell apart before the game's story began, there's really no Rand influence in this game. Idag (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GODWIN'S LAW. look it upBrushcherry (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Oppose. Pop culture lists on Wikipedia can quickly get completely ridiculous. Agree with TN here. Jomasecu talk contribs 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the disagree-ers here. Stevewunder (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the disagree-ers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the additions don't stop we can just keep reverting them....hello? edit war? if the revertions don"t stop we can just keep adding them? do any of you listen to yourselves?  your edits are ok but other edits are not.Brushcherry (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * I don't see where anyone has said that if the reversions don't stop they should still be added. And if even Kjaer, TallNapoleon, and Idag agree (among several others including myself) that pop culture trivia doesn't belong, that's a pretty reliable indicator that it's a Very Bad Idea.
 * (Personally, I like TallNapoleon's characterization best - "GOD NO! Kill it! Kill it with fire!") arimareiji (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer,snowded,tallnapolean,idag
although my personal opinion leans towards kjaer, i don't trust any of these guys. i want to assume good faith. perhaps some of my posts have been amateurist. i admit that. what little i know about arbcom is that the zealots will take over the argument. somehow, ayn rand will join scientology, isreal/palestine, and the occupation of lithuania, as pages that can not reach a consensus. of course, kjaer,snowded,tallnapolean,idag, have all their arguments ready to go. we have all heard them before. anyone want to be my mentor? me gots lots to learn about wikipediaBrushcherry (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Hrmm, if you really want a mentor I'm almost definitely not your guy. Check out WP:Adopt-a-user if you're interested. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * yes....you are probably not the best candidate for my mentor. thanks for the input though. please dont be so flippant re: request for mentorship.Brushcherry (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * The first thing he'd insist is that you not rely on reason. And he'd lead by example.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jazzfan, that is yet another (of many) breeches of WP:GF. Why do it?  -- Snowded   TALK  16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do I do what, accurately point out that Tnap has explicitly stated that he doesn't believe reason should be held as a primary value and an absolute even though he's never demonstrated where something could be shown to be a better alternative?TheJazzFan (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Was actually being quite serious. I'd be a terrible choice for anyone's mentor. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just curious, ya'll. Is the Arbcom case on this article, still open? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. In addition, please note that there does not appear to be a general prohibition on all editing until ArbCom rules. But please also note that there are some common-sense guidelines to be applied in deciding whether or not any given edit should be made, one being clear and broad consensus. arimareiji (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have clearly judged very wrongly. We seem not to disagree on one word, but on every word. It is apparently too controversial to call her controversial without qualifying it. We have taken 30 steps forward and 30 steps back. I don't think the article is any worse now, but I don't think it is any better. I'm glad this isn't a group class project, or we would all get F's. Stevewunder (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: steps forward and steps back, yup - as I said here.TheJazzFan (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean "drawing both admiration and criticism"??? Isn't that what the word controversial means? Everyone gets negative style points. And I'm disappearing to the L Ron Hubbard site...Stevewunder (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fountainhead making Rand famous
I removed the "famous" part for now until we get a reliable source for it. Idag (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The current reference is a cite to a Cliffnotes. That is not a valid source. Idag (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a source, a valid, verifiable source. It might not be the best, but it is adequate and I can't see any reason to remove it or to question the statement. If you look at the sales figures for Fountainhead, and that she wrote the screenplay for the movie that the book inspired, it becomes clear that this was the book that began her fame. --Steve (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not a reliable source. In addition, book sales do not mean that she was famous.  If you want to say that she wrote a high-selling book,, then book sales sources can support that.  If you want to say that the Fountainhead made her famous, you need a source that says the Fountainhead made her famous. Idag (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything in reliable source that would exclude Cliff's Notes, but here is another that I will add: "The Fountainhead (1943). The novel was rejected by many publishers before finally being accepted by the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house. Despite these initial struggles The Fountainhead was successful, bringing Rand fame, notoriety, and financial security." http://www.onpedia.com/encyclopedia/ayn-rand There are other proofs of her fame at that period of time, like the interview with Mike Wallace when Atlas Shrugged had not been out long enough to have taken her fame far beyond where it was at the time, and an interview with her typist at the time, who was typing the manuscript for Atlas Shrugged reported that a bank clerk told her that she shouldn't cash one of the checks she was paid with (one for a small amount) in order to have a souvenir of such a famous person. --Steve (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the second source you added, so I removed Cliffnotes since that was an inferior source. Issue resolved =) Idag (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Onpedia is not a reliable source for the purpose of Wikipedia, I believe. It needs to be removed as it seems to be based on Wikipedia itself. See: http://www.onpedia.com/. J Readings (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a discussion before deleting the sources that have been put up. I have two sources for something that isn't even contriversial - Rand was sought out for speaking engagements, for interviews, even for autographs as a result of Fountainhead. --Steve (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point, Steve. You can't use a source that uses Wikipedia as its source. It's simply not allowed on Wikipedia. This is not my opinion; it's Wikipedia policy. "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources." See WP:SELFPUB. Onpedia explicitly states that their material comes from Wikipedia: "Our articles come from Wikidpedia, which is an online encyclopedia that is edited by the general public." Sorry, it needed to be removed. J Readings (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)The fact that a novel has been abbreviated by CLiffnotes is, in a way, a proof of its notariety and fame. Rand is one of the most popular and best selling authors in the history of Literature. If I'm not mistaken only the Bible has out-sold Atlas Shrugged...but I'll get back to you on that. I agree w/ Editor:SteveWolfer that requests to verify Rands fame are like requests to verify that Aristole was a Philosopher. There is NO controversy.--Buster7 (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC): Buster7 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm perfectly happy to have the thing about The Fountainhead in there with a citation needed. It's definitely true, although I can't recall sources atm. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * J Readings is correct about Onpedia mirroring Wikipedia and that specifically rules it out as a source and I'll remove that source. The other source, the cliff notes is written by someone with considerable understanding of Rand (check out his other books) and it is a solid source.  Besides, this should not even begin to be controversial - like I said, she was being sought out for interviews, speaking engagements, and autographs at this time. --Steve (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Use the Cliff's Notes for now, but there's got to be a better source for that available somewhere... maybe Branden's book? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just cite directly to the book that the Cliffnotes are summarizing? Idag (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of sync
I propose that we change the first thread to "Early Life" and move the "Later Years" and "Declining health and death" down in the article. As they are now their location is out of sync and disjointed. For instance, Brandon is mentioned without any clue as to his importance in her life. Im not sure where they fit in since the article turns into a discussion of her philosophy and rightfully so. But where this info is presented now is only confusing to our reader.--Buster7 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not oppose this in principle, (have thought the same myself) but doing it without controversy will be difficult. Kja er (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think we can move a lot of the philosophy stuff to the Objectivism article and leave stubs in this article so that it can have a greater focus on Rand's biography. I mean why have two articles that repeat the same detailed information? Idag (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it would be a good test of intent and action. I agree with the suggested change and it would remove several controversies. -- Snowded   TALK  16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved section to the end of article, above Legacy, where it logically should be--Buster7 (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Do Not Add Material Below This Section

