Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Ayn Rand. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

One other issue arising is the question of the qualification paragraph inserted to provide reasons for criticism of Rand. Overall we have not added context or explanations as to why people support or were influenced by her so in balance I think think this recent addition should just be deleted. If it does stay (and in the spirit of compromise I would accept that), then it needs to be citable rather than OR. For example the text currently says that "many of the criticisms directed towards Rand are not directed with the same hostility towards other philosophers". When a fact tag was added a citation was added which said "It is not so much that academic philosophers are hostile to Objectivist ideas (though they very definitely are) as that they just don't think in that way". There is nothing in the citation to support the statement that other philosophers are treated in a more hostile way. I originally made an edit to simply place the quotations in this section rather than any paraphrase or summary and I still think (other than deletion) that this is the best solution. I know that Idag also expressed some concern about this earlier. Any comments/proposals? --Snowded TALK 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that section should go. Let the criticism stand on their own. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Snowded, please delete that original research. It's unnecessary. J Readings (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion, the material cited, the freeze on the page, the length of this talk page, and the material in that section are all testimony to Rand generating a lot of heat - there is a particular nature to the criticism of Rand. The section needs to stay, but it should be subject the same WP as any other section - anything that might be mistaken for OR needs changing or cites. I appreciate that Snowded is offering to compromise. TallNapoleon, the cultural uproar over Rand IS part of the article. The influence section shows the positive (pro-Rand) influences, and the section dealing with the nature of the criticism explains the anti-Rand critisim. They are notable aspects of Rand's effect. Because removing this would be contentious, I'd also suggest not addressing it any further till those of us working on this article get better at working together - In other words, let's not throw fuel on the fire that we are hoping to put out. --Steve (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, since endorsements of Rand's ideas are not qualified, there should not be a separate section criticizing Rand's criticism. I vote that the section goes. Idag (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The current arguments over the proposed changes to the Influence section resolve around two concerns about intentions that may not be resolvable. One side sees the other as unwilling to remove any name, even if it is not notable or the person was not influenced in any significant fashion - this position is portrayed as being dogmatic in support of Rand to the extent of building a fan page as opposed to an encyclopedia article. The other side to the dispute is seen as containing some who wish to make minor changes involving removing a few names and some changes in appearance, but also containing those who wish to remove as many names as possible, to reduce the perceived influence of Rand, because they dislike her. These pro-Rand, anti-Rand positions are not reconcilable, but it doesn't mean that a working arrangement can't be found. I suggest that we not make further comments on motivations and take an incremental approach to resolve this dispute. Let those who most want to delete names, pick those that they beleive MUST go, and let's agree on a format (sidebar, adjunct article, etc.). Because Rand is not an academic philosopher, and also not a philosopher from the dusty past, her popular influence has been strong and it is a proper, notable aspect for the article to represent. Even if the length of names is reduced, agreement has to be reached on the importance of her powerful popular influence. --Steve (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I invite everyone to list the names here that MUST go, in their opinion, and accepting that the rest will stay (in some form). Let those who disagree, find references and concensus can be invoked to resolve the remaining difference. Then we can address the format. This incremental process will be more likely to build consensus and get things moving. --Steve (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As to Angelina Jolie, she is definitely notable - world-wide, but, when was she influenced? and, to what degree was she influenced? Those are reasonable questions. I suggest removing her name from the Influence section and adding a short bit under the film adaptations section that mentions on-going talks about producing Atlas Shrugged involving her - and quote what she said. --Steve (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the suggestion on Jolie is a good one. On the exclusion/inclusion issue I still prefer the Idag proposal of a short list of major figures with some description of the nature of the influence. On the issue of "popular powerful influence" then getting a third party quote to that effect would be more effective than a list of names. --Snowded TALK 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The format issue would be easier to resolve if the contention level could be dropped by an agreement on the names that MUST go. That is where most of the heat is coming from. If people know that a name isn't being dropped, they become less concerned about where it is being displayed. A good encyclopedia article has lots of tidbits that can be followed up, and these names, when they are notable and were influenced, fit that category. It is much more important to not leave a name out than it is to have a "short" list for the sake of shortness - that would be like throwing away information for a minor aesthetic gain. Do you have a short list of name that MUST go? --Steve (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this would be much easier if we agree on names that must stay. As Jomesacu and I proposed, the list would be pared down to a few names. We have put up the list of people that should stay. By implication, the remaining names would either be moved to the sidebar or removed completely. I suggest we hold off on discussing the composition of the sidebar until we nail down the wording of the main article. Idag (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur --Snowded TALK 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict per SteveWolfer) In addition to the ones already rightfully (in my opinion) slated for removal (i.e., Jolie, Hefner, Torres, Rasmusen, Hessen, Stossel, Vaughn, Ross, Miller, and Levin), I think that another candidate for the chopping block would be (and should be) Jimbo Wales. Jimbo is not an intellectual indebted to Rand (sorry Jimbo) -- I see no evidence of his intellectual debt excluding a brief interview mention by Jimbo himself that claims some influence on Jimbo's "thinking" and "work." It's one thing to say that Friedrich Nietzsche was heavily influenced by the philosophy of Arthur Shopenhauer. It's quite another to create a hagiography in which any vaguely brief mention of Rand by someone suddenly gets included in this encyclopedia entry, thus creating a sprawling list devoid of all meaning. As the old saying goes, "Less is more." If the argument becomes "it's all good" then I would respectfully insist that Prof. Raymond Boisvert's criticism of Rand and her work be re-included using the same "it's all good" thinking. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are moving in the direction of a stalemate. Without some agreement, people attempting to remove cited, valid material will find themselves strongly opposed and the argument going on forever. I ask again, is no one willing to move in incremental stages on this? No one will gain concensus for removing names if the attitude is dump all of them but a few, and we can figure out what, if anything, to do with those dumped sometime later. I strongly oppose that direction. At this point, NO names are "slated" for removal - I am trying to get a consensus. --Steve (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Getting a consensus" does not mean that you get veto power over a proposal that everyone else (with the possible exception of Kjaer) agrees to. If you would like to provide reasons for why a list is more readable than a statement that conveys the list's meaning, please feel free to do so. Idag (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my hope that we can all come to an agreement here - that is what I'm trying to do. Answering your question: I'd say that the article will discuss her influence regardless, and it will provide some names as examples, but if notable people who were influenced are removed, then information has been thrown away. Why throw away information that is pertinent to the section, that is about people that readers find notable. One of the wonders of Wikipedia is that it isn't restricted to just so many column inches like a paper encyclopedia. It is capable of holding that extra 1/2 inches, or so. Also, if we can agree not to delete large numbers of names, it will be easier to get the agreement to delete those that are weak and to make a format change. That is why I'm inviting editors to join in this approach - the other approach wasn't working, it breeds antagonism and extreme positions. --Steve (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should agree on a standard for inclusion rather than just vote on individual names. My idea: If the person is highly notable and has a clearly verified and at least somewhat substantial influence by Rand, they go in the paragraph. For inclusion in a sidebar or bulletted list: (a) Is there a verifiable influence by Rand? (b) If so, do they have a Wikipedia article? (c) If not, is Rand's influence on this person in and of itself notable to Rand's article regardless of the notability of the person in question? I don't expect many/any to pass c, but I feel it's worth inclusion for completeness. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a standard is a good start - but then we need to apply it so as to get the names we can agree on - if our purpose is to get past this deadlock. I would only drop the word "highly" from Jomasecu's description since "highly notable" becomes subjective. To be notable should be enough as long as there is, as he says, clearly verified and significant influence by Rand. To start with, lets not discuss who goes where - that is about format and that discussion will happen easier if we can come to agreement on who stays and who goes. --Steve (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In respect of (b) I think having a wikipedia article is necessary but not sufficient. The individual must be notable in the content of Ayn Rand. So Philosophers, Economists, Authors are obvious as are major public figures. Others are not (my favourite example here is the Baseball team administrator) I think (c) is a good idea but will be interested to see who it covers. Overall this process of inclusion rather than progressive exclusion seems more likely to succeed. Todate neither have been tried so its too soon to make judgements about what isn't working or what might be antagonistic of extreme. Key is to get the core list of truly notable and influenced together with some words. It looked like you (Jomasecu) and Idag were more or less there on that and a draft might be in order? I checked through that against the draft lists I drew up and I can live with any differences. --Snowded TALK 00:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded stated more eloquently what I tried to state above. Philosophers, Economists, and Authors (falling in the notable category, of course) are obvious candidates for inclusion. The others are not, in my view. J Readings (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur. To that end, I suggest Jomasecu's proposed language as a beginning (apparently he had already mentioned individuals that I thought belonged in the list, so I apologize for missing it the first time I read through it)

Rand has had an influence on a number of notable people in different fields. Examples include philosophers such as John Hospers, George H. Smith, Allan Gotthelf, Robert Mayhew and Tara Smith, economists such as George Reisman and Murray Rothbard, psychologists such as Nathaniel Branden, historians such as Eric Daniels, and political and sociological writers such as Charles Murray.

