User:Kjaer

Work Page for José Manuel Capuletti
http://www.aristos.org/capulett.htm

José Manuel Capuletti, 1925–1978, was a Spanish painter known for his

in response to your question
I said that your description of the situation on the AR TP was false. Here is the description:

"the problem is, pro-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that say she is not philosopher, anti-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that says she is. anti-rand references generally are from the academia, reflecting rands lack of standing with the phd/philosophy community, pro-rand references tend to be more populist, reflecting the view that if people think she is a philosopher then she is a philosopher. both sides have multitudes of references, but neither side accepts the others references. this talk page is one long "is not! is too!"Brushcherry (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry"

What we have is not a bunch of pro-Rand editors trying to add that Rand was the best philosopher ever, never made mistakes, didn't have personal problems, suffered no criticism, or anything like that. No one who is "pro-Rand" has attempted to remove the crticism section, references to such things as her affair with branden, or the like. (There have been a few hit and run wacko editors, look at the archived section of the talk page called avalanche where I took action to stop a person who had been trying to remove all negative comments about Rand.) Neither do we even have something so simple as one side with a list of 340 references on lexis nexus that call Rand a philosopher, while the opposition supposedly has a list of 360 that say she isn't. They don't have a list of references that say Rand is not a philosopher. (That is what was the essence of what was false.) They have a list of articles that mention rand, but which don't mention the word philosopher. They describe this list of 360 articles as if it is a list of articles that say rand is not a philosopher. The articles refered to simply don't have the word philosopher in them. They might be about Rand's literary output or many other subjects. And they definitely CAN'T be articles that actually say Rand IS NOT a philosopher, because in order to say that, you have to use the word philosopher, and this is a list of articles where the word philosopher doesn't even show up.

The problem we have is that this had been a good, balanced, sourced, comprehensive and stable article up to DEC 31 when david snowden started making a bunch of wholesale deletions for which there was no consensus. He was reversed by myself and others as he satrted deleting referenced lists of people Rand had influenced, started deleting the cited reference to Rand as a philosopher, put in negative pov language to portray her as limited in influence to American fringe groups, and all out did whatev er he could to get Rand portrayed in a bad light. The problem is, snowded is ignorant of Rand's influence, ignorant of American culture, and personally highly biased against rand. He admits it on his website. He has campaigned this way on many articles. He has his view and he refuses to accept any other. So, on DEC 31 he canvassed another Brit with whom he has colaborated before, and had the article frozen because of "edit warring." the war consisted of his deletions of sourced material and additions of negative comments. The article, was frozen, and we were supposed to come to an actual consensus on changes before anything was done once the article was unfrozen JAN 6. Immediately after it was unfrozen, snowded and peter damien started in again with one sided deletions of refernced material and additions of whatever criticism they could think of, they removed all context for criticisms (For example, Buckley and Rand had a famous feud. Buckley, a Catholic, called her "godless", said she advocated sending the poor to concentration camps in Atlas Shrugged, and she called him "too smart to believe in god."  The article had included his comment that she was dead (in her obituary) and that her philosphy was dead too.  And there had been a footnote saying that he was catholic, and that she had criticised him for his catholicism.  They removed the footnote.  Note that snowded and peter damien are catholic themselves.)  It is this same bunch who describe Rand a limited in imnfluence to the US right wing political fringe, but delete a list of people influenced by her that include not only canadians but also europeans, a big movie director in turkey Sinan Cetin and so forth.

