Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 33

Now on Wikipedia Review
I've taken this discussion to Wikipedia Review as it is so perfect an example of the problem of cults and cranks and crackpots infesting the project. Peter Damian (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a nice irony that the Wikipedia Review is inhabited mostly by malcontent individualists who constantly urge Wikipedia's brightest and best to withdraw their labour from service of the collective. Who is Peter Damian?  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * maybe peter damian can solve what arbcom can'tBrushcherry (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

brushcherry

Rand supposed anti-academa bias
Rand's stance on academia 'could best be described as Epistemeological libertarianism WIKIPEDIA is an Epistemeological libertarian experiment. Here is a definition of the term by Nassim Taleb. Epistemeological libertarian-someone (like myself) who considers that knowledge is subjected to strict rules, but not institutional authority as the interests of organized knowledge is self-perpetuation, not necessarily truth (just like governments).  Taleb has the best introduction going on Byzantine philosophy in his mock up Anti-Platonism for Dummies! LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be described that way. Now find a source who does so. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so I am trying to adher to the rules of contribution and discuss it's addition to the article here first.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I am doing the same. I just happen to think that it shouldn't be included because it violates policy. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifically which policy the policy of sourcing the comment? Until you change your mind again. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. It is synthesis and original research to claim that Rand is an epistemological libertarian. Unless you can find a source stating such, it doesn't belong in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a clarifaction for KD tries again as to why I was responding to his comments above like I did. You are again not reading and or following what is being discussed and are just interjecting yourself into the discussion un-informed about what is being stated and being disruptive in the mean time. What does it mean to say A=A (which is in the article)? Who is the determiner of truth? It is not WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR to say that either the state is the Arbitrator of truth or the individual is. Either Rand was a libertine- free thinker or she was not... LoveMonkey (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this discussion has much to do with the editing process so far. What would be helpful LoveMonkey is simply to paste or link to citations with the appropriate quotations you would like the Community to consider. Discussion -- including policy considerations -- always should flow from that first step. J Readings (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And, incidentally, just so we're all on the same page: if the response is to read other discussion veins not found under the title "Rand supposed anti-academa (sic) bias", then it's not really anyone's fault if there's a little bit of a misunderstanding. Comments about editing suggestions should be in that section for the benefit of the reader, I think. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just responding to Peter Damians comments. Just following WP:BRD --- More Rubbish--- I haven't deleted the most recent version yet, but here it is (the three consecutive sentences separated by bullets)

Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is derived from the Aristotelian tradition; naturalist in metaphysics, empiricist in epistemology, and promoting self-realization in ethics. Objectivism is firmly individualist, emphasizing an ethical egoism of rational self-interest and self-responsibility. Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property. The first sentence is drawn from Hicks, but that is not an independent source. I think a lot of homework is needed to derive Objectivism 'from the Aristotelian tradition'. Particularly as Rand probably never read Aristotle (or at least seems consistently to have misunderstood him). The second sentence seems to say the same thing in slightly different ways, without adding anything to our understanding of Rand's philosophy. The third sentence is also drawn from Hicks - indeed it is a remnant of the original intro I wrote in January, minus the label of 'classical liberalism'.

