Jump to content

Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

NOTE: Some of these conversations have already been archived in the latest archive; as they fizzle I will simply reupdate their entries in the archive and remove them from this page if no one objects. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts at managing the talkpage bloat, but moving the talkpage to an article is a very bad idea as it disrupts the edit history of the talkpage. Archiving should only be done for dormant threads (at least a few weeks old). For more information, check out Help:Archiving a talk page. Skomorokh 12:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversations open at time of archiving

Open issues, April 2008

Because the above discussions are so intertwined and difficult to make sense or keep track of, I thought we might list some currently open suggestions/problems with the current version of the article. Some of these are long-discussed, some of them are mine.

  • The length of the article and various strategies of reducing it
I suggest we address this one first since our edits here will influence the remaining open issues. Idag (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I had some thoughts about this earlier. We could move much of the stuff about philosophy and the full details of her philosophical influences to the Objectivism article. Someone disagreed with this, though so we need to discuss it more. Readers should get a biography of her life and an outline of her views. For the meat of the philosophical stuff, the Objectivism and Criticism of Objectivism articles would work well. I do not want to lose anything in the move though, and yes, that includes the criticism. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's my fault for holding things up; I've explained my thoughts (in a somewhat garbled fashion) above, let's work it out there. Skomorokh 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rand's relationship with academic philosophy and how much weight it ought to have
  • The quality and extent of referencing reliable sources independent of the subject - whether or not figures such as Young and Boisvert should be cited.
  • The relative weight in the article given to criticism
  • Whether or not material (such as Rand's relationship to figures in the history of philosophy, the cult criticism) is better included in this article or in related/summary articles
  • The extent to which Rand's own speeches/writings should be used as a source
  • What is an appropriate number of links in the external links section and which links should be included

Please add issues I have missed or you think need addressing in short, one-line bullets like the above. We can then start separate sections below for specific issues. Thanks, Skomorokh 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. On the last bullet point, I agree that that issue also needed to be raised. Last night I was looking through those links (some of which are broken, by the way, and need to be removed or fixed) and thinking how excessive they all seem. WP:EXTERNAL tells us a lot of how and what is acceptable in that section. Further, any of those links which are already cited within the references should be removed anyway for reasons of citation redundancy. J Readings (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian?

Why is Rand in "List of Russians" when she was a US citizen, not a Russian citizen? Just because someone is born somewhere it does not make them "that nationality". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.159.47 (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Being born somewhere does make you that nationality. I was born in the U.S., but I can't suddenly say "I feel like being Italian today." Idag (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you could go to Italy and become an Italian by adopting citzenship. We don't call Spike Milligan an Indian do we? No, he moved to Britain and adopted British citizenship. Ayn Rand's Russian citizenship was revoked when she became a US citizen, thus making her American over Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.159.47 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rand was born in Russia. She grew up in Russia. Even though she was an American citizen, she was born Russian, grew up Russian, and was shaped by Russian culture. Her philosophy is in fact largely a reaction *against* Russian culture. Therefore it is fair to categorize her as Russian (although Russian-American is more accurate). TallNapoleon (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
So, why is Spike Milligan not in "List of Indians"? That's the most retarded thing I've heard for a while. You don't always have to be stigmatized with a nationality label just because you were born there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.143.181 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Rand and her philosophy were both greatly shaped by the fact that she was a Russian-American. Since this is a biographical article, it should certainly include major influences on her life and her work. You haven't provided a compelling reason to the contrary and I would also remind you to please be respectful of other editors. Please take a look at WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article text should be guided by reality. The reality is, Rand was born a Russian, and like others she emigrated to the US, which she adopted as her home. Thus when it comes to categories, Rand fits several, including: Russian, Russian emigree to US, US citizen. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No compromise

I stick this point up at the top because it disputes the basis of the 'compromise' debate.

Should Ayn Rand be identifed as a 'philosopher' - or not? Many comments look at the use of the term - the article itself cites one usage example in the NYT. But this is I think not the standard. Many, many people are called 'philosophers'. It seems anyone with an academic post in a 'philosophy department' can be called 'a philosopher' on WIkipedia. Even a few without - several articles create new 'philosophers' out of people whose status rests solely on editing philosophy magazines, ,or writing articles 'on philosophy' in newspapers, or writing descriptive accounts of philosophy in books. But of course such philosophical pundits and commentators are indeed, widely referred to as 'philosophers'. Wikipedia cannot use this as its standard, or the term means nothing.

Clearly when someone is designated 'a philosopher' in an encyclopdia it must be because they have produced a work recognised by a significant number of the community of scholars (not just academic philosophers, but nor is it the general public) as a contribution to philosophical knowledge.

So Ayn Rands claim, I suggest, rests NOT on usage - the foontoe [1] is quite irrelevant, but on her supposed contribution - 'objectivism'. Yet it does not take much time to see that this is a contribution of the kind Scientologists would understand - it is coining of an 'ism' backed by a powerful publicity machine. 'Objectivism' is not recognised, as the article accepts, by the scholarly community as 'philosophy' at all. In as much as there si a theory, it is a very old one - egoism, or to be more precise, 'infantile egoism'

The rest of the discussion is of historical and cultural interest - not philosophical. Docmartincohen (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. Objectivism may be *bad* philosophy (this is my opinion) but it is still philosophy. Whatever else may be said of it, it is an attempt to systematically explain the universe in a philosophical manner, answer the traditional questions asked of philosophies, and so forth. It attempts to advance its position by reasoned argumentation and has a significant corpus of technical philosophical work, much of it written by Rand. Again, I personally believe that these are not persuasive, that they are highly flawed, that they are in fact holier than swiss cheese. I think the ethics she advances are downright evil, and her epistemology and metaphysics are, as you put it, infantile. But Wikipedia cannot be the judge of the quality or morality of a philosophy. We can only state the facts. I think that it might be good for Wikiproject Philosophy to lay down some guidelines on what does constitute a philosophy. Further emphasis on the controversy surrounding Objectivism's philosophical status could also be justified. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that it might be good for Wikiproject Philosophy to lay down some guidelines on what does constitute a philosophy. I think that's a constructive idea, actually. I agree. The fight really shouldn't be here, but at Wikiproject Philosophy or at a page determining philosophical notability similar to the one we have for academics (see WP:ACADEMIC). Once there are some concrete criteria in which to determine the status of a writer, it might make it easier for editors with differing opinions to balance other policies and guidelines. Just a thought. J Readings (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - it a worth sorting out. Actually, I argued that a few years back too. It is a term that appears throughout WIkipedia and often IMO is innappropriately used. But since it is not yet sorted out, the issue still is important to the current page.

