Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 50

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/20100604055034/http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp to http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1708/article_detail.asp

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) 00:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rand and the FBI
Some info here on the FBI file on Rand, and on her attempts to ingratiate herself with that organisation. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What is muckrock, and why should we care what they say? Are they really a credible source? I've never heard of muckrock. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Muckrock appears to be a crowd-funded organization that specializes in obtaining and publishing FBI files. The FBI files seem to be genuine.  The file on Rand doesn't really show her trying to "ingratiate" herself; rather (1) she tried to determine whether Hoover considered himself a follower of her philosophy Objectivism (which he did not), (2) she tried to assist the FBI's investigation in opposition to the spread of communism (note that she testified before HUAC about communist influence in Hollywood), and (3) somebody, not necessarily Rand, sent Hoover/FBI courtesy copies of her latest books, presumably hoping that there was an interest there in Objectivism (which evidently there was not).  If Rand's FBI file is mentioned in the article, then the Muckrock link seems appropriate, unless the FBI also has the file online, in which case that would be a more first-hand source.  — DAGwyn (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It isn't mentioned and there's no evident reason to mention it at this point, nor is there any obvious use of the files on Wikipedia that wouldn't be original research. --RL0919 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Externally peer reviewed articles by London Review of Books
Thank you for sorting out my problem of red links. But I think the template is defective. There aren't going to be enough articles to populate such categories, and even if there were, I can't see how they would be useful. Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't known that we need a system of subcategories for this, but probably better to discuss that at Template talk:External peer review (the template that is generating the categories) or User talk:Evolution and evolvability (the user who added the subcategory feature to the template earlier this month). --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Virtue of Selfishness
The opening of this article says that Rand is known for her novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but it should also say that she is known for her non-fiction work, The Virtue of Selfishness. Vorbee (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it quite surprising that this article hardly mentions "The Virtue of Selfishness". I remember reading in the paper version of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, many years ago, that Rand's reversal of the traditional Judeao-Christian ethic (i.e. calling selfishness a virtue and altruism a vice) had won Rand a cult of followers. Vorbee (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is not neutral and does not deserve its "Good Article" status (as of 11/21/2017). A Proposed Individual Reassessment.
Hello Fellow Wikipedians,

(Before you read on, I just want you to know that I personally have an anti-Rand bias, but I still greatly appreciate her works and have read many of them. I will try to overcome my bias in reviewing this article, but please correct me and, if possible, double check everything I write to make sure that I've not allowed any bias to seep through)

This article in its current state is not only not deserving of "Good Article" status, it barely deserves to be on Wikipedia. This is because it is horribly cited, selectively takes evidence, and often quotes little-known people randomly with pretentious words such as ("According to famous critic 'insert little-known pro/anti-Rand critic here' Ayn Rand's novel is good/bad..."). Both of these needs to be fixed if this article is to be even deserving to be on Wikipedia, and (I personally think) this entire article needs to be rewritten if it is a "Good Article". My main criticisms of this article are outlined below:

Some extremely bad sources in this supposedly "Good" article
As stated above, this article has a serious issue with cited sources, a casual stroll through the citations show that many of them suffer from POV issues and some citations are completely unrelated, for example, actual contents of citation #162 is completely unrelated to the way source #162 is used in this article

I'm going to do more research on this topic with my free time and look over every source on this page, especially sources in the "Reception and Legacy" section and flag any source that does not fit Wikipedia standards. Progress (I'll try to update this everyday): 11/21/2017: Wrote this and flagged source #160 and #162

Bad Sources found and flagged (11/21/2017):
 * 1) 160 POV issues
 * 2) 162 Unrelated


 * Ref 162 is a good catch, but easily fixed. The content of the page has changed since the citation was placed in the article. I've added an archive link that reflects the content at that time, which does contain the relevant information. As for ref 160, you should explain what about the source's POV would preclude it being a reliable source for the cited content. Every source has some POV; that is not the same as being an inappropriate source. As explained (for example) in policy: "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone..."; or in a related guideline: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." But certainly feel free to continue reviewing the sources and raising anything that concerns you. There are probably a number of places where sourcing could be improved in some way. --RL0919 (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Complete Rewriting of the "Reception and Legacy" section of the article
If bad sources were not enough, this article often randomly quotes random people at random occasions (with legitimate sources to back it) with absolutely no context to bring up such a randomness. The reader of this article REALLY DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN IF SOME OBSCURE FRENCH SCREENWRITER APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF AYN RAND, STOP MENTIONING THEM!!!! The vast majority of the "Reception and Legacy" section of this article seemed to be quotes from people or organizations, why?? Just why???? Quotes on a person, especially quotes by obscure little-known people, are completely useless in defining the legacy of a person, and serve only to advance pointless arguments!

Therefore I propose that the entire "Reception and Legacy" section of the article needs to be deleted and rewritten from scratch, this time hopefully emphasizing the sales and reach of Rand's books and ideas instead of quotes.

Thanks for reading through this huge chunk of text, and I hope that you give some suggestions and objections (I especially need objections) to my idea. If no objections are given and I've looked through every source in this article, then I'll start deleting the bad sources and the associated text without further notice.

Cherrios JumboCraft 04:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

''' PS: Due to the edit conflicts that occurred as I was writing this, I might've accidently deleted your post, if I have, that I'm super sorry and I wish that you'd restore it. '''


 * Please don't make assumptions about what other people do or do not find interesting. I, for one, find it quite interesting what a French screenwriter might have to say about Rand. There is no justification for deleting the "reception and legacy" section and doing so would be disruptive. Speaking of disruption, it is also disruptive to remove another user's comment from a talk page without justification, as you did here and, once again, here. Cut it out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there actually an obscure French screenwriter cited in the article, or is this a made-up example? Regardless, the Reception and Legacy section could probably be improved by focusing more on sources that summarize, rather than more specific reactions, assuming the sources used are high quality and the content is presented in accordance with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia norms. That doesn't mean some specific examples and narrative detail would not be justified, or that the entire section should be jettisoned in favor of a massive rewrite that may have any number of significant flaws of its own. --RL0919 (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of term libertarians in lead
The current lead says that Rand is a significant influence among libertarians; however, this is misleading because libertarians includes libertarian socialists, who, as far as I understand, wholeheartedly reject Rand and all forms of capitalism. To accommodate for this, I think the term libertarian in the lead ought to be modified.

