Talk:Ayn Rand

Regarding the inclusion of the name Alice O’Connor

I’m not aware of any instance of that name ever being used to identify her. Ayn Rand is more than a pen name, it is the name used to refer to her by everyone, including her protege Leonard Peikoff and those in the Ayn Rand Institute.

I propose that this article eliminate the name “Alice O’Connor”, and change the phrase “pen name” to better reflect reality. 2600:4040:59D1:9A00:51F6:6504:AD45:E767 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That "Ayn Rand" was a pen name was known in her lifetime; she said it was a pen name herself in multiple letters to fans that are reproduced in Letters of Ayn Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources for the use of the name "Alice O'Connor"? Mporter (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Already cited in the endnote related to the name is Shoshana Milgram's biographical essay in A Companion to Ayn Rand. Additionally, Mimi Reisel Gladstein gives her full legal name in The New Ayn Rand Companion, and one of Rand's former attorneys gives it in an interview documented in 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (in answer to a question specifically about what Rand's legal name was). It is also given in passing in footnotes in Ayn Rand and the World She Made and Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living that relate to legal documents (one of the few situations where she used her legal name). There are a couple of newer sources also, but those were published after I added the name in the lead, so potentially they might be WP:CIRCULAR. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "Saint Petersburg Governorate" necessary?

@SuperSkaterDude45 has reverted my edit, but I am not sure why he considers the subdivision necessary. Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: First level subdivisions are generally included in infoboxes. This is consistent with other articles on philosophers such as Friedrich Engels and Blaise Pascal for example. I see no reason why Rand should be an exception to this for a removal that really has no basis other than it being "unnecessary". SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SuperSkaterDude45, sorry for the late reply. I'd argue that Rand's case isn't the same as the ones of Engels and Pascal. Also, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content," which applies to this imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the subdivision. The governorate is not mentioned in the article text and has no importance in Rand's story. I don't think it is mentioned in any biography of her. It is not needed to distinguish which Saint Petersburg is meant – the country does that. It almost doubles the length of the birthplace entry, and keeping infoboxes concise is desirable, as indicated by the MOS. These combined issues point towards not including this low-relevance bit of data. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@RL0919: So from what I've interpreted it, your main point is and keeping infoboxes concise is desirable, as indicated by the MOS but it seems that with this logic, you'd think that many infoboxes on really, any Amerian figure have the states shortened down to their initials if that was what MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE were to primarily be about. If trimming really was the goal, wouldn't the pre-existing revision without the governorate face this exact same criticism with the usage of the "Russian Empire" over simply Russia? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

