Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Žižek

By what oversight has this article failed to mention Slavoj Žižek's view of Rand? It should be included. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited additions of relevant information are welcomed. Fortuitously, his main article about her recently became available online at http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/archives/jars3-2/jars3_2szizek.pdf. Just remember to keep the summary of his views reasonably brief, and commentary specific to one of her novels probably belongs in the article about that novel rather than here. --RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Caution is called for and I suggest a draft here first. Žižek's take on Lacan is as much a part of this article as anything else and it is far from clear what he is saying. --Snowded ^TALK 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be very wary of someone adding Žižek material from a primary source; he is notorious for taking wild and counterintuitive positions with murky intent, and is very easily mischaracterised. Another, perhaps more serious problem is that he writes from a very different different intellectual tradition (descendents of post-structuralism) from anyone else in the article; in order to give his ideas about Rand the proper context needed to present them faithfully, we would have to accord him a lot more space in the article than he deserves. Personally, I find Žižek's writing to be some of the most interesting about Rand around, but its incorporation here is problematic. Skomorokh 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a rather defeatist attitude. The fact that someone from Žižek's intellectual background is able to recognize that Rand is - on her own terms and in her own way - an important thinker is highly important and should be mentioned, even though some of what he says about her is frankly rather weird. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to draft a proposal as Snowded suggests I will be open to reading it, but I am skeptical as to whether it can be done representatively, coherently, and in a manner which balances with the rest of the article. Skomorokh 13:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That footnote

Since we seem to be long past the "philosopher" debate from late 2008-early 2009, I wonder if we can finally trim the huge footnote about this down to a normal citation, and eliminate the dire warning against editing it. My thought is for it to read The following sources are among those that identify Rand as a philosopher: Saxon 1982, p. 36; "Preface" in Den Uyl & Rasmussen 1986, p. x; Sciabarra 1995, p. 1; Kukathas 1998, p. 55; Badhwar & Long 2010. (with appropriate links for the Harvard references). No quotes or bullet list, and no hidden comments. Thoughts? --RL0919 (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Do it. By fire be purged. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I think the publication of Badhwar & Long put that issue to rest. Skomorokh 13:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Images

Thinking about FA prompted me to review the status of the various images used to illustrate the article. Findings below. As noted in my comments, some of these may require some feedback from editors with more specific expertise in copyright, either here or on Wikimedia Commons, where many of these images are actually loaded. Green check marks indicate a file that looks to me to be appropriately licensed with no questions or issues, the others I have at least some question about:

• Y File:Ayn Rand1.jpg - Fair use with clear rationale.
• Y File:Sign Ayn Rand.png - Public domain on Commons because simple signatures are ineligible for copyright in the US. It had the wrong license template there, which I fixed.
• Y File:Twelvecollegia.jpg - Public domain on Commons (expired because this is an engraving from 1753), licensing there looks fine.
• File:Pola Negri by Ayn Rand cover.jpg - Public domain on commons, but I wonder about the licensing. It says the copyright has expired, but most copyrights for works created after 1923 are related to the date of the original creator's death, and the creator is listed as "unknown". I don't know what Soviet copyright law was like or what the Russian government may have done since, so this could require some feedback.
• File:Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor Monument 2010.JPG - Released by uploader as own work under Creative Commons license. No licensing issue, but seems like this file could be transferred to Commons. There is already a similar image at commons:File:Ayn_Rand_Marker.jpg that is released as public domain by its uploader. Not sure if it would be better to use that instead?
• Y File:Objectivist1.jpg - This is used in the {{Objectivist movement}} template. Commons shows it as copied from Flickr, where it was uploaded under a Creative Commons license. No apparent issues.
• File:Ayn Rand quote, American Adventure, Epcot Center, Walt Disney World.jpg.jpg - Commons shows it as copied from Flickr, where it was uploaded under a Creative Commons license, but frankly this is an odd situation because it is an image of a 3-D object that is engraved with a quote from copyrighted text.The quote itself is so short that it would easy qualify as fair use if typed out as plain text in the article, but we may need feedback on whether the image of the reproduction of the quote qualifies as "free use" or "fair use".
• Y File:TDTP08.JPG - On Commons, where it was released by the uploader under Creative Commons license.

If anyone knows anything about the situations mentioned above, please speak up. --RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the alternate gravestone image is better lit, framed, and to me a little easier on the eye, so I've swapped it in. I would be sad to see the Pola Negri cover go, as it is a great visual insight into the culture Rand emerged from, but I agree that the current licencing is problematic. Might any of these conditions apply? It needs a cleanup and a crop if anyone's willing and able.

Some of the atlas statue images have been deleted on freedom-of-panaroma grounds (3D artwork); perhaps one can be found from outside the Land of the Free. I added the Epcot image as a striking indicator of Rand's stature in the mainstream American psyche and as a strident and quotable author; while this is worth something to the reader beyond the reproduction of the quotation in text, it would be a stretch to claim it meets WP:NFCC8 ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") So unless it can qualify as free, it probably needs to go. Thanks for raising this issue; from past experience I'd say there is a lot to be done to meet FAC image criteria. Skomorokh 13:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked on Commons about the quote photo. I was directed to a proposed policy over there about clarifying the status of otherwise free-use photos that contain copyrighted text within the image. The proposal indicates that as long as the text on the imaged object meets fair use guidelines, then the image can be treated as free use (assuming it meets all other free use requirements). The discussion about the proposal is focused on whether it is necessary to have a separate policy or if the applicable principles should be stated on their main licensing policy page, not disputing the content itself. So at first blush it seems that this image may be acceptable; the one comment I got directly about it thought so.