As I said, I refuse to contribute to this train wreck, I am just going to hack it to pieces from the sidelines until someone decides to write something clear, sensible and well-sourced -- And also this here's another Peter Damian response "As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC) -- Anyone feel like being honest about what is going on with this article as to why editors are being allowed to insult people and be disruptive? Anyone? Anybody? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether you are responding to peter or not, you are failing to respond to requests for citation and creating entries which are OR in nature (see comments above from several editors).  Replicating chunks of material from Peter which we have already read just confuses this page - you could always learn about pipelinks.  --Snowded (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in carrying out general discussions with other editors, the place to do so is on their talk pages. Might I suggest that this dialogue you have been having with KD would be better conducted on his talk page? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks!KD Tries Again (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Ditko
If he belongs anywhere it's in the influence section. I'm not sure that he does belong in this article, but Spiderman is fairly iconic. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will move him. I would like to note that Rand has a deep influence on Pop culture that currently her ideas are on trial in the movie the Watchmen (Notzrim). The character the Ditko created to embody Rand was Mr A and then later the Question. Alan Moore created Rorschach to embody Randian objectivism as a character with unbending intergrety and as someone (suprise) Moore reviles. Of course MR A is an embodyment of A=A but then whatever, trying to colloborate with you is impossible. Hahahaha who watches the watchmen but the Underground man. LOL...inside libertarian joke sorry..What the joke is about is that Alan Moore as a follower of gnosticism (which is the most anti-semitic thing on the planet) and yet he can call Ayn Rand (someone Jewish) Objectivism a laughable philosophy of "white supremacist dreams of the master race". LoveMonkey (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your latest additions are pure OR, please either cite or remove--Snowded (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I can go to the other articles and completely source it. Now see this is exactly my complaint. You did not assume good faith. You have made ridiculious allegations that it's pure WP:OR which is counter productive. And your criticisms are not productive in that they are threatening as, who is it that is going to remove my pure OR additions? You simply could have just asked me to source the addition instead of throwing inapproporate allegations..This is a consistent pattern of abuse in your interactions with me. But then again I am here to improve the article where you are here with an obvious axe to grind. WP:Axe to grind. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do try and calm down, I asked you to cite or remove which is a reasonable request. Your have now put in various references to comic book web sites (although one requires a subscription) which can be verified.  Its simple really. --Snowded (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop projecting try and calm down yourself. You accused me of pure OR. Now please refrain from such disruptive behaviour and not accuse people of nefarious behaviour. It is against WP:AGF But rather be respectful and try and collorator with them. Again you are the one who is banned for pervious conduct not me. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not disruptive to ask someone to cite or delete, checkout policy. --Snowded (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is disruptive and against WP:AGF to not assume Good faith and accuse them of pure OR. But you'lll just keep arguing since what prompted my response was- As you clearly stated- "Your latest additions are pure OR"  LoveMonkey (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As written they were, hence the polite request --Snowded (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this pointless bickering, it is not conducive to the improvement of the article. Lovemonkey, thanks for your interest in developing the article further; might I request that when adding new content, you include its source, even if only a URL, book title or ISBN? That way other editors can verify the content for themselves. Snowded, I appreciate your intention in trying to make sure the article satisfies high standards WP:V and WP:NPOV, but if you can't conduct yourself in a welcoming and charitable manner you need to re-evaluate whether your continued participation here is in the interest of the encyclopaedia. Now back on topic, please. Skomorokh 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh, asking for a source is reasonable, responding politely to the resultant phrases such as "persistent patter of abuse" is being charitable and I could cite a few comments from you on various pages which are comparable at least.  Good idea to break up bikering, bad idea to preach.  --Snowded (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do Skomorokh. I am most sorry. I am doing my best to not lose my cool on this. Again Skomorokh I am sorry. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the in-depth analysis of various Objectivist influenced character is out of place, as it tells us nothing about Rand. Would prefer having a brief, one-sentence description. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with TallNapoleon; although I would like to see an in-depth analysis of various Objectivist-influenced characters, it is a little out of place in a biography of Rand. Perhaps we can find another article in which the material can be developed. Given the wealth of writing about these comparatively minor footnotes on Rand, and the space concerns TallNapoleon highlights below, there may be cause to do with this section as has been done with Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality and Ayn Rand and the history of philosophy. Skomorokh  07:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Lovemonkey.....run away from this page.69.105.58.132 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherryBrushcherry (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * ??? Who wrote this was it you brushcherry? But you know I think I'll comply. I don't really agree with Rand but I believe people should be free.

LoveMonkey (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Prisoner
The recent insertion on this as "influenced by Rand" is not supported by the citation which simply says it is anti-communitarian, the reliability of the source is also disputable, its just an opinion piece in a libertarian web site as far as I can see. It is surreal i nature and can be interpreted as supporting individualism over collectivism however (i) You can't go from Rand is an individualist, to all individualists are influenced by Rand and (ii) no evidence is presented in the citation that any of those involved in the production were so influenced. --Snowded (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't concurBrushcherry (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Well perhaps you could point to the words in the citation that support the edit? --Snowded (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * well perhaps you could tell me what citations are acceptable. any pro-rand citation is unacceptable because it is pro-rand.Brushcherry (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * As a starting point, citations should support the claim to which they are appaended. This one does not. The article quoted gives a passing mention of Ayn Rand:


 * Ask a Parisian to name an Ayn Rand book and he'll give you a blank stare; mention The Prisoner and you'll likely hear back the French version of the series' catch-phrase, "Be seeing you"–Bonjour chez vous!
 * That's it. There is nothing in the citation to support the claim that The Prisoner was influenced by Rand. As such the statement is misleading and deceptive, and should be removed immediately. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i am sure Skomorokh will oblige.Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * You gave a "non-answer" above BushCherry, I suspect because you could not find anything. This is not a matter of pro and anti-Rand, its a matter of evidence.  Is there anything in the citation which says the Prisoner was influenced by Rand?  No, so the edit does not stand.  --Snowded (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough...if lovemonkey and skomorokh both agree. i concur to remove.Brushcherry (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * I removed it. I see plenty of online Objectivist sources expressing fondness for The Prisoner but we don't have evidence that Patrick McGoohan had even heard of Ayn Rand.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I support removal at this point, pending reliable sources to the contrary. Skomorokh  17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange I added it due to the upcoming movie and that it is a very good representation of 60s individualism. Many have made the connection between the shows ideas and Rand MANY. So now please clarify is the validity of the inclusion that Patrick McGoohan must express that he was directly influenced by Ayn Rand? Or just another source mentions the connection that is not strictly Randian biased. Since the editors here consistently throw out policy, and rather state that no longer are common ideas about people and groups held by them valid but rather only ideas about sources held by those in opposition or neutral to them are valid since Objectivist sources can not be used. Deletion happy but unable to be fair and even handed? So much for balance in presentation.
 * Here's some examples

