Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 49

Restoring a sentence that was removed without explanation.
I don't think this is at all controversial, but I'm open to any feedback. MilesMoney (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is controversial because of the irony that an anti-welfare state activist would sign up for welfare. You obviously understand that, which is why you put it in, and are being disingenous by pretending you do not.  Please do not say, "I don't think this is at all controversial" and discuss this with other editors in good faith.  TFD (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes my edit uncontroversial is that the material is supported by reliable sources and no reason was given for removing it. It's been here for some time, so there's an apparent consensus to keep it.
 * You may well be right that the motivation of the editor who removed it was to whitewash something that might be considered embarrassing, but if so, that's not a legitimate motivation. If anything, the irony makes it notable, hence worthy of inclusion.
 * As for the exact phrasing, it practically bends over backwards to give Rand an excuse for accepting public assistance, naming and blaming someone who persuaded her against her objections. This is so far from a gotcha that it's unbalanced in the opposite direction. Still, I didn't suggest changing it at the moment, other than fixing the punctuation. MilesMoney (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When you say, "it practically bends over backwards to give Rand an excuse for accepting public assistance", you are belying your statement, "I don't think this is at all controversial." Please do not p*** on my leg and tell me its raining.  TFD (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that something might offend a fan does not make its inclusion controversial; WP:NPOV requires us to avoid whitewashing. Please keep your colorful folk idioms to yourself and focus on content. This material has been in the article for a while now, it's sourced and it's relevant. It was removed for no stated reason, so my restoring it was uncontroversial. I opened this discussion as a courtesy, following the D part of WP:BRD just in case there were legitimate concerns. So far, there haven't been any. MilesMoney (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When you make edits, they should be clear. Obviously you think that there is a contradiction between Rand opposing welfare and accepting it.  You need a source that points out that contradiction, otherwise it is POV synthesis.  You should never "bend over backwards" to appease "fans."  Stop the irony and follow policy, and you will be able to justify your edits.  TFD (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was entirely clear: I restored material deleted for no stated reason. You're the one who called it ironic that Rand took public subsidies, you're the one who suggested this was the unstated reason for the deletion, and you're the one doing all the synthesis. All I'm doing is restoring material that ought never have been deleted in the first place. That's the real irony: all of the things you're complaining about are found in your own behavior but not mine.
 * Since you don't seem to have anything to say about the content, I don't see why we should continue this discussion. Next time, I'll just restore such deletions and not say a word about it on the talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "despite her initial objections, [Rand] was persuaded to allow Evva Pryor...to sign her up for Social Security and Medicare." Please do not pretend that you were not implying there was a contradiction between her opposition to welfare and her acceptance of it.  Then read "sythesis" which explains how the juxtaposition of two statements can be synthesis.
 * However, you do not need to read policy to know that you are introducing your personal views into the article. You are also astute enough to know that it is obvious to other editors.  So please stop pleading ignorance.
 * TFD (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem confused: I didn't write that. I'm not sure who did, but I was quick to restore it when it was deleted without explanation. If I had written it, I wouldn't have bent over backwards to give her an excuse.
 * To be quite frank, if I wanted to contrast Rand's stated opposition to these programs with her willingness to accept them, I could have done so more directly without needing to synthesize anything. A sympathetic reliable source not only references McConnell's book to confirm the fact, it discusses the media reaction to this fact, showing that reliable sources drew this connection and found it notable.
 * Besides not being on top of the basic facts, I can't help but to notice that you seem to be inordinately hostile. Please calm down and avoid making false accusations. In particular, do not ascribe motives to others when doing so is speculative and likely to be considered insulting. I'm sure I don't have to remind you that this article is under sanctions so you need to be on your best behavior. MilesMoney (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Restoring sourced factual material that has been deleted without explanation in a drive-by edit is normal editor behavior regardless of POV, so I agree with Miles that his edit was reasonable. As far as the substance of the text, it has always seemed to me to be too trivial to mention in an encyclopedia article, but others disagreed so it came in back in 2012 and has been stable since. The wording is dryly factual and reliably sourced, so as trivia goes it is relatively unobjectionable. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted) SPECIFICO  talk  21:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin note Chill the accusations of bad faith SPECIFICO and The Four Deuces.--v/r - TP 22:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello TParis. I think you misinterpreted my comment to TFD and Miles.  I have good working relations with each of them.  In fact, I recently invited TFD to participate more actively in the Austrian School articles because, although we often disagree on various matters, I respect his knowledge and his thorough research and articulate collaboration.  As to Miles, well... I have never had any problems with him although I often tell him to tone down his trademark snark and pointed wit. I'm on excellent terms with RL as well, and neither of us has ever disparaged the other.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to see the temperature drop in this thread. That's all.--v/r - TP 23:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhm, I saw Specifico's comment, and although it mentioned me by name, I didn't notice anything offensive about it. I don't think any offense was intended, either. Regardless, I echo your sentiment about keeping the metaphorical temperature down. MilesMoney (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I have posted very little on this article but it's on my watchlist and it seemed to me that they were getting the question resolved, hence my remark. Cheers SPECIFICO  talk  23:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

constant edit wars.Brushcherry (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)brushchery

Discussion about ordering of the lead at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
There is a discussion at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) regarding the ordering of information in that article's lead. Since this article has more page watchers, I wanted to post here to encourage participation there. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

really? as opposed to the discussion 10 years ago? and 9 years ago? and 8 years ago? and 7 years ago? well you get my point.Brushcherry (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)brushcherry

Bad IP edits to the lead
68.32.136.75 recently made a couple of unhelpful edits to the lead, complete with long-winded edit summaries justifying the changes in terms of his or her personal political views (see here and here). I've reverted one of them. I would revert the other as well, but cannot under the Draconian one revert per week rule that was imposed on this article. I think the other edit should be reverted as well: there was no sensible reason given for removing the reference to "collectivism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did it. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the edits were inappropriate. Based on editing similarities and geolocation, I suspect this is the same IP editor who was involved in edit-warring over this wording in December -- see Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 45. Also, I think you are misinterpreting the 1RR restriction. The limitation is on how often individual editors revert, not on how many total edits are reverted. If editor X uses five edits to complete a change, and editor Y reverts all five of them in one go, then that is just one revert for editor Y. --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a Draconian restriction under either interpretation. The IP, meanwhile, is continuing to make bad edits like this, once again with a long, tedious edit summary, with its self-important statement of the IP's own personal political views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a 1RR per week notification on the talkpage of the IP. The IP also appears to be edit-warring on another article as well. They also appear to be aware of the 3RR rule since they mention it in one of their edit-summaries. Given their understanding of the edit-warring rules and my notification on their talk, a report at 3RRN may be the next step if the IP continues the reverts. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely at the IP locations and topics edited, this is likely the same editor previously discussed at Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Several IPs, all of which geolocate to New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia, have shared interest not only in editing this article according to a particular POV, but also in editing about conspiracy theories and the September 11 attacks. Compare the contributions for the latest IP. with the contributions here, here (in particular check the edits from 2012), and here. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about that SPI but now that you mentioned it, it looks WP:DUCKY to me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted the probable sock. But to be on the safe side I will not revert again. However if the IP returns I intend to file a 3RRN report and perhaps open an SPI. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This article says that Rand 'opposed statism. . . instead supporting minarchist limited government.' This could be read as 'Rand opposed statism, instead supporting statism.' If this basic contradiction is not addressed by reverting editors I will be forced to assume there has been bad faith editing and undo the reversions.

