Welcome to mapoid.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Talk:Ayn Rand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This article was externally reviewed (20 May 2009) by London Review of Books.[1] "...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." Article may have subequently substantially changed as review says it has 8000 words when, as of 30 May, it has 6500 words.
Former good article Ayn Rand was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article, Ayn Rand, has frequently become the subject of controversies and criticisms regarding her and her philosophy. While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism, and make sure to provide references to reliable sources when proposing a change.
This is not a forum for general discussion about Ayn Rand; any such comments will be removed.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived.


Contents

[edit] Article Cross-Talk


[edit] Proposed deletion of Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

I have proposed this article for deletion due to notability concerns. If you think it can be rescued, please add references and remove the {{prod}} tag; alternatively, {{prod2}} can be used to endorse the proposal.  Skomorokh  03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the Center, but I seriously doubt it has sufficient notability to warrant an article. The only mainstream press coverage I could find was when they filed a friend of the court brief in the Microsoft antitrust case, and that was years ago. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yet one more dead plant in this little walled garden. To the compost heap with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The WP:PROD notice expired and it was deleted by an admin today. I removed it from the Objectivist movement template and de-wikilinked it in all remaining main-space articles. Links to the deleted page now exist only in Talk, User, etc. pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Valliant: Attempt at a Summary

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

I know Karbinski asked for a vote above. I'd like to see if I can narrow the terms of the vote a little more specifically. Here is where I think we are:

  • A number of editors (with different perspectives on Objectivism) expressed reservations about the numerous citations to "PARC" across several Rand-related articles; by consensus, the citations were removed (NOT, please note, all references to "PARC" which rightly remains listed in Bibliography of work on Objectivism). The removals were (in part?) reverted and the initial consensus challenged.
  • My own opinion is that this week's discussion has provided no reason to overturn the initial consensus. Indiscriminate citation of "PARC" remains problematic for the following reasons:
    • 1. Not a Reliable Source per WP policy (nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not, still less whether works it criticizes are reliable or not). Any editors still in doubt should check the policy. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors...The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse...Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications..." I acknowledge that there can be a problem with a topic like Objectivism, which is generally not part of mainstream academic discourse, but we nevertheless have plenty of acceptable references in the Rand articles.
    • 1.(a) And this is huge problem where "PARC" is making claims about living persons.
    • 2. Probably Fringe, i.e. under "novel re-interpretations of history" (this still doesn't mean it's wrong), and not even notable fringe, i.e. has "been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
    • 3. A product of a publisher widely reported as a vanity/subsidy press (whether or not exclusively). I agree that this is circumstantial; the author - who reads and comments on these Talk Pages but will not participate see here- has stated otherwise (same reference). For some editors that is probably an end of the matter, but it brings me to the elephant in the room.
    • 4. Almost certainly a Conflict of Interest is reflected in the extent of citation before the cites were removed. It is undisputed that IP User 72.199.110.160 was the editor primarily responsible for these multiple citations. Per Wikipedia's Duck Test (as an Administrator pointed out to me) it is beyond serious doubt that the 72.199.110.160 is closely associated with the author of the book/his friends/his house/his computer.

I appreciate Karbinski's "use with caution" option above, but I am concerned that one editor's caution will be another editor's license-to-promote. And so here's my specific proposal:

The citations to "PARC" in Rand/Objectivism-related articles should remain deleted, per the initial consensus. If an editor can identify a specific location in an article where a citation to "PARC" (or a citation to Rand quoted in "PARC" - bearing in mind the care required with using Primary Sources), the editor should first make the case either here on the relevant Talk Page, and achieve consensus before inserting the citation. Agree, disagree, comment, whatever...KD Tries Again (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Disagree strongly Let's take things one at a time. Item #1 says that PARC isn't a reliable source. It's a published book sold in major bookstores. The author was granted access to Ms. Rand's journals by ARI, which is a major Objectivist institution. KD Tries Again acknowledges somewhat dismissively the fact that Objectivism is rarely covered by the mainstream media and academia. Since the subject here is Objectivism, what constitutes a reliable source must be seen in the context of Objectivism. Therefore, if the book has been discussed by Objectivist sources which are considered mainstream in an Objectivist context, the book must be considered a reliable source. It is only by dropping context entirely that PARC can be considered other than a reliable source.
I've discussed my issues with Item #2. It is not a "novel reinterpretation of history". The sole accounts with which it disagrees are those presented in two books, each one written by another involved party. While the books written by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have been discussed in scholarship, and Barbara's book was even made into a movie, no one has produced a single scholarly source which examines the claims made by the Branden and concludes that they are accurate. Said claims were merely assumed to be true in the absence of any rebuttal. With no scholarly weight behind the claims of the Brandens, those claims cannot be considered the standard interpretation of history against which all others must be compared. A matter of two decades does not suffice to turn unsupported claims into "the mainstream view".
Point #3 is contentless. Rumors of vanity publishing by the publisher of PARC are just that. Rumors. Until and unless they are substantiated, they simply don't enter into the discussion. And point #4 says that neither Valliant nor his roommate (?) should be modifying the content to include Valliant's book. I'll stipulate that, but in terms of whether the content belongs here, it's a bit of an ad hominem argument. I've never met the author. I found the book very difficult to get through. No offense, if Mr. Valliant is reading this, but I found myself skimming. Maybe I'm just not cut out for reading legal briefs or books written in that style. But I still think the content belongs here. So being that there's no COI in my case, I don't see how #4 relates to the question of the content itself.
So here's my counter-proposal. PARC should be used as a source on an equal par with The Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgement Day. Neither Valliant nor his roommate should be allowed to insert or modify references to this book, per COI. Claims of vanity publishing should cease pending hard evidence (which does not include rumors). -Lisa (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the scope of PARC is narrow and consequently that proper usage of it as a source will be exceedingly rare. I think there is no concensus here that it fails WP:RS, but that the policy informs us to proceed with caution if using it. To go off-topic, let the trimming effort cut deep - all the point & counter-point tripe is an indication of too much detail for what is supposed to be a summary. --Karbinski (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Karbinski. Briefly, Lisa, Objectivism doesn't provide the context for mainstream reliability, Wikipedia policy does. Wikipedia policy precisely overlooks the context you propose. The Branden books just are acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy (it's the easiest thing in the world to find hundreds of citations of The Passion of Ayn Rand in the secondary literature) - I haven't a dog in the race as to their truth (remember, Wikipedia's threshhold is verifiability, not truth). In any case, whether PARC is a reliable source can't be inferred from whether or not someone else's book is a reliable source. I think that responds to everything (I don't rely on the subsidy publishing point), but more importantly - which specific claim in which article do you want to use PARC to support? Where must it be used in order to improve Wikipedia? I am agreeing with Karbinski that the need to use it is rare.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I also agree that appropriate use of PARC will be rare. If there is a specific situation where it is a crucial source for something that properly belongs in a Wikipedia article (not original research, POV or excessive detail), then it should be used and appropriate explanation provided. And of course the author and his close associates should not be the ones placing citations to it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Lisa, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden knew Rand. In addition, Barbara Branden interviewed over 200 people for her biography. Valliant didn't know Rand and didn't interview anyone, so far as I can tell. No one is saying the Brandens' books are the last word on the split, but Valliant's book is not a source on their level, with the exception of the diaries. Incidentally, the current issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has an essay by Rand scholar Robert Campbell (The Peikovian Doctrine of the Arbitrary Assertion) which discusses Valliant's book and the discussion is quite negative. This is the only print discussion of the book that I'm aware of (with the exception of the Kirkus review, which I haven't seen).--Neil Parille (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Neil, Rand knew Rand even better than the Brandens did. She also knew the Brandens. Furthermore, some of the editors here have not been trying to ban the book "with the exception of the diaries". They've been trying to ban it in toto, including the journal entries. -Lisa (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, this is not about banning the book. It is quite properly cited in the Objectivism bibliography. It is a discussion about where it can be used to support claims in articles in accordance with WP policy. It would be helpful if you could either (a) explain to me or other editors where we are wrong about WP policy, and (b) what passage in which article you specifically want to use PARC to support. As for Rand knowing Rand, please see policy on using primary sources. I think you are the only editor (without a potential COI) holding out against the consensus, so I think the burden falls on you either to tell us exactly where the rest of us are wrong, or let us move on.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

May I ask for that "summary"? Per consensus, may the Valliant book be cited or used at Wikipedia outside of the Bibliography? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009
This is the letter sent to Mr. Wales from Ayn Rand heir, Leonard Peikoff, PhD, on May 29, 2009 (posted with his permission here):

"Dear Mr. Wales,

"I learned recently to my astonishment that while books by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, attacking Ayn Rand and her personal life, enjoy the status of reputable references in Wikipedia, a book disputing their claims and presenting the opposite viewpoint has been removed from your list as non-reputable. I refer to The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant published in May 2005. On its face, this is a policy of egregious injustice on your part.

"As Ayn Rand’s executor, heir, and longtime personal friend, I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant’s book. I do not pretend to know every detail of the clash between Rand and the Brandens, but I do know firsthand the essential truth of the Valliant book. I leave aside here my own personal observations and discussions on this issue with Rand, because the book itself contains lengthy excerpts from her own personal notes, which completely bear out Valliant’s thesis in her own words. I released these notes only after a 20 year wait, because in Valliant I found at last a writer who would give her personal viewpoint a rational hearing, neither hostile nor worshipful.

"My understanding, which may not be correct, is that one of the instigators of your new policy is Barbara Branden, one of the two persons identified in the Valliant book, with substantial corroborating evidence, as hostile to Ayn Rand. Surely such an individual and her claque have a transparent motive to kill this book. Can you justify removing one side of this dispute, the one endorsed by someone with my credentials? Do you describe as 'reputable' only enemies of Ayn Rand?

"There are those in the academic world who question the objectivity of Wikipedia. I hope that your action on this matter will prove that they are wrong.

"Sincerely yours,

"Leonard Peikoff

"Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand" Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Incidentally, the Wikipedia biography of Peikoff currently reads: "Kelley has worked with the libertarian movement in the United States and other groups with which Peikoff refused to associate. Nathaniel Branden, whom Rand herself had publicly repudiated, later joined with David Kelley and The Objectivist Center. This resulted in a number of members ending their own association with Kelley's group.[citation needed]" The needed citation, of course, are the numerous statements of scholars and writers influenced by 'The Passion of Ayn Rand;'s Critics.' This is bizarre, as most did not leave until they read Valliant's book. Have you decided to omit history as well? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009
Valliant's eyewitness testimony re Rothbard, the actual Rand notes themselves, his arguments -- whatever the positive Kirkus Review said about it the book -- the impact of the book on scholars within the movement, are all censored, while the factually dubious works of Walker, Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis, and the Brandens are not? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

<outdent>Pelagius1, you've brought up a bunch of issues, so pardon the somewhat lengthy reply. First, regarding consensus, I'm not sure that there is one. There is some unresolved tension between the "use with caution" and "don't use at all" perspectives. "Use freely" seems to be a distant third. Not every dispute is resolved on the first (or second or third) pass, and this is probably such a case. There does seem to be a general willingness to consider the use of PARC as a source in a specific case if arguments are brought forward as to why it is the best source to use in that particular instance. No one has taken the initiative to offer such a specific case yet. If you want to do so, I'd suggest picking the absolute strongest case you can find based on Wikipedia sourcing standards.

