Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Homosexuality/Gender and Sex

So this was one of the contentious changes I've made. It is my opinion that the section on Homosexuality was too long, as Rand's views on the matter were an extremely minor part of her philosophy and definitely not what she is primarily remembered for. To have an entire subsection on it, equal in length to the subsection about her politics, which she IS well remembered for her politics and her economics. Similarly, Rand's views on gender are likely of very little interest to the average reader. They are not primarily what she is remembered for, although they have garnered some attention from feminists. As such I propose that this section be trimmed. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

does the george washington page comment on his homosexuality views? mel blanc? the muppets? isaac newton? u2? kurt vonnegut? emperor hirohito? steve jobs? yassar arafat? jesus? once again.....if the jesus wikipedia can avoid comments on homosexuality views why cant the ayn rand page. Brushcherry (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Incidentally Jesus never expressed an opinion on homosexuality, so far as Scripture records. Rand's philosophy did involve sex, so mentioning it may be appropriate. This much, however, is not. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ. This would explain why Ayn Rand, whose work had clear - perhaps minor, but not so minor as to be completely disregarded - elements of sexuality (whoever could forget the touching rape scene in Atlas Shrugged The Fountainhead - just to name the most obvious example) intertwined with the rest of her views, has a section in her Wikipedia article regarding her views on homosexuality, while Jesus Christ, whose scope - regardless of whether he was the true son of God or was just an interesting chap - dwarves this particular issue, does not. Additionally, you might find that Mr. Christ has an entire section (and multiple sub-articles) devoted to just how "real" (in a secular, flesh-and-blood, existential sense) he was, while there are no such sections or sub-articles for Ms. Rand. Badger Drink (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The homosexuality section is not especially long. Personal opinion on how significant this information is seems irrelevant to me. It's been substantially covered and is notable, so it should be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now the section on gender longer than the ones on economics and politics combined, which flagrantly violates WP:UNDUE if you accept, as I do, that Rand's most important impact was political. Inclusionists on this page keep throwing the word "notable" around. Unfortunately, if we were to include everything that were notable about Rand we wouldn't have an article, we would have a book. We have to pick and choose, which requires that we rely on "personal opinion". I would also note that, unlike many of the other sections, this one might be a good candidate for a separate article, because of the relatively significant amount of work examining Ayn Rand from a feminist perspective. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Given that there appears that mediation is not going to be accepted by the vast bulk of the editors taking a pro-Rand position, should we re-open the arbitration request to agree process? --Snowded TALK 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait until the mediation is actually rejected (according to the rules its 7 days after filing if there's no universal agreement). People may change their minds before then. Idag (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point and hopefully they will. If not I suggest a collaborative effort on stating the problem. --Snowded TALK 13:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I appeal to Endlessmike 888, Kjaer, ChildofMidnight, and SteveWolfer to sign up for the mediation before the deadline. [1] The only alternatives are continual disputes and protection, or an ArbCom case, which may bring sanctions, and which really shouldn't be necessary. An uninvolved mediator (assuming a mediator accepts the case, which is another hurdle) will help us sort through the issues, and will make sure the article ends up neutral and accurate; respectful of Rand, without unnecessary criticism or adulation. If we all enter the process in good faith, I'm certain we'll find it beneficial. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RFC

Kjaer's recent RFC was very problematical, and its results have not been accepted for a number of reasons. However I feel he raised a valid question. I would therefore like to pose an RFC, worded as follows:

"Should Ayn Rand be reverted to its state on Dec. 31 before it was protected?"

Simple, clear, to the point, and it should allow us to settle the issue once and for all. I would also seek to have a neutral admin close the RFC after an appropriate length of time. Since I'm not really sure how one goes about setting up an RFC, I would like to gage people's interest. Also, does anyone have any recommendations for a neutral admin to run it? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend a separate RfC for each section that was effected. This way if someone likes one section but hates another, they wouldn't do a blanket denial (its also easier to read when looking at the diffs). Idag (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing problematic, apparently, is that your faction, which asserted repeatedly that there was a "new consensus," lost. You had no consensus to make the over 100 unilateral radical POV motivated alterations that you did, and yours is the faction that engaged in 3RR and every aspect of an edit war in response. Now that you know you will be reversed once the freeze is removed, now you want to vote, vote, vote again? Let us simply go back to the Dec 31st version, retain all referenced comments, and if you truly think the article is too long, lets split it up into sub articles in accord with wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not call for losing factions to request repeated RfC's until it's side wins. Until the terms of that RfC are honored any other RfC would be a sham. Kjaer (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, for a number of reasons which have been explained repeatedly, many of us have serious issues with the way that RFC was handled. In particular, it was poorly worded, you should not have closed it, it was not a straw poll, we were not voting, and the conclusions you've drawn from it are baseless. I've had it. Frankly, at this point this should go to ArbCom. Only once the issues of behavior on this page are sorted out do we have any hope of making any progress. I will urge everyone, one last time, to sign up for mediation. But if this mediation request dies then Arbcom will need to step in. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The refusal to accept mediation other than under "conditions" is indicative of the issues here. A separate and properly administered RfC is one option but I think we are past that and it needs to go to ArbCom --Snowded TALK 09:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately my understanding is that Arbcom is in something of a state of chaos right now... mediation may well be our best bet to reaching a resolution. I would therefore again urge Steve and Kjaer to accept mediation. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that Snowded's very valid points are about interpretation of policy, and given that mediation committee does not have the remit to deal with technical issues like these, I think Arbitration the best. I may be wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Science