The word anarchism includes both collectivist and individualist strains of the philosophy, therefore it would be superfluous to say 'opposed collectivism and anarchism.' It would be much more accurate to say that Rand opposed state socialism and communism as well as anarchism. Then the only major philosophy left standing is 'limited government' (which has never been implemented in world history as anything more than a transitional phase to totalitarianism, but the philosophy nonetheless exists). She supported the state but opposed the socialist state. In her works she praised the Nixon administration among other moderate administrations. These were hardly 'pure' limited governments as those dreamt of by the Founding Fathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.136.75 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It's not even relevant to this article what the Statism article says. Other editors are not in bad faith because they disagree with you, and you are of course in no position to undo anything. The more you rant about your politics, the more people will avoid listening to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck edit by blocked sock. Dougweller (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Another bad IP edit to the lead
An IP editor recently made this edit to the lead. It should be reverted for being unnecessary and unproductive. It is poor style to repeat the phrase "United States" twice in the lead. Using "America" instead for the second mention is perfectly appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I've changed it back to 'America'. I left the change to the section header further down, since it is a helpful clarification and not as immediately repetitive. --RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead again
There's a sentence in the lead that currently reads, "In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on the recognition of individual rights." That makes no sense as written; it seems to imply that Rand was against laissez-faire capitalism, which is obviously wrong. Someone needs to fix it. I'm reluctant to do this, because of the draconian editing restrictions that have been imposed on this article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to the careless wording, the changes also deleted the mention of her esthetics (with no explanation of why) and cited a website of primary source excerpts instead of the more preferable secondary sources used throughout the rest of the lead. This sort of hacky (but not quite vandalism) change is exactly the sort of stuff that makes the 1RR problematic. I reverted a different bad edit a few days ago, so we will either have to establish a consensus here or wait for someone else to fix this latest. Either way, the lead will probably contain the stupid error about her opposing capitalism for a while longer. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoops, my fault. I'll fix it as soon as I can. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There, that should be somewhat better. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Request to lift 1RR
I have asked User:TParis to consider lifting the 1RR restriction on this article. See User talk:TParis. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees this is the best course of action at this point?--v/r - TP 22:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, ya'all, I've removed the edit notice and made a log in the Arbcom case that it's been rescinded.--v/r - TP 05:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FAC peer review for Night of January 16th
The article about Rand's play Night of January 16th was promoted to good article status a few months ago, and I would like to take it to featured article status. If I succeed, I believe this would be the first-ever FA for an article about Rand or her works. In preparation, I've opened a peer review request for feedback. Last time I requested peer review, I got zero replies, so I'm hoping a little more advertisement this time will draw some feedback. Please review the article and then go to Peer review/Night of January 16th/archive2 to give your thoughts. Thanks in advance. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The name Ayn
"Ayn" is definitely not finnish, the spelling at least goes against finnish orthography and neither are there any genuinely finnish names with only one syllable. The closest names would be Aini, Aino, Aina. As for pronunciation I go by the 2 examples of Ayn found on Forvo, both arabic. Arabic aside, from finnish perspective the closest association would be estonian, I haven't checked but the name sounds to me much more estonian than finnish, at least if spelled Ain.

Petteri (of Finland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.251.147 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you go to the sources cited in the article, you will see that the inspiration Rand claimed was the name of a Finnish writer, which she apparently saw in Russian and then further modified. No one has ever claimed that 'Ayn' is itself a Finnish name. As for the rest, the best we can do for a WP article is to summarize what our best sources say, and so far I'm not aware of any reliably sourced speculation involving Arabic or Estonian. --RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Evva Pryor
has recently been insisting that Evva Pryor be described in this article as a "social worker". The source (McConnell) currently used for the relevant passage in the article does not describe her as such. It is an interview where she describes herself as "a consultant for [Rand's] attorneys". Lechonero has posted to my user talk page that the actual source for the term "social worker" is a political opinion blog on Huffington Post. This is not an appropriate source for factual questions, as explained in our reliable sources guidelines. Does anyone want to defend this from a better source? --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * McConnell's book describes her as a social worker. I read the passage. Also, the Huffington Post is a reputable publication. Stop engaging in wp:own. Lechonero (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think McConnell says this, perhaps you would like to quote it. In the interview, Pryor describes her "background in social work", but is clear that she was working "as a consultant for her attorneys" when she met Rand. As for the Huffington Post, the issue is not whether it is generally reliable, it is that the piece in question is from a political opinion blog. Opinion pieces are reliable for the author's opinions, but not for factual questions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll find the quote and include in the article. However I think Pryor should be described in the article as a social worker until I find the quote again. It's an edit I fully intend to defend. Keep in mind Pryor, was educated as a social worker and was working in the capacity of a social worker when she dealt with Ayn Rand. To suggest that Pryor wasn't a social worker strikes me as nonsensical. Frankly, I don't understand why you're objecting to it. Lechonero (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I object first because it is inaccurate. Pryor's obituary indicates a long and varied career. Her primary role with Rand's lawyers was related to intellectual property rights. She studied acting and ran a theater. She worked on Wall Street, and as a university professor. I don't think this summarizes as "social worker". She says in the interview she was a "consultant", and that seems more apt since social workers don't typically include advice on copyrights as part of their portfolio. Secondarily, I object because the use of this term reflects sub rosa reliance on the unreliable blog sources that editors actually get this material from, adopting the phraseology of those blogs over Pryor's own self-description from a better-quality source. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's some of the most convoluted and overwrought logic I've ever read for such a small change in an article. I'm willing to bet you could come up with an argument that a ham sandwich isn't really a ham sandwich. I'm done exchanging messages with you. Now you can go back to obsessing over minutia, Mr. Sub Rosa. Lechonero (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are just going to insult me without providing the supposed source quote supporting your view, then there isn't much to discuss anyway. But that doesn't mean the article will continue to keep your preferred wording "until [you] find the quote". --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Atheism "activist" ?
Why is this article in the category "Atheism Activists"? Rand was indeed an atheist, but the article mentions this fact precisely once, in passing. Nothing further is said about it, nor is there anything in the article to substantiate the claim that Rand was in any way an "activist" about her atheism. Either material supporting the claim that she was an atheist activist needs to be added, or the article needs to be removed from the category "Atheism Activists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "Atheism Activist" category tag for this biographical article in light of the fact that Rand was a thinker, but never an activist on this issue. Indeed, what Rand had to say on the subject she left almost entirely to her early associate, Nathaniel Branden. George H. Smith, author of The Case Against God wrote an entire article on Rand's atheism. It opens thus:


 * "The atheism of Ayn Rand is regarded by many people, especially political conservatives, as the most pernicious aspect of Objectivism. Yet, though vehemently opposed to faith and mysticism, Rand has never placed much emphasis on atheism per se. The Objectivist position on atheism was summarized by Nathaniel Branden in the December 1965 issue of THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER:


 * 'As uncompromising advocates of reason, Objectivists are, of course, atheists. We are intransigent atheists, not militant ones. We are for reason; therefore, as a consequence, we are opposed to any form of mysticism; therefore, we do not grant any validity to the notion of a supernatural being. But atheism is scarcely at the center of our philosophical position. To be known as crusaders for atheism would be acutely embarrassing to us; the adversary is too unworthy.'" (George H. Smith. "Atheism and Objectivism", _Reason_ Vol.5, No.7, Nov. 1973, pp.18-24)


 * Smith goes on to survey atheism from the perspective of other philosophical traditions far from Objectivism, finally discussing to Aristotelianism and Rand. He concludes:


 * "The Thomistic philosopher Étienne Gilson once remarked that 'God will really be dead when no one will still think of denying his existence.' By emphasizing her constructive philosophy to the extent that the issue of theism fades into the background, Ayn Rand may be said to have written God's epitaph. And this time there will be no resurrection."


 * I hope this puts to rest the unsupported notion that Rand was an 'atheism activist'. —Blanchette (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in the news
This article may have been vandalized; see this. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no vandalism involved, just blogger ignorance. The wording in question was the subject of a lengthy debate, largely driven by an editor (later banned for his abusive editing across numerous articles) who insisted on including that word, which had not been used previously. It was removed after an RFC came down against it. The blogger presumably looked at the article during the few months this debate played out, then again after, but never read the Talk page or learned anything substantial about the history of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification tag
On 19 July 2014, placed a "Clarification needed" tag at the end of the following sentence: 'For example, Mother Jones remarked that "Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed", while The Nation alleged similarities between the "moral syntax of Randianism" and fascism.' The edit summary said, "oddly formulated statement could use clarifying". The criticisms are quoted from magazine articles cited inline, which are available online to be read in full for context, so I think the clarification request could use some clarification of its own. What specifically is unclear? --RL0919 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,User:RL0919. My main problem is with the run-on nature of it. My brain crashes before the end of the first sentence, and I have to reboot every time.  I Would suggest something like: MJ notes Rand's "particular genius" in turning traditional hierarchies upside down.  It is entirely unclear what the  alleged similarities between the "moral syntax of Randianism" are outside their editorializing.  We can certainly retain the intellectual left's criticisms, but I suggest doing it without making it look like something out of a random text generator would be more hopeful for most readers. And a specific quote of something they say is fascist that she actually said would help.  Is her non-initiaton of force principle objectionable?  Her oath not to expect others to sacrifice themselves on your behalf?  There might be fertile ground with the notion that gays are basically mentally ill (NOT her words) or her idea that Europeans were entitled to seize indigenous land when the natives hand't formulated the concept (to her satisfaction) of property rights.  Verifiable specifics in her words or criticism or her actual words would be great. Those two things might be called fascist, or widely criticized ignorance. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

