Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

The DEC 31 Consensus

Here is a detailed explanation of recent events surrounding the recent "edit war" in which certain editors have attempted to "complete[ly] rewrite" an article which had held a consensus as encyclopdic and NPOV since May 2008. The editors Arimareji, ChildofMidnight, TheJazzFan, Brushcherry, Rklawton, SteveWunder and anyone else new to the talk page should be aware of these events. I ask that editors refrain from making comments within the flow of my argument, there is plenty of space below.

The following two paragraphs are the December 31st lead. It was the consensus lead since May 2008. Note especially the footnotes and please read them fully. Here is the text, with my comments below:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-born Americannovelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism.

Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial.

First, note that while Rand is described as a philosopher, a matter fully referenced throughout the article, and with innumerable references above, the matter is footnoted in the lead and fairly qualified in the footnote. Yet this material was removed from the article by the "anti-Rand" faction. Her works were quite fairly described as controversial. There is no 'glorification' of Rand, contrary the the endless repeated assertions of the same faction.

After the December 31st freeze was lifted, we know that the cited and balanced reference to Rand as a philosopher was repeteadly removed and modified against consensus, such as this contentious edit by snowded "I refuse to call it a philosophy" where, without citation, he labels the object of his ire an amateur, later to remove the cited

TallNapoleon, who describes Rand as "godless"" removes cited scholarly descriptions of the "criticism" leveled against Rand and, surprise, removes all comment and three references to William Buckley's religious feud with Ayn Rand.

And then, of course, Peter Damian, who honestly admits he has done a "complete rewrite of intro" (1)entirely delets the referenced description of Rand as a novelist and philosopher, (2) replacing it with a description of her as a writer of fiction (what, gay erotica?) and "works" on politics and philosophy.

This entirely dishonest paragraph is added, compare what it says, and what the footnote indicates:

She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America, and her views have influenced a number of public figures in the United States, notably Alan Greenspan. .

Note that a simple Library of Congress survey that makes no such claim is deceptively used to support a claim of "fanaticism" limited to "parts of America" yet since (understandably) the Library of Congress survey Americans it can make no claim on foreign influence.

And finally, Damien adds this POV piece de resistance:

Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, who have been scathing about her lack of rigour, the derivative nature of her thinking, and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter. Even as a writer of fiction, she has enjoyed almost no critical recognition outside the United States.

Again, read the notes! One single hostile author is cited as reference for the general "fact" that she lacks rigour and is derivative. Perhaps. But honesty would require this to be placed in the Criticism section and be attributed to the author who said it. William Vallicella, a blogger who reads this page religiously, is cited not personally as a Kant scholar who disaproves of her work (no surpise, given Rand's admittedly scthingly hostile view of his hero) but as general proof of her incompetence. Again, this remark belongs in the Criticism section, labelled as a Kant student's opinion expressed in a blog.

And of course the fact that one single source (Oxford Compainon to Literature) does not have an article on Rand is cited as proof positive that Rand has enjoyed no recognition outside the United States. Well, beside the fact that these very same editors removed a list of people influenced by Rand domestically and abroad, including such notorious right wing American politicians as the influential Turkish actor and movie director Sinan Cetin, [full list ] thus hiding the actual extent of an influence which they deny, the fact that an author is omitted from a work says nothing about that author. Indeed, if there is no article on Rand, how could that non-existent article describe her as without influnece. Well, at least we know that Ira Levin, James Clavell, Steve Ditko, Frank Miller and Terry Goodkind thought she was influential. Or at least we used to know it until the section was censored.

Well, does all this make you question the wisdom of the edits to the page done after the DEC 31 freeze was removed? If you wonder if there was a consensus for these edits, you might want to know what happened when we held an RfC that saked "whether there was indeed consensus for these changes since the removal of the freeze." Welll, it turns out that that RfC failed. Evidently, by a vote of 9 to 3 (or 7 to 5 if you discount some voters and hold a recount for others who didn't vote) there was no consensus for these edits above. I repeat, the RfC asked not if the edits above should be reversed, but just if they were supported in the first place. The RfC fialed, they wre not.