"It’s probably the only series Ayn Rand might have admitted to watching."
 * And..
 * "As with much of the extensive symbolism employed in the series, this device had multiple layers of meaning. Obviously, it signifies the elimination of individual identity, a time-honored SF device found in such dystopias as Ayn Rand's Anthem, Mordecai Roshwald's Level 7, and Yevgeny Zamyatin's We. At the same time, it pokes fun at the identity codes of popular spy fiction, in particular the famous "007" of James Bond."

Since now things common to a subject but not directly but secondarily common to the subject are no longer valid information worthy of inclusion.
 * And.
 * "Some of the episodes, including the absurd finale, were too nonsensical (it was the hippy-dippy late ‘60s, mind you), but the better ones rank right up with Ayn Rand in their power to promote the idea of individualism."

I mean its no like I quote a libertarian biased site like Box Office Mojo. Since now things common to a subject but not directly but secondarily common to the subject are no longer valid information worthy of inclusion. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't say that someone was influenced by Rand unless there is a reliable source which says s/he was. The Prisoner has multiple aspects to it, and while it might be claimed by the followers of Rand, or people might speculate that she would have liked to watch it that means nothing.  It was very popular in socialist circles in Britain at the time as well.   Does that make it a socialist movie?  If there are other examples where policy was not applied then point them out.

And you are? (Since you have no sign at the end of your remarks) LoveMonkey (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to say that something has a similarity to Rand's ideas. It is quite another to say that it was influenced by Rand. You would need a solid, academic source stating that, and even then, without the show's creators coming out and saying so explicitly, you could probably only say that some people believe the show was influenced by Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * More bickering and attempting to argue and justify bad behavior by banned editors User:Snowded and User:TallNapoleon. This is why WP:Axe to Grind destroys articles. Wow the Rand article has really unclear and unique policies cause WP:Source DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU JUST SAID! Example Ayn Rand was a celebrity Since when do academic ever validate celebrities info.I'll cut to the chase-NEVER. As if ever thing common about Rand has to be validated by academia.
 * Example:WP:Source says instead that
 * "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." LoveMonkey (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Love Monkey, no one is bickering just pointing out policy. You have no source that says anything or anyone in the Prisoner was influenced by Rand.  Now please cease these commentaries on other editors and address the content issues.  You might also check out how to use indents by the way.  Its not hard. --Snowded (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good you signed that comment! You might yourself learn to edit better & put your sig at the end of your comments like you couldn't do with your previous comment above. But you've not been one open to criticism but REAL quick to put your criticism right up front. As for your ignoring my comments above I will re-post one of them here.
 * And..
 * "As with much of the extensive symbolism employed in the series, this device had multiple layers of meaning. Obviously, it signifies the elimination of individual identity, a time-honored SF device found in such dystopias as Ayn Rand's Anthem, Mordecai Roshwald's Level 7, and Yevgeny Zamyatin's We. At the same time, it pokes fun at the identity codes of popular spy fiction, in particular the famous "007" of James Bond." LoveMonkey (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And where does that say that there was any influence by Rand? --Snowded (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And since why are you ignoring what I posted above, in that it is a common association made with Rand? I just sourced with multiple sources? By your standard Christmas isn't Christian because A. Christ didn't celebrate it and B. it ain't in the bible C. And scholars didnt say so (i.e. pliny).. You and this group of editors' conduct is ruining this article. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not produced a single source which says that the writers or actors in The Prisoner were influenced by Rand. If you do come back here and we can have a discussion. --Snowded (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * quote all the sources you want. "They" will find fault with them.  Anything that says ayn rand is a philosopher is unacceptable because "obviously" no reputable source would say she is.  give up and just watch the show.Brushcherry (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Good Advice Brushcherry, Good Advice.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased sources
The presumptuously named "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" is not an WP:NPOV compliant source. See for example this radical right-wing extremist piece on the so-called "Right to Private Property." The same would go for citation of anything by its author, Tibor Machan. The guy is a card-carrying right-"libertarian" (Cato Institute) and former faculty member of the *bleeping* Ludwig von Mises Institute, for the love of neutrality! Relying on the likes of Machan and the IEoP to be used as sources for Ayn Rand as a "philosopher" is akin to deferring to Vladimir Lenin as a source on whether Karl Marx was a "scientist." This is simply outrageous. I demand a reconsideration of these extremely biased Austro-libertarian sources. --Down2theRhythm (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the IEP should be treated as a blog source. As far as I'm aware, these are not published articles, as they only appear on this internet site. I really don't see how this site is any more reputable than the philosopher blogs that we have mostly rejected. CABlankenship (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The IEP is a peer-reviewed, attributed, scholarly source with editorial oversight from qualified professionals, which is published by the University of Tennessee at Martin, and which has entered mainstream academic discourse. As such, it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for reliable scholarship; though if you disagree, feel free to raise the matter at WP:RSN. Without commenting on the two articles in question, that, for example, an entry on descriptivism be written by an academic who holds descriptivist views, is so common it is mundane. Skomorokh  08:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely suspicious of the neutrality of an article that begins "Ayn Rand was a major intellectual of the twentieth century. " How do we know the IEP is not funded by the Objectivist Centre? I agree however that until we can establish the facts, it should remain a 'reliable' and 'independent' source.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

