Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 51

Paragraph expansion
I would like if at least few other editors express their opinion on attempted expansion of paragraph in section Later Years. I tried with something like this (expansion text here in italic):
 * In her 1974 Ford Hall Forum lecture, she explained her support for Israel, following the Yom Kippur War of 1973 against a coalition of Arab nations, expressing strong anti-Arab sentiment with a words: "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."' She also stated that European colonists had the right to develop land taken from American Indians, and called homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting" while advocating the repeal of all laws about it. She also endorsed several Republican candidates for President of the United States, most strongly Barry Goldwater in 1964, whose candidacy she promoted in several articles for The Objectivist Newsletter.

This prompted editor User:RL0919 (with admin's prerogatives) to revert whole thing with summarized justifications as follows:
 * rv good faith expansion on a minor topic; the goal of the paragraph is to briefly summarize some of the topics she spoke about as part of the biographical narrative, not to expound on her views or give one topic much greater weight than the others

I used "Undo" move and reverted to my previous expansion with following reasoning:
 * u mean like paragraph on love 3-angle below, that's due-weight? less than 2-lines expansion is hardly bad-faith "expound" & giving topic "much greater weight" nor such view expressed at Ford Hall Forum as influential 20c US thinker is "minor" & less important than 6-line (paragraph) love-drama gossip below, especially if current line is framed in tone & scope as if she simply reiterated fact of life; on top of all u removed all refs for no reason; call me overly skeptical but it feels as deliberate obfuscation

And it really does - it feels like an attempt to politely but deliberately obfuscate something one doesn't like or wouldn't like to see as part of this article. Looking at that following paragraph which takes on her love relationships drama and it's consequences, which is larger and more detailed than my own expansion on her pretty important stated view, I am inclined to think that User:RL0919 justification to remove it does not 'hold water'. Paragraph below looks like this:
 * In 1964, Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI. Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life". Branden later apologized in an interview to "every student of Objectivism" for "perpetuating the Ayn Rand mystique" and for "contributing to that dreadful atmosphere of intellectual repressiveness that pervades the Objectivist movement". In subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company.

-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with RL0919 about the direct quotes. The paragraph currently reads as a solid summary. Adding the quotes about Arabs and Israel would make me as a reader wonder why there aren't similar quotes on all of the other topics she spoke on. I think it makes more sense to merely summarize (as it is now in the article) rather than support each subject area with a direct quote.
 * That said, the love paragraph is too detailed (in my opinion). I would end the paragraph with "the closure of NBI." Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about, than, we leave all as it was but we also leave these two refs which I included, and than include quotation itself in one of these to refs, preferably within ref which use her website as source for the quoted statement? It's easy to create markup, and it's routinely used method in cases such as this. Because, I am afraid, this summerization in an old version is framed in such a way that it really create veneer of common sense, or common knowledge and accepted truth - after all she was highly influential intellectual, and this can seduce readers into believing that her statement is a fact.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, the love paragraph is too detailed (in my opinion). I would end the paragraph with "the closure of NBI." Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about, than, we leave all as it was but we also leave these two refs which I included, and than include quotation itself in one of these to refs, preferably within ref which use her website as source for the quoted statement? It's easy to create markup, and it's routinely used method in cases such as this. Because, I am afraid, this summerization in an old version is framed in such a way that it really create veneer of common sense, or common knowledge and accepted truth - after all she was highly influential intellectual, and this can seduce readers into believing that her statement is a fact.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Articles should weight their content based on what is in reliable secondary sources. To quote the relevant policy: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Rand's brief comments about Arabs get relatively little attention in the overall body of work about her. In contrast, the years-long breakdown of her relationship with Nathaniel Branden is one of the most frequently mentioned topics of her later life. We can certainly discuss whether there are unnecessary details about the breakup (this article has a known tendency towards bloat), but the two topics are not all similar in the amount of weight given by sources.