That Rand was born in the Russian Empire is relevant to the article (read the "Early life" section if you haven't already). But honestly I wouldn't be particularly bothered if it just said "Russia". Either way, whataboutism doesn't justify inclusion of the governorate. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RL0919: Not exactly a whataboutist argument when you take into consideration that you're citing a MOS which emphasizes the importance of the style manual for all English Wikipedia articles. Again, similar and consistent to other infoboxes in general with again, no genuine exception for this one other than personal preferences. I highly doubt any confusion is even necessary even with article context given that even with every Soviet era birth rarely displays the constituent country and I highly doubt Rand is known with her brief life in the Soviet Union. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see your only argument for including the governorate is that it's similar to what other articles do. Frankly that's not much of an argument. Maybe the other articles shouldn't do that. If you think it should be done in all bios, then you can bring that up at the MOS. I'd be against it, though -- as one regular contributor to MOS discussions says, if the MOS doesn't need to have a rule on a particular thing, then the MOS needs to not have a rule on that thing. On a related note, inter-article consistency is not nearly as important as some people think. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trovatore: I could also apply the same thing to nearly every argument here with the only arguments presented towards me being that of editorial preferences with the only exception to this being a very vague interpretation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. By the way, article consistency does play a big role when it comes to discussions, especially regarding infobxes. A major example I'd wish to highlight is this discussion regarding the inclusion of an infobox for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as at the time, the article lacked one due to previous consensus ruling out the possibility of one. The reason the article currently has an infobox is due the main argument being that there's again, really no reason to omit one besides a personal editor preference which is arguably a weaker argument than simply keeping the consistency between established articles and formats. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"arguably" a weaker argument, but actually not a weaker argument. I.e. you can argue that but you're wrong. The editors who work on a given article try to make it as good as they can, and not everything is specified by guidelines nor needs to be the same as other articles. The mention of the governorate doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to the article and it makes the infobox messier. That's a fine argument for removing it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trovatore: Yeah, you're right, it's not an arguably weaker argument, it is a weaker argument. Present me a definitive MOS that specifically states that subdivisions are to be omitted to or that consistency ultimately doesn't matter, and I'll look a different way. Otherwise, this just comes across as an advocacy for a group of editor's personal preference that doesn't present a mass consensus unlike the Talk Page archive I have just described to you. By the way, can you clarify on The editors who work on a given article try to make it as good as they can given that what you've described is by definition, subjective? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Point to me a section of the MOS that specifically says the subdivisions need to be included. Otherwise, like everything else not covered by policies and guidelines, it's down to editorial consensus at the article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trovatore: Nice whataboutist argument on your end with the very opening line. When the best argument presented here is personal editorial preferences, what honestly makes it different from an essay? While there's admittedly no specific guideline dictating that the use of subdivisions in infoboxes, downplaying the significance of article consistency on Wikipedia articles will just lead to further discussions that are really just delaying established consensus such as again, the case with the Mozart article. Way to also omit any of the other counterarguments I've made as well. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof here if you want to edit against consensus. You haven't met it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trovatore: No I really don't, especially when you're the one insisting on claims such as inter-article consistency is not nearly as important as some people think without any direct MOS to back it up. I'll re-iterate once more: A small group of editors with a specific preference is a consensus not. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah you really do. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trovatore: This seems to be the only argument you have and thus, I see no reason to continue this discussion, especially when you aren't bothering to substantiate your claims and deliberately ignoring arguments. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree there's no reason to continue, because you haven't given any good reason to keep the governorate. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thedarkknightli: Can you clarify on I'd argue that Rand's case isn't the same as the ones of Engels and Pascal because the only point you've really made is citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE... despite again, many other biographical infoboxes including first-level subdivisions. especially in a historical context. If this were about shortening the names of say, the Russian Empire to just Russia then yeah, the usage of the MOS would make sense. Otherwise, I'm just frankly confused. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@SuperSkaterDude45: Oh, forgive my poor wording then. My English isn't that good. Yes, I was actually talking about only one thing (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is all I can find) in my last comment here. However, I just don't see why we can't omit the subdivision despite your argument. I think RL0919's one is clear enough. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don't see what the difference is from Pascal or Engels, but I also don't immediately see the point of being so verbose at their articles either. Maybe there is a reason to include this info at their bios. In any case I agree with Thedarkknightli and RL0919 that I don't see any compelling reason to include it here. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Notable mentions sorely missing

Article nneeds to catch up with popculture. Nothing about Obama, or for that matter the responses he received after his disparaging comments. Nothing about the highly unusual for Argentina politician Milei, although he is of course not an Objectivist. Etc. 83.255.180.77 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Obama commented about Rand briefly in 2012, people responded, and >99.999% of the population has not thought twice about it since that week. That isn't a matter of "catching up"; it is something that wasn't important then and definitely isn't now.