My preferred solution is to reword "among libertarians and American conservatives" to "among American conservatives and libertarians" or "among American libertarians and conservatives", with libertarians linked to Libertarianism in the United States instead of to Libertarianism. My reasoning here is that American libertarianism, as far as I understand, can be used to refer to libertarian capitalism, even though it exists in countries outside the US, since the use of libertarianism to refer to capitalism originated in the United States. Additionally, I'm not sure how significant an influence Rand has been among self-identified libertarians outside the US, so this would be an appropriate change even if the term is used to refer only to libertarianism in the United States.

Another option is to modify or replace libertarians with a capitalistic term, such as free-market libertarians or something similar.

Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "American libertarians" seems wrong because Rand's influence among libertarians is broader than that. Something like "free-market libertarians" seems fine. In terms of a link target, I think the appropriate article is Right-libertarianism. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that it seems wrong because of Rand's broader influence on non-American libertarian capitalists, like Tim Moen, but also due to her total lack of influence on American libertarian socialists, like Noam Chomsky. Given that logic, though, should we reconsider the use of the term American conservatives? After all, non-American conservatives, particularly in the English-speaking world, are influenced by Rand, as well. Michipedian (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Separation of first and second lead paragraphs
The first and second paragraphs in the lead seem split at an odd place. Wouldn't it make more sense for the first paragraph to include the first two sentences of the second paragraph? That way, the first paragraph would be a concise biographical summary, the second a concise philosophical summary, and the third a summary of her legacy. Michipedian (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and shift the sentences in the manner you suggested. It probably would be an improvement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, done. Michipedian (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This page is so pro Rand that it is a joke.
This page is worthless to all but Rand fans. Seriously, there is an entire extant scholarship that completely discredits the Randian myth. None of it is present here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:400:9990:A0B6:1F39:B83F:55A2 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Several critical works are cited. Are there other specific sources from the "extant scholarship" that you believe ought to be used? --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

additionally this page lacks but should have a proper section that talks about the criticism of Rand's philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:320E:1AC5:D12E:9889:D6E4:9E95 (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This is so true, there was something I read online about how one of the founders of Wikipedia was a supposed "Objectivist". Also is there nothing in this article about Ayn's almost fascination with rape?? I'm going to create a discussion regarding if I should add one. JumboCraft 03:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JumboCraft (talk • contribs)

This is one of the most masterbatory articles on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibetitsgolden (talk • contribs) 06:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"of most philosophers known to her" vs. "of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her"
The lead should read "of most philosophers known to her" instead of "of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her". Not only is this redundant, but the list of exceptions that follows only names philosophers and a group of philosophers, not any philosophical traditions. Michipedian (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the current wording is redundant, and I don't support the change. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What is added by including "philosophical traditions" to that sentence? Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and classical liberals are all philosophers, not philosophical traditions, and philosophical traditions are constituted of individual philosophers anyway, so the "and philosophical traditions" part just adds unnecessary bulk. Michipedian (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the whole point of a philosophical tradition is that it is something over and beyond a group of individual philosophers. You couldn't speak of a philosophical tradition if there were nothing but a group of individuals. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a distinction, but I'm not sure we have the right term. "School" would be more accurate than "tradition" for what is intended here. The point is that she had positive assessments about some specific people (such as Aristotle), even though she disapproved of some of views they supported, and about some views (such as classical liberalism), even though she disapproved of some of the people who supported them. Regarding the lack of parallelism in the constructions, this can be fixed by changing "classical liberals" to "classical liberalism", which is where the former term redirects anyway. --RL0919 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * RL0919, could you point to a specific place for me where Rand expresses disapproval of a philosophical tradition instead of a philosopher or group of philosophers? I'm certainly open to being proven wrong on this, but from what I've read, Rand quite normally speaks of individuals when condemning worldviews. The exceptions are (a) religions, which do not have a clear set of individuals who developed them, and (b) ideologies that are as synonymous with the the beliefs of the founder as Objectivism is with the beliefs of Rand (e.g. psychoanalysis to Freud). Michipedian (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Ayn Rand Lexicon entries for Linguistic Analysis, Logical Positivism, and Pragmatism provide some examples. --RL0919 (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. That settles the issue for me. Michipedian (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

