Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 29

Vallicellipedia
So Vallicella has proven "exactly" how Rand got it wrong, eh? That's nice. Put it in criticism. Kja er (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it goes in the introduction. Why shouldn't criticism go in the introduction?  Rand is notable for being an extremely bad philosopher. So it goes in the introduction.  I have reverted. Peter Damian (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved this to the "Philosophical Criticism" section; the introduction should be a brief, high-level overview of the topic of the article, and one specific example from one scholar of how she may have misinterpreted Kant is rather more detail than needs to be there. evildea t h m a t h 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You people. This is not a detail.  The fact that she was one of the worst philosophers in the history of the Western Intellectual tradition is not a detail.  It is a notable fact.  It is one of the few things Rand is famous for among academic philosophers.  Read WP:LEAD Peter Damian (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "[The lead] should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. " Rand's terrible and amateurish philosophy is what is interesting and important about her. You would not write about William McGonagall without saying what a bad poet he was.  Peter Damian (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "William Topaz McGonagall (1825 – 29 September 1902) was a Scottish weaver, actor and poet. He is comically renowned as one of the worst poets in the English language." That is the entire intro to the McGonagall article. As he was to poetry, so Rand was to philosophy. Am I getting through here?  Are you people understanding? Peter Damian (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that the lede is supposed to reflect what is in the rest of the article. As the article currently stands, there is no significant discussion about the qualify of Rand's philosophy.  If you would like to add in that discussion, please post the proposed language, including the supporting sources on the talk page, so that we can discuss it.  If there's a significant amount of criticism of the quality of Rand's philosophy, we can then discuss the lede. Idag (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly Rand's philosophy was so bad that there is little discussion of her work in Analysis. I will try and put something together for the philosophy section.  But, as I said, her famously inept work in philosophy is so notable that it should go in the intro. Peter Damian (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I note also that there is no section 'criticism of McGonagall's poetry' in the McGonagall article, yet the introduction opens by saying about what a bad poet he was. Similarly to Rand, you will find no discussion of McGonagall in journals of literary criticism.  I am struggling to get this point across, I fear. Peter Damian (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to judge the quality of Rand's work. The lede should note that she has been harshly criticized, but claims that she is one of the worst philosophers in history need to be sourced and put in the criticism section. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, in fact it is her claims to be a philosopher/create a philosophy which have been harshly criticised or completely ignored and we might be better saying that. --Snowded TALK  17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not making the claim, in the introduction, that she was the worst philosopher in history, and this is nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that, like McGonagall, she has a certain reputation for amateurism - I will try and locate the quote about 'people laugh at Rand'.  Given that notability, it should go into the introduction.  That is my only point.  I am increasingly irritated by the way that any criticism of Rand is automatically consigned to some outer depths by the crowd of fanatics that inhabit this page. (Present company excepted) Peter Damian (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Condense Legacy and Objectivist movement
Certain editors have expressed their desire to shorten the article. I question the need for both a legacy and an Objectivist movement section that overlap. I would welcome suggestions as to how to condense this. Kja er (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The best place to stick in the movement would probably be Rand's Work subsection of the Legacy section. It already touches on those areas, so it wouldn't be too much work to fuse them together. Idag (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A good start would be getting rid of the unnecessary stuff about the different institutes. I would mention ARI and TAS as the most notable, maybe mention that they hate each other's guts and be done with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is how to integrate NBI with the others. I think we should have a bit of detail about her and NBI, mention the split with Branden, and then simply refer readers to the other article to reference the institutes that have existed since her death. I don't see a reason to exclude the other minor institues from mention, but I think all detail of splits after her death should be relegated to the other article, since she had no involvement. Kja er (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the solution would be to treat the NBI separately. It's not really part of her legacy, given that it went belly up well before her death. The schisms should not be treated in detail, but one sentence would likely be good. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stick the NBI in with the personal info about the heresy of the Brandens? Skomorokh  09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting again
I have reverted again. My logic:

(1) If we mention views such as "individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property. " then we have to mention classical liberalism, because that is what classical liberalism is. Certain people here want to delete the 'classical liberal' but leave the rest in. Logic dictates that if we delete one, we delete the other, if we keep one, we keep both. This is simply a matter of definitions.

(2) I have reinstated the criticism section in the lead. This is again a matter of logic and Wikipedia policy. Everything notable about a subject goes in the introduction. It is notable about Rand that she and her supporters claim she is a philosopher, whereas she has received almost no recognition by established philosophers, and that the few established philosophers have been scathing about her work.