So now you know. I suggest you take this into consideration when voting, and when considering whether to make new edits, or support returning to the much more balanced article of DEC 31. I invite comments, but request that they be made below mine, not within them. Kjaer (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lede edit war happened AFTER you began your RfC and it was pretty much confined to ChildofMidnight and Peter Damien. I have absolutely no problem with doing major rewrites of the lede (with the exception of the "philosopher" issue), as the current lede is horribly worded. Idag (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a caveat, the preceding post should not be construed to mean that I consider that RfC in any way valid. Kjaer (not a neutral amin) closed it after it was up for only one day. The final vote was somewhere around 7-5 (which is not a consensus for a mass revert) and apparently Kjaer had to canvass on Objectivist forums to get even that slim majority. As I've stated earlier though, I have no problem with reworking the lede. Idag (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, I welcome your willingness to rewrite the lead. I am confused by your generosity here, yet your insistence on the Evidence page that my having an opinion of what has happened is a an insistance that it is "my way or the highway." Where di I ever say that? You seem to be accusing me of making an argument, to which I happily plead guilty. As for your repeated claim that I closed the RfC, prove it - show the diff where I removed the page from the RfC bulletin board. I simply commented on the results, one day (my cycle) after everyone who have been editting the page had commented. No one was prevented from adding any comment. No person has said he was unable to comment on the RfC. I have showed you nothing but respect, Idag, which you can verify on my evidence and when I petitioned that you be unblocked. (Evil me?) I take this remark as a repeated baseless falsehood, and ask you again to show where I removed the page from the RfC bulletin board or be honest and retract it. Kjaer (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, the ref provided did not in any way speak of or support the notion of a "religious feud" between Buckley and Rand, and that conclusion is based on OR and Synthesis. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I provided THREE refs, (here is one more from the Buckley side: "'Buckley said that Rand never forgave him for publishing the review and that "for the rest of her life, she would walk theatrically out of any room I entered!'[8]") and had you read the source, you would have seen the reference to the feud. If your problem is that we need more sources, you should say this, rather than saying that Buckley's Catholicism was irrelevant. You did not ask for more sources. You did say that Buckley's Catholicism is irrelevant. And you are the one who accuses ME of lying? You need to get your story straight.Kjaer (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that shows that Rand loathed Buckley for his Catholicism and the Whittaker Chambers review. However last I checked it took two to feud. What you need to show is Buckley hated Rand because he was Catholic, not that Rand hated Buckley. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly - I need to show that his Catholicism was relevant to their hostility - the reader can judge. As a Catholic and a friend of many Catholics who admire Rand I think I would find it impossible to show that Catholicism=hatred of Rand. But in his case I think it is quite easily shown to be relevant. Does the word godless not appear in the criticism? I'll put the ref's bavck when I have one more for you.Kjaer (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And Kjaer, you declared the RFC closed after ONE DAY, and began using that as a justification to revert. For reference most RFC's last THIRTY days. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just repeat that this is not quite true - I did not close the RfC, I commented on its results once all the active editors had voted. And no editor complained of not being able to vote. Hopefully with the new consensus on alll but "philosopher" this is moot.Kjaer (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was a nonsense, it can't be opened by a strong protagonist and closed by them, added to which it came after multiple edits each in different ways had consensus. Trying to force votes now is crazy when we are waiting for Arbcom rulings. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, I did not state that you were evil, I stated that you were blocking efforts at dispute resolution because of your fixation with this RfC. I have provided the pertinent diffs to ArbCom. If you or Steve actually attempt to enter into some type of compromise, I will of course post those diffs, but so far all you have done is repeatedly restate your position and demand that everyone else adopt it (hence the "my way or the highway" phrasing). While there's some debates that are thorny (e.g. "philosopher"), there's plenty of uncontroversial things that could be done to improve this article and we should work on those (i.e. rewriting the lede that everyone agrees is crappy). Personally, I'm not a big fan of having giant ArbCom restrictions placed on this article, which is why I've been trying to get some of this content stuff resolved while we can still craft some sort of compromise on our own terms. Idag (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bioshock may actually be a good exception to include. Rand's ideas really permeate the game. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

• "Allan Gotthelf talks about his book, On Ayn Rand", internet radio interview from Prodos.com

{{Ayn Rand}}

Category:Objectivist philosophy Category:2000 books Category:Philosophy books Category:Biographies (books) about writers </nowiki>}} |}

Ikip (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing proposals

Just a crazy idea, but we might want to use this page for discussing actual edits? ^_^ (I'm as or more guilty than anyone.)