"rejected" appearing three times in the lead
Could we please diversify the verbs a little in the lead? I am fine with "denounced" being too sensationalistic. My intent was simply to replace "rejected" with a near-synonym, since "rejected" appears three times in the lead, and the language thus appears poor to me. Michipedian (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We want to convey the most basic information first in the lead. That Rand "denounced" altruism is secondary to the fact that she "rejected" it - the rejection is the basic fact that needs to be mentioned first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, but there must be one other word in the English language that we can use that will convey "rejected" without such repetitive verb usage. Please consider any of the following verbs as an alternative: rebutted, refuted, repudiated, argued against, condemned, eschewed. Michipedian (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, none of those terms are as accurate, as simple, or as encyclopedic as the language the lead already uses. I would certainly accept a change if there really were a better term than "rejected" but I don't think there is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains usage of rebuts, refutes, repudiates, argues against, condemns, and eschews, as well as opposes, as synonymous with rejects. I grant you that "rejects" seems to be the standard word preferred in philosophy, but all the terms I listed are used in professional philosophical literature as well, and in a summary like the lead, we ought to use diverse language. Michipedian (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with using diverse language (I try myself to avoid repeating particular words as much as possible) but we should not choose diversity over accuracy or simplicity. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The alternatives I have named do not make the language any less accurate or simple. The word "opposed" is used as a synonym in the lead, why are no other words acceptable? We could at least replace one of the three instances of "rejected" with "opposed", bringing them to two instances each. Michipedian (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, they do. Your proposals would degrade the quality of the article. To replace "rejected" with "refutes", as you suggested, would be a terrible change, for example, as it implicitly endorses Rand's views, violating WP:NPOV, while "condemns" is needlessly melodramatic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I grant you your point about "refuted" (although that was not my intention, I merely thought of that word after looking in a thesaurus), but the word "condemned" is already used in the lead as synonymous with "rejected". Should we change that to "rejected"? Is the use of that term degrading the quality of the article? The word "opposed" is also used. Should we replace that with "rejected"? Five instances of the same verb in the lead&mdash;four in the same paragraph&mdash;might not be stylistically ideal, but accuracy and simplicity are more important than diversity. Michipedian (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether a particular word is appropriate or not depends on the context. It is true that Rand had a strongly negative view of altruism, but it still seems incorrect to stress any condemnation of it rather than simple disagreement. I think the lead was already well-written and your changes were mostly unnecessary or unhelpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's obvious enough, and I disagree with you. Why is "condemned" appropriate in relation to Rand's view of the initiation of force but not to her view of altruism? Why is "opposed" appropriate for her view of collectivism and statism but not of altruism? I don't see your logic at all. Michipedian (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Because these are not similar cases and you are wrong to believe that they are. It would simply be strange to say that Rand "rejected" the use of force as immoral, because it avoids mentioning her strong moral view of specific actions. Altruism, on the other hands, concerns beliefs or attitudes, and where they are concerned the more matter of fact "rejected" language is more suitable, and "condemns" adds unnecessary melodrama. Please stop trying to re-write a lead that was already well written. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you that the lead is so well-written that it cannot be improved. I see your point about "condemned", because the object is followed by "as immoral", but what about "opposed"? I see no difference between the use of "opposed" and "rejected" in the lead. They are used as synonyms. Michipedian (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The first two uses of "rejected" are fine, in my opinion. They are instances in which the subject of the article "rejects" something. We don't have to vary the term for the sake of varying the term. But the third occurrence of "rejected" involves the response of Rand's critics. I think "opposed" could replace "rejected" in that instance. I think the simple reason for doing so is to distinguish between the same action taken by the subject of the article on the one hand and that action when taken by her critics. Bus stop (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that is a perfectly acceptable solution, although I'm not sure I agree with your logic, since Rand is described as having "opposed" collectivism and statism just as she is described as having "rejected" faith and religion and having "rejected" altruism. Either way, I think changing the last of the three instances of "rejected" to "opposed" would be a satisfactory improvement. Michipedian (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No, as before I am strongly opposed to that change. There is no reason to use special language to "distinguish between the same action taken by the subject of the article on the one hand and that action when taken by her critics"; the term "rejected" is perfectly appropriate in both cases. Note that "rejected" and "opposed" do not necessarily have the same meaning. Opposing something would involve taking specific actions against that thing, beyond simply rejecting it. I doubt that most professional philosophers who rejected Rand's philosophy undertook any special action to oppose it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * FreeKnowledgeCreator, do you think that the term "opposed" is appropriate to describe Rand's view of collectivism and statism instead of "rejected", and if so, why? Michipedian (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we can reduce "ignored or rejected" to "opposed". We are just giving a gist of the oppositional forces in the lead. "Opposed" sums up "ignored" and "rejected". The subtlety is unnecessary in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we can not reduce "ignored or rejected" to "opposed". The term "opposed" does not mean "ignored or rejected", as already noted. Ignored has a specific meaning that conflicts with opposed; you cannot in practice oppose something and ignore it at the same time; opposing something means paying attention to it. Please don't make inaccurate changes to the lead of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, FreeKnowledgeCreator, that "ignored or rejected" cannot be reduced to "opposed"; however, I see "opposed" and "rejected" as close enough in definition to be used interchangeably, as they are used in the lead already. Do you disagree, and if so, should we change "opposed collectivism and statism" to "rejected collectivism and statism"? That would seem inappropriate. The interchangeable use of the terms in the current lead, I think, reveals that we can use terms other than "rejected" to convey the same meaning. Note too that "advocated", "promoted", and "supported" are used interchangeably in the lead. Are they perfectly synonymous terms? No. Are they close enough in definition to be appropriately interchanged with one another? Yes, just as "opposed" and "rejected" are, as well as other terms that I have mentioned before (although, granted, perhaps not all of them). Michipedian (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a relevant difference between "opposed" and "rejected" that I have tried to point out a number of times. "Rejecting" something means disagreeing with it. "Opposing" something means taking specific actions against it. That's a large difference, not a small one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * How did Rand oppose collectivism and statism in a way that she did not oppose faith and religion or oppose altruism? I don't see how "oppose" is appropriate to describe her view of collectivism and statism but not her view of altruism or her view of faith and religion. She certainly took specific actions against faith and religion, as well as altruism. Michipedian (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Any further thoughts on this? I don't see how your logic holds up and think, at the very least, one instance of "rejected" should be changed to "opposed" for stylistic reasons, at least until and unless the second paragraph is rewritten per my discussion topic below. Michipedian (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Improving the second lead paragraph, the summary of Rand's philosophy
I think a brief statement on Rand's metaphysics ought to be mentioned at the very beginning of the second paragraph. The paragraph briefly summarizes her views on epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics but makes no mention of her views on metaphysics, the only one of the five major branches of philosophy (according to Rand) not mentioned in the paragraph. Her metaphysical views are also where the term Objectivism is derived from, so it seems like a very important point to mention. I also think the sentence on her esthetics could be improved by adding what she opposed in art, matching the structure of the other sentences, and I think some mention of non-religious epistemologies that she rejected (e.g. innatism) could be helpful as well. Michipedian (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What text about metaphysics were you proposing to add? I don't think it serves any useful purpose to expand the material on Rand's view of art. She is known more for her political and moral views, not for her views on art. I also doubt that the point about "innatism" is worth mentioning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe something along the following lines should be added to the beginning of the second paragraph: "Rand believed that reality is objective and argued against subjective and supernatural metaphysical views." Michipedian (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I would be interested in knowing "what she opposed in art". I don't think the article says. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article does not say what Rand opposed in art, that is all the more reason why the topic should not be mentioned in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article's topic as a whole, and if Rand's opposition to abstract art is not mentioned in the main body of the article, then it should not be in the lead either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources tell us Rand's opinion on modern art. Here for instance I find that Rand did not include in fine art abstraction, photography, or craft. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There is opportunity to include more in the lead, but FreeKnowledgeCreator is correct that the lead is supposed to be a summary of material found in the body. Our first effort should be to decide what details belong in the body, and once present there (with appropriate sources), then they might be summarized in the lead. Her metaphysical views are briefly discussed in the body, so something could be added to the lead on that. Her epistemological views are also discussed, including her opposition to several views similar to innatism, but that view itself is not currently mentioned. If added, it should probably be referred to as innate ideas, which is what she called it and how it is more commonly named in sources discussing her views. (The link is a redirect.) Her esthetic disapprovals are also not mentioned in the body currently, but it would not be unreasonable to add something. As far as sources go, I would not use Salon as a source for any factual material in this article, but it would be easy to find this information in high quality sources. --RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the lead should summarize the body, so perhaps we should take this as an opportunity to look at the content of the body, as well. Rand quite succinctly advocates and rejects particular views in what she identifies as the five major branches of philosophy (i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics). I would consider those views&mdash;both those that she advocates and those she opposes&mdash;as basic information on Objectivism. I believe that, for each of the five major branches, the lead and especially the body should make mention of her position on the matter as well as the broad, common views on the matter that she rejects. If nothing about abstract art or naturalistic art is mentioned in the body currently, I believe it should certainly be added, as a basic tenet of Objectivism. Michipedian (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm also open to the idea that that which she opposes philosophically is not basic information on Objectivism, in which case we could perhaps trim some of the content that she "rejects", thus inadvertently solving some of the disagreements FreeKnowledgeCreator and I have had over the excessive, in my view, use of the term "rejected" in the lead. Michipedian (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most (all?) of the content about what Rand rejects belong where it is and explains the issue well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly some mention of her rejection of metaphysical subjectivism is appropriate for the lead, would you not agree, given that her rejection of metaphysical subjectivism and support for metaphysical objectivism is the very namesake of her entire philosophy? Michipedian (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I think I'm fine with leaving her statement on esthetics alone in the lead, but I think her criticism of naturalistic and abstract art could and should be added to the body. Michipedian (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking it up to the next level, the discussion of these areas in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be at least as complete as the Philosophy section of this article, but there is no mention of innate ideas or the esthetic concerns there either. --RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would most definitely be appropriate for the bodies of each article. Michipedian (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Rand argued that philosophical entrees into ontology were its downfall. She rejected dualism, but did not espouse any cosmology or metaphysics beyond the terminology of Aristotelian hylomorphism with concrete entities as the givens of our perception.  The rest was left to science.  Whay do we have all this revisionist fervor?  The suggested change should be shot down as uninformed at best, and disinformation super ficie. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which change suggestion are you even referring to? I feel as though you are misunderstanding my edit suggestions. Michipedian (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