Regarding that, I think it needs to be said again that the standards for using a source in Wikipedia are not focused on whether the source is factually accurate. Most editors simply are not in a position to evaluate the specific factual claims made in all of the sources that may be used in even one article. Instead, editors look at more general guidelines for considering a source reliable or not. For example, Barbara Branden's biography of Rand has the necessary indicators (e.g., major commercial publisher, positive reviews, widespread use as a source in academic literature). I think Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis and Nathaniel Branden are more dubious for use in support of claims of biographical fact, but they are mostly cited about their own criticisms of Objectivism. Since these individuals are notable and their criticisms have been widely repeated, that seems an appropriate use. Neither Barbara Branden nor these four are relevantly similar to Valliant.

Walker is the closest parallel to Valliant. Walker's book is similar to Valliant's in a number of ways: Both have been trashed as unreliable by reviewers. Both have strongly tendentious approaches to their subjects. But both also give voice to opinions that are held by "better" experts, but which those experts do not care to express in their own writings. For Walker, these are academics who disdain Rand and do not wish to dignify her with discussion; for Valliant, these are prominent Objectivists (Peikoff, Gotthelf, etc.) who detest the Brandens and prefer not to even mention them in their works. Walker's book is treated pretty much as I think Valliant's should be treated: it is used sparingly, when it attests things widely believed but not often mentioned in reliable sources. IMO, this is the appropriate use for a source like this.

Regarding the email from Peikoff, this is an example of what I just mentioned. If Peikoff endorses Valliant's book and the claims therein, he has many venues available to him where he could say this. He could publish a review. He could write an essay that includes the use of Valliant as a source. He could mention the book in a radio or tv interview. These would be verifiable references from a reliable source that could be used to bolster the book's status, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But that would effectively require him to mention the Brandens in public. So what we get instead is a second-hand posting about a private email. While I personally believe this is probably a legitimate email from Peikoff, it is not independently verifiable unless he confirms it directly in some more trustworthy venue. Which brings us back to the practice of not talking about the Brandens. To put it bluntly, the major-league Objectivists need to either crap or get off the pot on this subject. If they support Valliant's view of the Brandens, they should say so in reputable public venues: reviews in third-party magazines, citations in academic articles, etc. That is what will gain the book status as a reliable source. Private emails aren't going to do the trick. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Far more shocking is the silence of all those (still) associated with David Kelley's group -- since Kelley had overtly called for such a debate about B. Branden's work in his initial attack on ARI. Here, a detailed reply, complete with Rand's own notes is published, and they stand silent after trumpeting the alleged silence of their opponents(!) Of course, this excludes those scholars who left association with TAS ~ because ~ of PARC.
Walker? He spread total nonsense. There is no reason to treat PARC differently from the Brandens' works. Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009.
Dr Peikoff has published this letter on his official website, http://www.peikoff.com -Roberto Sarrionandia
Yes, there is, namely the substantial number sources covering and citing Branden's book, and the movie that was made out of it. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
First of all, stop with the movie. That has no bearing on anything. They thought it was a cool story, so they made a movie. Second of all, not a single one of the sources "covering" the Brandens' books deals with the question of whether what they wrote is likely to be true or not. They simply took them at face value, which was reasonable when there was no material to the contrary. Valliant's book is the first (only) published work that contains substantial entries from Rand's own journals. Why you want only one side of an issue to be heard is beyond me. That's the very definition of POV. -Lisa (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the movie is not significant as an indicator reliability. But widespread use as a source in other works, especially peer-reviewed academic works, definitely does count. Counter-factual speculation about how a source would have been received if there was "material to the contrary" is not evidence and doesn't change the evidence that is available. At this time, Valliant's book does not have anything close to the degree of established third-party evidence of reliability that Barbara Branden's biography of Rand does. That is true without regard to POV, and trying to argue that reality away is a waste of time. The better use of time would be to find additional reliable sources that treat PARC as reliable, because that is what is needed to turn the argument regarding usage of the book as a source on Wikipedia. For example, having looked at what Brian Doherty has to say about it in Radicals for Capitalism, I would say it needs to be added to the (still slender) list of works that accept PARC as a source. If there are not enough other citations of this type to be found, there is no blame on Wikipedia editors for being unable to find non-existent references. As I note above, the blame goes to those who support the book in private but do not cite it in public. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I had deleted these last two comments from Neil Parille and Pelagius1, per WP:TPO, on the grounds that the discussion was veering into a heated debate over the subject matter rather than a polite discussion of how to improve the encyclopedia articles. Another user didn't care for that approach and reverted the deletion. So be it. But I do want to reiterate my own comments from the reverted version: this simply isn't the place for debates about the content of Valliant's book or Branden's book. I would strongly encourage Neil and Pelagius1 to take any such discussion to a different forum if they wish to pursue it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to itemize what we are talking about here? I'm too lazy to do so, but I'm curious if someone is up for it - how much content is taken from the Brandens' books in Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? In the Objectivist Movement article? What I'm fishing for is if there even exists some great wrongs - and if there is, do they even belong in an encyclopedic article - and if they are relevant, are the sources reliable. If we still have them after that scrutiny, does PARC offer us anything that is relevant - if the final question's answer is 'yes,' then we can resume discussion how PARC measures up to wikipedia policy for verifying the specifics. Otherwise there is no need to work this out. --Karbinski (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a whole summary, but stuff like this (from the Ayn Rand article) keeps coming up, again and again:
"Stressing that this 'is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought,' Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses 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.[77] For example, Rand has been criticized for her critique of Immanuel Kant. Rand was strongly opposed to certain views she ascribed to Kant, particularly that reason is unable to know reality 'as it is in itself." She considered her philosophy to be the "exact opposite" of Kant's on 'every fundamental issue'.[78] Objectivist philosophers George Walsh and Fred Seddon have both argued that Rand misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated her differences with him.[79][80] According to Seddon, Nathaniel Branden stated that Rand never read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason,[81] while Walsh contends that Rand and Kant adhere to many of the same basic positions."
Branden's credibility as a witness against Rand, his alleged "facts," and, most especially, his accusations (and their alleged basis in "fact") of what he calls Rand's moralism and psychologizing are all considered in detail with new evidence in PARC.
And, as participant in the exchange RL removed, I think it also should go as an irrelevant distraction, as well, so I removed it. Pelagius1 (talk) 8 June, 2009.

I think RL0919 sums up where we are very accurately: "There is some unresolved tension between the "use with caution" and "don't use at all" perspectives. "Use freely" seems to be a distant third." I strongly support the request that any debate about the truth of these various accounts be taken to another forum. There are still editors participating here who don't seem to have even glanced at Wikipedia Verifiability. Barbara Branden's work may be false from beginning to end - that's not the issue (this conspiracy theory that she is controlling the discussion here is hilarious). The outstanding question is this: precisely where is a citation to the Valliant book required? I think Pelagius is trying to answer that question, but it's not clear to me. The problem with the specific example Pelagius gives is that it comes from Sciabarra - unquestionably a reliable source - and is preceded by Sciabarra's own qualification to balance Branden's reported comments. Adding some additional qualification from Valliant doesn't seem necessary here, and if it's a matter of Valliant contradicting Sciabarra, then we are back to questions about Valliant's reliability again. What does Valliant say about Rand and Kant?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was just playing with Google Scholar this morning, and I discovered that while Valliant is cited in only one work.
  • Mimi Gladstein's work: The New Ayn Rand Companion, which is featured on the "Further reading" section of the Ayn Rand article, is cited by 3. However 2 of those citations are The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies—one where it is cited for bibliographic material only. It is also cited by the same book as Valliant's—Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy.
  • Mim Gladstein's work: Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand is reviewed once by CM Sciabarra (conflict of interest?), and then is cited twice by The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
  • Upon Scholar searching The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, I found that at most, any article in their entire journal is cited maybe 3 or 4 times—and that is with articles dealing with art or literature—articles about philosophy or psychology are cited maybe once. And what is extra suspicious is that they are all cited by the same authors writing for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Not many of the article seem to be cited by any work outside of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
With that said, I'd like to know why the sources mentioned above are being used enthusiastically, and yet there is still reservations about Valliant's work. Yes, I'd say that one citation is not much. But neither are the sources I mentioned, and yet they seem to be used quite often. So for the sake of consistency let's review all sources by the same standard. Brandonk2009 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We do need to treat sources consistently, but I think we should keep the discussions separate. I'll start a new section below.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Regarding KD's questions: I don't believe Valliant addresses Rand's views on Kant, although I say that from memory as I don't have the book in front of me at the moment (I can check later this evening). I believe what Pelagius1 was getting at is that PARC does raise general issues about Nathaniel Branden's reliability as a source. Unfortunately, I think we would run into an issue with synthesis if it were used in this particular case. I believe (again from memory which I will verify) that the criticism from Branden ultimately trace back to his "Benefits and Hazards" speech, which is only briefly mentioned in PARC and not in a way that presents any specific criticisms of it. So although PARC criticizes Branden a great deal, it would require an editor to connect the dots in order to attach it to this particular material. (Note that I consider criticism of Branden to be well deserved, but my opinions are not appropriate encyclopedia content.)
I previously did a cursory review of the past uses of PARC as a source, and it was significantly over-used. Essentially it was being inserted as a source whenever either Branden was cited or mentioned, even when it lacked direct relevance. I believe this is part of what created the backlash against it. A useful exercise might be to go through the old cites more systematically to see if there are particular ones that are relevant and should be restored. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm about to post on this topic again. Whilst one or two remaining editors contemplate this lengthy (and perhaps fruitless) endeavor, it really is appropriate to remember Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE lest we forget the white elephant in the room (emphasis added): "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each..... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well...Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Now for the research results. The fact is -- newspapers and academic articles both qualify as reliable sources in determining undue weight as much as they apply to determining notability. The sheer paucity of reliable publications discussing Valliant's book in comparison with the mountain of articles discussing the Brandens' two books is an extremely bad sign if we are going to consider a one-to-one relationship. Thankfully, no established editor is entertaining that possibility given the policies and the evidence. That leaves us with citing PARC for facts (and not opinions). Why would Wikipedia cite PARC for facts given that (1) it is a self-described partisan book from (2) a minor commercial publisher written by (3) a non-notable (and virtually unknown) author with (4) neither academic credentials nor (5) a publishing track record in the field and (6) received virtually no attention in either (7) the mainstream media or (8) peer-reviewed academia? The fact that most editors have stopped posting on this subject begs the question: why is it necessary to bend over backwards to get PARC cited on Wikipedia given the policies and the evidence? J Readings (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No one is asking anyone else to bend over backwards to do anything, and any editor is free to continue not posting on the subject if that is their preference. However, it is clear from both the postings here and the ongoing discussion of the matter in other forums (including Peikoff's recent posting of his email to Wales on the front page of his web site) that some supporters of Valliant's book believe it has not received fair consideration. I for one am willing to make a bit of extra effort to ensure both its fair consideration and the appearance thereof.
To that end, I have created a compilation of old citations of PARC that can be used for further discussions if editors find it relevant. Since I have the book, I've checked each citation (within reason: some of the citations are to the entire book or to huge blocks of pages) and included my own comments on the relevance of the cited material. To summarize it bluntly, most of the old citations were very obviously deserving of deletion. In many cases obvious editorial synthesis had been used to connect indirectly related book passages to the article, or the cited material was just flat-out irrelevant. A couple of minor cases may be arguable, but I did not see any compelling instances where citing PARC brought something important and helpful to the article. My research covered selected old versions of Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movement.
Given the history on this and the lack of evidence that PARC was a well-used source in the past, I would say this: If supporters of the book want to point out some appropriate past use that I missed or argue for some new specific use, they are welcome to bring forward a case. I'm asking for a positive case for using PARC in a particular instance that accounts for Wikipedia sourcing policies and the goal of improving an encyclopedia article. I for one will consider any such case as objectively as I can, if and when it is made. If the case is worthy, then I will support the citation in that instance (for whatever my support is worth). If they can't or won't make such a case, then I don't see much grounds for complaint on the matter. --RL0919 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I applaud your effort and fair-mindedness, but we must all avoid being lured into trying to demonstrate that our edits are not being directed by Barbara Branden.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