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
The IEP entry by philosophy professor Stephen Hicks seems to be the clearest source for the "philosopher" usage, so I've added that with proper reference. Let me know what you think. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-02-11 17:44Z


 * Yes, but keep in mind that Professor Hicks was a senior fellow at The Objectivist Center. CABlankenship (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an independent source, considering the connection. Peter Damian (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen Hicks is the chairman of the philosophy department at Rockford College. During a sabbatical from Rockford, in 1999-2000, he was a senior fellow at the Institute for Objectivist Studies.  Post-Doc fellowships are common and in no way diminish the reliability of this source.  It is inappropriate to imply that his scholarship or integrity are somehow impaired from that connection.  --Steve (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't diminish his scholarship to say he's not independent. Basically, we need independent sources--sources not related to Rand or Rand-institutes. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the "playing field", Professor Hicks may not be the best choice to be the home plate umpire.--Buster7 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hicks is a crappy source when there are far more reliable and more respected sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Walker and Austin Chair
I removed the "lack of rigour" and Ausin chair sentence as both redundant and unsupported by the Walker ref. I have absolutely no objection to a quote of Walker's criticism appearing under his name in the criticism section. But one hostile author (Ayn Rand Cult) does not support the general statement - and in any case Tibney's statement just below says the exact same thing. Also, the Austin chair was also already mentioned, so no need to repeat it. Kja er (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was a bad paragraph, in part because the Austin post (not a chair) is hardly evidence of acceptance given its date and funding source. We do need an agreed form of words that establishes that she is largely ignored within Philosophy and I will give some attention to that later.   For the moment I support the deletion on the basis that we going to replace it with something better.  -- Snowded   TALK  06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I do not oppose simply adding Walker's quote as a criticism, if if is attributed to him and properly sourced. Kja er (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * dudes, give it a rest. you are never gonna prove that she is or is not a philiosopher.Brushcherry (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * No give rest. If there is a would-be philosopher who should be characterised by lack of rigour, it is this one.  Peter Damian (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmmm.you just called her a philosopher (qualified with "would-be)Brushcherry (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * A dead man is not a man, a fake diamond is not a diamond, a would-be philosopher is someone who would be a philosopher, but isn't. Peter Damian (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