In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand says of modern science that "in the field of scientific theory, unable to integrate or interpret their own data, scientists are abetting the resurgence of a primitive mysticism." This is particularly remarkable, as these comments came during the greatest period of scientific revolution in the history of mankind. The 20th century was the undisputed golden age of science, and so Rand's comments (she strangely seems to feel that pre-19th century science was superior) are exceedingly odd. Branden remarks that Rand in general was skeptical of any science since the time of Newton. It appears that Rand was profoundly ignorant of science. The fact that Rand was an evolution doubter should also be mentioned. N.Branden discusses this fact in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". CABlankenship (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

rand is not a scientist, this is a irrelevant rambling. she is a philosophist, what is notable about her is her views on philosophy and the economy, all else is "trivia". --66.158.232.98 (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You might be surprised to know that one's views on science are generally held to be a part of any philosophy one propounds, even for novelists. --Snowded TALK 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

When someone makes such remarkable claims about their own wisdom and knowledge as Rand, we must call into question her beliefs and statements on a wide range of subjects. Rand and her disciples claimed that she was one of the most brilliant people to ever live, and that she and N.Branden were the two greatest geniuses of their age. She started a "dogmatic religion" based around her own teachings and infallible wisdom. Therefore, her tremendous errors deserve special attention. CABlankenship (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

I have made a stab at a whole article - 10 commonly encountered arguments to support the inclusion of marginal or pseudoscientific views. I have described the arguments, and given examples, and in certain cases given recommendations about how to reply to the arguments. I would welcome help on this article. Note I extensively plagiarised material from User:ScienceApologist and User:Filll - I am sure they will understand.

Note some of the arguments discussed there appear on this very page. Peter Damian (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand and the Native Americans

I seem to recall reading, at some point, a quote from Rand where she basically said the Native Americans had it coming. I'll look it up when I can, but that might be relevant. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be consistent with her Anglophilia. CABlankenship (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like unsubstantiated innuendo to move an intellectual discussion along, eh? Don't worry, just back it up when you get around to it...maybe. Of course, no doubt we'll see the same (lack of) accuracy I've come to expect regarding these so-called "quotes" you reference.TheJazzFan (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." --http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/09/fifty-years-of-moral-illiteracy.html

I'll find a better source when I'm not about to get on the road. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its in the question/answer session after the West Point lecture. Its pretty damning. --Snowded TALK 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the myriad inconsistencies of Wikipedia is what's considered a reliable source. I've seen blogs declared as unreliable sources. Was it electronically or at least reliably stenographically recorded or just someone's general recollection of what she said? I'll bet TallNap couldn't have said when he tossed out this "quote" as fact. I bet he still can't. It's not specified on the blog.

Another quote I see by this same blogger -

"My first direct experience with Ayn Rand's prose came when a fellow English major offered me his copy of Atlas Shrugged with John Galt's unreadable, 70-page radio address helpfully marked with a paperclip and what I continue to hope were mere coffee stains. I lasted about five pages before deciding that John Galt was the libertarian equivalent of Jonathan Livingston Seagull..."

So, he read part of a section, with perhaps no concept of the story it was set within, and dismissed it without really examining it intellectually. Since it's one of the all-time best sellers, I guess his ADD was just more pronounced than millions who found it perfectly readable? But, this is exactly the mindset of many bashers, who just as I've seen here, dismiss something they can't even clearly explain. This blogger is apparently unaware that Rand didn't support Libertarianism.

But let's say it's an accurate quote, it deserves examining. *Did* the NA's have specific property boundaries? If one asked them to show *exactly* what their property boundaries are, could they have done so? Or was it more on the lines of they kind of occupied area sort of in some general vicinity unless of course they had a conflict with another tribe over who got to use a particular valley or the like? Did they understand the dimensions of the continents they lived on? If they don't have clear delineation of boundaries, why not claim the entire planet as their potential hunting grounds? That's assuming they grasped the concept that they lived on a planet.