Transposition of "opponent of communism" by Peter Damian

This one's pretty minor, so please limit to agreeing or disagreeing with an explanation as short as or shorter than the sentence for proposed move. If you have a counter-proposal, please give it its own subsection:
[1] moves "She based some of her writings on her personal experiences and was a fierce opponent of communism." from the first paragraph to the third paragraph about her beliefs, and trims it to "She was a fierce opponent of communism." arimareiji (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Update - including the editor, five in favor and two opposed so far. Please note that unlike Minnesotans, we're allowed to change our votes. arimareiji (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - arimareiji (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• AgreeStevewunder (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Idag (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - support alternative either delete as innacurate and undue weight or move, if corrected to alternative wording below. But the DEC 31 version is the consensus version, and I support reverting to that and the adding the text.Kjaer (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether to revert to the Dec. 31 version is something that will be addressed by ArbCom. I also support deleting it, but for now, do you support moving it? (we can discuss the deletions after we get the rest of this mess sorted out) Idag (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I again insist on primacy of arbcom issue. I would prefer rewrite to delete to move to status quo.Kjaer (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - J Readings (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree But with corrected language (opposed all forms of totalitarianism and only We the The Living bears the stamp of Russia. The sentence could be improved, could be moved, or could be deleted and it would be acceptable. It is tolerable as is, but substandard. No change should be made till after ArbCom. (unsigned, but added by Steve (talk) at 0149 8 Feb 2009)

alternative wording

She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism,, including Nazism, communism, and the welfare state Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia.

The problem is not the move, but the wording. I suggest either fixing the problems and moving it or deleting the phrases entirely. First, to say that she based "some" of her writing on personal experience is either inaccurate or empty, since all writing is to some extent based on personal experience, and only one book of Rand's, We the Living, was based on her personal experience in Russia. Second, Rand considered herself an opponent of collectivism and statism, which includes Nazism, communism and the welfare state. To mention only her opposition to communism is misleading (e.g., Catholics and Nazis also opposed communism for quite different reasons,) and amounts to undue weight.

I would find the above unobjectionable, but I repeat my insistance that the JAN 6 version was imposed without consensus, and that the proper move is to revert to the DEC 31 version, and make all changes from there.Kjaer (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the wording above was based off Sciabara's book, which details how her life experiences shaped her philosophy. ChildofMidnight, since you originally added that sentence, would you mind clarifying what you meant (and what sources you were referring to)? Idag (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of CoM's source, the flaws exist, and I have provided wording with specific refs that correct them. I could provide dozens more.Kjaer (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The first three would need to be attributed: "XYZ, as reprinted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger, published by, etc etc." Sources can only be directly attributed when they're taken straight from the original - alternately, all three should probably be shortened to one ref since they did all come from one ref.
2. The second sentence may be true, but it's not what the source says.
3. If this is made as its own separate counter-proposal, it can be voted on and I would be inclined to agree if the second sentence is sourced or removed. Continuing to leave it as an addendum to the above proposal does not act as a stumbling-block, since the two questions can be separated. arimareiji (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareji, the sources are correct as stands, the pages cited are not pagenumbers from Binswanger's compilation, they are the page number of the original source, such as The Virtue of Selfishness. I am not sure what you mean by saying that the second sentence is not what the source says. The second sentence, as rewritten Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia. is factually correct, and the reference is simply provided to support it. The original wording is problematic for the reasons I stated, is offered without unsources, and I cannot support it. Kjaer (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Regardless of whether Binswanger names page numbers, the source is Binswanger. See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for clarification.
2. You may personally know facts which can be added to your source's assertion of "Ayn Rand said that her first novel, We the Living, was the closest she would ever come to writing an autobiography." to reach the conclusion of "Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia.", but that would be both OR and SYNTHESIS. If I simply missed seeing evidence for that sentence in the source, please provide a quote?
3. Noted; you maintain your Oppose to moving it. If there's consensus for replacing the sentence instead of moving it, then that can be done. arimareiji (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I don't see where in the above there was a consensus to the changes applied overnight (my time). I think a fair number of them are good edits, but we still have the overemphasis on the Texas reference (surely if there has been an increase in interest there is a more recent one, otherwise several years on it is only evidence of a temporary and isolated interest (its funding source also needs mentioning by the way). The total removal of the paragraph about US influence also seems to have lost some material. I have not reverted as overall there seems to be some progress being made. The shift to collectivism from communism has my agreement (to take one example) but I don't see agreement to that above. --Snowded TALK 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur. Only three of us discussed it at all beforehand, and only one expressed unqualified acceptance. I think the majority of it is good editing, but I also think this needs to be brought back to Talk to get consensus first. arimareiji (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reword of political philosophy to match source by Lo que pasa