The most likely qualifying situation for the Pola Negri image is for the artist to be anonymous. To find out will require some research. Someone at the Ayn Rand Archives or one of the authors of recent Rand biographies might have some insight if contacted via email. Alternatively, we could display a free use image of Negri herself as the subject of Rand's first published work, but that might be a bit of a stretch topically.

There is a whole category of images of the Atlas status on Commons, so I assumed it was fine. I there is a problem then they've got some deletion to do. If we need to change it out, there are a bunch of other Atlas images to choose from, or the navbox could use another type of image or no image at all. --RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Keeping FD paragraph

That AR studied FN heavily is covered in a previous section, however I concede that reporting there was an early influence but that she rejected FN's philosophy is contributory - but one sentence maximum within the single paragraph discussing influences (the three As paragraph).

The Philosophy section of this Wiki's AR bio is for reporting on the Philosophy of Ayn Rand / Objectivism - not giving a soap box for narrow research. A whole paragraph to report what exactly? Not Objectivism - to report what some non-notable researcher thinks AR was thinking a century ago. What part of AR's philosophy is influenced by FN? Non of it, the sources here report on something very narrow, not on Objectivism.

The editing of the remaining influence's paragraph to include a sentence on FN (early influence and rejection) I leave to those motivated to report that. However, this paragraph that eclipses discussion of Aristotle, egoism, capitalism, and reason has to go. Karbinski (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Two sentences provided, one for influence, one for rejection. I assume the dozen sources cited therein (and not, by the way, exhaustive of the literature on this subject) will not be rejected as narrow coverage of a single non-notable researcher. --RL0919 (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Referencing minutae

I've joined in with upgrading and homogenizing the citations in the article, but thought I would open a discussion here before going any further in case of stylistic conflicts. I propose considering to:

• Add publisher information for periodicals cited. This is to provide clarity about the repute and possible bias of publications. Example: Reason.tv, The Freeman and Mother Jones are cited without revealing their publishers, whose ideological basis may be of interest to otherwise overly credulous readers.
• Remove location info except where books are concerned. Its use is facilitated by the templates but I think it is outdated, especially where URLs are present. Example: The Guardian cite stipulates London as location of publication.
• Avoid italicizing web-only sources unless convention dictates otherwise. Italics are generally used for names of print sources but not
• Provide both ISBNs and OCLC numbers where available. Some may consider this redundant, but I believe the ubiquity of the former and comprehensiveness of the latter make them indispensable.
• Provide accessdate info for all URLs, for version specificity and to prepare against future deadlinks.

Some other stylistic issues:

• My own preference would be to use list-defined references to keep citation clutter out of the body of the article and make it easier to edit references en masse, but converting ~200 citations would be a pain in the ass and I am not aware of any bot/script.
• I'd suggest considering making the References section a subsection of the Notes section, as it is (currently) only used as a dumping ground for Harvard cites. This would reduce TOC bloat and make clearer the relationship between the two sections and the distinction between References and Further reading which at first glance might be confusing for readers.
• American English should be used exclusively throughout, per WP:ENGVAR. Britticisms slipped in by editors from across the pond (*cough*) should be replaced where found.

There are probably more issues to consider, but this is what sprung to mind for now. Comments, queries, suggestions etc. welcome, Skomorokh 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It would not be difficult to write a python regex script to convert everything into LDRs, although you'd have to copy/paste the raw input and output. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see [[1]]; not so much for the caution as for the scripts. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

List-defined references would be fine with me; certainly less clutter in what is a long and heavily-referenced article. One simple and non-disruptive task to start with would be to give names to each reference, preferably using some standardized scheme (e.g., "LastnamepNN", adding year if needed to distinguish multiple sources from the same author, or using publication name if anonymous).

Not sure that publisher is particularly helpful info for most periodicals, any more than location is. If you don't know what Reason.tv is, will giving the name of the Reason Foundation tell you anything? Wikilinking the publication name is probably the most informative thing because the article will probably say far more about the publication and any biases it may have than we could hint at with publisher or location info. --RL0919 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Rand's university lectures

The Later years section begins "Throughout the 1960s and 1970s Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through her nonfiction works and by giving talks, for example at Yale University, Princeton University, Columbia University, Harvard University and MIT."

I have heard these referred to as visiting lectureships in the past, but the above wording makes it sound like a visiting speaker. There is a vast difference for our purposes between say, being invited by the Yale philosophy department to lecture their graduate students for a week and being invited by the Yale Young Libertarians to give a speech at their annual cheese and wine reception. If the reality is more like the former, it lends real weight to the notion that Rand was respected in at least some mainstream academic circles in her lifetime. I don't have access to the sources, but can someone check and clarify the situation accordingly? Thanks, Skomorokh 18:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

These were individual speeches, not classroom lectures, so the current wording of "talks" is accurate. Who invited isn't clear in most accounts, but in most cases I expect it was a student group or an organized lecture series, probably more the latter because she got so many invites that she was very selective about where she appeared. These weren't exactly wine and cheese receptions; typically she would be booked for large lecture halls or auditoriums that would then overflow. Faculty of the time mostly despised her, so invitations to deliver more academically significant presentations were rare, although there were a few. Most notably, her lead essay in The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Objectivist Ethics", was first delivered at an ethics symposium at the University of Wisconsin. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I've tweaked the description slightly. Skomorokh 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Further reading section

At this stage of the article's evolution, with 32 entries in the "Works cited" and a Bibliography section that points to the extensive Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism article, I'm wondering whether we still need the "Further reading" section? --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think these sections can generally add value, but I don't think our selection is particularly strong. If the Machan and Baker aren't worth citing in the article, I don't know why we would want to encourage the reader to go to them rather than the cited biographies. Similarly, why read Bernstein rather than Peikoff? Why Walker's schlocky hit-job rather than the nuance of Burns?