So, you come across territory that's being disputed by warring tribes. They're killing each other over it. Okay, whose is it? None of this is to say that the way it played out shouldn't have been handled differently, but there are conceptual points of this alleged quote that aren't so easily dismissed.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how many so-called "Native" Americans (maybe more accurately called Asian-Americans in honor of their even earlier roots?) would be all for living *exactly* as their ancestors did and likely still would be if not for European influence. Chasing buffalo, warring with other tribes, crapping in the woods, no modern health care, contact lenses, toothpaste or satellite TV. Critical problem during childbirth? Serious infection, colon cancer, etc? Tough, you die in agony. Just like I notice there doesn't seem to be a mass exodus of indignant black folks clamoring to live in Africa.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Europeans at the time of the settlement of America had similar issues as I remember it, in fact prior to smallpox and other epidemics there is evidence of better health etc. in native american populations. Europeans crapped in the woods, had no anaesthetics and as as far as I recollect had no satellite TV. Your last sentence ignores the context of history and is borderline racist. --Snowded TALK 09:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is "borderline racist"? It either is or it isn't. At any rate it's simply speculation on your part that you present as if fact, and doesn't address the question.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a question, just an ill informed set of assertions. I'll stick with "borderline" as an act of generosity. --Snowded TALK 12:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need your generosity, I'd be happy with less slant on your part. I pondered a specific point - would NA's today rather have a life birth to death exactly as their ancestors lived or be enjoying the benefits of Western thought? Note, I didn't say mass slaughter was a good idea, I didn't say there wasn't inhumane treatment, neither of which were new concepts to the NA tribes. Ever heard variations on the phrase "gonna kill 'ya Indian style?" No, Europeans didn't start laying fiberoptic cable as soon as they set foot on the soil, but they were certainly more technologically advanced than the NA's. They were on an intellectual path that the NA's weren't, as evidenced by their very presence.

It's also a fact that there isn't a massive movement by American blacks to move to Africa. Presumably because life here is more appealing than the third world, no matter how their ancestors got here. Speaking of historic context - sure, Africans were brought here as slaves. The context *you're* ignoring is what their lives would have been back across the pond. They would have been slaves, that is if they weren't killed outright in tribal warring. They were sold by fellow Africans. They'd been killing and enslaving each other long before white man showed up. So they were slaves in an advancing nation where their descendants would have opportunities unimaginable to those back in Africa living little removed from the stone age, where slaughter and strife is a fact of life to this day. Absolutely not a justification of slavery, but fact nonetheless. And you may have heard, not everyone in the US approved of slavery. In fact, they had a bit of a spat over it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Millions of Native Americans were killed by whites up through the end of the nineteenth century, and millions more perished due to European diseases. See Population history of American indigenous peoples#Genocide debate. In addition, the whites brought with them the scourge of alcoholism, and engaged in what can only be termed ethnic cleansing, herding Native Americans into "reservations" often with little to no consideration of the human cost. And you think Native Americans should be grateful to the whites for bringing them "civilization" when it killed 9/10 of their ancestors? Give me a break. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They may have brought alcohol, but you don't "bring alcholism". Anyway, your rant doesn't address the question that was posed.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So when the British smuggled opium into China they had no responsibility for drug abuse? --Snowded TALK 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of people around the world consider the genocide of the Native Americans to be horrifying. Fringe ethics and apologetics are meaningless on wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No question was posed, that I can see. I simply believe that Rand's statement is notable. Surely, if you feel that she is right, you should have no problem with it appearing in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to care about is whether the quote is accurate, or complete enough to give the full context. As user Steve demonstrated in the section below, it isn't. JazzFan was proven right in their prediction that your "documentation" would turn out to be baloney...once again. You've decided you want to paint Rand as a racist and you'll throw any crap on the wall you think might stick. I don't have a problem with Rand being examined honestly but you don't care about facts, you care about pushing a preconceived agenda - while not demonstrating even a baseline comprehension of her ideas. Any high school kid versed in Objectivism would eat you alive in a debate, that is if they could stop laughing long enough. At some point the moderator would probably be moved to say "Um, Mr. Gelotopoios, I'm sorry, perhaps it wasn't made clear to you that the debate today would be on Objectivism?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this quote might be found in "Ayn Rand Answers", edited by Robert Mayhew. Unfortunately there is no Google Books preview to confirm. According to Amazon it would be around page 103 or 104, though. Are there any editors here who own the book and could confirm it?