[edit] Arbitrary section break

Let those who want to see PARC used propose a place they would like it cited, and explain how they would like it used. However, I see no point in continued abstract debate about this. It is a waste of our time, and we all have lives. Propose something specific, or drop it. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. J Readings (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say any and all are welcome to boldly contribute content that is sourced from PARC, and that they may expect reversion and discussion to take place. That is the only discussion (on a specific usage) worth having on the subject at this point. If someone wants more than that, and yearn for a 'yes its reliable' or a 'no its not' decision from the wikipedia community, the best thing you can do is post on the noticeboard. Note that any result will be a statement according to wikipedia policy and standards as opposed to a direct judgement on the veracity of PARC by a panel of qualified experts (I'm not saying some editors are not deluded, nor that qualified experts won't participate). --Karbinski (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with TallNapoleon, and emphasize that it would be against the consensus which has emerged here boldly to contribute content from PARC. As RL0919 said above, ""Use freely" seems to be a distant third." See WP:BRD- "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus." In any case, WP:BRD is not policy. WP:RS is. It would be inappropriate for editors boldly to ignore the discussions which have taken place here.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Well, If one skips Bold, and Revert - so be it. But if one doesn't - no need to get all uppity and slam 20k of text onto the talk page about how the editor didn't sort through 50k of tendentious discussion first. --Karbinski (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be a loss to start with discussion, since we would be missing a precise picture of what edit is intended, and we would be missing an assertion of why that specific edit is considered contentious. --Karbinski (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I still sign up to what you yourself post a while back:

Anyone care to itemize what we are talking about here? I'm too lazy to do so, but I'm curious if someone is up for it - how much content is taken from the Brandens' books in Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? In the Objectivist Movement article? What I'm fishing for is if there even exists some great wrongs - and if there is, do they even belong in an encyclopedic article - and if they are relevant, are the sources reliable. If we still have them after that scrutiny, does PARC offer us anything that is relevant - if the final question's answer is 'yes,' then we can resume discussion how PARC measures up to wikipedia policy for verifying the specifics. Otherwise there is no need to work this out.

It's been established, to my satisfaction at least, that PARC citations were freely inserted in the past by an editor (or editors) with a COI. It's also evident that discussion of its reliability here prompted wild discussions (really funny) on a series of objectivist forums. I am simply concerned that an invitation to insert the citations first and discuss them later will encourage interested parties (who clearly have plenty of time on their hands) to bombard the articles again.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Please be specific about the alleged COI being claimed. How has that been shown here? As the editor of these, and someone who makes no money on the book, I am at a loss with regard to this accusation. Also, I am here, which per the guidelines, is evidence of "playing it straight." In any case, this would only go to the editor, and not the reliability of the source. Please be clear: can other editors, in your view, then, use the source? Also, what actual conflict are we talking about? Is it me we're discussing, or the book?
Also, the issue is not, for example, Kant (who is actually discussed at length in the book) but Sciabarra's ~ use of Branden ~ as the original source of "facts". Such a comment using N. Branden, any such comment, must include its qualification by the book in question, or the Branden material must not be used at all. The principle is clear and simple: any use of Nathaniel or Barbara Branden in Wikipedia must be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics." It must be mentioned in their biographies, obviously, and it must be referenced in any factual claim made by the Brandens regarding Rand or the movement, or the Wikipedia description will distort matters.
If there is a claim, any claim, made by one the Brandens about Rand or her movement in the books criticised by Valliant, it must come with a reference to PARC. The use of primary material from Rand's own notes, and Peikoff's endorsement, place this source on a par with Brandens. That is the issue. It is not vague or abstract at all. It pertains to the use, any Wikipedia use, of the Branden books as "reliable sources," since that is PARC's case. Pelagius1 (talk)11 June, 2009.

That's an interesting rule you propose, but I doubt it will attract consensus. As for the conflict, please review WP:COI. My understanding is that the 72.199.110.160 and/or Pelagius1 accounts are used by close associates of the book's author, if not the author himself; I believe that's what you told us.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thank you, but does that apply to this discussion? The underlying issue is still pressing. And the application of PARC references is as broad and specific as the use of the Brandens as sources. Just that broad. The questions "where does censoring this source cause injustice?" and "how does this come up?" will come up that commonly. Including PARC exactly to the extent that the Branden books are mentioned or used is the only way to avoid a Wikipedia endorsement of a highly partisan view of the "reliability" of the Brandens' books as sources and of Ayn Rand herself. PARC argues that sources which had such a "falling out" with the subject of their books cannot be accepted uncritically, and that they are the "unreliable" sources when the evidence is examined. Why Rand's own notes or Peikoff's opinion should be ranked below that of the Brandens is unclear. Peikoff has published his letter at his own website. [2] Pelagius1 (talk)11 June, 2009.
I am going to disengage with this, but of course I disagree for all the reasons already given. And yes, COI policy does apply to discussion of the editing of articles. Please review it.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
This material from Ayn Rand should be removed unless PARC is used as qualification:
"In a 1984 article called "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden, while noting that he was still in general agreement with her ideas, criticized Rand for her 'scientific conservatism' resulting from preconceptions of what was 'reasonable.' Branden noted that: 'Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.[76]' (Paragraph) Stressing that this 'is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought,' Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Branden's suggestion that her 'wholesale rejection' of some other viewpoints was due to her 'theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style.' As a polemicist, Branden argues, she often dismissed her opponents on 'moralistic or psychologistic' grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor.[77]"
Since this would not be an addition of PARC, but simply a removal of questionable critical material, can this simply be removed? If reference to all Branden material criticised in PARC is removed from Wikipedia, there is no need to include reference to the book, except in the N. Branden and B. Branden biographies themselves. Is this a reasonable compromise? Pelagius1 (talk)11 June, 2009.
I am sympathetic to many of the arguments in PARC, but the idea of pairing it up with every citation of material by the Brandens is so far off base that it is hard to know where to start with a response. The reason this suggestion will not draw consensus is that it completely misconstrues the significance of source citations and the meaning of 'reliable source' on Wikipedia. This is also why editor after editor is simply giving up on discussing this, because it has no foundation in Wikipedia's purposes or policies. The use of a source in a citation is not an "endorsement" of that source, and a source is qualified as 'reliable' based on its provenance and apparent acceptance in other sources, not based on its content or any agreement with its viewpoints. If a cited work contains a claim of fact about Rand that PARC does not contradict, and the article only repeats that factual material, then there is no justification for attaching PARC to the citation. The author of the cited work might surround the fact with interpretations or speculations that PARC disputes. But that is not relevant to the article if those interpretations or speculations are not repeated in the article. Wikipedia reference notes are not a forum for righting all wrongs done by its sources. --RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, it is the "critical" material, such as that just mentioned above, which is "Critics" focus. PARC does not take issue with certain matters, like Rand's date of birth, but if another source is available for this fact, it should be cited first.
RL, don't you think that PARC should be noted in the biographies of each of the Brandens?
It is the context of suppressing PARC but including the Brandens books which would create the distortion and implied partisanship, RL, not merely their use in the abstract. Pelagius1 (talk) 11 June, 2009.
RL wrote:
"but the idea of pairing it up with every citation of material by the Brandens is so far off base that it is hard to know where to start with a response."
How about with "No"? Pelagius, the Brandens' criticisms and work is orders of magnitude more notable than PARC, because of the closeness of their relationship with Rand. What Branden thinks of Rand is therefore inherently extremely notable. PARC, on the other hand, is an extremely dubious and partisan work, and does not rise anywhere near the notability of the Brandens' works. To weight Valliant's opinion as much as the Branden's would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Furthermore it would be a blatant, POV attempt to water down criticism of Rand, and would be exactly the kind of "criticizing the criticism" nonsense that has been such a problem on Objectivism related pages. You can try to make your case on the reliable sources noticeboard, Pelagius, but that's the consensus here, and if the other editors will forgive me the indulgence, I don't think any of our minds are changing. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not to be counted as being for any blanket "policy." To be clear, if you want to edit something away or make a contributing edit, do so. If there is a problem with a specific edit, it'll be reverted for discussion with the burden of proof falling on those restoring or contributing. --Karbinski (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius1 -- If you are not Jim Valliant, then who are you? What role does Jim Valliant have in contributing to your posts? As you know, Wikipedia prohibits "sockpuppetry." --Neil Parille (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Parille, Wikipedia strongly frowns as a policy on "meat puppetry" which is the more technical classification of Pelagius1's activities to date. Whether Pelagius1 is a "sockpuppet" of James Valliant is largely irrelevant provided that (1) WP:COI is read and understood and (2) Pelagius1 does not attempt to edit unilaterally Objectivist-related articles to promote PARC. In addition, Dr. Piekoff's problematic call to his listeners to "reverse Wikipedia’s decision in this issue" is -- perhaps unwittingly -- a further example of soliciting future readers to act as meat puppets and single-purpose accounts without ever understanding the policies and guidelines that apply to *all* articles on Wikipedia, not just this one. We should all respect WP:BITE as it applies to new editors (yourself included). I also have no objection to Richard Lawrence spending his valuable time reading PARC references and demonstrating why they were highly inappropriate in the context that they were given (I would have added further objections based on other policies). However, there are fair limits to how many times established editors acting in good-faith need to explain to a new user (e.g., Pelagius1) how Wikipedia works as a tertiary source and what needs to be read before boldly editing and commenting. This whole drawn-out experience has been remarkably disheartening and tedious. Sadly, it is not the first time and it will not be the last time that shameless self-promotion of an author's work by closely affiliated personnel will happen on Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Neil -- Wikipedia policy against outing (WP:OUTING) takes precedence over policies against sockpuppetry or shared accounts (WP:NOSHARE) or conflicts of interest. According to the 'duck test' (WP:DUCK), and taking into account the information Pelagius1 has shared here -- we know that there is a link between the topic-banned IP 160 account and Pelagius1's account. But it is up the account holder himself to declare a conflict of interest, or to acknowledge a connection between accounts. We still have to respect a user's chosen anonymity on Wikipedia, even if the identity, as seen here, is an open secret. Administrator Ed Johnson made it clear: (It seems likely that per WP:MEAT Pelagius1 and Valliant would count as one editor for Wikipedia purposes anyway. The sharing of each of the two accounts (IP 160 and Pelagius1) between two people is more troubling, but may not need any immediate action. If Valliant wants the Pelagius1 comment to be oversighted, he can write to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org.) Wsscherk (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
So, I cannot even participate in the discussion here?
I was the victim of a rule violation about outing. I also got attacked just for trying to give any information about myself. I came to the discussion and got none of the credit the rules are supposed to give me for this. The recent of surge of interest in Ayn Rand's work, and the wish to correct some terrible errors at Wikipedia in that context, was my only purpose. Mentions of this book were not aimed at selling the now aging backlist title, but to correct the record. As I say, I am satisfied that the book is not being censored, despite the opinions of some. Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.