Peter Damian (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On your first point, the classical liberalism angle is not at all emphasised in Rand scholarship, as Rand drew very little explicit influence from philosophers of that persuasion; you would have to stretch back to Aristotelian eudaimonism and so on to responsibly situate the philosophical roots of Objectivism. Even when the classical liberalism commonalities are raised, attempts to link Objectivist politics to constitutionalism are, shall we say, thin on the ground. Similarly, the political dimension of Rand's work was rather overplayed vis a vis the literature.


 * On the second point, Wikipedias guideline on writing lead sections emphasises that the lead ought to be a summary of the article, rather than a collection of everything notable about the topic (of course, in a well-written article the two converge). Secondly, the critical sentence there was very poorly written, with peacock terms and weasel words, misreprenting the source (one individual's criticism masquerading as critical consensus), and the source itself was merely the blog of one individual, making an original argument, rather than a literature review of credible scope published by a respected academic or commercial publisher. So to put it lightly, I don't think we miss to much in its omission. Regards, Skomorokh  09:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with the argument that the liberal inheritance is less relevant (especially given the common understanding of the language in common language). Now we have a long standing issue here, that if we could resolve it in a civilised way would be goodness.  Very few philosophers even dignify Rand with a mention, a few do (for example the reference above).  So there is less a critical consensus against per, more a critical consensus that she is not relevant.   If we could find a form of words that reflected that then we might resolve the lede.   Skomorokh, any suggestions?  --Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So we are arguing that "individualism, limited government, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property." is actually not classical liberalism, but is Aristotle? Peter Damian (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you quoting? I made no such claim. Sincerely, Skomorokh  10:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On SK's point that "the classical liberalism angle is not at all emphasised in Rand scholarship, as Rand drew very little explicit influence from philosophers of that persuasion", why does Stephen Hicks (Rand scholar) write "Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government"? Peter Damian (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you are quoting Hicks. Is it the IEP article or a different work? It's not in dispute that Objectivism shares much with the classical liberal tradition; it's a question of weight. It would not be giving undue weight to mention that Rand's work is in the c.l.t. in the lead (and would give the reader vital context when dealing with such a fringe subject), but it certainly gives undue weight to include the whole rigmarole about life liberty and mom's apple pies when say, the empiricist foundations of Objectivist epistemology, the foundationalism of Objectivist metaphysics and Rand's great debt to Aristotelian logic go unexpounded on. The lead section really ought to be a brief summary, not overloaded with elaboration; there is plenty of space in the body of the text to elaborate upon the specifics of classical liberalism as Rand inherited it and so forth. Regards, Skomorokh  10:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this comes across as trolling. You said above On your first point, the classical liberalism angle is not at all emphasised in Rand scholarship, as Rand drew very little explicit influence from philosophers of that persuasion.  But Hicks, in the introduction to the article in IEP, says "Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government".  Peter Damian (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh not at all, I don't believe you are trolling, there is just a gap of communication I am sure, no need to fear. To clarify, it is quite an uncontroversial claim that Objectivism has similarities with classical liberalism, though it is somewhat less accepted that it is the source or influence of Rand's moral and political philosophy (her tutelage under Lossky and appreciation for Bastiat notwithstanding). I hope this makes the point simpler to comprehend. Regards, Skomorokh  10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No I meant you come across as trolling. Best Peter Damian (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) No, I think you have a sound point that you cannot claim the qualities without the label. I am suggesting we might find a different way forward, which involves some use of Randian language.  I also think there are difficulties here with the common use of the term "liberal" especially in the US.  So I agree with you on its drop both or none, but wonder if a new form of words could be found. (and I have learnt not to argue Aristotle with you so I am staying away from that one!)  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Precedents for point (2) above
Below there are three samples from introductions to articles about 'fringe figures' where it is clearly identified that the person has been marginalised by the scientific or academic establishment. (I have formatted them to make the point clear)


 * Rupert Sheldrake's ideas have often met with a hostile reception from scientists, including accusations that he is engaged in pseudoscience,
 * Although Official Scientology biographies present L. Ron Hubbard as "larger than life" figure with numerous accomplishments, sources which are not connected with Scientology often give a contradictory accounts.
 * Wilhelm Reich was also a controversial figure, who came to be viewed by the psychoanalytic establishment as having succumbed to mental illness or somehow gone astray.