rejected altruism vs. opposed altruism
I would like to change the language of the lead from rejected altruism to opposed altruism. Rejected is already present in the lead three times, and opposed is only present once. Additionally, as FreeKnowledgeCreator has pointed out, opposed is stronger than rejected, and since the lead already notes that Ayn Rand opposed collectivism and statism, it seems quite appropriate to me to use the term opposed to describe Rand's stance on altruism, since she opposed altruism more fundamentally than she opposed statism and collectivism, in my view. I welcome all thoughts on this change, whether in support or opposition. Michipedian (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It is pointless to raise this issue again. There is nothing wrong with the way that the lead is currently written. Maybe Rand considered altruism a more fundamental problem than statism and collectivism, but I don't consider that a crucial point (I'm not an Objectivist, after all). I have already explained my reasons for opposing the change from rejected to opposed, and I stand by them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yet you have not explained why the term opposed is appropriate for her stance on collectivism and statism. You have not explained that anywhere. If we take your logic seriously, we ought to change opposed collectivism and statism to rejected collectivism and statism. That's the conclusion to your logic. That would also bring us to four instances of the word rejected in the lead, but, as you said, "we should not choose diversity over accuracy or simplicity." Michipedian (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrong, I did explain myself, clearly, as you will see if you review past discussions. See the pointlessness of this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But you have not explained it satisfactorily. Your reasoning has been that opposed is stronger than rejected and thus appropriate for her stance on collectivism and statism. My point is that, using that logic, then opposed is most definitely appropriate for her stance on altruism, since she opposed altruism more fundamentally and more aggressively than she opposed collectivism and statism, in my opinion. You have not responded to that point. Michipedian (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See what I had to say here. I stand by it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so your argument there is that rejected is appropriate when beliefs and attitudes are more the matter of concern, as opposed to what? How are collectivism and statism not beliefs and attitudes? They are by nature beliefs and attitudes, primarily. Yet the current lead reads that Rand opposed them, not rejected them. I don't see how that in any way holds up under your criticism of the term opposed for altruism. Michipedian (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Collectivism and statism are not primarily, or at least not only, beliefs. They are institutions and policies, and are not at all comparable to altruism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Collectivism is absolutely, entirely, beliefs. Institutions and policies might be based on collectivism as a premise, but collectivism is an entirely ideological concept. Statism might refer to both the ideology (which is certainly the more fundamental meaning of the term) as well as its associated institutions and policies, but collectivism is not in any way about institutions and policies, it is about beliefs and beliefs only. Michipedian (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in arguing the point, as this is not a discussion forum. Either get a consensus for your change here or simply give the issue up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not interested in discussing it because your opposition to the change makes no sense. OK, so far, we have one in support and one in opposition. Let's see if anyone else chimes in! Michipedian (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't insult me or tell me that my views are something other than they are. Despite what you may believe, I do indeed think that my views make sense. I also really believe that arguing with you about the nature of collectivism is futile, pointless, and a misuse of this talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are wrong to believe your views make sense. They don't. We also are not arguing about the nature of collectivism for the sake of arguing about the nature of collectivism. We are arguing about the nature of collectivism because you have stated that it is appropriate to use the term rejected instead of opposed in the lead of this Wikipedia article when beliefs and attitudes are concerned, and thus if collectivism is primarily and entirely beliefs and attitudes (which is my stance on its definition and which is also the correct stance, given any definition of that term in any dictionary), then, according to your logic, FreeKnowledgeCreator, the lead should not use the term opposed to describe Ayn Rand's views on collectivism but should instead use the term rejected. Let me know if I missed anything in there. Michipedian (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well, Michipedian, since you insist on trying to argue about the meaning of the term "collectivism", I will change my approach and indulge you. I hold open in front of me the 12th edition of The Chambers Dictionary. It defines "collectivism" as, "the economic theory that industry should be carried on with a collective capital, a form of socialism; a system embodying this." Take special note of the final part of that definition, please. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think theory is the key word in that definition. It is a theory about actions, yes, but so is altruism. According to that definition, collectivism is no less theoretical than altruism. Michipedian (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "collectivism is primarily and entirely beliefs and attitudes", and that any dictionary would support you. You stand refuted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, it may also refer to "a system embodying" those beliefs and attitudes, just as altruism may refer to behavior that embodies the beliefs and attitudes of altruism. In both situations, the beliefs and attitudes are the fundamental definition, and the actions that are derived from them are derivatives. You're admitting with that definition that collectivism is no less theoretical than altruism and thus that your support for opposed for collectivism but opposition to it for altruism is irrational. You're applying a double standard, saying that the action-focused definition of collectivism matters more than the action-focused definition of altruism, yet you have no valid reason to have that double standard and are thus proving my point, that either opposed is appropriate for altruism or it is inappropriate for collectivism, but it cannot be neither. Michipedian (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If any other editors can comment on this, it would be very helpful, as I need consensus to make the change. FreeKnowledgeCreator's logic on this topic is clearly faulty, as evidenced by the above conversation, and he demands at least one other person to support my position in order to make the change. Michipedian (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ugh, FKC (KFC?) is substantially correct. I hate to have to weigh in.  But yes, she rejected altruism as an incoherent ethical position.  She had no problem with you being able to devote your energy toward helping others, the "we won't stop you" quote from Branden is a classic.