TallNapoleon responds that 'Objectivism may be *bad* philosophy (this is my opinion) but it is still philosophy'. But to present a philosophy does not mean you are a 'philosopher'. Many writers present distinctive views of the world which are later described as their 'philosophies' - but they remain writers. Or take Mao for instance. Mao wanted to be taken as 'a philosopher' and wrote many self-consciously 'philosophical' works PLUS he contributed a distinctive new philosophy to the world: 'Maoism'. But no one says of him 'the philosopher, Mao Tse Tung, wrote... blah blah blah - and Wikipedia's entry rightly does not introduce him as a philosopher.

With Rand: she, like Mao, like many others presents a 'philosophy' and wishes to be remembered as a 'philosopher'. This, i hazard, is true of just about every academic and quite a few amateur 'philosophers' too. Yet her ideas are not accepted within the philosophy world (and this after a suitable period of time has elapsed) as sufficiently novel or useful to justify her inclusion in the necessarily limited ranks of 'philosophers'. This objection stops all the others becoming 'philosophers' for the purposes of the historical record, it should stop Rand too .

I'd say criteria should be drawn up on a special page, as suggested by Readings. I'd be pleaseed if some of my proposals here can help to start it. The page could also say, very practically, alternative titles for those no longer to be called 'philosophers'. There are 'academic philosophers', there are writers specialising in philosophy, and writers whose works present a particular philosophy. Rand is perhaps best seen as one of this last kind.

Docmartincohen (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I should clarify what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that editors here go off half-cocked looking to revolutionize how Wikipedia operates and pick a fight. Not at all. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on secondary sources in order to write its content. It avoids original research, relies on verifiable reliable sources, and writes its articles in a NPOV fashion while avoiding undue weight, especially in the promotion of fringe theories. These are sacrosanct pillars. That said, one of the things I've noticed is that the old saying is largely true: "The more you know, the less you know." Increasingly, I notice editors are using LexisNexis, Factiva, JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, Worldcat, and other databases in order to research and write articles. All of that's a good thing and I admire people who selflessly spend much of their free on this project in order to improve the encyclopedic content. The problem--still unresolved in my humble opinion--is how to reconcile undue weight and WP:FRINGE with other policies and guidelines. Asking if Ayn Rand should be labeled a "philosopher" is the equivalent of asking if David Irving should be labeled a "historian" or if G. Edward Griffin should be labeled a "conspiracy theorist." It depends. Do we cite journalists or do we cite academics? Both are considered reliable sources. If we cite academics, are they historians or are they specialists? If they're specialists, are they mainstream or fringe? If they're mainstream, are they partisan or disinterested third-parties? If they're disinterested, how should that be determined objectively (and is it even possible)? Last but not least, if they're disinterested third-parties, are they representative of the field when so many articles and books can be accessed with a drop of the hat nowadays? The questions are almost endless. Again, this is not something to take up at the Ayn Rand talk page. It's something that should really be addressed at places like the Village Pump, Jimbo Wales' talk page, and the Wikiproject Philosophy page -- among other venues. I wish I had a satisfactory answer to these questions, but I'm struggling to create an excellent NPOV article in good-faith as much as the next editor. All I can suggest is that this issue be raised at the appropriate venue. Respectfully, J Readings (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not at all sure where this ridiculous insinuation of "amateur" versus academic philosopher is coming from; the correlation of being employed as an academic is very new in the history of philosophy, since the time of the German Idealists to be exact. Few of the major modern philosophers were employed as academics; off the topic of my head, none of Descartes, Schopenhauer, Hume, Nietzsche, Locke, Hobbes, Kierkegaard, Bacon, Holderlin, Rousseau, Jacobi, Buber or Camus were. Are they to be omitted from the "necessarily limited ranks of 'philosophers'" (!) too? Shall make the principle consistent and start referring to writers who are not literature professors and painters without MFA's as "amateurs"? This nonsense must be put to bed before it takes up any more real estate in Wikipedian minds. Discussions as to what defines a philosopher belong at WT:PHIL; you are more than welcome to propose a criteria there. I have yet to see a definitive source from the tertiary literature that states that Rand was not a philosopher, although we have seen those (IEP/SEP most prominently) that do refer to her as one. Mao's article does not refer to him as a soldier or librarian either; as along with "philosopher", these roles are not the ones that stand out when we think of Mao's life work; it would be stretching reality quite a bit to make the same claim of Rand. Sincerely, Skomorokh 21:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear... the argument has gone round in a circle and starts to eat its own tail!

The original point was that academics teaching or researching philosophy should NOT be counted as 'philosophers'. (Skomorokh directs fire at a paper tiger.)

If academics are acceptable, we have a handful of 'historical philosophers' and about one million new ones. Rand can certainly join in with other writers-whose-work-has-philosophical-content to this new category. But it would be meaningless.

The second point was that if we preserve the term as 'meaningful', we might still want 'very occasionally' to confer it on some new people.

So then, who will decide? I suggested it should be a judgement made not by the 'general public' but by the relevant expert bodies. That' I guess is where th 'elitism' comes in. So, for example, if works like the Oxford Companion to Philosophy include Rand and treat her as 'a philosopher', we have to follow their judgement, whatever, as TallNapoleon says, we may think of the quality of their work itself. But if such philosophical works do NOT count her as a philosopher (and in this case they do not) then it is no good appealing to newpaper articles and online sources comipled by computers or generalists (as in the sections below, eg Ask the Media: Novelist, Philosopher or Both?

I would say the question is roughly the same if we wanted to talk about 'artists' or 'nuclear physicists'. You have to have provided some peer-group recognised work to jump from your day-job (' Mad Max, a lecturerer in Fine Arts at Hull University') to the more attractive designation "the modernist painter, Mad Max"...