It is very important for the credibility of this encyclopedia that it is not used as a vehicle for promotion by advocates or followers of such figures, who will naturally want to present them as having more credibility in the academic world than they do. Peter Damian (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all very interesting, but it smells very strongly of original synthesis. Do secondary and tertiary accounts of Rand's work make these connections explicitly? If so, cite them and let's take it from there. If not, they have no place in a serious scholarly reference work. Regards, Skomorokh  09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One comment, in the last day or so Skomorokh and Peter between them have improved the article, albeit from different perspectives. I think if the pair of you could reach agreement on these points then it would create some stability in the article.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  09:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work reverting everything I have contributed, including the bad referencing and citing the prestigious Ayn Rand Lexicon as your source. It really makes me want to devote several more hours sorting through all this. Skomorokh  09:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very hard to locate scholarly accounts of Rand's work, because the establishment have largely ignored her. But I have given one source, and can locate some others.  See my essay WP:FLAT which includes a discussion of the problem of science not discussing pseudoscience.  Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a curious interpretation of the high water mark of secondary literature on Rand; have you seen the Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism? Smith and Sciabarra to name two well-credentialed analytic philosophers at top-class departments in the US who have recently published in the field. To what source do you refer? Skomorokh  09:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the list - note I mention Sciabarra below - and note a number of writers who belong to or are affiliated with the Rand institute. Can you name any independent sources please?  Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondary literature published by one of the Objectivist institutes would be of questionable Independence, surely, but a scholar at the top-ranked philosophy department in the English speaking world, published by Penn State press, is really beyond the pale. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the vetting such works need to go through before they are cleared for publication, but it involves blind peer reviews by credentialed academics who have previously published in the field. If you're seriously maintaining that such works are unreliable sources, we can take it to the noticeboard of course, but it scarcely seems worth it. Regards, Skomorokh  09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which work are you referring to? And yes I am familiar with the vetting that such work goes through.  I have successfully gone through this process many times myself, and going through it again with a substantial work which this silly row is preventing me from making headway with.  It is now 10 o'clock where I live and I started work at 8.  No real philosophy has yet been done.  So, what is your argument?  The question is whether academia takes Rand seriously.  There is considerable evidence that it does not. Peter Damian (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I should have been explicit; I was referring to Sciabarra's biography Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. My question was how you can consider this and similar works (professional scholars at prestiguous institutions of analytic philosophy publishing through rigourous requirements with academic publishing houses) unreliable by Wikipedia standards. I wasn't aware that you yourself were a scholar, how nice to have such company on Wikipedia's woeful coverage of philosophy! Regards, Skomorokh  10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to the point. The claim I am making is that she had 'little recognition' among established philosophers.  I am suspicious of the claims of any of the Rand institute philosophers to be 'established philosophers', and note it is actually quite easy to get published by RS (after all they published me).  But I use the qualifying word 'little' rather than 'no', nonetheless.  And Vallicella is an established philosopher. Watson is not, but he is young and highly regarded in the profession.  You still haven't replied to my point about classical liberalism.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, not everyone agrees with your narrow definition of classical liberalism. For instance, Bertrand Russell feels that the most important trait in defining Liberalism is its rejection of dogma in favor of a tentative, empirical, and scientific approach to opinions and knowledge.(Unpopular Essays, p.15-16). While it's true that many Liberals came to the conclusions that you ascribe to them, many did not. And many scholars, such as Russell, point out that Liberalism is more about how we hold positions, rather than what positions are held. I object to your entire mode of argument on this matter. CABlankenship (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, but that is the distinction between the classical variety and the 'modern' variety, isn'it it? I'm not sure we are so far apart as you suggest.  Peter Damian (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Russell was discussing "classical" Liberalism with his definition: Hume, Locke, Bentham, &c. My point is that one has to presuppose the truth of a disputed definition in order to make the Rand entry valid. In my opinion this is highly problematic, and also quite dubious.  I don't think that inserting contentious claims such as this adds much to an already contentious subject. CABlankenship (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some independent sources
There is no synthesis. Here are some sources:


 * 1) See the article here where Chris Matthew Sciabarra (one of the small but supposedly growing number of academic supporters of Rand). He says "I know they laugh at Rand".  That is important because when a non-independent source effectively admits the position claimed by independent sources, you can probably trust it.
 * 2) There are the Vallicella posts referred to in the disputed sentence itself (V is an established philosopher).
 * 3) There is Brandon Watson here
 * 4) There is the article on popular philosophy in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy where Quinton describes her as an 'amateur philosopher'.