John Hodgman Revert
I added a quote from author and actor John Hodgman concerning Rand. The statement was from an article which discusses a stand-up routine in which he channels Rand. Hodgman is a notable author and performer, and the section of the article presents popular reception of Rand. This text should be restored to the article, as it enhances the content of this section and provides additional perspective on the popular reaction and representation of Rand and her work. SPECIFICO talk  16:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like comedy. It sounds like a partisan rant against Rand.  It adds nothing to the article, other than that he apparently does not like Rand in the least.  Undue weight for this article.  It is also a primary source.  Arzel (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about comedy? This section of the article is about popular reaction.  The Hodgman bit is like the other content in the section. The quote is from a book written by Spivack in which she quotes Hodgman, so it is not a primary source.  I have no opinion as to Hodgman's view, but he is a notable person who gets lots of TV coverage, whose books have been published repeatedly, and who does one-man shows all over the USA.  He typifies one strain of reaction to Rand -- a reaction which for better or worse, is part of her legacy.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For those who don't know, John Hodgman is the guy famous for personifying the slow and nerdy PC in the Mac vs PC commercials of the turn of the century. His article mentions nothing about Rand--that's where descriptions of his acts should go, not here. μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Be careful you don't mischaracterize Hodgman's career, notability, etc. per BLP. It's hardly accurate to single out a single activity of his from years ago.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is from a first-person account by Hodgman that has been collected into a book of such accounts edited by Spivack. It is not an article written by Spivack. It's also worth noting that Hodgman is a humorist describing his stand-up act, which taints any comment in his account as possibly being less than serious. So on that ground alone it is a poor choice of source. And even if totally serious, I'm not clear on how this quote fits into the Popular Interest section. Hodgman does not comment on popular interest in Rand or the popular perception of her. (In contrast, the quote immediately before where this was placed is from a journalist describing how Rand is treated in popular media.) If it were from a review, it might go in the Reviews section, but it isn't. If he were an academic it might go in the Academic Reaction section, but he's not. We don't really have a section for Random People Comment on Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Are discretionary sanctions here still needed?
An uninvolved editor has asked the Arbitration Committee to review whether the discretionary sanctions are still required in this topic area, and to repeal them if they are not. If you have any opinions on this matter, please comment at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Should she be described firstly as a novelist or a philosopher?
It seems more appropriate that she be described as a "philosopher, novelist, etc." rather than as a "novelist, philosopher, etc". Seeing as her written work revolves around her philosophy, one can reasonably conclude that the development of the philosophy came before the writing of the novels. The thing about her that the majority of people remember most is her philosophy, so it seems more logical to have her described firstly as a philosopher. Reverse polish (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments - the original text re Ayn Rand as a novelist first seems more appropriate - several relevant earlier discussions may apply - including => "Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 45" - as well as - perhaps - a relevant reference in the "National Review" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Philosophy can mean "a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology" or "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group". (Merriam-Webster) Some editors have argued that Rand should be described as a philosopher because some of her lesser known writings met the first definition, even though they have been universally ignored.  The novels represent her philosophy in the second sense.  (For example, they provide a clear message of individualism, but not a lot about epistemology.)  But the same could be said of most writers - their writings represent how they see the world.  TFD (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So what exactly differentiates a "philosopher" from a "writer"? If the primary motive behind Rand's writing was to endorse her philosophy, then why is she considered a writer first and philosopher second? Would a famous pastor be considered an "orator" first and a "religious leader" second? Reverse polish (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Philosophers write about philosophy, that is to say, logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. As for pastors, C. S. Lewis' article lists him first as a novelist, because he is better known for his Narnia series than for his pastoral work, These books revolve around her philosophy, too, and one can reasonably conclude that the development of the philosophy came before the writing of the novels.  And of course we do not call pastors who orate "philosophers", even though they are talking about their personal philosophies.  TFD (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So what would be an example of an individual who was a philosopher first and a writer second? Also, C.S. Lewis is not predominantly known for his philosophy, he is known for his novels. Rand is known predominantly for her philosophy. Again, if the primary motive behind Rand's writing was to endorse her philosophy, then why is she considered a writer first and philosopher second? This is the third time I have brought up this point, and it has not been addressed. Reverse polish (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You evidently have never studied philosophy or you would not have said that. How does she resolve the mind-body problem, causation, etc., in her novels?  Has anyone tried to make the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics or Word and Object into works of fiction or motion pictures?"  OTOH, what difference is there between her books and any other books that reflect a writer's view of the world?  You are not using the term "philosophy" in the way it is normally understood.  TFD (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I never proclaimed to have studied philosophy. I've never even read any of Rand's books. I'm just interested in biographies, and I found it puzzling that the creator of a whole philosophy would not be described firstly as a philosopher. Rand's philosophy addresses specific academic topics in philosophy, so that would be the difference between her books and any regular novelists' books. According to your own words, "philosophers write about philosophy, that is to say, logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology", and all of these topics are discussed in her work. I'll ask this question again, since you did not answer it the first time: what would be an example of an individual who was a philosopher first and a writer second? Reverse polish (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been beaten to death, see the archives. Someone who claims not to have even read Rand starting this debate is just shaking up a bottle of soda he expects someone else to drink.  She studied philosophy at University, but says she had decided to be a writer at age 9.  She had success first as a playwright, screenplay writer, and novelist, but spent the last 25 years of her life writing and lecturing almost exclusively on philosophy.  I think novelist philospher sounds more natural.  In any case, changing the order will not be worth the blood, sweat and tears that will be shed in accomplishing it, and we will simply have the same argument to reerse the order again in six months. μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "What would be an example of an individual who was a philosopher first and a writer second?" -- And, of course, this question was once again left unanswered. You do not need to have read Rand to figure out that it is extremely questionable to give secondary importance to the philosophy that she created, which is the main thing she is remembered for. Someone who claims to be well-versed in philosophy should perhaps try to understand a person's arguments before being immediately dismissive. Reverse polish (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * She is not remembered for her philosophy. TFD (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason I knew who she was in the first place was because of her philosophy. "What would be an example of an individual who was a philosopher first and a writer second?" This is the FIFTH time I'm asking this question. You would think that "philosophy experts" would be able to answer a simple question... Reverse polish (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, notice how I made valid points about Rand writing about philosophy, therefore making her a philosopher according to your own definition, and you avoided addressing that argument too. That is very telling... Reverse polish (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is frustrating that my questions and points are being ignored, when we are supposed to be having a discussion. Reverse polish (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Rand was a "Russian-born American writer" and failed to gain acceptance among academic philosophers "due to the fictional form in which the best-known statements of her philosophy appeared, which necessarily rendered them imprecise by professional standards." - in any case - the following may apply => WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstract arguments about how philosophy is defined, etc., should take a back seat to what independent reliable sources say. The sources are clear enough here -- although there are many that call her a philosopher (which is why we include that in her description), there are many more that call her a novelist. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a talk page is improving the article, not debating the subject, things in general, or eductaing someone unfamiliar with the topic. I suggest this thread be closed on that basis. μηδείς (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Medeis is right; Rand should be described first as a novelist, then a philosopher. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship ?
Currently our article seems to say she arrived from Russia on a tourist visa but decided to stay and got US citizenship. It's usually not that simple, though. Did she defect and request asylum ? If not, I'd expect her to have been deported when her tourist visa expired. StuRat (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * She received several visa extensions (Heller suggests her movie industry contacts probably helped her with this), and when those ran out, she married an American citizen, which fast-tracked her to citizenship. Keep in mind that this was over 80 years ago, and immigration was not handled exactly the same as it is now. For instance, I don't think political asylum existed in US law in the 1920s. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Shouldn't this info be added to the article ? StuRat (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Added a bit. --RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! StuRat (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Find a Grave
User:DrKiernan removed an external link to Find a Grave, citing guidance around when to link to this site. User:Srich32977 subsequently restored the link, stating that it "has unique image (gravestone) & is under editorial control of FAG". I can't speak to the editorial control, but we already have a gravestone image and burial details in the article. Unless there is some other unique information on the linked page that I'm missing, it seems that DrKiernan was right to remove the link. --RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed the gravestone image in the article. But given that Rand is a popular figure in culture, I think the link is appropriate. It is not being used as RS (per template guidance) and the other justification cited is simply an essay (not guidance). I'll favor keeping it. In accordance with WP:ELMAYBE it is a helpful and noteworthy link for those readers who enjoy tracking such details. – S. Rich (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EL, which is a guideline, external links should be kept to a minimum and those that provide no further information than that already found in the article are usually avoided. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing what WP:ELMAYBE criteria this link addresses. It appears to be superfluous, in an article that has a lot of ELs (probably too many) even without it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case the FAG page has (relatively) numerous "virtual flowers" and fame star ratings, which indicates that Find a Grave readers are enjoying it. Accordingly, providing the link is helpful to WP readers who may wish to contribute there as well. As for this EL section, it is pretty clean – the additional short link hardly serves to clutter it. (Let's see if others agree before we remove it.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayn Rand in Popular Culture
Is it alright if I put down an appearance of Ayn Rand in "Popular Culture" or in "In Fiction" in a separate section on the article? What I wanted to put down is below me.

In the North American Confederacy Series novel The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, in which the United States becomes a Libertarian state after a successful Whiskey Rebellion and the overthrowing and execution of George Washington in 1794, Ayn Rand served as the 22nd President of the North American Confederacy from 1952 to 1960. After Harriet Beecher Stowe and Rose Wilder Lane, she was the third woman to hold the office of the presidency.

I would have wrote down what I said on the article, but I was afraid of it being removed. Like what happened to Sequoyah, since he also was mentioned as being President of the NAC in the series. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian


 * I have no opinion on such a section, but she is also mentioned in the Simpson's Episode "A Streetcar Named Marge" as well as on Futurama, in Bill Buckley's fictionalized account and in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, as well as the movies Heaven Can Wait and Dirty Dancing. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would oppose such an addition as being unnecessary trivia. The article currently notes that Rand has appeared as a character in a number of novels, been mentioned on TV shows, etc., but it doesn't list them, because at an individual level this is not significant information about her. If she is an important character in the novel (or other work), then it could be mentioned in the article about that work. If not, then this may be the type of detail that just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Years ago, the article for a while had a list of cultural personages who were significantly influenced by Rand, partly as a counterbalance to the attempt in the article at that time to marginalize her impact. (More of that occurs above in this page.)  After a lot of arguing and editing, the consensus seemed to be that it was too close to being "trivia."  Some attempts to wedge in minor academic criticisms also were excised.  I suggest that unless there has been a major new development, facts about Rand belong in the article while spotting isolated mentions of her do not. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Couldn't a separate article be made for Ayn Rand's appearances in media and popular culture? It really shouldn't be that hard to do so and shouldn't require so much Bureaucracy,regulations, and waiting forever to get something done. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian

The phrase "popular culture" used in this way is merely a euphemism for trivia, and trivia does not belong in the article. Obviously there will be references in "media" to virtually all famous people, and Wikipedia readers understand this; they don't need a list of specific examples. TheScotch (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead photo
The recent change to the infobox photo (this diff) doesn't strike me as an improvement; it is informal and from an era well before she came to fame as a writer. The previous image, although tagged fair use, is of excellent quality for a lead photo, showing Rand in a relaxed but formal pose with her trademark cigarette. The recent photo is marked as public domain on account of it being a passport photo, but it doesn't look really look like one. How do we know this is actually the case? It is sourced to a writer's blog which does not state the date of the photo, and I haven't been able to find any other instances of the photo other than Pinterest. Pinterest say the image was found on aynrand.org, but the image does not appear to be published there either. Verification of the passport's issue date comes from other sources (eg here), but without an example of the image. If someone could shed some light on the provenance of this photo, that would be of help. My preferred option would be to reinstate the previous image and move the new image to the section on Rand's early life (providing appropriate licensing is possible). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The same image appears in Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made, where it is described in the caption as "Rand's Russian passport photograph, dated October 29, 1925, when Rand was twenty years old." So the origin of the image appears accurate. I agree that it is not representative of the era of Rand's life in which she was notable, so on that basis it might be acceptable to switch back to a fair use photo of the mature Rand. Our content guidelines allow non-free images only when there is no free image "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" -- an arguable point in this instance. However, if this is going to be reverted it should happen soon, because the non-free file is subject to deletion tomorrow as an unused non-free image. --RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Philosophers of mind
The category "philosophers of mind" should be removed from this article. The category description is, "Philosophers in the philosophy of mind". I do not believe Rand qualifies. Simply mentioning the mind in her work does not make her a recognized philosopher of mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rand's philosophy covers the nature of consciousness, sense perception, abstraction, concept formation, and other topics in the philosophy of mind. She also covers important problems in the philosophy of mind, such as the mind-body problem, free will, qualia, etc. These are covered in detail in Rand's Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Peikoff's Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapters 1-5, Binswanger's How We Know, and other books, as well as in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in the section on Metaphysics and Epistemology.  BRIAN  0918 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically regarding recognition, Stanford's article indicates in its first sentence that her philosophy included a theory of epistemology.  BRIAN  0918 15:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, Rand wrote about mind just as she wrote about many other things. One cannot, however, legitimately apply the category just on the basis that Rand wrote about the mind, as she has no reputation at all as a philosopher of mind, no acknowledgement from writers within the field. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not a huge fan of categories in the first place, but Rand not only published only one philosophical monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she considered it her most important philosophical work. David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses and various other fully scholarly works have been published on facets of her epistemological positions.  What would indeed be wrong would be classifying her as a logician or cosmologist.  But there is certainly nothing wrong with describing her as an epistemologer. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's epistemology, not philosophy of mind. It's not the same thing. To classify Rand as a philosopher of mind, one would have to have evidence that mainstream philosophers (non-Objectivists) regard her as a philosopher of mind. I doubt there is any such evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The main topic of the philosophy of mind is the mind body problem. All the Stanford article says is that she saw dualism (which I assume she disagrees with) as leading to false dichotomies such as between economic and personal freedom. It says in her book on epistemology,
 * Q: "I'd like to apply this to the "mind-brain" issue-that is, what is the relation of consciousness to brain activity? That would be a scientific question."
 * A: "Yes."
 * That's all she wrote - not enough to qualify her for the category.
 * TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not about to get into an argument based on unsupported dismissiveness . Rand considered mind relational, and for her primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness was a central concept. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the requirement is that philosophers of mind mention her or her work in connection with the phrase "philosophy of mind", then obviously the evidence is much more limited than if the requirement were that her topics of discussion fall under the philosophy of mind. But in general philosophers don't go around referring to eachother as "philosophers of the mind" - rather, they reference the relevant topic. A more reliable method would be to look at lists/databases of articles in the field, and see whether Rand is cited or mentioned. For example:  David Chalmer's database of articles on consciousness, which he states is a "topic in the philosophy of mind", includes several articles by Rand and/or mentioning her. Likewise with the PhilPapers database section for philosophy of mind.  BRIAN  0918  00:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And she uses her concept of the primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness to argue against the meaningfulness of the philosophy of mind. Again in her book:
 * Q: "Isn't there a sense in which Locke, Berkeley, and Hume-less so Locke, but all of them-don't really have a concept of existence as a metaphysical fact?"
 * A: "No, they don't."

TFD (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's useless to suggest that Rand should be categorized as a philosopher of mind simply because some article by her appears in a database. The fact of the matter is that she has had no discernible impact on the field. It makes sense to categorize her as a political philosopher because she has had some (albeit limited) impact on that field; not so philosophy of mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links cleanup
There was a cleanup tag for excessive external links since last May. I've cleared out several links for the reasons explained below: That cuts the EL list by a third, and all the remaining links seem appropriate, so I've removed the tag. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ from the Objectivism Reference Center - WP:ELNO #11. Note: this is my own website. I didn't link it here, and I've generally refrained from touching it to avoid any WP:COI accusations. But it would by hypocritical to clean up the other EL problems and leave this, so I've removed it.
 * What's Living and Dead in Ayn Rand's Moral and Political Thought by the Cato Institute - there's no reason to privilege this particular magazine feature for an EL; is more properly used as a source rather than an EL.
 * Ayn Rand at C-SPAN's American Writers: A Journey Through History - the C-SPAN site no longer offers a direct link to the Rand page, so users end up at the series page.
 * - this is already linked as a source in the article.
 * - there is an established consensus (reflected in the documentation for this EL template and at External links/Perennial websites) to EL this site only if it contains unique information that isn't already mentioned and sourced in the article. In this case, it does not.


