Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Further Reading Section

This section was recently dramatically expanded from content in the Bibliography on Ayn Rand article. I think that this list is unnecessarily detailed for a general overview of the subject, and we should cut it down to a minimal list with most of the less well heard of works back in the bibliography article. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Being discussed at WP:RANDWATCH. I suggest we figure out what to do overall there, and then come back here and optimise for this article.  Skomorokh  17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist philosophers

Regarding this edit, do we have any reliable sources to indicate that Walsh and Seddon are Objectivists rather than simply scholars of Objectivism?  Skomorokh  11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Walsh had articles in The Objectivist and The Intellectual Activist and was on the board of advisors for the Ayn Rand Institute. So he definitely was an Objectivist at one time. He did leave ARI prior to the article in question being written, so the main question would be whether he was still an Objectivist at the time. I suspect the answer is yes (assuming that 'Objectivist' means someone who self-identifies as such), although at this moment I don't have any specific evidence to cite one way or the other.

As for Seddon: In the book cited in the article, Seddon refers to himself as "an (insert qualifying adjective here) Objectivist". --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks Richard.  Skomorokh  02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had to reinsert that little fact several times. Someone keeps removing it. It's certainly relevant to the point; these aren't hostile critics, but self-professed followers of Rand's philosophical ideology. Indeed, that's why I found their thoughts on the matter interesting enough to insert.CABlankenship (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, CA. If necessary, we can insert a hidden comment warning against removal.  Skomorokh  15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the matter is controversial or it was being cut out as an unsupported claim, in-body citations might help. It is easy enough to provide a citation regarding Seddon's self-identification, as I quoted above. Walsh might be trickier but probably something could be found. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There comes a point when citation density becomes a readability problem. I'd be inclined not to add such citations that are so far from central to the topic, unless there are persistent challenges.  Skomorokh  16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how it could be difficult or controversial. Both men were prominent members of various Objectivist movements. Take this, for example: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--398-In_Memoriam_George_Walsh.aspx Speaking on Walsh: "George was a professor of philosophy, an intellectual leader of the Objectivist movement who served on our board of trustees from the beginning" The Objectivist movement splintered as a result of a falling out between Walsh and Peikoff. This falling out was not amicable, and as a result, legions of Peikoff's followers despise Walsh, and probably would rather have him "erased" from the history of the movement. Walsh remained a devoted teacher of Rand's philosophy until the end of his life. CABlankenship (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic scholarship section oddly named

"Academic scholarship" is misleading. There are scholarships - i.e. money awards for students related to Objectivism. The section is mostly about Ayn Rand/Objectivism and academia at large. Simply calling it "Academia" would be clearer.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There is more than one meaning for the word 'scholarship'. To quote an online dictionary:

1. learning; knowledge acquired by study; the academic attainments of a scholar.
2. a sum of money or other aid granted to a student, because of merit, need, etc., to pursue his or her studies.

The section title refers to the first definition, not the second. The section discusses the study of Rand's ideas by academics, so "Academic scholarship" seems a reasonable enough name to me. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Even for the moment putting aside the ambiguity of the word "scholarship", the content of the section still doesn't really fit that first definition - which would be more applicable to the instruction of Objectivism or one's level of knowledge of Objectivism, not how Rand/Objectivism is received in academia - "the milieu or interests of a university, college, or academy; academe".TheDarkOneLives (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic reception might be better --Snowded ^TALK 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe. I get images of professors and their spouses with a band playing waltzes at the Academic reception. Actually, as I think about it the problem with that is it's loaded. It makes the issue totally about whether she's accepted or not. The fact is, in some places she is and the discussion is how she's incorporated into the curriculum. Simply "Academia" covers it all. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Academia is fine by me, aside from a few institutions she is ignored rather rejected per so reception is probably not appropriate --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose Academic Rejection would command a consensus? (chuckle)KD Tries Again (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I wouldn't agree with that, implies there is something of substance ro reject  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

<cough cough> The current title, "Academia", should do.--RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No incivility, its a legitimate opinion, and I'm relaxed at an academic conference on Lake Garno in the former residence of Mussolini so multiple ironies occur and a sense of humour should be maintained. --Snowded ^TALK 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It makes the issue totally about whether she's accepted or not.":

Isn't that the elephant in the room? Anyway, it seems to me Academic Reception would logically include the lack there of. Academia strikes me as clumsy. How about Academic Status or Academic Regard or Academic Assessment? TheScotch (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ayn Rand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hm. It's very long. Half way thru, I wanted some sort of focus. More about her philosophy, less about her personal life. There is unnecessary detail in the biography. For example: "Among her professors was the philosopher N.O. Lossky.[9] " Why mention this, if it is never to be mentioned again? Too much trivia about her personal life.

Overall, a good article. Very thorough (too thorough). The only weakness, going by the "Good article criteria" checklist, is being overly detailed. Noloop (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Per a suggestion at the GAN talk page, I'm placing this note to say that the remarks above were a "false start" for a review that will not be completed (see comments here). Anyone who wants to provide a full review is welcome to do so. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial Review

First impression is the article is a great achievement, representing far more energy and scholarship than is generally required for GA. Considering her cultural impact I dont think you go into unnecessary detail. If anything, you could have fleshed out a few of the key personal to help the reader develop a feel for her character. I've only been able to verify a small proportion of the references, but all the ones I have check out fine. The other requirements seem to have been easily met, so Im very likely to pass this article. Im going to sleep on it though, as I dont want to rush my suggestions for how the article could be further improved. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Feyd! There is no rush whatsoever where this article is concerned, so please do take as much time as you feel is required. Cheers,  Skomorokh  18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Full Review

Some minor stability issues seem to have developed, but they werent there when i started the review, and the overall quality makes it easier to overlook a borderline issue. Im passing the article.