I think in all fairness there should be mention of the small number of philosophers who do take her seriously (I am rather sceptical of the fact that these have all been supported by grants from Rand foundations), but that was the original plan, anyway. The U of Texas was to have been mentioned in the intro. Peter Damian (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What claims do you intend these references to support exactly? I'm guessing Rand not being a philosopher, Rand misreading Kant, Rand being disregarded by academic philosophy and by reference works? Skomorokh  09:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the disputed claim in the intro please. "Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, some of whom have been scathing about her lack of rigour and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter." Note the qualifying 'little'.  She has achieved some recognition in largely Rand-institute sponsored work.  And some philosophers - not all - have been scathing about her lack of rigour and limited understanding.  I strongly object to your claim about 'shoddy references' by the way.  Quinton is not a 'shoddy reference'.  Nor is Vallicella. Peter Damian (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see; which source specifically supports this assertion? The above seems to be an attempt to piece together individual nuggets of disregard to make a novel conclusion, which obviously won't fly as far as Wikipedia is concerned (though I do not have access to the Quinton piece at present so I might have missed it there). "Shoddy" referred to the mode of presentation, not the quality of the work (that said, Dr. Vallicella does not seem to have any articles on Rand published in scholarly journals, nor books); re-introducing bare URLs and so on gives an amateurish impression to the reader. In any case, back to the point at hand, not that it ought to need to be said, but claims regarding Rand's legacy and the reception of her work need to be sourced to reliable sources (preferably recent) which, in the absence of a literature review, give an overview of her current standing. Skomorokh  10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not piecing individual nuggets of disregard. It is quite clear with citation supports which claim.  I was very careful about that.  I am beginning to suspect you don't know what you are talking about (see your remarks about Aristotle and classical liberalism above).  Could that be possible? Peter Damian (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Vallicella by the way has published a lot, e.g. on Kant. He obviously would not publish anything on Rand, why would he?  Peter Damian (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on the contributions, not the contributor please; there are enough playground tactics afoot with the article already :) If we agree that Vallicella has never been published in the field, how on earth are you maintaining that citing his blog posts is sufficient support for the sweeping claim that Rand is dismissed by established philosophers? Skomorokh  10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Vallicella has studied both Rand and Kant in some detail. He has published much on Kant.  He has not published his research on Rand because there is no need to.  Vallicella was cited because of his claims about her misunderstanding Kant, and because of her lack of rigour.  Quinton in the OCP was cited because he supports the 'dismissal' claim.  He explicitly puts her in a section of the article on amateur philosophers, all of whom have been dismissed or ignored by the establishment. On ]comment on the contribution' I think it is valid to question whether you know what you are talking about when you make such sweeping and incorrect claims as the one about Rand scholarship and classical liberalism.  Equally on the Aristotle bit. I happen to be an Aristotle scholar.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop making large numbers of contested changes without any consensus
Peter, what you present is all Original Research. Your sources are blogs by Christian Apologists.
 * The Oxford Companion to Philosophy is a blog by a Christian Apologist? Brandon Watson is a christian apologist, but if you read his post, you see he is sympathetic to Rand.  He just has to admit she is a hack when it comes to formal, academic philosophy.  And Sciabarra is an objectivist!  He is the one who says 'they laugh at Rand'. Peter Damian (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you have made it clear that your POV is that Rand is a bad philosopher and you wish the world to recognize this. Unfortunately, the world does not recognize this. That is why almost everything you say is considered here to be OR. I personally agree with you that Rand was a bad writer, novelist, philosopher, everything... but I do not believe that that is how she is recognized in popular culture. Steinbeck is pretty fucking horrible, but you won't find that on his page. Camus is a laugh as a novelist, but you won't find that on his page. We have to go with popular convention here, whether you can accept that or not. Stevewunder (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are entirely wrong. A recent arbcom decision was that Wikipedia should reflect academic consensus view.  60% of Americans believe the world was created in 4000 BC.  That does not mean Wikipedia reflects that popular view.  That is the whole point of an encyclopedia: to educate.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, I still want to hear the argument for Chomsky as a philosopher. I don't get how his linguistic and cognitive theory work is considered philosophy proper. His political screeds certainly aren't. Stevewunder (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you check back you will see that the references and the arguments for that have been made (including the citation in the text). Interestingly if you look around the field you will see that cognitive and linguistic work over the last few decades has been increasingly close with several practitioners in common across the disciplines (Freeman, the Churchlands and others) so he is not on his own.   Your comment on his political "screed" is interesting.  Are you about to essay the argument that the quality of political discourse can determine philosophical status?  That would create an interesting precident--<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  10:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC).