The Branden is the one book that has a legit claim to "Further reading", given that we discuss him at length in the article and (rightly) only tell her side of the story. But while pointing to My Years with Ayn Rand might be fitting in a "right to reply" sense, it can't carry a section. Unless we can come up with a worthier selection, I agree with dropping it. Skomorokh 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to interest in upcoming release of the motion picture Atlas Shrugged, I noticed a link to a Slate November article http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/ This may provide some other views on Ayn Rand, but possibly not suitable for inclusion as further reading. Any thoughts regarding this? Thanks. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about Rand, far more than we could reasonably list or link to, and there is nothing special about this particular article, other than that it is relentlessly, tiresomely insulting towards its subject. --RL0919 (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rand: "Christianity = Kindergarten of Communism"

I have removed a comment about Christianity being a "kindergarten of communism" according to Rand, as I do not feel that it merits inclusion. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than simply notifying everyone that you removed it, it might be better if you included your rationale for removing it – and why it is not worthy of inclusion?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia, and no evidence that it's part of her philosophy. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rand certainly had no love for Christianity, but this isn't Wikiquotes. It's enough to say she was opposed Christianity (and religion in general) due to it being A: "irrational" and B: altruistic. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, that quote is an excellent summary of why, I think its fine. --Snowded ^TALK 07:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm just leery of including lots of quotes, since they tend to bloat articles. But given that this is six words I guess it's OK. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why this comment by Rand in her journals about Christianity is part of her philosophy? Could it not rather have been simply an opinion of hers that wasn't part of her philosophy per se? It says nothing specific about why religion is "irrational" according to her, and I still think it should be removed. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another about whether this particular quote is used, but for what it is worth here's a bit of context: The quote is cited from Jennifer Burns' biography. Anne Heller also quotes it in her bio. So from an encyclopedic standpoint it has the plus of having been identified by secondary sources as meaningful; it's not just something plucked by a WP editor from Rand's extensive library of quotable moments. But the sources don't necessarily agree on the significance of the quote. Burns discusses it in the context of Rand's ethical views, which corresponds with the larger topic Rand was writing about in her journals when she wrote that line. We are using it to illustrate her view of religion, which is the context in which Heller mentions it. Food for thought. --RL0919 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the quote could stay. It underlines her beliefs about religion in a way that is fundamental to her. For her any belief that focuses on a potential for people that is not apparent is altruistic and to be spurned as irrational. The quote is a bit inflamatory as it presents Christianity in a manner that would offend many. Also, it focuses on Christianity when it likely was a fill in the blank religion statement for her. In this way it does not make the point clearly. Perhaps there is another quote from her about religion in general that would better make the point. 71.53.195.160 (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

FA Status

I think we should consider trying to elevate this article to FA status. What exactly do we think doing so would require? TallNapoleon (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts, probably not comprehensive:

1. The Philosophy section needs some work, as it is currently a bit unstructured, moving back and forth among description of her ideas, description of criticisms, and discussion of her intellectual influences, without any clear order.
2. The last paragraph of the Reception section, discussing reception after her death, should either be fleshed out with better sources (e.g., academic surveys such as Gladstein and Burns) or pushed to the the Legacy section, making Reception exclusively about reception during her life.
3. The sourcing should be scoured for any inconsistencies in formatting (FA criterion 2c) or use of low-quality sources (criterion 1c). For example, right now there is a citation to the Find-A-Grave website that should be replaced with a print biography citation. (Fixed that, but you get the point.)
4. The lead as currently written is not a proper summary of the article.

That's what springs to mind, there might be more. I think (1) would be the most difficult of the points I listed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

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.

...

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.

David Runciman, London Review of Books, May 2009

The primary obstacle to an article on a topic like this – heterodox and historically underdiscussed in mainstream publications – reaching that level of quality is its organic development in snatches of detail robs it of proper context and balance. This is masked somewhat by the article's solid structure, but becomes very apparent as one looks closely. It manifests itself primarily in these problems:

Depth. The length of the article precludes covering many aspects in comprehensively, and the result is a somewhat breathless stream of atomised facts that are ultimately not that edifying. We're told circumstantial details about the young Rand's living arrangements but little about her character; that she loved Hugo and Schiller, but not why; of her marriage but not of its nature or initial effect on her; of Anthem only its publication. It is chocked full of quoted opinions, but devoid of their justifications, leaving the reader in many instances baffled (gas chambers? fascism?). This and the next problem could be solved by eschewing specificity (perhaps subarticles) and focusing on the quality of topics covered rather than the quantity.

Cruft There is so much incidental trivia, I wouldn't even judge it to meet the GA criteria. Lists disguised as prose abound; several sections read bluntly as "Famous Person, Famous Person, and Famous Person were inspired by her ideas." The pendulum sings from superficialities like these to editorial indulgence in the opposite direction; intricacies of her disagreement with Kant fall more under "things that are of interest to people who know a lot about Ayn Rand" than the needs of the general reader.

Philosophy section. Objectivism is not a complicated belief system, lends itself very well to summary, and is widely misunderstood. Despite this, in an article on a original philosopher, although we properly devote a separate section of decent length to her philosophy, only four lines are given to explaining what it consists of and why. The rest of the section is taken up by discussions of influences, intellectual disagreements, and style. It should be a straight-up tour through metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics, interlaced with critical commentary, a single paragraph on intellectual relationships/bugbears, and an assessment to wrap up. As with articles on any ideology, I'd strongly recommend getting a review from knowledgeable adherents to identify any flaws or mischaracterisations.