--- Emailed the editors of the IEP: "Hello, I have a question about the usually very reliable "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". The article on Ayn Rand  by Stephen Hicks is highly uncritical of Rand, which is surprising given that very few if any serious scholars consider her as anything other than a novelist with some native philosophical talent but who was self-taught, lacking in rigour and philosophically naive.  The article is written by Stephen Hicks who I believe receives a grant from the Objectivist centre and cannot be considered independent.  Were the reviewers of this article independent?  The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (article 'Popular Philosophy' by Anthony Quinton) classifies her as an 'amateur philosopher'.  Hick's article, by contrast, opens with the statement that she is a 'major intellectual of the twentieth century'.  I asked Prof. Mike Huemer (Philosophy Dept., Univ. of Colorado) for a second opinion, and he wrote back as follows: "Most academic philosophers do not discuss or think about Ayn Rand. Most who know anything about her probably think she is an amateur who is not worth spending much time discussing. In my own view, Rand had some important ideas that are interesting to discuss. I think her novels show some real insight into human nature and how society works, and I think her political theories are basically right. She also, unfortunately, suffered from insufficient knowledge of the philosophical literature, insufficient training, a tendency to oversimplify, and a severe uncharitableness towards others". With best wishes Dr Edward B Peter Damian (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I had an email discussion on Rand with Daniel Dennett. His response can be summarized with his comment: "Ayn Rand does not deserve the attention of any serious philosopher." However, seeing as how I am not a "serious philosopher", I have continued to give her attention. CABlankenship (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hicks was a senior fellow at the Objectivist Center, 1999/2000.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Thanks. I just had a reply from Jim Fieser (ed in chief IEP).  He agrees with what I say, and claims he is no fan of Rand from an academic perspective.  The reason they included the article by Hicks was because the IEP tries to model itself after the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which has an article on Rand. Hicks had approached them, and they agreed.  'It was a tough call'.  I think this reflects very poorly on the IEP, and it had me doubting its credibility.  Moreover, the Routledge article is very critical, unlike the one by Hicks.  But, regrettably, it has to stand as source.  Peter Damian (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article length
The article is now 105 kilobytes long. It has been my contention for some time that this article is overlong. Would people be willing to begin to consider trimming it down? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant metric is "readable prose", which I judge to be 49 kB, suggesting that splits are something worth considering. The Philosophy section is poorly written/cited, and we already have a number of sub-articles (Objectivism (Ayn Rand), Objectivist metaphysics, Objectivist epistemology, Objectivist ethics, Objectivist politics, Romantic realism) on the topic, so I think it can be condensed to a brief summary of the important points (which shouldn't be difficult given the systematic nature of Rand's beliefs). As the fine recent addition indicates, there are big gaps in the article's coverage of Rand's life; perhaps, if expanded to be comprehensive, this would be long enough to justify splitting as a stand-alone article, with a much-condensed (i.e. in the region of three 10-line paragraphs) summary here. The fiction section probably needs to be dismembered into (future) subsections on Rand's middle years (Hollywood to New York), impact/legacy and literary criticism, for coherency (current article jumps from biography to fiction to biography) but it's of appropriate length. The Objectivist movement section (in "Later years") can be tightened up a bit; the general reader is less interested in factional schisms and fallings-out than the Wikipedia editor, and there's little need to repeat in as much detail to content already in Objectivist movement, The Collective (Ayn Rand), Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and so on. I think the "Political and social views" and Legacy sections are given far too much weight; the former deserves maybe a paragraph in a politics subsection of the Philosophy section. I think Objectivism and academic philosophy is definitely tenable as a standalone article, and can be summarised in a few lines here (Rand hostile to academics, academics dismissive of Rand, some institutes, recent advances in Objectivist scholarship/academic interest). The "Popular interest and influence" of the article, as in most articles, struggles to resist the temptation to turn into a crufty "in popular culture" list; it's difficult to pull these sorts of sections off, as while it's important to inform the reader of the person's impact, there is often little high-quality critical commentary of the popular interest. One easy and uncontroversial candidate for a split is the Bibliography section; it's conventional to take this out and leave just a  tag. If a restructuring along these lines were done, we would have a much leaner and sharper article, and it would be more difficult for editors to insert paragraphs on topics of marginal relevance.  