 * Regarding the other, non-policy arguments: I don't see how we are creating a "veneer of common sense, or common knowledge and accepted truth" for her views when the article introduces them as "controversial stances". We should add quotes in footnotes only when they are needed to verify the material, which is not the case here. Finally, all the sources besides the ARI website were in the article previously and still were after the revert. --RL0919 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The comments are significant, however. They were at a prestigious US Institution and were never retracted.   They illustrate what she saw as one of the practical consequences of here philosophy and while (hopefully but one never knows these days) it might jar with a modern audience it is what it is.  The fact that there was more conversation about love affairs means little.  She is here for the novels and the political philosophy she generated.  In that latter context it is highly relevant -Snowded TALK 08:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't believe anyone is arguing that her comments should not be mentioned at all (or even quoted briefly as they are already), but rather whether there should be significantly more material (including a five-sentence quote) about this commentary than what we include about her other similar comments. Again, the Wikipedia policy standard is that what matters is the amount of coverage it has attracted in reliable sources, so the amount of "conversation" a topic attracts actually means quite a lot. By this standard, her comments on homosexuality have been discussed more extensively than her comments about Arabs, and all of the items mentioned in this paragraph are dwarfed in coverage when compared to major biographical and ideological topics in the sources about her. --RL0919 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually WP:WEIGHT comes into account. The statement is reliably sourced and is relevant.  Matters with more commentary are also relevant - but it doesn't exclude this material.  If we excluded material with only one reliable source from Wikipedia we'd have a lot of deletions -Snowded TALK 19:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * User:RL0919 said it all very well, and than turned their back on it so casually. I am skeptical about their positioning on the whole issue now that User:RL0919 expressed doubt even on relevance of Rand's quoted statement, one which is given within one of the most important forums in US and, among other, shaped entire generation of public intellectuals, commentators and provocateurs active and relevant in Middle East and Islam forums in present moment, and which makes Rend and her thought influential today in Trump, Breitbart, Geller, Coulter, and so many others' era as ever; followed with assumption that pulling out of context just one small bit of that statement can't change that context and ultimately its meaning. On top of that User:RL0919 seem to ignore WP:WEIGHT guideline elsewhere - paragraph just below which is at least double in length and comprised of story on love drama, which sounds more-less like gossip. Also, User:RL0919 implies that this entire issue boils down on attempt to give Arab-statement "promotion" and greater prominence, which I never said or tried to do, I just said that bits taken out of context of entire statement, which itself is just line and a half long, gives strange feeling of obfuscation (by crying foul on WP:WEIGHT and "promotion" we are trying to remove specific "ugly" bits of legacy), and that framing it in such short quotation (three words) sounds as if Wikipedia accept and confirms that Rand was stating undeniable truth - civilized fought savages - we all know anyway; by the way these arguments can't be labeled "non-policy" arguments, sysop should know better. As put it in their comment, and if I understood them properly, and as I also stated in summery, quote is "weighted" as it is relevant, it is framed within paragraph well enough to feel balanced, and is well-referenced with both primary and secondary sources, and ultimately it's not unreasonably long extension after all. Finally and most tellingly, User:RL0919 is even against inclusion of given quotation into reference, stating their reasoning more categorically than any policy guideline requires, which should preserve current integrity and scope of the paragraph and take us toward decent compromise.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  04:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you are following the links in the discussion, but WP:WEIGHT is not about whether a passage is "framed within paragraph well enough to feel balanced", etc. It is about representing views "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". It is a section within the same policy page I cited using the WP:PROPORTION link, the only difference being that one goes to a section about how much attention to give to points of view about a subject, while the other goes to a section on how much attention to give the details of the subject. In both the standard is the same: how is the material treated in reliable sources. This is what I have focused on: the attention these remarks have received in the body of work about Rand is quite limited, and thus the space given to them in the article should also be quite limited. Arguments about "important forums" and describing other biographical information as "gossip" don't change the amount of attention these things have or have not received in sources. I also know of no reason to believe that somehow quoting a statement briefly implies agreement but quoting it at greater length does not. Finally, speculations about the motives of other editors are typically not helpful, and I have neither stated such speculations nor attempted to imply any. --RL0919 (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Fully agree on gossip reference and speculation on motives. However, I can't understand why you want to eliminate this material. It is properly sourced, it clearly indicates a practical perspective from the founder of Objectivism on what it means and the forum in which it is delivered is significant.  It doesn't deserve a section but it does deserve a couple of paragraphs without commentary - her words can stand on their own. -Snowded TALK 08:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've explained my point about proportion. There is also a significant concern about keeping the article to a readable size. If this one minor view of hers is expanded, then why not also expand on her views on abortion, homosexuality, etc.? The exact same arguments would apply. That path takes us back to the when the London Review of Books complained, "The entry on Ayn Rand herself is more than 8000 words long and covers her views on everything from economics to homosexuality in technical and mind-numbing detail." Many of these details were cut en masse in May 2009. (The talk page reaction to the cut is worth reading.) I could say the price of readability is eternal vigilance, but really we aren't all that vigilant and at 6100 words there are probably unnecessary details in the article that could be cut. --RL0919 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have said that lecture was one of the best illustrations of objectivism a la Rand that one could find. I can see material in the article of less significance - one solution might be a section on memorable quotes (in several fields) including the one in contention -Snowded TALK 11:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what Ayn Rand is for. Checking, I see that the quote in question is already placed there. --RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Questioning one's position in debate like this isn't such a deviation, especially if it isn't used to persuade - I can't find where I used to speculate "about the motives", in strong language anyway. I don't believe it can be helpful either, so my argument is also about (dis)proportion, and also based on perception of technicalities and guidelines, for they are not set in stone nor editors required to follow them to the letter - unless you are measuring every word, letter by letter, for every remark on her views included here. So, that's exactly what makes your categorical insistence so strange, in my eyes it's quite a reason for skepticism on your position: rejection of all three (3) suggestions, while giving variety of reasons for each pretty inconsistently, without suggesting any of your own - extension # lengthy and unproportional; ref quote in footnotes # not needed; create "memorable quotes" section # go to wikiquote. Well, there are many lines of text and refs that are not needed on wikipedia, even in this article; wikiqute isn't wikipedia; paragraph expansion is only line and a half long, although you prefer to say 5 sentences. Five or not, it's line and 1/2 of text. Just because other views are given in such and such way doesn't require this one to be chopped, taken out of context and served as statement of fact. Is it integrity of paragraph that is compromised with sheer length of quoted line, or is it proportionality against the body of scholarship which discussed it - either way it's vague argument, simply because 1) again, it's about 1 and 1/2 line long txt (5 sentences?), and 2) it's vague because if this is really her "minor" non-consequential remark, which occupies very little space in scholarship, or non-fiction, or isn't influential on public discourse, or consequential in politics and media today, and so on and so forth, than why include it at all. Rational that we are going to use shortened three-word-version of her statement on her view on Arabs and Israel because this is how we measure its importance, its influence, and its usage in scholarship and public discourse is weak. Who is that gate-keeper, who is going to decide which part of Rand's original statement exactly is OK or allowed, how many words we gonna use, and which length is befitting its scope within scholarship and public discourse. And what if one bit taken out of context of her statement interfere with that context and sends a vague and confusing massage on Rand's motives and Wikipedia editorial. By the way, this "minor" view of hers concerns some 500+ millions people identifying ethnically or culturally as Arabs, and especially in this day and age what do you think Arab editors and admis response would be, would they agree? That statement is representative of her views, but why should anyone dwell on it or wrap entire treaties around it - what kind of argument is that - nobody expect that, so we can't find it in works and literature. What we can find is discussion on her views this statement of hers embodies.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree the quote is too long to be included in full. And if it is included, describing it as "strong anti-Arab sentiment" would constitute WP:editorializing. M   .   M  13:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No one said it must be - statement quoted in full was just first of three suggestion. I can't see why any paraphrasing would be unacceptable, or placing original quote in footnotes without editorializing, or any other conceivable but reasonably worded compromise.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Praphrasing is acceptable so long as it's neutral. That and the quote could be cut down to this:
 * "Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War in which Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab countries, she said that 'Their [the Arabs'] culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.'" M  .   M  14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Any (para)phrasing which gives a reader little bit more information, and most importantly clarifies her point is welcomed. Even less quotation is fine by me if it include clear and intelligible paraphrasing and/or describes her point more clearly - for example using few short quotations and some clarification.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only part of the quote I removed were "The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads." Those two sentences are just different ways of saying "Their culture is primitive" - that part I didn't remove. I don't understand what needs to be clarified. M   .   M  16:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's my even shorter suggestion, and with even less quotation:
 * "In 1974 FHF lecture, following the Yom Kippur War, she asserted that Arabs are underdeveloped culture of primitive nomads who resented Israel for being only civilized nation in their midst. She justified support of Israel as 'civilized men fighting savages', saying you always support the civilized, regardless who they are."
 * But before any changes are made we should wait at least other two debaters from this thread to get involved or invite them.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's too much of a paraphrase. The version by M  is more precise. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still don't see a compelling reason to expand on her views of a war that happened 46 years ago as opposed to any of her other political stances. Why does this one topic need more illustration than any of the others? Schazjmd (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The notability is not the way - but the practical outworking of her philosophy which denied Arabs and Native Americans property rates on the grounds that they were 'savage'-Snowded TALK 23:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Along with the fact that there is no statute of limitation; currently lost or clouded context; and not least gravity and magnitude of her statement and declared view, and it's timeless acuteness.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Giving more space to material because of a belief that it is revealing or important or for whatever reason should receive attention is the exact opposite of the direction our NPOV policy is trying to take us. We look to outside sources for guidance precisely so we do not have to engage in endless, tedious disputes about whether something has "gravity and magnitude" or is a "practical outworking of her philosophy". However, see below for a possible solution that describes Rand's view more specifically without giving it a lot more text. --RL0919 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:Doctorx0079 It's all about editorial - all we do in project is paraphrasing, everything is written by editors encouraged to use their own words for copyright reason, which bears the risk committing foul on POV grounds as laid down in guidelines. This particular case is about context lost in editing paragraph containing this important view of hers - context is lost, which means that with this kind of phrasing and attitude some guideline, like those on Tendentious editing and NPOV, is possibly compromised. Any version which gives reader little bit of context and/or some description should be OK - so, yes, his may well be decent version.
 * @User:VwM.Mwv On what needs to be clarified, is that Rand didn't simply deduce something factual through neutral analysis: as current partial quote says "civilized men fighting savages" - this could mean that she than simply worded something which was maybe true, albeit using overly strong language. We can't see from this short bit how Arabs actually fought that war against Israelis, it may well be that they really bore themselves contrary to manners and customs of waging "civilized" war, committed numerous horrific atrocities for which she than labels them "savages" rightly so, all the while Israelis showed restraint and fairness of "civilized", and so on. It is important that reader know why she supported Israel and how she reasoned her choice - it was resentment toward weak Other.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I finally see something that suggests a useful change. If the specific portion of the quote that has been used creates an ambiguity about what Rand's position was, then that is something we could address without a drastic expansion of the material. Rather than the potentially ambiguous "civilized men fighting savages", we could substitute other portions of her statement showing more specifically the contrast she drew. So instead of the current:
 * supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 against a coalition of Arab nations as "civilized men fighting savages"
 * we could have something like this:
 * supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 as a "beachhead of modern science and civilization" fighting Arab "savages" with "one of the least developed cultures"
 * This should make it clear that Rand thought Israel was modern and the Arabs primitive, but only adds seven words and fits within the existing sentence structure. A change like this strikes me as a legitimate improvement that would make the article more accurate without running afoul of NPOV concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good general direction, I agree completely on all grounds, except only this still sounds affirmative of her position and co-conspiratorial, I mean, as an editor, I don't agree with her opinion, which is just that - opinion. I don't believe that Israel is or ever has been "beachhead of civilization" against "primitive" Arabs, and I really hope any self-respecting involved editor, with some knowledge on history and politics of the region, agrees. But even more so, I don't want readers to think that I do hold such belief neither, by perceiving my and our edits as an attempt to reassert her opinion through adoption and inclusion in the article. She formed her opinion on false pretense that "Israel is beachhead of civilization" and "Arabs are primitive", then she implied something obviously and extremely dishonest: that then and only then she supposedly picked the side of "civilized", all the while using foul language and deriding rhetoric.
 * Bringing up any other part of her statement, so that one can read about what is still reassertion of her opinion as if it's reality based reasoning (beachhead of civilization), along with her false conclusion (civilized v. primitive) and dishonest justification of her choice, without distancing Wikipedia community and project from it through proper editorial, doesn't accomplish much. To the contrary, from one NPOV wee are risking to slide into another.
 * Important thing is that we can try to agree, and I myself am OK with any rephrasing and any amount of quotations, sentence length and structure choice (of course keeping in mind NPOV), as long as we stress clearly enough that including her opinion here isn't reaffirmation of supposedly accepted reality or fact. Let's wait a day or two and see if anyone else is interested to contribute suggestion of it's own.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your opinions about Israel and Arabs aren't relevant, the article isn't about you. The article is about Rand's views so it should say what they are. No reasonable person would assume that the editors' views are the same as Rand's views. It is up to the reader to decide whether Rand's statement contains "foul language and deriding rhetoric". The point of WP:NPOV is to avoid soapboxing such as you are doing here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it help to include a link to the page for Yom Kippur War, to indicate that there are other points of view? There are separate articles about Yom Kippur War, Israel, Arabs, Palestine etc. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@User:Doctorx0079 First problem here is that you seem to believe how, along with our respect for the norms of civility, we should be careful while explaining ourselves not to transgress, and in doing so upset any genuinely gentle soul with a way we express what we want to explain. Apropos, you seem to confuse Talk page for Article, however this is exactly the place which should be used for explaining things as best we can, sharing our point of view as honestly as possible, so that we can assure each other that our position stem from knowledge, understanding, while keeping our bias in check. Your inability to understand neither my explanation nor expression (which could be reason for your confusion) is obvious from your rant, which is problem No.2, because there is nothing constructive said in it and nothing to be said in response - your reiteration of how my opinion on Israel and Arabs isn't relevant, and how article isn't about me, although interesting, is irrelevant itself. Or maybe, you do understand but simply want to devalue both, my points and position in debate, along using opportunity to defend honor and legacy of your hero.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a whole lot of words to say "nothing". To quote from the orange box at the top, "While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism, and make sure to provide references to reliable sources when proposing a change." -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you could see mine, in text above:

"In 1974 FHF lecture, following the Yom Kippur War, she asserted that Arabs are underdeveloped culture of primitive nomads who resented Israel for being only civilized nation in their midst, so she justified support of Israel as 'civilized men fighting savages', saying you always support the civilized regardless who they are."
 * I can't accept comment which followed above, that it's too much of a paraphrasing, simply because good paraphrasing is main pillar of good Wikipedia editing with the respect of copy rights, and especially if paraphrased statement is previously properly "vetted" in Talk page; also it's just half (1/2) a line longer then your latest suggestion.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

In order to include criticism of Rand's position, the article would have to quote a secondary source that criticizes Rand's statement. But the whole problem is that there isn't a lot of commentary about her statement about the Yom Kippur War, either positive or negative. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the latest suggested phrasing from User:Santasa99, in this case we can convey what she said accurately in fewer words by quoting small portions of her statement, thus achieving both accuracy and brevity. Although you want to minimize how much longer your version is by calling it "just half a line longer", it is almost twice as many words as my last suggestion, and that's before adding more words to make it fully accurate and intelligible (for example, "In 1974 FHF lecture" should be rendered as "In a question and answer session following her 1974 Ford Hall Forum lecture"). And this longer, less accurate text seems to be entirely directed toward your personal opinion that just describing what she said somehow "sounds affirmative of her position and co-conspiratorial". User:Doctorx0079 is correct that your desire to frame her comments with negative editorialization is the exact opposite of what the WP:NPOV policy counsels.


 * Regarding Doctorx0079's question about wikilinks, my reply is yes, I expect we would have links to relevant items just as we do in the article today. I didn't include links in my proposal because I was focused on the phrasing. --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

FA nomination for The Unconquered
Since this page gets more views than any other related to Rand, I wanted to note here that I have nominated The Unconquered (1940 play) as a featured article candidate. If promoted, this would be the third FA related to Rand's works (after the articles on The Night of January 16th and The Fountainhead). Feedback on the nominated article is welcomed at Featured article candidates/The Unconquered (1940 play)/archive1. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Critical reception
The opinions given in the critical reception section of the page could be given to any book ever written. They're not needed. None of the people listed had anything intelligent to say. Nothing to offer. We're simply letting them speak because no one likes this woman. That's kind of against what Wikipedia in general should be about. I was of the opinion that we were only supposed to provide factual information. There is nothing in that section that could be considered factual. There is simply garbage from people who have nothing better to do with their lives. The comment that her book was too long is the comment from a moron who doesn't have the patience to read a book. His comment does not belong here. You provide facts or you provide nothing. None of the comments on her work provide facts. I don't think opinions should be allowed. Not just on this page but on any page. What's some moron thinks about the interpretation of facts means nothing to me. It should mean nothing to Wikipedia. Sickboy254698 (talk) 06:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The article summarizes what critics said and quotes some examples, mostly from prominent reviews that are mentioned in secondary sources about Rand. These are the facts about what critics wrote. Whether you or any other Wikipedia editor agrees or disagrees with the critics' comments should not be the basis for including or excluding them. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ayn and FRank at Branden's Wedding.jpg

Far too long. Far too detailed Lacks objectivity and a neutral point of view.
This article takes a vanishingly minor intellectual and rather minor cultural figure and treats her work -- of which actual philosophers and literary scholars take little or no note -- as if it were the combined output of the Enlightenment. The article is far too broken to be fixed line-by-line. It should be deleted and begun anew. It need only be a paragraph or two. Its sheer size and detail belies all claims to a "neutral point of view". It seems written by fan-boys, with more objective editors only able to tamp down some of their enthusiasm by introducing some of the criticisms that are made of Rand; this has the paradoxical effect of magnifying her importance by making it seem that actual philosophers think of her much or often, which, because they consider her work so poor and insignificant, they do not. In fact, virtually no philosophers consider her work to be philosophy at all. Articles like this are what keep Wikipedia from being a trusted and citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.29.0 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are free to hold whatever view you wish of Rand and her work, but this page is not a forum for discussing people's personal views of Rand. Realistically the article is not going to be "deleted and begun anew", as you propose, so you will have to think of less drastic methods of improving it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reality is that in Europe, except for U.K. (being influenced by protestant "morals" as much as U.S,), she´s not considered a philosopher AT ALL. 37.133.133.125 (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup
I did some copyediting of the article just now, mostly focusing on punctuation and paragraphs. It's a difficult article to write and edit because of how polarizing she was, but I think it mostly succeeds, so I tried very hard not to meddle with this delicate balance. The only non-trivial change I made, and it's still a small one, was to substitute one direct quote to accurately reflect our sources. FollowTheSources (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021
In section `Later years' add ``University of Pennsylvania''. Ayn Rand delivered the Annual Oration at the Philomathean Society of the University of Pennsylvania (http://philomathean.org/page/Events/Annual_Oration). 2601:47:4301:A3F0:30CF:EDD5:9753:2C1F (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see a problem with adding it to the mentions of her university appearances, but we should have a source better than the website of a student group. I did a bit of searching but didn't come up with one yet. --RL0919 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

New external link
I would like to suggest a new external link for the article from Jennifer Burns, Stanford University: Ayn Rand: Trump's Favorite Intellectual contribution on Die Zeit. Thanks in advance. --2003:E7:EF1D:F400:705E:6D11:D091:7A52 (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Influence on Israeli politicians
An editor has twice attempted to add material about Rand influencing various Israeli political figures. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I've reverted the additions twice now because of the poor quality of the sourcing for these claims. Claims about living people need solid sourcing. That means third-party reliable sources for facts (not opinion pieces, blogs, etc.) or an explicit declaration by that person. These sources must actually say that Rand has been an influence on their political thinking. Sources that say they read her novels, identified with a particular character, etc., are not enough to claim political influence. Also, social media posts and interviews are acceptably only for what the person says about themselves, not as sources for claims they make about other people. --RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * So this means, an article making inferences, such as so-and-so said x, y and z, and Rand said x, y and z, therefore so-and-so was apparently influenced by Rand, does not count and should be treated as speculation. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like Ayalet Shaked may have said something specifically referencing Rand, but it's hard for me to tell as it's all in Hebrew. It's important to have English-language references here as this is English Wikipedia. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Rand's influence on Shaked can be properly sourced. I've added her with The New York Times as the reference. --RL0919 (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The influence that Rand has had on politicians outside the US is certainly of general interest. I have had *personal* conversations with Netanyahu on the matter. It can also be seen in following policy changes over recent decades. I think all references should remain, even if they "spoil" the appearance of a "perfect" article. This will allow editors to butress them with more of the "ironclad" references some seek.These references also appear unchallenged in Hebrew Wikipedia. They go much-much beyond so-and-so said x, y and z, and Rand said x, y and z ... Avisalon (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You need print references, preferably in English. User:RL0919 has given a good example of what to do. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be so nice if all sources were in English... Avisalon (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Find some, like RL0919 did -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, my concern is not about "the appearance of a 'perfect' article". Removing poorly sourced claims about living people is an English Wikipedia policy. I can't speak to what is on Hebrew Wikipedia, but over here it has been pretty common for someone to want to insert a claim about Rand influencing this or that person, with very poor evidence to support that claim. We try to get those resolved quickly, either removing the claim or finding a better source to support it. Leaving poorly sourced content in the hope that someone will improve it someday is not a good option for this type of material. --RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, private conversations or emails are not the kind of thing that you are allowed to reference on Wikipedia. It's hearsay that can't be verified independently. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.-- Doctorx0079 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Conjecture in Bio
I think it'd be appropriate to delete the following passage from this article's biography, on grounds of conjecture and insufficient evidence:

"Although academic interest in her ideas has grown since her death, academic philosophers have generally ignored or rejected her philosophy because of her polemical approach and lack of methodological rigor."

It only cites a single source and may lead readers to believe Rand might not be as credible a philosopher as some of her contemporaries based solely on the opinions of two authors.

This is misleading, as Rand was one of the most influential and well-known philosophers of the twentieth century in the U.S., and her ideas are not widely "ignored" or "rejected" by today's academic philosophers. That said, they're certainly criticized by many socialists, communists, anarchists, and Marxists. This is to be expected, however, as Rand's ideas are antithetical to many of the presuppositions inherent in those schools of thought. Foucault's work, for example, might similarly be "rejected" or "ignored" by some modern academic philosophers—such as Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman—but these would merely be their opinions.

Moreover, it suggests that Rand's ideas have gained popularity and influence since her death. On the contrary, she was much more influential in the U.S. during her time—having made several appearances on national television and having been the subject of multiple national newspaper articles—and is rarely discussed outside of right-wing libertarian circles today.

I'll leave the article as it appears today to field any objections that others might have. If no well-corroborated objections have been made by 11/9/22 (i.e., one week from today), I'll remove the passage.

All civil discourse (including dissent) is welcomed! 2601:249:1681:15E0:AC3C:6DE7:FFA3:2A (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead section follows the general guidance that article leads should summarize material that is in the main body of the article, where issues are covered in more detail and with more sources. The body text cites multiple sources related to each of the concerns you raise.


 * The first claim you challenge, that "academic philosophers have generally ignored or rejected her philosophy" is cited in the lead to an encyclopedia article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – a recent, peer-reviewed tertiary source that reflects typical academic attitudes. Additional sources cited in the body text include another encyclopedia, a collection of academic essays by critics of Rand,, an academic book about Rand's reception in Eurpoe, , a book by journalist Eric Burns, and others. All these sources make claims of fact about how Rand is typically perceived in academia, and come from eight different authors whose own opinions about her vary.


 * Moving on to your second major point, the passage you are quoting never "suggests" an increase in "popularity and influence" since she died; it says that "academic interest in her ideas has grown since her death" (emphasis added). The source cited in the lead is the aforementioned collection of critical essays. This is also supported in the body by the citation of an academic book by history professor Jennifer Burns,, an academic book by Mimi Reisel Gladstein , and an encyclopedia article. Other sources have been cited in past iterations of the article, including an academic book by Chris Matthew Sciabarra, and journalism in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Lingua Franca. Beyond explicit sourcing, I note that the number of academic books discussing Rand during her lifetime can be counted on the fingers of one hand. In contrast, the article currently cites more than 20 such books published after her death, most of which are from the last 20 years. Also note that the APA-affiliated Ayn Rand Society and The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies were both founded after her death (facts that are stated and cited in the article).


 * Finally, whether her "popularity and influence" is greater or lesser now than during her living heyday is harder to discern (and the article makes no claim about that), but your statement that Rand "is rarely discussed outside of right-wing libertarian circles today" is clearly untrue. I will simply note that the list of sources currently in the article incudes books from the last decade by non-libertarians such as Lisa Duggan, Mikhail Kizilov, Cass Sunstein, and Gary Weiss, as well as others who do not have WP articles. If I started citing newspaper and magazine articles, the list could break this Talk page.


 * In none of these cases are the sources listed exhaustive. More could be provided, but that would probably be citation overkill. --RL0919 (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Organization of criticism
This is a followup to a comment made by at, but I thought it might be more useful to discuss here. A is part of the reason for the distribution of critical material across five sub-sections, as I was trying to avoid a criticism section. I do see your point, and I admit that in some ways the article was more logically organized before my change. However, I think the solution here is solving the other problem that you mentioned: in many places the text mentions the existence of reviews or critique rather than summarizing their substance. I feel like if the criticisms were more usefully summarized, then they could be more directly connected to Rand's ideas, and the current structure would feel less disjointed. Thoughts? &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 15:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I wondered if your edit was related to the FAC or not, so thanks for clearing that up for me. From my side of things, I don't object to your change in general. I think combining aesthetics into the same subsection as metaphysics and epistemology is a bit awkward – I would probably split aesthetics into its own subsection. Otherwise, I have no problem with distributing the previous "Criticisms" subsection into a different structure. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I put aesthetics there because it seemed like a short section on its own and because of the quote about the "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments", but feel free to restructure.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

two comments on the lead
First, as a well-sourced, GA article, the body of the article should be the source of everything in the lead. This seems to be the case here, so I would suggest moving the references down to the appropriate section, or else removing them if they are already cited below.

Second, in the first sentence, should "writer and philosopher" be changed to was a "novelist and popular philosopher" or "novelist-philosopher"? According to the article, which does call her a "popular philosopher", she has no training in philosophy, little interest in its history, and no engagement with contemporary philosophy. "Novelist-philosopher" is what is used in the SEP article. Or, Tolstoy, who similarly wrote long philosophical novels as well as more directly philosophical tracts, is simply called a "writer". Oh, and possibly "public intellectual" should be somewhere in there too.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The items cited in the lead are cited because of past challenges to the content. This is in keeping with WP:CITELEAD.