reverting
I have reverted to the version we agreed upon until the Arbcom decision. A number of my edits were reverted on the same grounds, so can we have level playing field here please? Peter Damian (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, Arbcom clarified that we could keep editing the article. It does seem to appear that a new consensus is very slowly beginning to develop, so I don't think the reversion was necessary. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is necessary. The 'lack of rigour' stays. And, sorry, what consensus.  Consensus means everyone.  Peter Damian (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)]
 * Actually it doesn't. See WP:What_is_consensus%3F. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter, you don't really appear to care about consensus, since you demand that the 'lack of rigor' stays - and there certainly is NO consensus when you have to revert to have your way. I suggest we look at the changes you just forced upon everyone, and see which ones, if any have ANY concensus.  You rolled over the work a number of us did today, some of which involved sourced material.  This is a particularly poor time to be heavy handed with reversions when we are trying to find common ground while working with ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * @Peter...There should be no claim of consensus or prior agreement without a wikilink to the relevant thread(s) that supposedly established it. This would have created the least friction and been a significant step showing collaborative progress.--Buster7 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you do not set consensus yourself. please do not destroy the hard fought good will version accepted by Snowded, myself and many others. Your behavior is unacceptable. I have reverted to the actual latest consensus with philosopher omitted, and mention of both praise and criticism. Kja er (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that Peter made some edits, there was no discussion of content issues before making a mass revert. Please stop mass-reverting without prior talk page discussion and a consensus for such a revert. If you agree/disagree with something in the lede and the consensus is unclear, just discuss it on the talk page. Idag (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter did more than just make a few edits, he massively and unilaterally changed the lede without any consensus. We need to find a way to work together better than this.  Idag, Kjaer did not do a mass revert, he put it back to where it was before Peter's massive changes... and, yes, you and I lost a small changes we had worked on.  But the difference in her influence in America versus the rest of the world is best handled in the Influence section.  What is most important now is to control ourselves short of an editing war. --Steve (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After all this, I wouldn't want to be around when the parents get home. Stevewunder (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The way to avoid an edit war is to have a talk page discussion BEFORE doing a mass revert. Adding/removing a sentence or two, that's fine, but when you mass-revert a section, get a consensus first.  Doing the revert and then dropping a talk page comment about it is not the proper way to do it. Idag (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a sentence or two is fine? so i can add philosopher to writer? i can change "respected" to "would-be".  Don't worry, i am not going to ever edit the ayn page,  you guys have to much fun without me.Brushcherry (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Get Consensus
People are making changes without seeking any consensus and on this article, with its contentitious history, that is not a good idea. Childof Midnight takes out the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and put in "two" - but that reduces the amount of information and is incorrect because she had more than two best sellers. TallNapoleon removes the information about Rand being an opponent of Nazism even though it had been sourced and fought over in the recent past. For anything in the lede we should always try it out here on the talk page first. --Steve (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazism
Per WP:LEDE, the only way this belongs in the lede is if the article includes a great deal about her opposition to Nazism. Frankly almost all Americans opposed Nazism by the late 30s, so I don't see that having it in the lede--despite it being sourced--adds much of anything. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The short phrase you removed, just a few words, expanded what was included in her political opposition. I don't think that Nazism was the correct word to use.  What should have been there was "fascism" - because that is the generic term as opposed to the historically specific term of 'Nazism'.  And it should be 'socialism' rather than communisim (that being the more generic).  It is important to include these, and 'welfare state' or 'mixed economy' when using the concept of 'opposed to collectivism,' since many readers wouldn't understand what is implied in that opposition and because some political theorists wouldn't oppose the same things.  This is what I recommend we put in: "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, socialism, and the welfare state."  That gives us accuracy, and avoids errors in understanding from those not familiar with these terms. --Steve (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Do people think the term "welfare state" is possibly too loaded? TallNapoleon (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Welfare state" can be seen as loaded, but reads better. "Mixed economy" would be the closest neutral phrase, and is a touch more accurate since it can be a mix of facist controls and/or socialist programs with free enterprise.  It would read, "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, socialism, and a mixed economy."  Or that last phrase could be, "..., or any mixture thereof." --Steve (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not all mixed economies would necessarily be welfare states (consider a state with heavy economic regulations but little or no social welfare programs, for instance). A welfare state would, however, be included under the rubric of the "mixed" economy. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "a state with heavy economic regulations but little or no social welfare programs" - you mean like the US? ;-) arimareiji (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted sentence
I have deleted this sentence