Skomorokh  07:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * could we start with 90% of the article that deals with her non philosoher status, philosophical criticism, political and social views? inasmuch as she is not a philospher, it seems silly to deal with her philosophical views.Brushcherry (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * I would concur with Skomorokh here. The cited edit which started to take a neutral and chronological approach to her life is more what this article should be about, rather than an advocacy platform for her views, or a dismissal of criticism.  I am less sure about creating and article on "Objectivism and acadmic philosophy" as that might be better and more logically handled in [Objectivism (Ayn Rand)].  Incidentally Skomorokh, while I am and will remain opposed to naming that Obectivism I wonder if another qualification might be better.  It seems to me that the philosophy that has arisen post Rand is serious, and is not simply a development of Rand's ideas but fits within a broader tradition.  --Snowded (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i would not concur with Skomorokh here. Is this a biography page or an author page or philosopher page or cult leader page or what?69.105.58.132 (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherryBrushcherry (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * It is a biography about an author who is variously considered either a philosopher or a cult leader. Perhaps you could explain with what you do not concur? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * she is an author. she wrote x,y,z fiction books. she wrote a,b,c non-fiction books.  all the rest is opinionBrushcherry (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Yes, and it is Wikipedia's job to explore the major opinions about its subjects. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * as snowded is fond of saying....wikipedia is not a democracyBrushcherry (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Actually I have never said it in this forum, however it is true. --Snowded (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the article too long, I think editors should also note the proliferation of articles on Objectivism. Does Wikipedia treat any other philosophy in this manner? Are there separate articles on criticisms of empiricism, empiricism and academic philosophy, empiricism and politics? No. Rand is getting special treatment, and this seems to me to be clearly an epiphenomenon of the energy of editors who approve her views.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To split or not to split
So there seems to be some support for shortening the article, and some concern at the number of Rand-related articles out there. Do editors support splitting overly-long but reliably sourced sections of this article into their own articles or not? (Presuming they would satisfy WP:N, WP:FORK and WP:SPLIT). Skomorokh 13:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"their own articles" ??KD Tries Again (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Sections of the Ayn Rand article being split into stand-alone articles. I apologize if my expression was not clear, English is not my first language. Regards, Skomorokh  17:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I get some input on this? The article is expanding, and unlikely to get any shorter without splits. Skomorokh  10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rigorous"
A number of new sources have been added, described as "rigorous" defenses of some aspect of Rand's work. We cannot state thta they are rigorous, as that is POV. We can only state that they are defenses. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And the comments should all go. Assuming good faith is all very well, but I checked the two of the "rigorous" authors cited - David Kelley and Tara Smith - he's a director of the Objectivist Center and she holds a chair in "Objectivist studies" somewhere.  Sheer common sense detects publication bias here. We are being played for fools.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I think we need administrator intervention here, to be perfectly honest. Things are yet again deteriorating, and without some folks willing and able to lay down the law it will just get work. If no one else objects I'll make a post to ANI and ask for some additional administrative oversight. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * i'm surprised administrators, arbcom, etc would even bother with ayn rand anymore. it is such a mess. the fact someone who has been banned from editing the ayn page has the gumption to ask for administrative oversight is astounding.  yes, yes, yes, you are free to contribute to the talk page, calm down, and its a free wikipedia, you should feel free to make a post to ANI.  "things are yet again deteriorating"?? to what?  the situation that got you banned?  perhaps you should reflect on your ban and consider if you are part of the problem or the solution.Brushcherry (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) brushcherry