For a different source, try Jensen, Derrick (2005). Endgame: The Problem of Civilization. Seven Stories Press. p. 220. ISBN 158322730X. The included URL is to the page in Google Books. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

With all this indignation over how evil white American settlers were, show of hands of how many of you have signed over your property to a NA tribe? I mean, it's rightfully theirs, right?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as Senator S. I. Hayakawa put it, "We stole it, fair and square." -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I consider myself and Objectivist, but don't agree with how the native americans were treated. So much for my religious dedication to Rand. What about every war and land grab in history? I chock most of her comment up to the ignoirnce of that piece if history especially in that time. Real religions have been guilty of doing (rather than just commenting on) most of what people are so indignant about here. You folks want to fill up Rnad's artcile with every comment that yo think will make people hate her? Have at it. I see you and see your hypocrisy. You are exemplars of your philosophies. Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it on | Wikiquote... apparently someone there transcribed it from Ayn Rand Answers, edited by Robert Mayhew. If anyone has access to the book and would like to confirm it, I would greatly appreciate it. Here is the quote, in its entirety, without those oh-so-offensive ellipses:

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquerthis country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existnece; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

Frankly I don't think this paints her in any better light. However it's a bit long to post to the article. I would appreciate any ideas or suggestions--as opposed to personal attacks. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism. This is not a forum for general discussion about t

Hmmmm....Ayn Rand hates Native Americans??? Her fiction and non-fiction must be irrelevant then. Let's just delete her from wikipedia lest the weak minded stumble across her. Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

68.125.217.117 (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

An article about a person on the Wikipedia, regardless of his or her qualities, will naturally include material about that person's views, especially when they espouse political views. In addition the Native American issues casts an interesting light on her views on property and its protection by the State. So if someone says one thing in one context, but contradicts it in another then that is worthy of note and is not an ad hominem. Now if this was an article on the philosophy derived from Rand (called Objectivism) then pointing out contradictions in Rand's personal approach as an objection to objectivism would be ad hominem argument. In a biographical page about the author it isn't. I think you are somewhat confused as to the context here in your argument above. Hopefully this helps. --Snowded TALK 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Snowded, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship were using inuendo to paint Rand as a racist. Which is consistent with their remarks being uniformly negative about Rand. Then, and I'm referring to the Native American section above, Snowded goes so far as to call another editor a "borderline racist." When one reads the exchange they can see that there is no justification for that kind of character assasination. Again, I hope that ArbCom can look into this kind of editing. --Steve (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply provided a direct quote that I considered to be notable. Frankly it's not racism that bothers me about it, and I actually believe Rand when she says she is not a racist. What bothers me is the attempt to justify democide and ethnic cleansing, and I imagine that many readers would be interested to see that quote. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with direct quotes? OK they may or may not reflect well on the individual but they are a part of that person and much is made of the West Point speech. What we have here (yet again) is the question of balance and the tendency of a view editors to react with POV accusations when ever anyone takes a view that does not praise the subject. I think the interesting thing about the quote is the light it sheds on her views on property. The other's editor's comments speak for themselves and I am surprised that Steve wants to associate himself with them. --Snowded TALK 10:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon did NOT provide a direct quote. He provided a hacked up, inaccurate, out of context paraphase of an answer she gave during the question period at a lecture in 1974 and managed to butcher the heart of what she said. Her statement, which is too long for me to type, gives a different picture. She was asked, "When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during WW2, how can you have such a positive view of America?" She said, in part, "America is the country of individual rights. Should America have tolerated slavery? Certainly not." And she went on to describe the early compromises that failed to implement individual rights eventually led to the civil war, and she stated that as long as Americans held the concept of individual rights it was going to lead to the overthrow of slavery. Everything she was saying was addressing individual rights.

