Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop

Fact about Rand
Do "findings of fact" include findings of facts that are disputed here, or only the facts about the dispute? If the former, then Peter Damian writes:


 * Speaking as a philosopher, however, I find [Rand's] work incoherent and amateurish. It would be deceiving the reader of Wikipedia if she were represented as a mainstream philosopher among mainstream philosophers. She isn't mainstream, and she isn't really a philosopher at all.

I suppose that this could be classed as "OR". Damian claims to be a philosopher and then makes this judgement based on his authority as a philosopher.

I don't claim to be a philosopher. Indeed, I am not one, but I realize that I cannot demand that you believe this claim. Philosopher or not, I do have two books with me in which I'd expect to find a write-up of notable mainstream philosopher. These are Ted Honderich, ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "new edition" (i.e. 2nd edition) 2005; and Robert Audi, ed., The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, 1999. The former has nothing between "Frank P. Ramsey" and "Hastings Rashdall"; further, Rand doesn't appear in the "Index and list of entries". The latter (which is oddly titled, it's a dictionary-encyclopedia) has nothing between "Petrus Ramus" and "Randomness"; further, Rand doesn't appear between "Samuel Ramos" and "Veikko Rantala" in the "Index of selected names".

So it seems that Rand indeed is not a notable mainstream philosopher. Morenoodles (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions
In the workshop, we should focus on what will identify the key elements of the dispute and what will help things move forward productively.

In suggesting principles, look back over other arbitration cases and see what themes might be in common with this dispute. Look over our policies and see what may be applicable to this particular case. For a broader view, it is worth noting any principles that come through across multiple relevant policies. Essentially, we want to identify what basic ideals and concepts are central to the consideration of this case, in the context of common good practice.

When proposing findings of fact, try to be focused and selective. A ridiculously vast number of things can be noted about any given case. What is the crux of the dispute? What is the climate of the dispute? What specific behaviors by specific editors have prevented productive editing, a cordial environment, and/or consensus? Bear in mind our focus lies on the key elements and moving things towards a productive environment.

As you put forward remedies and enforcement propositions, always focus on means that will produce a better editing environment. Bans, topic bans or other strong measures will be considered as means to reduce disruption to the project. However, the suggestions should not be punitive or otherwise geared towards making someone "pay" for their errors. Consider whether someone is just a bit difficult to work with or whether they are truly disruptive. Not everyone is easy to work with and not everyone is a savant in expressing their thoughts, but that does not mean they are disruptive. On the other side, some people acting in good faith still soapbox, continually raise dead issues, or are otherwise disruptive. Take care in considering how to address the actions of editors.

These are just my individual suggestions, so you're welcome to a few grains of salt with them. However, I'd encourage you to at least consider them. As always, any questions or concerns are welcome to be expressed. Vassyana (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated Argument Between JazzFan, TallNapoleon, and myself
(this argument wasn't really relevant to anything, so I'm moving it to the Talk page)

Since TallNapoleon has explicitly expressed that reason is an improper "idol" - that's a simple fact - shouldn't he be excluded from any forum where reason is expected to be the primary way of determining anything? Or would someone like to state for the record that reason *shouldn't* be considered a primary value in here?TheJazzFan (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I object, again, to the term "anti-Rand crusade." Many of us who are not Objectivists do not hate Rand (the evidence points to only two or three people who have anti-Rand personal views), and just because we disagree with a number of Objectivists, that does not make us the "anti-Rand faction."  Second, with regard to TallNapoleon specifically, he may have personal opinions about Rand, but he has defended this article in the past against a number of people who actually pushed an anti-Rand POV (e.g. Edward Nilges).  One of the current pending proposals is also TallNapoleon's proposal to trim down the homosexuality section, a section that is not flattering to Rand. TallNapoleon has also attempted to resolve this dispute a number of times by offering to create a second RfC and agreeing to mediation.  He is not disrupting efforts at dispute resolution and I left him out of this factfinding proposal because simply having a personal opinion does not disqualify one from editing an article. You'll note that I left Jomasecu, ChildofMidnight, and a number of other Objectivists out for the same reason.Idag (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Many of us who are not Objectivists do not hate Rand" If you don't identify with that characterization, curious that you felt motivated to comment. Never mentioned you by pseudonym. However you choose to categorize yourself, there most certainly is an Anti-Rand crusade among some participants. If you choose not to acknowledge the evidence that doesn't alter the facts. Count how many times the word "cult" is used on just the current article comment page. Whatever interpretation of WP:WHATEVER TallNapoleon may have happened to take exception to doesn't alter his dismissal of the core of Objectivism. He couldn't possibly be any more anti-Objectivism.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You made a post under my proposed findings of fact commenting on my "omission" and talking about the "anti-Rand crusade." Naturally, I assumed that you were naming me a part of that crusade.  If I was wrong, then I apologize, but I stand by the rest of my statement that only 2 or 3 editors actually have an anti-Rand personal view and there is no evidence of those editors actually pushing that view with their edits.  Idag (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was responding to a specific comment by TallNapoleon. Include yourself if you hold anti-Rand opinions. "Only" 2 or 3 editors, huh. It just takes 1 to be on a crusade. 3 sounds like a conspiracy. A truly neutral article would state facts of her life and works in summary form and that's it. The very fact that it's insisted that there be "positions" in the article means they're pushing a POV, by proxy.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jazz, I've tried explaining this to you, and am loathe to do so again, but here goes. I do not believe that reason is inherently an idol. I believe that Rand treated it as one. I believe, as do many, many respectable philosophers and Wikipedia editors, that reason--an imperfect human faculty and therefore a fallible one--has its limits. I would greatly appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting my views. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't misrepresented a thing. You're the one not even correctly reporting what I said just a few paragraphs up. I said you regard reason as an improper idol which is a completely accurate characterization of what you've said. I.e - you believe that to hold reason as an idol is improper. And just as in saying "Rand treated (reason) as an idol", by using the term "idol" you're inaccurately trying to equate it with religious belief - i.e. divorced from use of one's rational faculties just as with your nonsensically equating predicting the sunrise with religious faith for all the reasons TheDarkOneLives stated. Ayn Rand regarded reason - i.e. the use of man's mind to process the input of his senses to perceive and understand reality and guide his actions - as an absolute. This is not the same as claiming infallibility. When one makes errors, the ONLY way to know this and correct them is through reason. To say otherwise is ludicrous on its face. The foundation of your entire premise is that reason isn't an absolute, that there's something superior to reason. What you've explicitly stated you believe to be superior to reason is mysticism. Of course, how you concluded this is anyone's guess. What business does someone who supposedly genuinely believes this have participating in any forum of thought?TheJazzFan (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Does reason have limits? Well, it won't turn monkeys into sweet potatoes, it won't rearrange the positions of the planets. It so far hasn't enabled the Detroit Lions to establish a football dynasty. It has allowed men to walk on the moon and create the technology that allows you to denounce reason on the internet. It may have "limits", however it's your only choice for using your mind. Whether you abstain from exercising this capacity is of course up to you.TheJazzFan (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)