Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Close and Implement RfC

Can someone who knows how to go about such things get an admin to close and implement the RfC? μηδείς (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'default' for RfCs is 30 days. (Please note, the "is/is not" discussion at Talk:Ayn_Rand#Again.2C_not_a_philosopher started 6 August and picked up in earnest on 21 August.) Perhaps WP:SNOW can be applied. So you might look at WP:ANRFC. Otherwise, the show must go on. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was seven days. Roseanne Roseannadanna. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. 'Default' means the RfC gets dropped off the noticeboards after 30 days. Not that they do or should continue for 30 days. – S. Rich (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If there had been no new input for a while then an early close might be justifiable, but the discussion in this one is active, with new participants expressing preferences as recently as yesterday. I realize the discussion is somewhat one-sided (as of this posting, 10 participants favoring "philosopher" with no qualifier, 3 wanting a qualifier, and 1 suggesting alternative wording), but that alone isn't ground to close it now. WP:SNOW is for even more egregious situations, such as lone proponents pushing items that have been recently rejected in a lopsided way. That's something that might happen after this RFC, but it isn't the situation at the moment. Better to let the discussion run its course and then have it cleanly closed by a neutral party. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that having a neutral party close is a good idea. Arzel (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can't close what was never opened. However, an invalid RFC can be retracted and replaced with a legitimate RFC which consists of a brief, neutral question. That's my suggestion. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screeming "La la la la la la la" is not going to improve your argument. Arzel (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not listening to you; I'm following policy. MilesMoney (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You are still standing here reading my comments, but you are definately not following policy. At least you give the impression that you will not follow policy when the RfC is closed. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy says that this wasn't a legit RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the RfC must be closed as invalid

1. WP:RFC requires the opening statement to be neutral and brief. Yworo's started with two sentences selling his desired conclusion by inaccurately summarizing and framing the issue. This directly violated both requirements.

Much of the bias came from omission, such as failing to mention that every tertiary source goes on to explain that Rand was not a philosopher in the plain sense of the word, since she had no academic standing and was not accepted by academia.

Some of the bias came from the use of "opinion" to describe these qualifiers, when they are not opinions at all, but facts. For example, it is an uncontroversial and incontrovertible fact that Rand is a non-academic philosopher.

As a result of the bias in the opening statement, editors coming to this RfC started off with a biased understanding.

2. WP:RFC suggests that the opening statement is not owned by anyone and is subject to correction. It recommends asking someone else to write the statement for you if you aren't sure you can be neutral, or just doing your best and then inviting others to improve upon it.

When I tried to correct the bias in both the opening statement and the section header, Yworo edit-warred to retain the biased version. He then falsely accused me of violating WP:TPO, which explicitly allows changing text that is not owned by any editor.

As a result, the initial bias could not be corrected.

3.WP:RFC states that RfC's which are relevant in multiple categories are to be listed in all of them. Despite this, the RfC was listed only with WP:Requests for comment/Biographies, not WP:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy.

This omission meant that the RfC was advertised to editors with no particular interest in or knowledge of philosophy, meaning that they were not likely to understand the technical issues relevant to whether Rand could be called a philosopher. Instead, they were taken from the group that deals with WP:BLP issues and could be counted on to be particularly sensitive to the appearance of disparagement. (Not that BLP applies to dead people or that the suggested qualifiers were disparaging.)

As a result, the RfC was not brought to the attention of those most qualified to deal with it.

These are severe errors. Because of them, the attempted RfC excluded the editors most likely to be able to understand the technical issues in favor of those concerned with avoiding defamation, misinformed and biased those who came here, and therefore does not represent the consensus of a meaningful cross-section of editors. This can be confirmed by reading the stated reasons behind each vote and noting how many of them are inconsistent with policy.

I made a concerted effort to fix these errors so that we could have a meaningful RfC, but Yworo prevented me from doing so. As a result, all that remains is to declare this RfC invalid due to non-compliance with policy and start over again, only following policy this time. MilesMoney (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Three sentences is brief enough. Numerous RFCs have longer openings than that. Your own revision of the statement was even longer, and more augmentative. The only mild bias in the initial wording was in referring to the qualifiers as "opinion". That's hardly enough to throw off the many experienced editors participating in the RFC, especially when you have personally responded to every single participant (save one) who did not endorse your position, often engaging in extended discussions with them. You cannot plausibly claim they are giving their opinion based solely on the RFC opening statement. As to topic placement, that was easy to fix, but you didn't even try to. The RFC is only half over, so I guess we'll see if the additional topic placement has any material impact. You are also free to notify various wikiprojects (if you can muster a neutral notification per WP:CANVASS), but have not. Regardless, it isn't particularly relevant to complain about your changes being reverted when they didn't address any of the concerns you think "invalidate" the RFC: they didn't make the intro shorter or less biased (just biased in a different direction), and they didn't add it to any more topics. Basically you've just used the reversion as a justification for ignoring the opinions of the majority of participants in the discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RL, it would be very easy for me to debunk your comments. For example, if you thought my version went too far in the opposite direction, why didn't you make it neutral as opposed to restoring the original? Yeah, hard question and you have no answer. I'm willing to discuss all of my points with an admin who's here to close down this mess, but I don't believe it would be productive to keep on repeating myself with you. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't restore the original; Yworo did. I said it didn't matter much which wording was used. Sensible editors can see past minor biases in wording. --RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To declare the RfC invalid, you will need a consensus of respondants saying so. You ain't got that, and never will. You need to get a new hobby other than attempting to force this article to your preferred wording. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles waiting for your expertise, Miles. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, actually, we don't. Please read policy. MilesMoney (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ending the War on Philosophy.

At some point, the RFC will expire and it's going to lead to a mess. Since its opening statement directly violates WP:RFC by being long and prejudicial, it's not going to be universally accepted as binding, which will put us right back where we began. We can expect the article to be frozen on and off for extended periods, stymying all our efforts to gradually improve it.

In the meantime, Rich and I brokered an alternative that finally puts an end to years of fighting that stems from calling her a philosopher in the lede. It would look something like this:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career wrote philosophical essays aimed at the general public.

Nobody denies that she wrote these essays, but this wording avoids deciding whether writing them makes her a philosopher, an amateur philosopher, a popular philosopher, a novelist-philosopher, the best philosopher ever, or the second coming of Hitler. It's neutral, it's factual, it's uncontroversial. It's a compromise that doesn't please everyone, but avoids the RFC mess entirely and lets us get back to work. I endorse it. MilesMoney (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is preposterous. I am utterly opposed to it. It's simply another misguided effort to avoid calling Rand a philosopher, and it's downright bizarre - there is no meaningful sense in which writing "philosophical essays" is not the same as being a philosopher. The proposed wording is not even factually accurate - Rand undoubtedly wanted both the general public and professional philosophers to read her work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've written philosophical essays, even polemical ones, but it would be preposterous to call me a philosopher. Maybe I'd qualify as an amateur philosopher, but that's stretching it a bit. MilesMoney (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Try addressing the issue seriously. It's not relevant what you have or haven't written (and your opinion that something you wrote qualifies as a "philosophical essay" may not necessarily be shared by others). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm using myself as an example to prove a point: just writing a philosophical essay doesn't make someone a professional philosopher. Having it published by a peer-reviewed periodical might be an indicator, but I think we both know that Rand was ignored by academia during her lifetime. MilesMoney (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, that lead sentence does not mention Objectivism, which seems to be rather significant. Michipedian (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that's a fair criticism. We should definitely mention Objectivism prominently. Let's try:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was an American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter. Later in her career, she extended the political ideas in her novels into polemical philosophical essays aimed at the general public, which formed the basis for Objectivism.