She said that she believed that most portrayals of the savage treatment of settlers by indians was not just Hollywood but fact. She stated that one should not believe that some people are entitled to something just because of their race. Most of her statement flowed from describing a country that believed in individual rights, whose settlers were being attacked by aggressors, who belonged to tribes that did not respect individual rights - and that rights are lost by aggression. She made a distinction that all individuals have rights, but a nation does not have rights, particularly if it does not respect any of its member's rights. I've condensed and paraphrased this to about 1/20th of its size. She was opposed to the relocation of the Japanese Americans and pointed out that this was FDR's call who she opposed as an enemy of free enterprise. All of this was from a speech given at West Point in 1974. The heart of what she was saying is that those who do not respect individual rights can not expect to have theirs respected. And out of that hacked up misquote, he painted her as a racist and an advocate of violating peoples rights, and the anti-Rand crew leaped aboard! --Steve (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And in all of that you show the many contradictions of the woman which should be reflected in the article. What is evident is that there has to be some oversight here of what does or does not constitute evidence. Your rejection of mediation has made that difficult and the failure to assume any good faith in your post here is why this article needs some type of intervention. --Snowded TALK 10:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What I 'showed' was an inaccurate, harshly prejudicial, POV reference to Rand. What I showed was that some editors here are ready to declare Rand guilty of genocide and racism or to go along with those absurd claims. I haven't rejected the concept of mediation, as I've made clear. What I rejected was THAT mediation request - but you know that. Which is why your accusation of my lacking good faith is so wrong. When accusations are made that are wrong - there IS a failure of good faith, but it isn't mine. I look forward to intervention by a neutral party. --Steve (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do understand that among those you're debating is at least one who's outright declared reason to be an improper "idol"?TheJazzFan (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still not quite grasping that concept. I was hoping that TallNapoleon would post his paper and I was sorry that he deleted it from your user talk page. I understand that in the paper he discusses his take on Rand, and that seems like it would be appropriate for us all to read - given our extensive debates here about her article. --Steve (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve - if you've seen the back & forth on my talk page you've seen the heart of what he has to say, such as it is. It's just more of the same. If you find the portions I quoted and what he has to say there (or elsewhere) to be illogical, fallacious, full of undefined terms, floating abstractions, factually wrong, demonstrative of fundamental non-comprehension of what he purports to be addressing, I doubt you'd feel any different seeing the entire text, just more tired. Ayn Rand held reason to be of primary importance. He says that's making an "idol" of reason, which he says is wrong. The only alternative is to state it *isn't* of primary importance, that there's something that trumps reason. Following reason per se - along with pursuing personal happiness (which he's decided subsumes murder and theft) and admiration of heroes (he calls it "idolizing" and makes no distinction between admiration based on values and blind obeisance to an insane, murderous dictator) - leads *inevitably* to slaughter. Noting that these three concepts are what he's decided defines Objectivism. Yup, that's what 'da man said. He believes what makes reasonable men happy is wanton bloodshed. How he "knows" this is anyone's guess - certainly not through reason whether viewed from his own code or observation of his methods. The only thing that's proper to "idolize" is God, though he states emphatically that religion has nothing whatever to do with his position. You'll notice that below he's carping about the "careless treatment" his (alleged) work received, ignoring that an effort was made to show it exactly as presented, to eliminate any question of context or content.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you're the one providing a paraphrase. If you have a full copy of the original quote, PLEASE, post it here. I should very much like to see it. Oh, and I may wind up posting the article on a blog or something, in which case I will link to it. However I would need to make changes to the format first, and I have no intention of releasing it under the GFDL. Considering the careless treatment it has thus far received and your demands that it be restored despite my objection as the author--demands which frankly smelled of harassment and personal vendetta--I have no intention of forwarding it to you whatsoever. And btw, my argument is not that reason is an idol but that Rand idolized it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Rand idolized reason per se. She claimed to idolize reason, but what she really idolized was the Ancient Greeks. In reading over her metaphysics, she does little more than spout 2400 year out-of-date Greek science as dogma. It's almost hilarious to see her repeat their mantras, blissfully unaware of the revolution in physics going on around her. Philosophy without science is usually flawed, and Rand was very inept at science. Indeed, she seemed to flat out mistrust science. Compounding the irony is that a man like Aristotle, were he alive to see the evidence, would have instantly dropped his erroneous way of thinking in favor of the triumphs presented to him by modern science. Rand lacked either the wit or the erudition to understand modern science. Oh no, I'm posting comments about Rand. Sorry. CABlankenship (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

TallNapoleon, I was just curious about what you wrote in your paper. You were arguing it so vehemetly, but now you've gotten all shy about showing your beliefs about Rand and about your theories. My paraphrase is true to the context - yours wasn't. I have the book and the section in question, which is an answer given at the microphone after a speech, and it's too long to type in, and it is probably too long to meet the fair use exceptions to the copyright law. That is why someone who understands Rand's context at this WestPoint speech and can follow the thread through to that answer could do a proper summary or paraphrase. The place you took it from is a web site of a rabid, self-annouced Rand hater. Weren't you even the slightest bit suspicious that he might have hacked it up till it was a lie? Get a copy at a library and you will have most of the context (her speech isn't in there, you have to get that elsewhere). --Steve (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually saw the exact same version of that quote reproduced all over the internet; I was in a rush so I didn't particularly check the exact source. The fountainhead, as it were, appears to be the book that Arglebargle posted. You have my apologies that I was unable to find an exact quote earlier. However, all appearances to the contrary, I do actually have a life, you know. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

george washington owned slaves, j edgar hoover was a transvestite, bill clinton ejaculated on an intern, hitler liked puppies, aristotle beat his wife (ok i'm guessing there). is the george washington page all about his rabid "damning" racism? is the j edgar hoover page all about his "damning" homosexuality? is bill clinton's page all about his "damning" hatred of woman? is hitler's page all about his love of animals? is aristotle, and all greek philosophy, "damned" because they mistreated woman?.............and you pro ayn rand people...she is a popular author with a small following in political/philosophical circles, she is not the greatest phillosopher of all times. get over it. both pro and con .68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)bruahcherry68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

and for you anti ayn rand people, she is a popular author with a small following in political/ philosophical circles. get over it.68.125.217.117 (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