[edit] Common Ground

1. The beginning of all this was the gratuitous injection of PARC as a source for all sorts of content
2. This was improper
3. The sources were backed out
4. WP:COI needs to be adhered to
5. Any repetition of #1 will be improper

Yes? --Karbinski (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all that.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
As do I. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And I understand the rules and will adhere to them.
I take it, then, that I may still edit more on this and related topics, but not mention this book again in light the COI concerns? And that other editors may use the book, if it is found to be relevant, meets the standards in that context, etc.? Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.
Can I try to make the case that RL calls for here in the discussion? Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.

[edit] Back at it

The articles are open for editing, let the editting begin. Let it ride as it were, we can deal with specific problems if and when they pop-up. --Karbinski (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clarifications, and I am satisfied that the book itself may still be used by other editors. This was my only concern. Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.

[edit] Objectivist theory of value

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

This article survived an AFD a couple of years ago, but as it appears that we are working on merging and eliminating these extraneous articles, I think we should consider doing a merge/redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

25 citations. 80% citing Ayn Rand directly; 20% repeatedly citing only two independent third-party sources, one of which (Libertarian Alliance) being a think tank. This is another article that needs better sources or it needs to merge with something else, I believe. J Readings (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Anyone want to take a stab at this, or should we triage it and deal with it later? Unlike many of the things from the house of horrors, this appears to have some valuable content, so just blanking and redirecting probably isn't a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand backlinks

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

If we are trying to find and eliminate inappropriate or gratuitous references to Rand, this should prove useful. As soon as my arbcomm amendment is finalized, I'm going to start sorting through these and looking to see if the Rand references are appropriate or not. We may wish to do this with other Objectivism related articles as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One that I found is Problem_of_induction#Ayn_Rand.27s_Objectivism. This section takes up more space than any of the other philosophers discussed--a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It also had wikilinks in the section header, which is deprecated. I did a quick fix of that. I'll leave it to someone else to reduce the section to something proportional. (It also completely lacks citations. <sigh>) --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, more than Hume and Popper. I'll take a closer look. Done: her claim is pretty clear - it's consistent with her position that empirical truths are ultimately analytic, if only we knew every property of every object. I've tried to express it concisely.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

[edit] Bibliography revisited

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

There was a discussion here about the Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism (formerly named "Bibliography of work on Objectivism") last month, but it's been archived, so I guess I'll start a new section. I've spent a fair amount of time of the last week editing the article, and I think many of the issues raised before have been addressed. Assuming that the bibliography article is in good shape, I'd like to discuss how it relates to the bibliographical material in other Objectivism-related articles.

  • Objectivist movement has a descriptive bibliography section that is very similar to what the separate bibliography article used to contain, with all the same problems of POV and original research. My take is that this material should mostly be cut in favor of linking to the bibliography article. Some of the narrative about wider influence might belong, but the long lists of works are redundant. Cutting this section would have the side benefit of shrinking this long article by about 20K. Update 2009-05-29: Cut everything except the material about wider influence, which discusses different works than those in the bibliography article.
  • Ayn Rand has a further reading section that is, fortunately, just a list of works for further reading. But again it is redundant to the bibliography article, which now has a distinct subsection for biography and literary analysis that contains most of the same works. Update 2009-05-29: Further reading list has been shortened to just introductory surveys and a few prominent longer books.
  • Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has a section on monographs and essays that is just a paragraph-formatted list of books. Again, totally redundant. Update 2009-05-29: Section retitled and rewritten.

What all three articles lack, however, is a "Works cited" section. My thinking is that the works actually cited in the article should be listed, but all the "further reading," "monographs," etc. should be cut in favor of linking to the more comprehensive bibliography article. These are contentious articles and I'm relatively cautious about making major changes, so I'm putting notice here before I take the axe to any of these sections. But if no one objects, that is what I intend to do. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Works cited" isn't required on account of the "Notes" sections, yes? --Karbinski (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends on how the citations are handled. If the full bibliographical information is contained within "Notes", then in theory you don't need "Works cited". But if the same sources are used repeatedly, it is more compact to just refer to them by name/year (plus page number if applicable) in "Notes" and put the extended information in "Works cited." The references for these articles are a bit of a mess, but there is a great deal of repeat citing of the same books (B. Branden, Britting, Rand's letters and journals). So using abbreviated references might make sense. But that is somewhat secondary for me. My initial goal is to eliminate the redundant bibliography lists. Fixing up the references would be a whole other project. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you did a good job, and thanks also for changing the title to something easier to find. I agree with your comments on the bibiography in Objectivist Movement - a link would surely be enough, and agree likewise on Objectivism. I am comfortable with having a simple list of works at Ayn Rand for readers who just want to get quick info about her - a short list of her books, anyway - but agree further reading could be replaced by a link.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A Selected bibliography simply linking the major works with year of publication is an option; see William_Gibson#Selected_bibliography for an example.  Skomorokh  04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank Karbinski for the rename, which I agree was an improvement. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go through the books listed there that are bluelinks and prod the ones that don't belong. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say that the bibliography article is looking great, and that guidelines governing "works" sections in articles are available at WP:LAYOUT.  Skomorokh  04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The little house of horrors

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

OK, this section is for all the awfulness that's lurking throughout the minor Objectivism related articles. Minor articles that need to be prodded, cut, sourced, merged, afd'ed, trimmed, redirected, or otherwise saved/euthanized should be listed here with its own l4 subsections so that we can keep track of it all.

[edit] Romantic realism

As I am now permitted to edit again, I removed the quotes section there that I mentioned earlier. As it is the page probably gives too much weight to Rand, but it's a rather low priority for the moment. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Read this for the first time, and don't like it. Someone has found the term used by a few different authors, probably in different ways, and synthesized those uses to create the illusion of a school of which Rand is a representative. I think absent a source grouping Conrad, O'Flaherty and official Nazi art (Goebbels(!!!) as Romantic Realists in the same sense, this should be nominated for deletion.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
As I argue on the Talk page for the article, I think deletion is absolutely the wrong course for this article. I took a stab at updating the article to send it in a more appropriate direction, the upshot of which is that it needs to be de-Randified. 'Romantic realism' is a term that pre-dates Rand, and it was applied to some of the artists she talks about (Dostoevsky, for example) before she wrote even her first book, probably before she was even born. I also think that the Ayn Rand template should be removed from the bottom of the article. The template for her isn't at the bottom of the articles for Rational egoism, Capitalism, etc., and for the same reasons it should not be on this article. Now, I am by no means saying that she should be removed from the article entirely. Considering her situation as both a successful author and someone who theorized about romantic realism, it's entirely appropriate for her to be discussed, even prominently discussed. But the term is not her invention and putting her template on the article gives an entirely misleading impression. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree re the template. I threw a bunch of tags on the article today, because it's still far short of being encyclopaedic. I will look around myself to see if there's any support for the existence of romantic realism as such, rather than it being a term which has been used, quite independently, by a handful of writers on different subjects. Right now, though, the article is mainly synthesis.KD Tries Again (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

[edit] Peter Schwartz (writer)

AFD'ed and deleted, recreated, AFD'ed again with no consensus. Does not appear terribly notable--how would people feel about redirecting to Objectivist Movement or Ayn Rand Institute? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno on this one. His article against Libertarianism has drawn a fair amount of comment, and he was involved in the Peikoff-Kelley split. So although the state of the article is poor, it seems that there should be more to say about him from reliable sources. I think there are smaller fish to fry. --RL0919 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There is so little content in the article that it could be merged into either article without losing much.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think its acceptable to have short articles for the notable of a lesser degree. Its fine, just need to keep an eye on it so people don't "fill it up" as it were. --14:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Epstein (American intellectual)

Notability issues--how would people feel about prodding or redirecting? Also, his article needs a different disambiguation--perhaps just "American writer"?TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of coverage in news articles, but the article does not contain much of value. I would say prod it and if someone objects, ask them to flesh it out a little.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Any reason he has the epithet in parentheses after his name? I am in two minds here, only because if he is notable so am I, and I must get someone to write an article about me. He has published some articles - that's all you need for notability?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The prod was declined by the article's creator (see Talk:Alex Epstein (American intellectual)). What do you guys think? He's published but I'm not sure that makes him notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He's not exceptionally notable, at least one secondary source uses him from Google Scholar (and AFAIK doesn't have anything to do with ARI), news hits galore - I'd say he has his foot in the door, so its a tough call. Anyhow, further discussion should take place on the articles talk page as to engage the editor(s) watching that page and not this template. --Karbinski (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin A. Locke

Probably notable enough for his own article, but his page looks like a resume and is largely unsourced. I would say that stubbification would be a good first step for this one. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He is probably notable enough for an article. His CV is a mile long and he is mentioned prominently in the article on Goal-setting theory. So I'd say keep the article. Unfortunately, it has significant sourcing and NPOV issues. ("His pioneering research has advanced and enriched our understanding ..." Yikes!)
Based on his CV and credentials, it appears Locke is an academic. If so, Locke's notability is determined by WP:ACADEMIC. Has anyone tried to read over WP:ACADEMIC to see if he meets the criteria? I'm just asking. J Readings (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I just gave it a quick read. Using Google Scholar for an initial estimate, he very likely qualifies. He's cited regarding goal-setting theory in numerous journals, and a number of the citations seem to treat him as the key expert in the field. --RL0919 (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, definitely notable. Still, article is in need of a major rewrite. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Britting

Dubious notability on this--his only claim to fame appears to be the soundtrack to Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, which was nominated for an academy award. Perhaps redirect to that film, and mention that there, while including his book in the bibliography? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The references include several links to mainstream news coverage. Perhaps this one should be stubbed first to see if someone can make a reasonable article out of the source material. --RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The links at the end of the article establish notability per WP:GNG; it would be a solid keep at AfD. That said, again, there is such little content that a merge elsewhere might not be a bad idea.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at those links he definitely shouldn't be deleted, and probably shouldn't be merged, as he has notability for two things, his book and his music. Speaking of music, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life is an awfully short article for a film nominated for an Academy Award. I'm gonna bump its importance up a notch, and maybe see if I can get some folks from one of the film projects to help with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone's noticed] the complaints about A Sense of Life :)  Skomorokh  22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I posted a request at Wikiproject Film and they knocked it out of the park :) TallNapoleon (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America

No evidence this book is notable enough to get its own article. Could easily be merged or redirected to Schwartz if we decide to keep him; otherwise, would people oppose prodding it? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not notable. I don't even see a need for a redirect. Just prod it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, and it's a plausible search term.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article Redirected to Peter Schwartz (writer)