"She frequently depicted heroes standing against the mob, amid derisive depictions of trade unions, socialism, altruism and egalitarianism, arguing for rational self-interest"

There is a confusion as to whether the depiction itself is standing amid (among) derisive depictions, which is probably what is meant, but not expressed by the grammar, and the literal grammatical meaning which is a hero standing in the middle of depictions, which is what logicians call a 'category mistake'. 'Depictions' occurs to soon after 'she depicted', which is poor style. And the word 'arguing for rational self-interest' is probably meant to refer to Rand, but grammatically refers to the hero. Either way, it is an abomination and I have removed it. Peter Damian (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I think the last sentence is also weak. "While her ideas and work have drawn both admiration and criticism, her influence outside the English-speaking world has been limited." The word 'while' is usually intended to draw a contrast between the two sentences it joins. I don't see any contrast or connection here. You might say 'While (or 'although') her work has been popular in English-speaking world, her influence outside the English-speaking world has been limited. Which is not true anyway, as the many Brits on this page have observed. The fact is that while Rand has enjoyed some success in America, her influence outside America has been limited. For that is the truth. I first came across Rand from an article by Quinton in the Oxford Companion calling her an 'amateur philosopher'. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone reverted and replaced 'depicted' with 'dramatized', but has clearly failed to understand what is still wrong with that sentence. Need for a course in basic English, or writing school. Or just school? Peter Damian (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should step back and reread WP:NPA. Your insults are not warranted. If you think a sentence has a grammatical error, then fix the error, don't delete the sentence. Also, I fixed the participle, but perhaps you didn't read the correction. Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just deleting illiterate nonsense. You still don't understand what was wrong with the sentence.  Read carefully what I said above. Peter Damian (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Psychological criticism
Steve, you didn't even try to provide a rationale for your removal of the psychological criticism section. It was suitably cited and perfectly factual. There is a sizable body of work by respected clinicians such as Albert Ellis who say that Ayn Rand caused psychological harm to her followers. Whether or not you agree with that statement, it is factual. Is there some reason other than you, personally, believing something different that you removed it? -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not imagine a respected clinician claiming a novelist caused psychological damage to a "follower. It may be a statement, but I doubt that it is a factual statement.--Buster7 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Smash, since that's going to be a controversial section, how about you post the proposed language on the talk page so that we can all discuss it? If possible, I would ask you to wait to do that until ArbCom is over so that we can straighten out some of the current issues before we tackle a new one. Idag (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was wondering something similar. What was the exact wording in the original text? Did Albert Ellis explicitly call Rand a "psychopath"--and if so, why? Best to cite the passage in full. That would make for interesting reading I would think. If Smash was paraphrasing, I would still be interested in reading the original text. Either way, provided that it's factual, I think it adds to the article considering that it's coming from Ellis. J Readings (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the Popular Influence section
Kjaer restored the list of individuals that were being examined before the warring froze the page. At that time we had agreed that work needed to be done - perhaps a side box to hold names, and perhaps some pruned out all together - and perhaps a little better organization.

If we don't start with that previous version of the section on the article, then we need it here - on the talk page or in some sand box - because we need to regain the degree of consensus we had back then and to move and finish that section.

Popular Influence is an important section because Rand put her philosophical work out in the public domain, as was once done by all philosophers, as opposed to making it primarily an academic activity as the more recent philosophers are doing.

Also, there is the need to deal with her popularity as a novelist. And we need more definitive answers to the influence in America versus the influence outside of America. Quotes saying, "...limited..." don't give any real information. We should be able to get sales figures for different countries and languages and let them tell us the ratio.

