Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 40

Influenced
Having hashed out Heinlein (for now at least), I thought we should perhaps look at the other "influenced" persons listed in the infobox. There are over 30 of them. Quite a few are known members of her circle, so her influence seems obvious on those. Some others have clear citations provided in the article. But there are some that seem less firmly established. Here are the ones that may need work: My suggestion is that for those that have legit sources that aren't in the body of the article, we should refnote them in the infobox. If there isn't a reliable source that actually claims influence, they should be removed from the list. --RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glenn Beck – No source given and no mention of Rand in the article about him, so we need a source.
 * James Clavell – No source given. The article about him mentions that he once sent one of his books to Rand, sourced to this. That seems a thin basis for claiming influence, unless there is some other source we could use instead.
 * Henry Hazlitt – Was a friend of Rand's, but I'm not sure she was a significant influence on him. He was older than her and had already published several books before they met. Might belong in the "Influences" section instead.
 * Penn Jillette – Used to be mentioned in the article, but the source was a Facebook page of dubious provenance. I'd like to see a better source.
 * Anton Lavey – No source given, but the article about him mentions the connection and provides a seemingly valid source that we could cite.
 * Rush Limbaugh – He is mentioned in the article for discussing her on his show, but that does not demonstrate influence. No mention of her in his article. We need a source that actually claims influence.
 * Charles Murray – No source given, no mention of her in his article.
 * Ron Paul – Mentioned in the article body has being influenced by her, but the source is a YouTube video in which he talks about her but doesn't indicate any particular influence she may have had on him. Needs a better source.
 * L. Neil Smith – No source given and no mention of her in his article, but his website explicitly states her influence here.


 * I'm going to go ahead and remove the ones that are unsourced or dubiously sourced (Beck, Clavell, Hazlitt, Jillette, Limbaugh, Murray, and Paul). They can obviously go back if sources are found. UserVOBO (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave them in for a little bit; with the exception of Jillette I'm quite sure that all of these have cited Rand directly. I'll find some sources this weekend. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed them, but as noted, they can easily go back with sources. UserVOBO (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can cite somebody without that constituting reliable evidence that they have influenced you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Orangemike. Of the ones listed, I would only include Glenn Beck. One person I just thought of that we could add to the list, given the recent news about him - Paul Ryan (politician). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2010-02-23 03:40Z