The Wikkipedia article on Objectivism covers her philosophy extensively. Here a summary is more appropriate. It is a biography and not a discussion of philosophy.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

Synthesis. Getting back to the fundamental issue, the manner the article accreted its vastness – the periodic addition of a few sentences taken from a source of narrow focus rather than someone sitting down with a comprehensive source and planning out what the various sections should say – mean that if you zoom out on the article as a whole, there is a significant problem of synthesis, and consequently undue weight. The emphases of the paragraphs in many places aren't taken from well-researched and broad assessments, but from single newspaper stories, things looked up in Google Books to support single claims, and overwhelmingly, simply by editors. A decent job of it has been done, and in some instances (e.g. the recent attempts at pushing Rand in academia) there are no available tertiary sources to use, but this won't cut the mustard with the FA research criteria ("a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.")

Most of these issues could be resolved if someone with the time and resources was willing to sit down with the Heller and Burns bios and some of the heftier academic pieces (Sciabarra, Smith, Peikoff) go through the article identifying incongruities of focus. Some less important things to address would be expanding the lead section to 3-4 full paragraphs of proper summary, the poor quality of some of the illustrations (images + quotations), the vanishingly little coverage of nonfiction and the Objectivist movement, and a lingering reliance on primary and news sources. Many more issues like these will emerge along the way to FA.

On the bright side, the bones of a featured article are definitely there (stability, length, prose quality, and particularly style-orthodoxy are all decent), and the release of the biographies puts it within reach.

Initial thoughts, welcome discussion. Skomorokh 21:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely some overlap in our thoughts (such as the Philosophy section needing work) and some differences. The cruft issue is one I didn't think to list, but is definitely a problem. In fact, I think cruft is one of the issues we should tackle first, because it will produce an improvement noticeable to even casual readers, and it will give us some breathing room in terms of article length to work on other issues. Plus I suspect many of the lowest quality sources would go with the cruft. (That said, I think quoting the London Review of Books piece is unfair to the article in its current form two years later.) --RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lee Shippey

Hello. I found references to Ayn Rand in Shippey's biography and thought I would share them with the WP readership. It is true that Shippey was less than truthful about his love life, but he was an honored Los Angeles Times reporter and apparently knew and had interviewed Rand. This is a first-person account from Shippey, and his word is just as good as any of the other sources given in this article — better, in fact, than that of a researcher who might have divined the facts about Rand only from letters or manuscripts. That which he says about Rand seems not to contradict other people's reports or, if it does, I would certainly like to know how and I will check into it. In any event, deletion of information does not seem to help the article at all. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of misinformation helps. To take a simple point, there was no rainstorm when Rand met DeMille; he was in an open roadster at the time. This is per the authorized biography written by Rand's best friend, and every subsequent bio. He offered her a job as an extra, not a seamstress. To the extent that Shippey repeats details found elsewhere, he is superfluous as a source. To the extent that he contradicts them, he is worse than superfluous. --RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this can be definitely known. Was Rand's best friend there? Nobody was there except Rand and DeMille, and maybe a chauffeur. Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time a person has given two different stories to two different people. If any given editor wants to add the details about the open roadster, etc., and point out the discrepancy, by all means that editor can do so, but naturally a well-sourced fact should not be simply omitted. I was happy to find these little details in a good copy of Shippey's book, which I bought for $2 on Alibris, and I am happy to share them now with the world after their having been neglected or overlooked for so many years. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely irrelevant whether Rand met DeMille in a rain storm. That level of detail is wholly unnecessary, especially since the article is already too long. Furthermore, as you've not gotten consensus to make these changes to the article, I highly recommend that you stop edit warring. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you found an obscure book may make it important to you personally, but that does not mean it is a good source to use for this article. Consider the detail about Rand intentionally bumping into Frank O'Connor. TallNapolean's point that we might not want so much detail in an encyclopedia article is well taken, but let's assume for a moment we want this detail, which is found in many biographical sources about Rand. Let's further assume that we don't want to use the source already cited regarding her meeting of O'Connor, which is a bio written by an archivist at the Ayn Rand Archives who has access to Rand's personal journals, letters, etc. We could use the source who had the most personal knowledge of Rand: Barbara Branden, who was Rand's close friend for 18 years and conducted hours of biographical interviews with her. We could use the most academically respectable: Jennifer Burns, a historian who published under peer review with Oxford University Press. We could use the one with the greatest wealth of detail about Rand's life in this period: Anne Heller, who did extensive archival research to create her 400+ page bio of Rand. Is his book easier to find for others to verify? No, it is harder to obtain than these other books, which are found in numerous libraries and have previews on Google Books. Is it more likely to be accurate? No, the fact that it is different about some details that multiple other sources agree upon suggests that it is less accurate. Is it more broadly useful regarding Rand's life? No, it is a narrow source that mentions Rand on a couple of pages. In short, nothing recommends the use of this book as a source. --RL0919 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you both have your opinion, and I believe you are both more knowledgeable than I about this lady, but I must say I take offense at the term "edit warring, " and I certainly await your apology: If you will note that I entered some information in good faith and it was reversed once, then I put it back, and it was reversed again. I am not going to belabor this point, but the score goes to the person who reversed it twice — the third time would have been edit-warring, Still, I don't care. I simply added material I thought was interesting. I don't like the attitude I confronted here (not that it is unusual for Wikipedia), and anybody looking in from the outside would be simply appalled. I hope you both have a chance to read Shippey's book and his Los Angeles Times columns on Ayn Rand, whom he admired as as struggling writer, to broaden your already (I must admit) deep knowledge of this important person in American literature. Sincerely, still your good friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Detail to history section

The following quote is interesting;

"In 1947, during the Second Red Scare, Rand testified as a "friendly witness" before the United States House Un-American Activities Committee. Her testimony described the disparity between her personal experiences in the Soviet Union and the portrayal of it in the 1944 film Song of Russia.[48] Rand argued that the film grossly misrepresented conditions in the Soviet Union, portraying life there as being much better and happier than it actually was.[49] When asked about her feelings on the effectiveness of the investigations after the hearings, Rand described the process as "futile".[50]"

This quote is found in many reputable articles about Ayn Rand and I have no objection to its inclusion in this article. What I find most interesting is what the quote leaves out. Rand went from this point to say she felt discriminated against in Hollywood because, while "Song of Russia" was made easily by film makers, her script showing the positive side of Hitler was bought by no one.