Docmartincohen (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all on the same page here; the discussion at WT:PHIL seems supportive of using inclusion in the Oxford Companion', Stanford Encylcopedia and Internet Encyclopedia as authoritative. If you have any other sources in mind that you consider authoritative, be sure to suggest them there, and we can codify a policy. Skomorokh 16:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J Readings on this one. There are sources stating that Rand is a philosopher and there are sources stating that she is simply a writer. So the central issue is which set of sources do we go with? I would suggest moving this discussion to one of the venues that J Readings has suggested because this issue affects numerous other articles and because this way we'll get input from more people. Idag (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Edward, if you're reading this, while Docmartin's point is similar to yours, he has raised it in a civil and constructive manner while maintaining a respectful discussion. We didn't ban you for your substantive points, but for the way in which you raised them. Idag (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is under discussion by the Philosophy WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:PHIL#What_constitutes_a_philosopher.3F. Policy will be made there and applied here.

Potential compromise

It's clear, IMO, that adding "non-academic" to the intro is giving undue weight. However, it is very clear that Rand was a highly controversial figure, and that her views were heatedly contested, to say the least. Therefore I propose something along the lines of "controversial novelist and philosopher". Alternatively, it could read something like "novelist and originator of the controversial philosophy of Objectivism"--which doesn't use the philosopher word that we have been so worked up about. This, I feel, would not violate WP:UNDUE. This should satisfy Edward's (far-fetched) concerns that some innocent schoolchild will see that Wikipedia says she's a philosopher, and therefore automatically believe every word she's ever written. I will state that I am happy with the phrasing as it stands, but that a compromise along these lines might be reasonable. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Idag (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is not necessary to use the word "philosopher" in the lede; I would support something like "playwright, novelist and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism". I would strongly oppose any weasely references to controversy in the lede – this is not what Rand is famous for, IMO. Nietzsche was a controversial "person who does philosophy", but the lede of his article does not give mention to this, and rightfully so. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper, and should frame our articles accordingly. I commend you for your constructive initiative, TallNapoleon. Regards, Skomorokh 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ayn Rand wrote novels, so we can safely call her a novelist. It's a statement of fact. Were they well-written and well-argued novels? Some people say yes, some people say no. Frankly, for the purpose of the lead section, we don't need to qualify the statement. It's the word "philosopher" that keeps creating problems. I scanned WP:AVOID. It doesn't state that we cannot use the word "controversial" in the lead. Then again, the WP:WEASEL essay cited by Skomorokh doesn't highlight the word, either. I notice that the Karl Marx page--a former featured article no less--indicates quite clearly in the lead section that Marx and Marxism is the source of "controversy" and is "controversial." Couldn't we do something similar here? My personal preference, mentioned a few times on this talk page, is to go with "novelist-philosopher" for several reasons. Barring that, TallNapoleon's suggestion sounds reasonable enough. J Readings (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, reading over the lede again, I am fine with the current wording of controversy, so long as it remains directed at Rand's ideas. Skomorokh 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Novelist-Philosopher seems okay to me. I'm only not interested in entertaining ideas that are forwarded to push a POV on any side. An encyclopedia should provide facts and links to more information. When the crticism section grows and grows it seems like someone is more interested in keeping people from reading the source material. That is, the criticism section is designed to make a reader become dismissive. Facts speak for themselves and people are free to make up their minds based on those facts. Not to invoke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law but the Hitler bio article has no criticism section, the facts speak for themselves. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify Ethan, would you object if the word "philosopher" was not in the lede? As in TallNapoleon's proposed rewording or my version of it. Skomorokh 15:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I realize it's the word causing the issues, but she spent more years focused on her philosophy than she did on her works of fiction. The issue seems to be that some people fear her being seen as a philospher or don't think her philosophy was any good, or think that you need to be an academic writing in peer reviewed works to be considered one. Did she write novels? Yes. Did she write non-fiction philosophical works? Yes. Did she develop and publish a philosophical system? Yes. These are facts and stating them makes no claim to their validity or quality. I think philosopher should stay. I don't like non-academic philosopher as it's merely another attempt to dismiss her works and the term is not used widely enough top have any non POV meaning. Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not just say she wrote novels, non-fiction philosophical works and developed and published a philosophical system then? This would be letting the facts speak for themselves, IMO. The current writing is "Rand...was a Russian-born American novelist and philosopher. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism." Why not just alter the first clause to read "Rand was a Russian-born American author." or "...writer" ? The reference to the novels and philosophy in the next line make it obvious what kind of author/writer she wasSkomorokh 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
First, in't nice to have a constructive debate on this! Thanks to all of you who are being positive about improving the article and not filling the page up with insults! I'm interested in hearing what others think on this too before I agree to any such change. If you would, could you answer this: Why are we contemplating chaning this "Rand...was a Russian-born American novelist and philosopher. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism." What is factually incorrect or POV about it? Does the term philosopher imply "academic>" Does it imply validity? Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Since Ethan a dawe asks, I’ll offer my opinion. I can't get worked up about this issue yet. I realize I'm guilty of this as well, but pointing to other articles on Wikipedia as templates is probably not the way to resolve this issue. It just occurred to me that there are infinite combinations to advance a workable template for the lead. WP:LEAD advises us to formulate a basic (no more than four paragraph) short summary of what is already in the rest of the article. Sorry to dumb down an already controversial subject, but after reading what we have in the article, I think everyone will agree that Rand's life and legacy are not too difficult to summarize. She was a Soviet-born émigré to the United States. She wrote novels that were largely trashed (or even ignored) by the critics in her lifetime, despite being best-sellers. She published essays formulating a philosophical system she called "Objectivism." She started a movement. Despite not publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals or being recognized by the academic establishment as a philosopher, she was respected (and admired) by some of the literati and many ordinary readers. (NB: plenty of reliable third-party sources verify both sides of that coin. I have avoided listing them all up until now, but LexisNexis generates literally hundreds spread out over four decades). Today, her books and her philosophical movement have a newfound lease on life in some circles affording her a sense of mainstream respectability that was not really offered to her while she was alive. In fact, Objectivism now enjoys some notable adherents to its ranks decades after Ayn Rand's death. The End. As a basic overview, did I leave out any major brush strokes? I mean, that is Ayn Rand's life and legacy in a nutshell as I understand it from reading the article. I guess what I'm saying is, why not just summarize what's in the article? Instead of obsessing over adjectives, we nail down what needs to be trimmed, what needs to be copy-edited, what needs to be supported more (and there are plenty of unreferenced assertions still in the main text), etc. and then come back to the lead. In fact, writing the lead section is really last. I understand (and sympathize) with some editors here, that there is the perception that the Ayn Rand article is being presented as some kind of one-dimensional perfect figure. The problem is, based on the text and reliable sources, it’s more a shade of gray. I realize that some editors here won't appreciate me saying all of this, but I think part of the problem has been that we haven't been using enough reliable third-party sources, either. I think User talk:Skomorokh raised that issue above and I agree with him. Anyway, I'll stop there. I fear I'm beginning to ramble. J Readings (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the easiest way to handle it would be to replace "philosopher" with something like "she was a novelist who, in her works, created the philosophy of Objectivism." That's a pretty non-controversial statement and this way we can avoid the argument over adjectives. Idag (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I find the proposed wording awkward and misleading (she created the philosophy while working on her novels and presented it in both the novels and her later non-fiction). More importantly, I don't see the need for any compromise, as there has been no reasonable argument put forth that "philosopher" is anything but a clear, concise, and accurate designation. What legitimate viewpoint would we be accommodating by such a compromise? Mwickens (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's my thinking: A lot of people beyond our two trolls don't accept Rand as a philosopher at all. I personally think that she is; after all, being a philosopher does not actually being a good philosopher. However, because of this dispute it seems reasonable to suggest that, instead of saying she was a philosopher, say she was "the originator of the controversial philosophy of Objectivism", which is undeniably true and NPOV. I favor the inclusion of "controversial" because, well, it is. Objectivism is exceedingly controversial, and I think acknowledging such in the intro does not give undue weight. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Rand is controversial and that it merits inclusion in the lead section. However, if undue weight becomes an issue (and I agree that's a legitimate concern for any article), it might be useful to review the number of articles that either criticize her ideas, identify her work as controversial, etc. According to LexisNexis, a keyword search for "controversial" and "Ayn Rand" (and various combinations linking her to controversy) registers 720 articles. Here's a brief sample:
  • 1. NEW ISSUE HONORS WRITER AYN RAND NOT EVERYONE'S HAPPY ABOUT THE CHOICE, SAYING AUTHOR PROMOTED SELFISHNESS.
The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), May 2, 1999 Sunday Final Edition, STARS; Stamps; Pg. 33, 667 words, Jeff Stage Staff writer
Controversial novelist Ayn Rand, who promoted what she called " ...
  • 2. Ayn Rand's Atlas shrugged; a philosophical and literary companion; Brief Article; Book Review
Reference & Research Book News, February 1, 2008, 163 words
9780754655336Ayn Rand's Atlas shrugged; a ...
... Still popular, still controversial, and still influential, Rand's ...
... Review; Brief Article; Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A ...
  • 3. THEATER REVIEW; No calm waters here; Howard Korder's 'Sea of Tranquility' is filled with jokes and great acting, but do we believe any of it?
Los Angeles Times, January 22, 2008 Tuesday, CALENDAR; Calendar Desk; Part E; Pg. 3, 662 words, Lewis Segal, Times Staff Writer
... HBO, 1988), "The Passion of Ayn Rand" (Showtime, 1999) and "Stealing ...
... a book exploring the controversial theory that the Anasazi cliff- ...
  • 4. My book of the year was...
Sunday Business Post, December 23, 2007, AGENDA, 4888 words
... tax cuts.His adoration of Ayn Rand is also questionable.Yet, despite these ...
... story of a full and controversial life. It is a ...
  • 5. Jan. 28 - Feb. 3
Copley News Service, December 21, 2007 Friday 3:36 AM EST, STARWATCH, 3150 words, Wanda Perry
... record regarding a controversial topic. Explain or defend ...
... Smothers, James Dickey, Ayn Rand and James Joyce.For ...
  • 6. Who is John Gault?
Non-Prophet, November 26, 2007 Monday 10:57 PM EST, 432 words, Non-Prophet
... Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand on audio book from ...
... boards. Atlas Shrugged is Ayn Rands 1,000+ magnum opus ...
... free markets. The work is controversial because of how it is critical of ...
  • 7. ‘Atlas’ At 50
Tampa Tribune (Florida), April 22, 2007 Sunday, BAYLIFE; Pg. 1, 529 words, KEVIN WALKER, The Tampa Tribune
Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," ...
... author-renegade philosopher Ayn Rand began her 1957 novel " ...
... Shrugged," which remains a controversial book 50 years after ...
... Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, ...
  • 8. Jolie to film the cult 'bible of selfishness': Actress tackles daunting epic by controversial author who counted Reagan among her fans
The Observer (England), January 28, 2007, OBSERVER FOREIGN PAGES; Pg. 33, 865 words, Paul Harris, New York
... star in the film of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. ...
... Hollywood. Getty Images AYN RAND IS one of the most controversial ...
... Shrugged is one of the most controversial books in modern literature. ...
... Wisconsin-Madison and member of the Ayn Rand Society.The plot is hardly conventional ...
... David Kelley, founder of the Ayn Rand Institute and a script ...
  • 9. Sex! Power! Politics! Money!: If only Ayn Rand's novels were as filmable as her life
National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), January 16, 2007 Tuesday, ARTS & LIFE; Notebook; Pg. AL1, 1046 words, Robert Fulford, National Post
Ayn Rand, the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas ...
... America when she was 21. Her somewhat controversial ideas (she thought there was too much altruism ...
... publication, The Objectivist. He also became Ayn Rand's lover, in 1954, with his ...
... TV movie, The Passion of Ayn Rand, cast Helen Mirren as ...
... made. Even the failures of Ayn Rand (such as her prose) have their own foolish ...
... sense of humour and take Ayn Rand seriously.Robert.fulford ...
  • 10. Ayn Rand at 100: loved, hated, and always controversial, the best-selling author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is more relevant :than ever.