 * My point, Snowded, is that political discourse has nothing to do with philosophy. Stevewunder (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of anti-american shit here. where the fuck do you get off saying that 60% of americans believe the world was created in 4000 BC? that's crazy fucking shit -- and i don't believe it. you have found some ultra-liberal (but not classically liberal) biased source that simply wants to believe all americans don't know shit from a hole in the ground. we are not quite as stupid as you think. Stevewunder (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing improvements to the Rand article. If you have behavioural problems with users, take it to WP:WQA, WP:3RRN, WP:ANI etc. please. Skomorokh  10:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the whole point of academia is to publish or perish, not to educate. Stevewunder (talk) 10:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the American bit - it was just meant as a logical point - the fact that a majority of the public believe in X does mean we represent X as a fact in an encyclopedia. That was the only point.  Peter Damian (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, but by popular i don't mean a phone survey of the mid-west -- i mean that what the New York Times writes is more or less the conventional wisdom, more so than scholarly journals when it comes to how a person is known in public. that is what we are arguing about. how she is most generally presented to the public. scholarly journals are better if the subject is nuclear fusion. but if the subject is pop culture, the newspapers are a better record. Ayn Rand is known as a philosopher in pop-culture. Let's not pretend that WP is any more or less than representation in pop culture. I am with you on not considering Rand a philosopher of note. And I don't believe she was a novelist at all, in the academic sense of novelist. But this isn't OR. The morning newspaper is a better source for our purposes than arcane journals. Stevewunder (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then we get back to my original point that we should call her a 'pop philosopher' and leave it at that. Peter Damian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with calling her a pop philosopher. It's exactly what she was. Stevewunder (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * but she should be called a pop novelist also. Stevewunder (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

and Peter, you are way off on your William McGonagall comparison. Few these days would dispute McGonagall was a bad poet, yet many would dispute Ayn Rand was a bad philosopher. You and your friends might view her as such; me and my friend might view her as such, but like it or not there are many who think otherwise. our personal views matter very little here. Stevewunder (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight of politics in lead?
Rand said "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." Yet the lead gives two long sentences on Rand's politics while stating nothing of the fact that she published a book on aesthetics and a book on epistemology and took positions on issues in all major branches of philosophy. I intend to add the above quote and mention her work on concepts and aesthetics. Do people wish to leave both sentences on politics? I would move the second to the body of the article, but some may feel it is best left in the opening. <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) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The bit about her politics does seem a little, well, out of place. And it's not saying much to say that she opposed Nazism. It'd only really be newsworthy if she had supported it. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * call me crazy...but....i think the different camps occasionally play nice to validate their wikipedia editor credentials.  well of course i agree with you my fellow editor, lets correct this situation.  meanwhile, they edit war on whatever it is they edit war about.  that is, in this case, ayn rand's status as a philosopher.  Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Assume Good Faith. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * [WP:AGF | Assume Good Faith]].Brushcherry (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Bushcherry, please stop talking about your assumptions as to the motivations and actions of other editors and address content issues. I suggest you delete your response above.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, please stop framing your issues with with pro-rand sources as anything other than "they don't agree with me" so they are wrong, or don't count. Same thing for Kjear with his attitude towards ant-rand sources.  i have freely expressed my "OPINION" that ayn rand is a philosopher.  Snowded and Kjear are, in my "OPINION", are the problem.  feel free to ban me from wikipedia.  but the ayn rand page is in the same company as "the irish potato famine" "isreal/palastine" "scientology".  CongratulationsBrushcherry (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry, where have I ever removed antiRand comments? Please show diffs.