Many other notable individuals have also acknowledged that Rand significantly influenced their lives, including former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, U.S. Congressmen Ron Paul and Bob Barr, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas. Idag (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, concise, informative and balanced. We may be able to shrink the crit section a bit into the same style once this is complete . --Snowded TALK 01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end, the person is or isn't justifiably, verifiably notable with or without an article. If they are notable and were influenced by Rand in a significant way, then they meet the context of this section and no more is required. Without agreement on the application of an agreed upon standard, we don't know which names stay in the article in some form - that needs to be our focus here. That language doesn't address the issue of what is proposed for the other names. That must be addressed. --Steve (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The other names would be excluded from the main article. A few paragraphs higher, Snowded has addressed your reasons for opposing this change. Idag (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By what reason would Tibor Machan or John Stossel be deleted? They have Wikipedia pages, they are notable, they have been significantly influenced by Rand, they even fit the content area (Philosopher and a political journalist/writer). this is why the names should be considered before doing a wholesale deletion that will violate WP and generate ill will. --Steve (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is that I would include Tibor Machan in the text although he is not a philosopher, but Business Economics and West Point. Of course he is also Cato Inst. Stossel I think is too culturally specific in respect of notability but would deserve a place on the longer list. Others may well have a different opinion however. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, thanks for your personal opinion on Dr. Machan. But I am wondering if there is not some Wikipedia Principle upon which we can make such decisions, rather than people's personal opinions? For instance, if you ask any American, he will likely tell you that yes, Pele is a notable soccer player, and that he is not at all a football player. David Beckham might be notable, since he married Posh Spice. But surely you see this is absurd. As it standds, there is no Wikipedia based reason for the proposed changes above. Kjaer (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:People its where I went when I first went through the names. Machan DePodesta may or may not satisfy those criteria in respect of baseball, I leave that to others to decide. However we are talking here of an article about an author (and for some people a philosopher). In that context I don't see how being a baseball administrator makes you notable. Ditto Beckham or Pele. Of course if reading Rand had led them to develop a better way of scoring goals and that was subject to third party citation it might just count. Not sure why you use the "absurd" word in this context. --Snowded TALK 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, that doesn't make sense to me. Tibor Machan doesn't have anything to do with baseball. He is a philosopher, a notable person, notable in appropriate content areas, and strongly influenced by Rand, and this is all easily cited. --Steve (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of correcting when I got an ec. Hope it is clear now (and as you see I would include Machen) --Snowded TALK 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My analogy was meant to clarify. Had you not changed the head under which I posted, perhaps my point would have remained more clear. I repeat, based not upon regional notions of notability, (th epoint of my soccer analogy) or personal opinion, please clarify by what Wikipedia principle you would exclude Dr. Tibor Machan from the article. Kjaer (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing the head under which I posted. You may post elsewehere if you like. Kjaer (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to structure it a bit Kjaer (the headings). As far as I can see I have said three times that I think Tibor Machan should be included. Is there something I have missed? --Snowded TALK 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You say that he is in, but in all of the proposed text, and in all of the proposed lists he was listed as out. When I asked why, you said, he wasn't a philosopher. Can you see why I was confused despite your saying, "My personal view is that I would include Machan in the text although he is not a philosopher"?

I didn't say he was in Steve, I said that in my opinion he should be. Other editors may disagree. If you check he was on my "notable and clearly influenced list". Personally I would call him more of a political/management scientist than a philosopher given his background and responsibilities but others may have a different view. (you missed signing a post by the way) --Snowded TALK 09:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is that I would include Tibor Machan in the text although he is not a philosopher, but Business Economics and West Point. Of course he is also Cato Inst. Stossel I think is too culturally specific in respect of notability but would deserve a place on the longer list. Others may well have a different opinion however. --Snowded TALK 06:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is why it is important to consider these name carefully. Tibor Machan IS a philosopher. He is listed as one here on Wikipedia. He is professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University. He has been lecturing on political philosopy for decades. Machan also writes in the field of ethics and epistemology.

• BA in philosophy - Claremont McKenna College, 1962-1965
• MA in philosophy - New York University, 1965-1966
• Ph.D. in philosophy - University of California—Santa Barbara, 1966-1971

He has over 1,000 hits on Google scholar. He has published 30 single-author books (that I was able to find). Here is just one of those:

• Introduction to Philosophical Inquiries (Allyn & Bacon, 1977; University Press of America, 1985).

He has written 15 edited books that I found. Here is just one of those:

• Political Philosophy: Essential Selections [w/A. Skoble] (Prentice Hall, 1998)

Here are a few of the invited essays or contributed chapters:

• “Human Rights,” in S. J. Fodero, ed., The Academic American Encyclopedia
• “Capitalism,” in J. J. Chambliss, ed., Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia (New York: Garland, 1996)
• “History of Political Philosophy,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 2005, f/c).
• “Property,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 2005, f/c).

And the list of invited papers goes on so long I didn't even want to take the time to count them. Here are a few of those:

• "Epistemology and Moral Knowledge,” Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 36 (1982), pp. 23-49.
• “A Reconsideration of Natural Rights Theory,” American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 19 (1982), pp. 61-72.
• “Moral Myths and Basic Positive Rights,” Tulane Studies in Philosophy, Vol. 33 (1985), pp. 35-41. --Steve (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stossel should be included. He is a notable person. He has a Wikipedia page. Entering "John Stossel" in Google brings up 984,000 hits. He is a best selling, author of several books on politics and popular culture. He is a co-anchor of ABC news, and a co-anchor of 20/20, a major national news program. He writes a widely syndicated column and Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards. Entering "John Stossel" and "Ayn Rand" brings up 13,800 hits on Google. It is easy to find cites that show significant influence. Snowded mentioned that Stossel was "too culturally specific in respect of notability" and I don't understand that. --Steve (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Consider: what if the overriding influence in Stossel's life and work was Immanuel Kant? Would he get a mention under Kant's influence page? Of course not! The place for something like that to go would be on STOSSEL'S page. I'm also in general opposed to the "influenced by" list, because it doesn't explain what the influence is, and thus looks like resume padding for Rand. We should stick to the most important figures--especially in philosophy, politics, and economics, maybe also in art if there are any big names--that have been strongly influenced by her. We should also attempt to briefly summarize just what that influence was in each case we decide to include. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with you on Kant. But this section on Rand is about popular influence and that is appropriate because she has had a very significant popular influence. Any encyclopedia article on Rand that left that out would be remiss. An article on Kant would be remiss if there were no mention of philosophers who were influenced by his work as time went on. Ideas should be followed by the wakes they leave. Kant and Rand don't compare in this respect of popular influence. I agree that the nature of the influence should be briefly mentioned. Discussing the powerful cultural effects that Rand has had is just good reporting, and not 'resume padding' - not if it is done right. Leaving it out altogether would be doing it wrong. --Steve (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to have third party citations i.e. not Rand institutions and apologists, on that "significant popular influence" statement Steve. FAD I am not using apologist in any negative sense here. Her books sell well and the impact is certainly higher in the US than elsewhere; there are a small number of academics for whom there is evidence of influence but I don't see anything that would make her iconic in popular culture. Should such a citation exist it would be better than listing names. --Snowded TALK 10:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we supposed to list everyone who was influenced by Rand? That'd make it as bad as one of the popular culture sections... we have to draw the line somewhere, and as far as I'm concerned the influence she's had on pop culture figures is of minimal concern. If people want to talk about her impact on pop culture, by all means do so, but such a section should not be an indiscriminate list of people she influenced any more than it should be an indiscriminate list of television episodes that mention her. And Snowded, within the United States she's something of a cult figure, and has had a notable impact in popular culture, and has developed fairly significant positive and negative reputations. I wouldn't necessarily call her iconic, but it's still pretty substantial. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK US position noted, but then we need to state that as internationally the position is very different. (I'll do a bit of personal research in Alabama and DC next week but I know that won't count!) Happy to agree substantial if there is a third party source. --Snowded TALK 11:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I note Thomas Aquinas article has no comparable list of people he influenced, despite his having influenced many more people, possibly including Angelina Jolie. Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we don't list everyone who Rand influenced, only those either generally notable or of relevance in their field. The comparison with Aquinas is not very apt. Although see List of Jesuit scientists. See a better comparison with a more contemporary subject of controversy below. Kjaer (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the comparison with St Thomas not very apt? And if there is a List of Jesuit scientists, why isn't there a List of Randian scientists? Or List of Randian philosophers? Peter Damian (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way St Thomas was not a Jesuit, nor could he have been a Jesuit. He was a Dominican. Peter Damian (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is missing the vital first step of verifiability: some reliable sources (ie not Randian websites or blogs) spelling out that these individuals either consider themselves or are considered by other significant sources to have been influenced by Rand. Note that this is critically important as many of the people listed are living, and the information in the article therefore comes under the realm of the WP:BLP. policy. First, verify which of these names can actually be listed here, and then step 2 can be to consider the issues you are discussing above.--Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit to being a bit new to Wikipedia, its processes, editing, and so forth, but how is it that the page for Ayn Rand - a Russian-born, fiction (primarily) writer - contains more "criticism" and "controversial" elements than the page for Che Guevara? I don't ask that rhetorically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.173.98 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A very good question. The Criticism section should deal with actual serious critiques, i.e., thought out scholarly or professional statements that take the subject seriously and make observations based on some theoretical framework. Nozick does just that, offering a philosophical critique in philosophical language. Comments such as those by Chomsky and Buckley, while perhaps of interest, are not critiques, but simple statements of hostile opinion. I suppose Buckley and Chomsky could have offered an actual critique if pressed, but what we have here is unsupported bile. Kjaer (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But at the same time as stating this approach to criticism of Ayn Rand, you are arguing for the inclusion of all names of anyway howsoever influenced. How is this different? You are also making assumptions about the degree of thought which had gone into the comments. Chomsky made the statement in the context about the question of his use of "Libertarian" for example. A moral judgement on Rand is not necessarily unsupported bile and the fact that two respected and notable thinkers from the left and right came to similar conclusions is notable. --Snowded TALK 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm the person who raised this sub-issue of Rand v. Che Guevara yesterday. Thank you for your responses. I feel that I didn't do a good job of asking my question. First, let me mention that I care not at all about Che Guevara, one way or another. But here's my question: how is it that Che Guevara, who (I believe I'm right on this, let me know if I'm not) actually executed people, receives less "criticism" and "controversy" than Ayn Rand? There isn't even a section under Che Guevara mentioning "criticism" or "controversy." Conversely, here we have a Russian-born, self-taught, fiction writer who is has a not-insignificant amount of her Wikipedia page devoted to criticism and controversy. I have no ill will towards Che Guevara, and I have no loyalty to Rand. I simply don't understand - non-rhetorically, non-hyperbole - how Ayn Rand is treated with such overt hostility while someone like Che Guevara is treated with such overt joy and homage. Again, thanks for your comments earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.173.98 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are always free to go and edit that page. Balance requires both cited praise and blame. --Snowded TALK 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that executing people is clearly wrong, and criticism of it is usually not especially notable, and criticism of it need not have such detailed reasoning behind it. Harksaw (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a convention that wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. In a parallel way, it is also perhaps not a good idea to use the relative content of different parts of, say, article A to guide article B's content, except perhaps in the case of Featured Articles, where looking at what seems to be present in Featured Articles can sometimes give hints and clues as to what may be required in other articles. However, even in these cases, we must be extremely cautious as what is good for one article need not always be good for another. In the case of Che Guevara, it is not (now) a featured article, and the absence of criticism is noted and is a current point of discussion on Talk:Che Guevara (see the opening templates on the talk page as well). In which case, I don't think one can hold that article up as a model to which this article should strive to become: the possible deficits in articles (such as Che Guevara) need to be dealt with by attending to those articles directly rather than believing that other articles (such as this one) should be made more like them. In this one respect, perhaps the question ought to be asked on Talk:Che Guevara why it is not more like the Ayn Rand article as it is now?  DDStretch  (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Che Guevara was an influence on Angelina Jolie, so perhaps you are not far from the truth. Peter Damian (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again. Worry not; this will be my last intrusion into this topic. Thanks again for your responses to my question. Snowded - That's a neat sentence you wrote, but it doesn't answer my question, and it also appears insincere and placating as both the Rand and the Che Guevara pages are protected from editing best I can tell. Harksaw - I would like to hire you as my criminal defense attorney if I ever need one. DDStetch - Thank you for taking the time to respond as you did. You make your point well, and I agree; entries shouldn't necessarily be compared as I compared Rand and Che Guevara. I guess the beauty and the tragedy of Wikipedia is that it is at the mercy of the populous, and apparently the populous would prefer to spend more time criticizing a fiction writer than a murderer who mugs well for middle schoolers' tee shirts. Peter Damian - Quite funny. Not exactly sure what you were driving at, but I think I get your point. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.173.98 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets compare someone more recent than Aquinas. How is this list of Honorary Degrees of Chomsky's any more notable than Rand's influence on the world's biggest box office draw, who wants the starring role in Atlas Shrugged? Kjaer (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Academic achievements, awards and honors In the spring of 1969, he delivered the John Locke Lectures at Oxford University; in January 1970 he delivered the Bertrand Russell Memorial Lecture at University of Cambridge; in 1972, the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi; in 1977, the Huizinga Lecture in Leiden; in 1988 the Massey Lectures at the University of Toronto titled "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies". In 1997, The Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom in Cape Town,^[1] among many others.^[2]