Reason, March 1, 2005, Pg. 22(8), 3013 words, Young, Cathy
... years after her death, Ayn Rand remains a fascinating and ...
... book Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand,and Sciabarra wrote 1996's controversial Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.) The five-year-old Journal of Ayn :Rand Studies, co-founded ...
... hagiographic way. Two controversial books about Rand the person ...
... life and work: The Passion of Ayn Rand(1986) by Barbara ...
... Day: My Years With Ayn Rand (1989) by Nathaniel ...
... book called Who Is Ayn Rand? More than 40 years ...
... still stands.The Appeal of Ayn RandReading Rand's philosophy ...
... mutual aid.The Limits of Ayn RandPerhaps Rand's biggest ...
... impossible.The Darkness in Ayn RandIn the heyday of the Objectivist ...
... action of another."The Paradox of Ayn RandFor all her flaws, ...
  • 11. Biography of Rand is a gem of a book
Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City), February 6, 2005 Sunday, 477 words, Dennis Lythgoe Deseret Morning News
AYN RAND, by Jeff Britting, ...
... pages, $19.95.Ayn Rand is most famous for her ...
... an archivist at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, ...
... on Rand's life ("Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life") and ...
... biography, simply titled "Ayn Rand," which is appropriately filled with wonderful ...
... forum for her increasingly controversial ideas. This is a gem of a ...
  • 12. Autographed book could be worth $5,000 for Batavia's library
Chicago Daily Herald, January 5, 2005 Wednesday, NEWS; Pg. 1, 462 words, Gala M. Pierce, Daily Herald Staff Writer
... printing, signed copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."After ...
... It was a pretty controversial book when it came out," ...
... edition, first printing of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" in ...
  • 13. rand not bland
Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), February 1, 2001, Thursday, HIT; Pg. 35, 216 words
THE Fountainhead is based on the controversial book of the same name by Ayn Rand (pictured), who also wrote the ...
I'll stop there, but there are literally hundreds of articles that describe her work and her status as controversial. Unless someone can think of a good :reason why not to label her controversial in the lead, it seems a reasonable (and accurate) qualifier. J Readings (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rand is controversial, but this is not central to why she is notable, or to understanding her. It is relevant to understanding her cultural impact and should therefore be mentioned in the article, even prominently, but I disagree that it warrants inclusion in the lede. When I see "controversial" in the first paragraph of an article, I expect the rest of it to have a significant amount of space devoted to the controversy; in other words, I infer that the controversy is largely what makes the subject worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, without which it might have been omitted or been worthy only of a very brief article. For example, The Bell Curve, Scopes Trial, and Bjorn Lomborg. Such is not the case with Ayn Rand. In this respect, she is more akin to Michel Foucault, evolution, and global warming, where the subject has generated significant controversy but would be worthy of inclusion absent that. Mwickens (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rand is controversial, but this is not central to why she is notable, or to understanding her. Really? And you are basing this conclusion on...? I'm reading carefully the notability and lead guidelines. They're quite specific on what we should be examining: reliable, independent, third-party sources that are in no way affiliated with the subject. That excludes, I imagine, any partisan sources affiliated with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Consequently, it largely depends on what the majority of reliable third-party sources say about Rand, correct? (Incidentally, reliable third-party sources definitely include newspapers and magazines, as well as peer-reviewed academic journals.) As for what should be included in the lead section, WP:LEAD is also quite specific: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead section, like the article itself, is not a resume. Indeed, in a sense, I believe that the current lead section is still inadequate because it doesn't mention the fact that her novels were largely trashed by critics when they first appeared, despite her novels being best-sellers; that the academic establishment eschewed Rand's work during her lifetime and that acceptance of her ideas by parts of the mainstream establishment is only a fairly recent posthumous phenomenon, according to the reliable third-party sources I have read. As I said before, it's my sincere belief that we should be focusing more on working on the body text which is quite clear on what makes her notable, depending on the time-frame of the discussion. But ultimately, yes, the lead section will have to mention the shades of gray involved as to why she was (and is) notable. J Readings (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the WP:LEAD article. I do note that it also says that "the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text." To me, that doesn't argue for it being the first word used to describe her. Perhaps a sentence at the end like: "From the publication of The Fountainhead until the present day, her books and ideas have been the subject of controversy." But I'll have to think about this more. Mwickens (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll read the lead piece as well. We need to come up with something. Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have had enough. Argument here has degraded to personal insults and disruptive POV pushers are constantly assaulting the page. Ayn Rand was a controvercial figure, there is no doubt about it. I don't agree with her words or actions in many cases, what I do appreciate is her philosophy, which I came to after first learning about it in a Philosphy class. You can see Rand in Wolff's "About Philosophy" fifth edition where she is described as a Novelist and Philospher page 139 paragraph 1 line 4. A philosphy text from a college level course. Period. End of discussion. Good bye Edward and anon. Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Here is the authors page for wolff. He is a philosopher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Paul_Wolff Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is called cherry-picking. In one of the quotes above, Rand is described as "author-renegade philosopher". I'd love to see your explanation for why we should hide her renegade status, but I doubt you're capable of offering one. Of course, failure to do so would constitute a concession. - Bert 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Bert, so far as far as I can make out, we have one highly respected analytical academic political philosopher and historian of philosophy, Robert Paul Wolff aver that Rand is a philosopher, and no reliable sources that say she is not. Now, we could probably find hundreds of scholar's reactions to Rand that says she was or was not a philosopher, so that won't really get us anywhere. Where the meat of this discussion is is in the tertiary literature - the surveys of reaction to Rand. See my response to Edward above for more information on this point. And, as a friendly word of advice, before you respond to any further discussion you might want to ask yourself "Do I want to win an argument, or work towards consensus on a solution?" If it's the former, you will probably only end up frustrated. Regards, Skomorokh 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic rigor and Godwin's law