One would expect the articles on Washington, Hoover (a transvestite? really? kind of makes sense) and Clinton to include those foibles, to provide a fair image. But in terms of damning... well there's a difference between owning slaves in an era when this was common, or having slightly unusual sexual proclivities, and standing up and in 1974 that the Native Americans had it coming. That's an important detail about her, in my opinion. Unfortunately it may also be an overly long detail about her, and I'll be the first to say that the article can't include everything. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Steve has rejected mediation, and every indication is that Kjaer would as well. That is most unfortunate. I now see no recourse other than ArbCom. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply following wikipedia policy would be a viable option. There was no consensus for the changes since Dec 31, the edits shoulkd be reverted. Referenced materials should be retained. The article should be made smaller by splitting it into sub artciles, rather than deleting material objected to by one faction. Very simple, orthodox, and easy, if there is no POV motive to radically rewrite the article. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to go to ArbCom. Kjaer, you are simply saying that there would be no problem if people agreed with you and that the rest of us have a POV motivation. Its that sort of statement which means it has to go to Arbcom given a refusal to accept mediation (which I just don't understand). FYI I have already raised an ANI hereon a related issue relating to Schools of Philosophy linked to the Steve and Kjaer and the same issues. It maybe that this was premature and ArbCom need to deal with all the Rand page issues. Ideally an admin or neutral party should draft the request. --Snowded TALK 03:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed all along that ArbCom was needed. Snowded you continually accuse Kjaer and me of a POV motivation for our edits - when it is you that have stated your dislike for Rand. There have been many, many others here who have opposed your consistent efforts to delete sourced material, to go against consensus, to make trouble with your accusations, and to abandon attempts to create a NPOV article. You run about trying to get people blocked for things you do, you run around trying to get admins to enforce your wishes. You are a smooth writer but you aren't directing your energies to making a better article, instead you appear to me to be trying to game the WP system. --Steve (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, you live on another planet if you really believe all of that. At least you agree it should go to ArbCom. --Snowded TALK 04:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, perhaps a more honest planet? After all I just listed some simple and verifiable facts. --Steve (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New ArbCom request

I have made a new ArbCom request. I will serve the effected parties shortly, but, just in case, I'm also posting the link here. [2] Idag (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice for a neutral admin to help with this. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper place for expounding on Objectivism and criticisms

There might actually be too much about the details of Objectivism in this article as it is, when there are entire articles devoted specifically to Objectivism. It should certainly be made clear in this article that there IS an article on Objectivism.

If you believe there are errors in Ayn Rand's thoughts and you feel you're qualified to make definitive statements about them, the place to expound on them at length would be a blog, article, discussion forum, your own book etc., not in a biographical summary.

An article on Ayn Rand should factually touch on her life and works, an article on Objectivism should be a neutral, factual summation of the points of Objectivism as they're stated - she believed this, she proposed that, an institution devoted to her ideas exists etc. all of which is factual and verifiable. Even a controversy like the Kelley/ARI split is a verifiable event. Fine, include it.

I'm not convinced that it's proper to go into criticism - NOT - as some of you will no doubt jump up and down shrieking - because of some blind devotion but because of the difficulty of doing so in a balanced way and the utter enormity of the topic. An Encyclopedia entry isn't the place to promote an agenda in any direction. Stating certain facts about Ayn Rand's life and the facts of the content and history of Objectivism is relatively straightforward, demonstrating whose disagreement is worthy of including isn't. If someone doesn't know anything about Objectivism to begin with, how are they supposed to make heads or tails of criticisms of it? If someone IS versed in Objectivism, they're likely going to be aware it has its detractors. Debate with dissenters is just part of the milieu of Objectivism. Such debates are available for sale.

However, a problem with Wikipedia is this populist, liberal-leaning tendency that's woven into the fabric of its structure. It's said that "consensus" should be reached, even if some of those included in the process are FOS. Whatever handful of like-minded editors and an aligned administrator or two who happen to have the time to devote to their cause makes "consensus". How does including the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about due to some notion of "fairness" improve an article? If professionals who've devoted a large part of their lives to studying and supporting Ayn Rand and Objectivism can't reach a uniform consensus, I find it incredulous to suppose some motley assemblage of random users with wildly differing levels of knowledge, comprehension perhaps even sanity are going to do better. You think you're going to settle the issues here on Wikipedia, that it's going to be somehow regarded as definitive? Hardly.

To say "Ayn Rand said so-and-so" isn't taking a position on its validity. She did in fact say so-and-so. But to expound on criticisms of what she said is by default introducing the element of point of view. The argument might be made that certain criticism that's integral to the history of Objectivism has to be included - again such as the reasons for the Kelley/ARI split. It would be ridiculous to say there was a schism but not give some summary of why. But there are verifiable statements by both sides that explain why it happened.

It will likely forever engender acrimony from parties both qualified and unqualified to even comment on the subject, even among those supposedly on one particular "side". As mentioned, even among Objectivists there are disagreements. How do you propose to wade through all the factionalism when the warring parties are the ones making the edits? You might as well task PLO members and Israelis to come to a consensus on an article on the claim to the territory of Israel. Without even looking I can be sure there's endless debate in the discussion of Wikipedia articles on those topics as well.