Chomsky has received many honorary degrees from universities around the world, including the following:

University of London University of Chicago Loyola University of Chicago Swarthmore College University of Delhi Bard College University of Massachusetts University of Pennsylvania Georgetown University Amherst College University of Cambridge

University of Buenos Aires McGill University Universitat Rovira i Virgili Columbia University Villanova University University of Connecticut University of Maine Scuola Normale Superiore University of Western Ontario University of Toronto Harvard University

Universidad de Chile University of Bologna Universidad de la Frontera University of Calcutta Universidad Nacional de Colombia Vrije Universiteit Brussel Santo Domingo Institute of Technology Uppsala University University of Athens University of Cyprus

He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. In addition, he is a member of other professional and learned societies in the United States and abroad, and is a recipient of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award of the American Psychological Association, the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, the Dorothy Eldridge Peacemaker Award, the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science, and others.^[3] He is twice winner of The Orwell Award, granted by The National Council of Teachers of English for "Distinguished Contributions to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language"^[4]

He is a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Department of Social Sciences.^[5]

Chomsky is a member of the Faculty Advisory Board of MIT Harvard Research Journal.

In 2005, Chomsky received an honorary fellowship from the Literary and Historical Society.

In 2007, Chomsky received The Uppsala University (Sweden) Honorary Doctor's degree in commemoration of Carolus Linnaeus.^[6]

In February 2008, he received the President's Medal from the Literary and Debating Society of the National University of Ireland, Galway.

Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. He reacted, saying "I don't pay a lot of attention to polls".^[7] In a list compiled by the magazine New Statesman in 2006, he was voted seventh in the list of "Heroes of our time".^[8]

I don't understand this at all. My point was that, in the article on St Thomas, there is no list of people that St Thomas influenced, even though he influenced many people, including possibly Angelina Jolie. Nor is there any list, in the article on Chomsky, of the people that Chomsky influenced. So I don't see the relevance of this. Nor is there a List of Chomskyan scientists. So what are you talking about? Are you mad? Peter Damian (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oh pardon me there is a section Aquinas#Modern_influence which does include three people that Aquinas influenced. But none of these is Angelina Jolie. Nor would that be appropriate. If you are writing about influences, you are typically writing about people belonging to a certain school that was influenced, or the school itself. So you wouldn't in include Angelina Jolie, unless she herself had contributed in a notable way to the tradition of Aquinas' thought. So I am deeply puzzled by this. Is the purpose to make Ayn Rand herself seem more notable? But then why would including Angelina Jolie's name help that cause? It might make me take her far less seriously. For example, if the article on Wittgenstein said that Wittgenstein had been a notable influence on Angelina Jolie, that would cast Wittgenstein in quite a different light, wouldn't it? Or perhaps it would suggest that the author of the article was a barking lunatic, eh Kjaer? Peter Damian (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I would probably pare down that thing from the Chomsky article, too. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would again point everyone to the Immanuel Kant article for an example of a good influence section. The section does not contain a gigantic list of every single person who Kant influenced, but is instead limited to the major people. Also, for each person listed, it discusses that person and cites a verifiable third party source instead of just chucking a name at the reader. Idag (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like there is a majority for a "Kant" approach as opposed to "Chomsky" (and I agree with TallNapoleon that a similar pairing down might be appropriate). However even then it is different. This is a verifiable list of awards by institutions not a list of names influenced. --Snowded TALK 07:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have agreement on this? And now Jimbo is "watching" can he confirm (notability not disputed) the influence or otherwise of Rand on him? --Snowded TALK 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we do not, Kant as opposed to Chomsky is not a Wikipedia principle. See above.Kjaer (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there's a consensus to call Rand a philosopher in the first sentence without qualification? It seems to me that that expresses a POV rather than reporting a fact. Usually, we call people philosophers (or economists etc) only when they're regarded as such by other philosophers.

So far I've found only one print philosophy encyclopedia with an entry on Rand, and it was written by a political scientist, not a philosopher (Chandran Kukathas in the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Douglas Den Uyl is a philosopher who's written a book about her — The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand — and even he acknowledges that she isn't really recognized within academic circles. [1]

Would it be more neutral and more accurate to call her a political theorist?

Also, some of the sources in this article are a little odd e.g. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue is done and settled see the archives. It would be bizarre to call he a political theorist. She wrote a book on aesthetics called The Romantic Manifesto, supplemented by her Art of Fiction. She wrote a monograph entitled Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which deals with her theory of Universals. She had a philosophical system with positions on every major issue in every major branch. And she said: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. This – the supremacy of reason – was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism." Kjaer (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Kjaer, point taken. I think calling her a philosopher as though it's a fact is an NPOV violation, as she's largely not regarded as a philosopher by other philosophers, or at least wasn't when I last checked, which admittedly was a few years ago, so maybe things have changed. Also, these issues are never "done and settled" on Wikipedia. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While Kjaer is correct in that we should be cautious in using non-featured articles as examples for this article, when another article has a very well-written section, that article can still serve as an example. The Influence section in the Immanuel Kant article is clearly superior to the one in this article, which makes it a good example. Idag (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One measure of notability and influence is how much space a philosopher is given in an important reference work. In SEP citations, Rand comes sadly at the very bottom of a list of influential philosophers. Aristotle I am glad to say is still easily the top.

• Aristotle 974
• Kant 683
• Locke 390
• Wittgenstein 302
• Aquinas 290
• Quine 289
• Geach 108
• Goodman 106
• ockham 101
• Ayn Rand 7

Measured by kilobytes in the imporant reference work Wikipedia, the natural order of things seems almost reversed:

• Kant 103k
• Ayn Rand 87k
• Wittgenstein 82k
• Aristotle 66k
• Aquinas 49k
• Locke 33k
• Quine  ??
• Geach ??
• Goodman ??
• Ockham ??

(The last 4 were so small I couldn't find out the size). Peter Damian (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In the earlier days of Wikipedia it was often argued that this was a temporary state of affairs and that as new editors arrived and added material, the natural balance would be restored. It seems not. I am not a little disturbed by the effect this is having in a world where everyone has free access to 'knowledge'. Peter Damian (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"One measure of notability and influence is how much space a philosopher is given in an important reference work" - says who? It's a hopelessly simplistic measure by any standard and thus must be original research; as you said to Jimbo, "bollocks", or if you prefer, WP:PROVEIT. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not entirely unreasonable as a starting point to look for interesting imbalances of coverage. I doubt if the talk page of this article is the right place for this discussion, but here we are, so I have a quick question. How did you get the data on coverage in Wikipedia? It seems to me to be flatly wrong. Our article on Quine for example, seems to me to be not "so small" that we can't find out the size.

Peter, if the point of your exercise is supposed to be criticism of how much coverage we have of Rand, I think it's pretty unpersuasive. Rand was not just a philosopher, she was a best selling novelist, and cultural phenomenon in her own right. So while I think the exercise is somewhat interesting, at least in Rand's case, it would seem to me to be misleading.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To Rod, the measure of SEP is far from perfect, but it roughly coincides with any reasonable and informed person's judgment about the relative importance of these philosophers. To Jimbo: the article on Rand clearly begins with the statement that she is a ‘philosopher’. I would have called her a ‘novelist-philosopher’ but as is well known on this page if you attempt some statement of the truth, out comes some evil-smelling troll from the woods and changes it back and then there is a ghastly edit war with people being clubbed to death. No reasonable person would endure this, and thus … By the way, I apologise for the word ‘bollocks’ and have altered it to something less offensive Peter Damian (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether she should be called "novelist-philosopher" or just "philosopher" is an interesting one to be sure. (I happen to agree with you that novelist-philosopher makes more sense.) But it has little to do with the question of how long this article should be. My point is that Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a specialist encyclopedia, and so we should not expect our coverage percentages to approximate theirs in cases like this, where someone is of general interest and of philosophical interest. As an aside, I see no reason for you to be so hostile in so many of your remarks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think an encyclopedia of philosophy would be expected to give substantial coverage to philosophers. There's also academic bias to consider. But let's not forget that Ayn Rand is an influential author and this is a general encyclopedia. It seems to me that statistics are like opinions, and you know what opinions are like? Robert Pirsig should have a large entry here also. He's not considered among the great philosophers of all times. But his book is one of the most influential works that deals with philosophical issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The relative size of the article points toward one thing, not removing information, but splitting the article into sub articles. I have suggested this repeatedly.