 * She objected to (rejected the coherence of) an altruist morality, which defined "that which is good" as "that is good which benefits others" as both incoherent and as begging the question of what is good. She argues quite explicitly that the individual's own life is the only objective standard of his good.  She leaves open the values that make that individual's life livable to him, within the bounds of reason (i.e., arsenic is not a good, long-term weight-loss program). μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then the question is, why is the term opposed inappropriate and why is it appropriate for both collectivism and statism? I guess I just don't see where your comment is in support of FKC and not of me. Michipedian (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Collectivism and statism are political programs back up by force, she opposed them. Altruism is a personal ethical stance, which she rejected.  But she did not think the use of force was justified to shut down charities, while she did think the use of force was justified to combat dictatorship. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm fully aware of that belief of Rand's. Why do you think that to oppose something means to combat something with force? I don't even think FKC was saying that. Could you point to a definition of oppose that backs that definition up? Merriam-Webster defines it as "to place over against something so as to provide resistance, counterbalance, or contrast". I don't see how oppose cannot be a purely intellectual stance. I, for example, oppose racism. I don't just oppose it on a political level, I oppose it on an ethical level. I don't want to use physical force against people who are racist yet don't want to use the government to do anything about it, yet I still want to persuade them to not be racist. Philosophical literature uses oppose this way, as well, such as here (e.g. "there is no reason in principle why the pantheist should oppose the idea of that which is epistemically transcendent to us") and here (e.g. "he did not yet openly oppose the principle itself, but sought to differentiate it"). Those are two instances of oppose being used to mean a philosophical disagreement, not a situation where the opposer seeks to use force against his opponent. Michipedian (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If you see no difference, why then are you arguing for the change in the first place? This is simply tendentious, and I'll bow out with this quote: "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them". μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Literally, the only reason I am advocating for the change is because rejected appears three times in the lead, and opposed only appears once. The change would bring both words to two instances, which I think would be better stylistically. You should ask FreeKnowledgeCreator why they find the change so egregious. I don't think their opposition to the change makes any sense. Michipedian (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you've already invested time in the discussion, do you mind commenting on whether or not you now find the change to be acceptable? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else care to chime in on this? The question at hand is whether or not it is acceptable to change rejected altruism to opposed altruism in the lead. My basis for this change is that rejected appears three times in the lead currently and opposed appears only once and that the change would be better stylistically due to less repetitive wording. Michipedian (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The key lies in your early note that "opposition" suggests a stronger (more active) position than "rejection", combined with the observation that Rand historically urged stronger efforts against collectivism/statism than against "altruism". One also has to know what Rand's unconventional use of the term "altruism" meant; as Medeis remarked, Rand didn't oppose the act of helping others, rather she objected to such action being regarded as a primary ethical goal.  On the other hand, she detested the practice of statism/collectivism as well as its theory.  So if there is to be any change at all along the lines proposed, it would be to say that Rand rejected valuing altruism (in the sense of choosing to help others) as a primary ethical standard, whereas she was utterly opposed to the theory and practice of collectivism/statism. — DAGwyn (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never made the claim that oppose is stronger than reject. I originally called them near-synonyms, and FKC is the one who made the claim that oppose is stronger than reject, so I just began working with that premise, considering that I don't think it makes a difference, particularly in the case of altruism. Rand's use of the term altruism is not in fact unconventional; she uses it precisely as the term's originator, Auguste Comte, intended it. Rand accurately referred to the act of helping others that you are pointing out as benevolence or charity, and the term altruism is often misused in common parlance to mean benevolence or charity. She detested altruism&mdash;true altruism&mdash;more fundamentally and more primarily than she detested collectivism and statism, as those two are dependent on and the result of altruism. Michipedian (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Pseudonym?
This page is included in Category:Pseudonymous writers. Was "Ayn Rand" really a pseudonym, or is it more accurate to say that she changed her name? Pburka (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * She never took Rand as her legal name. She was Rosenbaum, then became O'Connor when she married. --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress lists her legal name as Alice O'Connor. Source: [] -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Representation of name in lead
An unrelated discussion led me to read MOS:LEGALNAME, which in combination with the discussion above suggests that the lead should be revised to begin: "Alice O'Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum; February 2 1905 – March 6, 1982), better known by her pen name Ayn Rand, was a ..." Footnotes omitted for this discussion, but they would still be present in the article, and we might want to add one to cite that this was her legal name. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we should still start with her pen name, as the common name, and could then explain the others. Look at Max Reger, which certainly follows some guidelines, but think doesn't do justice to the fact that the name under which he published and is known is not his lengthy birth name. Perhaps the guideline should allow for such cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Jew/Russian/neither in lede
Why is she Russian in the lede and not Jewish in the lede? Her family did not fit comfortably within Russian society, and that was because her family were Jews. "Her father, a pharmacist, had his own shop, a rare position for Jews in Russia. A precocious child, Alyssa declared herself an atheist in her early teens, and while she never denied her Jewish heritage, she also never softened her opposition to religion or any other form of 'mysticism.' The privations she and her family endured as a result of the Russian Revolution, including the Bolsheviks taking possession of her father’s business, affected her deeply." If the Russians (Bolsheviks) took possession of her father's business and it affected her deeply, and she is a Jew and she never denied her Jewish heritage, then why are we calling her "a Russian-American novelist" in the lede? She was a Jew within a country which repressed Jews. "Her work continues to appeal to those who search for nonreligious answers about human progress and agency. Certainly her declaration that selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice is contrary to traditional Jewish values—yet her exaltation of personal ambition is not so different from that of many Russian Jewish immigrants of her generation who savored the relative freedom of America." She embodied contradictions and there is discontinuity between Russian identity and Jewish identity within Russia, at least at the beginning of the 20th century. It is simplistic to characterize her as "Russian-American" in the first sentence in the lede. The Infobox as well as the body of the article expand upon her identity as being Russian, and of course more can be added if needed. I've suggested here that we just omit the Russian aspect of her identity from the lede. It would not be incorrect to do that as she is an American novelist. It is just that a more full exploration of her Russian and Jewish origins are treated in the body of the article due to the relationship between Jews and Russia. During certain periods in history it was an uneasy relationship. My edit was reverted so I am initiating a discussion here. Bottom line: she should just be referred to as an "American novelist" in the first sentence in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * How about simply "was a Russian born American novelist, playwright,...."? It's obviously significant that she was born and spent her childhood years in Russia, but the first sentence in the next paragraph and the Early life section tell us the religious bit was not a major part of her life. Readers can interpret that influence of the cultural impact of being Jewish from that Early life section. We don't need to give her a double-barrelled label of the kind Americans seem obsessed with today. Pretty sure she wouldn't have been given one at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Properly written biographical articles just don't list people's ethnicity in the way that Bus stop for some reason feels is appropriate in the case of Jewish people. Does the lead of the article on Donald Trump refer to him as a "European-American"? No. The description of Rand as a "Russian-American" is accurate and relevant (since Rand's moving from Russia to the United States was a major part of her life) and should not be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not "Russian born American", as I proposed? HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a slightly more verbose way of saying the same thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. The American custom of using double barrelled labels is confusing. African American rarely means born in Africa. Irish American often doesn't mean born in Ireland. Does Russian American always mean born in Russia? Even if you think you "know" the answer, I'm sure you can see the possible ambiguity. Why not be precise? HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But if you just refer to her as an "American novelist" in the lede you gain the advantage of deferring the addressing of the relatively more complex relationship between Jewishness and the Russian identity until the "Early life" section of the article. That is because during certain periods in time Jews in Russia were not seen simply as Russians. It is true that she was Russian. But it is also true that she was Jewish. Not religious, but Jewish nevertheless. After this edit the lede is saying she "was a Russian-American novelist". This is slightly at odds with the terminology found in a source: "Certainly her declaration that selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice is contrary to traditional Jewish values—yet her exaltation of personal ambition is not so different from that of many Russian Jewish immigrants of her generation who savored the relative freedom of America." The source refers to "Russian Jewish immigrants". Why don't we skip the relatively complex "Russian Jewish" identity in the lede and address it instead in the "Early life" section of the article? Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I certainly wouldn't support "Russian Jewish". I've made my point about double barrelled descriptors. But it's pretty significant that she wasn't born in the USA, so I think that should be up there at the front. So, back to "Russian born American novelist...." HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So then you would want to say "Russian born Jewish-American novelist....", wouldn't you, HiLo48? Or would there be any objection to that? Bus stop (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, and I get the impression you're neither reading nor understanding what I've written. Let's await input from others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * HiLo48—"Jewish-American" always means "Jewish-American". You've objected to double barrelled labels. But "Jewish-American" does not under any conceivable circumstance not mean "Jewish-American". What would be your objection to the wording "Russian born Jewish-American novelist...."? Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I get the impression you're neither reading nor understanding what I've written. Let's await input from others. HiLo48 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am reading what you've written and understanding what you've written. You have written "The American custom of using double barrelled labels is confusing. African American rarely means born in Africa. Irish American often doesn't mean born in Ireland. Does Russian American always mean born in Russia?" But this does not apply to "Jewish-American". Does "Jewish-American" ever mean anything other than "Jewish-American"? Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, that's a ridiculous question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you consider "Jewish-American" to be what you are calling a "double barrelled label"? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, and it's worse than those involving countries, languages or continents (ever noticed that problem?) because of the ambiguity of the word "Jewish". Does it mean the culture or the religion? The labels people in America have invented for people are insanely confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You may find the term "Jewish American" too ambiguous but Ayn Rand is included in Category:Jewish American novelists and Category:Jewish American dramatists and playwrights. Do you suggest we remove Ayn Rand from those Categories based on your perception that "Jewish American" is too ambiguous? Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. I suggest abolishing such categories. They are all part of the massive problem of labelling people and racism that divides America. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not a new topic for this Talk page (see, for example, Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 48). I don't particularly care whether Rand is described simply as American or if some additional modifier is added, but if we are going to use a modifier, we should follow the sources in deciding what modifier is most relevant. Rand's Russian background is a widely discussed subject, taking up large portions of the major biographies and being a key focus of works such as Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical and Ayn Rand and Song of Russia. She wrote a novel and a play set in Russia, did interviews discussing her background there, and testified about it before HUAC. In contrast, her Jewish heritage is a smaller element in the literature. It takes up less space in biographies, it is not the focus of any major works about her, and she generally did not speak about it during her lifetime. So between the two modifiers, 'Russian' is the much more relevant for sources. As far as categories are concerned, that's a different thing from the lead -- there are a bunch of categories attached but we don't mention all the related details in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. This was my point initially up above, before it got buried by someone in love with double-barrelled labels. Her Russian background is clearly significant. Her Jewish background far less so. Hence my suggestion of "Russian born American...."