 * A C-SPAN video of AR is available here. I recommend adding it to the EL section. – S. Rich (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd restore the Stanford Encyclopedia Link. It's a good, objective (npi) article, and having it as an external link makes sense, since the article is wider than any reference for which it is used.  Having to look for it amongst the small print of scores of references is not as helpful to our readers. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm open-minded about the SEP link if folks want it back; it's the most deserving of the links I removed. The "C-SPAN video" is an interview from 1961 put in a C-SPAN wrapper. There are other recordings of Rand available online, so I'm not sure why this one in particular should be linked, and not (say) this one or this one. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently folks do want the link back. I have restored it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello - I have re-added the link (with a new URL that specifically points to the correct program) for the C-SPAN American Writers: A Journey Through History program on Rand (Link here). Please let me know if any concerns. Thanks. KConWiki (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Occupation?
Since Ayn Rand was a philosopher, should we have "philosopher" under Occupation in addition to "writer"? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Its mentioned in the article text.  The infobox encapsulates key information, and she is most known for being a writer. The philosophical nature of the writing and explaining her status as a philosopher is a complex matter and covered in the main text. -- Netoholic @  21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rand was not employed as a philosopher, so no, it clearly was not her occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When she was paid to make speeches, it was for her to discuss her philosophy, not for her to perform writing. Also the word "employed" is irrelevant. One can be a writer or a philosopher without being an employee of someone else. -- Netoholic @  22:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the point. Someone is not a philosopher by occupation if they are not employed as a philosopher. It's irrelevant that they might be a philosopher in some other sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When you find yourself so often claiming that others aren't getting the point, it might be because you're not clear on the point that you're trying to make. In fact, I think very few philosophers ever collect a paycheck based on that as their stated profession.  They are more often payed as writers, professors, etc. (if we have to define something as their "occupation"). That's why I said right away that her occupation is better left as just "writer". -- Netoholic @  22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Her speeches were to present her ideas -- the assertion that they were to discuss her "philosophy" begs the question here.  SPECIFICO  talk  11:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If your goal is to somehow belittle her contributions as meer "ideas", and not philosophy, then I think you need to stop trying to participate so unconstructively in conversations in this knowledge area. Even someone who thinks its a *bad* philosophy should at least acknowledge that it is one. Historically, we have had many bad philosophies that have failed the test of time, and yet we still call them "philosophy" and not just "ideas". Doing so would be disingenuous to the ongoing process of human understanding.-- Netoholic @ 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here. Firstly is her occupation Philosopher?  To that per FreeKnowledgeCreator the answer is no, she was a writer.  Secondly is she a philosopher?  Well anyone can call themselves that and anyone can engage in philosophy.  But to use wikipedia's voice to make the statement requires some evidence.  Given that she has few if any references outside a very narrow context in the US my long term opinion here has been that she does not deserve the label per WP:WEIGHT and in general on philosophy articles her views have not been notable enough to deserve inclusions.  However there are academic references to her and historically that has been enough to support the statement in the lede.    Snowded  TALK 07:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it should be listed as one of her occupations and of course those who view her with disdain her are going to insist it shouldn't. Employment as a philosopher doesn't mean you have to be on the payroll of a university. Self-employment is employment. She was self-employed as a philosopher. It's a false dichotomy to say she spoke about her ideas as differentiated from her philosophy - a philosophy is composed of ideas. Her novels exist to communicate her philosophy. Besides nonfiction works regarding her philosophy, she gave lectures, put out publications, spoke on her own radio show and was a guest on other broadcasts. She was paid by those who found her philosophy to be of interest. The Ayn Rand Institute exists specifically to promote her philosophy. It's ludicrous to claim she wasn't employed as a philosopher. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right. "Occupation" is not necessarily as the arrend boy or secretary of someone else. She made money on her philosophy - her system of "ideas" in the specific areas of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc - through writing and speaking about it, of course, but she was not only a novelist or perhaps a speech writer or something else, which is the impression that only putting in "writer" gives. I think ocupation, should it at all need to be mentioned separately in a box, should list all the major things she did. So what is major? If I told you that someone like Karl Marxs, Friedrich Nietzsches, Christopher Hitchens' or perhaps George Bernard Shaws ocupation was as "a writer" what would you think of that? Sure, they all wrote. But only Bernhard Shaw has his ocupation listed at all and he's not merely a "writer", but a "Playwright, critic, political activist".
 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Replace words that cause uncertainties
The word "bourgeois" ought to be replaced, in my opinion, because it can have multiple - including merely wrong, or even wrongly derogatory - meanings. Any help to find a better word, or combination of such, to resolve this issue would be much appreciated. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it was the early twentieth century, I think it's clear that the first meaning is intended. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Early 20th century in Russia, around the time of the Communist revolution. It does seem to be a very relevant term. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Neither her family, nor Rand herself, need to be characterized as fully "standing opposite to the proletariat". We have no indication that they did. "Upper middle class" will do just fine here. (+They were Jews, remember, and they were not too "privileged" as such either) If you can give a reasonable argument for why bourgeoisie is a more accurate description, then shoot. Otherwise it's just unnecessary. - And don't even get me started on the popular definitions of "bourgeoisie" that can be found in common dictionaries. They're not pretty either. Point being, we can keep it simple and accurate.
 * 83.143.83.193 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rands occupation wasn't even as a political activist? What is the reasoning behind that.
Rand had worked full time for political campaigns and she became a key figure of a political movement, where she made money from her political nonfiction works promoted by the same movement. (+ She held speeches, published several newsletters and was connected to the Nathaniel Branden Institute, working for political changes in society) And she wasn't a political activist? Please be very clear on what is actually required for someones "occupation" to have been a political activist.

I quoute my previous reason for adding "political activist" to the infobox: The article mentions Rands "full-time" work for a political campaign, but here is my own provided explanation for why I editied it in "Rand campaigned for politicians, promoted and debated her own political proposals on popular TV-shows, to live audiences and via newsletters, was the inspiration and center of a political movement and also produced nonfiction books and recordings."