One of the purposes of Wikipedia is comprehensiveness. It is an aspect of Wikipedia that is special and well beloved. For example, for years, I had searched the internet in vain for a phrase I had heard in one of Heinlein's books, the "Pauper's oath." For perhaps ten years I had searched for this in vain. Where did I find it? Wikipedia. That was one of the main impetuses in my deciding to edit here. (Please don't blame the article.) And it is my main reason for opposing deletionism, especially deletionism based upon personal aesthetic preferences and upon personal opinions of the merit of a topic. I remind people of a banner which tops this talk page - this is not the place for criticisms of Rand and her philosophy. So, if it were perhaps stated that Rand was a major influence of Chomsky, that could be opposed on factual grounds. But this continued discussion of whether to delete references to Angelina Jolie because she is in the opinion of certain editors a "mere" movie star is simply not germane. In that case, notability and verifiability prevail. Consider the reference to Sinan Çetin in the popular influence list. Who is he? The name is as unfamiliar to me as it appearsJohn Stossel's is in Wales. I checked, in the spirit of good faith, to see if he might be a candidate for exclusion. But lo and behold! I was educated. Ayn Rand has influential fans in Turkey, and they even vote for the AK! That party which I had read was the bastion of militant fundamentalists. I read and learned about the AK, and it opened my opinion! That is the glory of Wikipedia. It is not limited by the weight of paper volumes, or by the personal opinions of editors who would rather exclude or ignore certain topics. By all means let us challenge the false. But let us not exclude the truth without damn good reason. Kjaer (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography reached such Perfection that the map of one Province alone took up the whole of a City, and the map of the empire, the whole of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps did not satisfy, and the Colleges of Cartographers set up a Map of the Empire which had the size of the Empire itself and coincided with it point by point. Less Addicted to the Study of Cartography, Succeeding Generations understood that this Widespread Map was Useless and not without Impiety they abandoned it to the Inclemencies of the Sun and of the Winters. In the deserts of the West some mangled Ruins of the Map lasted on, inhabited by animals and Beggars; in the whole Country there are no other relics of the Disciplines of Geography." --Jorge Luis Borges

We cannot include anything; encyclopedias, like maps, are meant to summarize concisely. Attempting to list everyone--even everyone notable--who was influenced by Rand in some way shape or form, inside this page or not, is neither feasible nor desirable. This kind of radical inclusionism leads to monstrosities like Adolf Hitler in popular culture--huge, sprawling trivia pages, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And let's be perfectly clear here: this list signifies nothing, because it does not say a single, solitary word about the nature of the influence Rand had on those cited. Is it just that they really liked her books, as seems to be the case with Mark Cuban? Or is it that she significantly shaped their outlooks, which had a major impact on their actions, as is the case with Alan Greenspan.

I will ask again: are we to list every person--even every notable person--who was influenced by Immanuel Kant? And if we are to do this for the Rand page, then why shouldn't we include the criticisms of Rand that have been so summarily dismissed as "bilious"? Finally, I would also like to remind everyone here that inclusionism is not Wikipedia policy. We pick and choose what we believe is most notable, because we do not want to end up like Borges' cartographers. To be useful, Wikipedia articles must be concise, which means they must be defined as much by what it excludes as by what it includes. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mr.Damian: the article could use a trim. It's way too long, and points are belabored to an annoying degree. Entire sections are devoted to subjects which could simply be a sentence in a more universal section. The "Legacy" section is a fine example of this, as numerous sub-sections are created to discuss minor points about little-known and fringe organizations devoted to Rand. Significant space is devoted to discussions on the aims and policies of these marginal groups. I would basically suggest cutting out a lot of the propaganda and what-not in favor of a more orderly and structured discussion on her writings. This alone will cut down on the size of the article a great deal, as Rand's world-views can be easily formulated in just a sentence or two. In short, there are far too many sections and sub-sections which do not convey useful or meaningful information. It's a waste of wiki space in my opinion. CABlankenship (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a lot of articles tend to get overloaded with unencyclopedic trivialities, and I give thanks that The Simpsons or Family Guy have not (as far as I know) sought comedic inspiration from Ayn Rand; my problem is that I spend far too much time writing as opposed to reading, and as a philosopher, her works have passed me by. Having said that, if a popular culture outlet points towards deeper issues, I don't have a problem with that, and properly directed and sourced "Cultural References" may be valuable in expanding the experience and education of our younger readers. The problem in this regard, though, is original research in that whereas knowledgeable editors may realise the references, unless anyone else has done so, and reliably, we are stuck. But to CABlankenship, yes, minor influences should be pruned. Should they become major, they are replaceable. --Rodhullandemu 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it notes that the Rand article is a featured article on the Hebrew Wiki. As we can see, it's quite short and to the point: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%93 I believe the editors here should go for a similar length. CABlankenship (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that although I think the question of how long this article should be is not settled by Peter's argument by reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I am not arguing that it is too long or too short. I haven't even looked at the actual article, I'm just discussing the general argument about how we should approach comparative metrics to other works, a question I find quite interesting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of this debate relates to another controversial article Objectivism (An Rand which deals with the various ideas that arose from Rand and her associates thinking. There we have a general issue in that Rand has been largely ignored by the philosophy community. One of the few main line Philosophers who wrote about her, while accepting many of her ideas more or less dismissed her philosophical thinking. Otherwise we have work from philosophers in Rand based institutes, the odd funded position (Texas) and several respectable Economists and Political Scientists with Philosophy in their background. There are enough to support the statement that she is (at least for Wikipedia) a philosopher but the general sparsity of evidence, and its almost total US centricitiy do not argue for any major emphasis. As a novelist (internationally) and as an influencer of a part of the Libertarian movement in the US she is clearly notable. The issue of comparable lengths indicates the nature of wikipedia, its about interest and there are some people who care a lot about this and related argument. Enthusiasm builds Wikipedia articles, criticism improves NPOV and the current debates here are about working out that balance.

This whole discussion strikes me as radically elitist. If the articles on philosophers are too short expand them. Trying to recategorize Ayn Rand or to suggest she isn't notable because the academic elites don't have a high opinion of her is silly. When the Ivy Leaguers start selling millions of books and maintain an international, multi-generational following and exert substantial real world influence, it will be a lot easier to add to their articles. Until then they'll have to be content with their insular world of unaccountable tenure as opposed to the meritocracy the rest of us inhabit. Should they even be considered philosophers? :) People actually read John Paul Sartre and Plato. If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, or cares, does it make a noise? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, people actually read John Paul Sartre and Plato (though I expect pretty few of the general public), and they are studied in academic philosophy - because they are regarded as philosophers by other philosophers. People actually read Rand, yet she is not studied in academic philosophy, because she is not. Selling millions of books and being influential (to a list of people many of whom I've never heard of, FWIW) doesn't make you a philosopher, any more than it makes you a dentist - it makes you a successful writer. The only people qualified (literally, with appropriate qualifications and expertise) to assess whether someone else is a proper philosopher is another philosopher, and these days almost all philosophers happen to be academics; for in the modern world there is not another route to becoming a professional philosopher, and by definition, if you're not professional you're an amateur, and likely to be amateurish with it.

For what it's worth, I have two philosophy degrees (though I am not a professional philosopher), and I'd never heard of Rand before coming across this article. It seems to me that the role of Wikipedia is not to champion people who some Wikipedians - most of whom are amateurs in the subject matter in question - feel have been unjustly ignored in their fields. That is the role of experts (qualified professionals) in those fields: no doubt if Rand is a decent philosopher, then sooner or later she will be recognised as such by and start being championed by a number of philosophers, and will eventually be heralded as a true genius. (Though I suspect that day will never, ever come.) Ben Finn (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Larry Sanger is a professional philosopher - has anyone asked him whether he thinks Rand counts as a philosopher? ;) Ben Finn (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So someone who paints for a living but holds no professional degree in painting is not an artist? Or someone whose paintings other painters do not like is not an artist? Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone has two degrees in philosophy, but has never come across Rand that is a testament to academic bias and generally I would refrain from advertising my being ignorant of something so significant in my field of "expertise". I don't mean to be rude, but if someone hasn't heard of the people who have been influenced by her writings and philosophy they need to get out more. This encyclopedia doesn't require that people with advanced degrees be the ones to write articles. Thank goodness, if that were the case I suspect the encyclopedia would be wholly unreadable and largely worthless. Have you read the nonsense that passes as "academic" papers these days? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion is interesting, it is pretty much irrelevant to edits that need to be made on this article. Would anyone object to moving it to Wikiproject philosophy? Idag (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree the focus should be on article improvements. Let's hope future discussion is related to sourcing and content without the distraction of personal and professional agenda advocacy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So, now that the article is unprotected I removed the bit about Buckley's Catholicism. It doesn't really flow right, and people can find out all about that on his page. What Buckley is most notable for is founding the National Review, and a big part of what he was trying to do was to rid the conservative movement of the "kooks"--a category which he believed included Ayn Rand. There is a great deal of material about Rand and Buckley available that should be able to provide a richer context than just implying that he didn't like her because she was Catholic. Rand actually figured into a novel he wrote about the early days of the conservative movement, and he discusses her fairly extensively in this interview. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand and he had a longstanding feud with her saying he was too smart to believe in god. It's quite relevant and sourced. If you'd like, it could be expanded to explain the relevance. Don't remove it. If you want it expanded, let me know. Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

