Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Requested quotation on Rand and homosexuality

160 requests a full quotation from Walker regarding Rand's characterisation of homosexuality as "disgusting". From what I can access on Google Books of page 119 of ISBN 0812693906: ""immoral...It's proper among consenting adults, ...legally. Morally, it's immoral. And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting." [end of Rand quote] In Rand's view then...". Perhaps one of has direct access to the book or those of you in different legal jurisdictions than I have a better view on Google? Skomorokh 16:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate there might be issues of context with the previous version, but this seems like muting the full extent of Rand's position. Skomorokh 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard her views on this on a couple of occasions. She evidently thought that heterosexuality was part of the inherent nature of Man, and that homosexuality was largely the result of (bad) choices or psychological aberrations. (Obviously if the race had been totally homosexual, it would not have survived.) I don't think she seriously considered that homosexuality might sometimes stem from natural biochemical factors. The existing text is okay. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What is NPOV for this article

That Ayn Rand created a philosophy deserves some space. The facts are essentially a history of her writing and editing, followed by things like the NBI courses and some of the legacy content, ect.

Her philosophy deserves a little less space, linking to the main article, followed by some macro-level facts such as National Review's review by Chambers, that Objectivism has been largely ignored by acadamia, the exceptions to that being a number of academic philosophers who explicitly advocate Objectivism and a number of libertarian philosophers who respect her politics yet mostly disregard her declared metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. As well, that philosopher x and y (or the publication they published in) considers her philosophy to be bad. None of these macro-level facts are more deserving of space than the others, and as an aggregate should be shorter than the summary of the philosophy.

Her views deserve a little space in-so-far as they are notable. Gender roles - you have the feminist movement, anti-communist - you have the congressional testimony, Vietnam and war - who discusses her views on this (other than her)? (I don't know), Kant - we have nothing notable enough to mention in her biographical summary that I'm aware of, that is: there is no "Chambers" or "National Review" publication covering her view on Kant that I'm aware of - its only relevant within the topic of Objectivism, Capitalism/Egoism/Reason/Reality - indeed relevant to her bio, but already covered (at least potentially) by the summary report on Objectivism. The sources tell the tale.

Individual opinions on the technical aspects of her philosophy, opinions informed by careful reading of Rand's essays, have no weight for inclusion in this article. --Karbinski (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The current philosophy section in this article doesn't seem unduly long, and does link to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). I am inclined to agree that that's where the detail should be, but so far I don't see any sign that Peter is planning a much longer section. Still waiting to see what he comes up with.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

For once I agree with Karbinski. The relevant facts are that she created a philosophy, that she isn't currently taken seriously be academia together with some reasons why she isn't - a cut down version of the draft I linked to above would be sufficient (together with some of the positive views which I haven't yet included in the draft. The whole article on Objectivist philosophy needs a radical overhaul, however. Peter Damian (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that the section(s) on Rand's ideas could stand a thorough overhaul, I suggest that it not be done by those who don't take those ideas seriously. The notion that disregard from the people whose work Rand criticized should be emphasized, but regard from the much greater number of people who found Rand's ideas worthy of consideration should not be mentioned, illustrates the problem. It is hard not to call it intellectual snobbery; at any rate, it does not result in a fair presentation of all the relevant facts. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that's next, with the Metaphysics and Epistemology articles redirecting there.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Deletion of Criticism Content

I made, a now reverted, edit that deleted a chunk of the criticism section.

The Objectivism article reports criticisms on her philosophy and I see no need to duplicate what is already in that article in this article. The criticism this article will have concerning her philosophy should be in the Philosophy section as that section introduces the Objectivism article (where one will get more detail on its criticisms). As well, as discussed in the above section, the criticisms of Objectivism relevant for this article are at the summary/macro level.

Perhaps as a first step to fixing the Philosophy section, we should merge in the philosophy criticism content? --Karbinski (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And merge literary criticism into the Fiction section, to be consistent?KD Tries Again (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Wiki has policies that state that criticism sections are an indicator of a poorly written article. I agree with this, personally. This article needs a major trim to clear up space for the biography section, which should be the main focus of the article. I suggest merging the criticism sections with the relevant articles/sections, removing most of the legacy section, and a great deal of the political and social views section. In my opinion, removal of the following sections would improve the article, while making space for more important biographical information: Rand's work and academic philosophy, Institutes, and merging all of the political and social views into a shorter, summary paragraph. CABlankenship (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I may agree with some of the specific proposals, but I am not sure why there's an urge to make the article primarily a biographical article. Whether you look at novelists (Henry James, Joseph Conrad), philosophers (Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche) or cultural figures generally (Paul Cezanne), the typical Wikipedia article has a summary of the life balanced by equal treatment of the work, often including legacy and/or criticism sections. The Rand article looks fairly normal in that respect, although it is certainly loaded with irrelevant detail.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That is a good point. Similarly the article on Wittgenstein which comprehensively covers both his life and his philosophy. The problem with Rand though is how to deal with her philosophy in the face of a near-unanimous critical rejection of her work, and thus the lack of any reliable sources to cover it. Peter Damian (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