This seems to be an editorial decision based on the wish to avoid controversy. Rand enjoyed her controversies and, at times, reveled in them. This is a married woman who had an affair with a married man and never tried to hide it nor went to much effort to deny it. Yet this article ignores these controversies. I'm not sure Ayn Rand would recognize herself in this article.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)DWright

If you have a reliable souce about a supposed script by Rand "showing the positive side of Hitler", please provide it. Otherwise, take the trolling elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is the D. Wright I think it is, then he's not trolling. Anyway DW, if you can give us a source on this, that'd be excellent. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not; I'm guessing this was a troll. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Galt quotation

I like how the article excerpts a quotation from each of her famous novels as illustration, and the selection from The Fountainhead is quite apt, but I'm not so sure if this is representative of the spirit of Atlas Shrugged:

The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the competition between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of 'exploitation' for which you have damned the strong.

If this were all I knew about the novel, I would conclude that its thrust is a Social Darwinist parable about the parasitism of the intellectually weak on the strong. While there is an element of the theme of parasitism (Rearden + family for instance) in the novel, it doesn't have the Nietzschean essentialist/biological aspect suggested here. For me the theme would be more akin to the contrast between the virtuous or noble man and the weak i.e. a matter of choice, not nature; Rand goes out of her way to point out men of value who aren't high-status or powerful (railroad workers, burger-flipping philosophers). Thoughts? Skomorokh 13:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of months ago an editor (not me) changed the quote to the following:

You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. ... For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors–between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.

The editor who had added the quote originally changed it back. I do think the alternative quote is better, not just because the first one could be misleading, but also because the second one gives some hint of her views in multiple areas: ethics clearly, but also metaphysics (deriding deities as "ghosts") and politics ("your life belongs to you"). But there could be something even better; as I alluded in another discussion, Rand has many quotable moments. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This should be fine. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the second quote regarding the nature of the "good" is much more representative of the central message of Atlas Shrugged.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

After skimming over the Wikiquote entry for the novel, I concur that this is among the best quotations to use. Thanks RL, Skomorokh 13:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if we wish to represent someone by their work it is more appropriate to include something quoted by a scholar and why. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IP removal of birthname and ethnicity

Today two different IP addresses (both geolocated to California, [2], [3]) have been systematically removing material about Rand's birth name and ethnicity (specifically that she was Jewish). I reverted this twice due to the utter lack of explanation about why this verifiable material was being removed, and placed templated notifications on the user talk pages for the IPs. A third time they went a step farther and deleted the entire infobox and the "good article" template. I rollbacked that one. Now they've removed the name and ethnicity info again. Since I'm already up to the line of WP:3RR, I'm opening this discussion to confirm whether anyone thinks these removals are somehow justified. I would prefer not to see the page semi-protected again, but if that's what's needed then I'll ask for it. (Won't do it myself because I'm obviously WP:INVOLVED.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree; this information is credible, verified and biographically significant considering the topic at hand. Skomorokh 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The first IP is back, at at it again. I saved a more involved edit after theirs, so I wanted to point it out since I'm not in a position to revert this nonsense, having already done so thrice today. --RL0919 (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I opened a thread about the problem at WP:ANI, because I'd prefer a solution that doesn't require semi-protecting the page, but I'm not sure if that will be possible, especially since I noticed that there are actually three IPs and not just two. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP removal of birthname and ethnicity for Ayn Rand if you want to participate. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just keep reverting them. 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, which this is. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the edits have a logical theme to them makes it unclear whether they are truly vandalism, which is why I wanted outside opinions. I'd rather not see any of our regulars (including myself!) getting blocked for edit warring because of difference of opinion on the meaning of the term. --RL0919 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The same thing won't happen to you because, 1) you are a registered user, 2) you use Edit summaries, and 3) you discuss things here. I very quickly lose sympathy for users who repeatedly avoid any one of those behaviours, let alone all three. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I think we need to semiprotect this page for a while, as the amount of disruptive editing it's getting has skyrocketed over the last few days. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Atlas Shrugged movie may be the source of the upswing. The ANI discussion I started (see above for link) mentioned semi-protection as an option, or possibly pending changes (or flagged revisions or whatever they're called these days) as an alternative. The discussion over there seems to have slacked off, so perhaps you'd like to help kickstart them? --RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

In this recent edit I moved "reception-type" comments out of the Legacy section and into the Reception section. I think the result is interesting and want to get input from others on how to proceed. I think two things are highlighted:

1. After other recent revisions to improve other areas, most of the source quality and POV-emphasis issues in the article are concentrated in these reception comments (IMO).
2. Separating the reception out from the legacy is awkward. If we took this to its logical conclusion, the Reception section would be rather long and the Legacy section would be short and dull.

I think item 1 is relatively easy to deal with, but addressing item 2 requires more work. My current thinking is to restructure the article to combine Reception and Legacy into a single section that covers the responses to Rand both in her lifetime and after, organized into sub-sections for Contemporary reviews, Popular interest, Academic reaction, Political influence, and Objectivist movement. But that's a major change to an article that is in fairly good shape, so I wanted some feedback before I got too bold. --RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of William Edward Hickman in this entire article?