Influences
Now that we've trimmed the "Influenced" field of the infobox, is trying to insert William Edward Hickman into the "Influences" section, citing a political opinion piece from AlterNet. It is known that Rand once had a sympathetic view of Hickman (who murdered a young girl) and considered him as the basis for the hero of a novel she never wrote. This is discussed in the article on Hickman. If folks think this episode of her life should be discussed in this article, that's a possibility, but inserting his name under "Influences" is a misrepresentation of what the best sources say. Normally, considering someone as a possible inspiration for a character in a novel wouldn't be enough to classify that person an "influence". Political opinion pieces like the one LGagnon is using play up Rand's interest in Hickman as a way to tar present-day conservatives (especially the Tea Party movement), but there is no scholarly support for this. The few scholarly sources that discuss the matter portray Rand's attitude towards Hickman as evidence of the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche. They do not portray Hickman as an influence in his own right. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC, isn't the Hickman reference from a marginal comment in a private journal? That would certainly not qualify as an "influence". An Influences section would preferably consist of scholarly or reliable sources tracing the way in which an individual has influenced Rand throughout her writing. Possible examples - Aristotle, Hazlitt, maybe even Garet Garrett. If Hickman qualifies, then so does every other person she has ever mentioned in any of her writings, private or public. In any case, the source cited is unreliable and has completely dropped the delicate context of the original material - for obvious reasons. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2010-02-27 01:48Z
 * Rand's view of Hickman hardly belongs in the article about him, as it really concerns her - what she made of him and his actions during one period of her life. It might belong here, or perhaps better a related article dealing with Rand's fiction. I agree Hickman shouldn't be listed as an influence. UserVOBO (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing him as an influence would be... questionable, at best. But I would say that it might belong in the section on the early Ayn Rand. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hickman as an influence on Rand is more than simply questionable; it's POV pushing at best, plain vandalism at worst. UserVOBO (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As I said, the source given is unreliable, and for it to be a valid "Influence", the source should examine in detail how the individual has made a clear influence on the subject's life and work. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2010-02-27 23:48Z
 * Well the whole thing is based on the Jennifer Burns bio which suggests that the case had a significant influence on the character of Danny Renahan in the unfinished book "The Little Street" (pages 24-5). This article doesn't meantion "The Little Street" though let alone Renahan. Burns also states that Hickman influenced a "The Fountainhead" character but thats a passing mention on page 42.©Geni 03:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't any mention of Rand's other early, unfinished projects either. And Burns doesn't exactly state that Hickman influenced The Fountainhead, but rather that when describing Roark, Rand reverted to some of the same attitudes that she had when she was writing about Hickman. Anyhow, there are a few issues to sort out here: 1) Was Hickman an "influence" on Rand in the broad sense, such that he should be listed in the "Influences" section of the infobox? The talk page consensus seems to be a clear 'No' on that. 2) Is her interest in him deserving of some other mention in the article? I don't have a strong opinion about that and don't see any clear consensus from others. 3) If it is mentioned, how should it be sourced? I do have a strong opinion that if this is going to be in the article, we should be using the best sources for it (Burns, Sciabarra, and Rand's own journals) rather than opinion pieces that have a strong incentive to distort the situation in order to attack present-day political opponents. Unless what we want to discuss in the article is present-day criticisms of her, in which case that's a whole other topic, one in which Hickman plays only a very small role. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a lengthy article from Mark Ames. It appears the subject of William Hickman is the basis for much of her work.  But I will see what solid references can be found.  &mdash;  Symbology101 Symbology101 &bull; 2010-03-03 21:13Z
 * That's the same AlterNet article that was cited in the edits leading to this discussion. The "solid references" on this topic are already known: Jennifer Burns' book, an article by Chris Sciabarra, and Rand's own notes. However, these sources do not portray Hickman as "the basis for much of her work", so anyone looking to insert that conclusion to the article will naturally want to keep looking. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Academia