I see there's actually an entire article devoted to criticism of Objectivism - yet oddly it doesn't seem to have the same raging debate that this one does.

My take is that the Rand bashers are incensed by the notion that anyone will take her works seriously and feel they have to get their licks in and see this particular article as a primary port of entry. They want it made clear that there are dissenters and see Wikipedia as a relatively accessible place to form their protest line, hoping to prevent anyone from actually going over to "the dark side". They don't want people to make up their own minds. No doubt what they REALLY want is to have every word she ever said deleted from existence and human memory. But a Wikipedia article isn't - or at least from what I understand isn't *supposed* to be a platform for an agenda.TheJazzFan (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognise the motivations that you attribute to those of us who want some balance in this article. I do agree with you that the discussion of objectivism per se should take place elsewhere and in practice it would make sense to merge the Ciriticisms article with the main one. However here on this article we need a balanced approach to a summary of a person, who in the US at least has been influential. That means it must not read like a fan site; at one point in this debate any criticism of Rand was subject to edits to "explain" the reasons for their criticism (too liberal, a catholic etc). In the majority of cases on Wikipedia consensus does work and citation and evidence have a common understanding. What has happened here is that there is no agreement on what constitutes evidence or weight and that needs third party intervention. Too much effort goes into attributing motives to people and not enough to the arguments and eliminating OR. Part of the problem (and this is a major one) is that very few people devote any time to studying Rand other than those who are supporters or advocates of her position. This produces a problem with citation and getting to a NPOV. From the perspective of a large part of the world she is a minor literary figure with a US political following. For others she is one of the leading thinkers of her age. When you get that polarisation you end up in ArbCom, just as in the articles on the Troubles in Ireland and elsewhere. My recommendation to you (as a fairly new editor with a clear political position) is to engage in that process. --Snowded TALK 14:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How new I might or might not be isn't particularly cogent to either my opinion of Ayn Rand or Wikipedia.

"I don't recognise the motivations that you attribute to those of us" Okay.

"very few people devote any time to studying Rand other than those who are supporters or advocates of her position." So you think that those who are ignorant of her works should be granted equal status in voicing an opinion on them to those who aren't?

You want "balance". What's unbalanced about factually stating what she's said or recounting events in her life? There's no "point of view" to it. It isn't synonymous with agreement or endorsement. The only valid disagreement in that case is if there's some question whether it's verifiable that she said it or what the source of a biographical anecdote is.

"From the perspective of a large part of the world she is a minor literary figure with a US political following. For others she is one of the leading thinkers of her age" None of which, nor what her influence is or isn't, has any bearing on whether she said what she said.

There's nothing TO balance. She said it or she didn't. She was married or she wasn't. By "balance" you mean exactly what I stated - you want to use it as a forum to voice opposition to her thoughts. You think she sucks, I agree with much of what she said. Neither has any bearing on whether she said it. Stick to verifiable facts and you eliminate all point of view. Debate the merits of her philosophy elsewhere.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sticking to verifiable facts is what most of us have been trying to do. Please STOP attributing motivations. If you want to know I consider Rand as a very minor figure who does not really need active opposition. I do monitor several sites (and this is one) which are in danger of becoming fan sites. --Snowded TALK 15:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Please STOP attributing motivations" You mean like insisting I'm an "...editor with a clear political position..."? I'm not even going to get into the accuracy of your use of "political", but you're being hypocritical.

I have a misunderstanding of your motivation? Okay, why are you even here? To voice your boundless enthusiastic agreement with her philosophy? No, you like others are here because you want to voice opposition to her philosophy. You'd like to cloak it with the spongy term "balance", but what it really means is opposition. The question is, is this the proper forum to do so? Nope.