The article doesnt seem too far from FA standard. While the prose isnt sparkling, a good clear and consistent tone is used throughout. Quite remarkable considering she's such a polarising figure and the number of editors working on it.

Im not a FA writer, so this might not be the best advice in the world. But here's my suggestions for improvements. Due to her cultural impact and the recent revival of interest, you could probably expand the article a little.

I dont think you need to say much more about her philosophy as thats covered in the main article, and judging by the sort folk ive seen with her books many of her readers might not be too interested in technical points.

The article seems to do a great job of painting the key incidents of her life in broad strokes, but there's rarely enough detail to get a feel for what sort of person she was.

Welcome exceptions are the descriptions of why she ended her relationship with the Brandens, her choice of beneficiary for her will, the mention that she enjoyed fielding hostile questions. While we get a sense of why her early experiences caused her to hate collectivism, it would be good to have a specific incident from her formative years fleshed out.

Id like to see some of her opinions on specific political issues, like conscription or abortion. They're talked about in the main philosophy article, but readers might miss that.

Its easy to see from the article why many find what she stands for repellent, but there's only glimpses of the reasons she commanded so much devotion from her admirers. If anything I find the article to have a POV bias against the subject. Id guess you have her standing in accademia summned up quite nicely. But there almost nothing about her positive qualities as a person. One can infer she was exceptionally courageous to boldly speak out on issues that guarantee to alienate folk on all sides of the political spectrum. But it would be nice to have this and any other positive qualities explicitly acknowledged.

On her writings, we have about 3 positives who opine about the beauty , fruitfullness and intelligence of her writing but they're almost lost in barrage of negatives "hyperbolic and emotional" - "shrillness without reprieve" - "angry tirade" - "incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage" etc, etc. Its as if the article over emphasises the unstated point that like many who venerate reason Rand has little emotional control. I dont really see the need for this, on the other hand it might be good to have a little more exposition about her views on selfishness. There's a way you could do this while sexing up the article's human interest appeal at the same time. Nietchze wrote that "The degree and kind of a mans sexuality reach up into the topmost summit of his spirit." It says on the GoodKind link that his work contains strong sado-masochistic overtones. Isnt that true even more so for Rand? A well placed mention of this might imply that folk who consider selfishness a positive quality tend to have natures well outside the norm. Perhaps even a good secondary source has said this. On the other hand, I seem to remember she made the relatively moderate point that most women prefer men to mostly take charge in bed, arguably one of her few contributions to the great discussion thats of enduring value (as its still an unpopular truth for the chattering classes.) If you do include further criticism, then IMO you should add an even greater amount of praise to achieve NPOV. I know it not usual, but with highly polarising figures like Rand i think there's a case for separating out reception into positive and negative sections, so the minority camp doesnt get swamped.

If any suitable colour pics can be used they might help brighten the tone of the article. It might be good to have a third paragraph in the lede, some readers likely only this section so it could cover a little more ground.

Thanks for the opportunity to review such a stimulating article!

PS - due to the massive back log at GA, please can any of you who have time review some of the candidates there.

PPS - just to confirm I've still only verified a percentage of the sources. Im taking it on trust that the remainder will check out fine. "The righteous will live by faith" :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Chait article

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0 This isn't particularly complementary, but it also contains some biographical information from reliable sources. Some of the content might be acceptable for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.133.73 (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit light, and rehashes a lot we already know, but might be useful to summarize the recent resurgence in popularity. Thanks for the link!  Skomorokh  06:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this essay will be of any use for biographical facts. At one point the author refers to Rand's affair with Branden as her using doctrine "to seduce young men in her orbit." That one sentence is wrong or grossly POV on multiple counts regarding a relatively well-documented matter, which makes it hard for me to trust any biographical bits from the essay that aren't easily verifiable from another source. The one way I could see using this is if we expanded the discussion of her influence to provide a more thorough discussion of the "recent resurgence" that includes criticisms of it, in which case this piece could be cited for its (notable) author's opinions. The two biographies it supposedly discusses (I think they get a couple of sentences on page two) are likely to prove much more useful in regard to facts, and they are both out in October so the wait won't kill us. --RL0919 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

The summary for this edit claims that the new photo is public domain because it was taken before 1923. This is highly unlikely. In 1923, Rand was 18 and living in Russia. Other photos of Rand known to be from when she was 19-20 show her with a different hairstyle and wearing obviously cheap clothing (not surprising since her family was impoverished after the revolution). This one shows her with the hairstyle that she adopted later, nicer clothes, and most damning, what appears to be a wedding ring. If memory serves, this is a photo from one of her book jackets, but even without relying on my memory the public domain claim is dubious. So I've reverted the change of pictures to ensure that we don't end up with a photo that gets deleted for license violations. If the new photo is discussed and turns out to be acceptable under fair use, then we can always switch again later if desired. --RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it seems unlikely for the new image to be free; not to speak ill of the dead but Mme. Rand is not looking her best for a teenager. The older image is, I think of superior quality, with the subject looking straight on into the camera, no grainy quality, and good framing. I might prefer a picture in which she was staring defiantly Roark-like at something, but a smile is fine too. On a somewhat related note, if anyone knows of any good free images that might be used to illustrate the Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Literary reception/academia (sub)sections, it would be of great benefit to the article. I understand at one point American film trailers were in the public domain, so perhaps something from one of the adaptations of Rand's work might be available.  Skomorokh  18:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As an update, I have confirmed that the new photo was taken for use on the back cover of the first edition of Atlas Shrugged in 1957. (To be precise, the image as uploaded is a portion of the original.) I have not been able to find exact information on who the copyright holder is, but it is most likely either the publisher or Rand's estate, or possibly the photographer. In any case, it's not in the public domain. I like the photo itself. I think the upward-looking pose may be an allusion to a photo that is taken of Roark in The Fountainhead. However, the quality of the file is poor compared to the image we've been using. --RL0919 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "On a somewhat related note, if anyone knows of any good free images that might be used to illustrate the Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged/Literary reception/academia (sub)sections, it would be of great benefit to the article."