In the academia section, the statement "any in the Continental tradition think her celebration of self-interest relies on sophistic logic, and as a result have not thought her work worth any serious consideration" should be changed. There is no such thing as 'sophistic logic'. Sophistry is not logic. In fact, sophistry is not logical by definition. Available terms are either "sophistry", "sophist argument" or "sophistic reasoning". But "sophistic logic" is an oxymoron. Jdlech (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the same section, but otherwise unrelated to Jdlech's point: Why is Bob Nozick's critique of her philosophy no longer mentioned? This might be fine if other criticisms of Rand were mentioned in that section but it's almost all about the small number of academics who take her seriously in a positive manner. Nozick is easily the most well-known philosopher to discuss her in any depth[1] (Tara Smith and the others mentioned are nowhere near as prominent), and yet gets no mention. 64.134.148.23 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC) [1] (Chomsky is probably more notable, but to the best of my knowledge, hasn't provided a philosophical argument in support of his disdain for Rand.)
 * Not sure why Nozick is no longer there. He definitely should be. Any objections? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Amphetamine usage
Is Rand's daily use of amphetamines appropriate to include in the article? It has been referenced in at least one published (mainstream) biography of her. To me it is obvious as an influence on both her writing and philosophy, but that may be "original research" although it is documented to contribute to grandiosity, paranoia, delusional thinking. See http://www.slate.com/id/2233966 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That she used amphetamines is discussed in several published bios, including the two most recent, so it seems fair game for the article. However, speculation on effects needs to be sourced, preferably to quality sources and not whatever op-eds can be trawled from the web. --RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote the section on the 1940s and included her amphetamine use there, since that is when it started. --RL0919 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be done
I'm interested in taking this article through peer review with the goal of eventually getting it to featured article status. But I thought it better to start by soliciting opinions from the editors who already follow it. What do you think needs to be improved (reworded, added, removed, etc.) in this article to make it FA-worthy? I could name some items myself, but I'd be more interested in seeing what others have to say. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal life
I heard that she was a Beekeeper in her spare time. Can we find an source on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.3.216 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You missed the day for posting this. April Fools' Day was yesterday. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bad citation
I've been reviewing the article's citations to make sure they have all the correct details, and in the process I found one that simply doesn't support the article text. The article says "Many in the Continental tradition think her celebration of self-interest relies on sophistic logic, and as a result have not thought her work worth any serious consideration." The citation for this is: The relevant page can be viewed using Google Books, and it simply doesn't say that. For the moment I've tagged this with failed verification in case someone can find an alternative source or wants to reword the passage to better match the existing source. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there's no indication that anyone is going to resource/rewrite it, I've removed the sentence. Obviously it could be added back later if someone can find an appropriate source. --RL0919 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For a controversial figure, surprisingly little controversy
After hearing the founder of wikipedia was an Objectivist, I had visited this page a few of years ago to see if it biased in favor of his views. At that time, there was a lot more in the article about criticisms and controversy. After perusing it, I was satisified that it presented a pretty even-handed portrayal. Reviewing it now, it appears to be pretty sanitized. The word 'cult' isn't used once (I know it appears in the article on objectivism, but it seems relevant here as well), and the philosophical criticisms have been truncated considerably. I know Objectivism enjoys a large following on the Internet, but it dismays me that it has such a stifling effect on these kind of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a good deal of truth to this; even if the main controversy section belongs in the article on her philosophy it seems like we need to have a bit more here. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am one of the editors who has 'sanitized' this article. I actually think it is a good idea to keep things sanitary. Much of the material I removed was repetitive over-kill: writer after writer after writer saying that they didn't like Rand and that they thought she was no good - stuff intended just to trash her. There is some more thoughtful criticism of Rand (eg, an article by Nozick) that might usefully be added. UserVOBO (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked in here in a while, but the loss of the Nozick criticism, however it happened, damages the article's credibility. It needs to be restored.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * It has only been mentioned in a footnote in this article since June of last year. I just "promoted" it back to the body with a brief description, but there is somewhat more detail in Objectivism (Ayn Rand), which is where such detail belongs, IMO. --RL0919 (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