[2] purports to remove wording not supported by the source and replace it with wording from the source. Please limit to a short explanation and agreement or disagreement, or counter-propose in either a new section or the next subsection. arimareiji (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Update - including the editor, three in favor and three opposed* so far. Please note that unlike Minnesotans, we're allowed to change our votes. (* - opposed to changing it in the near future; see WP:DUCK) arimareiji (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - I think it's a good catch wrt what the source actually says. arimareiji (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Idag (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative Agree But just three votes is not consensus, please wait esp for arbcom. Kjaer (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree But only after ArbCom - no edits should be made till then. --Steve (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, the opinions of Professor Hicks are better placed elsewhere. CABlankenship (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose You're trying to rewrite a paragraph in the introduction based on a single source that expresses one person' opinion. The existing paragraph summarizes article content. The revised paragraph is also confusing using ambiguous words like liberalism and leaves out specifics of her positions such as her opposition to Communism. The trimmed version isn't clear at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe you could suggest a rewrite and provide more sources? I do ahttp://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ree that not all refd sentences must be reduced to a quote of ref. This http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ should be very handy.Kjaer (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is meant to summarize the article contents. So one person's opinion generalizing her political views is a very bad idea.

In addition to the sourced content already in the article about her personal experiences with COmmunism, her first book We the Living ("We the Living is so anti-Communist that it makes Doctor Zhivago look like The Communist Manifesto." and "On paper, the novel's anti-Communist theme was acceptable to the state, which controlled film production. But the film follows the book rather faithfully, and to Rand Communism was less a specific political movement than a free-floating governmental fog that suffocated the individual." [3], her testimony against communists in Hollywood, here's another source; "American intellectuals of the 1930s did not share Rand’s distaste for communism" [4]. The introduction is meant to be a summary giving a clear description of the article contents and maing points about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that she opposed communism. But so did Hitler and the Pope. She opposed communism as a form of statism and collectivism - that is the appropriate comment, see the refs I provided for my alternate statement, they are quite strong. Of course, I want the article reverted to the DEC 31 consensus version first.Kjaer (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Paragraph 4 of Lead

I still don't understand why the extremely negative tone of paragraph 4 of the lead has been allowed to stay in its location for so long. Is there really support for that paragraph? Stevewunder (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific wording change in mind, please toss it into the fray above? I can't guarantee that responses will be positive or even civil, but it's worth a try. arimareiji (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how many changes you want to make, the Sandbox is a useful tool. Though you'll have to copy the final text here, as the sandbox is cleaned out regularly. Idag (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The text should be deleted entirley, as part of the proper move, which is to revert to the DEC 31 version which suffered none of these difficulties. An RfC was held to see if there was consensus for the JAN 6 rewrites which included this paragraph and a radical reinterpretation of the cited Library of Congress survey. The RfC failed, and the Jan 6 rewrites should be reverted. This is the subject of the current arb com. Kjaer (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a revision. Said RFC is not accepted. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to use command words like "must" in the subject header, Kjaer. It's a little off-putting. J Readings (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC says that there WAS consensus. You are right that it failed. So, you prove my point, over and over and over. On the basis of your finally coming to reason and admitting that you did not have consensus, please act and revert the article.Kjaer (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I miswrote. I meant to write that there was no consensus to revert--as in to revert to Dec 31. The RFC was invalid, and I do not accept its results. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph does not belong in the article unless it is supporting something in a criticism section. But no changes should be made till after ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Steve that that paragraph cannot stay as written. Until someone can propose something better I'm in favor of deleting it. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am completely in favor of rewriting it. But I think some points from the criticism section should be in the lede and that's why I think we should keep it. Idag (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have formal votes:

delete unacceptable POV Kjaer (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) See WP:!vote. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