"Ayn Rand was born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, a Russian Jew, on February, 2, 1905, in St. Petersburg, then the capital city of the most anti-Semitic and politically divided nation on the European continent." Of course her Jewish identity is worth mentioning in the lede. She was 20 when she first visited the US. "By the time Ayn Rand was born, Zabalkanskii Prospekt and the streets around it were calm again. It was an illusory calm: all over Russia and the vast Russian territories to the south and east, massive labor strikes, anti-czarist peasant insurrections, and anti-Jewish violence were erupting. This would continue, in waves, until 1914, when World War I briefly united the nation against the Germans, and would grow yet more explosive from 1915 to 1919, when the country was war torn and starving." Do you seriously think this had only minor bearing on her formative years? "In these years, it was dangerous to be a Jew. As the economy deteriorated and the czar grew more repressive, the brunt of popular anger often fell upon Russia’s five million Jews. At Czar Nicholas II’s court, as elsewhere in Europe, Jews had long been identified with the supposedly pagan notions of a money economy, urbanization, industrialization, and capitalism. Given traditional Russian fear of modernity and fierce anti-Semitism, Jews were ready-made scapegoats onto whom the czar, the landowners, and the police could easily shift workers’ and peasants’ resentment for their poverty and powerlessness." Ayn Rand was a Jew in entirely antisemitic circumstances. To me it is entirely obvious that her being Jewish calls for mention in the lede. "It was in this volatile and often frightening atmosphere that Rand grew up. She was the eldest of three daughters of this upwardly mobile pharmacist and his religiously observant, socially ambitious wife; Anna would later appear in her daughter’s novels as a series of superficial or spiteful characters." Just because Ayn Rand does not often speak of her Jewishness is not a reason that we should not note it in the lede. Sources guide us in telling us what is important. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC Lead sentence
There is a dispute about the roles that should be included in the lead sentence. Which of the following is preferred for the lead sentence:
 * A : Ayn Rand (/aɪn/; born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American writer and philosopher.
 * B : Ayn Rand (/aɪn/; born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist and philosopher.
 * C : Ayn Rand (/aɪn/; born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, screenwriter and philosopher.
 * D : Other, please specify