None of the secondary sources state that Buckley's criticism was motivated by the feud. Idag (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know that is not the root of the feud, either. Buckley thought Rand and Robert Welch were kooks, and believed that for the conservative movement to succeed they would have to be excluded. And having read the refs, the only way you can reach that conclusion is by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that other editors read the interview linked to by TallNapoleon, as it contains some interesting context for Buckley's criticism of Rand. Some of it could go into the article. CABlankenship (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This statement needs to be put where it belongs, under criticism, not response to criticism. Are we going to have a response to the response to the response to criticism section? Also, who is gary merrill, other than someone with a web page? His notability should be explained, or he should be removed as undue weight. Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Merrill's criticism was notable enough to be included on the Objectivism Reference Center's webpage.[3] As for location, a separate section that's a response to criticism is superfluous, IMO, but if we're going to have a section like that, it should also include qualifications. Idag (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the flag removed? Should I add Seddon's review of Nyquist as a response? Nyquist's reliability as a self-published author has been questioned. If the flag comes down, then the Seddon response will go up. Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, wouldn't one good way to shorten the article be to create a criticism of Ayn Rand article? Kjaer (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to be very careful with that, as it would be easy to create a POV fork. Would you like to make a Sandbox proposal? Idag (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected the article. Can I suggest that reversion of material from editors who have been discussing the matter here prior to discussing the advisability of its placement is not helpful at all. Yes, I know it is allowed by wikiepdia rules, but to start to do this again on the part of one editor is just helping create an atmosphere where there is no assumption of good faith (again). I do not expect to see this behaviour again. Kjaer: you need to raise the issues BEFORE you revert people from now on, and guage the responses. You seem to having serious WP:OWNership problems with this article. To the others: please discuiss adding or editing material more prior to editing the article. The history of the edit-warring on this article means that it is especially important to be extremely careful about this when one is dealing with edits made by established editors who disagree on this very talk page. From now on, you need to get consensus (which is not the same as unanimous) agreement for changes that are to be made on the article. The first job should now be to discuss the edits that happened today to see whether they should be re-established.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed all the details of this but it looks very much like fringe-friendly Wikipedia again. An admin steps in to protect against 'edit warring' when the real problem is fringe editors messing up articles. Just ban these people. Peter Damian (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators cannot ban people: they may institute blocks, but they are rather different animals. I have warned Kjaer here about reversions being made of established editors' edits without discussing them in advance, and pointed out that the history of this article means that any changes other editors want to make should be discussed prior to implementing them. That is sufficient for now.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Indef block is easy. Peter Damian (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is merely a wrangle over terminology, but some get very heated about it. Admins can institute indef blocks, but in this case, I think it would be quickly overturned. Bans are community-based banishments, in effect; and by definition cannot be done on the decision of a single administrator. As I said, just a game of definitions, but some think it is important.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the full-protect. Most of the editors of this article, have agreed on a set of edits that are necessary for its improvement. Kjaer and Steve are the only editors who disagree (the need to change the Nature of Criticism section was discussed above and Kjaer was the only person who disagreed). Full-protect is an extreme remedy that is unnecessary here where there is a general consensus and only two editors are being obstinate. Idag (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I will review the matter and get back to you all about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've unprotected it; sorry for the wrong decision here. I do think Kjaer was wrong to revert the edits without prior discussion, given the history of edit-warning, and the fact that he has been blocked for edit-warring before. Let the changes be reimplemented if it is certain that they are the correct way to proceed. Can I suggest that if they reimplemented, they must not be reverted without discussion and agreement that they should be reverted again here.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Does my restoring the relevant cited qualification of Buckley, which had indeed been discussed between myself and Snowden count as a reversion? I should think deleting a sourced comment counts as a reversion at least as much as restoring it. I added back in the relevant sourced remarks on Buckley and moved - did not delete - the gary merrill comment, which was a criticism, from "response to criticism" to "criticism".

As for Buckley, simply presenting his stillborn remark without qualification, as if he were a neutral disintersted party, is quite misleading. Read the citations. Rand and he had a long standing feud due to her hostility to his religion and his to her atheism. We can expand this if necessary. Kjaer (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded and I both disagreed with your treatment of the citation in the Nature of the Criticism section. Just because you discussed it does not give you license to keep it when every other editor disagrees with you. As for moving the other cite, the Nature of the Criticism section heavily discusses Rand's treatment by the academia. The sentence I added provides an alternative cited reason for why the academia has dismissed Rand. I will restore to my last edit so that we can discuss the relevant changes. Idag (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Buckley, Kjaer's proposed edits violate WP:Synth and the language is so full of weasel words that its borderline libel (if Buckley was still alive). Idag (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. We cannot get into the position where every critic of Rand has some motivation ascribed to them (Chomsky is an activist, Buckley is a Catholic). Unless there is clear and direct third party (not a Rand site) citation its just plain wrong. If there was a debate between Buckley ad Rand then that could be notable (if referenced) but should be elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My friend Bill Vallicella has some excellent criticisms of Rand in his blog: on her misunderstanding of Kant and on whether she was a good philosopher (clearly not). Sadly of course it is a blog ergo an 'unreliable source'. But that is a classic problem of fighting the fringe on Wikipedia. Reliable sources rarely discuss unreliable sources. Peter Damian (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not including blogs is a problem that encourages fringe content? I beg to differ. It seems your argument is based largely on your rejection of the accolades and recognition Ayn Rand and her works have recieved in the mainstream. May I be so bold as to suggest you and your friends in the academic fringe may simply be out of touch and ignorant of the importance and significance of philosophical subjects. This appears to me to be a classic case of Ivory Tower syndrome. Maybe you should spend more time among the plebes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It is not a case of elitism. She was simply a very bad philosopher. Vallicella finds 4 logical errors in a single sentence. Rand argues, in effect: A. If some facts are not necessary, but contingent, then B. No fact is necessary. Therefore C. Nothing is certain. Therefore D. Anything goes. Each of these inferences is invalid. It is a contingent fact that there are nine planets, but it is not a contingent fact that water is H2O. So B does not follow from A. Nor does B entail C. Necessity is not the same property as certainty. The fact that I am now thinking is not necessary,but it is certain: see Descartes. Finally, C does not entail D. If nothing is known with certainty, it does not follow that there are no absolute truths; what follows is merely that we who hold them hold them fallibly. Go back home and do some homework, do some proper philosophy, which requires hard work, and is nothing to do with sitting in ivory towers. Come back when you have learned something useful Peter Damian (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you can use William Vallicella's self-published blog as a source on philosophy under our policy, WP:V. He need only be regarded as a specialist in his field, and he must have been previously published in that field by reliable third-party sources. Both of those seem to apply here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

However, it is clearly an opinion piece and should be treated as such. Also note that you have taken some of it out of context. Rand did not argue that "nothing is certain" or that "anything goes". Those concepts are in fact quite antithetical to her views. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it. A cast iron reliable source Anthony Quinton writing in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, in the article Popular philosophy. He defines 3 kinds: general guidance about life, amateur considerations of standard philosophy, and philosophical popularisation. Rand falls into the second class. He says 'amateur philosophy presupposes the existence of professional philosophy to define itself against'. Amateur philosophy is the creation of the 19th century with its mass literacy and self-eduation. He mentions Herbert Spencer, J.H. Stirling. In the 20th century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print; most of them languish in typescript and photocopy (Quinton was writing just before the Internet, and Wikipedia). But there are, he says, the works of LL Whyte and George Melhuish (a truly terrible philosopher, the latter) and 'in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest'. There you go. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to add the page numbers to the ref you edited in? In general, there are some references throughout the article that need some attention as well so that the relevant places can be more easily found, and some web-based references are not complete.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth including a bit about how academics and scholarly philosophers whose works go largely unread and unrecognized, and who are almost uniformly leftist politically, don't like Ayn Rand. I hope you'll quote this fellow, his writing makes for wonderful reading and is a good indication of why Ayn Rand is notable and he not especially so. I imagine it must have taken him many years of careful study and practice to state something so simple in such a complex and pedantic manner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added edition and date and page number to the OCP ref Peter Damian (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Lord Quinton is a conservative philosopher and was made a baron by Margaret Thatcher. Not really a leftist. Vallicella, whom I mentioned above, is a well-known conservative philosopher. Attention to and respect for logic are irrelevant to political divide Peter Damian (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And the only Libertarian Philosopher to write about her, Nozick while supporting her politics does is a critic of her philosophical capability. --Snowded TALK 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing in Quinton's article suggesting he's conservative or that his work has been especially notable. Apparently he did have some notoriety as a quiz show host. I think his criticism might be more appropriate to an article on Alex Trebek? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are using Wikipedia as an authoritative source on philosophy - the only encyclopedia that rates Ayn Rand higher than Aristotle? Next, you will be arguing against citation of Aristotle. What next. Peter Damian (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I have heard of the philosopher Anthony Quinton, I hadn't heard of Rand in any capacity. In this statistical sample of one, he is more notable than she. ;) Ben Finn (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lancelot_Law_Whyte has his own entry, it seems. George Melhuish sadly doesn't, but wrote the excellent Death and the Double Nature of Nothingness Peter Damian (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the section in accordance with the discussion above. While I've probably missed a major philosopher or two, let's avoid turning this section into the giant list that it was before. I'm also hoping that we can elaborate on Rand's influence for each of the figures that are included in the current list. Idag (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This section should go. Here's why. Rand's philosophy is about Rand. Rand's critics are responding to Rand. The people responding to Rand's critics are neither Rand, nor responding to Rand. Furthermore, it reads like an attempt to water down the criticism section. It should go. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Idag (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, and its mostly OR. The statements do not match the source. --Snowded TALK 20:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not. Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This section needs to be pared down dramatically... I would argue that Rand's views on race, homosexuality and gender simply aren't that important for the sake of this article, and maybe deserve one-line explanations rather than whole subsections. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As per the dictionary: "am⋅a⋅teur   /ˈæməˌtʃʊər, -tʃər, -tər, ˌæməˈtɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-uh-choor, -cher, -ter, am-uh-tur] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional. "

I know philosophers are talented contortionists of logic, but until they rewrite the dictionary we shouldn't be adding falsehoods to this article. Rand was clearly a professional in her literary and philosophical pursuits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CoM, I reverted your edit, because "amateur" is precisely the term that the source, Anthony Quinton in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, uses of her. We should perhaps look to see whether the others he classifies in the same way are called philosophers by Wikipedia: C.G. Stone, L.L. Whyte, George Melhuish, James Hinton, the eighth duke of Argyll, A.J. Balfour. Had she been regarded as a philosopher proper, she'd have been given her own entry, rather than being mentioned under "popular philosophy." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

George Melhuish was my landlord when I was a student in Bristol in the 1980's. He was very sweet, but a terrible philosopher. And as SV says, 'amateur' is precisely the term that Quinton uses. Peter Damian (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And, correct, Rand is not mentioned in the very authoritative Oxford Companion. Quinton was on the editorial board. He was made a baron for his services to education. Peter Damian (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be partly a USA/UK difference thing, but only in part: I certainly know of Quinton more than I know of Rand, and I strongly suspect he might be more prominent in the UK than the USA, and that he is probably more prominent that Rand in the UK. If asked, I would certainly state without hesitation that Anthony Quinton was a philosopher who ended up being largely, popularly known for his contributions to "Round Britain Quiz"though, as Peter states, he is known for his contributions to education as well. However, I am a UK person, and I did study philosophy at university (though not as the main degree subject), and have worked on the boundaries of that field subsequently within academia.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal of amateur. The arguments against calling her a philosopher or for calling her an amateur have thus far been that she was a bad philosopher. A bad sports team is still composed of professional sports players. As to the source, it sounds to me that it is expressing an opinion, and using "amatuer" to mean "bad". Other sources reffed also are quoted calling her a "writer and philosopher". Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the citations (third party)? The original position was that "philosopher" was accepted but was always qualified as something disputed. It may be time to sort this out. --Snowded TALK 22:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Concise Routledge encyclopedia of Philosophy (2000 edition) has for her entry: "Ayn Rand was a Russian-born US novellist and philosopher who exerted considerable influence in the conservative and libertarian intellectual movements in the post-war USA. Rand's ideas were expressed mainly through her novels; she set forth a view of morality as based in rational self-interest and in political philosophy defended an unrestrained form of capitalism." It is written by Chandran Kukathas, and references a book: Den Uyl, D.J. and Rassmussen, D. (eds) (1984). The philosophic thought of Ayn Rand Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Just thought I'd add that as extra information. For myself, if I need or want to, I tend to look at the Oxford Companion more than the Routledge.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned that source above, DD, and noted that Kukathas is himself not a philosopher.