So, what we have is a bunch of Objectivists with day jobs, none of whom as far as I know is assciated with or even really likes the Ayn Rand Institute, who are trying to keep this article comprehensive and free from partisan distortions, and a bunch of political and religious opponents of Rand who feel that if the article doesn't bad mouth Rand it isn't objective, because they know for a fact the she was not only evil, but also incompetent.==Evidence presented by Kjaer==

Current Violations of WP:NPA
There has been a history of editors explicitly referring to Objectivists and admirers of Ayn Rand as cultists, Randites, Randists and other words which are found offensive. This is an explicit violation of WP:NPA whether it is directed against editors or the adherents of Rand's philosophy elsewhere. I have explicitly warned certain editors of their violations of WP:NPA on their talk pages, 1 2 3 and have placed a warning on the article talk page itself. TallNapoleon and Snowded saw fit to summarily remove my warning. The practice is unacceptible both as a personal attack and as an off topic debate that does not belong on the talk page, and debate over whether such words are offensive is just as offensive and just as much a violation of policy. I invite editors to realize the serious of the issue and invite administration to remind editors of it. Kja er (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate use of the word cult/cultist, etc. on the current talk page
Note that these comments express editor's personal opinions, not attempts at research, of which there are examples. Also, I have not included all examples. They are all explicit violations of NPA.

SmashtheState: "Objectivism IS in fact a religious cult for psychopaths."

Peter Damian 1 says editors here are "Randing" provides false description of undocumented quote

Snowded:12 3 4

CABlankenship:1 2 3 4 5 6

TallNapoleon:1

I commend Idag for 1

Accusations of Canvassing
I plead guilty to the charge of canvassing. But as to meat puppetry, I plead innocent. Indeed, if I am the puppeteer, who is the puppet?

I have indeed (as I myself noted on the talk page, and Dave Snowden has quoted) posted on Objectivist related sites, and have made other editors aware of what is going on the Ayn Rand page. But if I am guilty of communicating with others, I am not, like others, guilty of sock puppetry, [Turnsmoney, CABlankenship] editing in bad faith, or in any way pushing a personal POV on the article. My edits have been most fair, and I challenge anyone to show a POV innovation of mine to the article.

Snowded POV Canvassing, Being a Meat Puppet POV Edit Warring, Ad Hominem
Dave Snowden has been involved in a long term campaign to push his personal anti-Rand POV on this and related articles. I quote, from his website: "I refuse to call it a philosophy"

We have proof here of his own purposefully stated campaign to push his personal POV, his own admission of meat puppetry, and his own admission of his desire to recruit meat puppets.

Bad Faith:

A reference that was used to show Rand's influence ^ A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club early in the 1990s asked readers to name the book that had most influenced their lives: Atlas Shrugged was second only to the Bible - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ibid.

Was modified to add this OR text:

and became support for the Snowden's OR claim in the lead that Rand's influence is limited to the US. But The US Library of congress did not survey outside America, and hence it cannot be used as evidence of what has happened outside America. This is typical of his bad faith, POV pushing and OR. And of course, endless ad hominem accusations of cultism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=267904129&oldid=267902677

CABlankenship Admitted POV, sockpuppetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_16#Propaganda_page '''Yeah, I removed myself from this page for a reason. I have nothing at all good to say about Rand. I despise her too much to be of any use to the neutrality of this article.''' … CABlankenship (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:CABlankenship

DDSTretch Admitted POV
Seventeen minutes after CABlankenship admitted his POV and castigated Rand, DDStretch posted his agreement with BABlankenship's POV on the latter's talk page. This is a supposedly neutral Admin, one who blocked me not for improper edits, nor for incivility, but for stating on the talk page that the continued deletions are POV motivated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CABlankenship&diff=prev&oldid=261602077 + Having read some of her stuff, and also studied philosophy during the course of my degrees, I agree with your assessment of her material. … [[User:ddstretch| 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Turnsmoney Sock Puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turnsmoney How is it that a newly registered user who has not edited one single article can appear out of the blue to do the dirty work of one faction using sophisticated WP terminology?

Violation of Consensus
After the block by DDStretch was removed, there were an immediate series of over 100 edits by TallNapoleon, Idag, SlimVirgin, Snowded and Peter Damien instituting a wholesale revision of the article according to one POV. These edits were repeatedly challenged on the talk page with requests for a wikipedia policy to motivate them. None was given, rather a "new consensus" was adduced as justification:

It is clear that a new consensus is developing. …TallNapoleon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a new consensus developing. Idag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet, no such consensus exists, as per the RfC.