The relevant policies are MOS:BIO and MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Thanks, --LK (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * How about a fourth option that concludes "...was a Russian born American writer."?
 * It's much healthier to avoid double-barrelled labels, and we should keep the other labelling simple too. The article elaborates well enough on what she wrote about. No need to cram it all in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Her status as a Philosopher is controversial although there are references. No one would dispute she was a novelist and and screen writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 06:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A or B both seem fine. Both are accurate and used in multiple sources. Another common appellation is "novelist-philosopher", which might tip the scales towards option B. Option C is accurate but unnecessarily verbose. She did also write for stage and screen, but her novels are much more significant. As far as any attempt to exclude "philosopher" from the description, we've been over that numerous times before, often with the result that someone gets blocked. The smart money says don't go there. But if we must, those favoring such a change can start by finding sufficient reliable sources denying that she is a philosopher to counterbalance the lengthy list of sources calling her one in this archive. --RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to edit war over it, but asking for sources denying that she is a philosopher is ridiculous. I haven't been part of the earlier discussions on this matter, but if that reflects the quality of discussion, I'm not surprised there have been problems. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with HiLo48, requesting negative proof for something is ridiculous. There ought to be sufficient positive proof justifying her being labeled as a philosopher. I've not been part of any discussion as I don't particularly care about Ayn Rand, but if the level of discussion has been such that there have been some attempting to shift the burden of proof on whether Ayn Rand is a philosopher or not, then as HiLo48 says, no wonder you've had problems. AlanS''talk 08:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In my comment above I explicitly refer to the "lengthy list of sources" provided to support the use of the term. No one has suggested that positive evidence does not need to be provided. Rather, it has already been provided in copious amounts. Four academic sources are currently cited in the article; up to seven sources have been cited in the past and many more have been listed in discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Trying to exclude some form of "philosopher" is probably a bad idea. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll make the comment that the 'philosopher' question illustrates an issue in Wikipedia around the use of negative evidence. Most of the major international dictionaries and encylopedia's don't even mention her or see her as significant.  But yes there are references so the inclusion of some reference is valid.  Whether it is in the lede or not is a different question. -Snowded TALK 20:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll just point out here that that exact, exact argument has been made here approximately 1000 times already. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And I have heard a million times that one should never exaggerate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I said approximately. ;-) -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Made and never resoloved ....-Snowded TALK 09:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone was pretty satisfied until you decided to come back and complain, AGAIN. Anyway, I weigh in on "philosopher" and I don't have anything new to add to the excellent arguments already presented in the past, ~1000 times. I don't think you will ever get your way on this point. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool it - I made the point that this is a wikipedia issue on negative evidence and until it is resolved at that level anomolies such as this one will have to stand.  We may get to a point where enough money goes into academics from the various Rand orientated foundations to mean that main line philosophy pays attention enough to deny her the status but we are not there yet.  My question here is what prominence is given in the lede.  She clearly initiated a political movement and there has been philosophical take up of her ideas mainly in the US and more recently in parts of what was formerly Eastern Europe.  She was uncontroversially a novelist and screen writer -Snowded TALK 20:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * A includes C, and B would leave out part of her notable work unnecessarily. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A per SarekOfVulcan Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A - Summoned by bot. Most accurately describes her without leaving anything out. Meatsgains (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None She is notable as a writer first and foremost. A good example of what her notability is can be demonstrated in the opening sentence at https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ayn-Rand which reads "Ayn Rand, original name Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, (born February 2, 1905, St. Petersburg, Russia—died March 6, 1982, New York, New York, U.S.), Russian-born American writer whose commercially successful novels promoting individualism and laissez-faire capitalism were influential among conservatives and libertarians and popular among generations of young people in the United States from the mid-20th century.". Just on the note of that example, I can see a bit of the wording from that source being lifted into this wiki article. AlanS''talk 08:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * C Is a full summary of her career. And I don't think academics can decide who is a philosopher or not. Philosophy and philosophical traditions predate academia and its wanna-be philosophers by centuries. What matters is impact. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A seems most appropriate; no need to pollute the lead sentence with details of what sorts of things she wrote. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * C as the most informative option. Very appropriate to mention that Rand was a "novelist, playwright, screenwriter", as well as philosopher, given the impact of her work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * C plus Russian-born: I agree should add "playwright" per 2012 source: (csmonitor.com). Add "Russian-born" because U.S. children of immigrants often label themselves as hyphenated Americans, when born in U.S.A. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * D I support describing her as a "writer", full stop, followed immediately by a description of what she wrote and its significance (as the second sentence does). Definitely not "playwright" or (wannabe) "screenwriter"; those are trivia, and if her notability relied on either of those, she wouldn't have an article. People keep trying to turn these opening sentences into resumés listing every gig the subject ever did (trying to inflate them into Leonardos), when all we need in most cases is a noun. The rest of the lede should provide the details. JasonAQuest (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * B Most of her other writing was commentary based on her philosophy. She didn't write general nonfiction like books about railroad trains or cats etc., nor articles for hire. She wrote a couple of plays and screenplays but they aren't that notable. Her most notable screenplay is based on her own novel. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A or D, with D as per the positions articulated by JasonAQuest and AlanS (and, not for nothing, as supported by a number of comments prior to the !vote). "Philosopher" does not feel entirely WP:DUE enough for the lead sentence.  Every writer who has something significant to say about the human condition may to be to some degree considered a philosopher in some circles, especially to fans of their work, but that does not often translate to sources broadly describing them as such, or to people generally regarding them as "philosophers" in the general occupational and/or "major feature of their notability" manner.  Rand certainly had a political philosophy, and one that had an impact upon the culture of those who support various forms of what we (rather inaccurately) call "social Darwinism" today, but the actual title of philosopher is not the first descriptor that is common to how she is remembered, which is to say first and foremost as an author, and the author of two works in particular.