VoBo's deletion of Huemer criticism
I thought I'd put this to the board. Given the call for more criticism, I added the following to the philosophy section from philosophy professor Michael Huemer:

''Libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer disagrees. According to Huemer, Rand's ethics "is simultaneously the most distinctive and the least plausible, worst defended of all of Rand’s major ideas."''

Vobo deleted the entry on the grounds that Huemer is not a "major philosopher," or "well-known". First, I'm not sure what counts as a "major philosopher". Is it being "well-known"? What is "well-known"? "Well-known" to whom? Is one "well-known" if they are a "major philosopher"? Uh-oh.

Surely Huemer, a professor of ethics, is an expert on the subject, and expertise is the main factor we ought to consider? Second, Huemer is a tenured professor at a large university; has authored and contributed to textbooks on ethics; and is a trenchant critic of Rand, having written several essays and articles on the subject. Indeed, he is a well-known enough critic of Rand that the Cato institute chose him to participate in the symposium on Rand. His essay from that symposium is from where the quote is drawn. I do not think that Vobo has proper grounds to delete the entry, and would like to see what others think. CABlankenship (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding more criticism simply for the sake of adding more criticism is not a helpful approach. There are endless criticial things that people have said about Rand, but we don't want to (and can't) include them all. The material you added about Huemer doesn't make the basis of his criticisms clear - why, precisely, does he think her views are not plausible or well-defended? It's too vague to be helpful. And whatever Huemer's achievements, he is definitely not as well known a figure as, say, Nozick, so I'm not convinced there is any special reason his views have to be included. UserVOBO (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's "helpful" because it gives readers two things: an idea of what experts (like Huemer) think about Rand's work, and links to where they can read more from that expert. If a person wants to know more about why Huemer says such things, they may follow the link in the reference. Regarding your (apparent) claim that only experts as well-known as Nozick should be included in the article, this seems completely unreasonable. Nozick is quite possibly the only "well-known" philosopher who has paid any attention to Rand (one chapter in Socratic Puzzles).  Further, I see no reason why the property "well-known" is important, and you haven't explained why it is important. Expertise in the relevant field (in this case, Huemer is a professor of ethics, and also commenting on Rand's ethics) seems like a more objective and important factor.  CABlankenship (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No it isn't helpful - basically, it's just one more writer saying Rand is no good. The article already has quite enough of that. Wikipedia articles are designed to stand as sources of information in their own right - people shouldn't have to go read some other article elsewhere to learn why Huemer thinks her views are no good. I don't think that all of the criticism should come from people as well known as Nozick, but it should preferably come from people who have broad recognition in the scholarly community - otherwise, I question how relevant it is that they have expertise. Frankly, what value is the expertise if it has not lead to their becoming well known? UserVOBO (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at by saying "people shouldn't have to go read some other article elsewhere", but it is definitely not the case that every article is supposed to be a comprehensive standalone on its subject. See the summary style guideline. This article would be waaay too long if it incorporated the detail on Rand's ideas and the criticism thereof that would appropriately go into the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand), or the detail on her legacy from Objectivist movement. There is still plenty of room for disagreement over what should go into those articles, but it is not the case that the material related to Rand has to be fully in this article. In some cases, "some other article", is exactly where the detail should go. --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well then - I stand corrected. What I was trying to say was that it isn't helpful for a Wikipedia article to have content that can't be understood without reference to an off-site article. If the content is important enough to include here, it should be possible to summarize it in a way that makes sense, without people having to visit a different website. UserVOBO (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. It just needs another sentence or two to summarize why he says what he says.  There is no question that Huemer article counts as a reliable source as he's a professor of ethics who has published with mainstream academic publishers (he doesn't need to meet any criterion of being "well-known").KD Tries Again (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Would you add anything from a reliable source that criticizes Rand here? I'd have thought that there would be concerns about article length, at least, that would mean that not all criticisms of Rand that can be properly sourced should necessarily be added. UserVOBO (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy Section
The philosophy section is sloppy and lacks focus. It needs to be reworked. I suggest a tight style with the following format:

{"P" = paragraph; each section should contain a brief statement of Rand's overall theme, with both positive and negative views from experts regarding her work on the subject}

P1: Brief answer to the question: "What is Objectivism?"