delete after the ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep with some rewriting - the lede is supposed to be a summary of the main points in the entire article. - Idag (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete as it is. Something like it, but substantially shortened and rewritten to be less WP:POINTy, would be good. arimareiji (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Revise Perhaps something like "While Rand's work has failed to generate much interest outside of Objectivist circles, her books continue to sell in high volumes, and intellectual collectives dedicated to her ideas form a lively community." CABlankenship (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First, a small note to Kjaer: please read WP:!vote. There are no formal votes on Wikipedia or anything like it. There is only discussion. SlimVirgen et al., all very experienced editors, mentioned this point to you on several occasions, so it's a little strange why you keep talking about an old RfC and a consensus long since passed. Second, per WP:CONSENSUS, the consensus can always change. Provided that no one is canvassing -- something unfortunately you were guilty of -- a new consensus can always form made by editors wanting to improve the article. All this repetition of reverting to December 31 is really meaningless at this point. Aside from that, and linked to this current section's discussion, I provided several citations for issues regarding Rand and philosophy departments. I would like to incorporate those into the article at some point, in particular the criticism section. I've been waiting for the ArbCom ruling but I'm wondering if it's necessary considering what's happening here right now. Weeks have passed since I posted them for EndlessMike888 and Snowded, so I'll assume that since they meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, they can be used there with a synopsis per WP:LEAD in the lead. J Readings (talk)

agree with your comments re votes. Which references are you saying you posted for me? Sorry there has been so much I may well have missed it --Snowded TALK 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a good start would be to simply cut and paste paragraph 4 from the lead to criticism. Idag, I disagree that the lead should introduce a strong negative criticism. I think it would be hard to find another good article that does such. It does seem reasonable however that, given the virulent criticisms that exist, the criticism section be longer than most. I think the paragraph should be moved before the results of arbcom because:

1) arbcom is taking forever

2) we are letting what is now a well-agreed problematic paragraph linger

3) if the results of arbcom were to somehow affect this paragraph, we can always change it back then Stevewunder (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD outlines what we are supposed to do in these instances. The lead is simply a concise summary of everything else in the article. Others, including Arimareiji (I think), have mentioned this point already. Should there be criticism in the lead? Well, yes of course there should be. Why? Because there is an entire section in the article entitled "criticism". So, *something* should be there in order to introduce what the reader will find later on. The next question is: is there support for the assertions already made in those lead sentences? Well, yes and no. Yes, they are cited on the talk page above. No, they are not cited in the article yet (as far as I can tell). I would suggest a revision to the lead that accurately reflects the several citations I already posted on this talk page regarding Rand and philosophy departments -- otherwise, add them to the criticism section and then revise the lead. Something to that effect. J Readings (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My main point is extreme negativity. "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature,[3] a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about". Note that this is incongruous with fact she isn't called a philosopher in the first place! She is merely a novelist, screenwriter, playwright! You can't have it both ways. You can't not call her a philosopher and then talk about how bad she was at it! Stevewunder (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In paragraph 3 there is reference to what is termed "theoretical work". This presumably same work is called "philosophical work" only when it is pointed out that it gets no attention. Should we really draw attention to the fact something gets no attention? Why not make the whole article about what she isn't? It seems to be the goal here. Stevewunder (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So why not talk about this paragraph over and over and over without doing anything to it! The disagreement over moving this paragraph isn't editing by consensus, it is filibustering. Stevewunder (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved it again since no one else would. So ban me. Stevewunder (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to be hostile, Stevewunder.J Readings (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be revised a little bit, I happily acknowledge that (I never wrote that sentence to begin with). But there is enough support found in independent third-party newspapers for what disinterested third-parties would already acknowledge by reading these sources: that philosophy departments generally did not (and still do not) teach her work for decades. Only someone trying to push an agenda would attempt to halt that point from being cited in the article, I think. After all, Rand was first and foremost a novelist based on what the preponderance of sources say. Then, there are the sources presented by independent third-parties discussing the situation. Here's a sample: Stanford University's philosophy department did not teach the ideas of Ayn Rand writes Jennifer Nuckols in the University Wire (if a course were to be taught, it was by the students themselves not the professors who wanted nothing to do with it). Today, “Rand remains an obscure figure in Israeli academia even though many Israelis read her novels in their teens and 20s including Prof. Elhanan Yakira head of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University. ‘I don't know anyone with us that really teaches her philosophy he said." Orit Arfa, “The nexus,” The Jerusalem Post, FEATURES, July 13, 2007, pg. 26. “Ayn Rand generally held little regard for academic philosophers, and philosophers have tended to return the favor,” writes David Glenn in the Chronicle of Higher Education, "'It used to be the kiss of death to your career to say that you liked Ayn Rand,' says Jurgis Brakas, an associate professor of philosophy at Marist College, whose work is not supported by any Rand-affiliated foundation." And so on, J Readings (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted. The Austin chair was already mentioned above, and the lack of academic attention is noted directly below. Also, if we are doing this, then I shall rewrite the opponent of communism, personal experience section and move it as per above, and restore the philosopher attribution with the DEC 31 qualifying footnote which is the obvious consensus. Kjaer (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, it needs to be rewritten, not deleted entirely. And please don't touch the "philosopher" issue in the lead until ArbCom decides on their interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Let's not get into another debate on this issue, Kjaer.J Readings (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