Amateur simply means that she wasn't paid by anyone to be a philosopher, which used to be the case for almost all philosophers, of course, but nowadays people are called philosophers only when paid to be such. We have to go by what the reliable sources within the field say, and it's clear that other philosophers don't regard her as a philosopher. Added to which, if you read e.g. this, you'll see how far we'd be stretching things to call her a philosopher. She seems to feel, for example, that Kant was evil, and that "[f]or some two hundred years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his confidence in the power of reason."

Agree, and read Vallicella's scathing view of her misunderstanding-of-kant Peter Damian (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If people don't want to use the term "amateur philosopher," we could simply leave out philosopher entirely, and add something to the lead about how the extent to which her writing could be regarded as philosophy is controversial, or something like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The sources are always going to be split on this. The best solution is to put "writer + philosopher", with the latter qualified by academic criticisms of her philosophy (which is, and I speak as a sympathiser, not terribly coherent). Moreschi (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The citation that is there says, "identifies her as 'writer and philosopher.' She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a 'philosopher,'."

So even the citation that is currently used confirms that she was a writer and philosopher. It strikes me as a contortion of logic to try and argue that her profession was something else, and I don't think she made her living as a college professor as many "philosophers" do, so writer and philosopher seems quite accurate and there's no doubt about what her profession was. We don't mischaracterize people based on our personal preferences and selective sources. Or we shouldn't anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

She was an amateur in the sense that she didn't make a living from publishing academic philosophy - which is the only kind there is. CofM your recent edits and comments here amount to trolling, and are damaging the efforts of those who are trying to turn this into something resembling an encyclopedia. Can you stop please. Peter Damian (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, people. This is a bona fide debate, albeit over a minor point, so we need to conduct it civilly. Re some other points, she may not have made a living from academic philosophy strictly speaking, but heck, why did people buy her books? Rand's great plots? Or Rand's stirring defense of libertarianism? Methinks the latter. It's worth nothing that Friesian has a (pretty cutting) page on her as a philosopher, while also praising her basic point. Moreschi (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(many c/e and a reply to SlimVirgin) Ah, sorry" I missed that. My own view is that she was a novellist first, and that amateur philospher to additionally describe her is fair.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While I have the highest regard for your views, :) that's inconsistent with what the sources say and the definition of amateur. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way about the "amateur" label. I think her situation is a little like Iris Murdoch, for example, though Murdoch did have the extra factor of formally studied philosophy as well as publishing formal philosophy critiques (of Sartre, for example), which is what has veered me to using "amateur" (for Rand: added afterwards for clarity!). Of course, Murdoch is also probably better known in the UK than the USA (as I commented about Quinton, above.)  DDStretch  (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Murdoch took post-graduate studies in philosophy, and taught philosophy at Oxford for 15 years. She wrote the first book in English on Sartre. She became better known as a novelist, to be sure, but she was a philosopher first. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! This difference is what primarily what veers me always back to using "amateur" when this is discussed. In fact, I think my views are becoming a bit more strong about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there is doubt as to if she is a philosopher and most Philosophical Directories that I checked do not even mention her. As a novelist her notability is clear, as a philosopher are evidence is slight and in the main narrow (from what I have seen) more linked to political ideology than philosophy. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Slim Virgin, however in place of amateur you might use self styled or self appointed philosopher.Modernist (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is no doubt that she was a philosopher, and only weak arguments and opinion that she was an "amateur". Let's move on and leave the POV out. She was a philosopher, whether she was any good or not is certainly a matter of opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, academic consensus is pretty clear that she was a sucky philosopher (even Nozick, who I guess she's closest to) but that's tangential to this discussion. Moreschi (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, if you want to call her a philosopher, can you list a few academic philosophers who refer to her as such (and not as an amateur), or who write about her work in a way that makes clear they feel they're writing about one of their peers? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

See Robert Paul Wolff's Philosophy textbook "About Philosophy" 5th edition pages 139-143. Wolff refers to her as "novelist and philosopher" Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ethan. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a totally fair test. Rand was tremendously rude about contemporary philosophers and philosophical trends: if academic philosophy has marginalized her this is not really surprising...Moreschi (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand could have been as rude as she wanted about philosophers; they wouldn't have ignored her if she'd produced good work. On the contrary, there would have been more interest in her work if she'd made herself controversial, but the reality is that many or even most philosophers have never or barely heard of her. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Slim, every source I can find calls her a philosopher, including the one already in the article. It's also a point of fact, as per the definition of amateur, that this charecterization doesn't fit. I just did a google book search of Ayn Rand amateur philosopher before even reading your comment, and there is scant evidence of this description being used. Certainly her detractors call her ideas amateur, but there doesn't seem to be any dispute that she was in fact a philosopher in every possible way. She is most notable and made her living writing on philosophical topics and, as is clearly evident from this discussion, her philosophies are much discussed and controversial. What is the point of calling her amateur? Are you suggesting that there is some official body that determines who is and who isn't a philosopher? What are the criteria for inclusion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We need some names from you, CofM. Can you name some philosophers who call her a philosopher (and not an amateur), or who write about her in a way that makes clear they see her as a fellow philosopher? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also note that as Damian makes clear, she was absolutely NOT an academic philosopher. Per her own definition of herself and that of others I would be happy for this to be made clear. If there is some satisfaction in pointing out that she wasn't a part of academia, by all means let's make that clear. She seems to have relished rejecting the intellectual dogmas of her time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider just passing through, why don't you just change it around to read something like: Ayn Rand ... was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, who is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a popular philosophical system called Objectivism. That makes it clear that she was a writer who developed philosophical views - whether or not she was "amateur", or indeed a "philosopher", can be discussed further down the article. Sorry to butt in... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Ghmyrtle, and thank you for butting in. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea as well...Modernist (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That is a good suggestion, Ghmyrtle.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That works. Moreschi (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Ghmyrtle. Don't be sorry for butting in, sometimes a new perspective is just what's needed in any debate. :) Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. I'm happy to do my part to alleviate the pain and jealousy of the self-styled philosophers who are forced to work as college professors since they can't give away their books. I'm sympathetic to the fact that those in academia might be aggrieved in recognizing the awesome achievements of a female philosopher who doesn't share their academic background and is outside of their narrow circle of friends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight, it seems to me you have some grudge against academia, and since (whether we include Rand or not) almost all research and development of philosophy in the modern world is conducted within academia, it seems tantamount to having a grudge against almost all modern philosophy - which I don't think lends your contributions a lot of credibility. Ben Finn (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like consensus, so I made the edit. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If only life was always this simple.... :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, I encourage you to explain your disagreement here. If you'd like to point out a previous talk that would perhaps influence the more recent consensus, please do so. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that I do agree with you on this and many other things, but in order to reach consensus I am willing to comprimise. Simply reverting will, in the end, have less effect on the article's outcome than a calm, rational discussion. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued endlessly. There is no more recent consensus, just an assertion of such wholly by editors hostile to Rand. The last consensus as of July can be seen at archive 15. The whole point of the footnote was to qualify the statement in a way acceptible to all sides. Even CABlankenship who has retired from editting due to his bias (see his statemnt "propaganda page" above) calls her a philosopher, if only a fourth rate one. Frankly, if this is the trajectory of editting, not to improve the article, but to regress to people's hostility toward Rand, I think the article needs to go back under protection.Kjaer (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are ten separate sources from google scholar calling Rand a philosopher. There is no consensus to remove the description of her as a philosopher, of six months standing. There are innumerable references calling her a philosopher, and when any proof of her being a philosopher is offered, it is deleted with the non sequitur that there is consensus that there is no source to call her a philosopher. There is no justification for the original reversion. The description must be put back on, and if those who oppose it want it removed they can pose a request for comment. Kjaer (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

and as a philosopher^{[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]} who developed a system she called Objectivism.

Perhaps a better compromise would be to refer to her as a philosophical writer, since her books were obviously espousing a philosophy. I don't agree with the recent removal of philosopher from her infobox, as that lacks the context of her philosophical system.Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