Here's an extract from the summary of an as-yet-unpublished paper that has gone through exactly the same peer-review process as Rand's non-fiction essays on philosophy:

"Our research goal was to rigorously and scientifically determine, by consensus, whether Adolph Hitler was indeed a great man and entirely admirable, just as the pamphlet claimed. To this end, we polled no fewer than 10 self-chosen individuals at a meeting of the White Power Brigade. While some might argue that this is neither a random nor representative sample, or that the sample size is woefully inadquate to allow any sort of generalization, we feel that our results are nonetheless entirely valid, because this method works so well for Wikipedia. As a methodological necessity, we were forced to disregard the negative response from a brave, African-American protester named Leeroy Jenkins, because the man was clearly a troll and probably a sock-puppet of Edward G. Nilges. Likewise, we did not always get a straight answer, so we accepted both 'Seig heil!' and 'Hitler's cooler than white raptor Jeebus!' as affirmatives. The end result was that 9 out of 10 people agreed, forming a clear consensus."

This isn't even a sham; it's too transparent and ridiculous for that. I abstain even to the point of refusing to log an "abstain" in the right place. - Bert 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I restored this section after someone censored it because I thought it was funny. I'd have done the same for Edward's arguments (which nobody can refute) but I think the rules actually do allow silencing banned people. Anyhow, there's a real point in here, mixed in with the humor, which is that this so-called consensus is based on sampling self-selected and highly partial individuals.
Now, I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy of Randists who're trying to take over all of her articles, just that her fans are both motivated to contribute and unqualified to determine what's neutral. No matter how many Randists you ask, you're never going to get a fair and balanced article if you let them control it. It doesn't really matter what the majority of Randists think, either, any more than it matters what the majority of Catholic archbishops think about the priest sex abuse scandal. They're all reading from the same page, so to speak, so all of their opinions add up to just one.
The way I count it, there are at least two people against the one Randist hive-mind, so the consensus is for admitting in the lead that Rand is a non-academic philosopher. 02:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Argumentum ad hitlerum is a blatant troll, and is not constructive, regardless of how "funny" you think it may be to compare your fellow editors to white supremacists.
Now I cannot STAND Ayn Rand. I think Objectivism is dangerously radical, destructive, godless, chaotic, exploitative, unjust... you name it. That said, it is still a philosophy, which by definition makes Rand a philosopher. My personal opinion is that someone is a philosopher if a large number of people consider them to be a philosopher. It's that simple. This doesn't (or shouldn't) give Rand any kind of special authority. After all, philosophy is not like law or medicine. There is no license to practice philosophy. There is nothing that says that a philosopher has to be an academic for their work to be valuable. Putting non-academic in the lead would be giving undue weight and would require that one of the articles major focuses.
Finally, don't call me a Randist or any other word you can think of to describe one of her followers, because I most definitely am not. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're attacking a straw man. The argument here is that Rand was not in any sense a conventional philosopher, so we can't let the article lead off with the implicit claim that she was. Philosophy is less like medicine than it is like plumbing; anyone can do it, but if you do it wrong, you can make a real mess.

That's why professional philosophers, like plumbers, start by getting training in the traditions and methods of the craftsmen of the past. Rand is demonstrably not a part of this tradition, as she rejected it explicitly and seemed to be somewhat ignorant of it. Maybe she can lay a pipe, maybe she can't, but saying she's a philosopher without qualifying that statement is just lying.

This is not a new point. I've made it and others have. Nobody's really addressed it, despite a few weak attempts. The article SHOULD lead off with the fact that she's not an academic philosopher. 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say that, as someone who is Jewish, I find this post extremely offensive. While there are certain people who have a pro-Randian bias, most of us work hard to make this article NPOV. I personally am friends with a number of Objectivists, but I am not an Objectivist and I have also published essays criticizing Objectivism. At the end of the day, you have to realize that this is simply one of many philosophies and stop taking it so personally. If you post another disgustingly offensive remark on here, I will recommend that you be banned for violating WP:Civil and WP:Attack and you can join Edward since you seem to respect him so much. Idag (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me say, as someone who is a member of the human race, I find your statement "you can join Edward since you seem to respect him so much" isomorphic to Nazi talk: "you can join the Jews in the camps since you seem to respect that Jew Husserl so much". Lilith2396 (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the author of that bit of satire, but I stand by my decision to undelete it, ESPECIALLY if it offends you. Satire is SUPPOSED to offend whoever it targets, and you were obviously one of those targets. But grow some thicker skin and lay off the guilt trip; there's no anti-semitism here. As for Edward, he could be kinder towards his intellectual inferiors, but he does know what he's talking about.

In any case, I don't think the goal was so much to suggest Randists are neo-Nazis as to point out that sampling the opinions of like-minded individuals doesn't tell you anything. We already know that Randists love Rand and will somehow find some way to justify making the article fit their view of the world, in which Rand is perfect in all ways. There's no point polling all the Randists who dominate the Rand-related articles and declare a false consensus just because they agree with each other.

A real consensus would be a compromise that even reasonable people who think little of Rand would support. This doesn't include people like TallNapoleon, since their edit history here is no different than a Randist's, regardless of what they say. Editing is as editing does, not as it claims. 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, satire is not an appropriate way to make a point on Wikipedia. See WP:POINT. Second, I have attempted to propose a compromise in the previous section--although given how ridiculously large this talk page has become it's no wonder that you missed it. Essentially, my proposal was to avoid using the term "philosopher" at all in the lede, and instead refer to her as the "originator of the controversial philosophy of Objectivism"--an undeniably true statement. I'm not sure whether to include "controversial" or not, but it does not appear to give undue weight, given that Objectivism is nothing if not controversial. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think satire is highly appropriate when rational debate has been ignored and even censored. In any case, she's been called a philosopher, with certain qualifications, and we have to report that. We just have to report it honestly, which means we can't drop adjectives like "non-academic" and even "renegade". I think we need a new category for undue lightness, as opposed to undue weight, to account for the cases where something is conveniently glossed over to sanitize the truth. It would handle things like, "Some people have expressed criticism about Hitler's social policies" and "Rand is a philosopher". 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk)

Since at this point 69 has ceased contributing anything productive to this article, I suggest that we take the advice under WP:Trolls and stop responding to his off-topic rambling posts. Idag (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Any sign of intelligence is off topic and rambling to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilith2396 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Agree. Ethan a dawe (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Skomorokh 12:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not willing to participate in discussion, then you don't get any say in the consensus the rest of us form without you. Thank you for your concession. - Bert 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Ask the Encyclopedia Britannica

  • Friedrich Nietzsche: "German classical scholar, philosopher, and critic of culture, who became one of the most influential of all modern thinkers." [1]
  • Albert Camus: "French novelist, essayist, and playwright, best known for such novels as L'Étranger (1942; The Stranger), La Peste (1947; The Plague), and La Chute (1956; The Fall) and for his work in leftist causes. He received the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature."[2]
  • Jean-Paul Sartre: "French novelist, playwright, and exponent of Existentialism—a philosophy acclaiming the freedom of the individual human being. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1964, but he declined it."[3]
  • Arthur Shopenhauer: "German philosopher, often called the “philosopher of pessimism,” who was primarily important as the exponent of a metaphysical doctrine of the will in immediate reaction against Hegelian idealism. His writings influenced later existential philosophy and Freudian psychology." [4]
  • Ayn Rand: "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." [5]