J Readings, I agree entirely with what you just wrote. I think "Her ideas and work, however, have generated much criticism." is a good final sentence to the lead, and well alludes in a neutral tone to the criticism to come.

Kjaer, I don't see how it follows that you should restore everything else. Not one person argued to keep paragraph 4 as it was, which is different than restoring what is under major debate. Stevewunder (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say restore everything. I said rewrite the "oppose communism" sentence per the above discussion, and restore the word "philosopher" with the DEC 31 footnote which is this:

Her New York Times obituary (May 7, 1982, p. 7) identifies her as "writer and philosopher." She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a "philosopher," others prefer language such as "espoused a philosophy." One writer comments: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right." (Jenny Heyl, 1995, as cited in Mimi R Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra(eds), ed (1999). Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Penn State Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-271-01831-3.

I also suggest you look at the DEC 31 intro wording as to her being controversial, since that will not have any objections whatsoever.

But if everything is up for grabs, then everything is up for grabs, and I have no problem with that. Contrary to Tall Napoleon's false assertion below, I never insisted upon arbcom, I explicitly opposed it, and supported we continue editting. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with revising the oppose communism sentence, if it is mostly agreed on here. The "philosopher" label, however, is the most controversial issue here. I am in favor of making progress on areas of the article which aren't under major dispute and not of letting the major dispute stop everything else. Perhaps if we can find common ground on other issues, when we return to the major item of dispute we will be more able to work together on it. But maybe not. Stevewunder (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot parameters

The talk page is now 568k, and it's chokingly long to load. All in favor of reducing the (old) parameter from 30 days to 14 days (causing the bot to archive old threads sooner)? arimareiji (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree arimareiji (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose we have an active arbcom with links here. You should consider deleting such nonsense as Rand Was a Psycho above and othe offense comments. But I oppose outright archiving.Kjaer (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - not until the ArbCom is complete. Agree but everyone needs to check their links to be sure that they used diffs rather than links to a section heading in the talk page - we need a few days to do that. --Steve (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Arbcom evidence links should be permalinks. We can notify them that we're archiving. I'm sure they won't mind looking through an Archive--and if they do they'll tell us. But 570k is absurd. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose (for now) - a lot of the links in ArbCom would need to be remade. Though I'll be more amenable to this proposal if there's no decision a month from now. Idag (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Why don't we just ask ArbCom? After all it won't do them any good if they can't load the page. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Vassyana posted this on the talk page; ArbCom does not have any problem with us archiving. Considering how huge this page has become, I propose that we do this immediately. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed per above. Idag (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to say we have consensus for archiving now that it's clear that ArbCom would actually prefer it. How long until the bot parameter should be revised, given the opposing needs of those who have asked for extra time and the needs of those whose browsers keep choking?
  • 8 hours (08:01 10 Feb):
  • 24 hours (00:01 11 Feb): arimareiji (talk) ;
  • 1 week (00:01 17 Feb):
  • Option D - (time / ~~~):

Comment: AFAIK, archiving shouldn't make it noticeably more difficult to convert to diffs. The page history isn't lost. arimareiji (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say let's do it sooner. If you have links in ArbCom to the current talk section, just correct the link after archiving so that they point to the right section in the archives. It'll take all of 10 mins. Idag (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been well over a day, and three four people have said this should be done by now to one who's said a few days. I'm making the edit to MiszaBot's parameters. If a second editor (other than the one who already said a few days) who supported archiving objects, please discuss before the next bot pass (est 0100 12 Feb UTC). arimareiji (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive soooner Stevewunder (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit's been made, but it'll take until the next bot pass before we see the result. Thank you for the additional support. arimareiji (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The DEC 31 Consensus