These are good points that you both raise. Another problem I'm encountering is that a lot of the material on Rand's life has a sort of L.Ron Hubbard and Church of Scientology quality to it; it reads like propaganda and personality cult idolization. CABlankenship (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, duh! as the kids say nowadays. Ever read "Mozart Was A Red" or Elegy for a Soprano? The lady was the Dear Leader of her own little cult of personality. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My reason for reverting is that the Ayn Rand article is the appropriate place for criticism of Rand herself, while Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be reserved for the criticism of that philosophy. Much of what passes for Philosophical criticism in this article regards Rand's ability, methodology, rigour and so on. Read the section: it's not about Objectivism. I have no objection to merging the criticism to the relevant sections internal to the article. Skomorokh 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that trying to work with 160 will get anywhere, so I have reverted his deletion of my latest entry. Everyone on this talk page is pretty reasonable, so if someone else believes that this entry is unfair or NPOV, I won't object if it is edited or removed. CABlankenship (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries are becoming aggressive again ("That Rand PUBLICLY condemned blind foll. also just FACT - ESSENCE of R.'s phil. boils down to "think independently and think for yourself"e.g. hero Roark. READ mater. or stop edit"), not to say confused ("Valliant reproduces raw the Rand journals which are FIRST PERSON CONTEMPORANEOUS Rand notes about what she told Branden. JUST FACT."). I will post again on the user's Talk Page, but if the behavior continues it will need to be reported again.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I removed a pointless series of statements regarding Kant and Rand. Having just started my first round of reading Critique of Pure Reason, it's clear that a few sentences cannot come close to giving a fair view of Kant's positions and alleged mysticism. To give an example of how deep and complicated is the field of Kantian scholarship, A. D. Lindsay points out that there is a serious dispute between the primacy of the first and second editions of Critique of Pure Reason, noting that Kant "quite definitely held that he had been misunderstood in the first edition" which many felt upheld "subjective idealism", and that Kant "made the changes in his second edition principally to correct that misunderstanding", which "lends itself to a realist rather than to an idealist interpretation of Kant". Lindsay says that "There are other critics who treat Kant mainly as a notorious expounder of certain idealist fallacies to which the philosophic mind is prone. Such critics naturally prefer the first edition, into which it is not difficult to read these errors, to the second where Kant is obviously, but in their view inconsistently, trying to correct them. But in face of Kant's explicit declaration about his intention in making the changes in the second edition, such attitudes are surely historically indefensible." It seems clear to me that this is an issue that is far too complex for us to reasonably deal with it in a short summary on a page about Ayn Rand. It's enough to simply state that Rand seems to have not even read Kant, which explains the contempt which many have for her opinions about the man and his work. CABlankenship (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism by Nathaniel Branden: Notable?

Why do we need the paragraph about Branden under the heading Criticism? We know there was an intimate relationship between Branden and Rand which turned sour. If anything, that makes the comments back and forth less interesting, in my view. Why is it notable that Rand had a closed mind about ESP? I am sure countless individuals with WP articles devoted to them had closed minds about ESP. Who cares? The only arguably notable comment is Branden's about Rand's "dogmatic religion," but in the tradition of this page we now have a quote from Rand back at him intended to neutralize the point. I'd lose the whole paragraph. Thoughts?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think Branden, as the highest-ranking Objectivist dissident, is noteworthy enough to mention, though I'd agree that the ESP issue is trivial. It would be best to cover Branden's philosophical/methodological/psychological differences with Rand in the biographical or Legacy sections of the article, in keeping with the proposal to merge criticism where possible. Given the acrimony between the two, I think this is one point on which Rand deserves the right of reply in the article, though her views shouldn't be given equal weight. Ideally, I'd like to see (after the article has adequately explained the important biographical details of their relationship) a succinct paragraph on Branden's theoretical objections to Rand's work and attitude, perhaps padded out with info on Greenspan's ideological development and Kelley's criticism of "closed system" Objectivism. Skomorokh 16:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed the irrelevant remark about ESP. Someone tagged the reference to Rand's private diaries as dubious; I have at least revised the comment to represent the diaries as what Rand said - I don't think her private diary entries can be said to "show" that she told Branden anything, especially given the circumstances. Also, I strongly endorse "dubious" - the footnote has some quotes from the source, but the word "goddess" doesn't appear. That needs to go unless someone can confirm, with a full cite, that it's in her diaries.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

For the record, I agree with KD's changes here. Skomorokh 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The point about N. Branden is that he was indeed for many years Rand's closest intellectual associate, and worked with her to produce the first comprehensive presentations of her philosophy. (I was privileged to attend these.) Thus, his opinion about what parts of her ideas are provably right and what aren't, is notable. He toned down his critical remarks after a while, and he has always maintained that he remains in agreement with many of Rand's basic tenets. His main professional concern has always been the field of psychology, and he has identified perceived psychological risks to some of the more dogmatic followers of Rand, including himself. (He played a leading rôle in the infamous "purges," which he later regretted.)