There's room for improvement here, but I think it satisfied your requirements. MilesMoney (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's on the right track, although Objectivism entails considerably more than the political ideas in her novels. It also fails to encapsulate the movement behind Objectivism, with which Rand is very much associated. I think something like this may be better:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, screenwriter, and essayist. She is most widely known for her two best selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system that she called Objectivism.

I'm not sure how Objectivists would feel about this intro, but I think that from a WP:NPOV, it works. Michipedian (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It's an absurd, tortured attempt to avoid the obvious. The RfC will close soon, we'll revert to going by the sources, and this incessant disruption will cease. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no RFC. There was never an RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely endorse the comment by Medeis above. Pretending there is no RFC won't help. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What makes something a binding RFC is that it follows WP:RFC. From the start, it violated these rules, and my efforts to fix this were refused. As a result, what remains fails to meet the requirements for an RFC. If you disagree, explain how even the opening statement is consistent with what that policy requires. MilesMoney (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't actually have to care how they feel so long as those feelings conflict with policy. It looks fine. MilesMoney (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. One thought I had was that we could include the fact that some consider her a philosopher while others do not. I feel that a sentence in the lead that addresses this would be helpful as it characterizes the divide in public opinion of her. Michipedian (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and in fact have supported similar changes, but it's something you can expect her fans to fight to the last. A few of them piled on here and refused to accept that we have extremely good sources that call her an amateur philosopher. Now consider how they'll react to her not being called a philosopher at all.

My view is that she's "some sort of" philosopher, but not simply a philosopher, the way someone with a proper degree might be. I'm ok with calling her a philosopher so long as we qualify it, and I'm ok with avoiding the issue through sentences like the ones you suggested. I just don't want to lie to readers by making them think she was a philosopher in the plain sense of the word. MilesMoney (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all of that. The problem with descriptive words like "amateur", "untrained", or "non-academic" is that they come off as belittling. I think being honest about the fact that her status as a philosopher is contested may be the fairest way of writing the lead. Maybe with a sentence like:

Many consider her a philosopher, although some contest this title as she was not an academic.

Just a thought. Michipedian (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they're belittling, but even if they were, there's actually no prohibition against that. If anything, our requirement for neutrality is defined with regard to mainstream sources, and since academic philosophers routinely belittle her as incompetent or worse, we are obligated to reflect their views.

However we phrase it, we must make it completely clear that she was not a philosopher in the sense that someone might expect if we just used that word alone. She had no training, nor equivalent knowledge, and she was rejected by those in the field. There's no way to say this without offending some of her fans, but we're not here to lie about her to make her sound better than she was. MilesMoney (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Is there a way we could get an official definition of "amateur philosopher" on Wikipedia? Then people will know this is a factual designation and will not be constantly at risk for being edited. Michipedian (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what's needed is a strong reliable source, and we have one. I've copied and pasted the relevant part here.

There was some disagreement over whether we could call Rand a "popular philosopher", where my concern was that the term was ambiguous. Besides its technical meaning, it could very easily be misunderstood as saying she was popular, which is true but irrelevant. Even its technical meaning, which is what that article I linked to is about, admits to three different senses of the term.

According to the article, the sense that applies to Rand is that she's an amateur. The summary of why amounts to what I said earlier: she lacks the training or equivalent knowledge, and is not accepted as a professional philosopher by professional philosophers. But read for yourself. MilesMoney (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, according to that definition, Rand was certainly an amateur. I'm not sure about including this in the lead though because one might ask why we don't call Descartes and Hume amateur philosophers in their introductions. Michipedian (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The OCP article explains why the category wouldn't apply to them:

"amateur philosophy, presupposes the existence of professional philosophy to define itself against [...] In that last gap all notable philosophers, from Descartes to Hume, were, formally, amateurs. Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education."

They're only amateurs formally, whereas Rand's amateur status is not just a formality. MilesMoney (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're right on that point. Well I think that is a pretty solid definition. It should be clarified though that if her views were ever to catch on in academia, she may be at the ranks of simply a philosopher, as the article you cited clarifies for Coleridge. That being said, with her current status, she should not be called a philosopher without qualification.

This then raises the question of whether or not Objectivism be considered an amateur philosophy. Albeit few, there are professional philosophers who fully advocate for Objectivism. (Leonard Peikoff, for example.) Does that qualify her philosophy as professional? Michipedian (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand will remain an amateur, regardless, because she's not going to get a doctorate from beyond the grave. Objectivism started as an amateur philosophy made by an amateur philosopher but it can be plausibly argued that Peikoff and others have since renovated it until it meets the basic standards for a philosophical system that can be addressed by academia. This is what I most recently wrote for the lede of Objectivism (Ayn Rand). MilesMoney (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this classification is the opinion of one source. There are many sources, including other encyclopedias of philosophy, that call her a philosopher without any "amateur" designation. (See the lists here for multiple references.) Promoting the opinion of one source in the lead as if were simple fact is not appropriate, as the clear majority of participants in the RFC have affirmed. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, did not know about that. I don't know. Michipedian (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mich, meet RL. He's a great big fan of Rand; even runs a web site that's a shrine dedicated to her memory. He has strong opinions about all things Rand, yet these sometimes deviate from reality. For example, he's wrong about this issue.

Yes, some other sources do call her a philosopher, but they typically go on to explain that she's not a philosopher in the plain sense of the word. Academic philosophers also tend to judge her very harshly, due to issues of basic competence.

I alluded to this earlier, in the context of how she's often called a "popular philosopher", which we can now decode to mean amateur. RL doesn't like it, but he can't deny that it's well-sourced.

As always, I recommend testing all claims that you find suspect, and even some you don't, just to keep everyone honest. MilesMoney (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, checking the other sources is a good idea. I've included a number of quotes. She certainly wasn't an academic or writing primarily for academic audiences, and no one claims she was. So an acknowledgement of that in the lead, through a term such as "popular philosopher" or "non-academic philosopher" would be fine with me, but Miles and others in the RFC minority have repeatedly denounced such phrasings as being too flattering to Rand. She is in fact called a "popular philosopher" in a number of sources. 'Popular' doesn't mean 'amateur' in general parlance -- it would mean either "targeting a general audience rather than specialists" or "widely liked". The source that brings the two terms together is the same one being relied on for the "amateur" designation in the first place. So we're back to the problem of promoting the views of one source in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think "non-academic philosopher" is pretty fair. It doesn't have any confusing connotations (like "amateur" and "popular"), and it is clear what it means. It seems that people on both sides of the debate would be OK with this, as well. The lead sentence would then start out with something like:

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/; born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-American playwright, screenwriter, novelist, and non-academic philosopher. She is most widely known for her two best selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system that she called Objectivism.

Thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out previously, the OCP article distinguishes between the non-academic and the amateur. It offers examples of non-academics who are nonetheless professional. It then pointedly excludes Rand from this list. I don't see why we should ignore this reliable source by using a term that is more ambiguous. MilesMoney (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the amateur distinction seems to be the lack of reliable sources that use this term. Do you know of other sources that have the amateur classification? Michipedian (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't let RL convince you that the bar is impossibly high. Nowhere in policy does it say that we need more than one reliable source using a specific word in order to include it. In fact, we don't need any at all.

Editors are free to accurately summarize these sources, as opposed to quoting them. Plenty of sources say, in a variety of ways, that Rand is not an academic philosopher both because she lacks the education and the associated skills. For example, the SEP says:

"For all her popularity, however, only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed, journals, or in books, and the bibliography reflects this fact."

I would say it is entirely fair to summarize this as "amateur". MilesMoney (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree with that, honestly. Why are you opposed to using something less controversial, like "non-academic"? It seems like "amateur" is technically true according to this one source but has insulting connotations. "Non-academic" does not have bad connotations, is factually true, has a clear definition (unlike "amateur", which would most likely require people to view the source to understand what it means), and pro-Rand people have accepted it. Michipedian (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Any negative connotation is acceptable because it accurately reflects our sources. Academia generally rejects the notion that she is qualified. It is not neutral to suppress a view simply because it's unflattering. MilesMoney (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There are also multiple sources for it, unlike the single source Miles so strongly emphasizes. Funny thing is, it's not even that great of a source for information about Rand. Sure, it's generally of good quality: a reference work from a respected academic publisher. But the specific article isn't from an expert on Rand. Quinton has never written a book or article about her, not even the one cited -- it's an article about "popular philosophy" that mentions Rand in half a sentence. It's also a tertiary source. Tertiary sources can be particularly useful when they explicitly summarize what is generally believed in a field, but this particular article doesn't claim to do that. Otherwise, secondary sources are the most preferred for Wikipedia sourcing. WP:RS and WP:NOR are both explicit about that. If we turn to peer-reviewed secondary sources from academics who have expertise on Rand but have no personal association with her -- basically the gold standard for WP sources -- then you find statements such as the following:

• "...this book is devoted to an assessment of Ayn Rand the philosopher. All the contributors to this volume agree that she is a philosopher and not a mere popularizer." (Den Uyl & Rasmussen, The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, p. x)

That is just one example, which I note is from academics who are not Objectivists, so critics can't dismiss them as biased "cultists". There are more from other sources that just call her 'philosopher' without qualifiers. Of course there are secondary sources that do refer to her with various qualifiers before 'philosopher', although 'amateur' isn't typically one of them. For example, looking for "nonacademic", one could find this:

• "Arguably the modern thinker who best represents the egoistic stance in ethics has been the popular writer Ayn Rand (1905-1982), Russian immigrant turned novelist and nonacademic philosopher." (John C. Merrill, "Ayn Rand: Rational Self-Interest" in Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue, p. 86)

There are a few others with 'nonacademic'/'non-academic' (although not as many for that as for no qualifier or for some others). I'm not going to repeat every source I already assembled in a separate list, but basically there are enough to overwhelm the one source that Miles is promoting in terms of quantity, relevance, and author expertise on the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As the RfC dealing with the lede sentence is closed, is this section needed or helpful? I closed a number of other RfC related threads and I urge that this one be closed as well. New topics abound, and will be discussed (I'm sure) in a more productive fashion by opening new threads. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 October 2013

Remove the word "untrained" from the lead sentence, per closed RfC above. Yworo (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Yworo (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This request is controversial and is not supported by consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is was controversial and is was not supported by consensus. How could you possibly think this would be non-controversial given the discussion above? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the requirements for editing a protected page. You seem very unfamiliar with the policies you are trying to follow and enforce. MilesMoney (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about editing a protected page. I am not sure if you understand or not because you've fixed this indentation for me-- I am referring to your original edit for which Yworo is now requesting removal, before the page was protected. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, an RfC establishes consensus much better than endless arguing, bickering and nitpicking. By not having an RfC on the matter, you've been able to bully the other editors on this page, Miles, but not anymore. I suggest you go find something more useful to do. Personally, I'm thinking about a User RfC and/or referal to arbitration enforcement with respect to your continued disruption. Yworo (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done No comment on the merits of the RFC or it's close, but per consensus determined by the close.--v/r - TP 19:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you, TParis. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A romance to remember?

There was a strange change from "affair" to "romance". What's odd is that it was unambiguously an affair because Branden was still married at the time. The fact that he eventually divorced his wife and married his mistress might make it seem more romantic in RL's eyes, but doesn't stop it from being an affair. What's really odd is that the very next second calls it an affair. Why are we doing this? And I have to ask: Is there any possible motive other than trying to make these people sound better than what the facts say about them? MilesMoney (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I saw a particular editor complain elsewhere about how the Rand-Branden affair was treated in the article. Much of the complaint was just anti-Rand spin, but I did take to heart the particular point that Branden's relationship with Scott was described somewhat unfairly given that it was not just a fling. Unfortunately the article was stuck in a quagmire over a different topic. Now that the other matter is resolved, I circled round to this. If you don't like the new word (or just want to WP:BATTLE any edit I make here because obviously I'm filled with nefarious motives for even small changes), feel free to revert. It isn't an especially significant point to me -- not every word change has to have some grand importance attached to it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Affair and Romance are the same for all purposes here. It would appear to be little more than a stylistic change. I agree with RL that it does not seem to be a big deal. Arzel (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RL, I didn't touch your change because I wanted to give you a fair chance to explain it. Now that you have, I think it makes sense to go back to consistently calling the affair an affair. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Post-RfC article improvement issues

As the question of the lede sentence is resolved by the RfC, editors are encouraged to bring up new concerns here and below (via new threads). – S. Rich (talk)

Rich, I'm not gonna lie you: this looks really bad for you and Yworo. The two of you have been sweeping the talk page clear of uncomfortable discussions about what sort of philosopher, if any, Rand might be.

To remind you, the scope of the RfC was limited to how she should be described in the lede, with many who supported you agreeing that this issue must be discussed in the body. By trying so hard to terminate the discussion, you're interfering with that next step and violating any number of policies. You even edit-warred when SPECIFICO protested your hasty hatting.

Are you going to fix this or do I need to? MilesMoney (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. The RfC is closed and bringing up issues already resolved in the RfC cannot lead to article improvement. Each of the threads I closed was directly related to the closed RfC, but they had unproductive comments. My comment in this section simply encourages editors to start up new threads as appropriate. Please feel free to open new topics, as you have done above. And contest the RfC (or its' closing) if you wish – doing so won't take any skin off my teeth. Please note that I have modified the section heading. Why? I hope editors can get back to WP:TPYES discussions. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I was quite clear. The sections you hatted were discussions about what to call Rand, not just what to call her in the lede. The RfC covered only the latter, so you are interfering with the former. The RfC does not justify ending all discussion on the topic of what to call Rand in the rest of the article.