Here is a detailed explanation of recent events surrounding the recent "edit war" in which certain editors have attempted to "complete[ly] rewrite" an article which had held a consensus as encyclopdic and NPOV since May 2008. The editors Arimareji, ChildofMidnight, TheJazzFan, Brushcherry, Rklawton, SteveWunder and anyone else new to the talk page should be aware of these events. I ask that editors refrain from making comments within the flow of my argument, there is plenty of space below.

The following two paragraphs are the December 31st lead. It was the consensus lead since May 2008. Note especially the footnotes and please read them fully. Here is the text, with my comments below:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-born Americannovelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter. She is widely known for her best-selling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism.

Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial.

First, note that while Rand is described as a philosopher, a matter fully referenced throughout the article, and with innumerable references above, the matter is footnoted in the lead and fairly qualified in the footnote. Yet this material was removed from the article by the "anti-Rand" faction. Her works were quite fairly described as controversial. There is no 'glorification' of Rand, contrary the the endless repeated assertions of the same faction.

After the December 31st freeze was lifted, we know that the cited and balanced reference to Rand as a philosopher was repeteadly removed and modified against consensus, such as this contentious edit by snowded "I refuse to call it a philosophy" where, without citation, he labels the object of his ire an amateur, later to remove the cited

TallNapoleon, who describes Rand as "godless"" removes cited scholarly descriptions of the "criticism" leveled against Rand and, surprise, removes all comment and three references to William Buckley's religious feud with Ayn Rand.

And then, of course, Peter Damian, who honestly admits he has done a "complete rewrite of intro" (1)entirely delets the referenced description of Rand as a novelist and philosopher, (2) replacing it with a description of her as a writer of fiction (what, gay erotica?) and "works" on politics and philosophy.

This entirely dishonest paragraph is added, compare what it says, and what the footnote indicates:

She has attracted an almost fanatical popular following in parts of America, and her views have influenced a number of public figures in the United States, notably Alan Greenspan. .

Note that a simple Library of Congress survey that makes no such claim is deceptively used to support a claim of "fanaticism" limited to "parts of America" yet since (understandably) the Library of Congress survey Americans it can make no claim on foreign influence.

And finally, Damien adds this POV piece de resistance:

Her philosophical work, however, has had little recognition among established philosophers, who have been scathing about her lack of rigour, the derivative nature of her thinking, and her apparently limited understanding of philosophical subject-matter. Even as a writer of fiction, she has enjoyed almost no critical recognition outside the United States.

Again, read the notes! One single hostile author is cited as reference for the general "fact" that she lacks rigour and is derivative. Perhaps. But honesty would require this to be placed in the Criticism section and be attributed to the author who said it. William Vallicella, a blogger who reads this page religiously, is cited not personally as a Kant scholar who disaproves of her work (no surpise, given Rand's admittedly scthingly hostile view of his hero) but as general proof of her incompetence. Again, this remark belongs in the Criticism section, labelled as a Kant student's opinion expressed in a blog.

And of course the fact that one single source (Oxford Compainon to Literature) does not have an article on Rand is cited as proof positive that Rand has enjoyed no recognition outside the United States. Well, beside the fact that these very same editors removed a list of people influenced by Rand domestically and abroad, including such notorious right wing American politicians as the influential Turkish actor and movie director Sinan Cetin, [full list ] thus hiding the actual extent of an influence which they deny, the fact that an author is omitted from a work says nothing about that author. Indeed, if there is no article on Rand, how could that non-existent article describe her as without influnece. Well, at least we know that Ira Levin, James Clavell, Steve Ditko, Frank Miller and Terry Goodkind thought she was influential. Or at least we used to know it until the section was censored.

Well, does all this make you question the wisdom of the edits to the page done after the DEC 31 freeze was removed? If you wonder if there was a consensus for these edits, you might want to know what happened when we held an RfC that saked "whether there was indeed consensus for these changes since the removal of the freeze." Welll, it turns out that that RfC failed. Evidently, by a vote of 9 to 3 (or 7 to 5 if you discount some voters and hold a recount for others who didn't vote) there was no consensus for these edits above. I repeat, the RfC asked not if the edits above should be reversed, but just if they were supported in the first place. The RfC fialed, they wre not.