[edit] The Objective Standard

I have prodded this, as it appears to be pretty nonnotable. A redirect could also be viable here--perhaps to the bibliography. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree about non-notability, but I notice that Craig Biddle redirects to this page, so if it is deleted, what happens to the redirect? --RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone decided to redirect The Objective Standard to a resurrected Craig Biddle article. I've tagged this for notability and lack of sources. There are no source citations, just a bibliography of Biddle's own self-published writings. --RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Objectivist Forum

I have prodded this as well, as it also appears nonnotable. However, it could also be redirected/merged with the bibliography. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Four sentences is barely a section, much less an article. I just put additional publishing details in the bibliography article. The sentence about Rand helping to found it is appropriate for the Ayn Rand article. I don't really see a need to redirect unless there is a concern that it will get repeatedly re-created. If there is a redirect, it should probably be to this section. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit in deletion. I'd rather see the Objectivist periodicals covered in a combined article; they are very relevant to the history of the movement, and the content should not be difficult to verify.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say the best place to do that would be in the bibliography. List the periodicals Rand was involved in with chronology and explain how much the newsletters helped sustain the movement and how important they were. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion was made previously to merge the articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, which I support. I've been working on The Ayn Rand Letter article recently, and most of the same sources could be used to support a fully merged "Objectivist periodicals" article. So it is plausible to redirect them all into one. The Objective Standard could also be pulled into this. So could The Intellectual Activist, which currently redirects to Peter Schwartz (writer), a redirect that I frankly think is inappropriate given that Schwartz sold the magazine almost 20 years ago. So overall a combined article seems like a good idea to me. However, I do not think the bibliography article is the place to do that. A bibliography should be just that, not a more detailed history of the magazines. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur in full.  Skomorokh  05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. What should we call it? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"Objectivist periodicals" seems reasonable to me, but I'm open to suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Objectivist periodicals Who wants the honor? --Karbinski (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Lower-case 'p' (fixed above). I may be able to work on it later today, but if someone else has time sooner, that's fine too. --RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod tag removed by me. If there is a merge then it will redirect, and if the merger idea crashes then we can discuss whether this article should be deleted when the dust settles. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the Objectivist periodicals article. I created an outline for it, gave it a lead, and then copied in the content from the separate articles. Where there was no separate article, I put in some extremely basic starter text. I copied the Works Cited from The Ayn Rand Letter (the only article from the group that had any) and added preliminary See Also and External Links sections. It still needs considerable cleanup and expansion, but it at least looks something like what a combined article would. Please take a look. If this seems like the direction we want to go, then merge tags should be added to all the relevant articles. Or if folks think this looks like a bad approach, then we should discuss options. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No strong object, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better (and the information more easily found) as a section in the Objectivist Movement article?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
The movement article is already over 50K. A fork article on a well-defined, non-tendentious topic that has notability and reliable sources is a good way to control the length of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have placed merger tags on the articles for The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, The Ayn Rand Letter and The Objectivist Forum, proposing that they be merged into Objectivist periodicals. Please visit the Talk:Objectivist periodicals page to register your support of or concerns about this proposal. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed merger drew support and no objections, so it has been completed. The individual periodical articles now redirect to Objectivist periodicals. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reason's harvest

Prodded per WP:NFT. Dear God... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a speedy deletion would be more appropriate than prod. --RL0919 (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with speedy --Karbinski (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It does not meet any speedy deletion criterion.  Skomorokh  15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Guess I should refresh myself on the criteria. Anyway, prod it is. I just seconded. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article deleted by an admin based on the expired prod, June 5, 2009. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Red Pawn

This was a screenplay Rand sold that was never produced. The article is almost totally unreferenced and barely wikified. I think we could probably cut all of the plot and character summary and stubbify it easily, but on the other hand we may want to keep some of it. What do people think? Oh, I also found what looked like a duplicate at Red pawn, which I changed to a redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant information could be merged into The Early Ayn Rand, which is where the screenplay was eventually published. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Plot and character sections tend to be unreferenced even in featured articles. Personally I think the potential for horror in the fiction articles is a little less (List of absolutely everything in Atlas Shrugged notwithstanding) as they tend to be free of POV and promotional tone etc. Sciabarra, Gladstein, Mayhew and Britting all cover the play to some extent; I'll see if I can flesh the article out a little.  Skomorokh  13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of locations in Atlas Shrugged

Lots of books have list of characters. I'm not a fan of this practice, but w/e. However, this is totally insanely unnecessary. It doesn't appear notable, and frankly it looks like total, pure cruft. There may be some content here worth merging to Atlas Shrugged but frankly the level of detail is in appropriate. Plus, it's an unlikely search term, so I don't think a redirect is appropriate. I think it ought to be deleted, but I'd like to get some consensus here before I prod/afd it, in case we want to do some merging. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion (under a slightly different name) back in 2006, and the result was that it was supposed to be transwikied to Wikibooks. But when the equivalent page was created there, it was speedy-deleted and the Wikibooks entry for Atlas Shrugged points back to Wikipedia for this article. Anyhow, I agree it is cruft, but it will need an AfD discussion, not just prod. --RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an area where project-wide consensus has yet to emerge; neither WP:LISTS nor WP:SAL give much guidance on inclusion criteria for lists like this. On the one hand, Atlas Shrugged is a very, very notable book, there is little potential for controversial content or original research (everything taken from the text) in the list. It's accurate information about an uncontroversial topic – Wikipedia is doing a public service by hosting it.
On the other hand, there has been very little written in reliable sources specifically about the locations in the book as a topic, this information is only of interest to fans (the list get a pitiful 100-200 page views a month compared with over 100k for the article on the novel), and this is another example of the unmanagagably-long, severely under-referenced fringe Objectivism articles that reflect so poorly on the encyclopaedia's coverage of this topic area.
Ideally, the solution for this sort of material is to port it off to a wiki of a different scope – see for example this article on the Battlestar Galactica wiki which is very close in format and quality to the list in question. Objectivism Wiki is such a wiki, and has decent coverage of the novel and its elements. I think this would be a fine place for our list – by moving it there we would uphold the quality and integrity of Wikipedia, contribute to improving the Objectivism wiki, and most importantly, preserve the information in a Google-friendly fashion for interested readers.
Would anyone mind holding off while I looked into this potential solution?  Skomorokh  22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And best of all, once it's transwikid it's no longer our problem :). Sounds like a fantastic idea, Skomorokh. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent solution. For that matter, looking at some of the other material on Wikibooks, I'm not sure why the list wouldn't be at home there. But then again I know virtually nothing about Wikibooks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Skomorokh, how's the search going on transwikiing? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No response from the target, no satisfactory answer on the copyright implications of simply dumping the article on them and wiping our hands of it. If there's no progress by the weekend I think I'll go ahead anyway.  Skomorokh  05:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am unable to create pages at the Objectivism Wiki, which seems abandoned, due to database errors.  Skomorokh  20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should find an Objectivist forum to dump it on and run? Alternatively, maybe RL can think of a good home for it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why this page wouldn't be appropriate for Wikibooks. The entry there for Atlas Shrugged includes pages with lists of companies, concepts, technology and "things." Only the lists for characters and places are linked back here. The only alternative I can offer beyond that would be to take it into the relevant section of my own site. It would be appropriate material there, but I'm concerned about the impact of the licensing.
Why don't we try asking WikiBooks? They aren't a dead wiki, I hope. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Art of Fiction

A chapter-by-chapter bullet point summary of a book published posthumously. I am going to delete everything except the lede for now because I'm afraid it's so detailed that it might be running into problems with fair use, attribution, and so forth. Plus, it's just so damned long... TallNapoleon (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One other problem is that it is poorly disambiguated from The Art of Fiction (book) which is written by another author. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone have any feedback on what to do with this thing? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this book even notable per WP:BK to warrant its own page? I'm just asking. J Readings (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't think so. We ought to replace this article with the one about the other art of fiction book. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The article on the other book doesn't provide any indications of notability either. We would only want to move the other book into the namespace currently occupied by Rand's book if it is notable and hers isn't. I haven't seen even an attempt to make a case for that. If it is less notable or no more notable than Rand's book, then either they should both be deleted (if neither is sufficiently notable), or there should be better disambiguation (if both are sufficiently notable), or the other article should be deleted (if Rand's book is notable and the other isn't). We need a real investigation to decide this on the merits. --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Binswanger

It does not seem that Binswanger is very notable. Seems like just a pointless addition to enlarge the Objectivist content on Wiki. CABlankenship (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would tag the article for notability and let those working on it find independent third-party sources (e.g., newspapers, books) to justify its notability. Give it (I don't know) a couple of weeks. If nothing surfaces, someone can prod the article. J Readings (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There is only one given source, and it links to a Binswanger-owned site. CABlankenship (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Google News and Scholar searches suggest notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
One would need to review criteria 1 through 9 in the WP:ACADEMIC guidelines and see which might apply. I haven't looked. One thing's for sure: the article needs better sources. J Readings (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Perigo

There's a lot of really dubious sourcing here, and given some of the extravagance of the claims that Readings tagged and I removed, I'm not sure how much I'd trust all of them. It's not clear that he's sufficiently notable. If we AFD him, though, I think we might well expect trouble from his corner of the Internet... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much exhausted my list of source databases. I found one independent article comparing Lindsay Perigo to Rush Limbaugh. That was it, I'm afraid. Of course, there's also the Perigo biography by his own former company employer so I don't know if that really constitutes "independent". Further consultation might be a good idea. In any case, I don't know what to think about this article if multiple independent reliable sources are unavailable. If we leave it the way it is, it (at least) should be tagged for notability and have someone (perhaps one of his fans or followers) fix it. If none exist, we can come back to it. J Readings (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Check lindsayperigo.com, it's not independent but it strongly suggests notability. Is it possible your databases don't cover NZ too well? TallNapoleon (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
What in particular on lindsayperigo.com do you think strongly suggests notability? I remember getting involved late in the game with writing the biography of G. Edward Griffin who kept saying to his fans and followers that anything one ever needed would be found on his self-published website. So that's exactly what happened. Fans and followers wrote the entry based entirely on what Griffin supplied. It didn't help that there weren't any independent third-party sources for the claims being made about winning this or that award that no established editor apparently heard of, or making claims that independent third-parties didn't state. Because other editors couldn't confirm virtually any of the material in the article, another editor put it up for AfD and it was deleted by consensus.[3] As expected, Griffin's fans and followers flooded the AfD to vote keep without providing the third-party sources needed. Slp1, another editor and I managed to re-instate the article after deletion when we showed what the databases had to say. The closing admin agreed; the article was re-instated and only high-quality sources were used thereafter. The Griffin fans and followers were overjoyed, but they weren't helpful either. They naturally assumed that anyone questioning the article was out to get G. Edward Griffin. Hardly. J Readings (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of Slp1, I'm going to ask if she could do me a favor and cross-check my research results on Factiva and the other databases. Hopefully she still has access to them. I want to see if she and I can save this article somehow. J Readings (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The quote from Metro Magazine calling him the doyen of something or other was striking. I also saw a YouTube hit that appeared to back up that he was in fact well known in NZ. Neither of these are good sources of course (I couldn't corroborate the metro quote on google). They suggest notability, but don't prove it. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I also checked these places. No luck in independently verifying any of this stuff, assuming the magazine counts as reliable (it probably does). Apparently, there is a Metro magazine in Australia, one in New Zealand, and another in New York. I'll try the National Diet Library here in Tokyo, Japan. It's the Japanese equivalent of the US Library of Congress. J Readings (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look Factiva, Lexis-Nexis etc soon, but it seems to me that there are plenty of (admittedly usually fairly brief) mentions of him on Googlenews and the NZ herald archive. calls him a "renowned right winger"[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] and no doubt there are more. I think it's clear he is indeed notable. These sources, on a cursory look, seem to give a somewhat different spin than the current article, and I would certainly suggest a significant effort at appropriate rewriting based on the sources --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Also being quoted by prominent person; this bookthis one (all three University presses); and this one and various others.--Slp1 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you, Slp1. It's much appreciated. I'll read these links and let's see what we can do about re-writing the article. J Readings (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, we already knew about the Perigo! biography. J Readings (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I've taken a quick look at Factiva, and my version seems to include NZ papers; here's a very useful looking one "FUMING PERIGO CALLS PRIME MINISTER A WOWSER" from the Sunday Star Times, 22 June 2008 about him and his career more. I could download it and send it to anybody who was interested, if it isn't in some online archive somewhere. There are others too--Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
No. I don't have that one (can you please send it to me?). I've got the Rush Limbaugh article that discusses Perigo's controversial atheist right-wing opinions in comparison with Limbaugh's pro-religion conservative views, but that was the only one that specifically focused on Perigo rather than articles written *by* Perigo (which don't count for establishing notability) or brief mentions of Perigo in throw-away contexts (that weren't exclusively about the subject). If there is another independent third-party article in a reliable source that focuses exclusively on Perigo, I'm basically satisfied with the notability requirements. Now, it's just a question of re-writing the article to reflect what the independent sources actually say. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dagny Taggart, John Galt, and Gail Wynand