Two editors have asked you to unhat these sections. Are you going to do so? MilesMoney (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotta admit, I don't think any discussions other than the officially closed RFC should be hatted. There may well be additional discussion to be had about the philosopher/not philosopher/qualified philosopher question in the body. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider what was closed. "NPOV check" started off with a concern about the lede and using "amateur". It died off in one day. Dervorguilla's addition simply added the quote from Stanford, but we'd already seen that cite provided a few times before. "RFC wording" dealt with the validity of the RFC, but that is a topic for another forum. Nothing was being added, nor could anything useful be added. "Key source for RFC" provided background reading for the RFC when it was open. But it is no longer needed. "Puppets" sorta dealt with who was contributing, but it had no focus (other than existing as a space for editors to take jabs at each other. "Close and Implement RFC" by its' very title shows it is no longer useful. "Ending the War on Philosophy" is another useless thread that should be closed.

Are any of these threads being used for collaboration? More importantly, would reopening any of these threads lead to more collaboration? WP:TPOC specifically says that off-topic material can be collapsed and/or moved to the talk page of the editor that started the off-topic discussion. And WP:CLOSE says "After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on." That is what has been done. Now if editors do not like the fact that these branches of the RfC have been closed, I hope they will look at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Also, WP:JDI may be helpful. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Closing" is atypical for ordinary article talk page discussions and seems unnecessary for most of these threads. Several of them had already become inactive even while the RFC was proceeding, and most likely no one will add to discussions about RFC wording, "puppets" in the RFC, etc., after the RFC itself is closed. They'll all eventually be archived by the bot, but in the meantime I don't see any harm in them sitting "open" on the page. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would strongly suggest that talk page sections here only be archived based on age, rather than how relevant individuals feel they are. This is a contentious enough subject as it is, so we don't need to fight about procedural things like talk page archiving. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Before I revert my closings, I'll ask – are these "ordinary article talk page discussions"? – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Ehhh – really a rhetorical question. The sections are now reopened. I shall continue to follow with interest. 15:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission." ―Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Please Put The below Information Back In, It Was JUST Removed? Thank You ~ "The author Ayn Rand Attempted a Positive Moral Defense of Laissez-faire Capitalism as such but in Highly Romantic or Literary Terms that Did Not Stand Logical or Historical Scrutiny. ~ The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 7 (2): 329–349." 76.120.238.155 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall either of those passages being in the article in the last few years. If you want them inserted somewhere, you'll need to be a bit more specific about where you think they would be relevant. The second one appears to be text from the Wikipedia article on Capitalism, so maybe you are confusing this article with that one? --RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you're requesting to be added to the article or the sources to support it. Nor do I see any sort of developing consensus after two days and plenty of eyes on it.--v/r - TP 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whose movement is it anyway?

Here's the sentence in dispute:

The Objectivist movement she spawned attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.

I added "she spawned" to make it clear that the movement is something she intentionally created during her lifetime, not simply the work of those who happened to be influenced by her. I am, of course, talking about the Collective and the NBI/ARS. Arzel believes that the phrase is redundant, but it seems to me that it adds a bit. I don't think this is worth a month-long RfC to decide, but I'd like more feedback from others. MilesMoney (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything problematic about the clarification as such. The word "spawned" seems oddly physical for this -- I would go with "founded", which is how it is described in the lead of the Objectivist movement article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with "founded". MilesMoney (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. Arzel just reverted the compromise and hasn't joined the conversation. If this isn't edit-warring, it's edit-warring's identical twin. MilesMoney (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Arzel was quite right to revert that edit, and the reasons he gave were good and sufficient. I would have reverted the edit myself if he had not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not notice this conversation initially. It is pretty clear that it is here philosophy because it is stated immediately prior. There is no reason to bludgeon the reader with excessive words that state the obvious. I would ask MM why he thinks it is necessary. Arzel (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a legitimate clarification. The movement is not the same thing as the philosophy it promotes -- hypothetically the movement could have arisen after her death. I [don't] know that it is a necessary clarification, but it isn't entirely redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's a helpful but not essential clarification. MilesMoney (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the Objectivist movement started with The Collective and then the Nathaniel Branden Institute. Michipedian (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you ok with the phrasing? MilesMoney (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should be concerned with hypothetical scenarios. The clarification isn't necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I said that the clarification isn't essential. How is that argument against it being an improvement? Do you have an argument of that sort? Does Arzel? MilesMoney (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified that my comment was a response to RL0919, not to you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, you now owe me a response, as does Arzel. MilesMoney (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What has happened here since the article was full protected makes my views - in fact, the views of all non-admins - apparently irrelevant. I am not sure I want to take any further interest in this topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the inappropriate edit by an admin during the protection, that's gone to ArbCom for review. I expect the edit will be reverted and possibly the user who did it will be sanctioned. It's a temporary situation. --RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Russian-American

Seems like at least three editors are involved in a dispute over describing Rand as "Russian-American" in the opening sentence. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but it should be discussed here now that there have been multiple reverts. --RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, and we also call her Russian-American on Objectivism (Ayn Rand), so let's be consistent. I don't actually understand Yworo's argument; he made a brief mention of WP:OPENPARA, which is the relevant policy, but never explained why he thinks it supports his version. MilesMoney (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The intent of WP:OPENPARA is to have a single citizenship in the lead sentence. It specifically says, previous nationalities (from that at which the subject became notable), including the country of birth, should not be mentioned in the lead sentence. It is because both constructions are misleading:

• "Russian American" is interpreted by most Americans at least as a person born in America who just happens to have Russian ancestry. That is, it deprecates or downgrades the actual country of birth to an ethnicity.
• "Russian-born American" allows the possibility that the subject was born to (an) American parent(s) while they were travelling in Russia. Again, this deprecates the importance of the original Russian citizenship to an incidental birth in Russia.

The rule for WP:OPENPARA is to list the single most important citizenship in the lead sentence, which per OPENPARA is defined as the country of which the subject was a citizen at the time they attained notabilty. Any other circumstances should be explained clearly in the second sentence, lead paragraph, or lead section (depending on importance), in a way that is not linguistically ambiguous.

If there is an argument that "they (previous nationalities) are relevant to the subject's notability" - that is, the subject is specifically notable for being born in a specific country, then the wording should be clear, which means that neither of the above constructions should be used: a more specific and precise construction is called for. Yworo (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with just calling her American. I agree that it is in accordance with WP:OPENPARA. I don't think Yworo's argument regarding Americans' connotations with said phrases is valid, as I could make an equally strong argument against calling her simply "American" since most Americans do not assume that an "American" is born in another country. However, WP:OPENPARA is sufficient in making his or her point.