 * As to the phrasing of the opening description, this has been the subject of many past discussions, including multiple RFCs. In the past, 'writer' has been preferred over 'novelist' since she also has notable work as a playwright and screenwriter. This was last discussed in a 2018 RFC. As to 'philosopher', attempts to change this have typically brought forth commenters who want the term to be removed entirely or modified in a way that casts her in a negative light ('amateur philosopher', 'pseudo-philosopher', etc). For this faction, any other modification is unacceptable. That made it difficult to get a consensus for a modifier like 'popular' that could be interpreted as flattering. It has been a number of years since the last big row over it, so you are welcome to give it a try, but I would not expect much good to come from it. --RL0919 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @RL0919,
 * Thanks for the clarification about the citations. When I see these in the lead of a well-developed article, I tend to suspect unproductive drive-by editing or a well-meaning, but unnecessary, addition.
 * With respect to the title "philosopher," I wonder if the issue is a misframing of the question, namely, framing it in terms of the quality of her ideas, rather than in terms of her training and profession. With respect to the first question, Wikipedia should not take any position. With respect to the second, it is just a neutral matter of fact that she does not fall into this category.
 * I should add that this is not in any way specific to her. Lots of scholars and intellectuals weigh in on philosophical issues without thereby becoming philosophers, e.g., Einstein, Christopher Hitchens, Antonin Scalia, John Maynard Keynes, Lenin, Marilynne Robinson, and I could go on.
 * Exceptions I can think of are all internationally renown scholars in other disciplines such as Chomsky and Amartya Sen. Rand is also internationally known and admired by many, but she chose to publish for a popular audience without the validating scrutiny of the philosophical community. And – hey! – in this way, she reached a larger audience than what most philosophers would dare to dream. But what this makes her is a public intellectual or perhaps a social critic or something of that kind.
 * Anyways, I have zero interest in a protracted debate over a basically harmless misclassification. I just don't see why anyone would dispute the fact unless, for them, "philosopher" is an evaluative term. Which, even aside from Wikipedia policy, it is not. There are plenty of entirely legitimate philosophers whose ideas are widely regarded as terrible or even borderline incoherent. In some circles it is even a term of disparagement, as in the phrase "to wax philosophical."
 * I'll leave this up for a while so that others have a chance to chime in. I have not worked on this page, and I have no intention of changing the lead without consensus.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With so many watchers, I expected more people to weigh in.
 * If no one speaks up to the contrary, I'm going to go with public intellectual. This covers her essays on philosophical topics as well as her political interventions, her salon, her involvement with the Objectivist movement, and so forth.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I held back from immediate reply to see if anyone else wanted to comment, but if you are suggesting that you will change the description of 'philosopher' to 'public intellectual', then I definitely object. There have been multiple discussions about this, and it has been shown repeatedly that she is called a philosopher in many reliable sources. We are supposed to follow sources, not the personal views of editors about whether she is or is not a philosopher. --RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But there is no shortage of reliable sources describing her, just as an objective matter of fact, in extremely unflattering terms. Her profession, however, was no more (for instance) neoliberal ideologue than it was philosopher—even though she is at least as notable as being the former according to many journalists, pundits, and academics.
 * EDIT: I'm sure there are other (good) policies that would prohibit "neolibral ideologue" from the lead. Please let me point out instead that reliable sources (per Wikipedia standards) regard her claim to being a philosopher as a joke, which some sources say explicitly and others consider it too obvious to bear mention. Wikipedia's standards for reliability are in many respects quite low, so this fact about what's been published in no way decides the question. But it does help to demonstrate that what is in question is a matter of subjective assessment.
 * Perhaps readers would be best served by a sentence along the lines of "A highly polarizing figure, Rand is regarded by some as among the 20th century's greatest philosophers; many academics, however, just as confidently dismiss her work almost entirely." This (or something like it) could follow the first sentence describing her as a writer and public intellectual. Then a paragraph break could optionally be added to set off the rest of what is currently the first paragraph.
 * I'm not committed to this particular wording – especially if I seem to be taking a stand! – but it is supported by the article. One of the most notable things about Rand is the extreme disagreement about the character of her accomplishments. (The staggering 51 archived talk pages, I assume, attest to this in abundance.) Where there is widespread disagreement among reliable sources, Wikipedia should report that, rather than take a side—as I am sure we agree in principle.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I'm not sure "neoliberal ideologue" is all that unflattering. To be sure, "ideologue" by itself connotes excessive rigidity of thought, but if you have to be an ideologue, I'd think a neoliberal one is one of the better ones to be. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the "ideologue" part that I would consider inappropriate without very strong sourcing. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter what her profession was; the primary description of a biographical subject is not limited to their profession. (To take an extreme example, the opening sentence about John Wayne Gacy is never going to focus on him being a construction contractor.)


 * As far as I can tell, the term 'philosopher' (including with various modifiers) is used for her a lot more than 'public intellectual', although she was that as well and the term is sometimes used. I'm happy to have the term 'philosopher' supplemented with a relevant modifier, such as 'popular' or 'non-academic' to make it clear that she was not, for example, a professor of philosophy. But this in no way justifies removing the commonly used term from her description, any more than it would for Chomsky, Sen, Camus, Nietzsche, and others well-known as philosophers despite not being part of any philosophy department's faculty. As to sources that "regard her claim to being a philosopher as a joke", ones that explicitly say that can certainly be considered, but what you imagine a source thinks is "too obvious to bear mention" is not helpful. There are many alternative explanations for why any given source might not say something.