 * Ignoring Brushcherry's remarks which could be considered an example of failing to take the Arbcom ruling seriously. I am not sure an administrator will help to be honest.  The question of sources and evidence was raised when the case was taken there and Arcbcom resolutely refused to the issue up.  At the moment we have a mass of edits which need modification but we only have two editors active at the moment.   I'd suggest a discussion on evidence in the context of WP:Weight.  We need as a community to agree something here, and or use other Wikipedia groups to moderate an agreement then seek enforcement.  In that context while Tara Smith is funded by objectivist sympathisers she does hold a position in a respectable university, while Kelley is more questionable.  For the moment it may fall to you KD to remove the qualitative statements, although its good to see more references been added.  --Snowded (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmmm.....who isn't taking arbcom seriously? they banned you for edit warring, but you are right because the question of sources and evidence (which of course you are correct about) (<sarcasm) was resolutely refused to be discussed.  maybe, just maybe, arbcom was right.  are you part of the problem or part of the solution?Brushcherry (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry


 * Bushcherry I've got a three month topic ban which I am respecting. Arcbcom said that their remit did not include the issue of evidence but it had to be resolved within the editorial community.  You were reminded that the talk page is for content discussion and asked to broaden your interests.   Todate few if any of your contributions have been about content, but you have continued talking about editors and you have not diversified your interests.  I strongly suggest you abide by and respect the Arbcom ruling.  --Snowded (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a request for intervention here. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the descriptive content in those references needs to go, so I'll remove it (I've inserted neutral language instead). Ironic to find Rand, of all people, defended in language which would be at home in a giveaway Trotskyist newsletter. I expect soon to read that she "relentlessly demonstrated" something or other.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Perhaps I could ask User 72.199.110.160, who has made an enormous number of edits over the last two or three days, to be cautious about using the reference section for advocacy purposes? Rand is indeed a character in Buckley's novel Getting it Right, but the appropriate supporting reference is to that very book, and not to an objectivist blog article criticizing Buckley; which is not a Wikipedia reliable source in any case.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I think limiting the Notes section strictly to publishing details and quotes from the source would be a good idea. Skomorokh  10:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Influenced
72.199.110.160 please discuss these additions here first. It was one of the major bones of contention and should not be subject to direct editing without agreement. The prior position was a small number of major names, not a shopping list of anyone who might be remotely influenced. If listed there also needs to be citation. I would recommend that you revert the edit and present the names here for discussion,, contentious issues are meant to be discussed here first under the Arbcom ruling and that is one of them. --Snowded (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, 72.199.110.160 (obviously an editor without an account) has been putting in a lot of work on the article without engaging with other editors. I have to say, 72.199.110.160 clearly has exceptional knowledge of this field, and has created and worked on a range of related articles.  And the editing is pretty efficient.  I think we must be welcoming, but also guide the editor as far as original research and reliable sources are concerned.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Snowded, Rand's influence on all those mentioned is included in their articles, I'm pretty sure. W/ the exception of Ditko all the ones added are Objectivists. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with KD, but that involves the editor spending some time here as well as on the main page. TallN, I don't disagree, but you can't list everyone and we agreed to keep the list tight, it needs discussion and in some cases I would want to check the citation on their talk pages.  --Snowded (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree completely, Snowded. I just wanted it to be clear that these weren't problematic because of sourcing but because of brevity. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am however worried that the IP editor is not engaging on the talk page. Hopefully they will, if not then I think its a report for failure to abide by Arbcom rules for editors not named. --Snowded (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy: Christopher Hitchens
It is hard to keep up with the unilateral, undiscussed edits which are being made. I just deleted the reference to Hitchens describing Rand as a leading intellectual of the Right. Why? Yes, he said it. But he has said other things about Rand too. He has described her fiction as "transcendentally awful," and called her "one of the battiest females to have infested the American scene". The context of the laudatory remark was a discussion of atheism, and he was making the point that leading lights on the Right had been atheists. Again, I'd urge our very busy IP editor (who is doing some good work) to avoid advocacy - in this case through selective quotation.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * The material has been reinserted without discussion. I placed a note on the user page.  However this IP address ha a history of simply ignoring other comments so I expect this will have to be notified at Arbcom enforcement.  --Snowded (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. This might be a BLP Notice Board issue, as Hitchens is being deliberately misrepresented here, and he's a living person last time I looked.  One could simply add his comment about Rand's unique level of battiness, but that's how this article has already spiralled out of control.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Talk:Ayn Rand/Sandbox again
I made a number of changes to the sandbox, trimming a good amount of material off the article. Would anyone care to comment on what they think? TallNapoleon (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is odd that someone who is not a philosopher has a philosophy section. a philosophical criticism section. rand works and academic philosophy.Brushcherry (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The general distribution of Objectivist content on Wikipedia
So as not to distract from the issue of which content should stay and go from the Ayn Rand article, let's discuss the broader issues here. Skomorokh 14:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski and KD above suggest a central forum for discussing Objectivist content, a project perhaps. It so happens that there was a WikiProject Objectivism some time ago where editors collaborated on Objectivism-related content; you'll notice it's banner at the top of this page. I attempted to revive it last year, doing article assessments and the like, but inactivity and partisanship made it untenable. If there is interest in systematically addressing the issue of the distribution of Objectivist content, and editors willing to set aside their personal perspectives to examine the issue dispassionately, then I would like to suggest we discuss the issue there. Thoughts? Skomorokh 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that wiki works best when it keeps to general information and facts. While people may want to use wiki as a platform for educating people on the views of their favorite philosophers, I don't believe that this is wise or helpful. Inevitably, such articles just become a mess, which is probably why so few philosophy articles make it to featured article status. Amateur enthusiasts end up indulging their desire to have their writings and interpretations featured on a popular public stage, but such work is rarely satisfactory, and often reads like confused hogwash. It seems likely to me that any attempt at using wiki as a platform for a comprehensive study of philosophy will turn out useless for educational purposes. CABlankenship (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think any topic where editors engage in Original Research will suffer. There is no reason good style and good writing cannot be used to refine the quality of this article and the Objectivism article. Karbinski (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think inactivity is a risk. We agreed to discuss sources [here], but as it's no longer at the foot of the talk page, the discussion has tailed off.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Can we have a cross-article template, such that each articles talk-page would have a section for this template, and any discussions held on the template are "pushed" to all of the talk pages at once? I don't know "wiki-technology" well enough to answer that question. Karbinski (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something like cent? Alternatively, we could stick it in randroid. Skomorokh  22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like cent, but without hiding contents behind links. And living in a talk-page section or as an eternal talk-page footer instead of as a header.  Most important: it would need an easily found EDIT link.  Karbinski (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like this? You cant transclude sections of talkpages, so "hiding contents behind links" unless discussion is to take place within the template itself. Skomorokh  22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards the discussion taking place within the template itself. Karbinski (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created a template below, though I prefer your shorter title. One of the drawbacks here is that its a little confusing if you don't know how templates work Karbinski (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
I've started reviewing the large and growing list of references, especially in the context of self-published sources, but also Wiki policy on sources generally. I got through the first hundred. Quite a few references appear to direct to three self-published blogs, and these are unacceptable per Wiki policy:


 * http://www.noblesoul.com/: I know "Objectivism Reference Center" sounds grand, but anyone can start a blog with a grand name. It's just some guy's site.


 * http://www.lewrockwell.com/


 * http://ariwatch.com/: This actually appears to be anonymous, unless I am missing something.

Chris Sciabarra's own web-pages are also cited a number of times, but I suppose he's "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"?

I don't want to re-hash old debates (or read the archives from beginning to end). Is there an existing consensus about using the Ayn Rand Institute's website as a source? It's certainly not a "reliable source" - I suppose it might be admitted as a self-published source on itself (although it's really used here as a source on Ayn Rand), but surely it could be described as "unduly self-serving." Surely the article relies on it too much? (I hope it's noted that my comments are impartial as to whether the sources are pro- or anti-Rand).KD Tries Again (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * You now get to the real nub of the problem - sources. This is particularly true for Philosophy. If you check then sources seem to be (i) Objectivist Philosophers of standing who like her ideas but reject her as a philosopher (ii) People with varying levels of academic connection in objectivist institutes (iii) people whose work is funded by objectivist donors (iv) occassional reference by non-objectivist philosophers in their blogs etc.  The best formulation we had on the lede was that she was an author who generated or inspired a philosophical movement and that gained consensus but was reversed just prior to a freeze.  My view is that we need to agree principles for citation and weight here before making too many changes to the article.  --Snowded (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded, most "Objectivist Philosophers of standing" definitely don't reject her as a philosopher, otherwise they would hardly be Objectivist. There are a number of Objectivist philosophers post-Rand who have done serious work, and I think they should definitely be considered experts on the topic. I actually know one who is a philosophy professor at my university. If the atmosphere here weren't so downright poisonous I'd ask him if he'd be willing to help with sources, but I don't want to bring anyone else into this mess. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they are dismissive of her philosophical understanding (see various quotes above), and I think Objectivism has moved on from Rand and while I disagree with them in the main I acknowledge the quality of their work.  I think that distinction is important to resolving the issue.  --Snowded (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the extremely poor sources I identified is, of course, violently opposed to Rand. I plan to carry on editing as if this were any Wikipedia article, and see what happens.KD Tries Again (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * It would be preferable to replace the sources identified. In some cases, these sorts of references are mostly harmless, e.g. citing Noblesoul.com for a quote excerpted from one of Rand's books – it's unlikely an Objectivist site would misquote her. Most of the questionable sources are simply republishing material that would otherwise be considered reliable; that is, the only question is whether or not their republishing preserved the integrity of the original work . The reprint of Rothbard's Sociology in Lewrockwell.com is a good example of this; Rockwell is the Peikoff of the LvMI and extremely unlikely to misrepresent Rothbard. The point here is that it's not the reliability of the website that is of primary importance, but that of the original publisher.