 * All of that said, Rand's deep interest in the history of social philosophy may be enough to include that descriptor, simply because her pet moral philosophy theory was so overt in her works, and she spoke openly about it, even though she never published in that area to my knowledge, nor received any credentials or regard as any kind of expert in that field during her life (at least not as an academic; she certainly was an essayist and arguably a public intellectual). So maybe enough to have "writer and philosopher", but I agree with others above that options B or C get into truly trivial territory and are surely undue as a WP:WEIGHT matter with regard to the lead sentence. Therefore, although "writer/novelist" alone remains my first choice (and the one which I think may have the most explicit consensus support in the above comments, despite not being listed as an option), A is the best of the initially presented options. Sno</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 08:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rand most certainly did publish in the areas of epistemology and moral philosophy. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, one of her books is literally titled Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. In any case, the RfC doesn't ask the question of whether the term 'philosopher' should be used, and one that did ask that question would produce a different discussion that would include a large number of sources supporting the use of the term. For example, in 2013 the University of Pittsburgh Press published an anthology about her epistemology, and there several academic books specifically about her moral philosophy, including one from Cambridge University Press titled Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I was already on the fence, and that extra information brings me at least a little more firmly into the position of feeling "philosopher" is justified, but its not exactly a very WP:WEIGHTy argument for her being labelled as such here. Genuinely, I had no idea about her publication regarding "objectivist epistemology", but if I'm being honest, that sounds like a somewhat silly mish-mash of terms, and I'm having a hard time believing I would find the work to be very much about epistemology so much as a rehash of her sociopolitical views. And there's a big difference between someone being a recognized academic publishing within the field in question and having what essentially amounts to your fan club publish your thoughts on a topic, after which the work is almost immediately forgotten about by the world at large.  That's not really being "published" in the sense I was referencing above, as an expert and academic.


 * Now of course, at the end of the day, neither my impressionistic sense of the work nor anyone else's is justification for keeping or omitting the philosopher label--that would just be blatant WP:original research. We should judge whether she should be described as such based on the weight of how frequently that label appears in secondary sources which discuss her life and impact, not on the basis of what we think of her publications and thoughts ourselves.  But I can honestly see even the proper, source-based analysis going either way.  I remain mostly on the fence and neither option seems like it would be a blatant mistake.  In any event, I appreciate the additional context. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 03:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In case you were wondering, it's really Objectivist epistemology, with a capital O, because Objectivism is the name Rand gave to her philosophic system. It's a proper noun. It does advocate small-o objectivity in epistemology, including a definition of what objectivity is, which is where the name comes from. But Rand's approach requires a proper noun because it is distinct from other approaches referred to as "objectivist". -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In other words, objectivist epistemology is a much broader category than Objectivist epistemology. :) -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverts
Why did you revert my latest edits? The first section is supposed to be a summary, not a biography.

There's also the (less important) issue of the whether the first sentence should describe Rand as a "Russian-born Jewish-American" or a "Russian-American". I prefer the former because she identified less as Russian than she did as Jewish. VwM.Mwv (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because they did not improve the article. I have no idea what your comment, "The first section is supposed to be a summary, not a biography", is based upon or what its relevance to your edits is. You did not bother to explain. The emphasis on Rand's ethnicity is unnecessary in my judgment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It means excactly what it says. The first section is simply not supposed to be a biography. Look at any other article about an individual. "Not an improvement" doesn't actually mean anything. Why is it any more "necessary" than the Russian part? VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It means nothing without explanation. I don't even know what you think the phrase "the first section" means. Are you talking about the lead or only some section of it, such as its first paragraph? Please understand that while the expressions you are using are meaningful to you, they are not necessarily meaningful to other people. You didn't explain what your position was based upon. As for, "not an improvement", it obviously does mean something. It means that your edits made no improvement to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to the first paragraph of the lede of the Wikipedia article titled Ayn Rand. Is that precise enough for you? VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. You could have made that clear from the outset. I continue to see no benefit whatever to your recent edits to the lead, which have no clear rationale. I suggest that you wait for further discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Look at Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, John Stossel, etc. Do you see any biographies in their first paragraphs? VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the point of that comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The point is obviously to demonstrate an inconsistency. If your next reply, too, is nonsense, I will not answer again. And if nobody presents any logical objections within considerable time, I will restore my latest version. VwM.Mwv (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * VwM.Mwv, if you want to revise the lead, and someone objects to your changes, then it is up to you to present a compelling and coherent explanation of why you believe that your changes are an improvement. So far you have not done that. You have made a series of comments and assertions expressing your views, but there is nothing that amounts to a case that might convince another person that you are correct. It is pointless to list a series of articles that you believe support your views. This is a different article, about a very different writer; there is no reason why it has to be written in the same fashion as some other article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)