Personally, I like how the Encyclopedia Britannica describes Rand in the opening paragraph of its article on her. We can't copy it wholesale because that would be plagiarism, but it's still interesting. A google search of "writer Ayn Rand" yields 4,270 hits, "novelist Ayn Rand" (820 hits), "philosopher" (13,600 hits), "novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand" (2,520 hits), "philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand" (873 hits). Obviously, we cannot use these as it is original research. What we can do is get a sense for what the reliable third-party media saw as her occupation for undue weight considerations. Ultimately, we have to go with what the reliable third-party sources say. A plain vanilla google search is not too helpful because some of these sites include blogs and other partisan sources without editorial oversight. But JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Factiva would probably yield more accurate results. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That definitely sounds good. Especially because its similar to Camus who developed his philosophy in a similar way. Idag (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there are lots of objectivist sites on the web, so a google search would skew results towards description of Rand as a philosopher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Shermer in his piece on Objectivist Cultism referes to her as novelist-philospher http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I could check Tibor Machan's memoir, he knew Rand and is a libertarian. He very likely considers Rand a philospher and is a PhD in philosphy. I'll get the info and post back what I find. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with how the Encyclopedia Britannica's handled the issue of how to summarize Rand. It starts by speaking of her novels, which emphasizes that she was a novelist, mentions that they're commercially successful, without pretending that the critics thought much of them, and immediately explains that her philosophy is in direct opposition to popular ethics, explaining part of why its so controversial (as well as offering an insight into how Objectivism is in many ways defined largely by what it opposes). Note how it says she produced a philosophy, but does not call her a philosopher, and therefore doesn't leave the false impression that she was any sort of academic. In short, the Britannica is much more NPOV that the current Wikipedia article. While we can't steal the words outright, we can certainly model our version loosely on the successes of this one. - Bert 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.29.12 (talk)

And yet we have Camus listed as a philosopher on wiki. Is that a mistake? People here have argued one is and the other isn't. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Ask the Media: Novelist, Philosopher or Both?

The news coverage offered by LexisNexis Global Business and News Service has approximately 12,000 publications from national & local newspapers, press releases, transcripts of tv broadcasts, newswires, statistical bulletins, magazines and trade journals.

A keyword searches looked at (and excluded) certain words from the articles by journalists to get a sense (not the last word, of course) for what the journalists tend to use in their identification of Rand’s occupation. Just typing in the keyword “Ayn Rand” produces thousands of articles. Major mentions – articles solely about Ayn Rand – reduces the number of articles down to roughly 2500. That said, if we were just curious on how the journalists sometimes identify Ayn Rand by occupation, these results might be useful.

From descending order of descriptions in the media, according to this database:

Keyword search: “novelist Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher” All available dates All industries, all subjects

All Results: 203 articles.

  • Newspapers (142)
  • Newswires & Press Releases (25)
  • Aggregate News Sources (13)
  • Web-based Publications (11)
  • Magazines & Journals (10)
  • Industry Trade Press (8)
  • Newsletters (3)
  • Current Awareness (1)
  • People Directories & Profiles (1)
  • Unclassified Documents (1)

Keyword search: “philosopher Ayn Rand” AND NOT “novelist”

All Results: 164 articles

  • Newspapers (132)
  • Newswires & Press Releases (10)
  • Magazines & Journals (8)
  • Aggregate News Sources (7)
  • Web-based Publications (4)
  • Blogs (3)
  • News Transcripts (1)
  • Newsletters (1)

Keyword search: “writer Ayn Rand” AND NOT “philosopher”

All Results: 157 articles

  • Newspapers (123)
  • Aggregate News Sources (16)
  • Magazines & Journals (9)
  • Newswires & Press Releases (7)
  • News Transcripts (2)

Keyword search: “novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand” or “novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand”

All Results: 121 articles.

  • Newspapers (94)
  • Newswires & Press Releases (12)
  • Aggregate News Sources (6)
  • Web-based Publications (6)
  • Magazines & Journals (3)
  • Industry Trade Press (2)

Keyword search: “philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand” or “philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand”

All Results: 55 articles

  • Newspapers (37)
  • Aggregate News Sources (7)
  • Newswires & Press Releases (6)
  • Web-based Publications (3)
  • Industry Trade Press (2)
  • Magazines & Journals (2)

Based on these preliminary search results, it appears that many (most?) journalists tend to identify Ayn Rand as either a “novelist” or a “writer” (if we decide they are synonyms), rather than just a philosopher, more than anything else. 360 articles identify her as either a novelist or a writer, but not as a philosopher. Another 164 articles identify her as just a philosopher, with an additional 176 articles saying that she is both a philosopher and a novelist.

I’m surprised, actually. I was expecting the majority of articles to identify her as a “novelist-philosopher” or as a “philosopher-novelist”, which include by the way “novelist and philosopher” and “philosopher and novelist” in the keyword searches. Instead, we get 360 for either novelist or writer versus 340 for either philosopher or some combination of the two (e.g., novelist-philosopher).

Incidentally, according to these results, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe – some of the major nationwide US dailies — tend to identify Ayn Rand as a novelist only. These results are not the last word on the subject by any means, but they do give us a little better idea of how Ayn Rand tends to be identified in the popular press. That said, the research that editors like Ethan a dawe and others are producing is highly useful, too, in my opinion. We definitely need to look at how books, academic journal articles, and other WP:RS genre sources identify Rand in order to balance the coverage out before coming to any conclusions. I hope this helps a little bit more. J Readings (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks J. I'm searching everything I can find. I just checked out NPR (not known for being fans of Rand in general) and found her identified as "controlversial writer and philosopher" Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the three magic words are "writer", "novelist" and "philosopher". What's interesting is that the former subsumes the latter two, as novels and philosophy are both kinds of writing, and also includes such things as screenplays and speeches. Moreover, she made her living from the various things she wrote and, to a lesser extent, from giving speeches.
In short, "writer" a general term that is accurate and uncontroversially neutral, so I suggest we call her a writer, but immediately mention that she put forth her personal philosophy, which she called "Objectivism". This neatly side-steps the issue of what, if any, sort of philosopher she might have been, and is consistent with what the Encyclopedia Britannica does. Objections? - Bert 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer "novelist" because "writer" just seems to be too generic (if you think about it, almost every notable person on Wikipedia was a "writer" to some extent). Idag (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
George W. Bush is notable, yet he's not a writer. Disproof by single example, but you can find many other cases of people famous for what they do, not for what they wrote. Morevoer, even those who are famous for what they wrote aren't necessarily writers in any professional sense of the word. Rand was a professional writer, and her writing output was hardly limited to novels, so we would have to add that she was a screenwriter, a speechwriter, a playwright and an essayist, at the very least. Better to just call her a writer, since it includes all of these jobs. - Bert 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Keyword in my previous post: most. Disproof by example doesn't work in this instance. Idag (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't shown that even "most" was true, nor have you shown how the case I gave fails to apply to Rand. On top of that, you seemed to have stopped reading at the first sentence, since you ignore all the arguments afterwards. I accept your concession. - Bert 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)
I prefer both. Novelist. She wrote novels. Philospher. She devloped a philosophical system and wrote non-fiction works about that. She is both. I finding Cites from academic philosophers who are not objectivists calling her a philosopher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not a plumber, but I'm certainly qualified to do some simple jobs around the house. It would be accurate to say that I repaired a hot water heater by replacing the thermocouple or fixed a toilet by using a plunger. These are plumbign tasks, but it would be inaccurate to say that I'm a plumber, particularly since nobody in their right mind would ever pay me to do these tasks. I have no real training as a plumber and my abilities fall short of what is expected of a professional. The same is true with regard to Rand as a philosopher; she clearly lacked the knowledge of the philosophical canon that would be expected of any academic.
Howeover, Rand was definitely a professional writer, and her writing included everything from popular novels and screenplays to essays and speeches. She made her living primarily from a few novels, but there wasn't a day in her life that she worked as a philosopher. If we promote her to philosopher, it would be like promoted to to plumber: only honest if we add a qualifier such as "amateur" or "non-academic", depending.
The decidedly non-original research into secondary sources that Readings provided confirms that she is known primarily as a writer, so let's stick to what the sources say and not stretch them to fit our preconceptions, ok? - Bert 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My sources are non-original research as well. So, you can take your stretching comment and have anice look in the mirror. Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Your sources are cherry-picked and irrelevant, while Readings' search was comprehensive and neutral. Don't even pretend that they're of comparable validity. - Bert 65.170.159.12 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your entire argument boils down to: you don't think Rand was a good philsopher, therefore she was not a philosopher. If you look at the phone book, you could probably find plumbers who have the same skills as you, but are considered plumbers (albeit not very good ones). The term writer is too generic. What if we simply say something like "controversial figure who, in written works and speeches, created the philosophy of Objectivism." This way we neutrally state what she actually did instead of trying to pick one word to encompass it all. Idag (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what my argument boils down to, and until you take the time to understand and address my argument, there's very little for me to say. - Bert 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Bert, note that several of the sources I've provided are Academic Philosophers who don't agree with Rand. Considering all the arguements about these very people on this page I woud think they would ount for more than a "stretch." Ethan a dawe (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This approach has been refuted by Readings' comprehensive search. - Bert 17:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A web search does not trump verifiable and reliable third party sources. Check wikipedia policy, I did. Ethan a dawe (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Be careful what you wish for, Ethan. You might actually get it. :-) In any case, a few things: (1) LexisNexis is not a web search. It's a newspaper and magazine database. (2) As newspaper and magazine articles, the articles that are generated *are* both verifiable and reliable third party sources meeting the criteria of WP:RS. They all have editorial oversight and reputations for fact-checking. They don't have to be academic sources to be "reliable third-party sources". (3) "Verifiability" does not necessarily mean that the source must be online, though it would convenient if it were. (4) In the case of LexisNexis, it is an online database and it is used quite often on Wikipedia. (5) WP:V, here at least, is not the issue so much as it is WP:UNDUE. (6) I could list the hundreds of articles by name, title, publication, date, and section where Rand is identified as (for example) a "novelist" versus "philosopher", but as I stated elsewhere, that would take an enormous amount of space on the talk page (See what happened above with the word "controversial" and just listing a small sample). Instead, I demonstrated the results of the reliable sources via aggregate numbers. (7) I realize that the we cannot footnote the search results, but I already said that myself. This exercise was done specifically to give good-faith editors who are not pushing for one thing or the other A REAL SENSE for how the media identify Rand's occupation for "undue weight" purposes. Finally, (8) If all that will satisfy is listing an extremely large number of reliable third-party sources, rather than just the numbers, I suppose I could make time over the weekend to do that. I'm a little disappointed that it has to come to that, but I suppose it's necessary to satisfy the cynics. But do I really need to dedicate hours of my time on Saturday or Sunday to do that? To be honest, I would prefer if I didn't have to. J Readings (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


J, I don't want you to waste your time, so let me explain. Here is the quote I'm referring to
"Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."
The context part seems escpecially telling. Rand is being called a philospher, by academic philosophers in my cites. Even ones who are disagreeing with her. So, people who are philosphers calling her a philospher seems pretty valid and important. Does that make sense? Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's useful. But they don't necessarily trump everything else, either, as the next paragraph on mainstream news organizations makes clear. Everything should be weighed on balance with the available sources. Incidentally, since "mainstream" seems to be a recurring word on WP:RS, I've been meaning to ask for this information: in citing book and academic journal sources from philosophers, it would be helpful if we had the publishers. I would rest more easily if we had more information on them. I know I must sound hypocritical after asking not having to list the hundreds on my end, but for the books and book chapters, we're only talking about a few. I'm interested to know, for example, if they're university publishers or something else. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly a reasonable request. I can have that information by tomorrow afternoon. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe faster :-) The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand from University of Illinois Press Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
About Philosophy, currently by Prentice Hall. I'll check the 5th edition to see if it's the same later. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ayn Rand by Tibor Machan from Peter Lang Publishing Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
So, I was considering updating the cites in the lead next to "philosopher" with the sources I have found in books by academic philosphers, both sympathetic and unsypathetic to Rand that call her a philospher. I was going to include all of them so as to try and avoid this debate again in the future. I don't want to do that if the good faith editors here disagree though. So, how are we feeling? Ethan a dawe (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want others to listen to you, you must return the courtesy. Edward has offered a pair of very informative and neutral lead paragraphs, and I fully endorse his suggestion. He's also contributed to the large number of unrefuted arguments against calling Rand a philosopher. You have chosen to ignore him, and by doing so, you give up your right to participate in any effort to build a consensus. I'm much too polite to simply ignore you, but I'm much too rational to allow your view any more weight than it has on its merits, which is to say, none. - Bert 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.159.12 (talk)

Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_14&oldid=1047742184"