So now you know. I suggest you take this into consideration when voting, and when considering whether to make new edits, or support returning to the much more balanced article of DEC 31. I invite comments, but request that they be made below mine, not within them. Kjaer (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the lede edit war happened AFTER you began your RfC and it was pretty much confined to ChildofMidnight and Peter Damien. I have absolutely no problem with doing major rewrites of the lede (with the exception of the "philosopher" issue), as the current lede is horribly worded. Idag (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a caveat, the preceding post should not be construed to mean that I consider that RfC in any way valid. Kjaer (not a neutral amin) closed it after it was up for only one day. The final vote was somewhere around 7-5 (which is not a consensus for a mass revert) and apparently Kjaer had to canvass on Objectivist forums to get even that slim majority. As I've stated earlier though, I have no problem with reworking the lede. Idag (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Idag, I welcome your willingness to rewrite the lead. I am confused by your generosity here, yet your insistence on the Evidence page that my having an opinion of what has happened is a an insistance that it is "my way or the highway." Where di I ever say that? You seem to be accusing me of making an argument, to which I happily plead guilty. As for your repeated claim that I closed the RfC, prove it - show the diff where I removed the page from the RfC bulletin board. I simply commented on the results, one day (my cycle) after everyone who have been editting the page had commented. No one was prevented from adding any comment. No person has said he was unable to comment on the RfC. I have showed you nothing but respect, Idag, which you can verify on my evidence and when I petitioned that you be unblocked. (Evil me?) I take this remark as a repeated baseless falsehood, and ask you again to show where I removed the page from the RfC bulletin board or be honest and retract it. Kjaer (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, the ref provided did not in any way speak of or support the notion of a "religious feud" between Buckley and Rand, and that conclusion is based on OR and Synthesis. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I provided THREE refs, (here is one more from the Buckley side: "'Buckley said that Rand never forgave him for publishing the review and that "for the rest of her life, she would walk theatrically out of any room I entered!'[8]") and had you read the source, you would have seen the reference to the feud. If your problem is that we need more sources, you should say this, rather than saying that Buckley's Catholicism was irrelevant. You did not ask for more sources. You did say that Buckley's Catholicism is irrelevant. And you are the one who accuses ME of lying? You need to get your story straight.Kjaer (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that shows that Rand loathed Buckley for his Catholicism and the Whittaker Chambers review. However last I checked it took two to feud. What you need to show is Buckley hated Rand because he was Catholic, not that Rand hated Buckley. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly - I need to show that his Catholicism was relevant to their hostility - the reader can judge. As a Catholic and a friend of many Catholics who admire Rand I think I would find it impossible to show that Catholicism=hatred of Rand. But in his case I think it is quite easily shown to be relevant. Does the word godless not appear in the criticism? I'll put the ref's bavck when I have one more for you.Kjaer (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And Kjaer, you declared the RFC closed after ONE DAY, and began using that as a justification to revert. For reference most RFC's last THIRTY days. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just repeat that this is not quite true - I did not close the RfC, I commented on its results once all the active editors had voted. And no editor complained of not being able to vote. Hopefully with the new consensus on alll but "philosopher" this is moot.Kjaer (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was a nonsense, it can't be opened by a strong protagonist and closed by them, added to which it came after multiple edits each in different ways had consensus. Trying to force votes now is crazy when we are waiting for Arbcom rulings. --Snowded TALK 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, I did not state that you were evil, I stated that you were blocking efforts at dispute resolution because of your fixation with this RfC. I have provided the pertinent diffs to ArbCom. If you or Steve actually attempt to enter into some type of compromise, I will of course post those diffs, but so far all you have done is repeatedly restate your position and demand that everyone else adopt it (hence the "my way or the highway" phrasing). While there's some debates that are thorny (e.g. "philosopher"), there's plenty of uncontroversial things that could be done to improve this article and we should work on those (i.e. rewriting the lede that everyone agrees is crappy). Personally, I'm not a big fan of having giant ArbCom restrictions placed on this article, which is why I've been trying to get some of this content stuff resolved while we can still craft some sort of compromise on our own terms. Idag (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bioshock may actually be a good exception to include. Rand's ideas really permeate the game. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)