You mean like one critic smiling and another frowning? In any case, it would be of no benefit whatsoever to the article. TheScotch (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism bad

This:

Rand rejected anarcho-capitalism as "a contradiction in terms", a point on which she has been criticized for from self-avowed anarchist Objectivists such as Roy Childs, and by philosophers such as Chandran Kukathas, who characterized her political views as "ill-thought out and unsystematic.

I'm curious, does Chadran Kukathas actually criticize Rand for her opposition to Anarcho-Capitalism? Even if the answer is yes, it sounds like the criticism is broader than just rejection of Anarcho-Capitalism and that the above is mis-leading. --Karbinski (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Kukathas text can be found here on page 54. A more complete quote is as follows: "Rand's political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic." Kukathas's comments may be how the idea she was "hostile towards the state" made its way into the article previously. If so, it would be appropriate to attribute that more directly rather than simply stating it as if it were fact, since you are correct that she was not hostile towards the state as such, only towards state violations of individual rights.

I should also note that this text refers to The Virtue of Selfishness as a "novel" published in 1974. The date could easily be taken as a typo for 1964, but calling it a novel puts me in doubt as to what level of research and editing went into this entry. It also seems a bit odd to say her "political theory is of little interest", when that seems to be the aspect of her philosophy that generates the greatest interest. Still, the idea that there is some sort of tension between Rand's views about the state (or at least some interpretations thereof) and her rejection of anarchism is somewhat widely held, so it would be appropriate to quote someone about it, and Kukathas can at least do until something better is located. --RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Kukathas' declaration that Rand's political views are uninteresting is aimed at a philosophical rather than popular audience.  Skomorokh  22:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also

Recently, I added a "See also" section that linked to the articles American philosophy and List of American philosophers. This edit was quickly reverted by User:Skomorokh. He stated that See also sections "are for articles of crucial relevance to the topic at hand that for whatever reason have not been linked to in the body of the article. There are hundreds of pages as relevant as American philosophy that could be added to these articles, and none of them would be appropriate". I object to this for several reasons:

(1) Ayn Rand was an important philosopher of the 20th century in the United States. The best line of argument against this is that she is not "American enough", which I am not sure would stand up. Her relevance and influence in American philosophy, and the amount of time she spent in the United States I think safely lands her in this category.

(2) Ayn Rand is on the list of American philosophers and there is also a paragraph devoted to her and Objectivist philosophy in the article American philosophy. Her importance to these topics is very manifest, and, since they were not linked elsewhere in the article (that I could find), I found it appropriate to link them in the See also section. What do other people think? JEN9841 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ayn Rand is in the Category:American philosophers. Should she be removed from this along with all of the other "American" categories she is in...i.e., Category:American anti-communists, Category:American dramatists and playwrights, Category:American essayists, Category:American novelists, and Category:American screenwriters? Is she not "American" enough to have American philosophy in the See also, or is she not "philosophical" enough?.

The article is in Category:American philosophers, and that is sufficient navigation for our purposes. She's American enough for me, just not philosophical enough. I don't really begrudge her supporters wanting to write her into American philosophy so much. Perhaps wikilinking [[American philosophy|United States]] in the first paragraph will suffice? Ideally anything added to a see also section should just be written into the article in general. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What about List of American philosophers? Should she be removed from the list, and, if not, where in the article would it (if it all) be appropriate to link this? JEN9841 (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am not a supporter trying to write her into American philosophy. I am well aware that she lacks the respect in traditional academic circles that other philosophers have, but I do think including her provides the best perspective on the subject for the reader who is not privy to the ins and outs of rigorous academic philosophy. JEN9841 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would beg all involved to please for the love of all that is holy not reopen the issue of whether Rand is a philosopher. That road leads only to pain, suffering, and the Dark Side (TM). TallNapoleon (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can consider Rand as simply one example of a generalized situation, without getting into the "is she/isn't she" argument. I would see the generalized situation as this: Is it common for "List of X" to appear in the See Also section, if the subject of the article is on the list? My vague impression is that this is not particularly common, but I haven't really been looking for it. Does anyone know if there are guidelines or precedents in this area? If there is an established way to handle the general situation, we can simply apply that to this article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I am familiar with a written Wikipedia policy. But if we take a look at well trafficked pages (which I think would adhere to policy given the attention that they have; perhaps this is an adventurous assumption that I could be criticized on) I think it could be illuminating. Look at the pages for the four tallest buildings in the world: Burj Dubai, Taipei 101, Shanghai World Financial Center, and International Commerce Centre. All of these pages link to other "List of..." pages that they are on. Within the "See also" section for the page for Burj Dubai, for example, links to nine other Wikipedia entries that are List pages. Peruse through the entires for the buildings listed on List of tallest buildings in the world and you will observe that this occurs on the other pages. I think, therefore, at least, as long as Ayn Rand is listed on the page List of American philosophers there should be a link to it from her page. Putting this link in the see also section does not seem unreasonable. JEN9841 (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The situation with including list articles in See Also seems inconsistent at best. Another list that includes Rand is List of novelists from the United States. Just checking the 'R' section, there are 40 entries. Of these only Rand and one other have a See Also with any list articles -- and neither of those include List of novelists from the United States. Furthermore, Rand is included on over 30 other lists. It doesn't seem reasonable to include them all in See Also (perhaps you disagree), so if any are to be included, we should consider criteria for inclusion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with having a robust See also section. The See also section for the entry on Charles Sanders Peirce has over 30 wikilinks in it. A modest criteria for inclusion, is, however, also acceptable. What might we use to determine what is to be included and what not? Also, perhaps you could give me an idea of the other lists that Ayn Rand is on. JEN9841 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the list of lists that link to the Ayn Rand article. I haven't checked them all, but I've only included ones where I assume she is an entry on the list, not just linked incidentally (such as lists that would include one of her novels). --RL0919 (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• List of aestheticians
• List of American philosophers
• List of anti-fascists
• List of authors by name: R
• List of authors of Macmillan Publishing (United States)
• List of Belarusian Jews
• List of critics of the New Deal
• List of epistemologists
• List of ethicists
• List of female philosophers
• List of Jewish American authors
• List of Jewish American philosophers
• List of Jews born in the former Russian Empire
• List of Johns Hopkins University people
• List of liberal theorists
• List of nontheists (authors)
• List of nontheists (philosophy)
• List of nontheists (surnames R to S)
• List of novelists from the United States