Comments? --Steve (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The main question is do we want lots of names. You would normally just have major figures which is the current state. I suggest resolution of that first.  Your statement on Philosophers and the public domain is not really true.  I can list several (Blackburn, Williams and others) who have published popular works.  Its not something special about Rand.  -- Snowded   TALK  22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would limit the language to just a few people and actually explain how Rand influenced their lives. Otherwise the section turns into a glorified Trivia section. Idag (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly -- who needs a glorified trivia section? When Nietzsche influenced Heidegger, or when Schopenhauer influenced Nietzsche, or when Kant influenced Schopenhauer, or (different tract) when Hegel influenced Marx -- these were meaningful, specific, path breaking, historic moments that every reader interested in the subject matter of political thought should know. I suspect that I was not alone in finding the "influence" section of the Ayn Rand article to be a meaningless piece of shallow advertising with absolutely no use to the reader whatsoever. How did Ayn Rand influence the "deep thoughts" of actress Angelina Jolie or Wikipedia-founder Jimbo Wales or any of the countless others listed? If citations from reliable, independent secondary sources cannot be provided, I strongly suggest that (first) the name should be discarded from the list. Second, if the name does have reliable sources, but lacks any historical "punch," I would agree with Idag that it be limited to a handful of specific "successors" in thought who followed Rand's work to new notable roads. Otherwise, the article will revert to its gradual disintegration into becoming a shallow "fan piece" devoid of any real substance. J Readings (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but we have the same editors who want to comment on how Rand's following is limited to the right-wing political fringe in America and who argue that she is not taken seriously in philosophy or elsewhere wanting to delete references to philosophers and such people as Turkish director Sinan Cetin who belie such claims.

The debate was whether to keep the section or to shorten it to an info box. There is no justification in deleting verifiable material about notable people. This is not a trivia list, it goes directly to contested issues, and in reality it is only objectionable material because it shows the extent of Rand's influence. Add all the actual criticisms you like under the criticism section. I have never argued to delete it. When it gets too big it can be its own article. The same here. If the section gets "too big" then we will simply follow WP policy and split it out to a separate 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) 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of justification and I just gave it. J Readings (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Kjaer, if we take you at your word that "there is no justification in deleting verifiable material about notable people," then I expect you to be at the forefront of those wanting Prof. Raymond Boisvert's criticisms of Rand re-added to the Criticism section. After all, Prof. Boisvert's criticism was both "verifiable" and from a "notable person." One cannot have it both ways in this discussion. J Readings (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem adding Boisvert to a list of people who were critical of Rand. I will not pretend that his saying Rand is "out of sync" with Modern America was a philosophical criticsm. Perhaps he did offer philosophical criticisms of her. But if he did, no one offered them. Let's here one and we can put him in the proper section. <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) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Last month's version of the influence list, which I more or less support:


 * Rand has had an influence on a number of notable people in different fields. Examples include philosophers such as John Hospers,George H. Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Robert Mayhew and Tara Smith, economists such as George Reisman and Murray Rothbard, psychologists such as Nathaniel Branden, historians such as Eric Daniels, and political writers such asCharles Murray. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, U.S. Congressmen Ron Paul, and Bob Barr, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas have acknowledged her influence on their lives. The "Randex" website lists recent media references to Rand or her work. Although not Objectivists, the popular right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh makes frequent positive reference to "Atlas" on his radio program, and former PresidentRonald Reagan described himself as an "admirer" of Rand in private correspondence in the 1960s.

TallNapoleon (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Idag (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not offering any WP rationale for censoring the list. People like David Kelley and Tibor Machan are quite notable, and proof of this has been offered before. You have no grounds for excluding these people. They are notable and Rand's influence in each case is verifiable. And it is a strange show of good faith indeed for people who wish to say how little influence Rand has had to want to exclude mention of people who exhibit that influence. If you have a problem with the size of the list, we can always have another article. Let us stick to WP policy and not personal preference. <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) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The people themselves may be notable, but is Rand's influence on them notable? I would notice that the current more concise list has now been up for quite some time, and there is still no elaboration for how Rand influenced any of these people in a notable way.  Do that first, and then we'll talk about expanding the list. Idag (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

An Apology
I posted a lengthy list of sources on this talk page a while back. It was not intended to be exclusive, definitive, or in the form of finished cites. But it was put forth as supporting Rand as a philosopher (which she is). But I included two sources (The Oxford Companion to Philosophy and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy) that should not be there.