She didn't even have a degree in philosophy as far as I'm aware. Her bio states that she attended a 3-year degree program for history. She's pretty clearly an amateur philosopher, without training or expertise in the field. Her degree isn't even recognized as granting her authority or expert status in history, let alone philosophy. She has a minor 3-year degree in history. CABlankenship (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What about this bit of nonsense, "While her writing has received little attention from academic philosophers,.."? There is a whole section in this article and a substantial separate article discussing the reaction of philosophers to her views. Isn't that what we've been discussing? And yet now someone is trying to have the article say she's been ignored? If so, and there's no notable reaction, let's do away with the criticism section. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I AGREE! :-) This whole thing is so humorous. It's fun to see the Primacy of Conciousness in action! We need sources! Here you go. Oh....Well we have a consensus to ignore that :-) Have at it folks. That's why I stopped editing the article. Indeed. The criticism section should go since it's clearly by those who ignored her. All those article in papers and magazines. All those times she gets dragged out on NPR and such. Yes indeed. Not a philosopher! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! I cited a Philosophy Textbook written by an academic philosopher. Anyone? Anyone? HAHAHAHAHA :-) Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those weren't the sources they had in mind I guess? In their caste system only the elite who spend a lifetime in academia (apart from hosting quiz shows) are worthy of consideration. Although I can't help but note how much time they spend "ignoring" Rand. A strange obsession this ignoring has become. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind you both that we are supposed to be discussing the improvement of the article here in accordance with WP:TALK. If you wish to disparage "them" or indulge in mockery, please do so on each other's talk page and not here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Now now! After listening to snowded and CAB you want to tell me to be nice? Be consistent. Regarding the article does consensus override souces? That seems very close to OR to me. Ethan a dawe (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am asking you to abide by the well-established guidelines for behaviour as outlined in WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS, and not to indulge in edit-warring. That goes for everyone, by the way.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out flaws in the thinking and methodology of those who have a bias against the subject of the article IS part of improving it, even if there's a tone of levity. To Ethan Dawe - "Regarding the article does consensus override souces?" - that's been my observation. It also overrides so-called policy, which seems to be defined as whatever the more determined faction and/or whatever admin's bias decides it means.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are rules on Wikipedia about POV and bias. If people can't be objective in working on this article then they should move on. Numerous sources were produced calling Rand a philosopher, yet a compromise that avoided using that word had to be agreed to. Where are all these good sources that say she isn't a philosopher? And furthermore we have a totally biased bit that says she's been ignored. If pointing out the irony and absurdity of that is a crime, I am guilty as charged. Presenting the argument in a humorous manner may be the only way to stay sane. If only those attempting to belittle Rand and her accomplishments would actually ignore her we could all go back to improving articles. Would you please consider addressing the point that's been made suggesting that she has been ignored? Where is the source for that? Do you think that's a fair statement? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there was consensus for alternative wording, but not for the removal of the ciation describing how she is characterized. Please restore this citation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Anyone who's formally studied philosophy knows she has been ignored. Douglas Den Uyl, who wrote a book about her philosophical views, concurs; see the link I provided above. We're obviously not going to be able to produce of list of philosophers who've written, "I'm ignoring her," and "So am I!" SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If he wrote a book about her isn't that the opposite of ignoring her? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. :-) But he writes that he's one of the exceptions, though from what I can tell this is slowly changing, and it may well be that in another few years time, she'll be more mainstream. There's a Guardian article to that effect listed in the article. I'll find it and post it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional to SlimVirgin's point, there seem to be disagreements within the sources about the various other claims under discussion. The problem then is what to do under these circumstances. A number of strategies have been generally suggested on wikipedia, but there are the issues of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and the possibility of representing all viewpoints fairly to be considered. There are rarely black and white answers, so quick accusations of inappropriate intentions or of bias or POV impositions in other editors is especially not advised. We then run into the problem that Rand appears to some to have a far more prominent reputation within the USA than probably the rest of the world. If this is so, then how would we factor this into the problem of weighting?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I ain't got nothing to say on the topic, except for this: outside of the US she is a completely unknown entity, and if she is known, she is not taken seriously as a philosopher (sorry, CoM)--she is seen as a fairly typical propagator of American exceptionalism and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps-ism. (These are not my opinions, by the way.) And I speak as a former philosophy student from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam... Drmies (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A look through the talk archives of this article will show the extreme abuse that's been hurled at many editors, not the least of which I am one. I've dealt with trolls and sock-puppets for a long time now. I've stopped editing the article and most of wiki because of what I've seen here. The system is being gamed constantly to push all sorts of POVs. I've agreed that the Rand article should include criticism and needed work. I'm no mindless Rand worshipper. I can deal with honest criticism of her. I've had some myself. I've supported a NPOV bio. But this whole "philosopher" argument is so much smoke and mirrors. It's meaninless and those trying to remove the title from her piece need to know that as many many many sources have shown it is a proper title for her. To try and change that pbased on dislike of her and her ideas is just petty. In the end it changes nothing. If this happens here and is supported by Admins what does that say about the valiodity of wikipedia? Soon it will as relevant as conserapedia, in other words, not at all. Those of you who claim academic degrees and knowledge on thsi subject, and those of you who are administrators only sully yourselves by this pettiness. You've just made wiki less accurate, less relevant. You haven't challenged one of Rand's ideas or claims. You haven't prevented her from being read. You have simply made your encyclopedia less accurate. I can't invest my time in such a waste of bandwidth. Sleep well an know that all your hard free work is worth just that much less today. You have torn down your own work just because you didn't like what they said. Think about that and know that it reflects on every single piece you edit. You have diminshed your work and yourselves. Go to my talk page and post a warning now about how I'm not assuming good faith. I am not fooled. Others won't be fooled. You are not even fooling yoursleves. You know what the sources say. Consensus doesn't change reality. I'm one less honest editor who will leave now like so many others. Quick, time for an archive. Ethan a dawe (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"You haven't challenged one of Rand's ideas or claims." I'm sure you're aware that being unable to rebut or even demonstrate understanding of an actual concept she asserted doesn't stop a lot of her critics. "Scathing" doesn't equal "accurate". Whittaker Chambers' hatchet job of a review reflected -0- grasp of what she said but was given a national forum. Yeah, her personal life makes an easy target, and the Objectivist movement has internal problems but it doesn't change certain core aspects of her thoughts. You haven't prevented her from being read." Many seem to be under some delusion of grandeur that they're going to "decide" this matter within Wikiworld and that it will be somehow definitive.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Idag's last reversion of the referenced reference to Rand is his third reversion of the day. I am npot sure how many other people have that many reversions. I suggest we end this orgy of removing sourced material, or request the protection be returned to the article. Kjaer (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page when you requested that the article's previous protection be extended to indefinite, I think you need to discuss the reversions of discussed changes prior to reverting them. That is the justification why your reversions have themselves been reversed. If you have a problem with that, I suggest three things you should do: (a) engage fully in the discussion here on how to improve the article, where improvement can lead to material being removed as well as added, and, (b) additionally, if you have a problem with another editor's actions in editing the article, discuss it before reverting it, especially when it is clear on a merely cursory glance that the changes have been discussed on this page and gathered strong arguments in its favour. (c) You should also consider raising the matter on the talk page of the editor who removed the material you think should be included.

Remember that wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS which relies on sufficient discussion to reach a negotiated agreement about what to do, and a consensus need not be a unanimous agreement.

Tread carefully, and please engage more in the process rather than merely relying on agreements that many here consider have been superceded recently to justify your reversions of recently agreed-upon edits. If you do that, I am sure that with an effort to always have an assumption of good faith that all the editors here are all trying to work towards improving the article, then further problems can be avoided. Careful reading of and thought about a previous message by another editor about a short story by J.L.Borges concerning cartographers would be most beneficial to many here.

In any case, I am too involved now to take any action as an administrator.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

==Influential?==

The lead says that, "While her writing has received little attention from academic philosophers, it remains both influential and controversial in popular culture."

Is it true that her work is influential in popular culture, and if it's true in the U.S., is there any evidence that she's influential elsewhere? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That evidence was recently removed from the article, see popular influence section prior to removal of protection. Kjaer (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, for some reason the entire section seems to have been removed. This looks like vandalism to me. Do you want me to post it here so you can read it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do--I think this is worthy of some discussion. Incidentally, I believe that sentence in the lead to be true. And so does Neil Peart, I think. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. The section is still there, if it's the one I just edited, and yes, I read some of the sources, and it's clearly accurate to call her influential in popular culture. I did remove that she'd influenced the Church of Satan though. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you would have expanded that section, no? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting till after midnight. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Slim what's your take on the "While her writing has received little attention from academic philosophers" bit? Surely there is a better way to phrase this statement (as in, change it into something that's actually true). And if you think it's fair to say she hasn't received attention try reading the intro to Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (which I have not altered) without experiencing a severe case of irony. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"He work continues to be popular, influential and controversial, but is not part of most academic curriculums and has generally had a poor reception in academia." I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. It's not that she hasn't gotten attention from academics, it's that they hate her and what she stands for and don't want to include her. There's a big difference. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not like there's a conspiracy to destroy her reputation, and it's a bit too easy, in my opinion, to put it all down to them hating her. (You HAVE to consider the possibility that they're right, and you're wrong! ;) ) I think that statement you have there above is pretty decent. Good luck on this contentious issue--I'll go back to lurking on Anarchism and Marxism, hoping that someone will turn that first-grade language into something philosophical. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Academics don't make a secret of their disdain for her and those who agree with the thrust of her arguments. She's as popular with the Ivory Tower elite as Sarah Palin is amongst the Kennedy crowd. And yet every year her books keep selling. I guess we average folk just ain't smart enough to appreciate dat good philosophy of dem book smart collegians. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone just needs to take charge and start getting rid of all the superfluous information. In particular, there are way too many sub-sections that simply don't contain enough info to warrant having its own header. I again point to the legacy, politics, and philosophy sections. These really don't need sub-sections, and a small paragraph summarizing these points could easily be created, while simultaneously cutting down on the original research. We also do not need a half-dozen references to how many books she sold, yet this is mentioned over and over. CABlankenship (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Ethan's complaints above, no one is using force to stop those of us who see the various deletions and other changes being made to the article as ridiculous. The sole responsibility lies with those editors who oppose the changes to speak up. We have perhaps four editors simply asserting that there is a consensus for such nonsense as Rand's not being a philosopher. All we need is for people who oppose this view to state it out loud and show what the consensus is. With certain editors having recused themselves as unable to work past their bias to edit the article fairly, that should not be impossible to do. So let's hear it. Is there a consensus to revert the article to the state during the freeze, when Rand was a philosopher with a footnote, when the satanists had their say, and when yes, Chomsky's hate and Buckley's scorn were noted even in the midst of such mere people as Angelina Jolie? That is was there ever really any consensus at all to make the recent spate of deletion s? Speak up, and don't blame the state of the article on the evil motives of others when you won't support it yourselves. Kjaer (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you Support or Oppose reverting the article to its state while it was frozen?