While checking out the editwar board, I saw that somebody tried to insert some info about William Edward Hickman in this article. Regardless of whether the edits were of good quality, they should have been improved, not deleted. There's no excuse to completely ignore Hickman in this article -- it is clearly deliberate whitewashing. See the WP Hickman article, ALL SOURCED: "In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose hero named Danny Renahan, was to be based on "what Hickman suggested to [her]." The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand. Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."[3] Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, especially since she several times referred to Hickman as a "Superman" (in the Nietzschean sense).[4][5] Rand also wrote, "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."[6]" 63.17.61.86 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the section titled "Removing Nietzschean influence" farther up this talk page, you will see a lengthy discussion about this topic, and there were others in the past that you can find in the archives. Bottom line: Just because something can be sourced does not mean it needs to be discussed at length in this particular article. Her journal notes about Hickman are a minor aspect of Rand's life. As noted in the material you quote, the main significance of it in the eyes of scholars is how it reflects the influence of Nietzsche. That influence is discussed in the article, with reference made to the notes in which she mentions Hickman. But it doesn't go into detail about him, because this article is about her. --RL0919 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RL0919 wrote: "Just because something can be sourced does not mean it needs to be discussed at length." I didn't say "discuss it at length" -- I said why not MENTION the guy's name? (meaning link his name to his article). RL0919 wrote: "it doesn't go into detail about him, because this article is about her." I didn't say "go into detail about him," much less make it so that "this article is NOT about her." Just at the very least MENTION him, with a link to his WP article. It is beyond belief that this singular, interesting fact, about not only Rand's interests but the INSPIRATION for one of her BOOKS, goes without explicit reference in the body of an article about her. It's inconceivable that if, say, Mark Twain had mentioned being fascinated by a murderer (and this fascination partly inspired one of his books), that the name of the murderer would NOT be mentioned in the Twain article. This is clearly, obviously, plainly an attempt to whitewash for PR purposes. This information is emphatically encyclopedic, and leaving it out is decidedly non-encyclopedic. Put the guy's name in the body of the article. 63.17.44.171 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It was the inspiration for an idea she had about a book she never wrote. Big difference. Nor is it all that easy to drop in a name without context or explanation. Abbreviated treatments have been attempted but failed to get editorial consensus. So please quit hurling accusations about issues where you clearly have limited knowledge. --RL0919 (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A big difference, but you have to admit it's a hell of an interesting factoid about her life and philosophy. The book was her first stab at literature and she formed a full plot, including the murder of a ultra religious KKK figure (also styled after an actual contemporary KKK leader) by the protagonist. Further, the character of Renahan formed the foundation for her conception of the ideal man used throughout her future writings. A foundation that started with Hickman who she referred to as "Superman" on more than one occasion. There doesn't need to be any judgement attached nor any excessive embellishment, but the absence of any mention of her first attempt at a full novel and its relation to such a prominently reviled figure of that time seems conspicuous. (Jkyle75 (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC))

Book-of-the-Month survey

Badger Drink (talk · contribs) has been trying to insert material noting concerns about the (in)famous Book-of-the-Month Club survey that is mentioned at the start of the Popular Interest section. There is certainly some opportunity to qualify this factoid, but he is attempting to source it using a website posting by Jessica Amanda Salmonson, who to my knowledge has no particular expertise on Rand or opinion surveys that would make her self-published web comments acceptable as a reliable source. Does anyone else support the use of this source? If not, perhaps we can locate something appropriate from a better source? --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not use-worthy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of Social Security and Medicare (redux)

Brettxiv (talk · contribs) added the following comment at Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 41#Use_of Social Security and Medicare:

"This issue is not minor, it took a FOI request to get, it should be documented. This is not a propaganda piece."