 * That she is controversial and rejected by most academics is indicated later in the current lead. We could possibly expand on that, but the fact that she is also controversial among Wikipedians will create problems for any attempts to be colorful. --RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey again,
 * Just to start, I want to say that I really appreciate the civility of this discussion. I've seen talk pages on much less controversial subjects descend very rapidly. So thanks for that. (Really!)
 * To me, "popular philosopher" is an appropriately neutral description, being as she wrote works on philosophical topics for a popular (=general, non-academic) audience, for which she is certainly notable. But this is, as you previously pointed out, ambiguous. Also, there's no entry on the term in English (or German) Wikipedia. So I'm a bit concerned that it might confuse some readers and be challenged in the near future.
 * Similarly, "amateur" would be good with me (as in "amateur historian"), but somehow that sounds pejorative as applied to a philosopher. (I'm not sure why, but it does.)
 * May I ask why you are not attracted to the option of presenting this as a matter of ongoing disagreement among serious-minded, intelligent people?
 * The SEP article, for instance, states in the lead that most philosophers (=the closest thing we have to experts on what is and is not philosophy) do not consider her a philosopher. To quote directly:
 * "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books[.]"
 * So according to this (high-quality) source categorizing her as a "philosopher-novelist", even this is a minority position. I have not looked at the academic anthologies beyond the author bios of one (which checked out as quite legit), but I would be surprised if they do not state the same in their introductions.
 * Presenting the evaluative label as a matter of good-faith disagreement among well-educated people might also help forestall future debates about the matter. (Because, again, even though the auto-archiving settings are a bit aggressive, 51 archived discussions is insane.)
 * The article itself I think is good. It is appropriately sympathetic in its presentation of her views while acknowledging that they have (of course! – as with anyone who has anything to say!) been criticized by others. But the minority of readers who do not know coming in how controversial she is would be well-served by having this highlighted at the top of the piece.
 * Oh, and I consider "public intellectual" a higher badge of honor than "philosopher", and I think that the label is well-supported by the article. But I do not feel strongly about its inclusion one way or the other. Very few people read the whole article, but that does not mean we need to pack everything into the first paragraph.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As a specialty encyclopedia about philosophy, the SEP focuses on the philosophy-related parts of her career and persona. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, and our article is about Ayn Rand overall, so the focus is not the same. Even then, the SEP only mentions the controversial nature of her ideas after 180 words of overview about her. If we did the same, in our current lead that would be about halfway through the second paragraph, not the second sentence of the first paragraph as I take you to be suggesting. Currently we do mention that her ideas are rejected by most academics, but not until a bit later, in the third paragraph.


 * Looking at the lead with a "cold" eye (having not read it in full for several months), I think one of the best things we could do is trim some of the detail out of the description of her ideas in the second paragraph. That would shorten the distance to the reaction summary, and make the lead overall more readable.


 * In regard to 'philosopher', my preferred phrasing is 'non-academic philosopher'. That clarifies any possible confusion of readers thinking that she was a philosophy professor, and it has no alternative meaning the way 'popular' or 'amateur' would. If we want a phrase that has an article, 'public philosopher' is also an option. Or maybe a combo such as 'non-academic public philosopher'. However, none of those were the conclusion of the last RfC on the matter, which landed on 'philosopher', unmodified (which I supported to end the divisive wrangling over the matter). That said, the RfC was years ago, so it seems OK to try out an alternative and see what the reaction is, if we can agree on which alternative to use. And yes, civil discussion is the best discussion for making better articles. --RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay! I think we might be moving in the direction of consensus. I entirely take your point that the second sentence of the lead should not suggest that she is some kind of fraud. Anything more than is currently included about the controversial nature of her ideas, whether in the lead or body of the article, must be neutrality presented as a debate among parties presumed to be of equal intellect, moral character, integrity, et cetera.
 * Further down in the lead (without being the closing sentence, which might suggest it being the final word) would be an entirely appropriate place to more explicitly emphasize how polarizing she is. Also, what is currently the second sentence already describes her ideas (unproblematically, as far as I am concerned, as "philosophical"). So the fact that she is publicly engaging with the field is right up there without further claiming that she is a member of a profession which, since the early 19th century, has acquired an institutional definition that does not include Rand. (One can certainly argue that philosophy is the worse off for this professionalization, but Wikipedia is not the place to hash that out.)
 * I do stand by my contention that, if she is to be described as philosopher (which is hardly necessary to justify her encyclopedic significance), it needs to be immediately added that many people who are uncontroversially philosophers strongly reject such a classification. This seems to be already adequately documented in the article, but it would be easy to find additional high-quality sources if necessary.
 * As to the second paragraph, I won't get in the way of any edits/cuts you might make, but the level of detail seems fine to me. She is, after all, a major figure in American intellectual life.
 * Looking forward to your further proposals —
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I made the trims I was thinking about for the second paragraph, so if you do have any particular concerns about those, feel free to comment or edit.