78.69.217.113 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What is typically asked for to support claims within an article is external reliable sources. Argumentation about such questions on Talk pages ought to be (but isn't always) focused on those sources: how reliable are they, how do we navigate disagreements among them, etc. On this specific question, a quick Google Books search finds one high-quality source (A Companion to Ayn Rand, from the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy series) referring to Rand as "a lifelong political activist", although not specifically describing that as her career or occupation. Another source (Ayn Rand Explained, a non-academic book) says she had "a few stints as a political activist". But in contrast, a different book from an academic publisher (After Multiculturalism) says, "Rand was not a political activist." That's a very quick look; presumably there is more to be found from further digging. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Its not an occupation, OK for main text to describe activities Snowded  TALK 17:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes it is an "occupation", see "Job". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation 78.69.217.113 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Rand was not an "activist" in the sense that most people would understand that term. Her experience with supporting a couple of political candidates relatively early in her life led her to appreciate the futility of political action without proper philosophical preparation of public attitudes.  "Occupation" normally means what a person does to earn income; in Rand's case she earned income as a writer for many years and as a philosopher for many years.  In her later years, she sold audio lectures and newsletters expounding her world vuew, and continued to receive royalties from her earlier fiction works. — DAGwyn (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's where the trouble starts though, as some people here don't want to acknowledge she was ever anything particular other than a very unspecific "writer". But Rand did after all continue to way in on the current political climate and politicians, by which she influenced a great deal of people. So, how would you define "activist"? Because to me it seems pretty clear cut that she was one. She supported speicific political ideals and sought to transform society by a number of means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.130.221 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Rand also gave lectures and TV interviews that were fairly well known. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rand applying for Social Security (has been discussed previously)
There has been some editing lately of the section about Rand applying for Social Security. FYI, the question of whether this constitutes hypocrisy has been discussed extensively here and here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And also here. This started appearing here shortly after the Huffington Post blog about it appeared in December 2010. The problem of giving undue weight to opinions that appear rarely in reliable sources hasn't changed in the interim. There are numerous published criticisms of Rand, far more than we could possibly include in an encyclopedia article. So you might expect that the ones that make the cut should be particularly prominent. This one is not. And don't even get me started on using a crappy HP blog as a source for factual claims. --RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed all of the previous discussions, and find nothing persuasive, including the above. It is an undisputed fact that Rand accepted Medicare and Social Security, which are both forms of government assistance. The fact that she did that, in spite of her repeated references to anyone participating in any system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers”,  demonstrates the impractical nature of her philosophy.  Even she couldn't follow it.  I can't believe there is any argument that this should be in the article, especially since she remained true to her canon of acting in her own self-interest.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that she allowed herself to be signed up for these programs in the article. What you would like to insert is commentary about it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DoctorJoeE mentions "repeated references to *anyone participating* in any system of taxation and redistribution as 'looters' and 'moochers'". It is NOT common knowledge that Rand said this, NOR is it self-evident. I don't recall Rand ever writing such a thing. Can anyone provide a reliable source for this? An indication of Rand's actual views may be found for example here: https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-scholarships . I quote from her essay: "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the 'right' to force employers and unwilling coworkers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money -- and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." You might not like it and you might not agree, but that is her view. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Rand did not accept, for example, any such notion as a "social contract". She denied the existence of a "social contract" and rejected the whole concept. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes -- rationalization is a wonderful thing. Call it something else, and it magically becomes okay. If she had no objection to this particular form of taxation and redistribution, why did she initially resist receiving it?  I don't really care, frankly, one way or the other -- I'm neither a Rand supporter nor detractor -- I just thought NPOV should apply to this article as much as any other. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why. Maybe she was afraid her action would be misinterpreted? Do you still want to add something to the article? You haven't convinced me that her action was hypocritical. I think it would be violating NPOV to say that it was. Although I can't speak for other editors. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Decades ago, I heard Rand answer a general question about whether it was moral to claim "government benefits". Briefly, she said that it wouldn't be in an ideal society, but given that the current government had already unjustly seized a considerable amount of your earnings, if you could reclaim some portion of that, then more power to you, provided that you continued to object to the setup.  Note that enrolling in programs like Social Security and Medicare is required by current US law, and she didn't think you could gain anything useful from resistance.  So it's more about nuance in responding to unsatisfactory governance than about hypocrisy. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * According to Rand, the people who truly deserve to receive such benefits are the people who oppose them. Need is not a claim. Lacking something is not a claim on someone else, or someone else's wealth. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that Rand condemned those who demand or support seizing the property of others and redistributing it to those who didn't earn it; that was made abundantly clear by Rand several times. But (as Doctorx0079 documented above) she also said that if you can get your own property back safely, that would be moral.  If somebody has trouble seeing that these two positions are consistent, they should work harder to understand.  Frankly, I don't think any text concerning routine insurance or taxation is needed, and I suspect the only reason it was done was in order to post POV (and as we have seen, incorrect) criticism.  —  DAGwyn (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Rand was ethnically Jewish, not Russian, and certainly not both at the same time. is however correct when he says Jews aren't really a single ethnic group; "Ashkenazi" might be more appropriate. Zacwill ( talk ) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please wait for agreement before changing Rand's ethnicity. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm doing. Zacwill  ( talk ) 23:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At first blush I don't see any reason she could not be both Russian and Jewish, and it took only seconds to find a reliable biographical source (Ayn Rand and the World She Made) that calls her "a Russian Jew". Of course this question is complicated by the fact that both "Jewish" and "Russian" are ambiguous -- the former can be an ethnicity and a religion, the latter can be an ethnicity and a nationality. Do you have a reliable source that describes her specifically as ethnically Jewish but not ethnically Russian? Or that calls her Ashkenazi? --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We are talking about ethnicity here. Her birth nationality was Russian, religiously she was an atheist, but ethnically she was an Ashkenazi Jew. I don't know how you expect me to find sources which explicitly say she wasn't ethnically Russian when this is a necessary part of her being ethnically Jewish.
 * I'm having trouble finding a good source which describes her as Ashkenazi, but if you're at all familiar with Jews you'll know this to be the case by, for example, her surname. Zacwill  ( talk ) 13:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what your argument is here. Are you saying it is generally impossible for someone to have more than one ethnicity? That sounds very dubious. Or just that Rand specifically did not? You might be right about that, but the preferable thing is to find a source. This page has an ugly history (including an Arbcom case) of conflicts over unsourced arguments and interpretations. So those of us who have been around it a long time have a stronger than typical bias towards enforcing WP:NOR. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless your ancestors are of mixed origin then yes it's impossible to have more than one ethnicity. Zacwill  ( talk ) 12:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So then I take this to be a specific claim about Rand, since there is an "unless" option. That's good, because generalized arguments about ethnicity should take place somewhere else. So, as I said above, you might be correct in your conclusion, but how to support that if it is disputed? Unless no one is actually disagreeing? I have little concern about this specific, but a lot of concern about how disputes play out here. is the one who reverted you, so perhaps he should comment further. --RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no particular opinion about Rand's ethnicity. My only concern is that a potentially controversial change be discussed and agreed upon here, before being introduced to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Libertarianism or right-libertarianism
As far as I know, Wikipedia's usage of the term "libertarianism" doesn't specifically refer to the American usage of the term, i.e., right-libertarianism. Wouldn't be it more appropriate to use "right-libertarianism" instead, or, at least, mention it? Wikipedia's article about libertarianism is kind of neutral about the left–right spectrum of it. I think, the best solution would be to mention it in the beginning, but I agree that it'd be quite annoying to use "right-libertarianism" instead of "libertarianism" every time; although, every usage of the term should link to Right-libertarianism or Libertarianism § Right-libertarianism. — Giorgi Gzirishvili (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a Wikipedia-wide usage of the term "libertarianism". That's something that can be settled article by article. For this article, the only relevant sense of libertarianism is what you refer to as "right-libertarianism", so the added qualification of "right-" seems unnecessary. In the context of this article, no one is going to be left thinking Rand was an influence on "libertarian socialism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.
 * "I don't think there is a Wikipedia-wide usage of the term 'libertarianism'."
 * Well, yeah, I guess you're right, but the main article about libertarianism does still use the term for anti-authoritarianism and/or anti-statism. Furthermore, Rand herself preferred the term "radical for capitalism". Given that, I think it'd be better if it linked to either of the two places I mentioned above.
 * "In the context of this article, no one is going to be left thinking Rand was an influence on 'libertarian socialism'."
 * But what you're assuming there is, that reader has already have some information about Rand and libertarianism and/or has read the whole article.
 * — Giorgi Gzirishvili (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "right-libertarianism" is rarely if ever used in American discourse. Lower-case-l "libertarian" is the broad category and upper-case-L "Libertarian" usually denotes the political movement inspired by Rose Wilder Lane et al. and includes notions borrowed from Objectivism. Rand herself criticized Libertarianism for attempting political change without first preparing the ground with philosophical change. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do you argue that Rands occupation was at no point as a philosopher?
The above. Also, what would be required, in order to establish that one of Rands occupations were as a philosopher? /wiki/Occupation 83.143.83.193 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not argue that Rand's occupation was never "philosopher". I am stating it as fact. Rand was never employed as a philosopher, and as such, "philosopher" was not her occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact she was not employed as such is evidence but it is not absolute. People have been philosophers and acknowledged as such.  I think she fails on those grounds - yes she is called a philosopher in some references but overwhelmingly she is simply ignored.  He name is not mentioned in the major Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias and so on.  But. in wikipedia the issue of negative evidence has never been resolved.  Snowded  TALK 05:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If she can be recognized as having done philosophy and created an entire philosophic system that spread to a relatively large group of people and influence the entire libertarian movement, then she was a philosopher. This has been done again and yet again. This is common knowledge.