As near as I can tell, these are the only ones of Rand's characters to have their own articles devoted to them. Howard Roark, for instance, does not. I would be strongly in favor of merging Dagny Taggart and Gail Wynand into their respective parent articles, List of characters in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead (there is no List of characters in The Fountainhead). I would also lean towards doing this for John Galt, however as he has become an iconic figure in his own right there is a stronger case for keeping his article. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts.  Skomorokh  05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree on all counts as well. --RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: All articles redirected to parent articles.

[edit] Homosexuality fork article

The article on Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and homosexuality seems to be an unnecessary fork article on a topic that could be summarized in a couple of sentences if only reliable secondary sources were used. As it is, the article is original research distilled from Rand's Q&A comments and the arguments on various websites. Is there any reason to keep it around? --RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is really no reason to keep this article around. The entire article is based on two quotations from Rand's Q&A sessions, and brief comments on two or three websites. When it comes to published material, vanity press publications set aside, there is a sole work monograph by Chris Sciabarra about Objectivism and homosexuality. Objectivism, as Rand's philosophy, never had a formal position on homosexuality. I question the notability of it.
I think it should be deleted. — Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I put a prod (proposed deletion) tag on it. If anyone wants to object, you know where the page is. --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have seconded that - in addition, two or maybe three of the five sources given are highly questionable.KD Tries Again (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
The prod was removed by Benjiboi on the grounds that he was able to find a number of apparent sources for the topic. I'm doubtful as to how relevant most of those sources are (many seem to be uses of "objectivism" in a non-Randian sense, or coincidental mentions of Rand and homosexuality in a long document). But regardless, the prod is off. I'm going to attempt to create a more qualified list of usable sources. Either these will be helpful for improving the article, or if there are very few usable sources then this will speak to notability in any future AfD discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The Atlasphere cite is another dead-end in itself, because it appears to be no more than a blog: however, I didn't realize Sciabarra had written a book on the subject. That might provide the basis for an article, although as usual the problem may be that no editor currently participating has a copy.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I've read it. (I borrowed a copy from someone I've had a falling out with however). It explains why homosexuality is compatible with Objectivism. My personal reaction: low quality work, low quality arguments. I disagree with several of parts of Sciabarra's analysis of homosexuality and its relation to philosophy. Regardless of that, the entire article is going to be predicated on a couple sentences spoken by Rand in her Q&A session, a few sentences published by N. Branden in his works, Peikoff's public announcement on Objectivism and homosexuality, and a few unverifiable, unpublished conversations among The Collective members. Any article completely centering a dozen of various sentences isn't notable to me... Brandonk2009 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as the content is preserved somewhere, the article should probably go then. After all, there isn't an article about Bertrand Russell and homosexuality, although there would be a lot more material for such an article.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


End of the little house of horrors

[edit] Yaron Brook

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

Somehow this wasn't listed here. He's one of the most publicly prominent Objectivists around, so I sorted him into mid-importance. That said the article may have some length issues. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There may also be original research issues. Almost every reference note is one of his articles or video clips. --RL0919 (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled on this article weeks ago and had some of the same thoughts as TallNapoleon and RL0919. It would be nice if we limited ourselves to independent third-party sources when writing these articles. Makes life so much easier. Anyway, he's notable. J Readings (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand nonfiction

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

Rand published a number of nonfiction works, largely essay collections. Most of these have their own articles, even though they are nowhere close to being as notable as her fiction. Rather, they are more notable as a body of work, in totality. How would people feel about merging these articles together? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle this is problematic, as I would argue that more than one of them is notable in its own right (that is to say, could have a good-length reliably sourced article written on them). As things stand, however, once the table-of-contents-esque and unsourced analysis is cut from them, each makes up a nice 1k to 5k paragraph that is very amenable to merging. If at any point someone decided to give one of the books the article it deserved, it could still be included in the merged article in summary style. Note: for ease of access, the articles in question are those in Cat:Books by Ayn Rand.  Skomorokh  05:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about this. I agree that the current articles are weak and could be merged, but I'm also comfortable that at least four of the books (FNI, VOS, RM and ITOE), maybe more, are notable in their own right. The least notable are The Voice of Reason and The Ayn Rand Column. I suspect that Rand's Letters and Journals, which do not have articles, have a better claim to notability than those two. --RL0919 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
How about we merge the lot, leaving redirects behind, and then decide which redirects will get fleshed out into their own articles? TallNapoleon (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
With the re-directs a merge should work fine for the current content. --Karbinski (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Making articles work together

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

I'd like to discuss the best way to work out some of the overlaps among what I would consider the three main articles: Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movement. Currently they each have sections discussing academic reaction/criticism. In Ayn Rand there's a subsection on "Rand's work and academic philosophy." This is a subsection of the "Legacy" section, but the longest paragraph is about an article that appeared during her lifetime. There is also a "Literary reception" section that discusses critical reaction to her fiction. In Objectivist movement, there is a section on "Objectivism in academia." In Objectivism (Ayn Rand) there is a section on "Intellectual impact," which refers to Objectivist movement as it's main article, but the content of the section is a series of specifics rather than a summary of the supposed main article. The Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article also has a "Criticisms" that is surprisingly tiny considering that criticisms are not distributed into the main discussion of the philosophy (which would be the preferable approach). My suggestions would be as follows:

  • Since Ayn Rand is supposed to be about the person, not just her philosophy, then the reactions to both her fiction and non-fiction should be discussed. So "Literary reception" should become just plain "Reception" or "Critical reception," discussing the reaction to Rand during her lifetime from both academic and non-academic sources, literary and philosophical. The "Legacy" section should have a "Rand's work and academic scholarship" section, which discusses the subsequent (after Rand's death) developments in academic discussion of Rand, again considering both philosophical and literary discussions. Because there is a separate article on Objectivism, the details of philosophical criticism and defense should not be in this article.
  • Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should have the relevant criticisms of the philosophical ideas (not of Rand's personality or the behavior of her followers) integrated into the discussion of her ideas, eliminating the separate "Criticism" section. The "Intellectual impact" section should continue to direct the reader to Objectivist movement as the main article, but be rewritten as a summary of that article.
  • Objectivist movement should continue to discuss the historical progress (or lack of progress, as the case may be) in bringing discussion of Objectivism into academic venues. Any detailed points from the "Intellectual impact" section of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) that aren't already there should be brought over.

Agreements, objections, alternative suggestions, etc., are requested. --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you prefer integrating criticisms into the individual branches of philosophy? Can you give an example? --Karbinski (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with almost all of your suggested changes. The one thing I'm in opposition to is the elimination of the "Criticism" section. I think the present structure is a much clearer and more logical presentation of the philosophy. Interspersing critical arguments throughout the explanation of Objectivism's positions would only convolute the article.Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
An example of explanation and criticism being documented in together is in the Philosophy section of the Ayn Rand article. But upon reflection, I think that only works in a shorter section such as that one. In the more detailed Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, it would make the sections too unwieldy. So I withdraw that particular suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Guidelines

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

Being relatively new to WP:A=A, I want to ask if there are any particular citation guidelines to follow throughout the articles. Is there a particular format or method of citation editors are following? Brandonk2009 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's WP:CITE, but it allows for a variety of different citation formats. Personally, I've recently started using the template for "Harvard citations without brackets" to create compact citations where a work is used repeatedly. (The full citation has to be in the Works Cited list, so it only really saves space if the citation is used more than once.) If a source is only used once, I use one of the citation templates, such as "cite book," "cite journal," or "cite web" for full inline citation and don't bother to put it in the Works Cited list. But that's just what I do personally (and even then only recently), not a standard. And there are a lot of citations that were added over the years by various people, so consistency would require reformatting a lot of existing material. --RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Periodical Merges

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

Looks like we are ready to blank-out and re-direct? --Karbinski (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just blank/redirected The Objectivist Forum and The Objectivist Newsletter. Just a note, I'm pretty sure that per the GFDL if any substantial content is reused elsewhere the page cannot be deleted--it must be blanked/redirected to maintain contribution history, unless you get an admin to do a history merge. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you're on a roll already, did you want to go ahead with the same for The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter? There's also The Intellectual Activist, which is currently redirecting to the article about its former publisher, Peter Schwartz. I think a redirect to the periodicals article would be more appropriate, if that can be arranged. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Those have a bit more content, so I'm not sure if people are interested in merging any more over. I'd like to get a bit more feedback before I proceed. I did change the redirect for The Intellectual Activist, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the content, and there was nothing significant in the two remaining articles that wasn't already in the combined article. I did the final two redirects and removed the merge tag. I believe it is all done. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More Questionable Sources?