Since that page is an archive, I'm moving it to the active talk page for discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. For example a person who votes against major highway funding would not be notable for riding on roads. A person who opposes teachers' unions would not be two-faced for allowing their kids to go to public school. She had to pay into the system therefore it is reasonable to use what one has paid for. In fact, it is union backers who send their kids to private school who should be notable. If one pays for something and does not use it, that does not make them "better" in any way - only a tad irrational. Collect (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with omission. The only reason this is being thrown around now is because it was an attempt at point scoring by Rand's political opponents ('She opposed govt social services but used them herself - hypocrite!') that misfired rather obviously (endorsed morality of using s.s. in public writings) leaving the story here being yet another indication that reception of Rand is polarized and ideologically-driven – a point covered amply already. Skomorokh 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Her collection of Medicare and Social Security benefits under a false name hardly seems like a case of "driving on roads she did not vote for". If there is a question of weight, sourcing, then those should be addressed. Using logical synthesis as above is not a policy driven rationale for exclusion. As there seems to be no clear policy based reason for removing the reference, I have restored it.aprock (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the archived discussion linked above, you will see that there are indeed significant issues of weight. Only one biography of Rand mentions that she took Social Security. It does not make any accusations of hypocrisy. This is an issue championed primarily in non-reliable blogs, with the occasional marginal RS in the form of an opinion piece. Normally we would not include trivial details about someone's life, nor would we source biographical facts to opinion pieces, nor would we give space in the article opinions to expressed by insignificant authors in a tiny minority of reliable sources. So discussing this in the aritcle is undue weight, and attempting to insert opinion pieces as "sources" for facts that are already cited from higher-quality sources is a POV variation on citation spam. --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I neither mentioned hypocrisy, nor did I put content related to Social Security in the article. If the one biography (which one?) is a more reliable source, then I agree it would be a better source than alternet. I also agree that op-ed characterizations are not appropriate. With respect to weight, what level of coverage would be sufficient for inclusion of her using a false name to collect entitlement benefits? aprock (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic of discussion is the material related to SS and Medicare that was previously added to the article, not just things you personally may have mentioned. As to your question, for any biographical claim, I would consider coverage in a serious biography or journal article rather than web opinion pieces and blogs to be a minimum criterion. And since the regular editors here have been trying to improve the quality of sources used in the article, I am totally opposed to using citations to web opinion pieces as "sourcing" for factual claims that can be sourced to a print biography, which is what you have done by adding the alternet ref back to the article after I added a citation to Heller for the same fact. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I agreed above, sourcing the Social Security content to the one biography that mentions it would be preferable. aprock (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The plain fact that she took Social Security needn't be in the article at all, because it is trivial. If we are going to expand the article, there are numerous more significant things to say first. But if we are agreed that Alternet should not be used as a source for something already cited from a print bio, then the current refnote using it should be removed from the article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If her collection of Social Security were a "plain fact", it would not merit inclusion. Sourcing her use of a pseudonym to collect entitlements to the appropriate biography would certainly be preferable. aprock (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What "pseudonym"? O'Connor was her married name, and "Ann" could easily be a clerical mistake by a government bureaucrat unfamiliar with the unusual name 'Ayn'. Even the Alternet article doesn't call it a "pseudonym" or make any claim of significance for the variation in name. (Of course 'Ayn Rand' also was not her birth name, but that is discussed in the article already.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real need to get hung up over terminology. "Ayn Rand" is a pseudonym. That said, I certainly agree that sourcing content to cite is the appropriate way to handle things. aprock (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I concur with RL, Skomorokh, and Collect: this is an extraordinarily trivial issue being stirred up in a bunch of unreliable sources for political points scoring. It's a tempest in a teapot, and doesn't belong in the kind of high-level biography one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The unreliable sources are irrelevant, only the reliable sources have any bearing on the article. aprock (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And only one reliable source even mentions it, and they don't think it's a big deal. Seriously, this article is gigantic. Discussing the fact that she collected Social Security--like everyone else--is unnecessary detail. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The gigantic size of the article is not relevant. If she collected Social Security like everyone else this wouldn't be an issue. aprock (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple books about Rand's life and a journal devoted to the study of her, plus numerous journalistic pieces and other sources. It is not feasible for an encyclopedia article to include every fact documented in these sources. We must pick and choose. I can reliably source the names of Rand's cats, but such trivia does not belong in the article. We can reliably source the fact that Rand took SS benefits, which is also a trivial fact. The best quality sources either don't mention it at all or treat it as a routine fact. Only a few minor opinion pieces give it significance, among a long list of opinion pieces about Rand that discuss a huge list of issues that again are overwhelmingly larger than what can be included in an encyclopedia article. Since as you say, only the reliable sources have any bearing on the article, we should give this the same relative significance that they do. In a 6000-word article, that boils down to no mention at all. --RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Trivia is not rendered weight by appearing in a single reliable source. Opinion pieces generate weight only with respect to the author's views and are generally not appropriate for BLPs. I would not characterize the treatment in "100 voices" of her collection as one of routine fact. Let me ask again, "what level of coverage would be sufficient for inclusion"? aprock (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

100 Voices is a series of interviews of people who knew Rand in some way, basically primary source material. One of the interviewees was a legal consultant who helped her apply for Social Security. So of course that is one of the things she talked about in her interview. A couple of interviewees were officers at West Point when Rand made a speech there (another detail not mentioned in the article), so they talked about that. So, yes, this is treated as a routine fact in that book, just another topic from another interviewee talking about the tiny slice of Rand's life that they participated in, no different than descriptions of parties Rand's attended or her secretary talking about how Rand's handwriting was hard to read. As a primary source, these interviews are potentially useful, but the book is not a biography and makes no attempt to weight material by significance. The one actual biography that discusses Rand taking SS benefits is Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. She mentions that Rand took SS in a parenthetical comment while talking about Alan Greenspan's participation in a government committee on Social Security, "(a benefit [Rand] deplored as socialistic but, unlike Isabel Paterson, accepted, because she had paid into the fund)." That's the whole treatment, in a book of 567 pages, which is just one of several biographies of Rand. So while I do not have a precise response for the heuristic question of "what level of coverage would be sufficient", I am comfortable that the answer is "more than what this gets". --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Heller as a source settling the issue. Seems to me that everyone who is touting Rand today or tearing her down are really just focused beating their own chests or beating their opposition into a pulp. I have no reason or intent to detract from her contribution to literature, however, she was not an original thinker; moreover, those enamored of her today should consider that she went out of style in her own lifetime. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@RL, so there are two reliable sources. One that mentions it, and another that goes into detail about it. While I can understand that you're not really interested in setting goal posts, given the amount of coverage the topic received in secondary and tertiary sources, it's difficult for me to see that including it is undue. aprock (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then evidently you still don't understand that this is a drop in the bucket. This article is not a stub or about some obscure subject where we are lucky to find a single secondary source that mentions a piece of information. Compare "She collected Social Security" with such statements as "She never learned to drive", "She attended an Apollo moon launch", "She was friends with Mickey Spillane", "She enjoyed playing Scrabble", and "Her favorite color was blue-green". All of these are better sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll pardon me if I don't find that sort of synthesis convincing. aprock (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect you will ever be convinced, but I think it is safe to say the consensus is against you. If anyone else wants to speak up they are welcome to join the conversation. --RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Against me in what way? There's a clear consensus that this information is reliably sourced in multiple sources. There is some debate about whether or not it is due, but I suspect that a two word mention of it in a "gigantic" article is not substantially out of line. You've established that you disagree. That's fine. It may be that you are a little too involved in the topic to be completely objective. When I get a chance I'll do some more research into the topic and put up an RfC. aprock (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, the "Political influence" influence section should go at the end, discuss her effect, then include a subsection on "Resurgence among political conservatives." All the slavish admiration of Rand and the counters to it in current political discourse (if you can even call it that) can go in there, including the whole Medicare thing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not surprising that there is consensus over a point that absolutely no one has been arguing about. The source of contention has never been whether the fact that she took benefit payments can be reliably sourced. It has always been over whether such trivia is important enough to include in the article. It isn't. But do as much research as you need, since it certainly would help if you were familiar with the subject and its sources before commenting on what topics deserve coverage in an article about it. (And I would love to see the "two word mention" that would cover this issue, since it takes that many words just to say "Social Security" with no subject, verb, or context.) --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a note in the article saying "don't add this". What do you think? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That sort of note is best avoided unless there is a very serious need for it. There used to be a note (since removed) about the use of the term "philosopher", which was added at a time when the page was headed into an arbitration case. I don't thing things are quite that bad with this particular issue. --RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely the use of Social Security is only a minor footnote in Rands life but can nevertheless be included since two words serve the purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.100.83 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean your edit adding "publicly funded" to the sentence about her lung cancer surgery, then that won't do at all, because it is false. Rand had her surgery in 1974, before she had signed up for either Medicare or Social Security. If you read the source you attempted to cite, you would know this, because in her interview, the woman who helped Rand sign up talks about learning that Rand "had had cancer" before they met. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Its interesting though that you took this incident as a cause to not only remove my edit but also the source. You also justified the removal of it not with its falsity but with the redundancy and my misinterpretation of the source. That seems to be no viable argumentation since you argued above with a necessary redundancy of sources to render a fact important in Rands life and my misinterpretation does not jeopardize the source at all.212.201.100.83 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I may also draw your attention to the fact that the Medicare issue was found to be important enough for a short note on the German wikipedia site: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand. --212.201.100.83 (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason that particular source is in the article is because of past attempts to use it when introducing the Social Security trivia and associated POV pushing. Removing it is overdue cleanup of oversourcing, which ought to be done throughout the article. As to needing multiple sources to provided due weight, the point there is that we can validate the inclusion of material based on its treatment in secondary sources. That doesn't mean that all those sources have to be cited inline. And an interview with a witness is a primary source anyway; if multiple citations are needed, it would be better to cite other secondary source biographies, such as Burns or Britting or Branden. And I can't help it if mistakes and crap sourcing linger on some other wiki; that's hardly justification for the same here. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this source is not a case of oversourcing which refers to ridiculous cases making the text untidy or unreadable. It has also nothing to do with due weight because there are no contrary opinions present in this case other than those expressed in this forum. The SS and Medicare issue is a fact that you don't want to be included for whatever comprehensible or questionable reason and not a matter of different viewpoints in the literature.