"Sticking to verifiable facts is what most of us have been trying to do" That someone says they disagree may be a fact, but the problem with citing criticisms is who's to say which - if any - are even valid? It's easy to find critiques of her that reflect little or no real comprehension. I guarantee if you put "Ayn Rand" into a search engine you'll find an endless ocean of bashers. But then you get into a whole sub-debate on that. They're right, no they're not. It's all dependent on making a value judgement regarding her philosophy and this isn't the place for it. TheJazzFan (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a whole set of procedures to handle issues of balance etc. It's also not uncommon for advocates of a person or an idea to insist that they are the experts and others should stay out of things. Its not how WIkipedia works. If you make a claim then anyone can check the citation, see if it supports the statement or if that statement is OR. There is a body of this stuff that you can find on the help area if you want to see how its done. This page is as you say not a place to make a value judgement about her "philosophy" but it is a place to provide a balanced report on what third party sources say about that "philosophy" including relevant facts, with due weight as to if she is considered a philosopher or not, based on third party sources. Any opinion by you or me or anyone else is OR and should not be there. I do suggest (as you are new to WIkipedia) that you spend some time in the various help pages. There is a lot of useful material there. --Snowded TALK 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you parse and dance you can't get around that the very act of choosing a criticism to cite involves making a value judgement regarding the subject. Factually citing what the subject of the article has said does not. You're still not being forthcoming about your motivations.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not parsing or dancing, just trying to be helpful. The advise stands on reading up on WIkipedia stands but that ball is in your court. --Snowded TALK 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I applaud TheJazzFan for what I believe to be a very accurate and well stated exposition of the current situation and its roots. (Snowded's snide comment about him being a 'new' editor carries no weight, since it is the quality of his edits, his comments, and his intent to create a good article that matters - and from what I've seen, I hope TheJazzFan stays around.) I hope that the ArbCom underway at this time, examines TheJazzFan's comments in this section as a part of the review. Again and again I see people talking about 'balance' but meaning an agenda based criticism. I see people loudly proclaiming this or that Wikipedia policy when what they are doing is hiding an intent to edit from a personal agenda. More than anything I'd love to see a truely neutral admin block all zealot-editors (both those who edit like Rand cultists, and those who edit as Rand-haters) from ever editing on Objectivist related articles. There is no problem with having people who disagree with most of Rand's positions, or people who agree with most of her positions, working as editors - when they don't have an agenda to distort facts and to game the Wikipedia policies to do so. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia, not something to be manipulated into a propaganda organ for or against some ideology. --Steve (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You know the really scary thing about this? I think you are being genuine in what you say. --Snowded TALK 18:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing alert

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And? So what? I believe it's referred to as the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" (whether they know wth they're talking about or not). Do you feel that should only mean those who stumble in randomly? Apparently you have a problem with people who actually know something about Objectivism offering input? The title of the section should be - Rand-Bashers to your battle stations!! The evil minions of the wicked, terrible, awful, nasty she-novelist are going to attempt to participate and we who feel righteous indignation regarding her must do all in our power to repel them!! Yeah, no agenda there. Jeezus.TheJazzFan (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Its why I politely suggested on another page that as a new editor you should spend some time on understanding the way WIkipedia works. That would have brought you to WP:CANVAS. --Snowded TALK 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what WP:CRAPTASTICNONSENSE says. You think it's proper or even possible to try and police how people communicate outside of Wikipedia regarding Wikipedia? How would you even know who saw what on what blog, website, Google group, e-mailing, magazine article, TV show, lecture, etc.? Why don't you propose that to participate on Wikipedia one must have a real-time feed of all their internet activity going to a Big-Brother-WikiBrain which will decide whether they chose to participate in an article because of "unacceptable" motivation? And again, all this paranoia would be a moot point if the article were limited to factual statements unrelated to any critique of the topic of the article. TheJazzFan (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty blantant attempt at WP:Meatpuppetry. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And low and behold we have a clear link between the canvassing and one of the more aggressive editors on this page. Kjaer is Ted Keer and here we see see multiple examples of Ted Kerr canvassing for people to come in on his side. --Snowded TALK 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay guy, you sit right there and keep track of the invaders. Nighty night. (pat you on the head)TheJazzFan (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You join a community you follow the rules, simple really and Kjaer/Keer's actions are in breech of WP:Meatpuppet. Lay of the Secret Police accusations by the way; I'll follow WP:Bite in the hope that you will follow WP:Civil --Snowded TALK 20:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You never did answer JF's question whether you think it's possible to enforce or right-minded to begin with. In fact, I've noticed you dodge a lot of good questions that are posed to you. What do you think would happen if the same kind of thinking were applied to political elections, trying to tell Asians in some state they can't vote because they were urged to by campaign workers? I realize a presidential election isn't nearly as important as some pissing contest on Wikipedia but hey. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever failed to answer a coherent question and in the main I avoid rhetorical ones. Now this is not the place to discuss it but there is a case for compulsory voting and banning opinion polls and canvassing in national elections. However that really is not the point. A community has its rules and if you don't like them you either (i) seek to change them (ii) leave (iii) rebel and take the consequences. If you do the later you should at least have the honesty to tell people which Kjaer did not. This community has decided that meat and sock puppets are a bad idea. It also opposes polls in favour of consensus and generally takes an emergent approach to meaning and agreement. I am happy with those rules and abide by them. If there was a movement for change I might consider my position. --Snowded TALK 18:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty flagrant meatpuppetry, and absolutely calls into questions the results of the RFC. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

If you're comments are unrelated to the contents of this article, please take them elsewhere. This is not an Admin noticeboard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about such things (noticeboards). I just wanted to do the right thing when I spotted the canvassing. --Turnsmoney (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Although it should also be posted at WP:ANI I would say that it was probably appropriate to post it here as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I placed it on ANI, but Turnsmoney is entitled to post it on the talk pages so other editors are aware. Given that it turns out Kjaer is the person doing the canvassing it is relevant. --Snowded TALK 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)