P2: Objectivist epistemology

P2: Objectivist metaphysics

P3: Objectivist ethics

P4: Objectivist politics

P5: Objectivist aesthetics

P6: Conclusion: comments from experts (positive and negative) regarding the overall scope and style of her work. CABlankenship (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Philosophy section should be, but currently isn't, a summary of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I don't know that five paragraphs are necessary for that, but that should be the target regardless of the number of paragraphs. If important commentary on the philosophy (pro or con) is missing, it should be put into the Objectivism article first, and then added to the Philosophy section of Ayn Rand only if 1) it is not covered by the existing summary and 2) it is of such significance that it should be. We need to get past any main article fixation and make a simple, clean summary, even if that means that someone's favorite Rand quote or Rand-critic quote goes into the Objectivism article rather than here. The Huemer criticisms mentioned in the section above are one of the many examples: any detail about his criticisms (preferably from his peer reviewed article on the subject, and not a handy internet post, but I guess we go with what we've got) should be in Objectivism (Ayn Rand), with only the briefest mention here, if any. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You make some reasonable points. The Objectivism article seems like a real mess to me. I don't think it's a very good template for the philosophy section of this article.  In my opinion, general philosophy sections should be put together with the layman in mind.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers us a basic template: a brief and simple explanation of the overall theme on an issue, together with evaluations of those ideas (pro and con) from experts.  CABlankenship (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Objectivism article is not as well-developed as this one, but it does have a basic structure generally similar to what you described in your first comment above. If necessary, the Philosophy section of the Rand article could be written as an "idealized" summary of what the Objectivism article should be, even if it isn't there yet. But the key is that it should be a summary. So if John Doe wrote a notable book of criticisms, then in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) you might find a whole paragraph about them. But in Ayn Rand, it would just say something like, "Philosopher John Doe criticized Rand's views on the ethics of egg-sucking in his book, Ayn Rand Sucks Eggs." Similarly, if there are a number of similar views about Rand's meta-ethical arguments, then the Objectivism article might list the more notable ones, with quotes from a couple of them. But in the Rand article, it would just be something like "Philosophers such as X and Y have described her meta-ethical arguments as blah blah blah." This would allow a number of the more common/prominent views about Rand's ideas to be mentioned without the section taking over the article, while fuller details would be available in the other article. Which is exactly what summary style is supposed to do. --RL0919 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Garbage and gravitas
I really don't understand this - the "Garbage and gravitas" review in The Nation is only one of who knows how many reviews of Rand's books. I can't see why it should be considered so specially valuable that it should be added as an external link when none of the other reviews are, and Snowded's edit summary "that one is valuable to readers" doesn't answer the question. UserVOBO (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Newspaper and magazine articles about Rand and her works shouldn't be in the external links section, because there are dozens (probably hundreds) of them, with little to distinguish one as more relevant than another. This one in particular is no different. For that matter, neither is the New York Times article also included in the ELs. The Cato Unbound link is to a special issue with multiple articles and replies, not just a single piece, but I'd be fine if it went as well. They perhaps could be used as sources, although at first glance I see little of use for this article that would not be better sourced elsewhere (such as the biographies that the articles used as their own sources). --RL0919 (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Settling on a representative sample of reviews makes a lot of sense. This one handles both literature and philosophy and I think its worth inclusion.  Finding a few others is fine, maybe finding a better one that the Nation's could also make sense in the meantime deleting it is wrong.  -- Snowded  TALK  03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What sort of criteria would be used to determine the "representative sample"? There have been at least a dozen significant articles about Rand in just the past year, and I see nothing about this particular one that merits inclusion over the others in the EL list. It seems to me that the more likely result is an ever-expanding list based on editorial whim and POV. --RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with RL0919. UserVOBO (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The critical reception of her work is significant, and its important for people to be able to receive it. Representative would mean both historical (at the time of publication) as well as current.  We don't want an ever expanding list - agreed.  However that is always a problem on wikipedia with any references and with good will its not difficult to agree a restricted list.   If you want a simple criterial I would say Hostile and Pro (with neutral if there are any) at the time of publication and a similar set in the current day.  Open to other ideas however and there is always the option of adding links as references in a summary as critical reception if people really don;t like lists.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't object at all to critical reception being discussed in the body of the article. There is already a "Contemporary reception" section with direct citation of four reviews and indirect reference (via secondary sources) to many others. The directly cited reviews include the best-known positive review of any of her works (an NYT review of The Fountainhead) and negative pieces by several notable authors (Chambers, Hooks, Vidal). An additional section on later critical reception using a similar approach would be a helpful addition to the article. But body text with sources is something entirely different from just listing external links. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowded, you commented that "if anything some of its material should be in the main body of the article." It would help here if you could say which of the material in that review you think should be included in the main body of the article. UserVOBO (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are moving towards an agreement here, namely to a body text with references. So I am happy to move in that direction (and will have some time over the weekend, or happy for someone else to draft.   For the moment I am putting the reference back in as we don't want to loose it in the meantime, and wikipedia is not a democracy 2:1 does not overcome WP:BRD VOBO, especially when a discussion is taking place and an alternative path is being explored.  -- Snowded  TALK  06:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it does, in general, work by consensus. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for including these links, and I'm not sure how WP:BRD means that your position prevails, rather than that of the two editors who have expressed disagreement with you. UserVOBO (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The links have been there for some time as far as I can see, hence my BRD reference. Better to put your energy into working on a replacement per the above general agreement I would have thought. -- Snowded  TALK  09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Garbage and Gravitas review was added only a few days ago. I don't know about the others. If there's an agreement between you and RL0919, I'm not sure what it is. UserVOBO (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We appear to agree that expansion of the reception information to include more recent reception would be acceptable, in which case the disputed EL articles could potentially be used as sources. That doesn't mean that I want them to hang around in the EL list indefinitely until someone gets around to writing such material. The article history will preserve the links if someone needs to find them again. But by the same token, I don't begrudge anyone a few days when the matter isn't critical, so if Snowded thinks he might be working on this over the next few days, I've no problem with the links remaining over the weekend. --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So, it is now over two weeks later, and there is no sign that the disputed links are going to be used to expand the article. Instead, the list has expanded, as I feared it would. Excepting one link for the new SEP article on Rand, the additional links are to undistinguished opinion pieces about Rand, which are a dime a dozen. The commentary links should go. --RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Racist Remarks"
keeps reinserting a quote from Rand about Arabs with its own header describing the quote as "Racist Remarks". There are multiple problems with this: If there is any non-POV basis for including this quote in the article and giving it the header of "Racist Remarks", would someone please bring it forward? Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Labeling the quote "racist" is obvious POV with no secondary source to support it. That this is Corrector555's personal opinion being inserted into the article is clear from the edit summaries ("An opinion that is racist should be called just that", "She does not get a pass", etc.).
 * 2) There is no reason for little-known comments like this to be in the article at all, much less with its own header. Per WP:DUE, the prominence given to material should be based on the weight they are given in reliable secondary sources. I don't recall seeing discussion of this particular quote in any reliable secondary source, and certainly none has been presented in the article. So the inclusion of the quote (not just the labeling of it) also appears to be POV, again affirmed by the edit summaries ("they give a glimpse into her character", "Reverted last coverup", etc.).


 * Frankly, the remarks in question can be seen as racist. That doesn't alter the fact that they shouldn't be called that without a reliable source, and they definitely don't deserve a section unto themselves. They probably don't warrant inclusion anywhere in the article, and I will be removing them if no one gets to them before I do. UserVOBO (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the remarks being in the article with adequate context, but I concur that calling them "racist" is not acceptable. – Smyth\talk 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it is felt necessary to include something about what Rand thought about Arabs, it would be better to quote a reliable source analysing her views than to quote Rand herself. UserVOBO (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Smyth: Ayn Rand made a racist remark about Arabs. The quote is directly from her mouth and was referenced correctly from none other than the Ayn Rand Institute. I think any rational person can agree that her remarks are racist. So you removing this information is inappropriate based on your claim that I need a source to call someone racist. The Ayn Rand Institute isn't hiding this comment and neither should Wikipedia. I believe it should remain as it gives readers an insight into her character.Corrector555 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that "racist" is a heavily loaded term. You therefore cannot call someone racist on Wikipedia, you can only refer to reliable sources who called them racist. And even this should be set within the context of a balanced discussion of the subject giving due weight to other opinions. – Smyth\talk 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf). Smyth, I would hope you would agree that this quote allows me to label Hitler as a racist.  Do you agree?  The quote I placed is directly from Ayn Rand's mouth.  It is rather appalling that you think her comments are not racist when she refers to Arabs as savages.  People should know about her views on other races.  What are you editors and admins trying to hide???Corrector555 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this youtube clip, especially starting at 00:40 seconds in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU. Ayn Rand says, "amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages," when referring to Arabs. I will take this matter up with other admins if you do not retract your statement that "calling [her remarks] 'racist' is not acceptable." She is clearly racist. Readers of her wikipedia article should know this information.Corrector555 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For purposes of a Wikipedia article, what allows you (or any other editor) to label Hitler or Rand or anyone is the existence of reliable secondary sources that apply that label. This is an encyclopedia, not a series of essays of personal opinion. Please take a look at the policies on original research, verifiability and neutral point of view. The fact that you personally think "people should know" X or that X is interesting or important or appalling does not mean that X should appear in a Wikipedia article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I should have said that calling her racist in the voice of the encyclopedia is not acceptable. Any potentially-controversial value judgements, especially negative judgements of people (even Hitler), have to be attributed to reliable sources rather than being stated outright by the encyclopedia. They also have to be placed in context, as I said above. Those are the rules and I'm sure you can see why they're there. – Smyth\talk 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "She writes an essay claiming racism is abhorrent yet makes a racist comment. This is important information that you two are trying to hide.  RL0919: The fact that you personally think this "controversial" comment should not appear is not enough to warrant it not being included.  We should include it in a criticism section regarding her contradictory remarks on racism.Corrector555 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Corrector555, unilaterally declaring Rand's comments "racist" is WP:OR, regardless of how obviously "racist" you (or I or any editor here) believe they are. However, I believe Rand's remarks via Israel/Arabs were relevant to her views on what she deemed "primitivism" and thus I included them in her accompanying article Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) - while removing the "racist" description, which is for readers to determine on their own. As for this specific article on Rand herself, I don’t believe this quote merits inclusion per WP:Undue.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redthoreau, thank you for adding it to the Objectivism article. I do believe the Ayn Rand entry needs a criticism section based on her views regarding race.  Any thoughts?Corrector555 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Corrector555, you're welcome. Per your suggestion, specific "Criticism" sections are usually to be avoided if at all possible in a Wikipedia article, as they tend to become WP:Pov nightmares and are out of place without an accompanying "praise" section per WP:NPOV. Usually you will find "Legacy" or "Reception" sections if possible, where both the pro's and con's can be examined per their proportionality in the reliable published material. If you have sourced criticisms of Ayn Rand (the person) then they could be worthy of inclusion in this article, but should probably be blended into the articles relevant and present sectional content. As for critiques of her philosophical positions, that would probably be best for the aforementioned article on Objectivism. I hope my answer was of some help.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Its obviously not correct to use a label such as "racist" unless there is a broad body of reliable third party sources that say as much. There are two quotes, this one and the West Point speech on Native Americans which indicate a general attitude towards any people who fail to act in a certain way.  Abhorrent as this view is, I think it is not born of racism, although it might be racist in its implications (and that is an important distinction.  A third party source which placed these in context would be valuable, but using them in isolation is not really valid.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded, you say the material is valid, but doesn't belong there. So where does it belong?Corrector555 (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The particular facts of Rand's opinions on this subject (distinct from the interpretation of it) are merely one case of a problem that exists for many subjects: there is more verifiable material about Rand than can reasonably be included in an encyclopedia article, or even several articles. There are thousands of pages of her own writings, speeches and interviews, plus dozens of books and hundreds (thousands?) of published essays by others about her and her works. That a statement is verifiable as her opinion is a minimal standard for inclusion in an article, but we don't/can't/shouldn't include everything that is verifiable. The preferred solution to this problem was hashed out years ago and is not specific to Rand: summarize material and give it the weight it is due based on its handling in secondary sources. In this case, the application of that solution is straightforward enough: secondary sources give virtually no attention to Rand's opinions of Arabs, or even of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At best it might warrant a passing mention in a summary of Rand's opinions on various topics. To give it a whole paragraph of discussion, highlighted with its own header, elevates it well beyond the significance it is given outside of Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will create a Rand Opinion section near the end. Feel free to add whatever you like.Corrector555 (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The interest is that she took the same position on Native Americans and on Arabs. Its an interesting working out of her "philosophy" in particular the legitimisation of violence.  I'm surprised there is no third party reference though.  -- Snowded  TALK  14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, whether a particular remark by Rand is "interesting" to a Wikipedia editor is not a good reason for including it in the article. The glaring lack of coverage in secondary sources means that this should have little to no presence. If there is consensus for a section on Rand's "opinion" (hopefully something more like "Political and social commentary" and not a random grab bag of her opinions on anything), then it should be informed by secondary sources and weighted accordingly. A coatrack section intended just to get this one topic into the article is no better that what was being done before. --RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism under Legacy ?
The quoted material in question ...

Under legacy we are told there is recent negative opinion of Ayn Rand in the media (generously called criticism). No reliable secondary source is used to back this up. It is simply synthesized from the fact that some examples may be enumerated. The contributing editor and those supporting this alledgedly important content, seem to think that no coverage of this in secondary sources means that it is obviously important that *they* report it within an encyclopedia article. Its not fine to treat this article as a blog on Ayn Rand. --Karbinski (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Burns, Gladstein and Doherty were all cited as secondary sources in the material you deleted. Your point might be valid as regards some of the criticisms quoted directly from critical articles (e.g., the article from The Nation), but there absolutely is secondary coverage of the fact that such criticism exists. If you want to trim some of the non-secondary material, that's fine, but you should use a sharper knife for your cutting. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that those three were in there sourcing the the financial crisis related stuff. Disagree about cutting the whole section.  The sourced stuff can be added back by someone familiar with the source material. --Karbinski (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Infusion of quotes is POV pushing
In just about every section, we have quotations being added in. They all offer nothing in terms of biography, what almost all of them do offer is a soap-box for those with published negative opinions. Those that are not a pure soapbox, are of the form - Ayn Rand did QAs, lets have an example of one of the questions and answers, and the example isn't "How did you come up with measurement ommission in your theory of concepts" - no example is needed - readers know what happends in a Q&A session. --Karbinski (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that extensive examples aren't needed. To say that Rand has been criticized, or that she said controversial things, is true and can be supported from reliable secondary sources. An example or two may be appropriate to make it clear what type of criticism and controversies there are, but ideally they should be examples that are cited in secondary sources, and extensive quotes aren't needed. POV isn't the only issue, although one-sided quoting can indeed be a POV issue. Equally important is that this is an encyclopedia article, which should summarize controversies rather than playing them out. --RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, specific examples would be helpful, along with your particular reason for objecting to a particular quote. As for the Q&A paragraph, the sessions and subsequent anger by Libertarians to her answers is mentioned in the Burn's biography.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Specifically: all of it. What a satanist quipped is relevant to the satanist, not the subject of the quip (archived discussions).  That there is criticism can be reported and skip sources using the words "Bitch" and "Asshole".  Bioshock has been discussed in the archives.  Against the civil rights act without any - again - context as to why (the litmus test thing is quite meaningless out of context as well).  Naturally the fringe theory smuggled to include a comparison to Hitler (archived discussion).  The Von-Mises letter without Ayn Rand's reply to conjure up and imply Rand had a collectivist view of the masses.  Objectivist movement details with the "Cult" smear included - when a detailed in-context article already exists to report on the movement (only there to get the cult thing in).  The entire cherry-picked QA section - you could report what secondary sources have to say if it isn't just a collection of cherry-picked Q&A quotes.  --Karbinski (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, thanks for including specifics. To address them in order - [1] As for relevance, the quip and connection to Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, has been noted in several recent articles on Rand and Stephen Colbert's segment. It's not crucial for inclusion, but certainly not entirely irrelevant. If you believe so however, then remove it and see if anyone objects - I won't. [2] Words such as "bitch and asshole" are indeed colorful, but Wiki is WP:NOTCENSORED. Moreover, these terms are included in a popular culture section and do not carry with them the implication of being a serious critique. Plus the article doesn't endorse their view, it merely notes it. [3] Agreed on Bioshock, although that note is minimal. [4] Then be WP:Bold and add some additional context for Rand's rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. [5] The Hitler comparison has been removed. [6] Not sure about your interpretation about the Von Mises letter, but you are certainly free to add whatever "context" you think is missing. [7] The word "cult" does not appear in the article - despite the fact that there is an entire book called "The Ayn Rand Cult". [8] The Q&A section is mentioned with the examples that Rand biographer Burns does (and her as a ref for each), with additional references for specificity. If you would like to include others, then feel free to do so - Include more of the "cherries". Nothing is stopping your participation in editing the article.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The POV push is a hinderance to me editting the article. And the process is not, throw in some out-of-context stuff and insist that others come in to add context.  Noting opinions is not the purpose of this article.  Stephen Colbert's segment and other primary sources are not reliable secondary sources.  Essentially the POV push has ignored the policy of reporting what is in reliable secondary sources - the new local policy is just toss in whatever.  To suggest those that oppose such lousy editting simply mimic the behaviour as a solution is to, well, really show how satisfied one is to ignore the policy of simply reporting what is in secondary sources (reliable ones). --Karbinski (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, taking your proverbial ball and going home is usually not a good solution. Many of your concerns ("Hitler", "Cult", additional Bioshock info etc) have already been alleviated by RL0919 because he is proactive in WP:COLLABORATE(ing). I understand and agree that Colbert is not a reliable secondary source, for any other claim than what Colbert himself thinks. His example above was merely to note that Lavey's connection to Rand has been mentioned in an array of sources. But like I said, feel free to remove Lavey if you find it "irrelevant". Additionally, no policy has been ignored here, and all of your concerns above are derived from secondary sources. What you view as "lousy editing", could also be Wp:Idontlikeit - and what you see as negative pov pushing - could also be a result of you carrying an unabashedly positive view of Rand as your stated "intellectual hero". Is there any critique of Rand that you deem valid or acceptable? Have you ever added any such critique to one of her articles, so that maybe an example of what you deem to be "properly contexted" criticism could be viewed? Your remaining concerns seem to be the Von Mises' letter, Rand's rejection of the civil rights act, and the Q&A sessions mentioning her angering of libertarians for her stance on Native Americans etc = is out of context or cherry picked. Well if you aren't going to add this supposed missing context, and you aren't going to use the talk page here to demonstrate why you believe these are out of context, and you aren't going to work on the article, then unfortunately there isn't any basis to remove such well documented material from secondary sources. Simply stomping your feet and saying "pov" is not enough, and not how Wiki is designed to work.    