Support No consensus was reached (show me any such vote or RFC) and no actual wikipedia principle other than mob rule was proposed. Kjaer (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: It is clear that a new consensus is developing. Furthermore, neither a vote nor an RFC is necessary for this. However, I believe we should refer to her as a philosopher in the lede, as a large number of third party sources do. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is general agreement that this article is unsatisfactory. This was also stated by a neutral editor review. It needs cleaning up. What cannot be debated is that she attempted work in philosophy. She without a doubt wished to be viewed as a philosopher. However, her efforts in this regard are almost universally seen as inadequate. Her attempts to criticize Kant are seen as confused — she seems to have completely misunderstood the material she was attempting to analyze. Calling her a philosopher is fine, so long as it's noted that she is widely considered a very poor philosopher. She was a successful novelist whose work touched on philosophical concepts. It would be just as inappropriate to try to overstate her status as a philosopher as it would be to ignore the fact that her work did touch on philosophical concepts. CABlankenship (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In which work does she discuss Kant? Are you confusing her with someone else? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure the choice is clear. How about indicating support or to oppose to calling her a philosopher (along with all the major media and other established and reliable sources)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn whether the subsection on homosexuality is well sourced. Rand's views on homosexuality were an extraordinarily minor part of her overall philosophy. It violates WP:UNDUE to give them so much space and to include so much discussion, apologetics, etc. about them. This article needs to be shortened, and her views could easily be summarized in one sentence, so I suggest that this is as good a place as any to start. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem may be that this is a current issue within those who follow Rand and is therefore subject to debate. However I agree with you its a sentence at most--Snowded TALK 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TallNapoleon. This is exactly the type of thing that should be part of a summary paragraph. This doesn't deserve any more than a blurb at best, and certainly shouldn't have its own sub-category. I suggest getting rid of all of the sub-categories in Legacy, Political and social views, Fiction, Objectivism, &c. — combining the information into short and well-sourced summary paragraphs. Obviously this is my subjective opinion, does anyone feel that the sub-categories add something to the article? CABlankenship (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The subsections are notable and well sourced. Rand may be the most popular and influential philosopher of our time and she is a lightning rod for controversy. So covering her views and the various controversies in some detail is warranted. I thought you guys were going to work on Anton Quinn or whatever his name is, the quiz guy's article so it would be more believable that he's notable and his opinions are worthy of consideration? Did you get sidetracked? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinton's a well-known and highly respected philosopher, though thanks to your edit summary, I had a middle-aged moment and called him Anthony Quinn in mine. :-) I think the lead now strikes a good balance, with us not expressing the POV that she's a philosopher without qualification, but also making clear that at least one philosophy dept is seriously interested in her. I agree with CAB that the legacy section could be tightened, though not as much as it has been. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Most popular and influential philosopher of our time"? I'm sorry, but have you gone mad? And as I have said before, I do not care if the subsections are well-sourced. Considering that Rand spent very, very little time talking about homosexuality, for us to devote a full subsection to it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE and furthermore a waste of space. It can be dealt with in one sentence, if it is to be mentioned at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that was some exchange to wake up to. To try and sumarise:

1. She thought of herself as a philosopher
2. No one has produced a notable academic philosopher who takes her seriously as a philosopher (including the one libertarian philosopher of note who commented on her work
3. She is taken seriously as a political thinker by a broad range of notable people
4. There are a range of institutes that study her work, and these include people with philosophical
5. She created a philosophical movement which calls itself objectivism (but is not the only use of that term)
6. Her main fame was as novelist and that was her "occupation"
7. Those novels propose a world view or philosophy which has gained popular support mainly in the US

So can we look again at Ghymrtle's suggestion a variation which acknowledges both her work and what came afterwards. Ayn Rand ... was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, who is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She also wrote in the fields of politics and philosophy and created a philosophical system which is called Objectivism. That acknowledges that she wrote and created in the area and philosophy. It avoids judgements as to the quality of that work. --Snowded TALK 07:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion from today more carefully. Numerous sources and references were provided showing the she is almost universally referred to as a philosopher including by numerous other philosophers. The "compromise" sentence is grotesquely verbose. She was a philosopher, get over it. Or please provide sources suggesting that the argument that she is an amateur philosopher or not actually a philosopher (perhaps she was an auto-mechanic?) is anything but a fringe view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact: Very many philosophers don't think she qualifies as a philosopher.

Fact: She is very frequently referred to in media as a philosopher, novelist-philosopher or writer philosopher.

Fact: I don't see any easy resolution to this problem.

Conclusion: Why don't we leave the article as is for now and deal with this later? It seems like we have a number of more pressing issues. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I once heard actor/writer Peter Ustinov described as a philosopher (I think this was in his capacity as a raconteur). I once interviewed an applicant for the Cambridge University philosophy degree who was under the impression that novelist D H Lawrence was a philosopher. Many people - not least journalists - don't have a very clear idea what philosophy is, and are inclined to use the term very loosely, applying it to people who say or write 'philosophical-sounding things' - rather as I once heard Einstein referred to on the radio as a mathematician (presumably because he did 'mathematical-sounding things'). The fact that the media refers to someone as a philosopher does not make them a philosopher; the media frequently makes mistakes. Though I think the current solution of saying she 'developed a popular philosophical system' is a good one - as 'philosophical' is a looser term, and 'popular' implies (to me) that its significance may arise primarily from its popularity rather than its academic rigour. Ben Finn (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment we have one editor who is refusing to accept the compromise of saying that Rand created a philosophical movement. Said editor requires people to prove a negative (that she was not a philosopher). She made her living as novelist not as a philosopher. She gained no acknowledgement with the community of philosophers and references to her in the media are common for authors who explore ideas in their books. If we take another author, John Fowles who writes philosophical novels, he is not described as philosopher. In Rands case a philosophical movement arose from her writing. That is acknowledged in the compromise version. It includes the ambiguous word "popular" which in this context can be justified in the sense of non-academic but not as a mass movement and we might need to clarify that. However its a sensible lede. --Snowded TALK 09:23, 10 January 2009

Kjaer, TallNapoleon and I have provided numerous sources indicating she was referred to as a philosopher. Developing a philosophical system is also a good indication of being a philosopher. You can make statements until you're blue in the face, but if you can't provide sources supporting your position, I'm afraid your out of luck. She was a philosopher. Let's move on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your earlier statement that "Rand may be the most popular and influential philosopher of our time" rather damages your credibility you know. If you look back over the conversation you will find that the majority of editors supported the compromise. You have not addressed arguments from Bfinn myself and others. Just providing some citations where she is called a philosopher fails to the Ustinoff argument above. To call someone a philosopher in the lede requires a bit more --Snowded TALK 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight, I tweaked your tweak of the final lead sentence. I also want to add that the situation with academia may be changing, using the Guardian article I mentioned earlier as a source, but its website seems to be down at the moment, so I'll add it later. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you got the reference? The one I saw used some days ago was a speculative piece and fairly old anyway. You would expect something more current. This is however a general problem with this article, it relies on a very limited number of sources outside of the various Rand institutes etc. --Snowded TALK 08:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Guardian piece is from 2001, and is here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin, in case anyone else wants to comment) Slim, I made a very reasonable compromise suggestion for the lead. After no objections were raised I added it. Now you've altered it dramatically and changed the meaning. I would ask you to revert yourself and discuss why you are changing the phrasing so dramatically. If you want to add a bit about the Texas endowment that's fine. The Intro certainly needs expansion. Her influence is not limited to pop-culture as is made clear by her influential supporters, so the change you've made is misleading. Your alteration also eliminated the clarity of her dispute and outsider status vis a vis academia. This is an important point that has been removed from the revised statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I honestly didn't see my change as substantive — more of a copy edit (apart from the addition of the fellowship, which I felt was important because it marked her being taken seriously by a philosophy dept). I'll take another look about how I might have changed the meaning of what you wrote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no substantive change here, just a tidying of the writing. [4] What do you see as the change? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:SlimVirgin) Well, I'm tired and given the efforts to "summarize" the article now going on, it's all a bit much. If you read the source you just posted you'll see the hostility pointed her way from academia was substantial and the feelings were mutual. Those who seek to diminish her refuse to recognize her achievements and try to label her as a pop-philosopher or amateur as we've seen. I welcome good criticism, but that type of smearing is beneath considerate and intellectual people. Take care, good night, and party on. And let me know if you can tell me, Who is John Galt? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you object to this as 'smearing'. You seem to take academic philosophy in low regard, so why are you also opposed to Rand being regarded as doing popular philosophy? On the one hand it seems you'd like her to be depicted as a proper, full-blown philosopher, but on the other hand, you don't like the fact that the proper, full-blown philosophers out there (who are almost all academics) say she isn't one. If you are opposed to academic philosophy, surely you shouldn't have a problem with distancing her from them? Or are you trying to say there is some further kind of proper philosophy which isn't academic and isn't merely popular? Ben Finn (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bfinn, I have no objection to making clear that she isn't well liked by academica and that the feeling is mutual. But people have attempted remove the description of her as a philosopher all together or to call her an "amateur" philosopher. As we base articles on reliable sources, these changes can't be justified. My concern isn't whether people like her or not, but to make sure the article accurately reflects what the sources say. If someone wants to expand the information about her disputes with academia they have my blessing. But her ideas not being well liked or respected by academics does not make her an auto mechanic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the last sentence of the lede, frankly, does not belong there, and that the lede was best as originally written. Regardless, the 300k grant is not of such importance as to go in the lede, imho. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to make a brief edit to the 'Legacy' section to show you what I have in mind. So much of the information in that section is redundant, pointless, uninteresting, and verbose. Revert it whenever you wish, I'm just doing this as an example of how easy it would be to summarize these over-long sections. CABlankenship (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of notable content was lost. Please revert back and consider using a sandbox next time. Play time is over. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to be snippy with him, Midnight. I agree, however, that her legacy is substantial enough to deserve more than a one-line summary. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's snippy? I think my comment was quite reasonable and in good humor. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, redundant information is one of the major space hogs on this article. For instance, the criticism that she is ignored by academics is repeated several times, as is the praise for how many books she sells. There are at least a half-dozen mentions of the fact that she sells lots of books. Lengthy discussions of this fact take place in several different categories. Most of the information I deleted is either redundant or better handled in refs. I don't see how yet another in-depth discussion on her book sales is notable content. Also, I've found that this sort of thing encourages edit warring and bickering that isn't present in shorter and more to-the-point articles that contain simple unembellished facts. Repeating information over and over just makes for a boring read. CABlankenship (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some featured articles as examples. Rand's legacy section is over 3x as long as Isaac Newton's. It's easily twice as long as Johannes Kepler's. It's 3x longer than Pascal's. Emily Dickinson doesn't even have a legacy section. Neither does Darwin. But for some reason, on this article we need 6 separate mentions of how many books Rand sells, detailed lists of the obscure academics who were influenced by her, and one or more paragraphs dedicated to every organization that is influenced by her writing. The article is too long and contains too much information that the casual reader doesn't care about. Only hardcore Rand superfans would care about most of this stuff. There are other places to find out that information if you are a budding Rand superfan. The article should summarize the important information about her views and writings along with the most notable facts about her (such as her appearance on a stamp). CABlankenship (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would take your suggestions more seriously if your previous efforts to improve the article didn't amount to one sentence summaries of entire sections of well sourced and notable content. I don't think anyone objects to removing redundancies or trimming extraneous text. As far as the length of sections, I'm sure you're aware that you need to gain consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of that content may be well-sourced, but that does not make it notable. Even if it *is* notable, that is not necessarily reason enough to keep it. The article is too long, and the legacy section is too long, which means that material--even notable material--needs to be cut. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are serious about improving this article, you should take seriously the examples of featured articles. CABlankenship (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I just made some improvements to the recently inserted lists of institutes (and schisms). I can see the value of that material but it is again lengthening the article and might be a lot better as a single paragraph with pipelinks to other articles. Overall I agree with CABlankenship, the article is simply too long. --Snowded TALK 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Ayn Rand. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20