User:RL0919/Ayn Rand editing issues

Page to store thoughts about recurring editorial disputes on the Ayn Rand article. Updated January 2023 to reflect changes since the previous (August 2021) revision of this page.

General situation
Some background facts about the article:
 * It is fairly long, with around 6000 words of main body text. In the past it was even longer, sometimes over 8500 words of main body text. Around that time (early 2009), an outside journalist reviewed it and described it as "mind-numbing" and "overcooked".
 * It has been edited more than 12,000 times, often contentiously, up to the point that the Arbitration Committee had to address it. There are also more than 50 pages of Talk archives.
 * Because Rand has been dead for over 40 years and has a bevy of admirers and critics, there are plenty of sources about Rand's life and ideas. This has allowed the article to be thoroughly sourced, and the citations are to "high quality" sources, such as academic books, journal articles, and positively-reviewed commercial books.

Social Security

 * Argument: The article should mention that she was a hypocrite for accepting Social Security and Medicare benefits while opposing the existence of such programs.
 * Response: There are two elements to this: The first is the fact that she took these benefits. The second is the evaluation of that as hypocritical. The fact is confirmed by reliable sources, but as a biographical fact it is very trivial. Most American citizens who reached the qualifying age in the last 60 years took old age benefits. There is nothing remarkable about that fact that suggests it needs to be included in an encyclopedia article about her, but since April 2013 it has been included because some significant sources have made a point of mentioning it. The evaluation is another matter. Most of the sources making that argument are non-reliable blogs that we do not use as sources for articles. There are a few marginally reliable sources in the form of opinion pieces, but opinion pieces criticizing Rand are numerous, so numerous in fact that we can't realistically include every criticism in the article, especially not all the ones from lower-quality sources such as web-based commentary outlets. So unless and until this criticism is common in higher quality sources, it does not belong in the article. (For what it is worth, the charge of hypocrisy is also untrue. Although Rand wanted such programs to be abolished, she openly advocated accepting their benefits as long as one was required to pay taxes for them.)
 * Current state: The fact is mentioned without interpretation.

William Edward Hickman

 * Argument: The article should detail her interest in William Edward Hickman, a murderer that she once considered as the potential inspiration for a novel.
 * Response: This one has a slightly better case for it than the Social Security argument above, because her interest in Hickman is covered in several high-quality sources. The issue here is more about emphasis. The quality sources that discuss this relate it to her early interest in the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche. Her interest in Nietzsche is discussed in the article, and there is even mention of the notes for the (never-written) novel, the ones that discuss Hickman. However, the article does not go into detail about what she wrote in those notes. The editors who want to insert material about Hickman in particular usually want not to include significantly more detail, such as quoting her evaluations of him at some length. Sometimes they also want to describe Hickman's crimes. The upshot is a desire to make Rand look bad by quoting her saying something nice about an infamous criminal. Aside from the POV issues this creates, this level of detail is not justified by the way most sources deal with this. Some low-quality op-ed/blog sources go on long rants about it, but the serious biographies and journal articles are more interested in her view of Nietzsche and his ideas.
 * Current state: Mentioned only in the context of Nietzsche's influence.

Celebrity namedropping

 * Argument: The article should mention that $\langleinsert name of famous person here\rangle$ was influenced by her/read her books/said something nice about her.
 * Response: Almost every instance of this is pure pop-culture cruft. Like most famous writers, Rand has a long list of fans, including some who are themselves famous. There is no reason to mention these unless it relates to a more substantial issue, such the reception for her ideas among academics or politicians, or literary influence on other writers/artists. Listing a bunch of names, especially with quotes, bloats the article with unimportant trivia. If her influence on a particular person was especially strong and can be reliably sourced, mention of it probably belongs in the article about that person.
 * Current state: A few examples are mentioned for important categories such as other writers, politicians, and business leaders.

Media mentions

 * Argument: The article should note that she was mentioned in $\langleinsert name of tv show/movie/videogame/etc. here\rangle$.
 * Response: As with the celebrity names discussed above, this is almost always pop-culture trivia with little individual significance. The article does discuss the fact that Rand has been mentioned in a variety of different media outlets. That doesn't mean we need to name them, and we definitely don't need extended descriptions of how she was mentioned. If there is an article about the particular episode/movie/game, then the material may be more relevant there.
 * Current state: Summarized without naming any examples.

Was she a philosopher?

 * Argument: The article should not refer to Rand as a "philosopher" or to her Objectivism as a "philosophy".
 * Response: Multiple high-quality sources refer to Rand as a philosopher and Objectivism as a philosophy. There are people who don't consider her a philosopher, but they generally ignore her and don't write reliable source material about her, so the situation is very one-sided. At one time there were seven reliable sources footnoted calling her a philosopher, with zero sources denying that she was.
 * Current state: More recent versions of the article have backed away from oversourcing, but the sources still exist and the article reflects that.

Was she Jewish?

 * Argument: The article should not refer to Rand as "Jewish" because she did not practice Judaism as a religion.
 * Response: "Jewish" can refer to the religion or the ethnicity, and multiple reliable sources affirm that Rand was an ethnic Jew, even though she became an atheist at an early age.
 * Current state: The article mentions that her parents were Jewish, but doesn't specifically say it about Rand herself.

Was her literary reception mostly negative?

 * Argument: The article should not claim that reviewers or literary critics have been mostly negative about her work, because she has gotten positive commentary from some.
 * Response: Rand did get some positive contemporary reviews, mostly for her earlier fiction. Her best-reviewed work was her first, the play Night of January 16th. It was downhill from there. Reviews for We the Living were mixed. Reviews for The Fountainhead were also mixed, trending negative. The reviews for Atlas Shrugged and her nonfiction were overwhelmingly negative. Later literary commentary has focused on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and tends to be negative except when it comes from ideological supporters (who are a minority). So while it would be wrong to say that critical reception has been entirely negative, it has been mostly negative, especially for her later work. The summaries of literary reception in reliable secondary sources agree on the overall negativity of critics.
 * Current state: Reception is discussed as per the sources.