Since no one oppose the quote above which balances her politics, I will add it. <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) 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you made the right decision to seek out a mentor Bushcherry --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I propose removing that quote. Its long and cumbersome and violates WP:Quotes. Since it essentially says that Rand developed a complete philosophy that values reason, we can simply paraphrase that meaning. Idag (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will read the quote policy. The problem is that the concentration on Rand's politics amounts to undue weight, and the quote balances it quite well, while your abbreviation is basically meaningless. I have no problem with a sufficient alternate text. But this should stand until we have something better to balance the politics. <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) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a violation of WP:Quote. This is the only quote of her in the article, and the "paraphrase" does not contain the point she makes. <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) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the pertinent policy statement:
 * "while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them" (emphasis in the original)
 * That quote says that Rand was trying to make a complete philosophy whose primary value was reason. Or did I miss something? Idag (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand herself was frustrated by the undue weight that people gave her politics. She said this specifically to counter that perception, anfd I think it speaks quite clearly for itself - not capitalism but egoism, not egoism but reason. If the point had been to emphasize reason, there are many other quotes or sources. But "reason" by itself is prety empty. The point here is to balance the mention of politics in the previous sentences, and there is no more elegant means of doing that than this quote which shows the subordination of politics to ethics and ethics to epistemology. <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) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence the mention of a "complete philosophy" and a transition that contrasts the previous views about politics with the views expressed in the current sentence. We could also simply put in a phrase along the lines of "she viewed politics as merely one aspect of her ideal of reason." Use of quotes should be avoided (unless they are of particular importance) and that quote is unnecessarily long given its content.  Idag (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I just cut it in half for you. <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) 00:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can live w/ it. Idag (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the original text was Nazism. Read the history. Read the sentence. It says that Rand opposed all forms of statism and collectivism such as and then gave three very specific concrete examples, Nazism, communism, and the Welfare State. That is, the forms of collectivism found in germany, Russia and the UK. Rand's journals, for example, show her opposition to hitler in about ten cites in the index, but fascism isn't mentioned but once.

I don't see the impulsive need to mess with every single phrase without even asking first if there is some rationale. Please spend a little time trying to get these matters straight, please ask first before you delete and rewrite. And please show good faith and restore the text. <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) 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it said fascism when I started editing this evening. I'm assuming that was the consensus, especially given that I seem to recall that you didn't object to it being changed from Nazism to fascism. UPDATE: It was Steve who agreed with changing from Nazism to fascism. Sorry for the confusion. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship
This section has a fact tag and I propose to delete it shortly unless someone provides a reliable source. When I looked into this before the only source was a press release from said foundation. I searched the Warwick web site and made some enquiries (I have a visiting fellowship there) and could find nothing. There was a hint that might have been some funding for a seminar but not in the Philosophy Dept. per se. --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  11:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a few. <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) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I already did. I put in two sources - one being the Anthem Foundation, and the other being the Univ. of Texas.  If more are needed, they aren't hard to find - mostly news articles. --Steve (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * University of Texas accepted. The Anthem foundation on the other had is not adequate.  The Universities listed are under " Such funds include support for visiting scholars, workshops and conferences, lecture series and writing projects."  This could mean anything, for example a simple travel grant and would not be notable.   I have removed three universities from the list pending evidence been presented other than a list on the Anthem site.  See my comments on my checks on Warwick above.


 * No claims were made as to what was given, and it is OR to claim that it is just a travel grant. Your not finding anything at Warwick doesn't meet the standard of verifiablity - and NOT finding anything isn't the same as it not being there.  And, you broke the link when you moved it. --Steve (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected the link shortly afterwards. Wikipedia has a clear test of notability, the mere listing of a grant does not achieve that as it could be for anything (I made no claim as to what it was for by the way please read other editors comments).  This section is being used to establish credibility and it therefore clearly subject to a test of notability.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  07:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the Consensus
I am dismayed by some recent edit warring resulting in editor blocking, including multiple reverts, POV edits (unattributed individual criticisms cited in the lead rather than the criticism section) and repeated restoral of the philosopher attribution now that we have decided to await arbcom for a resolution of that matter.