You also missed my point since I didn't directly address the fact that you removed the source but that you removed it for false reasons ("Later years: benefits signed up for in 1975 couldn't pay for a 1974 surgery; rm redundant ref that led to this mis-association") which implies that it had to be deleted because I misunderstood it. It's ridiculous to delete one of two sources because of redundancy, just incidentally being the one that contains information you don't want to see here. I could as well delete the other one! Selective handling of sources and facts, isn't that the definition of POV pushing?--212.201.100.83 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The non-POV approach to sources starts with actually reading them. That way, you could figure out whether one of them is a secondary-source biography that fully supports every detail of the sentence it is cited for. Or whether the other is a primary-source interview that only supports a small portion of the sentence. And if you read them, you might be able explain what information from the interview is not in the biography. As to the due weight issue, that is discussed above and the conclusion about what belongs in the article is supported by multiple parties, so I won't rehash it again now. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kind of makes me wonder why 212.201.100.83 feels SO strongly about this issue. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rand seems to have a lot of influence on contemporary politicians. I think that's reason enough to deliver people the whole picture. The very reason why biographies are written is that you can't divide the creator from his creation, right? When you mention that Barack Obama got the nobel peace prize you should also take into account that he intensified the drone war in Afghanistan or is there no connection? What good would be a biography about Rousseau who had influence on pedagogy without mentioning that he gave three children to an orphanage? On the other hand I really don't think of this issue as THAT important. But that only adds to my suspicions towards an advocator who is evidently trying to keep this biography clean, not only regarding this matter alone.--212.201.100.83 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article should be kept "clean" of trivia and POVs that are not given significance by reliable secondary sources. It is not supposed to be a soapbox for bloggers. Could it be improved by adjusting parts of the article that have more of a pro-Rand slant than the best sources? Yes, there are spots where this could be done. But the addition of this particular detail is not an improvement, because reliable sources overwhelmingly ignore this issue or treat it as minor trivia. --RL0919 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a blogger nor do I read many blogs but what disqualifies them to be an indicator for interesting aspects about persons who caused a lot of controversy? As I read in the archived discussion there was once a section in the article that told about the issue and also about Rands justification for that which I find quite convincing. I'd be fine with that being mentioned.

To this day no one knows if Adolf Hitler had jewish ancestors and there are no reliable sources on that matter but guess what: In the most significant biography about him (J. Fest) there is a large section devoted to this topic. Isn't the coherence of a persons work and their character òne of the basic issues of a biography?--90.136.4.130 (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the use of blogs, I refer you to the pages on verifiability and reliable sources. As to your analogy, if there were "a large section devoted to this topic" in one or more of the major Rand biographies, then we would be having a very different conversation. Perhaps in the future there will be. Something similar happened regarding Rand's use of amphetamines. It was mentioned briefly in an early bio that not everyone trusted, but then more recent biographies from uninvolved authors confirmed it and gave more detail, so now it is included in the article with no significant dispute. For another example, there used to be a lot of heated dispute over whether she should be described as a "philosopher", until proof was provided that the term is used in multiple reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)