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

[edit] Mimi Gladstein: Ayn Rand Companion/Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand

These two books were queried on reliability above, based on Google Scholar results. Per WP Reliable Sources, I have no problem with them. Gladstein is a reputable academic and scholar, the former book is published by a "leading educational publisher" (Greenwood Publishing Group) the latter book is published by a university press (Penn State). Clearly reliable, I'd say.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

[edit] Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

I am sure this has been discussed before. It's a peer-reviewed journal, isn't it?KD Tries Again (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My concern is that it has not entered the mainstream academic discourse. It is note cited in any work outside. The only citations they garner are from JARS authors writing articles for JARS—and Wikipedia. [15] Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's worth taking a look at the way it's used, though. I just checked Ayn Rand, which has 129 references. I counted five cites to JARS, and they are to articles by Chris Sciabarra, with the exception of one by George Walsh. Ironically, if these were self-published articles they'd clearly be admissible, as Sciabarra and Walsh are qualified, established experts in the field. I'd agree that WP policy isn't very clear on this. Note that JARS is not cited once in the Objectivism article and the only cite in Objectivist Movement is to its own web-page, presumably to confirm its existence. So I don't see it being "used enthusiastically" as you said earlier.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
JARS is indeed a peer-reviewed journal and is covered by mainstream academic indexes. I do not think reliability per Wikipedia standards is much in doubt. Peer-reviewed academic publications are the sources to which one would look for citations of other types of works, not vice-versa. As to usage, I think we are looking at an issue of availability (something I've harped on before): Sciabarra puts his articles up on his website after they are published, and the Walsh essay is also posted online. Easy access combined with relevance is what is causing them to be used, not any special enthusiasm for the journal. I would also note that most of what these articles are cited for is prosaic: what Rand's major was in college, when she graduated, what tv shows have mentioned her. Only the Walsh article touches on anything particularly controversial. --RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand Talk Page

This section is transcluded from {{Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk}}.

The last month of discussion [16] here seems to have gone missing, and I can't find it archived or in the history. Am I just confused?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My view of the history says a chunk was archived yesterday, and the diffs for the archive seems to match the diffs for the talk page. Are you saying that more is missing than what went into the archive? --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a problem with the topic bans page. Should all be clear now. --Karbinski (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems fine now.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

[edit] 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)

[edit] Why I am in favor of cutting

A while ago, I posted this excerpt from Borges here. However it has since retreated into the depths of the archives, so I'm taking the liberty of posting it again:

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

—Jorge Luis Borges

The point is that a map so large and so detailed is worthless, because the user would drown in the detail. The whole point of a map is to summarize--that is, to selectively exclude detail to provide an overview that can be seen and comprehended at a glance. An encyclopedia's purpose is similar. Even though Wikipedia is not paper, when the level of detail grows too great, usability suffers. Readers seeking a general overview of a topic drown in an endless, self-referential sea of detail--whether or not it's split into sub-articles. For years, the Objectivism WikiProject has essentially been collapsed under its own mammoth weight. We need to fix this, and the only way to do so is to cut the fat. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying we don't need an article on Australia because it's mentioned in the Earth article. Some subjects that are very notable need to be split up. Keep the main biographical stuff and summaries of content here, preserve the notable details in sub articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You cannot compare the notability of Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality to the notability of Australia. To attempt to do so is absurd. By and large a detailed discussion of Rand's views on homosexuality, per Runciman, would simply not be of interest to the average reader. These would only be of interest to enthusiasts--and Wikipedia is for general readers. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ayn Rand is a popular and controversial figure of great influence. I understand your opinion and your dislike for her. But when her views receive substantial coverage in reliable sources, that is the basis for notability and inclusion. To pick and choose which areas we think the "average" reader would be interested in is beyond the scope of our work as editors and contributors. There are lots of subjects and entire articles that "average" readers wouldn't be interested in. Ayn Rand is very notable and so we have to cover her adequately and appropriately by including her views on war, homosexuality etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of notable people in the Wikipedia and most of them (including many far more notable than Rand) have shorter summarised material. This is an encyclopedia after all and it can reference other sources. --Snowded TALK 06:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
CoM, my low opinion of Rand has nothing to do with the fact that I favor cutting down these articles. I favor cutting these articles down to size because I believe that any reader coming to Wikipedia looking to learn about Objectivism would be better served if they were concise. As I have said before and will say again, the purpose of encyclopedias--including this one--is to summarize. That necessarily means that interesting information will not be included. This is unfortunate and regrettable, but it is also the only sane way. Otherwise we wind up with a mess, a collection of articles so verbose, overdetailed, and introspective that they positively intimidate the reader. In short, we wind up with what we have now. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not have a low opinion of Rand, but I agree that the detail before was excessive. Some of the big cuts made recently (especially the 15k whack that Karbinski gave to the political and cultural issues) have significantly improved the article by making it more digestible. I would also add that a number of the views discussed in the article previously, although interesting in their own right, were not biographically significant. Rand had her own magazines throughout the 60s and 70s, plus access to mainstream outlets, so if an issue was important to her she could and did publish whole essays about it. Issues like racism, the role of women, abortion and censorship all got this sort of significant treatment from Rand. Other issues, where the details are coming from passing remarks and answer to interview questions, were being discussed in the article because they are hot buttons today, not because Rand gave prominence to them in her own work. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If they're not biographically significant move them to an article on her views. As many editors previously have objected, I too object to the deletion of notable and well sourced information. Rand's views on war, economics, charity, indigenous rights, gender and sex, homosexuality, race and her role in popular culture are VERY notable and need to be restored to the encyclopedia ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but "VERY notable" to whom? Take, for example, Rand's views on charity. Where is the extensive discussion of this in reliable secondary sources that makes it so "VERY notable"? The previous article material on this subject was cobbled together from primary sources and frankly verges into WP:OR territory. Now, I have no objections to Rand's views on charity. I find them quite appealing. But they simply are not notable in terms of widespread discussion, nor are they important enough to her biography to belong in an encyclopedia article about her. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Please see wp:notability. A search of google news and google books makes it quite obvious that Rand's views on charity and the other issues are VERY notable. I've offered a compromise to move the content to a subarticle. But deleting this notable and widely discussed content on her views is inappropriate as it violates our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of searches you are doing, but reading the results from a search for "'Ayn Rand' charity" on Google News suggests to me that there is very little discussion of her views on charity in reliable news sources. There is some discussion of charity in books that discuss her ethical theory, and the proper place for any mention of that is in the Objectivism article in the section on her ethics (with appropriate brevity). Since I don't care to search every corner to prove negatives, I leave it to you to bring forth the evidence of significant discussion in reliable sources about of Rand's views on "indigenous land rights" (which had four lines in the previous article material) or the 1973 Arab-Israeli war (five lines).
I would recommend including brief mentions of some of her more prominent views, such as her views on gender. But this should be in summary form and only about essentials, not long quotes and minor details. These sorts of topics deserve a sentence or two each in a short section about her role as a commenter on cultural issues, not named subsections and multiple freestanding paragraphs for each view. And any such discussion should be proportional: from the available evidence, Rand spent far more time commenting on the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater than she ever did talking about homosexuality or indigenous land rights. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I was going to post this last night before my Internet unceremoniously died. Anyway, just because Rand is notable does not mean every aspect of her life was notable, or that every one of her views was notable. The things which Rand are notable for are the things she was most known for, which are, in broad strokes, her books, her ethics (self-interest), her politics (capitalism), her passionate advocacy, the movement she created, and the impact she had on society. In addition, we include her biography and elements of her philosophy which, though she was less known for them, are valuable for understanding what she was more well known for. We also include criticism, and a brief analysis of her overall impact and legacy. That's quite a lot as it is. But note how none of this stuff is about Rand for Rand's sake. It's all about why Rand matters to the outside world and what she's well known for. In short, it revolves around what makes Rand notable. Rand's views on sexuality, homosexuality, race, ethnicity, and indigenous land do not make her notable, any more than Immanuel Kant's views on these matters make him notable. As with Kant, we should focus on the things which make Rand notable, taking care to summarize and always seek brevity and clarity. Although subarticles have a place, we cannot allow them to grow too extremely detailed, either, lest we wind up with an unmaintainable mess and inappropriate levels of detail. Anyway, it appears as though there appears to be a general consensus that this is the right way to go. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can usually find the right answer to these kinds of questions by asking what we would do if it wasn't Rand. You won't find out what Sartre or Chomsky or Derrida have to say about homosexuality in their Wikipedia articles, and they are each in their way very notable intellectuals; you will find it in Bertrand Russell's Wikipedia article, because he took notable action on law reform related to homosexuality. Just because Rand is notable, not all of her attitudes and opinions are notable.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
"You won't find out what Sartre or Chomsky or Derrida have to say about homosexuality in their Wikipedia articles" Interesting since when I've made this type of observation someone cites some alleged Wikiprinciple that what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia has no bearing.Docsavage20 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, I said something similar once because it's true: what happens elsewhere on Wikipedia doesn't necessarily prove that something should or shouldn't exist (in terms of having an article). See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The key point is that independent reliable third-party sources discussing the matter -- with due consideration of undue weight, etc., to emphasize what is an is not important for an article -- are what we should be going by (generally speaking). That still does not mean that we should start inundating the reader with every surfaced factoid known to mankind making the article unreadable. That's not helpful, either. J Readings (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Bingo. This was exactly my point, too. No reasonable editor would dispute the notability of Ayn Rand based on Wikipedia's notability criteria. All one needs to do is type the name "Ayn Rand" into any number of useful and well-respected databases and a plethora of information from independent third-party sources immediately surfaces. That fact does not mean suddenly that one has carte-blanche to inundate the reader with every factoid one can find on Ayn Rand. That was Dr. David Runciman's published point, too, and the point TallNapoleon continues to hammer home for months (if not years): why the excessive detail? A biography should have basic personal background material surrounding the author, what he or she is essentially known for, what the controversial pluses and minuses were/are surrounding his or her work, his or her legacy (or lack thereof) and that is essentially all. Needless to say, everything must have the appropriate attributions to *reliable* independent third-party sources or we get into the wonderful world of original research and synthesis (not good). I'm surprised that some people still disagree with this structure. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a print publication, ergo some editors start to think that an article can be as lengthy as any one individual wants it to be. I'm not so sure that is (or ever was) an established policy on Wikipedia when one considers those who rightly object to coatracks, undue weight, and synthesis (among other things). J Readings (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So I would suggest that HUAC Testimony, early years and immigration are all sections that could use some judicious trimming. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The HUAC section should probably just be combined with the prior section on "Early activism and professional success." It fits both chronologically and thematically, so there's no strong reason for it to be sectioned off.
The Philosophy section needs a weed whacker taken to it. There is an entire large article about Objectivism. For this article we only need condensed summary, plus any personal idiosyncrasies of Rand's that are about philosophy but don't fit into the Objectivism article (her criticism of Kant, for example). --RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bioshock

The way the anon IP changed it is not as good as it was before. How would people feel about reverting it? I'm on 0RR so I'm not going to do so myself. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I went one better and cut the mention back to the brevity it deserves, and found a cite for it. --RL0919 (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gladstein literary criticism

The article currently contains the following passage under the Ayn Rand#Literary reception section:

Critic Mimi Gladstein (author of The New Ayn Rand Companion), called Rand's characters flat and uninteresting, and her heroes implausibly wealthy, intelligent, physically attractive and free of doubt while arrayed against antagonists who are weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent.