Red thoreau  -- (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think von Mises quote is more revealing of him than of Rand, so perhaps belongs in his article instead. I just replaced it with a more widely reported anecdote that I believe shows more about Rand. Some of the other items mentioned are problematic for various reasons, and I've been re-writing bits as I've had the time to address the concerns that I see, and intended to continue doing so unless others beat me to it. I don't want to see the article sanitized of items that are negative or potentially embarrassing, but I do agree to an extent with the concern about unnecessary and sometimes one-sided detail being added. I would encourage Karbinski to join in selectively removing or rewriting the bits that he finds most egregious, and if needed we can talk out each specific item when there are disagreements over what to change. My own stance will continue to be in support of 1) focusing the article on items that are given prominence by secondary sources, and 2) summarizing rather than extensively quoting. --RL0919 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Redthoreau that stomping my feet is unproductive. I commend RL for his productivity.  And the practice of tossing out one's(the one being the biographical topic) view without an associated -why- she held the given view is POV pushing - its letting an out-of-context sound-bite misrepresent the person.  If reliable secondary sources don't give it coverage, then its not notable enough for the person's biography - if there is, then report within-context.  For example: you can report that Rand opposed government giving groups special treatment - or you can blurt out that she rejected the Civil Rights Act - or you can report the former and give the latter as an example.  However, just blurting it out isn't reporting anything about Rand per se, its just POV pushing (cashing in on the fact most people think the Civil Rights Act was, in whole, good and as of yet do not know why Rand would oppose it - and NPOV is the responsibility of the contributor as much as anyone else).  Most of the QA stuff isn't pinned/stapled to any of Rand's reasons for the given views - and simultaneously lacks the coverage in reliable secondary sources to do so without the contribution being SYN or OR. The Later Years section has been vastly improved. --Karbinski (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If the article is to cover Rand's influence, then the statement by Lavey that Satanism is like Objectivism is at least potentially relevant. I don't thing it's of huge importance, though, and won't restore it. UserVOBO (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Synth problem
I believe that the sentence "Her acclaim in popular culture has also been met with criticism" is synth, since I don't know where in the several sources used that specific claim can be found (I also consider it to be a poorly written sentence, and I do not believe that it should appear in the article unless it can be clarified). While the comment about Rand's influence from Nick Gillespie seems helpful, I find the Colbert reference irrelevant, as well as unhelpfully vague; it should be removed. UserVOBO (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you consider it "poorly written" then feel free to re-word it. The Colbert reference was not vague before when it had a full description, but I condensed it in regards to Karbinski's concerns about using full quotes. The sentence could be added back in to make more sense. Lastly, are you really claiming that there aren't refs for the first sentence? That could easily be ref'd about 50 times from reliable sources.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If full quotes aren't wanted, then mentioning Colbert at all seems wrong. I'm not even sure exactly what the sentence about her acclaim in popular culture being met with criticism means, exactly, much less what the source for it is. Note that there's also a synth problem with mentioning that several different cartoon shows have mentioned Rand unless a source specifically states that. UserVOBO (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I added Gladstein's The New Ayn Rand Companion as a ref for the "criticism" claim, although many more could be located if you want. I will add further secondary sources for the others as well.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please rephrase the sentence to make its meaning clearer? I see Snowded has restored the Colbert reference; I still think that does not belong here at all in that form, since its meaning is so obscure - if it isn't clear what "the Rand illusion" is supposed to be, the reference serves no useful purpose, no matter how well known Colbert is. UserVOBO (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To Redthoreau again: changing the sentence to "Rand has also been subject to various criticisms" is not an improvement, and actually makes things worse, since it implies that the criticism by Gillespie and Colbert is the important criticism of Rand. If the section is about popular culture, the sentence should deal with popular culture specifically; it's not acceptable at all in its current form. UserVOBO (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have increased the Colbert sentence to make more sense and added secondary ref's for Southpark & The Simpsons.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please respond to my point about the sentence? Obviously Rand has been criticized and we need to say that, but why follow that with Gillespie and Colbert? UserVOBO (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Vobo, I went ahead and removed the sentence altogether that you objected to.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Vobo, please see the new ref I found ---> The Illustrated Rand by Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Centenary Symposium, Part I Ayn Rand: Literary and Cultural Impact
 * Red thoreau -- (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(outent) So Vobo, what further WP:Synth concerns remain? Red thoreau -- (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me note that the reference Redthoreau "found" has been in the article for months and is listed in the "References" section because it was already used in multiple notes. The biggest problem in the popular culture section is typically not synthesis, it is the tendency for examples to proliferate and have too much detail. Every so often a fan will be shocked to discover that their favorite show/movie/game that mentions Rand for ten seconds isn't discussed in the article (sometimes even when it is), and will insert some ham-handed sentence (or more) with no reference and an unnecessary level of detail. (Note the "Left 4 Dead" edit a few days back.) This has to be fought constantly to prevent the section from becoming one of those crappy trivia lists that are seen far too often in WP articles. I do like that the pop culture section has been merged back into a single section. I'm going on vacation, so try not to have too much fun while I'm gone. --RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Synth worries aside, there are several things I'm dissatisfied with about the article in its current form. "Popular interest and culture" is a poor title for a section - the "culture" part broadens it into meaninglessness. And if Dennett's reference to Rand should be included, it ought to be included in the philosophy section, since he is a philosopher. UserVOBO (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add my long-standing dissatisfaction with this section as recentist, trivial and out of context, and concur with the sentiments of UserVOBO and RL above. Skomorokh  14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that its excessive and wordy and should be a simple couple of sentences referencing the material but not elaborating it to the current level. -- Snowded  TALK  16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)