In the spirit of good faith I have provided multiple citations to support calling Rand controversial, and have replaced the word fae with notoriety in the lead. Hopefully we can focus on the rest 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) 23:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon please discuss controversial deletions and gain a consensus first. Your removing references to Rand's early influences such as Schiller and Rostand which are easily sourced (I have done so) is little better than outright vandalism. Deleting Rand's honors with an edit summary that syay this is not the logical place would be fine if you then put them in their logical place. Keep in mind that this article is still under arbcom, and that we are editting on the assumption of consensus and established WP policy, not personal objection on whatever basis. <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) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me to put the Honors list back in. I simply don't understand why it matters that Rand liked Nietzsche and Rostend when she was young. Unless the article is going to build on that there is simply no point mentioning it, and frankly doing so may be placing undue weight. Furthermore I would remind you to assume good faith, which means not throwing around terms like vandalism when someone makes an edit you disagree with. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenplays
Rand was credited for the screenplays of two movies in 1945, Love Letters, and You Came Along. This is mentioned in an orphaned section at the end of the article. There are two issues, where to better place the seciton, and how to improve it internally. I think it could go in the fiction section before Fountainhead but after her earlier novels. Any comments? <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) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're going chronologically it should go after the Fountainhead. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, if we are looking at them as screen plays. The earlier two were released in 1945 while the latter was released in 1949.  That's not a huge issue tho.  I am wondering if a section on movies as separate from novels might make sense.  There are Noi Vivi/Addio Kira', Red Pawn (sold, not produced, 70p synopsis published) Fountainhead, Love Letters and You Came Along''. <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) 04:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should get a full section. A very brief mention is appropriate, but frankly Rand is not very well known for her screenplays. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This continued logic makes no sense. You continually say that Rand was "not well known" for X, thus we should not mention it. What do you think an encyclopedia is for? This is simply absurd. Few people could mention the elements on the periodic table. Do we then delete them? The policy is notable and verifiable. Oscar nominated movies, international hits that were the subjects of lawsuits, these are interesting things, much more interesting that the over forty footballers whose obituaries are linked to on the portal page of wikipedia so far this year.

I have editted the two existent sections on film adaptations to be more logical, spearating out films based on the subject, and including together films based on Rand's work. <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) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We cannot include everything that is notable and verifiable. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to provide a brief summary. If the reader comes away from this article knowing everything there is to know about Rand then we have done something wrong. The article is already too long. An entire new section about her screenplays--which again she is largely not known for--is totally unnecessary when we can sum them up in a sentence. We might add one more sentence about the film version of The Fountainhead, but really, that is plenty sufficient.

Helen Cullyer Quote
Helen Cullyer has a phd from Yale in classics and at the University of Pittsburgh, she was Director of the inter-disciplinary graduate program in Classics, Philosophy, and Ancient Science. She has published scholarly work on Aristotle. Her quote is an academic evaluation of the importance of studying Rand's ethics. And that goes to the section title, "Rand's work and academic philosophy" --Steve (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, point taken. Normally this would not be important, but since the issue of Rand within academia is so controversial it may well be worth keeping. Is there any way we could have something shorter? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a review of a book by Tara Smith not Rand. It makes a valid point about the need to consider certain aspects of ethics and might be (summarised) a useful addition to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) but it doesn't belong here.--<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah, having it in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) seems that it would be better. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It works well where it is, but I may put a copy in the Objectivism article as well. It is speaking directly to Rand's ethical system with the voice of a qualified academic - surely that is what we all want. --Steve (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it doesn't belong here. it would make more sense to get a quote directly from Smith's book about Rand instead of from Cullyer about Smith's book about Rand.
 * Regarding the "limited understanding" language in the same section -- i think "limited knowledge of philosophy" is much more NPOV. i realize "limited understanding" may be a direct quote-- but it is not a reasonable phrase to quote because no one can get inside Rand's head and say what her "understanding" was. saying "limited knowledge" makes the point that is trying to be made i believe: regarding whether she actually read much Kant or not -- and is more objective. Stevewunder (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

More on the lede
Two things: First, I thought we had agreed on mixed economy instead of welfare state, since it's more neutral language and the welfare state is a kind of mixed economy anyway. Second, per WP:LEDE the last sentence simply does not belong there, even though it is true. The lede is supposed to provide a very brief summary of the article; I don't believe that sentence contributed well to that. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i think welfare state is more to the point. the term mixed economy -- maybe i'm just stupid --i guess it means a mixture between free market and government regulation -- but i've never heard the term before. whatever it means, the term is pretty limp. a lead should strive for crisp clarity. one shouldn't have to do further research in order to decipher a lead. my same argument goes for why "classical liberal tradition" shouldn't be used in the lead. an intro should be easy reading. Stevewunder (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a mixed economy is exactly what it sounds like: one that mixes capitalism and socialism. However, there is no requirement that people shouldn't have to occasionally look up a term. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Although it lacks stylistic punch it is accurate, which is more important. Honestly, though, I'm tempted to just say that the lede should read that Rand vociferously opposed all political systems other than LF capitalism, which is entirely true and spares us the difficulty of enumerating what she opposed. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't know who insists on re-inserting the quote into the lede, but a quote doesn't belong in a short overview, almost no matter what the quote is. it is strikingly awkward in the lede and belongs elsewhere. can you find a feature bio article on WP which has a quote in the lede? Stevewunder (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ok - i recant my comment about the quote. i see that that there are a number of other bios with quotes in the lede. Stevewunder (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher question - not argument
I want to understand further the argument against Rand as a philosopher, as it seems to be driven by more than simply the relative omission of her name from academic and reference works.