• List of opponents of slavery
• List of pen names
• List of people from Saint Petersburg
• List of people in Playboy 1960–1969
• List of people on stamps of the United States
• List of philatelists
• List of philosophers (R–Z)
• List of philosophers born in the twentieth century
• List of playwrights from the United States
• List of political philosophers
• List of romantics
• List of Russian Americans
• List of Russian language writers
• List of Russians
• List of Saint Petersburg State University people
• List of social and political philosophers
• List of Syracuse University people
• List of women writers
• List of writers influenced by Aristotle

Tallest buildings lend themsleves to being ranked, and therefore what lists they are on may be somewhat relevant. People lend themsleves to biography and legacy, and therefore articles that offer up biography and legacy would be somewhat relevant. What lists within Wiki-pedia Ayn Rand, or David Hume for that matter (for example), are on is not relevant. --Karbinski (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing rankings are not the only reason we have lists. Rankings are not the primary reason for having list articles at all. Lists are mostly used to aggregate information that possess similarity. We cannot assume what the intentions are of people browsing the pages of this Encyclopedia. What the above posts show is that it seems unreasonable to include all of the lists that Ayn Rand is on in her See also section. But, from the fact that not all of the List pages should be included it does not follow that none of them should be. Some of these lists I would argue would be relevant and even crucial to people doing research on this page, such as List of Russian Americans, List of female philosophers, List of American philosophers, List of critics of the New Deal , etc. Some seem less important to the content of the article, such as List of people in Playboy 1960–1969 and List of people on stamps of the United States. I would argue that we could establish a criteria of inclusion (based on relevance to the material), where we could compile perhaps 8-10 list pages that would be appropriate. JEN9841 (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and honestly I don't see contents of the list articles as having a significant relationship to Rand. She may belong on most of the lists, but what does going to the page to discover that X is also an American philosopher or a woman novelist or has a pen name really tell us about Ayn Rand? There are categories to help users navigate to other articles on similar subjects. The most closely related articles that might normally go into See Also appear to be handled in the footer, sidebar and hatnote templates, so there is no clear reason to have any See Also. However, if there are regular, non-list articles that you think are relevant for See Also, then we should discuss those separately, because I would consider that an entirely different situation from the lists. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I see absolutely no point to the "List of..." articles, since the categories listings should help find other American philosophers (or whatever) if people need them. I will also point that the goal is not to have a "see also" section at all, since a comprehensive article would have all relevant links as part of the text of the article. The plan should be to empty this section as the article improves, not fill it up. See WP:SEEALSO--Slp1 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since I am alone in my position about the List pages, what about linking a non-list page like American philosophy? JEN9841 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The point about a link is that it allows someone to follow through on a subject they are interested in. So Objectivism (Ayn Rand) makes sense as do other articles associated with those influenced by her. I can't see the case for American philosophy. --Snowded ^TALK 04:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article shouldn't index more general topics. As indicated above, *specific* topics like Objectivism should be linked from the article, but general topics such as American Philosophy are not going to elaborate on Ayn Rand - they may mention her, but that is not elaboration. --Karbinski (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It may not elaborate on her, but it provides relevant scope and context to the article at hand. If it is inappropriate to link to articles that provide relevant scope and context, then I am wrong, but I would argue that a survey article of American philosophy provides relevant contextual evaluation of Ayn Rand in particular and Objectivism in general. JEN9841 (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The scope and context of this article is self-contained. That there has been philosophy developed in America hardly adds context to Ayn Rand's biography. --Karbinski (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/15/782252/-Sociopathy-on-the-Right:-Ayn-Rand-and-the-Triumph-of-Conservative-Cultism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.174 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pull quote

Since I find it a little odd for multiple editors to go back and forth with edits that each challenge the others to take the matter to the talk page, without anyone actually taking it to the talk page, I guess I'll take the plunge. I think there are two issues here: First, should the quote from The Philosophical Lexicon be included in the article at all? Second, if it is included, should it be given prominence by making it a pull quote, as was first done in this edit by Skomorokh?

For the first question, I do not object to a quote from that particular site being in the article. A shorter quote from it was already present before Skomorokh "promoted" it, in a paragraph that also discussed other humorous takes on Rand. This is one aspect of her public profile, and as long as the site is recognized for what it is (a satire, not a serious "philosophical lexicon"), it seems an appropriate enough example.

I'm less inclined toward using it for a pull quote. It is clearly not a neutral commentary on Rand, yet there is no other pull quote in the entire article to provide any degree of balance. Its use as a pull quote also seems to elevate the significance of this source, which is a website of marginal notability, made significant primarily by the fact that it was created by Daniel Dennett. So while I appreciate the effort to provide a degree of visual interest within the article (something it needs if we want to take it to featured article status someday), this particular pull quote isn't the best way to do it.

So to sum up, I favor "demoting" this material back to its previous role as an example in regular body text. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with that --Snowded ^TALK 15:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Exciting times

Why Ayn Rand is Hot Again. Once this dies down (six months? a year?), there will have been written a great deal of less-superficial-than-usual coverage of Rand which will be very useful in overhauling the article and hopefully replacing the references of dubious quality.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Trouble in paradise?

After months of pacific editing here, we now have POV tags and mass reverts. What's the problem?  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned that two edit summaries have mentioned POV issues, without giving any specifics. Considering that the current state of the article represents the work of people with widely differing views of the subject, it is impossible to know what the complaint is without more details. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the recent WP:BOLD change was a good step towards integrating all of the information on Rand that has gotten buried in forks, so I support it. The article wasn't the result of healthy compromise, it was in a rut due to many stalemates between people who either love or hate Rand too much. Phil Spectre (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The "rut" has good article status and is mostly sourced from commercial and academic sources instead of the non-reliable websites that were often used in older versions. The old version wasn't even particularly well copyedited. It is not necessary to revert many dozens of positive changes in order to re-introduce particular material, if you think it provides something lost. But the "forks" exist for good reasons, so we don't want to try to combine every topic that touches on Rand into this article. --RL0919 (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

They exist for a reason, but I'm not convinced it's a good one. It's hard not to notice that the WP:BOLD version is more balanced, while the one you favor hides much of the negative material in WP:POVFORK's. While I'm generally positive towards Rand, I don't think we should be evading reality by concealing the rest. If we do that, we'd be giving support to the long-standing accusations of cultism. Phil Spectre (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

How are the sub-articles POV-forks exactly? As for hiding negative material, the critical content of this article (Literary reception and Academia sections) is overwhelmingly negative.  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Family emigration efforts

In this edit, CABlankenship (talk · contribs) requested a citation for the sentence "She made attempts to bring her parents and sisters to the United States, but they were unable to get permission to emigrate." I've provided two sources, but the situation is slightly complicated, so I thought it worth explaining in case anyone thinks the wording of the sentence may need to be adjusted. Heller says that when Rand became a citizen in 1931, she began making efforts at "obtaining immigration visas for all four members of her family". According to Britting's Ayn Rand, she attempted to get her sister Nora into an American university. These efforts failed. When she became a successful writer in 1936, she began trying again. By that point her sisters had lost interest in emigrating (one had married), but her parents still wanted to. They were again refused permission. These two sets of efforts are what is referred to in the sentence and the associated citations. Shortly after the last failed attempt, Rand lost contact with her family.

In the 1970s, Rand discovered that Nora was still alive, and again tried to get her to emigrate to the US. However, a visit by Nora and her husband to the US went very poorly, and they returned home to the Soviet Union. If Rand was "bitterly disappointed" by a refusal of family members to emigrate, it was probably this one, but without more context it is hard to know what CABlankenship's unnamed source is referring to. This incident happened at a much later time in Rand's life than what is discussed in the "Early life" section, and it is not discussed in the article at all, although I believe it was in some previous versions. Anyhow, I hope the additional information helps to clarify. --RL0919 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the clarification. The passage is still somewhat misleading, but not in a serious way. CABlankenship (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

pro-choice activist?

I don't know enough about AR to know if she should be considerd one, but if she should we should add the category American_pro-choice_activists.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

She openly supported the right to have an abortion, but the description of the category at Category:American pro-choice activists says that it is "for activists who are primarily notable due to their pro-choice activism" and "not a list of anyone who is pro-choice". Rand's notability is not in any way based on her position on this issue, so she doesn't seem to belong in the category. --RL0919 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

everyone has a limit

I stepped in here undecided about issues like the "American Philosphers" debate above, but I just gotta say, "Deaths by Heart Failure"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacrito (talk • contribs) 11:32, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

Sacrificing others

Karbinski argues that my recent additions to the philosophy section are original research. To the contrary, the "contrast" between Rand's early views and her later views (which came into increased "conformity" with "Anglo-Saxon liberalism") is supported by the Merrill and Steele references. This "contrast" is really quite remarkable, particularly if we view the entire discussion from the novel. For instance, Kira, speaking of the communist style of leadership, says: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them. Except that I don't know, however, whether I'd include blood in my methods." Andrei replies, "Why not? Anyone can sacrifice his own life for an idea. How many know the devotion that makes you capable of sacrificing other lives? Horrible, isn't it?" Kira's counter brings this contrast into clear display: "Not at all. Admirable. If you're right. But are you right?" Merrill notes that this stands in absolute contrast to her later views, which were more in keeping with Western liberalism. Even Stephen Hicks of the Objectivist Center notes that "This exchange supports the idea that Kira believes the weaker Nietzschean thesis: the sacrifice of others is justifiable." CABlankenship (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Rand's intellectual development, including any real or theorized changes in her views, is a legitimate topic to discuss in the article, although I do have to say this particular insertion is rather awkward. Given that there are now multiple academic studies of Rand's intellectual development (Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, Goddess of the Market, the Essays on ... series edited by Robert Mayhew, etc.), we should be able to provide section specifically on that topic, without slapping a demonstrative passage about it into the middle of a description of her philosophy. My suggestion is to create an "Ideas" section with "Philosophy" and "Intellectual development" as its subsections. Then we can gather all the bits about her intellectual development (including this passage) from around the article into one place. --RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I'm sure that some apologetics regarding those passages can be found in Objectivist literature. Such things could be added. I believe that this topic is relatively important, given that Rand is often accused of moving from an explicit advocacy of ruthless elitism to a more implicit position (such as in Atlas Shrugged). CABlankenship (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the source is unreliable (I don't know), nor that the transition from an earlier set of ideas to the set of ideas now known as Objectivism isn't relevant. I'm saying that as presented its OR.