As for Milei, he may be more relevant since we do call out examples of politicians that she has influenced, and he could be the most important of those if the influence is firmly established. Can you point out some reliable secondary sources that establish a meaningful connection? The news articles I've seen say that he claims to have spoken with her ghost, which is not the usual sort of influence we have documented here. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Rand was a philosopher

The expression "public philosopher" will not be recognized by most people and is useless to readers. Also, it is a preposterous and basically meaningless expression. No one is called a "private philosopher", so why describe someone as a "public philosopher"? Calling Rand a philosopher is good enough. Zarenon (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The term is linked to an article that explains what it means to anyone who is unfamiliar. Rand did what that article describes, and she is mentioned in it as an example. Contrary to your comments here and in edit summaries, the term public philosopher is not "meaningless" or the "opposite" of philosopher – public is simply a modifier to indicate a specific mode of engagement with philosophy. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm doubtful of PP, as opposed to P. Can you point to other examples? For example, I see Sharyn Clough (born 14 May 1965) is professor of philosophy at Oregon State University. Her teaching and research specialties focus on public philosophy... so here we have someone called a P, even though her research focusses on PP. PP sounds very much like not-as-good-as-a-proper-p William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A "public philosopher" is just a type of "philosopher" so in theory anyone who is the former could simply be called the latter in a lead, or both. Walter Terence Stace is "public philosopher" as part of his initial description. Jane Addams is "philosopher" in the initial sentence, then "public philosopher" later in the lead. Susan Schneider is "philosopher" in the lead and "public philosopher" in the body. In none of these cases does there appear to be any disparagement intended. There are modifiers for philosopher that would be widely considered disparaging, such as amateur, that have come up in the past. But I don't see how public is in that category.

Anyhow, the modifier was added following a September discussion that is still above on this talk page. You are welcome to read through that for more background. I don't mind if the lead doesn't have any modifier for philosopher, and I don't mind if it does have one as long as that modifier is accurate, neutral, and supported by a decent amount of sources. As I said to User:PatrickJWelsh previously, I thought it was "OK to try out an alternative and see what the reaction is". If the reaction is negative, then we can return to the status quo ante and/or discuss it more. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The term "public philosopher" is useless and stupid. We are told in the article Public philosopher, that "Public philosophy is a subfield of philosophy that involves engagement with the public". The definition is hopelessly vague and it does not improve the article at all to add that kind of vague language. The article also says that, public philosophy involves "doing philosophy with general audience", which is nonsense. When Rand wrote her novels and her books she wasn't "doing philosophy" with a "general audience"; she was expounding her own ideas. Zarenon (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this has been repeatedly disputed suggests to me that we should stick with just the perfectly neutral "writer". I would not object to "writer and public intellectual".

Have you reviewed the discussion above?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The dispute raised in this section is about the modifier that was added in this edit, not about the use of the term philosopher. As I already quoted myself earlier regarding the addition of a modifier, we tried "an alternative [to] see what the reaction is". This is that reaction. Not a shock to me, since I've seen this topic discussed multiple times in the past. There are literally dozens of reliable sources that refer to her as a philosopher, with or without some modifier, so there is not a good case to deny that core term. But the options for modifiers vary, so there is much more room to dispute any specific modifier. --RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that someone familiar with Rand would realize that she would have completely rejected the term "public philosopher". Zarenon (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Zarenon,

The problem with "philosopher", as I see it, is a consequence of the highly polarized views the she inspires. I don't doubt @RL0919 for a second when they promise they could produce many quality sources calling her a philosopher. And usually this would be all we need.

In this case, however, many other quality sources take issue with this descriptor. Some folks consider her to be just about the only person you need to read. Other folks, however, including many working in philosophy departments on research topically overlapping with her own do not consider the quality of her writing to merit mention or engagement—to the point some would consider a suggestion to the contrary disqualifying.

For example, from the article:

Rand's relationship with contemporary philosophers was mostly antagonistic. She was not an academic and did not participate in academic discourse. She was dismissive of critics and wrote about ideas she disagreed with in a polemical manner without in-depth analysis. She was in turn viewed very negatively by many academic philosophers, who dismissed her as an unimportant figure who should not be considered a philosopher or given any serious response.

Since, as is the case, her status as a philosopher is heavily contested by many people who incontestably are philosophers, it should not be stated as a fact in the first sentence of the lead. That is a violation of WP:NPOV.

What is the objection to "public intellectual"? It is neutral and also captures a wider range of her activities. As a second choice, I would also be fine with "non-academic philosopher", suggested above by RL0919.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"In this case, however, many other quality sources take issue with this descriptor." But this is not true. In actual (Wikipedia-reliable) sources, the numbers are lopsided: many sources that call her a philosopher, and a vastly smaller number that deny it. We hear from secondary sources about what an unspecified number of mostly unidentified academics (who may or may not be "incontestably" philosophers – that is your own spin, not from any source at all) believe: there are people who think she wasn't a philosopher, and presumably make some mention of this in conversation or other informal ways that made secondary source authors aware of their existence. But these people apparently aren't bothering to put their rejection of the label into reliable source content that we can use in an article. Far from "heavily contest[ing]" the matter, these people – however many of them there may be, we don't know – have passively conceded the field of discussion about her within reliable sources. If that results in their viewpoints having less weight in this article, then that is their own fault. --RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RL0919

If professional philosophers do not engage with her, that would seem to me to be a natural consequence of her disregard for them. It is crucial to philosophy that practitioners subject their claims to the scrutiny of their peers. All the way back in ancient Greece, Socrates practiced philosophy in the agora, Plato wrote dialogues, Aristotle began his lectures with the consideration of what has been handed down from the wise.

The modern university system, for all of its many faults, institutionalizes and promotes this kind of sometimes oppositional collaboration.

If you publish with non-academic presses and mostly just respond to questions from your fans, you're not practicing philosophy. You are propounding or evangelizing or something of that kind.

Academics, cultural critics, and (in some cases) journalists actually really love it when someone takes a clear, strong position, as Rand does, and resolutely defends it in response to criticism. For instance, look at the professional success of Richard Rorty! Nearly everyone thought he was wrong on almost all of his core positions, but he was widely cited and even well-liked—because he expressed himself with great clarity and responded with care to criticisms of his work.

Rand, for her own reasons, declined to participate in this kind of knowledge-building, quality-assurance process. She opted out. So scholars interested in these topics instead write about, e.g., Robert Nozick or Milton Friedman.

It is possible that she, like Nietzsche, will be elevated posthumously. Maybe this has already happened. Some of the sources listed in the bibliography are obviously legit academic work. I do not see, however, how her own output makes her a philosopher. Although I'm not at all willing to make a research project out of compiling sources rejecting the designation, there definitely are high-quality sources, e.g., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins with a discussion to justify her inclusion and includes lines such as,

Some who do read her work point out that her arguments too often do not support her conclusions. This estimate is shared even by many who find her conclusions and her criticisms of contemporary culture, morality, and politics original and insightful. It is not surprising, then, that she is either mentioned in passing, or not mentioned at all, in the entries that discuss current philosophical thought about virtue ethics, egoism, rights, libertarianism, or markets.

Finally, just as an aside, did you mean to imply in your parenthetical that people who have PhDs in philosophy, have published peer-reviewed work in philosophy, and are employed by accredited institutions of post-secondary education to teach philosophers are not incontestably philosophers? (I am not saying these are necessary criteria that could disqualify Rand or anyone else, just that they are sufficient.) Some of these folk are shoddy philosophers, to be sure, if that is what you mean. But if you mean something different, would you mind saying a little more about what you understand the term to mean? It might help to facilitate our discussion about the article.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was a Poet, not any sort of modified philosopher and the mainstream does not support "philosopher" in any meaningful form. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: I am not going to argue about your personal view of who qualifies as a "philosopher" and I am not propounding my own. The beliefs of Wikipedia editors about who should be called a philosopher is not supposed to guide our decisions about article content (although you might have trouble reconciling that with much of what people say on these talk pages, cf some of the other participants so far). What I am saying is that when, e.g., Skye Cleary writes that, "Many [philosophers] propose that [Rand is] not a philosopher at all", this statement tells us that such people exist in some number, but not specifically who they are or even how many. She also doesn't say that the "philosopher" status of this "many" is incontestable. That is your own term reflecting your own view, not something stated in any source that I have seen. – therefore, as I said just a few sentences back, not something that should guide article content and not something I'm going to directly engage with here. (FWIW, Cleary indicates that her own view is that Rand is a philosopher, "just not a very good one".) Claudia Brühwiler, who argues a case against Rand being a philosopher, ironically highlights the asymmetry in other sources: In her discussion, she names dozen figures who credited Rand with being a philosopher. She names two who denied it. And it is the overall ecosystem of sources that we (should) care most about in deciding what labels to use in our article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I asked you the wrong question. Instead: what does Rand think a philosopher is? Does she give a direct definition anywhere? Or is there a scholarly source that reconstructs one from her writings?

This would be a welcome addition to the article. Because I politely take issue with your characterization of my previous post as just "personal opinion". It's a high-level description of a 2,500 year history of the term designating a person committed to a loosely defined set of truth-seeking practices into which Rand does not seem to comfortably fit.

We need a definition stronger than just having more-or-less considered views about the world, how one ought to act, what the government should be doing, et cetera (and also, in many cases, being more than happy to propound these views at length to anyone who will listen). Because that would make just about everyone a philosopher, rendering the term nearly meaningless as a description of anyone.

Perhaps something about her commitment to a systematic procedure?

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rand was very concerned with the importance of philosophy – personally, socially, and historically – but not so much with philosophers, except in their functional role of generating philosophical ideas. I can't recall her defining any qualifications or other gatekeeping for who was or could be a philosopher, as long as they were producing relevant ideas. If you just accept existing ideas, however well-considered, I don't think she would call you a philosopher. People who re-transmit the ideas of others were "intellectuals" – hence the title of her first nonfiction book was For the New Intellectual because it was her giving her ideas to those she hoped would circulate them. However, while this could be interesting for the article if secondary sources can be found – the preceding was my own summary from primary sources – I don't think it speaks to the matter we were discussing. We don't generally give subjects – especially ones long dead – determinative control over their own descriptions. She would be appalled to see us revealing her legal name (thoroughly hidden during her lifetime) or describing her as an important influence on libertarianism (a movement she denounced). But sources tell us these things. If sources tell us she was a philosopher, then we can call her that regardless of whether she would have – although she did in fact use the term for herself. --RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@RL0919, all right. If you ever do come across a good source on either her stated conception of her own activity as a philosopher or a scholarly reconstruction of some more specific sense in which she is well-described by the term, I would consider adding this to the article. Something along these lines would probably have assuaged my concerns at least well enough have dropped the matter fairly early in our first exchange.

(As it stands, this still feels uncomfortably close to calling someone who has no academic training a "psychologist" on the basis of a sequence of best-selling self-help books and television appearances.)

But I will relent to the sources you've amassed and drop the issue.

Thank you for your patience with this exchange and for your consistent civility.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Does a better profile photo exist?

She is barely recognizable in the current one. I've seen plenty more recent photos where she smiles, is dressed differently and the shadows obscure less. It looks like a different person. But I suppose we need one that is free to use for our purposes here.83.255.180.77 (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we are required to include only "free use" images when such are available. The one we are using is a professional publicity shot used to promote one of her books, which is in the public domain due to quirks of US copyright law. --RL0919 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Sentence correction edit rejected by WP bot

"Her villains support duty and collectivist moral ideals."

This sentence as published is clearly incorrect and highly misleading.

Based on personal knowledge of Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy it is clear that this sentence should be edited as follows:

"Her villains support duty and *reject* collectivist moral ideals."

Please correct the record. 2603:8001:C200:1637:F492:43CE:6A38:DF3A (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The bot reverted your edit because you inserted it with commentary rather than just making the change. But even if properly formatted, the change you are asking for is wrong. I'm not sure if you are misreading the sentence in the article, or if you have profoundly misunderstood Rand's views. Rand herself was opposed to collectivism, so her villains typically support collectivist morality, which is what the sentence says. Her villains definitely are not portrayed as rejecting collectivism. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I came back to state that I was in error. My apologies. 2603:8001:C200:1637:D116:EE89:6C1C:ABB0 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)