 * Wether she was employed or not is irrelevant. "occupation" is not equal to "employment", but can refer to any job or career - and Rand made herself a career writing about and discussing her philosophy; Stating, restating, explaining and debating it in many different settings and TV-interviews to which she was invited because of the controversy surrounding the philosophy she championed. Rightly or wrongly, she was considered the creator of a philosophy and made money that way. --Even during her career as a "novelist", in her bestseller Atlas Shrugged, she included what she and popular culture deem and continue to call her philosophy.


 * You can't expect a majority to consider it philosophy before recognizing her as a philosopher, because then it would need to be accepted throughout an entire society as being particularily good philosophy and then there could be no controversial philosophy at all.


 * Is the complete works of Aristotle championed in todays society? Plato? Any of the other greeks? Of course not. Were they revered by the entire society in their life time? No? But where they philosophers in spite of some of the obviously wrong ideas they held? Certainly. Did they come up with everything they stood for completely on their own? Nope. Yet they were still philosophers. -- Rand, was a professional (that means she had a job - not "employment", selfemployment - or career based on this kind of work) philosopher, and as a modern - up to date - encyclopedia Wikipedia should state this.


 * But, if you don't want to call her a philosopher anyway, then can you tell me what the difference is in the case of "activism" as it relates to Bernard Shaws "occupations"? Why should his "occupation" have been as a "political activist" and a "playwright" for example, but Rand could not be? Was Shaw employed as an "activist"? Or was Rand not employed when she did activism, or as such respectively when she was a "screenwriter" and "playwright"?


 * Even this very article, though not quite as definately, seems to insinuate that Rand had multiple careers. Take for example this sentence; "Atlas Shrugged was Rand's last completed work of fiction; a turning point in her life, it marked the end of Rand's career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher." --This is unless of course you seriously want to suggest that she didn't have a career at all after this point in time?


 * 5.254.155.65 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have editied the "occupation" to include playwright, screenwriter, novelist, political writer and activist. This is accurate, as well as already confirmed and sourced in the article. I leave out any mention of "philosopher" for the time being. (Please participate in further discussion here before deleting or adding anything in this area of the article)
 * 2002:4E45:D971:E472:49F2:5FC6:F90D:CE6B (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The additions were either unnecessary (since "writer" covers most of them), or questionable (in the case of "activist"). You should wait for agreement from other editors before restoring them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * IN response to our iP, it is a common belief of her supporters. It is not common knowledge, if it was then she would be referenced as such in the major histories of Philosophy as such, Snowded  TALK 05:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you list examples of the histories you mean? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All the Oxford and Cambridge encyclopaedias and directories I managed to check when I looked into it some years back. There are articles in the Stanford on line but that is a different type of publication.  Outside of a narrow range of US supporters she is not even on the radar  Snowded  TALK 21:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rand is known, and equally despised, in Sweden, Candada and India among other places. Stockholm House of Culture & City Theatre just recently wrote about "The writer and philosopher Ayn Rand" on their webpage and a put up a play about her life as a cult figure. It would be ridiculous to conclude that "to be recognized as a philosopher one would have to make it into the history books".. The same would be true of any profession.


 * Just for the record, Rand has fans in Sweden, Canada and India as well. They are sometimes vociferous, if not great in number. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me also narrow down the conversation further, as I become more and more convinced that I'm talking to people who are in fact biased to the same lenght that I am on this subject; Why should George Bernhard Shaw be described as a playwright and critic, rather than simply a "writer". And why should he be considered an activist, but Rand not?


 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll add that we can discuss the validity of the claim, that Rand was a philosopher, made by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy later as well... (plato.stanford.edu/about.html#desc) 78.69.217.113 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be two different questions being discussed here: 1) Was Rand a philosopher? and 2) Was "philosopher" ever her occupation (her job, the way she made her living), as opposed to an avocation or extra dimension of her life? The reliable sourcing for the answer to the first question is quite strong: many sources call Rand a philosopher; we cite a few in the article. But you can be/do something without having it as the way you make your living. Is there specific sourcing for Rand's occupation being as a philosopher? That is what we should be looking for to resolve the second question. --RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. So:


 * 1 what would be required to prove that Ayn Rand made a living as a philosopher?
 * 2 But also, why should we not point out (as is done in other articles concerning other writers) which particular ways of writing she earned a living from? (such as being employed for screenwriting) After all, even the article itself starts out with concluding that Rand was "a Russian-born American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter". So why would this information not be proper to include in the "occupation" area? Because it's already mentioned? I'm not buying that argument, as most other things are mentioned in the article as well.


 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article mentions Rands "full-time" work for a political campaign, but here is my own provided explanation for why I editied it in "Rand campaigned for politicians, promoted and debated her own political proposals on popular TV-shows, to live audiences and via newsletters, was the inspiration and center of a political movement and also produced nonfiction books and recordings."
 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

May this thread continue without the recent off-topic about activism. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Rand certainly obtained some of her income from subscriptions to her periodical newsletters, which mainly discussed philosophical issues, including applications of her own philosophical system to current events. She also obtained income from sales of her non-fiction books, which covered similar material.  Her philosophical ideas were among the main reasons for her vast number of followers.  If you dig up Talk:Ayn_Rand pages from the past, you can see that whether or not Rand was a philosopher has been debated since the beginning of the Wikipedia article.  Since such a large part of her work involved developing and promoting philosophical ideas, it's clear that she "did philosophy" even though she was opposed by many paid professionals.  The opinion of contemporary academics is irrelevant, since for the most part they have attempted to marginalize, suppress, and misrepresent Rand's ideas, as I experienced first-hand. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's weirdly contradictory that the lede says "a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" but the infobox has "Occupation - Writer". Just "Writer". -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction. One can be a philosopher without its being ones occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So you can be paid for writing books about your philosophy, and philosophy is not your occupation? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I don't count AR among the philosophers, but re the occupation argument, consider Spinoza, who is considered a philosopher yet had the occupation of lensmaker. T85.166.160.7 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the infobox for Baruch Spinoza doesn't list "Occupation" at all. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

To say Rand wasn't a philosopher was, is and will forever be incorrect. Being employed as a faculty member at a university doesn't make one a philosopher - it makes one someone who got a degree in philosophy. To say she was never paid to be a philosopher is absurdly incorrect. She was a self-employed philosopher - she created a philosophy, explicitly incorporated it into her writing and was paid for it. Docsavage20 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Petrograd ?
I thought that after Lenins death Saint Petersburg city was rrnamed Leningrad,until the fall of the USSR Kp4816 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was renamed Petrograd in 1914 during World War I to remove German associations from the name. In 1924 it was renamed again, to Leningrad. --RL0919 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ayn Rand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511104313/http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/rose-wilder-lane-isabel-paterson-and-ayn-rand-three-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/ to http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/rose-wilder-lane-isabel-paterson-and-ayn-rand-three-women-who-inspired-the-modern-libertarian-movement/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)