Also, one could argue that her Russian nationality is significant enough to be included in the lead and still be in accordance with WP:OPENPARA. Nearly every time Ayn Rand is mentioned, the fact that she immigrated from communist Russia is also mentioned. This may be due to her accent, which was quite noticeably Russian throughout her life. It may also be due to the idea that many hold that she reacted quite strongly to communism by endorsing laissez-faire capitalism, pegging Objectivism as a reactionary philosophy. I don't know if I would endorse any of these counter-arguments, but I'm just putting them out there. Michipedian (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It definitely should be mentioned in the lead, even if it isn't in the opening sentence. I don't think even Yworo disputes that -- he just wants it to appear a couple of sentences in. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, which is exactly where it was before User:Jreferee edited the page while it was protected without discussion. That seems to be an abuse of admin priveleges. Nobody requested any edits. Yworo (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To be fair though, the first sentence of this article did say "Russian-American" for a very long time until someone changed it quite recently (without any sort of consensus to my knowledge). I understand that Jreferee should not have done that without consensus though, since the article was under protection. Michipedian (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That's probably because OPENPARA specifically makes an exception when country of birth is "relevant to the subject's notability". It's really easy to get reliable sources (Sciabarra would be my first stop) which focus on how Rand's strongly anti-communist message was amplified by the fact that she escaped from Communist Russia, contributing to her notability. There's also the aspect of a woman who was educated in Russian but mastered English well enough in a decade to get her play produced. Finally, as you said, we've had this hyphenated identity in the article for some time now, and it seems to have a silent consensus behind it. This matter isn't exactly earth-shaking, but I think the article is, for all these reasons, somewhat better with "Russian-American". MilesMoney (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

1RR

I have placed this article under a 1RR restriction. When the protection expires, any editor making any edit that undoes the edit of another user more than once within a 7 day period without a clear consensus on the article talk page will be blocked. Clear consensus is determined at the discretion of the imposing administrator.--v/r - TP 01:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So that there is no possibility of misunderstanding here, what you are saying is that anyone who makes more than one revert without consensus per week will be blocked? Is that correct? I ask because a one revert rule usually applies per day rather than per week. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:1RR specifies that administrators have replaced "per 24 hour period" with "per week" before. I felt it was necessary because some of this edit warring spans days, not hours.--v/r - TP 01:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think the effect of this will probably be to discourage anyone from editing the article at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1RR is better than locked. --RL0919 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's roughly the same as locked, except that it's more likely to generate blocks. MilesMoney (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's meant to generate more discussion on the talk page to prevent edit wars. However, if people choose to violate 1RR even after it has been enacted that's being done of their own volition despite being made aware of the consequences. —  dainomite   03:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the theory. In practice, whether an edit counts as reverting isn't always obvious, and reasonable people can disagree. The result is that someone trying to honor both the spirit and letter of 1RR can still get blocked for violating it, precisely because it's so hair-trigger and therefore unforgiving. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Big lede

The more I look at it, the more I think that the second paragraph is too big. It's trying to be a summary of the philosophy section, but that section is already a summary of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, and even trying to reduce each stance to a single line takes up too much space. The article is on Ayn Rand, not Objectivism, so we should be using that space to summarize her life, not just her ideas. MilesMoney (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on Jreferee's changes

After reading them, I think they're generally an improvement. One part that I think was better before is:

Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926.

as opposed to:

After moving from Russia to the United States in 1926, Rand had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936.

The new version flows better and includes the part about Night of January 16 (though still not by name). What it loses is the fact that she was educated through college in Russia. Maybe we could have something like:

Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926, and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935.

This ditches the unnecessary detail of how long it remained on Broadway, but shows that she went from immigrant to somewhat successful playwright in about a decade. MilesMoney (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some elements of the change were good, others not, but it was inappropriate for Jreferee to edit through the full protection to make substantive changes that had no prior discussion, and especially inappropriate to make a change to the "Russian-American" wording that is part of an ongoing dispute. The entire edit should be reverted -- preferably self-reverted by Jreferee, but if not, then reverted by a neutral admin. Then Jreferee can join everyone else in discussing changes to get consensus, which is what is supposed to happen until the protection expires. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Search the article for Russia and you'll see that the article coveys it as an important aspect of her life (at least 21 years). Factually, she was born in Russia so that is why I wrote it that way in the lead. I left the educated in Russia part out because it did not fit chronologically in the sentence and seemed too much information in that sentence. If she was born in 1905 in Russia and moved from Russia to the US in 1926 and she is a writer and philosopher, the reader will figure out that she was educated during that time and it says where in the body of the article so I did not think it necessary in the lead to say she was educated in Russia. Initially, I did not include the part about moving from Russia, but it was needed for context. As for editing through protection, the page protection and the Talk:Ayn_Rand#1RR do not mention anything about specific Russian American verbiage. There was not really a discussion on the point for which the article was protected until consensus outcome was reached as far as I can tell. I have no interest in the topic. My edit was based on my read through of what the article says and MOS:LEAD - "lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." I'm headed out for a bit, but feel free to revise what I posted if it does not reflect "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." -- Jreferee (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what was changed, that edit was an inappropriate use of Admin privialages. I suggest you revert yourself. Arzel (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-reversion is what I would prefer as well. The page is full-protected, so most other editors are not "free to revise". Jreferee, you seem to have the process backwards here. When a page is full-protected due to content disputes, then the process is to discuss any substantive change first, regardless of whether the change was part of the prior dispute. Then an admin makes the change if there is consensus. There are a few exceptions where it would be OK to edit without discussion (reversion of old vandalism that was in the protected version, etc.), but MOS:LEAD isn't one of those exceptions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The purpose of full-protection is to encourage consensus-building with interested editors before content-related changes are made. These changes, while some seem agreeable, are overall not consistent with that purpose, so I'd also recommend a self-revert. I think MilesMoney's suggestions inre: Rand's chronology are sound. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on the linguistic semantic reasons for avoiding both "Russian American" or "Russian-born American" above in the section on the topic. I have no problem with a more precise and unambigous construction if the consensus is that being born in Russia is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead sentence rather than a few sentences later. Yworo (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I returned the article to the edit prior to mine to encourage consensus-building with interested editors (Thanks JethroBT). The disagreement appears to have been over the visual display of the recently removed hyphenated Russian-American text in the article.[1] Medeis added the Russian-American text back in the article.21:49, 8 October 2013 Medeis and Michipedian though the article should display Russian-American whereas Yworo and FreeKnowledgeCreator did not. Of the 10,449 edits to the article, Medeis has 12, Yworo 10, FreeKnowledgeCreator 5, and Michipedian 3. Medeis and the editors posting after Medeis through the full page protection agreed that "Born and educated in Russia", Russia linking to the Russian American, and "was an American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" in the lead of the article was fine. After seven edits directed to the display of Russian-American and the passage of two days regarding the Russian-American issue raised by Medeis, TParis fully protected the article, citing edit warring and content dispute. I revised the lead to change to read "a Russian-born American writer and philosopher" since novelist, playwright, and screenwriter could all be covered by the word "writer" and Russian-born was a more efficient way of writing the "Born in Russia" that appeared in the article. Regarding Yworo's comment "Russian-born American" allows the possibility that the subject was born to (an) American parent(s) while they were travelling in Russia,[2] "Born and educated in Russia" and "was an American novelist" also allows the possibility that the subject was born to (an) American parent(s) while they lived in Russia, so I do not think my change resulted in a change to any meaning of Born in Russia was not already in the article lead. Again, I appreciate the thoughtful feedback. I am sorry for giving an appearance of unfairness and will try to do work harder to prevent this. -- Jreferee (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Geez... first the obvious supervote in the MR for 30 Seconds to Mars and now this... I wish ill on no person but I think that Jreferee should be desysopped. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• FYI Since to not address the edit after full protection would equate to me taking a side, I've brought this issue to Arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Ayn_Rand. I continue to hold no opinion on the merits of the changes to the lead and only be concerned about article stability.--v/r - TP 23:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Leftist appreciation

