Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 38

Why I am in favor of cutting
A while ago, I posted this excerpt from Borges here. However it has since retreated into the depths of the archives, so I'm taking the liberty of posting it again:

"... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography reached such Perfection that the map of one Province alone took up the whole of a City, and the map of the empire, the whole of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps did not satisfy, and the Colleges of Cartographers set up a Map of the Empire which had the size of the Empire itself and coincided with it point by point. Less Addicted to the Study of Cartography, Succeeding Generations understood that this Widespread Map was Useless and not without Impiety they abandoned it to the Inclemencies of the Sun and of the Winters. In the deserts of the West some mangled Ruins of the Map lasted on, inhabited by animals and Beggars; in the whole Country there are no other relics of the Disciplines of Geography."

- Jorge Luis Borges

The point is that a map so large and so detailed is worthless, because the user would drown in the detail. The whole point of a map is to summarize--that is, to selectively exclude detail to provide an overview that can be seen and comprehended at a glance. An encyclopedia's purpose is similar. Even though Wikipedia is not paper, when the level of detail grows too great, usability suffers. Readers seeking a general overview of a topic drown in an endless, self-referential sea of detail--whether or not it's split into sub-articles. For years, the Objectivism WikiProject has essentially been collapsed under its own mammoth weight. We need to fix this, and the only way to do so is to cut the fat. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's like saying we don't need an article on Australia because it's mentioned in the Earth article. Some subjects that are very notable need to be split up. Keep the main biographical stuff and summaries of content here, preserve the notable details in sub articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot compare the notability of Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality to the notability of Australia. To attempt to do so is absurd. By and large a detailed discussion of Rand's views on homosexuality, per Runciman, would simply not be of interest to the average reader. These would only be of interest to enthusiasts--and Wikipedia is for general readers. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ayn Rand is a popular and controversial figure of great influence. I understand your opinion and your dislike for her. But when her views receive substantial coverage in reliable sources, that is the basis for notability and inclusion. To pick and choose which areas we think the "average" reader would be interested in is beyond the scope of our work as editors and contributors. There are lots of subjects and entire articles that "average" readers wouldn't be interested in. Ayn Rand is very notable and so we have to cover her adequately and appropriately by including her views on war, homosexuality etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of notable people in the Wikipedia and most of them (including many far more notable than Rand) have shorter summarised material. This is an encyclopedia after all and it can reference other sources.  -- Snowded  TALK 06:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CoM, my low opinion of Rand has nothing to do with the fact that I favor cutting down these articles. I favor cutting these articles down to size because I believe that any reader coming to Wikipedia looking to learn about Objectivism would be better served if they were concise. As I have said before and will say again, the purpose of encyclopedias--including this one--is to summarize. That necessarily means that interesting information will not be included. This is unfortunate and regrettable, but it is also the only sane way. Otherwise we wind up with a mess, a collection of articles so verbose, overdetailed, and introspective that they positively intimidate the reader. In short, we wind up with what we have now. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not have a low opinion of Rand, but I agree that the detail before was excessive. Some of the big cuts made recently (especially the 15k whack that Karbinski gave to the political and cultural issues) have significantly improved the article by making it more digestible. I would also add that a number of the views discussed in the article previously, although interesting in their own right, were not biographically significant. Rand had her own magazines throughout the 60s and 70s, plus access to mainstream outlets, so if an issue was important to her she could and did publish whole essays about it. Issues like racism, the role of women, abortion and censorship all got this sort of significant treatment from Rand. Other issues, where the details are coming from passing remarks and answer to interview questions, were being discussed in the article because they are hot buttons today, not because Rand gave prominence to them in her own work. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're not biographically significant move them to an article on her views. As many editors previously have objected, I too object to the deletion of notable and well sourced information. Rand's views on war, economics, charity, indigenous rights, gender and sex, homosexuality, race and her role in popular culture are VERY notable and need to be restored to the encyclopedia ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but "VERY notable" to whom? Take, for example, Rand's views on charity. Where is the extensive discussion of this in reliable secondary sources that makes it so "VERY notable"? The previous article material on this subject was cobbled together from primary sources and frankly verges into WP:OR territory. Now, I have no objections to Rand's views on charity. I find them quite appealing. But they simply are not notable in terms of widespread discussion, nor are they important enough to her biography to belong in an encyclopedia article about her. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see wp:notability. A search of google news and google books makes it quite obvious that Rand's views on charity and the other issues are VERY notable. I've offered a compromise to move the content to a subarticle. But deleting this notable and widely discussed content on her views is inappropriate as it violates our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what kind of searches you are doing, but reading the results from a search for "'Ayn Rand' charity" on Google News suggests to me that there is very little discussion of her views on charity in reliable news sources. There is some discussion of charity in books that discuss her ethical theory, and the proper place for any mention of that is in the Objectivism article in the section on her ethics (with appropriate brevity). Since I don't care to search every corner to prove negatives, I leave it to you to bring forth the evidence of significant discussion in reliable sources about of Rand's views on "indigenous land rights" (which had four lines in the previous article material) or the 1973 Arab-Israeli war (five lines).