Perhaps Chomsky and his ilk are key. Correct me if I am wrong, but analytic philosophy seems to be the prime focus of latter 20th century philosophy. With Karl Popper for instance, we see a turning point away from existentialism, which seemed to run out of steam after Camus, and a new emphasis on analytic rigor.

Rand lacks rigor. But so what? Did Neitzsche have analytic rigor? Did Camus or Sartre? Did Emerson or Thoreau?

My point is that fashion matters in academia. If Thoroeau cam along in 2009, he probably wouldn't be taken seriously as a philosopher, because his lack of rigor is unfashionable now. He would probably just be considered a writer.

Rand is no Thoreau, but -- is part of the reluctance in calling her a philosopher here, even a bad one, due to the fact that she is so out of step with trends in philosophy, subject-wise?

Would you expect a Thoreau to be called a philosopher today? Stevewunder (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * and Captain Blankenship, i do not have any conspiracy theories here, but it was awfully neutral of you to insert that language into the text. Stevewunder (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the time to take you seriously is when you stop vandalising the article. --Snowded (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ok. then don't take me seriously. Stevewunder (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New section below references
Why can't I comment below these references? What are they to and what purpose do they serve? They are bugging me, so I'm posting a comment below them. Kudos to Wulfer and Wolfer for tagging and bagging. They are a dynamic duo of article improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Edit above or below this section.
Is that all it really takes? Brushcherry (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

LOL
I can't believe it. This is the comment that Snowded removed because he felt it needed to be sourced: "A controversial figure, she generates both glowing admiration and harsh criticism." Snowded, please tell us which part of this assertion you don't accept and demand a source for? That she is controversial? That she generates glowing admiration? Or that she generates harsh critisim? --Steve (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You really need to calm down a bit you know. In the wider world she is hardly known and treated with indifference.  You could (I suppose) say that she is controversial in some circles within the US but the wider statement is not valid. All of that aside, the phrase adds nothing to the lede and has little value.  --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snowded, we usually disagree, but I do get a grin from some of your posts. I don't know why you want me to calm down, "LOL" means Laughing Out Loud - I was laughing - no calming needed (If it helps you with your concern about me, I can tell you that I'm smiling as I write this - again, no calming needed :-).  Given that Rand's talk page gets more edits per unit of time than nearly any of the 15,000,000 articles on Wikipedia, I guess you could say she is controversial (unless you think these many edits would not constitute controversy).  Given that she has people that treat her like an idol, and others that call her an idolator.  Too funny!  You keep saying that she isn't known anywhere but the US is false.  Her books sell in large numbers in Europe, UK, South America, etc. - many of her books have multiple editions that have gone out in foriegn languages.  I am quite willing to believe that she is MORE popular in the U.S., but that isn't the same as saying she is not popular elsewhere.  What you keep putting up is unsupported OR.  The phrase adds a great deal to the lede, whose purpose is to foreshadow what is to come in the article as a whole, unless you have decided that there should be no criticism as well as no positive statements that might be seen as admiration.  It is a statement about Rand that can be supported with many, many sources. --Steve (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "I don't know why you want me to calm down" I notice he likes to use this phrase. It's projection on his part.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * read through these pages Steve and see just how many reference books she is not in (not just philosophy). Terry Goodkind (a novelist of the same kind and quality) sells lots of books it does not make him controversial.  As I said in my comments she is loved/hated within a fairly small community, most ignore her.   I have a copy of Atlas which I read as a teenager, I had forgotten it until the Wikipedia activities of her followers brought her name back to my attention.  The Wikipedia edit count reflects the activities of her partisans, intruding her definition of philosophy, seeking to claim the title objectivism from philosophers of greater pedigree etc. etc. This requires some, shall we say counter-editing to get some sense of balance.  The phrase in the lede which I deleted was OR and implied a greater prominence than was appropriate.  If you want to suggest something which does not make such claims and which acknowledges reality then I am open to it. Oh and if I have caused you to laugh, well maybe I have done some good, taking yourself, and dear Ayn less seriously might be the next step --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely right, S. Peter Damian (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)