The following text was recently added: 'However, there has also been some appreciation from the newer thinkers on the left. Dolan Cummings, writing for Spiked (the successor to the UK's Living Marxism, wrote in 2009: "Rand’s celebration of the creativity of industry is quite inspiring. Her enemy is not actually the working class, but rather the lily-livered bureaucrats and bleeding-heart intellectuals whose disdain for the making of money is matched only by their determination to redistribute it."' It should be removed. The material is both trivial and misleading. There is no serious "appreciation" of Rand on the left - the quotation from Cummings is simply one person's opinion, and it has no larger relevance. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is ridiculous. I'd revert it, but then I'd use up my weekly 1RR and be afraid to edit the article again because it might be mistaken for a revert. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that this is not a good addition. The specific opinion is no more or less valid than others quoted in the article, but the way it is introduced as a representation of "newer thinkers on the left" doesn't have any source, nor have I seen any reliable source supporting that claim. Without evidence that it is an example of something broader, it is just some random opinion from a non-notable person that isn't due any inclusion in the article. As far as 1RR goes, if there is "clear consensus" on the talk page, then the removal is OK. I'd say to give it a bit more time (at least a day) to see what others have to say. --RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll consider removing it in a few more days. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• FYI I'd not consider 'enacting consensus' to equate to using the 1 week revert. If the three of you have consensus here and there is no opposition within a day or so, then someone can remove it and provide a permanent link to this discussion.--v/r - TP 13:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI I don't know how to provide a permanent link to this discussion in an edit summary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The URL would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&oldid=577336461#Leftist_appreciation You get them by clicking on the dates in the View History list. --RL0919 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd need to know exactly what text to type into the edit summary field. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any magic words. Something like "Removing per talk page consensus: (insert latest version url here)" should do the trick. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it has been several days, and no one has objected to removal of the text, I'm going to remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have objected and I doubt I'm alone. I think I'm what would be considered far left, although I consider myself outside the normal spectrum. In any case it's well known that Rand detested most conservatives and conversely had at one time at least many supporters on the left. Her radical individualism is really more consistent with a anti-collectivist left perspective than it is with any modern right wing tendency in the US, and with liberalism in it's non-US meaning. Had she lived, I don't think there's any doubt she would have followed up on denunciations such as she made of the Reagan Administration in her last entries in the Objectivist Forum ( Vol. 2 No. 3 June 1981 The Age of Mediocrity). So the conclusion reached is just flat wrong, an anachronistic albeit popular fabrication. Diametrically the opposite of the truth, not atypical and a main reason I've broken off here. 198.255.198.157 (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Origin of her name should be edited\deleted

I don't have the 2009 book which offhandedly is mentioned in the footnote as the source, but the claim that Ayn may be of a Hebrew orign is silly. I'm not going to make any deletion on an Ayn Rand page, I can imagine any deletion on Ayn Rand's page without discussion could cause riots, but it says that Ayn is either "from a Finnish name or from the Hebrew word עין (ayin, meaning "eye")."

Footnote says "Rand said the origin of Ayn was Finnish (Rand 1995, p. 40), but some biographical sources question this, suggesting it may come from a Hebrew nickname. Heller 2009, pp. 55–57 provides a detailed discussion." That's great, except for one thing. Just look at the Hebrew page, it's http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/איין_ראנד. Hebrew goes right to left, ראנד is "Rand" but עין, or eye, is not איין. They may be pronounced the same way by most Ashkenazic Jews, but it's at best a homonym; this is kind of like saying that someone took the name "Phil" because it meant "to fill." She chose a Finnish name, leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.221.254 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that 'ayin' is identical to 'Ayn', in any language, or that 'Ayn' "means" the same thing (or indeed that 'Ayn' means anything at all). It only indicates that some sources claim the name may have been derived from that word. If the Finnish origin is correct, the name from which 'Ayn' was derived would be either 'Aino' or 'Aina' -- also not identical to 'Ayn'. Name derivations often involve changes or sound or spelling. For example, the name 'Mary' was derived from 'Maria' which was derived from 'Miriam'. In any case, regardless of whether either, neither or both of these origin theories have any truth to them, they are the theories discussed in reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The right modifier

A while back, there was a debate about what sort of philosopher, in any, Ayn Rand was. The motivation is that Rand was in no sense a conventional, academic philosopher. We discussed any number of possibilities, but wound up unable to come to a consensus on which to keep.

I have a suggestion that comes from James Baker's compact biography, Ayn Rand. Chapter 3 is entitled "Ayn Rand as Public Philosopher", and if you look up the term "public philosophy" in places such as this, I think you'll find that it fits perfectly. MilesMoney (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The term seems neutral and accurate, and it is supported in a number of good sources, not just Baker. So on those counts it is a reasonable choice. I have two reservations. First is that the phrase is uncommon enough that a lot of people don't know what it means (see this discussion for example), and currently there isn't a an article at Public philosophy to explain it. The second, more important reservation is that the debate you mention involved an RFC that closed less than a month ago with a conclusion that "consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor 'philosopher' in the lead".[3] The RFC and its closing statement are still on this talk page above. To resurrect this issue so soon after is not appropriate, and something that I thought you had agreed not to do. One possible way to address both concerns would be to give the matter a rest here for a few weeks and instead work on creating the Public philosophy article. I would be happy to work on a draft of that subject, and we could invite others, such as User:Liz (who started the "Public philosophers" category), to help. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, a stub that defines Public philosophy and offers some links would be enough. You might notice that I didn't change the article, and I didn't specify when we should. I'm simply getting the proposal in at this time, for reasons that should be obvious to you. MilesMoney (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got grief for creating Category:Public philosophers and it was nominated for deletion a few hours after I created it. That's unusual for Categories as they are usually given a while for Editors to "populate" them by adding the categories to articles. It was modeled after Category:Public historians. I created the category to take the role of the concept of "public intellectual" which, up until the 1980s, were learned men and women who often wrote op-ed or columns for newspapers. They also wrote for a general audience rather than a narrow, academic one. This was such an accepted role that when I went to graduate school in the 1990s, there were entire courses about the absence of public intellectuals in contemporary society. I didn't think it would be considered controversial idea when I created the category and Ayn Rand seemed like an obvious example. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Looks like the tenor of the conversation at CfD is to delete the category since there isn't an accompanying article. If anyone would like to write such an article, please tell the folks there that one is in the works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I started a draft at User:RL0919/Public philosophy. Please feel free to expand. It only has one source so far. I would like to have a few more sources before moving it to mainspace, to help forestall any deletion dispute over it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Found several more sources pretty easily; I expected it would be harder. It's kind of surprising there wasn't an article on this already. Anyhow, I've moved the stub to mainspace, so it is open season for editing as usual. Sorry I didn't wait for other input, but with the related category up for deletion, I didn't want to dawdle. --RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that would be an adequate description. While Rand wrote about the major aspects of philosophy, she did not publish academic books or articles, her philosophical writings were largely ignored, including by her followers. The "public philosophers" popularized mainstream philosophy. TFD (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec)From what I have been able to discern, public philosophy is concept of bringing philosophy into the public discourse. Any philosopher (or any person for that matter) that brings philosophy into public discourse can be said to be performing public philosophy. However, this does not make them a public philosopher. In fact, the term Public Philosopher does not appear to be defined as a noun. Public philosophy is an action done by philosophers. While I don't necessarily have a problem with an article discussing public philosophy, it is erroneous to use this as a backdoor attempt to label some philosophers as public philosophers. Arzel (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. And I do not think that Rand brought philosophy into public discourse. No one reading her philosophy books is encouraged to read Kant or Sartre. TFD (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick search reveals that, contrary to what was stated, "public philosopher" really is defined as a noun. BBC Radio has a series called "The Public Philosopher" [4] and Google confirms that there are tens of thousands of usages. Let's please drop this whole argument, as it's quickly refuted by basic research.

TFD suggested that Rand's philosophical writings were ignored even by her fans, but I have no idea why we should think so. Sure, academia has largely ridiculed and ignored her, but she's immensely popular with her target audience, and it's very easy to find disproof by single example, such as Paul Ryan (initially) crediting Rand's philosophy with his political views.

Unless TFD has some evidence for this claim, I don't see any reason to accept it. In the same vein, there is absolutely nothing about public philosophy which limits it to mainstream philosophy. If anything, we have examples, such as Jane Addams, who likewise lacked credentials.

Public philosophy comes down to writing philosophy for the public, not academia. This is precisely what Rand did, and that's why it was so easy to find reliable sources confirming it. It's what our sources say, and it's neither as ambiguous as "popular" nor as controversial as "amateur". That's why I endorse it. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael J. Sandel, who is a philosopher and the person behind the BBC program appears to call himself the Public Philosopher and is also the source of the term from the Public Philosophy article. It would appear to be largely his neologism that is the primary source of the term. Indeed when you search the term Public Philosopher you get almost entirely Sandel. Given the recent RfC regarding the attributing issue and the fact that this does not appear to be a mainstream use of the term, I don't see any way that you are going to be able to label Rand a public philosopher. Hell, even the guy who calls himself the Public Philosopher is not called a Public Philosopher on his Wikipedia article. Arzel (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Baker book is dated 1987 and has a chapter entitled "Ayn Rand as Public Philosopher". I think it's become quite clear that you are mistaken on this matter, so I recommend accepting what our sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sciabarra also calls her a "public philosopher"[5]. MilesMoney (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As does Mimi Gladstein on page 97 of her Ayn Rand biography. MilesMoney (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne Conover Heller, has a chapter entitled... you guessed it: Public Philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And here's an article that identifies her as a "public philosopher/novelist". I could find more, but I think this matter is settled. MilesMoney (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, you said Ryan "credit[ed] Rand's philosophy with his political views." If that is your definition of philosophy then she is a philosopher and so are Glenn Beck, Barack Obama, Britney Spears and anyone else who expresses a view on politics. TFD (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue against Rand being a philosopher? I disagree, and regardless, that battle has been fought and won (or, for you, perhaps lost). MilesMoney (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

RfCs are only valid until they are challenged. I did not get involved in the RfC although I have come across the claim in articles about philosophy. There are of course different definitions of philosophy, but "public philosophy" is about popularizing philosophy as normally understood in university courses. Did Rand encourage people to think about causation, the mind-body problem, Kant's categories of human understanding, or rather did she encourage people to take a view about how to lead their lives? TFD (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The battle over whether she should be called a philosopher was a done deal even before I started editing, and it's a doomed cause due to all of the reliable sources which agree that she is some sort of philosopher. Rand did attempt to tackle standard philosophical problems, albeit without a thoroughgoing knowledge of what has gone before. She's even gotten a little bit of credit from academic philosophers for her interesting (but not really supportable) ideas on epistemology. But she didn't tackle them in an academic environment; she wrote for the general public.

Please understand that all of this is explanation on top of the reliable sources which call her a public philosopher. The reliable sources stand on their own, and my explanation is not needed. I'm trying to be helpful here. MilesMoney (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain which branches of philosophy she popularized as a public philosopher? Did she trigger a sudden interest in epistemology? TFD (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Her primary impact was in ethics, where she made a case for her brand of libertarianism. Compare this to, say, Rothbard, who arrived in much the same place but took a route through economics instead of philosophy.

Now that I've answered your question, could you explain what it has to do with this article? MilesMoney (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What it has to do with the article is you want to say she is a public philosopher. Your impact comment is lame. Do you call everyone who comments on morality a philosopher? TFD (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against calling her a philosopher at all, which is a lost cause and a waste of time. I'm guessing that you want this because she doesn't fit your notion of a philosopher; no degree, no academic publishing, no sign of the necessary skills. Fine, but that's all the more reason why we have to explain what sort of philosophy she did, which was the kind aimed directly at the public, bypassing academia. We tried this before with a similar term, "popular", but it had too many meanings and at least one tempting misunderstanding. We also tried "amateur", which was correct and supported, but ticked off her fans to no end. I think "public" gets the core idea across without these problems. MilesMoney (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll remind everyone once again that we just had an RFC about this that closed less than a month ago. Unless there are new sources or arguments that were not available at that time (I've not seen any mentioned), it is pointless and frankly disruptive to continue endless disputation about it here. If someone thinks the RFC wasn't valid, then they can take it to a dispute resolution forum. If someone has sourced content to contribute regarding the meaning and application of the term "public philosopher", they are welcome to contribute at Public philosophy or its talk page. If someone wants to express unsourced personal opinions about Ayn Rand (or anything else), there are numerous discussion forums elsewhere. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There are indeed new sources. None of the sources that I mentioned above (as using "public philosopher") were available during the RFC, and nobody suggested "public" as the qualifier back then, either.

As for how recent the RFC was, I'm fine with holding off on acting upon this suggestion until more time has passed. The article has been around for years without "public philosopher". I'm sure it can survive a few more weeks without it. You'll note that I didn't change the article or offer a deadline for doing so. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now that we've discussed it, let's put it on the back burner until Friday (Nov. 8th), so that we can pat ourselves on the back for waiting a full month before revisiting the subject of that RFC. MilesMoney (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, Rand could be considered a philosopher because she wrote books about philosophy, but that does not make her a public philosopher. For example, it could be that she cooked in her home, which would make her a cook but not a public cook, unless she was widely known for her cooking and popularized cooking. TFD (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

She was widely known for her philosophy and encouraged others to follow it. She even ran a "cooking school" to train people in her philosophy. Again, I'm explaining this to you in an attempt to be helpful. Our reliable sources are sufficient, even if you disagree. MilesMoney (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy is not something one follows, but a rational discipline taught in universities that examines claims about knowledge, ethics and other topics, and promotes skepticism. Rand of course wrote about these topics, but her followers were encouraged to accept a belief system. Do you think her classes had much in common with university classes in philosophy? Do you think she said, "It does not matter what conclusions you draw, so long as they are well-reasoned?" TFD (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy is a field, but a school of philosophy is a specific set of beliefs that you can follow or reject. She advocated for her particular school. A good analogy is religion, where some study the field as a whole while others adhere to and dedicate themselves to one particular set of beliefs. (This religious aspect probably has something to do with all those cult allegations.) For another analogy, consider someone famous for their Southern cooking but who is not particularly known or appreciated within the culinary community. MilesMoney (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is one difference. Religion is based on revealed truth, while philosophy is based on reason. So while a legimate argument in philosophy might be whether Descartes' dualism was sound, a religious studies article would not argue whether Jesus would return to Earth in Jerusalem or Missouri. And the point with Rand is that while she wrote philosophy she taught a belief system, rather than popularize philosophy. Similarly, we would not say Pat Robertson popularized religious studies, i.e., the study of religion as a whole, although indeed he has commented on Islam and other religions.

A comparison could be made with intelligent design. The writers are scientists and they provide scientific arguments. However one would not say they popularized science.

The southern cooking is not a good analogy because the cook is popularizing cooking, even if it is only one aspect. If instead the cook were to popularize the notion that only Southern cooking was legitimate, get them to eat at his restaurant and not teach people how to cook, then he would not be acting as a popularizer of cooking, although no one would deny he was a cook.

TFD (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an excellent analogy, because Rand is for many their first introduction to any sort of philosophy. Some of them go on to be academic scholars due to this early influence. Like I said before, you're tilting at windmills when you claim she's not a philosopher. Even critical sources simply consider her to be a bad philosopher. MilesMoney (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my postings which requires me to correct what you write and wastes time. I am not saying she is not a philosopher, merely that she is better known for her non-philosophical writing, and her philosophical writings do not encourage philosophical study. Can you name any prominent philosophers who teach at universities and write books whose introduction was Rand, and more importantly how many of them are non-objectivist, since the point of public philosophy is to introduce people to the subject, not to persuade them of ones belief system. Will Durant on the other hand had a huge impact on the sale of books about philosophy and his book encouraged countless people to enrol in philosophy. TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, a decent period of time has passed. We have a number of reliable sources which call her a public philosopher. Is there any objection to changing the lede to call her that? MilesMoney (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We just an RfC with consensus for no modifier. I suggest you stop trying to get your way by continuing to debate to death the issue. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If you have a particular objection, feel free to share it. Otherwise, I'll file this away under "inexplicable resistance to change" and keep the diff handy when it comes time to discuss who's been violating the sanctions on this article. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That should fit in nicely with your non-stop tiresome debate. Arzel (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your statement appears to be a personal attack. An RfC is not meant to last forever, and nobody even had the notion of "public" back then, much less all of the sources to support it.

Ultimately, if you have some specific basis upon which to oppose this change, I am bound to listen to it. However, general objections of this sort, particularly when flavored with personal attacks, are counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As a factual matter, I note that 'public' as a modifier for philosopher was mentioned on this Talk page at least as far back as August 25, and during the RFC on September 25. A list of sources for it has been available here since August 27. It didn't get any traction then. I was dismissive of it myself initially, but having researched the term further, I'm more open to it now. That said, I think that given the one-sided results of the RFC, this conflict should be allowed to rest for a significant amount of time (not whatever is perceived to be the minimum). It consumes too much time and energy over the presence or absence of a word, when much more substantial improvements could be made so many other places. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the view that misleading readers in the lede is a big problem, and I'm sure you know what I think of the validity of that RfC. MilesMoney (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not just say that she is a philosopher who encouraged thousands of young people to study philosophy in university and encouraged critical thinking about epistemology and other philosophical studies among millions of people in the U.S. and worldwide. That way, we do not need a link to "public philosopher." TFD (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a few good reasons, but all of them come down to our sources and our needs. We need to accurately describe her as early as possible in the article, so that someone who stops after reading the lede doesn't walk away with a mistaken impression. If we just say philosopher, a reader can reasonably infer that she is an academic, which is not the case. A single world -- "public" -- is all it takes to fix that, and it's well-supported by our sources. Unlike "popular" or "amateur", it has single, neutral meaning. Unlike "non-academic", it's phrased positively in terms of what she tried to do, not in terms of what she failed to live up to. Unlike the long phrase you suggested, it's short and is directly supported by our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Public philosopher" is another awkward, all but meaningless expression. It shouldn't be added to the article for any reason. "Philosopher" does not mean the same thing as "academic", so MilesMoney is seeing problems where none exist. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Admin comment on policy The relevant policy here is that consensus can change. However, a demonstration that consensus has changed needs to be evident before the former RFC can be disregarded. I do not see any such consensus here.--v/r - TP 18:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

On the same basis, the prior RfC is not an argument against changing consensus. It is, at most, a statement of what consensus was at a particular point in the past. When discussing what consensus ought to be, the RfC has no role. Instead, arguments must be judged on their own merits, and a complete lack of arguments is inherently without merit. Anyone saying, "we ought not add this qualifier because we once agreed not to" is blowing smoke and hot air. There may be 99 good reasons, but the RfC ain't one of them. MilesMoney (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

(Redacted) Yworo (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What I hear is hard to differentiate from a personal attack. Perhaps you should refactor it away. MilesMoney (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

when you all stop fighting over this page? Brushcherry (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)brushcherry

How Big is is this talk page?

Like if you included all archives and such? how many megabytes? maybe that y'all should put on the page. i believe its been in the news. Brushcherry (talk)brushcherry — Preceding undated comment added 2 November 2013‎

Reverting IP nonsense

This nonsense edit by an IP should be reverted. I'm too tired to explain why here (see the comments on my talk page about the issue). Additionally, the page should be protected from IP editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It (sometimes) helps to remember to place a warning on the IP's talk page. I put uw-consensus1 there. Yworo (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit was likely wrong, but it wasn't nonsense or vandalism. Please reserve the v-word for clear cases where an editor is trying to harm Wikipedia.

Remember, this article might be under sanctions, but that's no excuse to bite noobs. If anything, such aggressive behavior can get those sanctions applied to you. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not really a comment about the article, and this page isn't really the place for it. The place to discuss that was on my talk page, and that discussion has been concluded. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that your talk page was a better place for this discussion. Nonetheless, you asked that the discussion there be ended and I complied. You also brought it up again here, so I responded. Moving a discussion doesn't end it, and this page is also a reasonable place to discuss the content of recent changes and how we treat its editors.

I've taken the liberty of apologizing to the IP on your behalf. You were wrong to accuse them of vandalism. MilesMoney (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In future, please don't apologize to anyone on my behalf. Thanks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If that's what you want, all you have to do is apologize for your own errors. Or, even better, learn from them so that you make fewer. Fewer errors means a need for fewer apologies. I'd start by not falsely accusing your fellow editors of vandalism when they just disagree. MilesMoney (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool it ya'all, this is crossing from edits to editors.--v/r - TP

I'm done here. MilesMoney (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

give it up.Brushcherry (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)brushcherry