 * I would recommend including brief mentions of some of her more prominent views, such as her views on gender. But this should be in summary form and only about essentials, not long quotes and minor details. These sorts of topics deserve a sentence or two each in a short section about her role as a commenter on cultural issues, not named subsections and multiple freestanding paragraphs for each view. And any such discussion should be proportional: from the available evidence, Rand spent far more time commenting on the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater than she ever did talking about homosexuality or indigenous land rights. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I was going to post this last night before my Internet unceremoniously died. Anyway, just because Rand is notable does not mean every aspect of her life was notable, or that every one of her views was notable. The things which Rand are notable for are the things she was most known for, which are, in broad strokes, her books, her ethics (self-interest), her politics (capitalism), her passionate advocacy, the movement she created, and the impact she had on society. In addition, we include her biography and elements of her philosophy which, though she was less known for them, are valuable for understanding what she was more well known for. We also include criticism, and a brief analysis of her overall impact and legacy. That's quite a lot as it is. But note how none of this stuff is about Rand for Rand's sake. It's all about why Rand matters to the outside world and what she's well known for. In short, it revolves around what makes Rand notable. Rand's views on sexuality, homosexuality, race, ethnicity, and indigenous land do not make her notable, any more than Immanuel Kant's views on these matters make him notable. As with Kant, we should focus on the things which make Rand notable, taking care to summarize and always seek brevity and clarity. Although subarticles have a place, we cannot allow them to grow too extremely detailed, either, lest we wind up with an unmaintainable mess and inappropriate levels of detail. Anyway, it appears as though there appears to be a general consensus that this is the right way to go. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can usually find the right answer to these kinds of questions by asking what we would do if it wasn't Rand. You won't find out what Sartre or Chomsky or Derrida have to say about homosexuality in their Wikipedia articles, and they are each in their way very notable intellectuals; you will find it in Bertrand Russell's Wikipedia article, because he took notable action on law reform related to homosexuality.  Just because Rand is notable, not all of her attitudes and opinions are notable.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * "You won't find out what Sartre or Chomsky or Derrida have to say about homosexuality in their Wikipedia articles" Interesting since when I've made this type of observation someone cites some alleged Wikiprinciple that what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia has no bearing.Docsavage20 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I said something similar once because it's true: what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prove that something should or shouldn't exist (in terms of having an article). See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The key point is that independent reliable third-party sources discussing the matter -- with due consideration of undue weight, etc., to emphasize what is an is not important for an article -- are what we should be going by (generally speaking). That still does not mean that we should start inundating the reader with every surfaced factoid known to mankind making the article unreadable. That's not helpful, either. J Readings (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo. This was exactly my point, too. No reasonable editor would dispute the notability of Ayn Rand based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. All one needs to do is type the name "Ayn Rand" into any number of useful and well-respected databases and a plethora of information from independent third-party sources immediately surfaces. That fact does not mean suddenly that one has carte-blanche to inundate the reader with every factoid one can find on Ayn Rand. That was Dr. David Runciman's published point, too, and the point TallNapoleon continues to hammer home for months (if not years): why the excessive detail?  A biography should have basic personal background material surrounding the author, what he or she is essentially known for, what the controversial pluses and minuses were/are surrounding his or her work, his or her legacy (or lack thereof) and that is essentially all. Needless to say, everything must have the appropriate attributions to *reliable* independent third-party sources or we get into the wonderful world of original research and synthesis (not good). I'm surprised that some people still disagree with this structure. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a print publication, ergo some editors start to think that an article can be as lengthy as any one individual wants it to be. I'm not so sure that is (or ever was) an established policy on Wikipedia when one considers those who rightly object to coatracks, undue weight, and synthesis (among other things). J Readings (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So I would suggest that HUAC Testimony, early years and immigration are all sections that could use some judicious trimming. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The HUAC section should probably just be combined with the prior section on "Early activism and professional success." It fits both chronologically and thematically, so there's no strong reason for it to be sectioned off.
 * The Philosophy section needs a weed whacker taken to it. There is an entire large article about Objectivism. For this article we only need condensed summary, plus any personal idiosyncrasies of Rand's that are about philosophy but don't fit into the Objectivism article (her criticism of Kant, for example). --RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bioshock
The way the anon IP changed it is not as good as it was before. How would people feel about reverting it? I'm on 0RR so I'm not going to do so myself. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went one better and cut the mention back to the brevity it deserves, and found a cite for it. --RL0919 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladstein literary criticism
The article currently contains the following passage under the Ayn Rand section: "Critic Mimi Gladstein (author of The New Ayn Rand Companion), called Rand's characters flat and uninteresting, and her heroes implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent." A citation is provided, which is to Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, page 140. There is no such material on page 140 of the edition I have. Moreover, this is an anthology that Gladstein co-edited, so the article at that page is not even by Gladstein. Her only article is much earlier in the book, so even allowing that the reference might be to another edition with different pagination, I doubt her article would appear anywhere near page 140. Also, the criticism described does not sound like Gladstein's opinions of Rand that I have read elsewhere. So I've tagged the citation asking for a quote, but even more importantly whoever provides this should double-check the author of the passage, because I seriously doubt it is Gladstein. --RL0919 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Routledge quote on Rand and the "intellectual mainstream"
I don't think that the spirit of the Routledge quote is that Rand became notorious simply for defending capitalism, but rather that it was the style of her defense (a celebration of selfishness) which lead to her being rejected. I found the previous phrasing to be subtly misleading. CABlankenship (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to this, I agree that the right-hand side version is more accurate, but the reason the left-hand side version is less faithful to the source is to avoid plagiarizing it. The statement currently reads as a close paraphrase. Skomorokh  23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Something needs to be done about that entry, though. Clearly, it wasn't simply Rand's defense of capitalism that kept her out of the intellectual mainstream, as we can be sure that her rejection by Buckley, Nozick, Rothbard, and others had nothing at all to do with simply defending capitalism. As such, that phrasing seems extremely misleading. Furthermore, there are plenty of philosophers who defend capitalism and are not "kept out of the intellectual mainstream" (as seems obvious), and so I think that a clarification is needed. CABlankenship (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Necessary changes in the philosophy section
I am concerned that over half of the section is dedicated to critiques of Rand and of her work, and yet there is very little presentation of essential aspects of the philosophy or of its development. I think that these need to be added. Also, I think that the acknowledged criticisms of that section should be placed under the Reception portion of the article. — Brandonk2009 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon further reflection, the Reception section is not appropriate to place the criticisms. But I still maintain that something needs to be done here. Brandonk2009 (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very much on the list... we don't want this section getting too big, though, because there's already a whole article about it. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we trimmed a lot and I'm thankful. But I think that the amount of attention, in the philosophy section, aimed at criticizing Rand (and not necessarily just her philosophy) is a major problem. For example, if the criticism on her view of Kant is to be included, there needs to be more on what her view of Kant is. Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We can trim the criticism instead of bulking up the objectivism bit. --Karbinski (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After re-reading the section, the Kant stuff is an example, so its fine. --Karbinski (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of necessary changes, debate on the Template page led me to look at the actual source for this passage:

''Stressing that this "is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought," Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Branden's suggestion that her "wholesale rejection" of some other viewpoints was due to her "theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style." As a polemicist, Branden argues, she often dismissed her opponents on "moralistic or psychologistic" grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor.''

It needs to be rewritten to make it clear who is saying what. The quote which follows, "Branden argues...", for example, is not Branden but Sciabarra; and although it says Sciabarra "discusses Branden's suggestion" we aren't told what he says about it. In fact, looking at the source, he doesn't discuss it at all but basically just reports it - and I regret to say that the "Stressing..." quote does not refer directly to what Branden says (arguably it encompasses Branden's criticism among others, but the current draft is misleading). It can be read here. I can re-word it, but I wanted to ask first if there is any reason we are using Sciabarra's very brief summary of Branden rather than Branden.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Honestly, I added a lot of that (not the "stressing" part), and it seemed clear to me that the entire paragraph in question was a discussion of Branden's arguments. CABlankenship (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but if you take a look at page 12 there are three full paragraphs. The first sets out Sciabarra's intention to compare Rand with past philosophers, the second summarizes some comments by Branden, and the third begins "This is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought..." (emphasis added).  The Branden paragraph raises no issues about originality, so that summary comment applies at least as much to the preceding remarks on Spinoza, Nietzsche, Locke, etc.  Reading just the current article draft, I had thought - especially with the addition of "stressing" - that Sciabarra was specifically putting Branden's remarks into context.  But looking at the original, that's not the case.
 * Solutions? (1) I could try a rewrite; (2) There is nothing to lose by ignoring Sciabarra and referring to Branden's original remarks (Sciabarra is doing nothing else than summarizing them; (3) To be honest, I think we could lose the whole passage, as Branden's comments don't really constitute philosophical objections to Rand's work at all - although we'd then need another way of introducing the comments on Kant.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I think her strong rejection of Kant, and her admiration (albeit qualified) of Aristotle are things that should be mentioned in this article. I'd think a very brief intro of how she read each followed by a very brief statement of condemnation or qualified admiration, and perhaps a single sentence stating that her interpretations of both have been challenged by academics. --Karbinski (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I agree, I boldly moved the Kant passage up the section as a contrast with the Aristotle passages, and dumped the problematic Branden/Sciabarra summary. If editors really think Branden's remarks should be in the philosophy section, they can be restored, preferably sourced from Branden directly.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Good changes. Makes the section more readable and less of an eye sore.  CABlankenship (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "She remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's" —Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." I don't have access to the Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical to which that statement is sourced, but in Ayn Rand Answers there is this passage (on page 149): "So if you speak in big terms, I'd rather Dr. Peikoff said it, but since I'm his stand-in tonight, take the three As: Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." According to this, the statement was Peikoff's, not Rand's as the article indicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonk2009 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead again
This latest addition appears to be pretty irrelevant, however I'm still on 0RR so I won't revert it myself. Does anyone object to getting rid of it? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done --RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Questioning sources
This source continues to be used to support the statement that there is growing international interest in Rand. In fact it doesn't. Its a 2001 article about the award of a grant to the University of Texas (which is the source of other references). It otherwise reports on a web search carried out by the journalist. Aside from the fact that it doesn't really support the text, one would think there would be something more substantial in the last eight years if this was real. The University of Texas case also seems over quoted through various secondary/tertiary sources. One obvious question, eight years on is "Was the Grant renewed?" -- Snowded TALK 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the article does support the claim, through mentions of that web search (which apparently produced evidence of non-US student clubs) and of contributions to JARS from European authors. That said, it is a poor source. Despite some recent improvements, there are still a lot of cites in this article (and related ones) to online news pieces and tertiary sources. Sometimes it's necessary to cite news sources for the latest happenings, but some examples verge into ridiculousness. In this article there is a review of a biography that is cited (twice!) to establish biographical facts. Why not cite the biography itself? The answer of course is that it is far easier to surf the web than it is to obtain a book and read through it to find the relevant information. (This problem occurs all over Wikipedia, not just here.) In most cases the information is accurate, but deserves better support.
 * For what it's worth, yes, the grant was renewed. That's actually the subject of this press release, which is currently the article's final source note. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It weakly supports the claim in 2001 and I agree it has been sized on and used. One web search by a journalist 8 years ago is not enough to say that there is growing international interest as of 2009!  I couldn't see any other sources when I looked, so this needs to be deleted or qualified unless there is other material.  -- Snowded  TALK 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In the latest round of edits to this passage, Snowded suggested in an edit summary that removing the word 'growing' is a possible compromise. That certainly works for me. 'Growing' is inherently a time-bound claim, so it would be hard to maintain documentation for it in any case.

I do want to note, however, that the article I referenced from the Indian author contains discussion about Rand's influence there. I did not add it as an original research example of her international presence, as the edit summary seems to imply, but as a source that discusses it. Similarly, the cite I added from Mimi Gladstein was indeed from a book published by the Objectivist Center (a point of complaint in another edit summary), but Gladstein is a well-qualified, non-Objectivist academic. Since her work on this topic could qualify as a reliable source even if she published it on a blog, the source of the book shouldn't be a disqualifier. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"numerous prominent individuals"
If comic book artists and the band Rush are the best examples, maybe this sentence should be a little less hyperbolic. 76.84.108.54 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those aren't the only examples. However, I see the term "prominent" is scattered throughout the article, and it deserves review.  Okay, I trimmed it back.  Nobody needs to be told that Yale and Princeton are "prominent" universities; it occurred twice in the sentence about her detesting liberals, conservatives and anti-communists, and since no examples are given in the first two categories I removed its first occurrence; I made the bit about influences more specific and removed "prominent."  I left it in the context of Buckley's novel, where it is usefully informative, and in the comment about funeral attendees.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Beware of WP:PEACOCK terms. If you read one on the linked list, just delete it from the article. It's fluff. J Readings (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography/Philosophy rankings
I think it's fairly clear that these shouldn't be given top priority, especially since it appears that the Anon IP that did so has, well, a bit of an exaggerated opinion of Rand's importance. Would people be fine with reverting it to mid and high? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the same editor downgraded Keynes at the same time and their edit summaries indicate they are on a crusade-- Snowded TALK  01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bio doesn't do importance ratings. As a assessor for WP:PHIL with the Anglosphere in mind, I'd give Rand mid importance for philosophy, though the juvenile argument over whether or not she was a philosopher has denied us an objective assessment. Skomorokh  13:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On the priority issue, I would say that given Rand's influence across generations and borders, this article is of "high" priority, although it's fairly subjective to judge whether or not she had a "large impact in [her] main discipline". Skomorokh  13:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Like her or not, the IMPACT she had on modern philosophy is undeniable. Atlas Shrugged itself is a one book that shaped the way of thinking of millions. And add the rest of her work/philosophy, cannot think of any more important philosopher (maybe since Aristotle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.22 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Her impact on aspects of American thinking is clearly high and notable. Her influence on literature is more mixed and on Philosophy its minimal to non-existent outside the US, and of mid importance within - or at least that's my call.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Her contribution to the philosophy was huge. And although definitely best known in US, it is not limited to that. Objectivism is the whole new philosophical system, obviously to some degree benefiting from Aristotle, but only in its very basis. Her metaphysics owes much to Aristotle, but Ethics is completely new view, justified from metaphysical principles. Also linkage of ethics and politics as THE justification of capitalism from ethical perspective. Also more controversial (but that does not mean unimportant) theory of aesthetics. I'm telling that you may agree with her or not, but this is a person who created the modern philosophy to greater level of completeness and coherence than anyone.149.254.49.10 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to their views and you have clearly expressed them above. and your assertions (especially those on coherence) are highly disputable.  However the wikipedia is not about what we think should be the case but what is.  Outside of a limited number of US institutions there is no evidence that she is taken that seriously by Philosophy Departments in major universities.   -- Snowded  TALK  17:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy is not only about philosophy departments at the universities, nor are philosophy departments representing, well, neutral point of view. Indeed, most of them are dominated by a certain stream of philosophy, in modern word mainly extreme-leftist or relativist philosophies. BTW: coherence, coherency logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts (after wordreference.com) - well, probably no other philosopher related more consistently all parts of their philosophical system (refer to various places where Rand linked her Metaphysics, Ethics, Esthetics and Politics)149.254.56.61 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rand has certainly had some impact on American culture; certainly, millions have read her novels. But in terms of her impact on philosophy itself, it's been fairly minimal. Rand has impacted very, very few other major philosophers (the only name that comes to mind is maybe Robert Nozick). There is a journal devoted to studying her, but she remains a fairly minor philosophical figure. As such, regardless of the (highly debatable) coherence or quality of her philosophy, she can in no way be considered of top importance, especially when compared to, say, Nietzsche, who despite having had a tremendous impact (including on Rand) is still only high importance. Now, where she would absolutely be of top importance is WikiProject Libertarianism. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how telling this really is, but a GoogleTrends search on "Objectivism" shows that there's enough inquiry on Objectivism to show up in 5 countries: (1. United States, 2. Canada, 3. India, 4. Australia, 5. United Kingdom). Other philosophies, such as existentialism have enough inquiry to show up in 8; analytic philosophy surprising showed no inquiry; structuralism showed 10 with 3 of the countries being very, very slim (and a downward trend overall); continental philosophy none... I don't really need to continue. My point is, that Objectivism, outside of academia is doing quite well against most other philosophies. It makes sense that Objectivism is quite strong in countries with high English speaking rates--only Rand's fiction and "The Virtue of Selfishness" have been translated into foreign languages.


 * As for influence, I'd suggest looking more into Rand's work in college textbooks and coursework. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, excerpts have been included in several textbooks. I know that Peikoff's Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand has been used. West Point uses her Philosophy: Who Needs It?. And in my own philosophy class, the textbook contains excerpts from her ethical theory.


 * And if we are to be consistent, look at some of the philosophers currently rated as "High Importance"... I would say that Ayn Rand had more influence and is better known than 50% of the philosophers on that list. She actually has an article with editors eager to work, whereas, about 10% of those philosophers listed as High-priority have no article with willing editors.Brandonk2009 (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being particularly familiar with WikiProject Philosophy, I took the time to review the descriptions for the project's importance assessments and importance scale. The descriptions in the two sections aren't entirely consistent, but it seems clear that neither Rand nor any other individual philosopher is supposed to have their article ranked "Top." I could see an argument for "High" based on cultural significance, but the most likely ranking is "Mid." The scale description for Mid even says that "Most people involved in the history of philosophy will be rated in this level." I think the problem is that other articles are being over-rated on the scale, not that this article is being under-rated.
 * Anyhow, since I'm not an active participant in that project, it's not a big deal to me if the ranking for this article is High or Mid. But I'm going to move the ranking down from Top to High based on the project's description of Top as being for "core topics," usually "those articles that are are included as sections of the main Philosophy article." --RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can safely leave GoogleTrends alone. Rosicrucians do better than Objectivism, while Philosophy itself shows up in a mere ten countries, by far the most significant being queries in Tagalog from the Philippines.  I think we'd better stick with Wiki notability guidelines, although it was fun looking.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * One might hold the position that Rand's impact on modern philosophy is huge, but one cannot prove this through appeals to book sales. By 2008, the total sales for Atlas Shrugged (after 50 years) stood at 6.5 million.  Needless to say, Rand's non-fiction has not sold nearly as well as her fiction. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins sold three million in just two years.  How to Win Friends and Influence People has "shaped the way of thinking" of over 15 million.  As for philosophy, Yu Dan's The Analects has sold 3.5 million copies in just 2 years, which has "shaped the way of thinking of millions".  I could go on. The point is that the sales for Rand's non-fiction is not remarkable at all, and there are plenty of philosophy books that have out-sold Atlas Shrugged. But of course, this is not very important.  Many books have "shaped the way of thinking of millions", and Rand is not very remarkable on this score.


 * So then how are we to judge her importance as a philosopher? It seems we cannot turn to professional philosophers, because they do not represent a "neutral point of view" and are "extreme-leftist or relativist".  I find the claim that we should not use professional philosophers to assess Rand to be quite remarkable.  Is Nozick "extreme-leftist or relativist"?  What about Uyl and Rasmussen?  In fact, almost every academic cited here for comment on Rand has been either an Objectivist or a libertarian.  If anything, this article is extremely kind to Rand, making use almost entirely of sympathetic sources.  The majority of professional philosophers either ignore or mock Rand, and not all of these are "extreme-leftist or relativist".  Neither can their political leanings be used to dismiss their criticisms, as there are plenty of highly respected philosophers (such as Nozick) who share many of her views, and are not ignored and mocked.  There is very little evidence that there is an "extreme-leftist or relativist" conspiracy against Rand among professional philosophers, and quite a bit of evidence that she is widely considered to be a rather poor philosopher, even by those who share many of her political and moral views.


 * The Objectivism page seems like the appropriate place to expand on the details of her philosophy. In my opinion, it's more than fair to Rand to present balanced yet critical views of the most noteworthy aspects of her writings on this page. CABlankenship (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't very important, but it's worth taking a look at the criteria for importance assessment within the Philosophy WikiProject. The Top and High labels are clearly not appropriate to either Rand or Objectivism. But it is no insult to suggest this: I wouldn't apply those labels to Husserl or Phenomenology, to Peirce or Pragmatism. I'd rate Rand/Objectivism as Low, but I am not going to lose sleep over Mid. Having said that, the reason it's really not important is that the existing lists of Top and High articles ignore the criteria anyway, and are just twaddle. Neither Cicero nor Paul Bernays nor Eliminative Materialism are remotely topics "vital to understanding philosophy".KD Tries Again (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I would put the tag back to "Mid" and leave it at that. I agree that it's silly to waste time on this issue, especially since most readers won't even notice the tag on the discussion page. J Readings (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the rating should be "Mid". Frankly, I think we should leave the entire matter up to the project participants as they're the only ones who are in any way impacted by the ranking. Idag (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh
Just to note that Skomorokh, is applying for adminship. I have pretty much given both on the RfA process, and on philosophy in Wikipedia as totally a lost cause, so will try and sit on my hands during this. I have to say my experience with S was also negative, and one of the main reasons I gave up on the Ayn Rand articles. But that was my experience only, and S clearly has some grasp of the subject, and perhaps it would be useful to have a philosopher admin. Best Peter Damian (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I find Skomorokh to be one of the best editors here. He has maitined a clear and neutral point-of-view during many heated discussions. He didn't always agree with me, but I don't let that color my opinion of him. He's done great work and is exactly the kind of admin I'd like to see! Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My view is a bit coloured by his clear support of the IP edits, but as you see I have stayed on the fence. He is not a bad philosophy editor, although there are plenty better.  Peter Damian (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rand
How is 'Rand' a 'Cyrillic contraction' of Rozenbaum, which sounds the same whichever way you write it? And where did Ayn come from? I suggest deletion.

Bandalore (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting deletion because you don't grok her pseudonym?? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would help if a source was provided to explain the "Cyrillic contraction" theory, which is a bit cryptic when described so briefly. I'll add one. As for 'Ayn', she adapted that from a Finnish name, a point which can also be explained and sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * what's grok? and who is edward g nilges?Brushcherry (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
 * Don't know about grok, but Edward G. Nilges is our ultimate authority on all matters he sees fit to comment on. --Karbinski (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See grok for further information. Also related to Thou Art God. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 'Ayn', an editor put in a short passage noting that Rand might have derived the name from the Finnish writer Aino Kallas. No source was provided. This had been in the article some time back and was removed. After filtering through endless repetitions of material from earlier versions of the article, the best source I could find for this claim is ... me. Now I like my website and believe it provides useful information, but understandably it does not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. This claim in particular is mentioned on the site as pure speculation suggested by a fan email. Does anyone know of a better source for this claim? If not, it needs to be removed again and stay out until there is a better source for it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of grokking, I was just confused by Bandalore's message--when he wrote "I suggest deletion" my immediate thought was "delete the article?? Waaah?" BTW, for brushcherry, Edward Nilges, aka banned user User:Spinoza1111 is a troll who comes by this page every now and then and leaves overlong, pretentious screeds which the rest of us delete on sight. He makes this really easy, since he always signs his posts. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is, ideas about the origin of the name is all just speculative, and of no intrinsic interest. Therefore, the topic should not mentioned be in the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that mere speculation about the origin of her pen name is not that interesting. Is the origin of her pen name uninteresting per se?-RLCampbell (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher citations
I just made some tweaks to the citations inside footnote number one, the documentation of Rand being called a "philosopher." This was mostly formatting, but I also tried to verify the citations where I could. Without wishing to re-open debate on the subject in general, I do have a concern about one of the sources. Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics is cited, with a page number of 328 given, but no quote. The cited edition is from the UK, and I know that pagination can vary, but my US edition of the book doesn't even have 328 pages. I ran into a similar situation with Machan's Ayn Rand, where the page number was given as 163 from a European edition, which puts it in the index in my US edition. For Machan, I was able to find pages with relevant discussion in my copy, albeit much earlier in the book, and I adjusted the citation accordingly. Smith's book is much longer and I have not readily found a relevant passage. Does anyone have access to the UK edition to verify this citation? --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that with Cambridge University Press there is any difference between US and UK editions. The hardback in my possession is 318 pages long, so the page reference is just wrong.  I've put in what I think will be an acceptable reference, to a discussion of the main published sources for Ayn Rand's moral philosophy.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section doesn't mention Reason
This seems to be a rather glaring oversight. --Karbinski (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Since the lead has a high profile and the article is under review, we should be careful about any additions, but something about her pro-reason stance should be there. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, normally I would just edit, but since I advised caution, I'll run my idea up the flagpole here first. I'd suggest rewriting the last two sentences of the lead to the following: "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. She was also an atheist and considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge." The only new part is the final clause of the last sentence, but I rearranged the material to put related ideas together. I'd also drop the unnecessary clarification about "rational self-interest," which is made in the article body and doesn't need to be included in the lead also. (All wikilinks and reference notes would stay, I just didn't recreate them here.) Any objections? --RL0919 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "An atheist, Rand considered reason to be the only means to acquiring knowledge." It's cleaner. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still understates the importance of the concept to her, I think. The lead section is far too short for an article of this length, and I think it could benefit from a re-introduction of the quote "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." It goes a long way to showing her conception of Objectivism not as a collection of consistent positions (like most philosophers belief's are) but of positions derived from a core insight/methodology. Skomorokh  06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with restoring that quote back into the lead. --Karbinski (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, here's another draft: 'She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. An atheist, she considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge. Rand saw reason as the most important aspect of her philosophy: "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."' Again, this is only the end of the lead, the sentences going up to this point would remain unchanged.
 * Yeah, much better. The current lead unduly emphasizes Rand's political views.  She would have complained that it leaves out the fundamentals, and gets the cart before the horse.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To make the proposed revisions more clear without actually editing the article, I created a sandbox version of the lead. This includes all the wikilinks and reference notes. In addition to the wording changes discussed above, I also took the opportunity to sort (chronologically) the list of sources for the "philosopher" issue (in reference note number 1), and slimmed down an overlong quote about her views on fascism and communism (in reference note number 5). I actually wonder whether all the quotes used in these reference notes (leaving aside note 1) are even necessary. It's not as if Rand's works are hard to obtain for verification of the source citations, and frankly most of the points being documented are well known as being her beliefs. Seems like overkill. Anyhow, I invite folks to take a look and see if they have any other feedback. Feel free to edit the sandbox version directly if you like. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two thumbs up on the sandbox version as of my comments time-stamp --Karbinski (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TallNapoleon did a little bit of copy editing and I put a page number in one of the cites, so hopefully your thumbs up still hold. I just made the edit to the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Apollo Landing
The event had influence on her writing and links her life in with a very notable event. This gives some context for the time period she lived in. Any objections to restoring this content? --Karbinski (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that deleted it, so I'll explain my thinking. The event itself is of course off-the-charts notable, but its significance within Rand's life is not so great. She did write 1.5 essays about it (the second being split with the Woodstock festival), but this was in a period of her life where she wrote lots of essays inspired by current events, ranging from student protests to Supreme Court rulings to Watergate. She had already written about Apollo 8. So she might well have written about the event even if she didn't attend it, making the significance of the visit itself even less. Therefore, when weighing the color added by this detail vs. the desire to trim down article's lengthy biography, I went with the latter. --RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with RL. It's not essential to understanding Rand, therefore it shouldn't be there. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree. The moon landing needs to be in any full-dress biography of Rand, but that's not exactly what this article is trying to be.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A Couple More Things
RL0919's trimming has improved the proportions of the article noticeably. A couple of things that might still need attention: (1) The sequencing of the section on Atlas Shrugged and Rand's later life isn't right. At least the paragraph about her return to New York and the beginnings of The Collective pertain to events several years before the publication of Atlas Shrugged. There are lesser sequencing problems when the break with Nathaniel Branden (1968) shows up before a bunch of her speaking engagements on college campuses. (2) I realized this stuff has been hashed over before, but given the unscientific nature of at least the Modern Library survey, why even mention it? Phony polls aren't data. The Zogby poll estimating how many adult Americans have read Atlas Shrugged is a real poll. -RLCampbell (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with point 2; haven't had a chance to look at point 1 closely, so no comment there for now. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1, I just fixed the Branden/speeches chronology. Right now the sections on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged break chronology around the time Rand started working on each book to cover each in full, then the main chronology returns in the following sections. Not breaking chronology might be better, but the current approach has its own logic, so the need to "fix" it is less pressing.
 * On point 2, we should remember that what sources mention as signs of Rand's popularity may not match our opinions about valid polling. The Modern Library lists got a lot of press coverage, and people still mention them (and the also-dicey Book of the Month Club survey) when discussing Rand's popularity. The amount of detail could be trimmed further, but complete omission would seem to push a particular POV about these lists. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I combined the sections on "The Fountainhead" and "Early activism and professional success" into a single chronological section. It was easy enough to do and allowed the elimination of some minor redundancies in the text. I'm less certain about combining the "Atlas Shrugged" and "Later years" sections. The discussion of the Collective is nicely compact in its current form, and I'm concerned that breaking it up to discuss the publication of Atlas Shrugged would not be an improvement. I've put the relevant sections in the Randbox to see what I can come up with. Other editors are welcome to edit them there as well. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I created a chronological combination of the "Atlas" and "Later" sections, and it actually came out OK. I had to relocate a bit of info about the novel to the "Legacy" section, and the edits don't really reduce the size of the article the way some of the earlier ones did, but the bio is largely chronological now. --RL0919 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The consolidated "Atlas" and "Later" sections read quite well, and the flow of the article is improved.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

evil?
What the heck? That's a pretty subjective opinion isn't it? Can that be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.1 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What you saw was the result of vandalism from about half an hour ago, and it has now been reverted. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reason 597,234 why we should implement flagged revisions. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Detail creep
A couple of weeks back there was an effort to trim down the size of the article by removing unnecessary detail. This recent edit leads me to raise the question of how aggressive we ought to be in preventing the re-inflation of the article. On the one hand, this is a good-faith, appropriately written, cited addition. On the other hand, it seems to be an unnecessary detail, no more significant (probably less) than some that were recently cut. I don't want to stomp on editors trying to improve the article, or give the impression of "defending" a particular version. But it doesn't take long to get back into 80K+ size if there isn't some effort to prevent it. Thoughts? --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if we are able to establish a concensus here, then we can be somewhat aggressive against detail creep. There may be a feeling that we already have such a concensus, but for the sake of editors not involved in the deep cuts we made, IMHO, an explicit concensus here would make things easier and clearer for all. --Karbinski (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's any help, I agree.74.64.107.49 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * and me -- Snowded TALK  20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * /agree. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)