Rand's rejection of ESP was based on the valid observations that the notion historically stemmed from mysticism and the phenomenon had never been satisfactorily demonstrated, which is still the case. Certainly, Rand's scientific views were conservative, as one would expect from her education. In itself that's not necessarily a flaw, as numerous (non-Objectivist) scientists have expressed serious reservations about many developments in science; the most notable case is Bohr vs. Einstein, but there are many legitimate questioners of accepted beliefs even today. If Rand's philosophy sprang from her understanding of science, it would be an issue, but for the most part it didn't. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments invited

I have made a number of changes to the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page, most of which are being fiercely resisted, particularly by Karbinski. The main issue is a section on the academic reception of Rand [1]. The main objections are

1. Since objectivism is more than just the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand, the section is not appropriate for that article. I don't follow this. When I attempted to put a similar section in th Ayn Rand page, the objection was that this page was about Ayn Rand, the woman, and not her philosophy. This reasoning would exclude any criticism of her philosophy in Wikipedia, which is absurd. Also, the title of the article is "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)", note the explicit reference to Rand in the title. Furthermore, when I look at definitions of Randian objectivism in other publications, there is a clear reference to the fact it is indeed Rand's personal philosophy (with an unspecified admixture of Peikoff). We could consider having a separate article on 'Ayn Rand's philosophy', but this seems to be an obvious POV fork.
2. It is full of 'weasel' and 'peacock' terms. Happy to change the style, as long as the main point is made clear: there is an overwhelming consensus among academic philosophers who have studied her work, that her writing is ill-thought out, unsystematic, lacks rigour, and is filled with elementary philosophical and logical errors. If we omit that important fact, we are failing our duty to report what is verifiable from mainstream, academic sources.

Karbinski is proving very difficult - I have recommended he read an elementary textbook on logic so he understands the very basic terms used in the discussion on the talk page. I am happy to provide a footnote in the main article that will explain these issues to the non-technical reader, although I should stress these really are very elementary. I am close to losing patience, however. Peter Damian (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

People who "talk down" like that generally know far less than they think they do. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) You can follow user Peter Damian's lack of discussion on the article's talk page. --Karbinski (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the academic reception goes, I am in favor either of having a section here on the academic reception of Rand's work, or a section at the other article on the reception of Objectivism generally. Unless those sections are very different, I am not in favor of having such a section in each article. I think the other disputes reflect a very real drafting problem: it is very difficult to offer an exposition of Rand's ideas without highlighting the confusions. Anyway, I commented over there.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A year or so ago, the article Criticisms of Objectivism (evolved from the original "Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)") contained discussions of several of the better reasoned arguments against Rand's ideas. I set it up that way because the main articles were becoming cluttered with distracting digressions, obscuring the presentation of the philosophy as an integrated whole. Unfortunately, since then somebody has turned it into a link to the main article, without including the contents into the main article. That needs fixing. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No reason to lose valuable content, I agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

No content that was deemed valuable has been lost: see the discussion. Skomorokh 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Latest two edits

The ones by the IP (not our problem IP) discussing Rand's "oversimplified argument" about Israel and the Arabs need to be changed to be NPOV. It's not our place to say that her argument is oversimplified. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "oversimplified" claim, though I'm not sure we are accurately representing Rand's views with these cherry-picked quotations. It would be best to find a tertiary source that gave a comprehensive overview of her attitude towards these sociopolitical issues.  Skomorokh  23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization and Consolidation

Upon carefully and fully reading this article for the first time, I wonder if it would not be pertinent to reorganize the information in this article so that it is structured more effectively. The current structure consists of a brief biographical section (section 1), followed by a section on her fiction (section 2), the next three sections cover more biographical information (5-6), and then finishes with criticism and legacy (7-8). I think it would make more sense to reorganize the information so that there's a biographical section, followed by a discussion of her work (her fiction and philosophy), followed by criticism and legacy. This wouldn't be a major change. It would basically move the "Fiction" section after the "Later Years" section.

Also, I wonder if the "Philosophy" section could center in one the essence of her philosophical system. Perhaps an essential outline such as the one given on the Ayn Rand Institute website. I think that the "Political and Social Views" section could be consolidated more. Remember that this is not supposed to be a comprehensive overview of Ayn Rand's life and her views—it's an encyclopedic entry. I also question the particular emphasis placed on her personal views of homosexuality. It doesn't seem to be (and perhaps it's relevant to point out that I am a homosexual Objectivist) a major part of the philosophy.

Just some things to think about. Tell me what you think. Brandonk2009 (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen, amen, a thousand times amen. I think that would be a fantastic change, and I've been pushing for the stuff on race, sex and homosexuality to get trimmed for ages. The fact is Rand's sexual theories are nowhere near her most notable or influential ideas--which are primarily her politics and economics and her popularization of egoism. As for her philosophy, I think one to two paragraphs with a link to the main article on it (Objectivism (Ayn Rand) would be appropriate. The page is still too long (114 kb) and it badly needs to be trimmed. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I like those suggestions. Let's act on them.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Trimming

It should be recognized by all that this article has become way too long. The automatic printing format Wikipedia uses puts this article at 26 pages in length. My own calculations estimate the main body (headings, references, further reading, citations, etc. excluded) at 15 pages or 7500 words [Times New Roman 12-font]—this is outrageous. A decent length for an article is under 6,000 words.

I propose that extensive trimming be performed on this article. While several facts within the article are interesting, they do not qualify as substantive facts or events. Two examples that stick in mind and truly irritate me are the listing of Rand's physical addresses in NYC in the "Later Years" section. These are not the only examples, these trivial facts permeate the entire article. It is my opinion that these must be removed. [comment added by User:Brandonk2009‎--TallNapoleon, playing SineBot)

I agree. However, I hesitate to say "just start deleting" because I don't want to see an edit-war develop. How do others feel we should go about this? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything which makes it into a conventional wikipedia biography would be a good idea, its probably easier to agree on a paragraph than five paragraphs as both excessive praise and counter-criticism then both go. --Snowded (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone very notable lives in a particular address for a while, the location itself can be notable, and in fact often becomes a landmark or historical site of interest. If that's the least notable content I am concerned that norable encyclopedic content will be lossed. Perhaps splitting off would be better? If a combined article is too long keep it separate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry CoM, Rand's apartment building is not notable at all. It's trivia unless reliable sources say it's gained notability because she lived there. There are loads of stuff in this article that goes into excessive depth for an encyclopedia, and there is too much trivia. Brandon is right--but we should take things slowly. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what concerns me about the push to do wholesale trimming: that notable content will be lost. It is also troubling because it has always seemed to come from editors who don't care for Rand. I would much rather see content split off into appropriate sub-articles. We have lots of random articles on stuff that isn't that notable, this is a hugely influential and controversial author. As with any major author (and many other figures), Jack London, Graham Greene, Ernest Hemmingway, where they lived and their immediate environments were very significant and notable in relation to their writing.

For Rand, this New York Times story goes into some detail about one of her apartment locations and the setting "...preparing to shoot a love scene between the actress and Mr. Stoltz on a Toronto sound stage. The cavernous space had been transformed to represent Ms. Rand's apartment in the Murray Hill section of Manhattan in the 1950's, complete with modular furniture, book-lined walls and ashtrays overflowing with cigarette butts. [2]. A google news seach shows meetings were held there and the location seems to be quite notable [3]. Here's a bit form another New York Times story (there are lots mentioning and going into some detail on her the location of her apartments in New York "devotees who met every Saturday night at Miss Rand's East 30's apartment". Would the story be the same if she had lived in the Village, or Cherry Hill, New Jersey or the Upper East Side? These details are actually quite notable. This is a major literary figure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy: Minor Tidying

I tried moving presidents, supreme court judges and academics out of the "popular influence" section and dropping them back in the article at the top of the main section. Query whether we need the reference to Penn Jillette (which didn't have a cite, unless I somehow lost it). Jillette is a popular entertainer, but it's not like he does Objectivist magic tricks. For all I know, hundreds of popular entertainers are Rand fans, but what's notable about that? Limbaugh, the comic books, yes - I can see the argument that Rand influenced the work, the content. But if Celine Dion was a Rand fan, who would care unless (like Rush) she had a song about it. Delete?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This is good work, K. I am bracing myself to tidy up the philosophy sections. There are two of these, one under 'Philosophy' and the other under 'criticism'. It would make sense to merge these, also to add important criticisms, one in the Routledge article, the other by Mike Huemer (in a published piece). I just don't have the energy at the moment. Peter Damian (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend against trying to intersperse criticism within the exposition of Rand's own ideas, because it obscures the exposition so that the reader gets a misleading impression that Rand's ideas are just a collection of separate unrelated notions. Several months back we had a separate article Criticisms of Objectivism (originally Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand)) which discussed many of the more rational arguments against her ideas; however in the interim somebody has turned that into a link to the main article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) without incorporating any of the criticism into the main article. I have asked for this to be fixed, but don't know how to do it myself when the article has been turned into just a link. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...Jillette is an outspoken libertarian and as a fellow of the Cato Institute is not exactly lightweight. That said, I wouldn't object if a lot of that section went missing. Skomorokh 00:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to battle to delete Jillette, but I'm a reasonably well-informed reader and didn't really know any of that. That's the problem; unexplained, the comment seems a bit arbitrary; explained, it just lengthens the article, and is it worth it?KD Tries Again (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A year or so ago, there was a very long list (with citation), since moved into the "Influenced" tab in the Info box. I don't know how the remaining named individuals in the Popular Influence section were selected; there are many possible candidates. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That influenced box is still quite large. I think a culling might be in order. What on earth is Glenn Beck doing there, anyway? Last I checked he wasn't considered a serious thinker. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

New popular culture criticisms list

Do we really need this? It's just a disconnected section of random criticisms. At the very least it needs to be rewritten as prose, but to be honest I think it should go. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tall, "need" is difficult to discern, and probably a matter of opinion. I respect your personal preference for having a disdain for popular culture lists, however & (unfortunately I guess in your case) they have become a mainstay on Wikipedia in an array of ways. Converting them into "prose" would be fairly easy, but I still don't know if that would fix your objection to popular culture material. As for being Wp:Notable I would wager that it is inarguable that many of these instances probably reached more individuals than all of the other contained "criticisms" combined (as most of these shows reach millions of viewers). Nevertheless, I am willing to cede to majority WP:Consensus and open to arguments for both inclusion, deletion, and trimming.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 01:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Her influence on popular culture is extensive and she remains popular, unpopular and controversial. The verifiable bits should be preserved and perhaps split off into a separate article for those interested in the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree its notable, but should be summarised into a paragraph. --Snowded (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Readers will recall that I advocated the inclusion of South Park and The Simpsons based on Reason Magazine's write-up of the subject (see above for further details). At the time, WP:CONSENSUS was for the inclusion of the material minus the quotations. In other words, mention the shows but that's about it. Not really in agreement with that (but not willing to make an issue out of it), I let the subject go for a while. If WP:CONSENSUS wants the creation of a new section with full quotations, so be it. J Readings (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a specific problem with popular culture lists, because they invariably turn into massive, absurd trivia sections (even when in this case they start small). The way to do it, I think, would be to mention "Rand has been the subject of many parodies, including on The Simpsons, Futurama and South Park. She has also inspired a number of artists and writers, including the band Rush and author James Clavell." (substitute specifics as necessary/desired) That gives the reader an idea of her popular influence without the "trivia list" feel. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Although if the details and episodes are excluded it then renders it unverifiable. So that seems like a problem down the road by rendering the remaining content idefensible. Comments? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Put in the appropriate episode refs, etc. and it should be plenty verifiable, yes? I would also oppose splitting into a second article, because regrettably, pop culture forks invariably wind up hideous (see Adolf Hitler in popular culture for a pretty awful example). TallNapoleon (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made a Wp:Bold attempt to rewrite the aforementioned section per this TP discussion. If unsatisfied please revert me and we can discuss further here on the talk page. Sourcing should also not be a problem as the episode titles are included in the older version and can be added as refs.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to put it in Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest_and_influence. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kant

I deleted that polemical rant against Kant in the philosophy section. The current paragraph on Kant and Rand is sort of awkward; I'll fix it when I have more time. CABlankenship (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yeah, I'm going to start trimming a lot of this duplicate information. It's one of the main culprits on the egregious article size. CABlankenship (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Children

Did Ayn Rand have any children? It would be good to mention it one way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factyou (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No.Docsavage20 (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Improper construction in Philosophical Criticism section

This whole bit:

"Stressing that this "is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought," Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Nathanial Branden's suggestion that her "wholesale rejection" of some other viewpoints was due to her "theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style." As a polemicist, he argues, she often dismissed her opponents on "moralistic or psychologistic" grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor.[133]

For example, Rand has been criticized for her critique of Immanuel Kant. According to Fred Seddon, author of Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy (2003), Nathaniel Branden stated that Rand never read The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant.[134][135]"

The "for example" takes it from the realm of citation to sounding like a paper written by an author of the article - trying to assert that the works of one critical author support the assertions of another. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that the WP:SYN of the asserting Seddon's work somehow validates, at least partially, the work of Sciabarra is WP:OR and should be removed? (and that it is indeed WP:SYN, I don't mean to set a trap with my question) --Karbinski (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoring References to 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.'

There appears to be no serious justification for omitting this book as a source on issues related to Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

It is the only source for Ayn Rand's own words on the topics of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. So, including reference to the Brandens' books on Rand while excluding Rand's own perspective is necessarily non-neutral and one-sided. Indeed, it is polemically set in biased opposition to Rand.

Many of the sources Wikipedia cites have not been reviewed positively by Kirkus Reviews, as 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics' has been -- "deserving of a place on the growing shelf" of books about Rand, it said. Numerous books and articles critical of Rand from self-published "vanity" houses -- like Writer's Club Press -- are used in Wikipedia. In its brief life, however, Durban House was named one of the "best new imprints" by Publisher's Weekly. Unlike the Brandens themselves, the author did not have a personal, nasty falling-out with Rand. The book is far more of a neutral"/"third party" source than either of these, and it contains first hand reports of equal quality to the Brandens from Rand herself. The author's academic credentials appear to be superior to either of the Brandens. The Sciabarra review cited has been distorted in the instant discussion of this book. Indeed, that this book got such sustained and serious attention from Sciabarra suggests that it is worthy of serious attention. It seems highly implausible that Sciabarra -- who also invited the author to discuss the book still further in 'The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies' -- intended excluding it as a scholarly source.

Quite the opposite appears to the case. Sciabarra's engagement with the author suggests the book's seriousness and importance to Sciabarra.

Also, previous references to 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics' show that lecturers and scholars once associated with David Kelley's Objectivist group (even a board member) left that organization as a result of the release of this book. These are scholars and lecturers impacted the book being censored by Wikipedia. The book itself is part of the "history" of the Objectivist movement. That a number of scholars once critical of ARI were affected by the book also suggests its importance and seriousness, since these scholars and teachers found it to be "reliable" enough to act upon.

Indeed, as his review of the book shows, Sciabarra is far ~ more ~ critical of another source cited repeatedly in Wikipedia, Jeff Walker's 'Ayn Rand Cult.' Other scholars are, too -- according to Wikipedia's own references to it. To add another example, Walker repeats the allegation that Branden may have killed his second wife(!) Excluding the book suggested but not Walker (or Nyquist, for that matter) seems to distort Sciabarra's intention. This author is also a first-hand reporter -- and a former student of -- Murray Rothbard. The error he cites from Rothbard is simply a fact -- no one was ever "excommunicated" by Rand for not sharing her musical taste, as Rothbard erroneously alleged. Thus, the facts presented in this title are also important, not merely the author's evaluation of them.

Pelagius 1 (5-19-2009) (I'm new, and didn't know which article this should be part of!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelagius1 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what was said above. I went ahead and undid the revisions by Skomorokh. While some may have doubts about the veritability of Valliant's work, as Pelagius said above, it is the only work critical of the Brandens to use Rand's own words. I have my own reservations about the quality and scholarshihp in the work of Chris Sciabarra, but I still think that there are nuggets of truth in his work. I feel the same about Valliant. His references should stay.Brandonk2009 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues with Valliant. The first is his notability per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:N. I could not find any independent third-party articles about him or his work in JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News, Google Scholar or Factiva. Not a good sign. Were he to have academic credentials and reviewed books in reliable third-party sources (not blogs) by respected scholars or professional journalists those published materials would support his own article. As we were unable to support the notability guidelines, Valliant (currently) is not a notable figure in the Objectivist movement. As for the book itself, there is uncertainty about the nature of Durban Press. Is it a vanity publication? Is there serious editorial review of the text? We could not find anything suggesting there was and several materials suggesting that it was a vanity publication. In addition, Sciabarra's review on his website (blog) is not glowing -- indeed, it is the opposite, calling into question the book's suitability as a reliable source in light of the questions surrounding Durban Press. J Readings (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll hold off commenting further until I see the verifiable reliable sources from those challenging the decision. J Readings (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've re-opened the discussion on Valliant at Template:Objectivism_and_Ayn_Rand_Cross_Talk#Valliant_revisited. Please let's continue the debate there so it is all in one place. Thanks,  Skomorokh  20:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

London Review of Books on Ayn Rand Wiki article

From "Like a Boiling Frog" by David Runciman in the 28 May 2009 edition of the London Review of Books:

"The insistence that everything in Wikipedia can be referred to something outside itself stems from an anxiety that the encyclopedia might otherwise become its own source material, and start to generate free-floating facts out of nothing. One of the many fascinating details to emerge from Andrew Lih’s The Wikipedia Revolution is that both Jimmy Wales and one of his first collaborators, Larry Sanger, are self-confessed and totally earnest ‘objectivists’, meaning followers of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Sanger wrote his doctoral thesis at Ohio State University under the title ‘Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification’. He and Wales first encountered each other on an internet forum Wales had established in 1992, which offered a ‘Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy’ and described itself as ‘the most scholarly of all Objectivist discussions available on the networks’. Other early contributors to Wikipedia learned about its existence through the community of online objectivists, and it was this bond as much as anything that drove the project forward in its initial stages.

What is objectivism? Frankly, I have no idea. I have never read a word by Ayn Rand, and though I know she is an object of veneration in some surprising places (Alan Greenspan, for instance, is a fan), the little bits I have picked up always sounded a bit bonkers to me.* So this seemed a good test of Wikipedia’s much vaunted NPOV (neutral point of view): I would look her up on Wales and Sanger’s encyclopedia to find out what she’s all about. Well, it’s hard to express in mere words just how dispiriting an experience it is trying to find out about objectivism on Wikipedia. This isn’t because the entries seem biased or uncritical. It is just that they are so introverted, boring and just long. The entry on Ayn Rand herself is more than 8000 words long and covers her views on everything from economics to homosexuality in technical and mind-numbing detail. There are separate lengthy entries on objectivist metaphysics, objectivist epistemology, objectivist politics, objectivist ethics, plus entries on all Rand’s various books, including the novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and entries on all the characters in these novels, and entries that offer plot summaries of these novels, and even entries on individual chapters. All of it reads as though it has been worked over far too much, and like any form of writing that is overcooked it alienates the reader by appearing to be closed off in its own private world of obsession and anxiety. Compare this with the entry on Rand in the 1993 Columbia Encyclopedia:

1905-82, American writer, b. St Petersburg, Russia. She came to the United States in 1926 and worked for many years as a screenwriter. Her novels are romantic and dramatic, and they espouse a philosophy of rational self-interest that opposes the collective of the modern welfare state. Her best-known novels include The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). In The New Intellectual (1961) she summarised her philosophy, which she called ‘objectivism’.

That’s it (with a couple of references appended), and seems admirably clear in 70 words. Also, by allocating her 70 words, the Columbia editors give some indication of what they think she’s worth: on the same page she gets more space than the French architect Joseph Jacques Ramée (1764-1842) and the Swiss novelist Charles Ferdinand Ramuz (1878-1947), but fewer words than the French historian and politician Alfred Nicolas Rambaud (1842-1905), the Spanish histologist Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934) and the Scottish chemist Sir William Ramsay (1852-1916). That also seems pretty clear."

I thought the users editing this article might want to see an outsider's perspective on the article. Grunge6910 (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it’s hard to express in mere words just how dispiriting an experience it is trying to find out about objectivism on Wikipedia. It is just that they are so introverted, boring and just long. Hahahah! Thus spake David Runciman. No doubt, TallNapoleon and others are about to write in to say "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen to me!" Thanks Grunge6910 for the best laugh I've had reading Wikipedia content for a long time. J Readings (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that Wiki is pretty good as a collection of references. The science articles are usually very sound, and the articles on physics and mathematics are usually excellent. However, the areas of philosophy and politics are a disaster, in my opinion. This format seems to be extremely attractive to cults. CABlankenship (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, allow me to preen ever so slightly. :) Now, about that article trimming... where would people like to start? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Views - as per my post here on what is NPOV for this article. --Karbinski (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another writer no one has ever heard of who says he doesn't know much about Ayn Rand and then criticizes her prominence. The Columbia Encyclopedia entry indeed speaks for itself. It's fairly useless. Those championing this individual's POV and his obvious animus for someone he says he knows little about should take some time out to think about the side the position they are choosing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a POV issue, CoM. It's about the fact that the Objectivism articles (and this one in particular) are so long that someone attempting to find a comprehensible summary of Ayn Rand and her philosophy are left lost at sea. The point is not to bring the entirety of WP:A=A to 70 words--the point is to make it a tight, concise, clear summary, such that a random reader who stumbles upon the articles can get a good overview of Ayn Rand's life and philosophy without being overwhelmed by minutiae. Remember, Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize material--if users want more detail they can read some of the numerous books, websites, articles, and journals available. This isn't about animus, it isn't about POV, it's about article quality. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

David Runciman

I wonder if the reviewer is David Runciman, the political theorist at Cambridge University? (I haven't read the original article.) It's understandable that a general audience outside of acdemia, and political theory in general, might not have heard of him. I come across his work from time to time in the popular media and academic journals. He's also quoted in the popular press. Anyway, it's neither here nor there....I still enjoyed his frankness in the London Review of Books about the Wikipedia article. It's refreshing. J Readings (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Turns out I was right. Runciman even has his own Wikipedia page. See David Runciman. Hmmm. J Readings (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

not Jewish

According to attested sources listed in the article, Ayn Rand was not Jewish (she was an outspoken atheist), nor did she participate in Jewish activities. Moreover, her parents were not Jewish, and did not participate in Jewish activities, and deliberately chose to live away from any Jews. There is no record here of a "jewish gene" that skips generations and infects people without their consent.

Because of the sad history of racism, it is Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage that:

Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.

Moreover, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories policy requires:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Neither is true here! Please cease and desist this racist addition to Jewish (or any other) categories.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Jews are widely recognized as an ethnic group. The use of the same word to describe religious belief can be confusing, but that doesn't erase the ethnic distinction. Given the other entries in these categories, they appear to be based on ethnicity, not religion. Otherwise what is the meaning of a category like "Jewish atheists"? That Rand's ethnicity was Jewish (as were both of her parents) is documented in multiple sources, including The Passion of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, and The Ayn Rand Cult. So I fail to see how this constitutes a "racist addition." If there is a consensus that 'Jewish' will only be used in categories to refer to religious affiliation, then this should be established in Wikipedia policy rather than editing individual articles.

I don't care to participate in a revert war, so I'm going to hold off and see if others agree with my perspective and wish to restore the categories. --RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please quote exact sources of Rand herself claiming to be Jewish — culturally, ethnically, or religiously — and that "has a specific relation" to her work. She was not raised in a Jewish ethnic community. A person that does not participate in an ethnicity (or religion) does not acquire that "ethnic distinction" by virtue of a grandfather clause.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there something, if not in policy, in the guidelines about over-categorization. I don't think there is anything improper with these categories, but at the same time I don't give darn about any category, least of all a list of all "Jewish Athiests." I think they serve a purpose for stubs and other new articles, but "Prometheus Award winning authors" and "Naturalized citizens of the United States" on this article is out-of-whack. Maybe I'll make a user-box, "this user is thinks articles should have no more than seven categories" - or something like that. --Karbinski (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Likewise, see Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That policy is about the creation of overly specific categories, not the attaching of numerous categories to a particular article. It could be used as justification for completely deleting some of the categories in question. Highly specific categories such as Jewish libertarians and Russian-American Jews do seem foolish to me. But the wisdom of having a category is a separate question from the applicability of it to a particular article, which is in turn separate from the question of whether there is such a thing as "too many" categories for an article and if so what that limit should be.