This was pointed out to me earlier by an editor (Snowded?), and then again by CABlankenship who rudely and inaccurately called me dishonest (ArbCom Evidence). I had several sources on a list that I wanted to check when I went to the library, they ended up being copy pasted onto the list of supporting sources, which in turn was pasted into the talk page. I made an error, but it wasn't a matter of dishonesty, it was an accident. It turns out that Rand IS mentioned in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (page 704 in the 1995 edition, page 740 and also in the front matter on the 2005 edition), but the mentions are very minor. If that list has not been archived I will strike out those names. Too late, it's been archived. --Steve (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't locate any reference on p 740, but I have the 1995 edition. As for the mention on p 704, I have for a long time pointed out that this refers to her as an 'amateur philosopher' Peter Damian (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of the apology (and the hopeful realisation that long lists without supporting evidence are a bad idea), can we have the name of the Philosophy Professor in california who you (Steve) have on several occasions claimed takes Rand seriously? As Peter has pointed out, the context of any mention is as, if not more important to understand if the evidence can be used.  -- Snowded   TALK  15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Snowded. Long lists, provided as a starting point for doing research, are better than no lists at all - when they don't contain the kind of error mine did.  The problem was in my mixing up two lists, not in attempting to move things forward by supplying leads to good sources.  As to the philosophy professor in California, it tickles me that you keep asking for his name.  I have no doubt that you will find fault with him, or with what he says, or the source, should I produce it (just because that has been an unrelenting pattern of yours that has no exceptions :-).  --Steve (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead again
the lead is getting curiouser and curiouser. i don't think my edits were MUCH more absurd than many of the others.

conclusion of Lead now reads: "Yet while she was best known for her political philosophy" -- WHAT? who says THAT? ",Rand developed a full philosophical system" -- I guess the emphasis is on "full" - huh? -- --"saying "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."" wait. wait. what the hell sort of INTRO is that? curiouser and curiouser. i think my Amy Winehouse reference was no more out of place in that paragraph.

Declining Health and Death: It takes 3 full paragraphs for Rand to finally die and there is a picture of her tombstone. Why? Every dead person died. Are these details relevant? imagine every bio on WP giving 3 paragraphs to how that person died. with a tombstone.

quit trying to glorify this woman. quit trying to malign this woman.

and why is Noam Chomsky mentioned as a philosopher? surely Ayn Rand is better known as a philosopher than Chomsky. Stevewunder (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll have to take that up at the Chomsky article. Idag (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i mean the Chomsky reference in THIS article under Criticism.
 * Because Chomsky was an influential philosopher when he was at his peak. GoogleScholar search for Chomsky=34,000 hits; GoogleScholar search for Rand=5,000 hits. Idag (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But Chomsky didn't write a single work that would be considered Philosophy in the Western Tradition. Wait? Does the academic world consider Chomsky a Philosopher now? I doubt it. Stevewunder (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * again in the lead: what is the point of saying here work is in the "classical liberal tradition"? the lead is an Intro. it should strive for clarity, not obscurity. it may be a true, cited statement, but that doesn't make it good. most americans will be completely thrown off by the statement, since the classical liberal tradition is not a part of american politics, but european politics -- and of course the "modern liberal" is more or less the exact opposite of the "classical" -- so there is a breezy pretension to the phrase Stevewunder (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're preaching to the choire. However, a lede is supposed to provide an overview of the rest of the article, and at the moment this article is way too unstable for us to get a decent quasi-permanent lede.  Right now, just work on some uncontroversial content, and then, once ArbCom wraps up, we'll do a list of issues that need to be addressed. Idag (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another list of deltions. Surprise, suprise. Just don't forget the results of the last RfC as to whether you have consensus for your program.

So you agree, Idag, that more people know Rand as a philosopher than Chomsky? I'll take you at your word on that. So do we delete the mention under his name or restore it under hers? I'll let SteveWunder decide. <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) 03:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the cite for Chomsky as "philosopher" is from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, one of those stately tomes we have heard again and again don't call Rand a philosopher. So the question comes down to: Is the Oxford Dictionary of P a credible enough source in deciding who is and ain't a philosopher? If it is, then Chomsky is a philospher and Rand isn't. If it isn't, then Chomsky may not be a philosopher (he isn't, by the way: he is a language theorist and political consipiracy theorist -- he is only a philosopher in a very broad sense of the term) and THUS the fact it doesn't include Rand as a P means should NOT COUNT AS NEGATIVE EVIDENCE. hence, the NEGATIVE EVIDENCE argument is blown. those are my thoughts. Stevewunder (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i think the very fact the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy counts Chomsky a philosophy -- discredits it as an infallible source in determining philosopher status and sheds a lot of doubt on similarly named reference sources. again, this should do a lot of damage to the Absence of Mention as an evidence argument, since these sources aren't that rigorous. Stevewunder (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or it could be mentioning Chomsky because, notwithstanding your personal opinion, he is one of the most cited philosophers of the 1980s. In any event, the philosopher debate is on hold for now, so stop beating the issue. There's plenty of noncontroversial edits to be made. Idag (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't my personal opinion that Chomsky did not write works of philosophy. He did not write a philosophical work. If he is cited as a philosopher, it is because he is known as such in "a general sense" only. you could call his work on language "natural philosophy" -- but in the modern world we call these people scientists not philosophers. And I agreed 2 days ago that there were plenty of noncontroversial edits to be made, but turns out i was wrong. most of the edits that have been made recently are controversial. i have no faith at all arbcom will resolve the philosophy debate. i think we should keep beating each other up over it.Stevewunder (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I will tell Prof. Blackburn next time I meet him that his work has been discredited in the eyes of Stevewunder and he should resign the Chair of Philosophy at Cambridge. Moreover most people worldwide have heard of Chomsky, in respect of Rand the question in Europe is have they even heard of her, and if so she is known as a novelist -- Snowded  TALK  07:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