 * I'd be more suspicious of using the ARI as a reliable source on the number of copies of Atlas Shrugged; this sort of thing should only be mentioned where an independent (from the ARI and from booksellers) source has published the claim. Although ARI is in some cases the best source available, if only because of their privileged access to documents and reticence to share them with scholars (cf. Sciabarra and Rand's transcript), I definitely agree with KD's suggestion that the article is over-reliant on the institute. One unacceptable reference is Last.fm, whose artist biographies last time I checked were open wikis. KD, I think a thorough fisking of the sources is an idea to be welcomed; it would be a good idea to list the questionable references here in full, so we can debate their merits on a case-by-case basis and hopefully find replacements. Skomorokh  10:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree of course that we should find replacements where possible. If a website is quoting a book, the reference should be to the original book (especially if the website is adding a critical gloss).  I think it does stretch Wiki policy a bit far to accept a source as reliable on the basis that it is quoting an original source which is reliable - blogs are not reliable sources - but I don't want to be over-lawyerly about it. I'll try and pull the questionable references into manageable groups.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

1. ARI Watch
Okay, kicking off the references review. This website is cited in refs 77 and 79. It's an anti-Rand site. I can't see any details of ownership, authorship, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Looks like a classic bad source - self-published, unreviewed, no fact checking. 77 has already been tagged. 77 supports "While Rand often criticized conventional motivations for U.S. involvement in World War I, World War II..."; 79 supports She strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for—and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense" and "Rand opposed the Vietnam War". The website purports to quote Rand's texts, and those are the citations we should be using if they are accurate. Is anyone in a position to check for accuracy - it should all be in the "Roots of War" essay in the Capitalism book? I don't see a clear-cut statement of opposition to the Vietnam war in the link, except in a footnote which purports to be a transcript from a Q&A session somewhere. Agree these need to be replaced?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I agree with your assessment of the source, and don't see any reason to retain the references. Sciabarra here verifies Rand's opposition to the Vietnam War and I have a battered copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal I should be able to access this week; will those two refs suffice? Skomorokh  17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I have a few battered old Rands on the shelves, but not that one.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Oddly enough, it's the only one I've got. I've added the Sciabarra ref to verify the opposition of the Objective One to the Vietnam War. Skomorokh  18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like 160 beat me to it. All references to ARI Watch have now been replaced – shall we move on to the next candidate? Skomorokh  07:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ARI Watch is not  “an anti-Rand site” -- quite the contrary. It is however anti much of the so-called Ayn Rand Institute. -- Mark

2. Noble Soul (The Objectivist Reference Center)
Okay, next candidate. Cites currently numbered 33, 35, 43, and 116. Go to the pageand it looks like a clear-cut example of a solo blog, unedited, not peer-revied, self-published. Classic Wiki unreliable source, and the official-sounding tag "The Objectivist Reference Center" doesn't help. 33 purports to cite a transcript of the HUAC proceedings. Even if it's a correct transcript, the editorialising (check the footnotes) makes it an advocacy piece. 35 is something which, if posted directly on Wiki, would be OR. 43 is superflous, as it follows an adequate reference. I can't see how 116 supports the statements in the article anyway; it doesn't seem to contain the language quoted.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I concur with the assessment; this is a partisan source with no oversight by respected scholars or publishers, and should be avoided where possible. I have replaced three citations with book refs, and removed the one which merely attempted to support a proper reference to a primary source; this I have replaced with a request for a page number. I have left the site as an external link, however, as it does provide a useful resource per WP:ELYES. Skomorokh  00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Lew Rockwell.com
Reference 41. Again, looks like a blog to me. The reference is to an article by Rothbard. I am not clear whether the article was previously published in a reliable forum.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Published in 1990 by the Center for Libertarian Studies. This is a primary source, Rothbard was a respected scholar and prominent libertarian figure; I don't think reliability is really an issue. Skomorokh  17:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Rebirthofreason.com
Reference 125. It's a blog: "Rebirth of ReasonTM was founded on Dec 1, 2005 by Joseph Rowlands. It is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. The site is intended to advance Objectivism, the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand." Any doubts about its editing standards, take a look at the submissions guidelines, e.g. "Additionally, RoR aims to promote a positive culture, so articles that conflict with this goal may be rejected." The specific article referenced is a piece on Kant written by an accountant. It needs to go. There's an additional cite at 125, so no big loss.