The source doesn't even say anything close to: "The view that one should not sacrifice others stands in marked contrast to her earliest works upon arriving in America." It certainly has something to say about the revision, but not that. I'm deleting it again, because as it stands its OR. --Karbinski (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski, please be reasonable. I've now provided three sources supporting the point that the views presented by Rand in We the Living stand in contrast to her later positions. It is clearly not OR. CABlankenship (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the passage. However, your assertion that it is original research and not supported by my sources is manifestly false. Both Steele and Merrill explicitly say that the passages conflict with her later views, and Hicks acknowledges that the passages support such a conclusion. CABlankenship (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the first edition of We the Living represents different views than what Rand later espoused, and that she understated the changes when she revised the novel, is an issue that has been discussed in multiple sources. There is already some coverage of the topic at We the Living#Revised edition, so you might want to review that. I don't think there is an inherent problem with discussing the topic, but we do need to think about where and how it should be discussed. Putting a blockquote and discussion about the first edition of We the Living into the middle of a passage that describe her mature philosophy doesn't do much for the flow of the article. I'd prefer to see the matter 1) summarized (with a wikilink to the WTL article for more details) and 2) placed in a section where it belongs rather than intrudes. --RL0919 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me try another edit, then. CABlankenship (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A whole lot closer to the mark. As for place, how about tying it in with the formation of her philosophy instead of hooking it on to her final views on sacrifice? The current point of view implies that Objectivism may not be absolute on the point of sacrificing others to self as morally wrong. --Karbinski (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved the content to reside alongside the reference to her early affinity for Nietzschean ideas so that the context matches the context of the sources. Named the philosophers to be non-weasel wordy. For word-smithing I removed "percieved," as they instead concluded and changed "conflict" to "difference" as replacing old ideas with new ones doesn't constitute a conflict, but rather resolves conflict. --Karbinski (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK for now. I still think a distinct subsection on intellectual development is a good idea, but there's no rush. I expect to finish (finally) Ayn Rand and the World She Made while I'm on vacation next week. I may mull over some ideas for article improvements at the same time. Try not to revert the article to a version from six months ago while I'm gone. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden affair

I find the portrayal of Rand's relationship with Branden to be a little one-sided. Branden has expressed many criticisms of Rand and yet the article tells of the affair, its end and Rand's own view of Branden, without giving his opinion of the situation. surely a quote from him would be appropriate. 213.123.138.116 (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He wrote a whole book about their relationship (Judgment Day: My Years with Ayn Rand), so getting his take on things shouldn't be difficult. Could someone who has the book handy add a quote to the article? —D. Monack ^talk 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Polemical Cruft

Since morals do not exist in nature but are only inventions of human behaviour so that no objective standard may be applied to them, "... The great flaw in her philosophy is the belief that morals can be held to some absolute standard or criteria."<ref>{{cite book |last=Shermer |first=Michael |title=Why people believe weird things |page=123 |year=1997 |publisher=Macmillan |isbn=0805070897}}</ref>

This is simply a presentation of the subjectivist point of view - its not a criticism. "Objectivism is at odds with subjectivism" is not a criticism, its a fact. The POV that subjectivism is true and Objectivism is false (or greatly flawed cuz it ain't subjectivist) has no place in the article. Karbinski (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm, its at least arguable that as the reference has been there for a week then WP:BRD means you should have made the case for removal here, rather than reverting but never mind. I think the material is worth while, but might be better elsewhere in the article with some improvement to the wording. Michael Shermer's views are at least as significant as many of those referenced in support of her ideas whose statements are as, if not more subjectivist in nature. As it happens I think the statement is wrong, morals can be objective (but not in the sense of Rand), but its noteworthy as a statement. --Snowded ^TALK 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As originally worded, the passage made it sound like Shermer's claim about morality was a known fact, which isn't appropriate. But properly reworded, I don't see a problem with Shermer's criticism appearing somewhere in a WP article. The bigger problem, however, is that the "Philosophy" section of this article really ought to be a summary of the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and additions of detail should probably happen in that article. --RL0919 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree in general, the problem is where. There isn't a criticism section, it does not really belong in academic reception. Most other criticism is in the relevant section. Maybe reworded into the final paragraph of philosophy which does contain other critical comments.--Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that it belongs in Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Criticisms. There seems to be an ongoing difficulty between the desire to cram everything related to Objectivism into the Ayn Rand article, and an opposing desire to create a bazillion separate articles on every subtopic (Objectivist ethics, Objectivist politics, Objectivism and homosexuality, etc.). I don't support the latter, but the former is also bad. I support keeping most discussion of the philosophy in Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Given that this is a coordination issue, I'm wondering if the discussion should be moved to the cross-talk page? --RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that makes a lot more sense. I would imagine that anyone interested in any of the articles has this on watch so lets see what others say --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree too.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Suggestions

Forgive the intrusion gentlemen but is anyone ever going to add a little clarification section on first principles (ie A=A) and Axiology? Also maybe a section on enlightened self interest and how it played into both the objectivist (Rand)and revolutionary (What Is to Be Done? (novel)) movements of the USA and Russia.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The first idea sounds better suited to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The latter suggestion sounds like it goes beyond any Objectivism-specific article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

i.e. Kinda around this which is/from in the enlightened self interest article.

Rational selfishness

Rational selfishness is a term generally related to Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, and refers to a person's efforts to look after their own well-being, to cultivate the self and achieve goals for the good of the self. The focus in rational selfishness might be considered to be more self-directed (where the benefit to the group or society is a by-product) than the focus of enlightened self-interest which is more group-directed (and the benefit to oneself might be more of the by-product).LoveMonkey (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

National Review Greenspan letter-to-the-editor

Alright, how about mentioning that such a letter exists. The mere mention of it could appear just after "... To a gas chamber - go!", for example. The letter does not have to be quoted wholly or in part but Buckley's book could be cited as third party. The fact that the letter exists is enough to grant it the importance of encyclopedia caliber. The whole thing would read something like this: "... In response, Greenspan wrote a letter-to-the-editor." <ref, etc. JDPhD (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If the only source for the existence of such a letter is a novel, then no. Do you have a non-fiction source for this? --RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Oooh! Ooooooh! Sheeeeeet! Buckley's book is fiction. O. K. I hadn't seen that before. O.K. I'll take another look around. Thanks!JDPhD (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well so far, there is nothing by Greenspan but there is an "unpublished letter" by Peikoff. JDPhD (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a letter by Greenspan to The New York Times in answer to a critic, shortly after the publication of Atlas Shrugged.JDPhD (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is relevant content, but it is a bit detailed for this article (which tends to get over-inflated because it is the first article most people come to about Rand/Objectivism), so I've taken the liberty of moving both passages to the Atlas Shrugged article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks!JDPhD (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of her first name?

A friend says, based on recordings, that she pronounced her name as "Ann", and he's sure of that. I hope that, if true, the IPA pronunciation, as given, takes that into account.

Regards, Nikevich (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick browse through five YouTube videos from the last millennium, all of which pronounced it as rhyming with "fine", consistent with our IPA version. example It would seem that your friend is mistaken or my sample size is too small...  Skomorokh  20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The IPA version is correct--it rhymes with fine: [1]. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

RL0919 has just reintroduced a series of references to minor writers and pop culture phenomena said to be influenced by Rand. I cannot see how Rand's influence on these particular minor writers (Terry Goodkind, etc) is of such importance that it absolutely must be mentioned here. Wouldn't there be many others who'd be equally important, or rather unimportant? And it does Rand an appalling disservice to talk about the influence of her ideas on videogames, of all things. How on earth does any philosophical idea have anything to do with a videogame, and what purpose can it serve to even mention it? UserVOBO (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, it should only be significant writers etc. However as RL0919 said the fan club tend to what lots and lots of lists. However now maybe a time to make a stand and simplify it so you have my support --Snowded ^TALK 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

BioShock is a very notable video game, having won numerous awards and having had numerous press articles mention its connection with Objectivism. I think it's appropriate to include. Goodkind and Ditko are both fairly notable writers, and Neil Peart is a very notable musician. I would actually add James Clavell to the list, since as I understand it he was strongly influenced by Rand, at least stylistically. Some of the more minor authors can be culled, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the article used as a source for the connection with Rand in Bioshock, the game is supposed to be some kind of critique or satire of Objectivism. So it's not an example of Rand's influence except in a negative sense. The way it is mentioned in the article is extremely misleading; it should be removed outright. There is no point in mentioning writers allegedly influenced by Rand unless she was genuinely a major influence on them, and I'm not convinced that's the case here. UserVOBO (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's absolutely both inspired by and a critique of Objectivism--and I would have absolutely no problem with the article saying that. I agree that it would be misleading to simply say "it was influenced by Rand". TallNapoleon (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is perhaps hard to sort out from the diff, but the content I added back consisted of two sentences (with supporting refnotes): "Other authors and artists, such as Steve Ditko, Terry Goodkind, and Neil Peart, have also cited her as an influence." and "The BioShock video game series includes elements inspired by Rand's ideas." So we aren't talking about a large amount of material. For Ditko, Goodkind and Peart, Rand's influence on them is substantial and widely discussed. Experience shows that if there is no mention of people who are well-known to be influenced by her, someone will add a mention. I think we are better off with a brief list that gives the most prominent names with quality citations, because what would be added into the vacuum would probably be something longer and less well cited. I did not add back mentions of persons where her influence is minor or not well-attested.

Similarly, that Rand's work is alluded to in BioShock is well known and likely to be back in later if we leave it out now. Also, mention of it fits the overall function of the paragraph (as currently written), which is to show that Rand is referenced in a wide variety of popular media. Whether mention of such allusions is "an appalling disservice" to her is a POV issue that has no bearing on what is proper article content. I personally don't think the way the sentence is worded implies anything about whether the reference is positive or negative, and the paragraph already contains a mixture of items that reference her both positively (Limbaugh, some of the tv shows) and negatively (Philosophical Lexicon, BioShock, some other tv shows). But if someone thinks it is misleading, it is easy to reword. --RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed appalling to mention a videogame in the article on Rand, since it's the kind of "influence" she would never have wanted to have, and doubtless she would have been appalled at it. However, I accept most of what you say, and I am in no rush to remove any of the material again. UserVOBO (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Err... what? — BRIAN0918 • 2010-02-13 18:56Z

"What" isn't a sentence, so I don't know what you're asking. UserVOBO (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What Rand would have wanted or thought is irrelevant--it's a major, notable thing that is clearly in large part inspired by her. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not so clear, give me a reference/source that actually mentions *what* is inspired by Ayn Rand's ideas/works. Anecdotally, indeed there is content that is superficially based upon Ayn Rand's work, but what is clear is that a set of ideas very different from Objectivism inspired the storyline, themes, and game-play. That said, I don't have any strong objections to the current entry - I'd prefer to drop the word "inspired." Karbinski (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has a few details on the game creator's interpretation. My understanding (I've never seen the game) is that there are also a number of minor allusions, such as references to character names on signs in the background. I'm not sure what the beef is with the word 'inspired'. It is a common word to use when an artist gets ideas for something from another source, no matter how they change and re-interpret it. For instance, Rand got inspiration for the character of Peter Keating from a woman she new. It hardly means that the portrayal is positive or that it closely matches the source. But there are lots of other possible phrasings if that word is a sticking point. --RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No actual "beef" as the source uses "inspiration." My objection is that inspiration denotes creativity whereas my evaluation is its more hack than creative in how it tries to relate to Objectivism (qua video game, its a good one). Karbinski (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied with this outcome. For example: although the infobox about Rand indicates that she influenced Robert A. Heinlein, he isn't mentioned in the rest of the article (I believe that this isn't how infoboxes are supposed to work, but I'm not acquainted with the relevant policy if there is one). Yet Goodkind is mentioned, though he is, surely, a less important figure than Heinlein, who has been compared in influence to Isaac Asimov or Arthur C. Clarke. It shows a lack of any sense of proportion to include Goodkind but not Heinlein; I would strongly suggest removing the mention of Goodkind and adding something about Heinlein. UserVOBO (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing of the "influenced" and "influences" sections of the infobox is a problem area. There nothing specific that says an item in the infobox needs to be mentioned in the body, but if it isn't then I think it needs its own sourcing. There is also a question of how strong the "influence" is in each case, and whether it is enough of an influence to warrant listing. Her influence on Goodkind is strong, undisputed and well-documented. Her influence on Heinlein, who was her contemporary, is less obvious. He was certainly aware of her work and alludes to it in some of his, but that in itself doesn't necessarily mean he was "influenced" by her. We should look for sources to actually qualify the relationship. I do agree that if there is a good source to show a significant influence, then Heinlein should be mentioned in the body as well as the infobox, due to his prominence. If there isn't a good source or her influence on him was minor, then he shouldn't be in either. I don't see that having much to do with whether Goodkind is mentioned, unless we think a list of three names in the relevant sentence is OK, but four would somehow be too many. --RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein and she were contemporaries. There is no evidence whatsoever that she influenced him in any way. 1. Heinlein, unlike Rand, could actually write fiction. His prose style was never affected by her stuff in the least. 2. He actually believed in altruism (vide Col. Baslim and others). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, to mention one obvious source, indicates that Heinlein was indeed influenced by Rand. See pages 419-420. Branden mentions, "science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, who has likened his political views to those of Ayn Rand and introduced a character in one of his novels called 'the John Galt of the revolution.'" And I certainly do think that it would be possible to mention too many people influenced by Rand; we have to draw the line somewhere. Orangemike's comment above asserting that Rand could not write is a cheap shot that doesn't deserve a response. UserVOBO (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For those questioning Rand's influence of Heinlein, see the Moon is A Harsh Mistress, which specifically alludes to Atlas Shrugged and Rand repeatedly. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We know he knew of her and that they had some similarities in their views in some areas. I'd be cautious about using Branden for this, because she gives a fairly long list of different people who acknowledged Rand in some way, but she was name-dropping more than qualifying the degree of influence Rand had on them. I would be much more comfortable with Heinlein on the list with Ditko, Gookind and Peart if there were a secondary source that explicitly discussed her influencing him. Or, based on The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, perhaps Heinlein belongs in the previous sentence, which talks about authors who have introduced references to Rand in their novels? That sentence does not directly address the idea of "influence", whereas the sentence that mentions Goodkind refers to those who have explicitly cited her as an influence. There is still the infobox to deal with, but it probably should be addressed more systematically. --RL0919 (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Branden talks about people Rand had an impact on; Heinlein is one of them. I don't see how impact is different from influence. UserVOBO (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Branden is not a reliable source on this. Of course Heinlein was aware of her; but that's a different thing entirely: everybody makes Rand references occasionally. As to the cheap shot: guilty as charged, and I apologize for introducing an esthetic judgment into the discussion. I just tire of people who treat her as if her fiction was actually readable and compare her fiction writing to that of somebody like Heinlein (or even John Ringo), regardless of what you think of her ideology. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, in your view, is Branden not a reliable source? It does seem to me that Heinlein was influenced by Rand; I have personally read numerous works of fiction that make no mention of Ayn Rand whatsoever. UserVOBO (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not speaking for Orangemike, my issue isn't Branden's reliability, but that the scant information she gives about Heinlein (as part of a long list of others) does not show influence of Rand as opposed to merely interest in Rand. 'Influence' normally means that the object of the influence was caused to change in some way: that Rand or her works caused a person to change their views, for example. I haven't seen any evidence of this for Heinlein. There's a lengthy interview with Heinlein by J. Neil Schulman (someone who definitely was influenced by Rand) where Heinlein never says anything to indicate influence by Rand, despite a number of points where she is mentioned and he could have talked about it. If Heinlein developed his beliefs, literary style, etc., independent of Rand, and then happened to read her and find her interesting, that isn't 'influence' of Rand on him. It would be like saying Brand Blanshard "influenced" Rand just because we know she read one of his books. --RL0919 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Branden has an obvious investment in portraying Rand as having an influence on as many people as possible. Her bare assertion, in the face of such evidence as the Shulman interview referenced just above this response, is not a [[:WP:RS]. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not find RL0919's arguments against Rand being an influence on Heinlein altogether convincing, but Orangemike has convinced me that Branden should probably not be treated as a reliable source in this case. Should Heinlein be removed from the infobox, perhaps? UserVOBO (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)