surely Ayn Rand is better known as a philosopher than Chomsky
Excellent Peter Damian (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile
I am removing that last line again for reasons of style.

"Yet while she was best known for her political philosophy, Rand developed a philosophical system saying, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."

Please think carefully about what you are trying to say. There is still no proper contrast corresponding to the 'while'. And was Rand 'saying' the quotation, or the philosophical system? If Rand is intended, the sentence implies that she developed the entire system while uttering the sentence, just like that. Try and think what the sentence is meant to say, and say it. At the moment it says nothing. The quotation suggests that Rand saw reason as primary, from which her philosophy of egoism, and then capitalism, derives. Fine, now put some words around it that add to that thought, or clarify it, or (preferably) connect it to her life in some way.

We still haven't agreed on a sentence or two that states how little influence she had on academic philosophy. Peter Damian (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Classic Liberalism
What is the objection to this phrase? It places Rand in context, and can be sourced. First of all, the description of CL 'with its emphasis upon ...' is a reasonably good definition. And it is clear Rand was writing in that tradition. There are some sources which claim she advocates 'romantic individualism' and that this is an ingredient in modern libertarianism. Is that the objection? It is important (in an introduction) to place every writer in a historical context. Peter Damian (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source other than Professor Hicks which makes this claim? I find it highly misleading.  Frankly, her individualism has far more in common with the "cult of the hero", as developed by Carlyle and Nietzsche, than with anything in the liberal tradition. One also cannot ignore the fact that Rand despised the Utilitarians, blaming them for the holocaust, which makes any attempt at classifying her within CL even more difficult. The arguments of Locke, Mill, Bentham, Mises, &c., were ultimately utilitarian in nature — something which Rand utterly condemned.  Rand objected to all such labels on numerous occasions, and claimed that her only influence and tradition was that of Aristotle. Furthermore, we are left with the fact that the philosophy of the CL's, when taken to its logical extreme (Hume), leads to utter subjectivism (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p.701).  Why classify her within the very tradition against which she utterly rebelled? CABlankenship (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did see some other sources but don't know how independent they are. Certainly what I have read of Rand's writings suggest she is writing in, or influenced by that tradition.  I agree it has as least as much in common with the 'cult of the hero' too.  Note: if 'classic liberal tradition' goes, then the rest of what follows goes, because we can easily source that description to the definition of CL.  I mean the bit which says 'emphasizes individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property'.  Perhaps 'individualism' should be altered to 'individual freedom' but I don't see a big difference.  Also, perhaps add 'human rationality' because both CL and Rand have a big emphasis on that.  It would be useful to include a source on the 'cult of the hero' too.  But was Rand directly influenced by these writers?  She comes across more like the Mills & Boon version of them.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really care that much about the quote on classical liberalism. I personally think it's misleading — for reasons already stated — but that's not a reason to keep it out.  Frankly, I don't think Rand fits well into any tradition.  I think she was consciously a radical; she defies easy classification.  And, as I said, she repeatedly refused to accept any tradition for herself other than that of Aristotle. It seems odd to me that we would open the page mentioning her in connection with classical liberalism, but with no mention of her devotion to Aristotle. This seems inconsistent with her own stated influences, and with the tradition she claimed for herself. CABlankenship (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well her ideas can be seen in the tradition of classical liberalism, while their link to Aristotle (regardless of her claims) is tenuous at best. -- Snowded   TALK  15:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

On "full" "complete" "wider" and other philosophy adjectives
I put it back to the original because each hack we took at it made it less intelligible and more akward. Why is "full" objectionable? --Steve (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it sounds like favorable POV to Rand, and because it does not appear to be well-defined. What makes a philosophical system a "full" system? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I have removed the sentence anyway - see above. The point that the sentence is trying to make should be made clearer.  On what makes a philosophy 'systematic', think what the term implies.  It implies detailed, which I don't think applies to Rand's writing, which was mostly novelistic.  It also implies a coherent logical structure, i.e. one part deductively connected with another, starting from first principles and taking everything from those, or what can be deduced from those.  Her writing is not systematic in that sense (which is why she has largely been ignored by modern philosophers) Peter Damian (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefacing the sentence with "although" instead of "Yet while" would be an improvement. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that, indeed it is my point. If we join two sentences by 'while' or 'although' it is called a 'concessive', i.e. you concede or allow the qualified sentence, but continue with the next sentence which contains some sort of contrast or even a contradiction to the previous one.  'Although Percy hates cigarettes, his wife is a heavy smoker'.  In the sentence I removed, it suggest a similar contrast between the qualified 'Rand was best known for political philosophy' and 'she developed an entire philosophical system'.  I don't see the kind of contrast implied.  She was best known for her political philosophy and indeed developed a whole philosophical system.  (The word 'indeed' or the phase 'not only' is an 'amplifier' or 'expletive' - it creates a relation of emphasis between the second and first sentence - vide my use of 'indeed' in beginning this comment).  Peter Damian (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The contrast is implicit. Most people who know of her know about her advocacy for laissez-faire capitalism. Fewer would know about the rest of her philosophy. It's contrasting with what the "average Joe" might know about her. However, come to think of it one could phrase the sentence like this:


 * "Best known for her political philosophy, Rand explained..."

TallNapoleon (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

With the word 'although' the contrast should always be explicit. The explicit contrast is between, as you say, what most (American) people know about her, and her wider 'work'. Though as many of us have commented here, she is almost entirely unknown in England. Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] With your comments in mind, I have added an amplifying sentence about her attempts at a philosophical system. Peter Damian (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And that would be the point to add back the sentence about the critical reception of her purely philosophical and metaphysical work. Peter Damian (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelenting POV Editing
The ArbCom is still going on and already we see a stream of edits that only have one thing in common - they are expressive of a harshly negative view of Rand. They are supported by OR. And these edits are made despite protests, and without consensus. Peter Damian's comments and his edits line up exactly in this fashion. --Steve (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Address the edits not the editor. WP:AGF Idag (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As Idag advises. When you play personalities and motivations, you end up at ArbCom. This article is far, far within its potential as a scholarly reference work, given the reams of Rand scholarship out there. Skomorokh  20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you back and editing here -- Snowded   TALK  20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to just edit and to see the improvements show up and watch an article get better and better. Barring that, I'd like to address individual edits and seek a consensus, and to win some and lose some - that's just editing, and good articles come out that process. But it would be ostrich-like to ignore the way the process of editing itself is failing on this article. The ArbCom that is underway is because of that. How can one not point out that some editors make changes repeatedly without consensus, or that they openly express their hostile bias on the subject and that it shows in the pattern of their editing? --Steve (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not about winning and loosing Steve, its about seeking consensus and properly using authorities (it always helps to check them before using them). Even if you think that other editors are biased (and I don't think you have evidence) then you still address the edits not the editor. -- Snowded   TALK  22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to that, you have to address each edit individually. An editor's edits are not less meritorious simply because that editor has a POV.  However, if you believe that there is a 3RR violation or vandalism, you can address that through the appropriate channels.  Either way, these concerns should not be addressed here. Idag (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Referring to wp:npov I find that an editor's POV can become an issue to be addressed here:
 * "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias... This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
 * "When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed" (unless that is made impossible by edit warring)
 * "Undue weight: articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."  (Think 'cult' accusations)
 * "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone" (look at the changes in tone of the lede)
 * "There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words" --Steve (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) NPOV is a content policy not a behavior policy. However, WP:AGF, which is a behavior policy, does not permit questioning editor motives on this talk page. Please stop searching for policy loopholes, and address the merits of the proposed edits instead of the motivations of other editors. Idag (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Those aren't loopholes - they are the very bedrock of Wikipedia policy. It takes a behavior, done by an editor, to create content.  And if you will look I've addressed edits again and again - not just in the references in the posts above.  Do you see consensus for the edits being made?  Do you think that edits are being written from a neutral point of view?  Do you think that minority views are not being given undue weight?  It is WP that says these are non-negotiable.  It is because these things are being blatantly ignored that we have an ArbCom addressing them specifically.  I have and continue to call for resolving these things on the talk page and not just making flurries of edits without consensus.  --Steve (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, stop Wikilawyering. It is also non-negotiable WP policy to assume good faith, a fact that you omitted from your post.  While Peter may or may not be POV pushing, you are certainly violating AGF by focusing on the motives of other editors. Idag (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)