 * I also edited the Philosophy section to explicitly state the point that there are academic philosophers who do not consider her to be a philosopher. The previous text of the article did not actually say that. That said, there is no formal body in philosophy equivalent to the IAU deciding that Pluto is a 'dwarf planet' instead of a 'planet'. To determine how this article should describe Rand, we would be looking at how she is discussed in quality secondary and tertiary sources, not limited to "people who are uncontroversially philosophers". Having done searches for it before, I can tell you that she is called a philosopher in a bunch of such sources, and she is explicitly denied the designation in just a few. So in terms of what belongs in the lead, I still think you are asking to give too much prominence to a point from a small minority of sources. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey again, those edits look fine to me. Also, I take your point that there is no governing body to determine who is and is not a philosopher (although not without considerable reservation; for this is, in fact, pretty much the role of the modern research university).
 * What I would emphasize in response is that I am not at all suggesting that we modify to lead to deny that she is a philosopher. Per the article, this is contested among the closest thing we have to experts, as well as among educated members of the public. So the first sentence should not state it as a fact.
 * While I still think that she should be neutrally described as simply a "writer," what I am going to do now is to take your suggestion of "public philosopher" and link back to this discussion in the edit summary. Perhaps then more folks will chime in. If this does spark a larger conversation, I would submit in advance that this be shared on the WikiProject Philosophy board (and anywhere else as appropriate) to help correct for the likely issue of self-selection bias among article-followers.
 * If there is stuff from the archives that you or anyone else wants to stand behind, perhaps consider re-posting? I don't want to bury the history, but there's just too much material there to reasonably expect participants in this conversation to review in its entirety.
 * Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Is "Saint Petersburg Governorate" necessary?
@SuperSkaterDude45 has my edit, but I am not sure why he considers the subdivision necessary. Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * First level subdivisions are generally included in infoboxes. This is consistent with other articles on philosophers such as Friedrich Engels and Blaise Pascal for example. I see no reason why Rand should be an exception to this for a removal that really has no basis other than it being "unnecessary".  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 02:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @SuperSkaterDude45, sorry for the late reply. I'd argue that Rand's case isn't the same as the ones of Engels and Pascal. Also, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content," which applies to this imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the subdivision. The governorate is not mentioned in the article text and has no importance in Rand's story. I don't think it is mentioned in any biography of her. It is not needed to distinguish which Saint Petersburg is meant – the country does that. It almost doubles the length of the birthplace entry, and keeping infoboxes concise is desirable, as indicated by the MOS. These combined issues point towards not including this low-relevance bit of data. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So from what I've interpreted it, your main point is and keeping infoboxes concise is desirable, as indicated by the MOS but it seems that with this logic, you'd think that many infoboxes on really, any Amerian figure have the states shortened down to their initials if that was what MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE were to primarily be about. If trimming really was the goal, wouldn't the pre-existing revision without the governorate face this exact same criticism with the usage of the "Russian Empire" over simply Russia?  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 20:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That Rand was born in the Russian Empire is relevant to the article (read the "Early life" section if you haven't already). But honestly I wouldn't be particularly bothered if it just said "Russia". Either way, whataboutism doesn't justify inclusion of the governorate. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a whataboutist argument when you take into consideration that you're citing a MOS which emphasizes the importance of the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles. Again, similar and consistent to other infoboxes in general with again, no genuine exception for this one other than personal preferences. I highly doubt any confusion is even necessary even with article context given that even with every Soviet era birth rarely displays the constituent country and I highly doubt Rand is known with her brief life in the Soviet Union.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see your only argument for including the governorate is that it's similar to what other articles do. Frankly that's not much of an argument.  Maybe the other articles shouldn't do that.  If you think it should be done in all bios, then you can bring that up at the MOS.  I'd be against it, though -- as one regular contributor to MOS discussions says, if the MOS doesn't need to have a rule on a particular thing, then the MOS needs to not have a rule on that thing.  On a related note, inter-article consistency is not nearly as important as some people think. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I could also apply the same thing to nearly every argument here with the only arguments presented towards me being that of editorial preferences with the only exception to this being a very vague interpretation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. By the way, article consistency does play a big role when it comes to discussions, especially regarding infobxes. A major example I'd wish to highlight is this discussion regarding the inclusion of an infobox for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as at the time, the article lacked one due to previous consensus ruling out the possibility of one. The reason the article currently has an infobox is due the main argument being that there's again, really no reason to omit one besides a personal editor preference which is arguably a weaker argument than simply keeping the consistency between established articles and formats.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 17:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "arguably" a weaker argument, but actually not a weaker argument. I.e. you can argue that but you're wrong.  The editors who work on a given article try to make it as good as they can, and not everything is specified by guidelines nor needs to be the same as other articles.  The mention of the governorate doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to the article and it makes the infobox messier.  That's a fine argument for removing it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, it's not an arguably weaker argument, it is a weaker argument. Present me a definitive MOS that specifically states that subdivisions are to be omitted to or that consistency ultimately doesn't matter, and I'll look a different way. Otherwise, this just comes across as an advocacy for a group of editor's personal preference that doesn't present a mass consensus unlike the Talk Page archive I have just described to you. By the way, can you clarify on The editors who work on a given article try to make it as good as they can given that what you've described is by definition, subjective?  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Point to me a section of the MOS that specifically says the subdivisions need to be included. Otherwise, like everything else not covered by policies and guidelines, it's down to editorial consensus at the article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice whataboutist argument on your end with the very opening line. When the best argument presented here is personal editorial preferences, what honestly makes it different from an essay? While there's admittedly no specific guideline dictating that the use of subdivisions in infoboxes, downplaying the significance of article consistency on Wikipedia articles will just lead to further discussions that are really just delaying established consensus such as again, the case with the Mozart article. Way to also omit any of the other counterarguments I've made as well.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 18:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have the burden of proof here if you want to edit against consensus. You haven't met it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No I really don't, especially when you're the one insisting on claims such as inter-article consistency is not nearly as important as some people think without any direct MOS to back it up. I'll re-iterate once more: A small group of editors with a specific preference is a consensus not.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah you really do. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the only argument you have and thus, I see no reason to continue this discussion, especially when you aren't bothering to substantiate your claims and deliberately ignoring arguments.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 18:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there's no reason to continue, because you haven't given any good reason to keep the governorate. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify on I'd argue that Rand's case isn't the same as the ones of Engels and Pascal because the only point you've really made is citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE... despite again, many other biographical infoboxes including first-level subdivisions. especially in a historical context. If this were about shortening the names of say, the Russian Empire to just Russia then yeah, the usage of the MOS would make sense. Otherwise, I'm just frankly confused.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 04:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @SuperSkaterDude45: Oh, forgive my poor wording then. My English isn't that good. Yes, I was actually talking about only one thing (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is all I can find) in my last comment here. However, I just don't see why we can't omit the subdivision despite your argument. I think RL0919's one is clear enough. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents: I don't see what the difference is from Pascal or Engels, but I also don't immediately see the point of being so verbose at their articles either.  Maybe there is a reason to include this info at their bios.  In any case I agree with Thedarkknightli and RL0919 that I don't see any compelling reason to include it here. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the name Alice O’Connor
I’m not aware of any instance of that name ever being used to identify her. Ayn Rand is more than a pen name, it is the name used to refer to her by everyone, including her protege Leonard Peikoff and those in the Ayn Rand Institute.

I propose that this article eliminate the name “Alice O’Connor”, and change the phrase “pen name” to better reflect reality. 2600:4040:59D1:9A00:51F6:6504:AD45:E767 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That "Ayn Rand" was a pen name was known in her lifetime; she said it was a pen name herself in multiple letters to fans that are reproduced in Letters of Ayn Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources for the use of the name "Alice O'Connor"? Mporter (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. Already cited in the endnote related to the name is Shoshana Milgram's biographical essay in A Companion to Ayn Rand. Additionally, Mimi Reisel Gladstein gives her full legal name in The New Ayn Rand Companion, and one of Rand's former attorneys gives it in an interview documented in 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (in answer to a question specifically about what Rand's legal name was). It is also given in passing in footnotes in Ayn Rand and the World She Made and Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living that relate to legal documents (one of the few situations where she used her legal name). There are a couple of newer sources also, but those were published after I added the name in the lead, so potentially they might be WP:CIRCULAR. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)