Having reviewed reviewed the biographical literature, I believe that the claim that Rand's parents were "not Jewish" is factually incorrect. Sources confirm that during Rand's childhood the family identified as Jewish and did participate in some Jewish religious rituals. That said, I believe the "specific relation" policy noted above is relevant. Since Rand herself rejected Jewish religious beliefs and did not consider her ethnicity to be significant matter (this is also confirmed in biographical sources), these categories should not be applied as per Wikipedia policy. --RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was violently opposed to the concept of ethnicity, including that of her own. It is common among people of minority heritage to denounce their ethnicity in favour of other concepts (Marx is one notable example); however, that does not mean they don't belong to it physically. In fact, it underlines the fact that they paid significant attention to their ethnicity and purposefully struggled to ignore it. The question of ethnicity in such cases is clearly important, and hence is relevant to the article. I also fail to see anything foolish in regards to the Jewish libertarians category. There is a disproportional amount of them, especially among the early libertarians, and that fact is tightly connected to the Jewish culture in Europe (government oppression, hostility from the lower classes, class restrictions, religious oppression, lack of connection to national culture, a much greater degree of urbanisation, etc.) --Humanophage (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

struggled to ignore it? Sounds like people hear voices in their head or something - lol. Go ahead and educate me, what is the value of knowing the author of Atlas Shrugged was of Jewish heritage as opposed to being ignorant of that fact? You may believe I only ask because both my Scottish and German heritages combined with my Canadian upbringing compel me to ask, but you'd be wrong. violently opposed? Only if you consider taking an absolute position intellectually as an act of violence - lol. "Ignore it"? Lol - come here you my-ethinicity, I'm going to violently harm you, and stop your whining, I'm going to ignore you anyways - lol. What did your ethnicity ask of you today? lol --Karbinski (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Let's all try to remember that the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not arguing over the subject matter. Unless someone wants to reverse the edits made back on May 23, there isn't a need to discuss Rand's ethnicity, and still less any reason to discuss anyone else's ethnicity. --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski's removal of sourced material AND structure changes

Ok, I had a little fun with the header --Karbinski (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, the Frank Lloyd Wright and Isabel Peterson entries are verifiable and bibliographical. I'd like them deleted as I don't think they are encyclopedic. --Karbinski (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rand's interaction with Wright, although interesting, was limited, and I don't think it has the significance to be included here. (Although for what it is worth, an academic wrote a whole book about it.) Patterson, on the other hand, was an important relationship for Rand, so it seems more reasonable to keep that material. --RL0919 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Define "encyclopedic". The way I see it, both were significant figures in their time who had an important impact on Rand. Their inclusion adds valuable context to how Rand related to the American intellectual milieu outside her cloistered movement, adds the sort of biographical meat this article needs.  Skomorokh  00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. What about the rest of my cuts (and structure changes)? --Karbinski (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the endless detail about Rand's views on every political and cultural issue, I heartily approve. I've got a website with over 250 pages of material about Objectivism and even it doesn't have as much detail about those items as the article did. It was clearly overkill. --RL0919 (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel sick seeing 15k of verifiable content get the chop, but the article is better for it.  Skomorokh  00:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the idea that 15k (at least) of content should get the axe. I propose that Rand's views on homosexuality, war, her HUAC testimony, Jim Powel's opinion of Ayn Rand (?????) as the greatest thing since the invention of peanut butter in the philosophy section, etc. can easily be cut. While we're at it, I would respectfully suggest that the philosophy section be trimmed to remove all unnecessary cruft (it's long again) UNLESS the objective is to integrate the criticism section into the philosophy section, in which case we go line by line. J Readings (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the new Philosophy section needs more cuts. --Karbinski (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support in principle the removal of this material, although having one line here or there about, say, homosexuality or her belief that a rational woman would never want to be president might be interesting, give a bit of flavor and so forth. But those can be added back in once restructuring is done. I also think that more cuts are likely to still be necessary. However, I won't have time to take a close look at changes till later tonight, so count this as tentative. Incidentally, though, I would keep brief references to Patterson and Wright. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

These is all notable stuff. An author famous for writing fiction about an architect has a relation with one of the most famous American architects? Her notable views on homosexuality are also worth including. Don't delete stuff that meets inclusion guidelines. Split to sub articles. Have the removed sections been moved? Where are they now located? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is supposed to provide a summary. If people want more detail, there's ARI, TOC, JARS, countless blogs, books both by and about Rand, and so forth. As Runciman explains, it is the quantity of detail itself that makes these articles so obnoxious and such poor quality. It doesn't matter if it's farmed out into subarticles--the fundamental problem of exhausting overdetail would still remain. That said, for our Objectivist editors, it might be interesting to make an Objectivism Wikia if one does not currently exist. Some of the material that is being cut, though inappropriate for Wikipedia, might be great over there. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Objectivism Wiki? Already covered. And I agree the article needs to be trimmed. It's an encyclopedia article, not a doctoral thesis. --RL0919 (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Every time you suggest cutting, it's content that is notable like her positions on homosexuality or war or other notable details of her career. Your time would be better spent improving the encyclopedia by sourcing and adding content to subjects not well covered, or copyediting and making other improvements, than trying to cut down subjects that you don't care for. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a big improvement on the article. Further cuts are needed in order to make this article more readable. CABlankenship (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)