A citation is provided, which is to Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, page 140. There is no such material on page 140 of the edition I have. Moreover, this is an anthology that Gladstein co-edited, so the article at that page is not even by Gladstein. Her only article is much earlier in the book, so even allowing that the reference might be to another edition with different pagination, I doubt her article would appear anywhere near page 140. Also, the criticism described does not sound like Gladstein's opinions of Rand that I have read elsewhere. So I've tagged the citation asking for a quote, but even more importantly whoever provides this should double-check the author of the passage, because I seriously doubt it is Gladstein. --RL0919 (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning sources

This source continues to be used to support the statement that there is growing international interest in Rand. In fact it doesn't. Its a 2001 article about the award of a grant to the University of Texas (which is the source of other references). It otherwise reports on a web search carried out by the journalist. Aside from the fact that it doesn't really support the text, one would think there would be something more substantial in the last eight years if this was real. The University of Texas case also seems over quoted through various secondary/tertiary sources. One obvious question, eight years on is "Was the Grant renewed?" --Snowded TALK 18:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article does support the claim, through mentions of that web search (which apparently produced evidence of non-US student clubs) and of contributions to JARS from European authors. That said, it is a poor source. Despite some recent improvements, there are still a lot of cites in this article (and related ones) to online news pieces and tertiary sources. Sometimes it's necessary to cite news sources for the latest happenings, but some examples verge into ridiculousness. In this article there is a review of a biography that is cited (twice!) to establish biographical facts. Why not cite the biography itself? The answer of course is that it is far easier to surf the web than it is to obtain a book and read through it to find the relevant information. (This problem occurs all over Wikipedia, not just here.) In most cases the information is accurate, but deserves better support.
For what it's worth, yes, the grant was renewed. That's actually the subject of this press release, which is currently the article's final source note. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It weakly supports the claim in 2001 and I agree it has been sized on and used. One web search by a journalist 8 years ago is not enough to say that there is growing international interest as of 2009! I couldn't see any other sources when I looked, so this needs to be deleted or qualified unless there is other material. --Snowded TALK 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Routledge quote on Rand and the "intellectual mainstream"

I don't think that the spirit of the Routledge quote is that Rand became notorious simply for defending capitalism, but rather that it was the style of her defense (a celebration of selfishness) which lead to her being rejected. I found the previous phrasing to be subtly misleading. CABlankenship (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In reference to this, I agree that the right-hand side version is more accurate, but the reason the left-hand side version is less faithful to the source is to avoid plagiarizing it. The statement currently reads as a close paraphrase.  Skomorokh  23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Something needs to be done about that entry, though. Clearly, it wasn't simply Rand's defense of capitalism that kept her out of the intellectual mainstream, as we can be sure that her rejection by Buckley, Nozick, Rothbard, and others had nothing at all to do with simply defending capitalism. As such, that phrasing seems extremely misleading. Furthermore, there are plenty of philosophers who defend capitalism and are not "kept out of the intellectual mainstream" (as seems obvious), and so I think that a clarification is needed. CABlankenship (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary changes in the philosophy section

I am concerned that over half of the section is dedicated to critiques of Rand and of her work, and yet there is very little presentation of essential aspects of the philosophy or of its development. I think that these need to be added. Also, I think that the acknowledged criticisms of that section should be placed under the Reception portion of the article. — Brandonk2009 (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, the Reception section is not appropriate to place the criticisms. But I still maintain that something needs to be done here. Brandonk2009 (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It's very much on the list... we don't want this section getting too big, though, because there's already a whole article about it. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course we trimmed a lot and I'm thankful. But I think that the amount of attention, in the philosophy section, aimed at criticizing Rand (and not necessarily just her philosophy) is a major problem. For example, if the criticism on her view of Kant is to be included, there needs to be more on what her view of Kant is. Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
We can trim the criticism instead of bulking up the objectivism bit. --Karbinski (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
After re-reading the section, the Kant stuff is an example, so its fine. --Karbinski (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of necessary changes, debate on the Template page led me to look at the actual source for this passage:

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

It needs to be rewritten to make it clear who is saying what. The quote which follows, "Branden argues...", for example, is not Branden but Sciabarra; and although it says Sciabarra "discusses Branden's suggestion" we aren't told what he says about it. In fact, looking at the source, he doesn't discuss it at all but basically just reports it - and I regret to say that the "Stressing..." quote does not refer directly to what Branden says (arguably it encompasses Branden's criticism among others, but the current draft is misleading). It can be read here. I can re-word it, but I wanted to ask first if there is any reason we are using Sciabarra's very brief summary of Branden rather than Branden.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Honestly, I added a lot of that (not the "stressing" part), and it seemed clear to me that the entire paragraph in question was a discussion of Branden's arguments. CABlankenship (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you take a look at page 12 there are three full paragraphs. The first sets out Sciabarra's intention to compare Rand with past philosophers, the second summarizes some comments by Branden, and the third begins "This is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought..." (emphasis added). The Branden paragraph raises no issues about originality, so that summary comment applies at least as much to the preceding remarks on Spinoza, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. Reading just the current article draft, I had thought - especially with the addition of "stressing" - that Sciabarra was specifically putting Branden's remarks into context. But looking at the original, that's not the case.
Solutions? (1) I could try a rewrite; (2) There is nothing to lose by ignoring Sciabarra and referring to Branden's original remarks (Sciabarra is doing nothing else than summarizing them; (3) To be honest, I think we could lose the whole passage, as Branden's comments don't really constitute philosophical objections to Rand's work at all - although we'd then need another way of introducing the comments on Kant.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I think her strong rejection of Kant, and her admiration (albeit qualified) of Aristotle are things that should be mentioned in this article. I'd think a very brief intro of how she read each followed by a very brief statement of condemnation or qualified admiration, and perhaps a single sentence stating that her interpretations of both have been challenged by academics. --Karbinski (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Since I agree, I boldly moved the Kant passage up the section as a contrast with the Aristotle passages, and dumped the problematic Branden/Sciabarra summary. If editors really think Branden's remarks should be in the philosophy section, they can be restored, preferably sourced from Branden directly.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Good changes. Makes the section more readable and less of an eye sore. CABlankenship (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
"She remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's" —Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." I don't have access to the Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical to which that statement is sourced, but in Ayn Rand Answers there is this passage (on page 149): "So if you speak in big terms, I'd rather Dr. Peikoff said it, but since I'm his stand-in tonight, take the three As: Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand." According to this, the statement was Peikoff's, not Rand's as the article indicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonk2009 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Left 4 Dead again

This latest addition appears to be pretty irrelevant, however I'm still on 0RR so I won't revert it myself. Does anyone object to getting rid of it? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "numerous prominent individuals"

If comic book artists and the band Rush are the best examples, maybe this sentence should be a little less hyperbolic. 76.84.108.54 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't the only examples. However, I see the term "prominent" is scattered throughout the article, and it deserves review. Okay, I trimmed it back. Nobody needs to be told that Yale and Princeton are "prominent" universities; it occurred twice in the sentence about her detesting liberals, conservatives and anti-communists, and since no examples are given in the first two categories I removed its first occurrence; I made the bit about influences more specific and removed "prominent." I left it in the context of Buckley's novel, where it is usefully informative, and in the comment about funeral attendees.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Beware of WP:PEACOCK terms. If you read one on the linked list, just delete it from the article. It's fluff. J Readings (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Biography/Philosophy rankings

I think it's fairly clear that these shouldn't be given top priority, especially since it appears that the Anon IP that did so has, well, a bit of an exaggerated opinion of Rand's importance. Would people be fine with reverting it to mid and high? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the same editor downgraded Keynes at the same time and their edit summaries indicate they are on a crusade--Snowded TALK 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bio doesn't do importance ratings. As a assessor for WP:PHIL with the Anglosphere in mind, I'd give Rand mid importance for philosophy, though the juvenile argument over whether or not she was a philosopher has denied us an objective assessment.  Skomorokh  13:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On the priority issue, I would say that given Rand's influence across generations and borders, this article is of "high" priority, although it's fairly subjective to judge whether or not she had a "large impact in [her] main discipline".  Skomorokh  13:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Like her or not, the IMPACT she had on modern philosophy is undeniable. Atlas Shrugged itself is a one book that shaped the way of thinking of millions. And add the rest of her work/philosophy, cannot think of any more important philosopher (maybe since Aristotle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.22 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Her impact on aspects of American thinking is clearly high and notable. Her influence on literature is more mixed and on Philosophy its minimal to non-existent outside the US, and of mid importance within - or at least that's my call. --Snowded TALK 17:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Her contribution to the philosophy was huge. And although definitely best known in US, it is not limited to that. Objectivism is the whole new philosophical system, obviously to some degree benefiting from Aristotle, but only in its very basis. Her metaphysics owes much to Aristotle, but Ethics is completely new view, justified from metaphysical principles. Also linkage of ethics and politics as THE justification of capitalism from ethical perspective. Also more controversial (but that does not mean unimportant) theory of aesthetics. I'm telling that you may agree with her or not, but this is a person who created the modern philosophy to greater level of completeness and coherence than anyone.149.254.49.10 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their views and you have clearly expressed them above. and your assertions (especially those on coherence) are highly disputable. However the wikipedia is not about what we think should be the case but what is. Outside of a limited number of US institutions there is no evidence that she is taken that seriously by Philosophy Departments in major universities. --Snowded TALK 17:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy is not only about philosophy departments at the universities, nor are philosophy departments representing, well, neutral point of view. Indeed, most of them are dominated by a certain stream of philosophy, in modern word mainly extreme-leftist or relativist philosophies. BTW: coherence, coherency

		logical and orderly and consistent relation of parts (after wordreference.com)

- well, probably no other philosopher related more consistently all parts of their philosophical system (refer to various places where Rand linked her Metaphysics, Ethics, Esthetics and Politics)149.254.56.61 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rand has certainly had some impact on American culture; certainly, millions have read her novels. But in terms of her impact on philosophy itself, it's been fairly minimal. Rand has impacted very, very few other major philosophers (the only name that comes to mind is maybe Robert Nozick). There is a journal devoted to studying her, but she remains a fairly minor philosophical figure. As such, regardless of the (highly debatable) coherence or quality of her philosophy, she can in no way be considered of top importance, especially when compared to, say, Nietzsche, who despite having had a tremendous impact (including on Rand) is still only high importance. Now, where she would absolutely be of top importance is WikiProject Libertarianism. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how telling this really is, but a GoogleTrends search on "Objectivism" shows that there's enough inquiry on Objectivism to show up in 5 countries: (1. United States, 2. Canada, 3. India, 4. Australia, 5. United Kingdom). Other philosophies, such as existentialism have enough inquiry to show up in 8; analytic philosophy surprising showed no inquiry; structuralism showed 10 with 3 of the countries being very, very slim (and a downward trend overall); continental philosophy none... I don't really need to continue. My point is, that Objectivism, outside of academia is doing quite well against most other philosophies. It makes sense that Objectivism is quite strong in countries with high English speaking rates--only Rand's fiction and "The Virtue of Selfishness" have been translated into foreign languages.

As for influence, I'd suggest looking more into Rand's work in college textbooks and coursework. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, excerpts have been included in several textbooks. I know that Peikoff's Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand has been used. West Point uses her Philosophy: Who Needs It?. And in my own philosophy class, the textbook contains excerpts from her ethical theory.

And if we are to be consistent, look at some of the philosophers currently rated as "High Importance"... I would say that Ayn Rand had more influence and is better known than 50% of the philosophers on that list. She actually has an article with editors eager to work, whereas, about 10% of those philosophers listed as High-priority have no article with willing editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.36.15.51 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs