Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Sewer Gas and Electric

I don't know if it's appropriate for the article, but Ayn Rand appears as a character in the novel "Sewer Gas and Electric", which also includes some examination of the dissonance between her life and her philosophies. Rmd1023 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably isn't, unless those books are considered quite notable. "X referenced Y" is not a reason to put a note about X in Y's article. It doesn't really tell us anything about Rand, per se. Rather, it tells us about the book that mentioned Rand. Therefore, I don't think it should go in the article. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Raymond Boisvert's Criticism of Rand

How DARE you try to destroy the reputation of a man to get your way?

This is to discuss the inclusion of the following sentence in the section on philosophical criticisms: "Raymond Boisvert, a philosophy professor at Siena College in Loudonville, argues that Rand's theories are out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life."

I've read the archived discussion and would like to raise some points again which were not resolved there. I have two objections to this sentence.

1. The criticism does not come from a scholarly work recognized in the academic community as an important analysis of Rand; nor has the criticism otherwise attracted wide attention or notoriety in the popular press or some other medium. This criticism comes from an article in a fairly small newspaper. Nozick's collection Socratic Puzzles, by contrast, was published by one of the world's most respected university presses and has received substantial attention and been cited by other academics. Including the two criticisms side by side (even accounting for the difference in the lengths of the descriptions) creates a misleading impression of their relative significance, in violation of the Undue Weight policy.

This is absolutely not a criticism of Boisvert as a scholar. He seems like a serious and well-respected philosopher. It is quite possible that he will write a scholarly work on Rand which will receive the kind of broad attention that puts his analysis in the same class as Nozick's essay on Rand. (Certainly his views would be entirely appropriate in an article on Dewey, on whom Boisvert is a respected expert and on whom he has published multiple widely cited scholarly books.) Indeed, As has happened with Nozick, it's possible that Boisvert's analysis of Rand will become commonly cited in philosophical discussions of Rand's arguments. But this hasn't happened yet, so it seems premature to include the criticism now.

2. The sentence is badly written. The location of Siena College (which is extremely uninformative anyway to those who don't live in New York) does not belong in it. "Out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life" is floppy, redundant prose that sheds little light on the substance of the criticism. This could be fixed by making the description longer, but that would make issue (1) worse. This is why sections like this work best with one or two truly major criticisms which have received wide attention and discussion. Then one can devote substantial space to each. If we accept the arguments in favor of including Boisvert's criticism here, this section can easily become a long list of one-sentence blurbs of various philosophers voicing their views on Rand. Surely you'd agree this would not benefit the article. If you agree with that, then why should Boisvert be the one whose view gets included above all the others?

I think that those in favor of including this sentence are missing the point of this type of section in a Wikipedia article: to enlighten the reader about the criticisms of Rand that have received the most attention and that an expert on Rand would consider most significant and representative. Do you disagree with this goal, or do you think including the Boisvert blurb furthers it?

I won't delete the remark, leaving that to others. But I think you should consider seriously the points I've raised and the purpose of this section. --Wilanthule (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Who is Raymond Boisvert?

Ayn Rand is the subject of criticism of almost every non-Objectivist author who mentions her name. Her strongly held and strongly argued positions invite criticism. One would think, given her controversial standing, that it would not be difficult to find critical comments by major thinkers and critical works published in academic journals or in collections dealing with Rand's thought. This raises the question why the criticisms of Raymond Boisvert, in comparison to those of such noted thinkers as Nozick, or Paglia, or those who knew Rand, should rise to the level of notability required for comment in an encyclopedia article.

So who is Raymond Boisvert? A brief search of the internet confirms that he is a philosophy professor at Siena College in Loudonville New York. He has written three titles listed on Amazon.com, none of which has been reviewed. And he has apparently written an article for the Albany Times Union newspaper in which he comments on Rand's lack of 'sync'.

Does this rise to the level of notability? Were Boisvert quoted in some philosophical journal, one might think so. If he used a philosophical term with some accepted meaning and academic import, one might think so. Were he the noted author of a book on Rand, or libertarians, or Aristotelians, or American cults of the late twentieth century, one might think so. But this does not seem to be the case. Boisvert is, apparently, the author of works on John Dewey, of whom Rand was certainly quite critical. Does Boisvert believe that Rand misunderstood Dewey? This might be of interest. We do know, that like Nietzsche, and Tolstoy, and just about any thinker or writer beyond the scope of Oprah Winfrey or Dan Brown, Rand is apparently "out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life." Does this mean anything definite? Perhaps those who are critical of Rand can fill in their own thoughts here. But those who don't know Rand won't know if this criticism means she is too religious or too irreligious, too optimistic, or too pessimistic, too whatever, or too not-whatever.

This comment enlightens us on only one point - that apparently Raymond Boisvert doesn't like something about Ayn Rand. This tells us a lot more about Boisvert - or about the person who thinks Boisvert's unambiguously vague comment (in the Albany local newspaper) has notability - than it does about Rand.

If the editor wishes to write about Boisvert, the appropriate place to do so would be in the article about Boisvert. If the editor wants to cite an interesting criticism of Rand, there are many sources available. If the editor thinks that this comment tells us anything of definite meaning and value, the editor is mistaken. Kjaer (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC

In response to the two users -- one of whom a newly created account, I will say the following.

• There is no policy or guideline that suggests, let alone demands, that Boisvert must meet the arbitrary notability requirements outlined by either user. In fact, having met WP:V, NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE, WP has nothing more to tell us on the matter.
• As one user correctly notes, Boisvert has published several books on philosophy, has been cited in academic journals, and was (yes) quoted by a journalist in a newspaper. Provided that we cite the accurate information, inclusion criteria have been met. Full stop.
• One user incorrectly states that because Amazon.com users have apparently not reviewed Boisvert's book, that this fact somehow diminishes his notability. Fascinating. This will come as a surprise to the academics who reviewed Boisvert's books, no doubt, not to mention WP itself which has nothing to say on the matter.
• Has Boisvert been cited in academic journals? Of course he has. Kjaer--the new user--is either mistaken or not privy to the full range of on-line academic sources available such as JSTOR, among others. I look forward to the next excuse.
• The original two sentences were butchered by another editor who wanted to remove any and all publicly verifiable criticisms from reliable sources that did not elevate Rand to his liking because he simply felt that his subjective standards were more important than the contributions of his colleagues. To that I say, too bad. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I trust that both of you know this policy and live by it.
• What I will say, in closing, is that if either editor cares to offer us other criticisms -- academic or journalistic -- of Ayn Rand or her work for consideration in the article, here is the place to raise and cite them. Provided that the cited criticisms meet Wikipedia's specific guidelines and policies, there is no word limit on how long the Ayn Rand article can or should be...and rightfully so. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the Raymond Boisvert criticism has no place in this article. The guy is not notable and while his comment may be a criticism, it has no substance to it. I think that critical comments made by Ayn's contemporaries would be more appropriate for this section. -- Macduff (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"The guy is not notable"....I think you meant to write Prof. Boisvert. In any case, I added it back. It complies with Wikipedia policies. J Readings (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My thanks, J Readings, for your celebration of my recent arrival to wikipedia. You shouldn't make such a big deal on my behalf! I am sure at least a few other editors here simply must have been new at some time. As to Boisvert, it would not be my place to search for citations of Boisvert's works in philosophical journals. The right of documenting his supposed notability lies with those who assert it. (And I really don't understand why this is not a central topic in the article on Raymond Boisvert. Perhaps you could add it?) It would truly be improper for me to usurp that privilege. As for "excuse" I am not sure to what you refer. (Perhaps you simply protest too much? Try not to be so wordy. Or needy.) In any case, I have absolutely no intention of removing this unambiguously vague (?criticism) of 'out of sync'-ness myself. While I agree that this quote of Boisvert is laughable both in its lack of objective meaning and in its abstruseness, (Page C1 of the Albany paper? A slow news day?) I assume that readers are intelligent enough to know a joke when they see one. It is my fault for not realizing the subtlty of your humor. Kjaer (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kjaer, why the sarcastic tone and passive aggressiveness? It was in your first message and again in your second. Yes, we all understand: you personally don't like Boisvert's cited criticism of Rand and you would like "more notable" philosophers (whatever that means) criticizing her work. You'll get no argument from me. By all means, please add other criticisms from other reliable sources. I'm fine with additions provided they comply with policy. That said, none of your personal preferences--like none of mine--have anything to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for editing inclusion. If you took the time to read the archives (or had access to JSTOR or WorldCat)), you would immediately know that Boisvert is a well-respected published philosopher that meets the notability guidelines for WP:ACADEMIC. Beyond that, though, if you find this minor added sentence from a reliable, publicly verifiable source so intellectually disagreeable that you have to make such a big fuss about it, please let me make a humble suggestion: just ignore it. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Boisvert has published a number of philosophical works. A search on Google Scholar for "Raymond Boisvert" shows over 1,000 sources consisting of articles he published or was cited in. Even if I restrict the search criteria to only use his full name, I still get back 90 sources (looking through the full search result, Boisvert seems to abbreviate his first name, so the true result is probably closer to the first 1,000 hits). Either number (1,000 or 90) qualifies Boisvert as a publicly verifiable source for this article. Idag (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove Raymond Boisvert

I totally agree w/the contributors above, asking to have Mr. Boisvert's comment removed from Ayn Rand's article. Why indeed include a comment by someone trying to piggy back into fame? http://www.siena.edu/level3col.aspx?menu_id=530&id=2198 raina_noor (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)raina_noorraina_noor (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That, I fear, is being most uncharitable to Mr. Boisvert. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Homophobia?

Rand can certainly be seen as condemning individual homosexuality as evidence of some kind of personal moral failure. But she does not condone violence toward homosexuals or advocate unfair political treatment of homosexuals or criminalization of homosexuality. Essentially the issue is regarded like religion or drug use, as a private matter, not to be morally condoned, but not to be politically regulated. Rand does not write other than very briefly and casually on this subject. She is nevertheless admired by a large number of homosexuals who see her as sanctioning individual happiness without regard to social convention. Since the category tag of homophobia is being added repeatedly to this article, perhaps the editor can provide a reference and an explanation for the addition? Until then, it would seem fair to regard the unsupported addition as vandalism. Kjaer (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Its vandalism. If you check that editor's contributions, he's added that tag to a very large number of articles and those appear to be the full extent of his edits on that account. Idag (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recall Rand describing homosexuality as disgusting. However, even so, her views on homosexuality are a very minor part of her philosophy. It doesn't make any appearances (that I can think of) in her novels, and she wasn't exactly a moral crusader on the issue. So I think the category is undue weight. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A "phobia" is supposed to be an irrational fear, and "homophobia" is usually used with that connotation. Rand's opinion(s) about homosexuality were consistent with a major viewpoint at the time, that it was a voluntary choice and one that ran counter to nature. That was relatively rational, given the limited information then available. (Let's please not digress into whether it is still rational.) So in any event "homophobia" is a misleading label. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the term is that, despite the etymological meaning of phobia, it more accurately denotes a hatred of gay people (although fear and hatred often tend to be connected). TallNapoleon (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "homophobia" was invented by homosexuals as a way of pretending that disgust with their lifestyle was based on irrational fear rather than simple repulsion. And while one's sexual orientation is not voluntary, one's lifestyle is voluntary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The latest edit by D Prime removes the attributed word "disgusting" from Rand's remarks at the Ford Hall Forum. Doesn't this amount to whitewashing? As an Objectivist and a bisexual, I see no reason to remove the word, if she said it. I do agree that saying that she was responding to a question is important. I intend to re-edit the remark for style, and to reinsert the word disgusting - since it shows the full extent of her opinion. Comments? Kjaer (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Her remark should be quoted correctly, so I agree with you Ethan a dawe (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. On another note, I recall reading a quote of hers (possibly from Ford Hall, possibly West Point) where she essentially said that the removal of Native Americans from their lands was entirely justifiable. I think that that probably belongs on this page. I'll add it if I can find it. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that was the West Point speech. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a mention of this in the Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, although there has not yet been any argument offered concerning what may be wrong with that position. (Obviously it wouldn't be considered "politically correct", but that isn't an argument.) — DAGwyn (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the term "disgusting" while retaining D Prime's valuable improvement noting that Rand was asked for and did not volunteer her opinion. This article is an objective description of Rand, not an advocacy site. There is an interest in her strongest opinion, which is, ipso facto, notable. Analogously, Rand was highly critical of Kant, repeatedly describing him as evil. One would not report that she criticized his theory of the noumenal self, but omit her evaluation of him as evil. Likewise, since she was speaking publicly and her remark was considered it should not be removed in the interest of smoothing over controversy. Kjaer (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Founding Mother of Libertarianism?

Libertarianism goes back to PJ Proudhon (the first to use the term), Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Gustave de Molinari, Voltairine de Cleyre, Josiah Warren and other 19th century individualist anarchists, as well as classical liberal political economists like Claude Frederic Bastiat. The claim that Rand was a "founding mother" of modern libertarianism when her views were in large part antithetical to both classical libertarianism and modern Rothbardian libertarianism is frankly quite absurd. Simply asserting that it's "a widespread claim", as Kjaer did when he removed the "by some to be" from "Rand is considered by some to be one of the three founding mothers... of modern American libertarianism", doesn't make it so, or in any way improve the article's accuracy. Objectivism and libertarianism share superficial similarities, in much the same way the ideals behind the Soviet Union and a hippie commune or an Israeli Kibbutz might share superficial similarities, but they have little to do with each other beyond that. At best Objectivism may have in some cases served as a "gateway" to libertarianism because of those superficial similarities, but to claim that Rand had some sort of founding role in libertarianism, modern or otherwise, is simply without basis in fact. Even if it is a "widespread claim", at best that would warrant merely editing the "considered by some" to "considered by many", not removing the "by some to be" entirely as though it were a universal, uncontested, and uncontestable claim. Rich333 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three issues to consider. First, alomst every sentence in this article could be qualified by the term "by some." there is universal agreement on no consideration. It is not necessary to qualify every such statement, and so qualifying this statement in the way that was done amounts to what I see as undue weight. Second, the list of men that you have provided do not qualify as candidates for "mothers" of libertarianism. third, "modern" and "American" further modify the term in a way that excludes your list of early libertarians. The point is that the post Depression resurgence of libertarian thought is very widely attributed in America to the influence of these three women, by both Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike.

This qualification is simply unnecessary, and amounts to yet another "but I object." There is a solution. By recasting the sentence in an active voice, it is necessary to make the subject "some" explicit. This does not have the rhetorically weekening effect that adding the unnecessary qulaification to the passive sentence does. I shall make that edit myself. Kjaer (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.352

Influences Epicurus?

I happen to be a great fan of Epicurus, and do see some parallels between Epicurus's thought and Rand's. But Rand does not credit Epicurus as an influence. Any references to his thought are at best mixed, and any points she had in common with him she also had in common with non-Epicurean philosophers. I think this link should be removed unless supporting citations can be referenced. Comments? Kjaer (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the idea has some merit, but, since there don't seem to be any articles on point, anything we put up about it would constitute original research. Idag (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Rand never cited Epicurus. His influence on her seems to be somebody's speculation. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bioshock

Surely there should be some mention of the acclaimed video game 'Bioshock' in the cultural influences section of this article, Bioshock being heavily inspired (and ultimately critical) of Ayn Rand's position. The game's director has given interviews in discussion of Rand's philosophy and its relation to the game. See the bioshock Wikipedia article. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Bioshock its creator is quoted as saying that he had read Rand. I would suggest developing the importance of Rand's influence on him in the Bioshock article first, and then referring to it here afterwards. The article on Rush might be a good example of how to expand the remark in the Bioshock article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand those comments. There has long been mention of Bioshock in the "Popular interest and influence" section, with the right amount of weight, and a link to the Bioshock article. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Simply having the director's personal statement of influence is enough to warrant its' inclusion. --Tylerdmace (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

The Atlas Shrugged Section spoils the entire mystery of the first part of Atlas Shrugged. I suggest a more prudent description of the plot that does not give the reader too much info.

68.121.86.190 (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Zaniar Moradian, September 24 2008

Wikipedia has a policy against doing that. Please refer to WP:Spoilers. Idag (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Greenspan - Washington Post article

I'd like to discuss the inclusion of a recent Washington Post article in which Greenspan states that more government interference in the economy is necessary in response to the recent economic crisis. Greenspan is cited repeatedly throughout Wikipedia's Rand article and he was one of Rand's followers, so I believe that mention of his change of view is very relevant for this article. Idag (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This addition sets an unreasonable precedent. Would we then list, for each person who was influenced by Rand, how they still agree with her on some issues, but disagree on others? The aside amounts to undue weight. Influenced means influenced, not 100% in agreement, so no mention of an exception to agreement is necessary. Furthermore, what does his change of mind 25 years after Rand's death, have to do with the subject of this article, Rand? The change in Greenspan's opinion is very relevant - for the Greenspan article. Kjaer (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be true if Greenspan was only tangentially mentioned in the article, but he is cited throughout as one of Rand's original followers. That makes his subsequent change of view very relevant. Idag (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's called coat-racking. The article is about Rand, not Greenspan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"In 1950 Rand moved to 120 East 34th Street[23] in New York City, and formed a group (jokingly designated "The Collective") which included future Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan"

"Rand's funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan"

To have these passages in the article and then fail to state that Greenspan now disagrees with Rand is misleading. (These passages are in addition to Greenspan's mention as someone influenced by Rand) The other alternative would be to take Greenspan out of this article. However, leaving the article the way it is misrepresents Greenspan's current views. Idag (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed the fact that Greenspan no longer espoused Objectivism was mentioned, but since it is not, some remark is relevant. I would prefer an earlier reference, since his split has been known for many years. At this point we can let this stand, since it is a valid reference, even if there are better ones. But the use of "acknowledge" is POV, it implies we know that his opinon matches reality. I am changing the verb to said, since it is he who says it. Kjaer (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit-conflicted with the above] I removed the initial statement on the simple grounds that anyone who has heard of Alan Greenspan knows him as of the most prominent government officials engaged in managing (i.e. intervening in) the American economy. I share the discomfort of Kjaer and Baseball Bugs with adding this sort of content about Greenspan. If we had a source that showed he had misgivings about Objectivism specifically, then that would be relevant and worthy of inclusion (as Branden's criticisms of Objectivism are). Greenspan became Chairman of President Ford's Council of Economic Advisers in 1974, so perhaps we should look to that period for his significant movement away from Rand's beliefs. the skomorokh 20:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit was a first draft, so I have no problem if its tweaked, so long as the article ends up either clearly stating Greenspan's position or not mentioning Greenspan altogether. Idag (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all the mentions of Greenspan add up to coat-racking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing those. Frankly, having all the famous Objectivists here means that we have to discuss subsequent changes in their views, which makes this article unnecessarily long. Also, I'm not familiar with Greenspan's prior history, but the article states that he had previously opposed economic interventionism and that his change of heart is very recent. Idag (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You see the creeping coatrack there? Someone (or ones) taking this article and slowly converting it to an article about Greenspan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, but yes, the need to add additional details about Greenspan will be mooted if he's taken out of the article. Idag (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's reasonable to provide a list of public figures allegedly influenced by Rand, it would be fair to keep his name in that list. Going beyond that makes the article about him rather than Rand. That info could be in his article, though. Then someone linking from this article could read all about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard say that Greenspan is to Rand as Judas is to Jesus. Simultaneous movement (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, Simultaneous m, you need to ask for your money back. :P Kjaer (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading Greenspan's book, from which the following are evident: (a) He has long been an "admirer" of Rand (his word) and was at one time in her "inner circle"; (b) he is not an advocate of Rand's particular view on economics, although he thinks of himself as an advocate of free markets; (c) he thinks that free markets encompass much more variety than just laissez-faire capitalism; (d) he is aware of the difference with Rand's view but has not worried much about it. The proper thing to do is to remove Greenspan from the "influenced" list in the bio box (because the views he espouses were not derived from Rand's) and put him into the popular-impact list, since he certainly meets its criterion. — DAGwyn (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks, I concur. Kjaer (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because a common sense reading of the passage implies that Greenspan agrees w/ Rand's views. Sure you could lawyer it up and start hairsplitting, but the passage as written implies agreement. Therefore, Greenspan's views need to be clarified to avoid violating WP:BLP. Idag (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Idag, could you be a little more explicit? You disagree with what? That he should be moved from "influenced" to "popular impact"? Also, common reading of what? Of the passage here, (if so, what exactly?) or in Greenspan's book? I am happy with the main text as it stands, agree with DAGwyn over moving him from the influenced list to the popular-impact, and though I would not be opposed as a matter of factual statement to adding the parenthetical comment that (once a member of Rand's inner circle, Greenspan considered himself an admirer of Rand, but not an advocate of her views on economics), this would seem to be too much, perhaps undue weight, and more about him than her. Bottom line, are you opposed to letting text stand as is? How would you change it? Kjaer (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the comment when I was reading through Dagwyn's changes. Dagwyn removed the qualifier about Greenspan and without that qualifier, the phrase "significantly influenced" was somewhat misleading given the strong language that Greenspan used in his Congressional testimony. As long as the qualifier is there, I'm happy with the text, but, regardless of the changes we make in the future, if this article mentions Greenspan, I think it should point out that he currently strongly disagrees with Rand's economic views. Idag (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, would you object to deleting our "has testified" discussion? Its taking up a lot of space, and its not really necessary. Idag (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Alan tGreenspan: how to avoid coatracks

Out of curiosity, I consulted LexisNexis to see how many articles were specifically written about the connection (or lack thereof) between the thoughts of Ayn Rand and the economic principles and analyses of Alan Greenspan. Apparently, the LexisNexis database produced a whopping 231 articles found in newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. These are not passing mentions by the way. According to the database search, they are major mentions (i.e., they are the subject of the article.) There is a lot to read through now, but the material is clearly out there.

The point is that if any of you happen to have access to LexisNexis, I could use the help reading through this stuff. We all understand the concerns about avoiding coatracks, but in this case, there are plenty of journalists who have written specifically on the connection. Therefore, if the idea is to cite relevant reliable sources in which a rejection of Rand's philosophy is discussed at length, here is a good place to start. If I find anything useful, I'll report back. J Readings (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

231 may sound like a lot, but that's in a vacuum. How many others did she influence, about which a lot more has been written? Maybe none, maybe many, but until you know the answer, you run the risk of undue weight focusing on just this one guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have LN access but if you picked a representative (and reliable) source from the 231 that gave the consensus view, I think it would be acceptable (not undue weight or coatracking) to parenthesise it after Greenspan's name i.e. something "Members of The Collective included Joe (who went on to lead the Neo-tech movement), Dave (editor of Objectivism Weekly), Sally (head of the Ayn Rand Appreciation Cult), and Alan Greenspan (who later moved away from Objectivism due to misgivings about its economics)". the skomorokh 12:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan has testified

deleted for space by mutual agreement Kjaer (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move discussion on a related article

Please see Talk:Criticism_of_Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Page_move. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unusual

The "Cyrillic contraction" is hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See the note here. Could you explain the reasons for your incredulity? Thanks, the skomorokh 14:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's simply not a contraction in any normal sense of the word. The "-aum" in Rosenbaum (Розенбаум) in Cyrillic ("-аум") looks like "-aym" in Latin, which is a "vague resemblance" if anything. Looking at it it does seem plausible. But since it would be a one-time phenomenon, there's no way to know without testimony. I think the term "contraction" could better explained or qualified, since one might imagine a contraction Roz. or Rznbm. to make Роз. or Рзнбм. Kjaer (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rand Being Jewish

We had a discussion before about whether to include Rand as a Jewish author (there was no consensus). The issue turns on whether we view Judaism primarily as a religion or as a culture. While Rand was an atheist, she had a lot of Jewish friends and participated in Jewish culture. Not sure what the precedent is, though there is a Wikipedia article on famous Jewish atheists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheist#Famous_Jewish_atheists Idag (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewishness is not prominently discussed in the article, nor is it a defining characteristic of Rand. Both are requirements for the proposed categorisation. Could you expand on the claim that Rand participated in Jewish culture? Is that before or after she moved to the U.S.? It would seem most out of character for the Objectivist Rand. the skomorokh 18:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Secular Jewish culture...she ate challah, attended a lot of Jewish shindigs when she was at Hollywood, and her inner circle was filled w/ Jewish folks. She was certainly not religious, but Jewish culture is very unique in that it is viewed both as a religion and an ethnicity/culture. Hence our discussion. If you look at the Jewish atheist article, the atheists are atheists, but they are still considered Jewish. Idag (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Oh really? Well in that case if we can add a sentence or two on this topic to the article referenced from reliable sources, then it would certainly seem appropriate to include some (not 6 or 7) Jewish categories (so long as the categories don't imply religion). the skomorokh 19:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, could you tell me where to see the requirement is that a categorization be based on a "defining" characteristic? If that is the case, then maybe she shouldn't be so categorized. But otherwise I don't see the encyclopedic (rather than Randian) point of opposing the categorization.Kjaer (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll have to dig for you; it's a criterion often raised in these sorts of discussions. I am the last person who would be interested in promoting a Randian point of view; I find the whole Objectivist scene fascinating dogmatism ;) My motivation was to keep Rand (one of the most steadfast atheists whose writings I have ever encountered and who never struck me as particularly Jewish, having abandoned her Jewish name for example) from being "claimed" by the Jews, like you see biographies on Wikipedia claimed by WP:LGBT. But I was unfamiliar with the points Idag raised above. Regards, the skomorokh 20:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, here it is, Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic:

“ In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the number of tattoos they have may be considered trivial. Such things may be interesting information for an article, but not useful for categorization. If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic.

Note that this also includes grouping people by trivial circumstances of their deaths, such as categorizing people by the age at which they died or by whether they still had unreleased or unpublished work at the time of their death. Even though such categories may be interesting to some people, they aren't particularly encyclopedic.

”

the skomorokh 20:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

While there's no explicit examination of this point (that I'm aware of) Rand being culturally Jewish would've had an impact on her life/philosophical views. Anti-semitism was prevalent in the old Soviet Union, and this probably contributed to Rand's hatred of Communism. The records from her time in the USSR are sketchy, so there's no real sources on this, but the anti-semitic conditions in the USSR are not disputed, so I think her Jewish heritage deserves a small mention somewhere. Idag (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well look, this is putting the cart before the horse. If there are sources to pursue the Jewish angle, then we have added coverage of an important facet of the topic to the article. But as those sources remain undisclosed, we really can't entertain original research on the matter. The ball's in your court. the skomorokh 21:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh:

Florence King, With Charity Toward None: A Fond Look At Misanthropy, (Page 128, discusses how Rand's characters represent oppressed Jews)

Jim Powell, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - May 1996 (Vol. 46, No. 5) - discusses how Rand immigrated to the U.S. to escape Soviet anti-semitism

Eric Longley, article on Ayn Rand in St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture (discusses how the anti-semitism of the pre-Communist Czarist regime influenced Rand)

There's many many more hits, but the bottom line is that there's more than enough sources to stick Rand in a Jewish category. Idag (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there is a policy on classification by non-essential characteristics, but it applies to the admissibilty of category itself, not as to whether extant categories should be applied to specific people. For example, it is questionable whether there should be a category bald people, but if a person was bald and there is such a category then there is no policy by which such a person should be excluded. Also relevant is the following:

Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference

Main article: WP:CATGRS Example: Jewish mathematicians, LGBT murderers, German-American sportspeople Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality states, in part: Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.

Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, German-Americans are not treated differently from Italian-Americans or French-Americans. Similarly, in criminology, a person's actions are more important than their sexual orientation. While "LGBT literature" is a specific genre and useful categorisation, "LGBT quantum physics" is not.

There is material which refers to Rand's Jewishness, her Russian origin (Sciabarra's Russian Radical) and so on. Adam Reed wrote an essay about Francisco D'Anconia's covert Jewish identity. His sitting on the floor playing marbles is, if I remember properly, an allusion to the Talmud.

I would argue that wanting Jews not to claim her for an existing category is a bit too close to POV, the same as it would be if Orthodox jews wanted her omitted as an apostate. I can see excluding such things from an undue mention in the article, especially the introduction, where they give a false impression. But the simple objective fact of her Jewish background, however personally unimportant she claimed it to be, is uncontrovertible.Kjaer (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the sigh was in response to a demand for sources for a minor uncontroversial point (we're not going to get anywhere if we dispute every single edit on this article). I agree w/ Kjaer, and think we should add in a Jewish category. The previous edit used way too many categories, but I think one or two (and maybe a sentence in the main article?) would show Rand's heritage without undue weight. Idag (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

I don't think intellectual heirs applies equally here:

"Following Rand's death, continued conflict within the Objectivist movement led to establishment of independent organizations claiming to be her intellectual heirs."

My understanding is that ARI views itself as authoritative, and views TAS/TOC as heretical, while TAS/TOC views the position of certain ARI associates as mistaken, but sees the room for plurality, and views ARI as within the tradition, and making valid contributions. Rather than being like the Papacy of Rome and the Byzantine Patriarchate, mutually excommunicating each other, the situation more resembles the views of Orthodox and Reform Judaism. In any case, TAS/TOC recognizes and refers to ARI while ARI no longer even mentions, say, David Kelley's orthodox and previously canonical Evidence of the Senses.

The problem lies with the phrase intellectual heirs. The term would be fine in most contexts, but it is very contentious here with Rand's having rescinded the designation from Branden and the dispute over Peikoff's use of it. (Note that Peikoff pointedly identifies himself in a one sentence paragraph on his website: "Peikoff is Rand's legal heir." (http://www.peikoff.com/bio.htm) The difference is that ARI makes exclusive claim to be Rand's heir (at least in reference to TAS/TOC while the latter does not exclude the former.

We could simply omit the phrase "claiming to be her intellectual heirs." I think it would be fair to change it to "with ARI describing itself as "authoritative" while TAS/TOC recognizes no claims of authority. But, since this is an article on Rand, not these entities, perhaps the phrase is best omitted. I am going to remove it, but am open to other solutions. Kjaer (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I think we're avoiding the phrase until sources can clarify the matter, per Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Who_is_Leonard_Peikoff.3F. the skomorokh 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Screenplays

This was only a crossword puzzle entry but the clue was "Ayn Rand's first screenplay" and the answer was "Red Papa." Dick Kimball (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That is odd. The actual name of the play is Red Pawn.Gyrae (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Embedded links

Is there any WP policy reason not to in-text-link to the texts of Fact and Value and A Question of Sanction which are both available on line?

A Question of Sanction: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=722 Fact and Value: http://www.peikoff.com/essays/fact_value.htm Kjaer (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, at least at WP:GA level and above embedded links before the References/External links sections are very much frowned upon. The usual practice is to turn them into inline references; in this case {{cite web}} would be appropriate. So instead of

(a) 'Blah blah "Essay" blah.',

write

(b) 'Blah blah "Essay" blah.'

References

MOS:LINK may be of use if you desire to bore yourself. the skomorokh 21:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hamfistedly added a ref to the URL for Kelley. Peikoff is already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Peikoff is OK because it's hosted on his official site, but I don't see how the message board has the permission of the copyright holder to reprint his work. the skomorokh 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and considered it myself, but I think we can safely assume there is no objection. First, the poster, Michael Kelly, is in personal contact with David Kelley and others associated with TAS/TOC. Second, Robert Bidinotto, then of TAS/TOC engages in and encourages the discussion (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=722&view=findpost&p=34712). I have posted a question as to permission on the site. I will wait for a reply before restoring the link. Kjaer (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I commend your dedication, but before you go to too much trouble, you might want to have a read of WP:PERMISSIONS; this sort of thing is quite complicated and may need to go through WP:OTRS. the skomorokh 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that any of the text be placed on wikipedia, only that it be linked to in its extant context. I don't see how PERMISSIONS applies to an external link where the poster of material affirms that he has the right to post that material. If you are making this stronger claim, that I have to obtain Kelley's permission before I can link on #WP to a site where Kelley's material is posted, please point me to the policy. Kjaer (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, the stronger claim is that it needs to be shown that the poster has Kelley's permission (not just that he claims he does). the skomorokh 00:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please point to the specific policy. There must be some presumption of permission at some point. For instance what if a person saying he is Kelley posts on that sight saying he has given permission? Can you quote or link directly to the relevant text of the policy?Kjaer (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not rocket science, dude; the Wikipedia guideline on external links is at Wikipedia:External links, and the relevant section is Restrictions on linking. To save your time, I'll quote the paragraph on copyright:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

— WP:ELNEVER, 15:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have looked into the matter and are convinced that the forum has Kelley's consent, then that's good enough for Wikipedia, but it's best that you are aware of the issues. the skomorokh 15:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am convinced that the essay, an open letter, was published with permission. It was distributed with an invitation to distribute to others in response to what Kelley apparently saw as a personal defamation. The poster at the website to which I linked is known to be in contact with Kelley. Kelley's professional associates post at that website and one encouraged conversation of the matter. I will most likely add the link back in shortly. Thanks for the help. Skomorokh, I didn't assume it was rocket science - just tedious to check all the links on the policy page - I assumed you could point me more directly since you had been there, and I assume ELNEVER has kindly posted the exact point of policy to which you were refering. Kjaer (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Atlas Image

The Rockefeller Center Atlas image was removed by an administrator on the rationale that statues are copyright protected, so even free images of statues violate copyright. This seems of doubtful application. The statue is on public display. There is no attempt made to prevent photographs of the statue, as there is in such venues as the Guggenheim. In any case, therre are other images of that atlas available even here at WP:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2005-12-22_-_United_States_-_New_York_-_City_of_New_York_-_Atlas_Building_-_Black_and_White.jpg

Kjaer (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I did some quick research, and apparently the admin is right: Carol Barnhart, Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 415 (2d Cir. 1985) (summarizing the history of copyright protection). Learn something new every day :-) Idag (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, a publicly displayed artwork loses copywrite protection even if the original work would otherwise be copywritable. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Derivative_Works_Decision_Tree.svg Kjaer (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You need "freedom of panorama." (i.e. the copyright holder needs to give explicit permission to take and keep pictures) Idag (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My reading is that the freedom of panaorama exception is not codified by US law. (I had read the other way.) I would still think that the fact that dozens of tourists take pictures there every day, and are not hassle by security, and that the image appears regularly in all media, would be implicit permission. I'll bow to opinion if it is held that explicit permission is needed.Kjaer (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but that's what the caselaw seems to suggest. While there's probably a good chance that the current copyright owner gave permission for folks to take pics of the statue, I have no idea where to look for that permission. Idag (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

For details, see Commons:Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. In the United States, photographs of copyrighted 3D artworks violate the reproduction rights of the artist (which I find ridiculously stupid, but whatever). Since we have to consider the photo non-free, we can only use it under the strict terms of WP:NFCC, which would require some sort of discussion of this particular statue and to Atlas Shrugged. If you can't do that, I suggest another image from Commons:Category:Atlas. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, some people at Commons have done some research and have determined that the Atlas sculpture was "published" without a copyright notice and thus is [likely] now public domain, so we're good to go here. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Last name

The article indicates she married, and her headstone has her name as "Ayn Rand O'Connor." While she might not be known by her married name and thus not necessitate changing the article title, should the article at least mention her name change somewhere? Harksaw (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a name change. One could piece together what's going on from the article. But I could see the use of some clarifying statement. What wording do you suggest? Kjaer (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand exactly what happened. Did she get her name legally changed at marriage, or not? If so, it should say something like "Ayn Rand married Frank O'Connor and became Ayn Rand O'Connor." After reading a few websites, it sounds like she did not get her name legally changed and only infrequently used the name, but I can't find this conclusively.Harksaw (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Rand was born Alisa Rozenbaum (in Russian spelling) and I believe her passport had her as Alice Rosenbaum - not sure of spelling. Her oceanliner ticket to New York from St Petersburg said "Mlle. Alice Rosenboum." She was already using the name Ayn Rand as her pen name before she got to the US. I don't believe she ever legally petitioned to change her name to Ayn Rand. It is not necessary to change one's name legally just for business purposes, simple usage establishes the name. Her marriage certificate presumably said Alice Rosenbaum as her maiden name. She could have taken Ayn Rand O'Connor as her legal name at that time had she put that on her marriage license. But her green card, issued after her marriage, simply says "Mrs. Charles Francis O'Connor" which one could argue was her legal name once she was married. That would have been the default entry on her marriage certificate had she not told the registrar to put something else. This was common practice in most states til the 1970's. Professionally, (about 50 years, during all of which time she was marrried to O'Connor,) she went as "(Miss) Ayn Rand." She could have called herself whatever she liked so long as her intent was not to defraud. Likewise, she could have called herself 'Socalledphilosopher Edwardsbane' on her tombstone if she had wanted. Obviously, she chose the name that best honored both her work and her husband of five decades. Quite complicated, not at all unusual for her time and for a writer. And I am unaware of any definitive source. I am going by what I see in Jeff Britting's bio, and what I know of custom and the law. Kjaer (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Objectivist shows "Ayn Rand O'Connor" and Nathaniel Branden listed as the publishers and owners of the periodical in the federally mandated yearly statement of ownership in the late 60's. At leas this establishes that that was the name she was using "officially". Kjaer (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)