Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 30 August 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayn Rand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Ayn Rand has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 4, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted September 15, 2009 Good article nominee Listed April 20, 2010 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance). Objectivism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Atheism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether ] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Aesthetics Metaphysics Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Error: The code letter ar for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ayn Rand article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Article cross-talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, not a philosopher

Sydney Hook, a noted (conservative) American philosopher, noted elementary errors in Rand's "philosophical" 1962 work "Notes for the New Intellectual" in 1962, including the use of the analytic aPriori statement a=a to derive what Rand resoundingly yet erroneously considered profound, synthetic aPriori truths such as the value of capitalism and of selfishness, which cannot be derived from "a=a" in any way. He kindly, gently, but firmly dismissed Rand's work as being of philosophical utility. A "philosopher" is she or he who enters a conversation with people recognized as philosophers; this recursive, set-theoretic definition of philosopher is the only reasonable definition of one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.255.151 (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources saying she's not a philosopher, and sources saying she is. Is there some way we can edit to reflect this debate? --Frybread (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been a problem for some time. She is called a philosopher in a limited number of texts (a lot of which are de facto funded by by Randian institutions). There are a limited number of texts that criticise he claims in that respect - Hook is one of several. A lot of these are blog posts as in general very few Philosophers take her seriously as a Philosopher. The main evidence that she is not a philosopher is that she is not mentioned in any major directory or text book covering the field as a whole. Negative evidence is difficult to assess. Personally I think the overall balance makes it clear that the label Philosopher should not be applied here but that resulted in a lot of nastiness and an Arbcom ruling some time ago ----Snowded 10:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the editors of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will be surprised to learn that they do not cover the field as a whole and are funded by Randian institutions. Den Uyl and Rasmussen will probably also be surprised to hear that they were funded by such institutions (which did not exist at the time they prepared their book). And of course the previous citations used for this point included that venerable Randian institution, The New York Times. The "balance" against all this really needs to be something more than wishful thinking and reading implications into silences, which is what the "many sources saying she's not a philosopher" tend to be. Hook does not say she isn't a philosopher, notwithstanding the claims of the block-evading troll who started this section. --RL0919 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Stanford entry is one of a series of essays commissioned as you know. Routledge I would need to see the next. There is little dispute she is largely ignored by Philosphers and criticised even by her followers. She is primarily a novelist not a philosopher ----Snowded 12:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Her novels are also criticized, but that doesn't make her not a novelist. I'm all for being discriminating about sources, but not for inventing seemingly arbitrary new criteria just to exclude sources that say things someone doesn't like. If you want to reject peer reviewed sources with no obvious conflicts of interest, it should be for better reasons than this. --RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In general the critics do see her as a bad novelist, but they say so. Philosophers with a few exceptions just ignore her ----Snowded 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RL's analogy is totally wrong because the only requirement for being a novelist is having written a novel, but philosophy has objective standards. Even the worst writer in the world is a novelist once they've completed a single, terrible novel. Although an English degree might include classes in novel-writing, you don't need a degree to write a novel or even to get it published. All it takes is basic competence with the language, and you are judged on being creative and subjectively entertaining. It's even ok to make stupid English mistakes, because publishers have copy-editors on staff. It's a bit harder to be a published novelist, although it still doesn't mean being any good, and even harder to make a living at it. Rand succeeded as a novelist.

On the other hand, philosophy has an objective bar based on a certain level of academic competence in the field, which almost always comes from having degrees. Practicing philosophy requires a working knowledge of what has gone before so that you can both avoid the errors of the past and explain views by comparing and contrasting with well-known positions using common terminology. Rand had an open disregard for all philosophy since Aristotle (even though was obviously influenced by Nietzsche) and was criticized for not understanding the views she opposed, rather than (just) for being wrong. Her only degree was in education, and it shows.

No matter how you slice it, Rand was not an academic philosopher, though she does fit into the Russian tradition of novelists with a philosophical bent. She had philosophical ideas which were highly influential in the world at large, but almost entirely ignored by academia. This makes her a professional writer and amateur philosopher. That's not so say she wasn't a philosopher at all or even that her philosophy was bad. It just means that this wasn't her profession and we'd be lying to readers by saying it was. MilesMoney (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a bit odd to refer to debatable criteria such as "competence" and "working knowledge" as "objective standards". Whether someone has a published novel is far easier to evaluate objectively. Regardless, the article does not refer to Rand as an academic or professional philosopher, so we have avoided that problem. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now we've avoided it. MilesMoney (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

An evaluation of competence is always going to be subjective. I hope you keep such evalutions away from the introduction, though critisism sections could use them. And the field of philosophy seems too diverse to actually have unified standards. Dimadick (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dimadick, and more importantly the sources that call her a philosopher do not generally use the qualifier that MilesMoney wants to add. --RL0919 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We obviously can't use a qualifier which is not sourced but it still leaves us the WP:WEIGHT issue. The questions of negatives is an issue for Misplaced Pages but at the moment we have three sets of evidence (i) her not being mentioned (ii) her competence to assert the claim being questions (iii) references that use the word. So we need to find a way around that. A note might be a solution and I to be honest the word is easier to use in the body of article not the information box. So use in text with the existing citations OK and there is other material that explains things. The use in the information box, less so. A compromise would be to leave it in the lede, remove it from the info box. ----Snowded 06:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up sources for "amateur", because we do have them. For example, according to this, the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has Anthony Quinton classifying Rand as an amateur.

Gotta say, I'm not in love with "amateur" but at least it's sourced and it gets across the fact that she's not a philosopher in the sense someone might expect if we didn't qualify the title. Maybe we could search for sources with nicer adjectives, like "non-academic". But we can't just lie by omission. MilesMoney (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All righty, I confirmed that page 740 of that book does call her an amateur philosopher. If we want to avoid that term, we could also use the same reference to justify calling her a popular philosopher, which sounds nicer but might be confused with being a philosopher who's popular, as opposed to an advocate of popular (amateur) philosophy. For now, I'm going to put "amateur" back in as a placeholder, but I'll add a citation so RL has nothing to complain about. It's up to him to find a better term that's still honest. MilesMoney (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

One last thing. I'm betting RL or someone with his views might argue that Anthony Quinton is some sort of strange fringe voice. That would be pretty silly, even from a glance at his background, but William F. Vallicella provides another vote for "amateur". On the other hand, I haven't been able to find any source claiming she was either a "professional" or "academic" philosopher, so we have to go with what we've got. MilesMoney (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I lied: one more thing. Snowded mentioned Rand's omission from comprehensive summaries of philosophers. I noticed that, on page x of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the editor specifically mentions deciding not to grant her an article in the book because he has standards. This just screams "not an (academic) philosopher". MilesMoney (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarilly. Perhaps its my frustration with certain "peer-reviewed" sources of low quality speaking, but I have often had trouble with supposedly comprehensive lists and reviews which ommit all but the most famous female writers, rulers, and other historical figures. As an editor interested in women's history its quite a pet peeve. It screams bias Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, there are enough female philosophers included to rule out the idea that Rand was excluded just for being a woman. Instead, the editor reveals that he quite intentionally turned down a proposed article on Rand because it "did not penetrate fortress of philosophical principle", a coy way of saying they just didn't measure up to his standards. The other article mentioned as failing on this basis is "marital act", which was presumably about sex, not a particularly philosophical topic. MilesMoney (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the reference which does make it explicit that she was not included. That is the first reference in a very authoritative work that says she is not a philosopher. As I say the best thing is to remove it from the information box and leave it as a qualified text in the main body? ----Snowded 08:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Between Routledge and the Oxford Companion, I believe there's strong support for the conclusion that she is not significant as a philosopher (at least within the circles of academic philosopher as opposed to popular philosophy) and is not a professional or academic philosopher at all, but an amateur one. Since she's not a philosopher by profession, I don't see why any mention of it should be made in her Occupation in the information box.

At the very least, it's completely misleading because a reader might reasonably expect that, like "regular" philosophers, she had a comprehensive, as opposed to idiosyncratic and eclectic, education in philosophy, and that she was seen by other philosophers as qualified to teach accredited courses on the subject. That's certainly what comes to my mind when I think of "philosopher", and I doubt I'm alone in this.

I think the best counterargument would be that the Nathaniel Branden Lectures were a school that taught Objectivism. However, Objectivist movement says, "Not wanting to be a teacher or leader of an organized movement, she allowed Branden to lecture on her behalf." Despite this, we list Branden's occupation as "Psychotherapist", not "Philosopher". Of course, it doesn't help that NBL was unaccredited. MilesMoney (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the first think that comes to mind when I hear philosopher is a Sophist charging money to supposedly teach virtue and wisdom. Followed by the image of a Scholastic philosopher trying to make sense of contradictory dogmas and doctrines. 21st-century individuals are simply not what I picture as philosophers. Dimadick (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All the text above notwithstanding, the source recently added (which has been discussed on this talk page before, BTW) does not in fact use the term "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand. The snipe from the editor's introduction does not use this phrase, and neither does the article on "popular philosophy" (the page 740 citation, which is offered without the courtesy of credit to the author). The latter does imply that she created an "amateur system" but doesn't call Rand, or anyone else, "amateur philosopher". Perhaps this is a quirk of the author's writing choices, but it is a fact of the plain text. So the basis for this particular phrasing is thin to say the least, particularly when the qualifier is not used by several other sources that are already cited. What is particularly ironic is that the cited article implicitly affirms Rand's classification as a philosopher (albeit not a professional one, which no one in this discussion has claimed) -- something that this thread started as an attempt to deny.

If qualifiers are needed, the best-supported one is "popular philosopher" (an alternative mentioned above by MilesMoney). This phrase -- the literal phrase, not an inference of it -- is used in sources. Even the source added to prop up "amateur" designates amateur philosophy as a sub-class of popular philosophy. The phrase is already used in the body of the article, with a source, so it would also conform to WP:LEAD, which tells us that the lead should summarize material from the body rather than include significant information not found in the body. --RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that argument doesn't even begin to fly and only makes me wonder about how WP:COMPETENT you are. The source says she's an amateur, plain and simple. No amount of hairsplitting original research on your part is going to explain away how an amateur philosophy comes from anyone but an amateur philosopher. Oh, and the citation you removed was for Honderich's comment on page x, not just Quinton's on 740, so that's another error on your part.

Regardless, I'm not going to dote on your systemtic mistakes. Instead, I'm going to remind you that I suggested "popular" but also had reservations that you failed to address. Right now, it sounds as if she's a philosopher who happened to be popular, as opposed to the writer of popular (amateur) philosophy, so the article is lying again. That just won't do. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I return to my idea of removing from information box (as it really can't be justified) but keep in the main body with a proper explanation of the different views.----Snowded 06:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it is now. The box calls her a writer and mentions that philosophy is her subject. By the way, the Routeledge entry is available, with hostile commentary, here. MilesMoney (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "popular philosopher" is almost always used to indicate a writer of popular philosophy, as philosophers who are popular are remarkably rare. Regardless, a phrase that has more than one interpretation is not "lying", especially when the phrasing comes directly from multiple sources, as it does (more on that below). The claim that "The source says she's an amateur" is pure confirmation bias. There are currently six sources cited around her being a philosopher. Four call her "philosopher" with no qualifier. One calls her a "popular philosopher". The fifth, which you wish to focus on exclusively, indicates she was an amateur, but does not use the phrase "amateur philosopher" and also places "amateur" as a sub-category of "popular". I was able to quickly find five seven additional uses of "popular philosopher" in respectable sources (reference works, journal articles and books from academic publishers):

• The Encyclopedia of Ethics (published by Taylor & Francis and edited by Lawrence C. Becker) calls her a "novelist and philosopher" in the first sentence of its entry for her, then later says "many intellectuals continued to dismiss her as a reactionary popular philosopher".
• The entry for her in the long-running American Writers reference series says, "No longer merely a best-selling novelist, Rand quickly became a popular philosopher."
• Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind by Mimi Reisel Gladstein says that novel "ended her career as a novelist and launched Rand as a popular philosopher".
• Above the Bottom Line: An Introduction to Business Ethics (written by Robert C. Solomon and Clancy Martin, published by Wadsworth Publishing Company) refers to her as "The popular philosopher of 'the virtue of selfishness'".
• The 2008 article "Just Deserts: Ayn Rand and the Christian Right" (written by Cynthia Burack and published in Journal of Religion and Popular Culture), says "Rand is renowned as a best-selling author, a popular philosopher, and a guru who created her own system of thought and her own cult of personality."
• Another from Burack (this time co-authored): an introduction to a special issue of New Political Science which calls her "novelist and popular philosopher". Online and ungated here.
• In "The Challenge of Objectivist Ethics", an article in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Benedict Sheehy proclaims that "Rand’s influence as a novelist and popular philosopher can hardly be overstated. She is without doubt, America’s most popular, popular philosopher."

We should follow the sources, plural, not just the one that says what you prefer. --RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research, but I'm going to stick with our sources.

We all agree that Rand is a popular philosopher, but our sources identify three different meanings for "popular" in this context and then specify that the relevant meaning is "amateur".

Every source that calls her "popular" is just supporting the conclusion that we need to call her "amateur". MilesMoney (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Searching for additional sources and citations does not constitute "original research". Some of these sources may help with the specific sections on philosophy, reception, and legacy. Not just the introduction. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

RL's misinterpretation of the sources is the original research. Logically, since amateur philosophy is a subcategory of popular philosophy, no amount of sources identifying Rand as a popular philosopher can contradict her status as an amateur philosopher. On the other hand, we have sources which specifically identify her as not just a popular philosopher, but as an amateur.

Now, I want this article to be completely fair and I'm still not in love with "amateur" because of its connotations. As that source points out, there were centuries of only amateur philosophers, and it's no insult to call them amateurs. On the other hand, "popular" is not only imprecise, but misleading, so it won't do.

I'm not here to either bury Rand or praise her, so I'd be happy to replace "amateur" with something that gets the same idea across but is nicer to Rand. One way might be to define her in terms of what she's not: "non-professional" or "non-academic". The positive is that "amateur" could mean either non-professional or unprofessional, so the former avoids this misunderstanding. In the same way, "non-academic" makes it clear that she has no degrees and isn't recognized by the community of philosophers, which is also accurate. What do you think? MilesMoney (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't going to appeal to her fanbase, but I did find a way we could use "popular" or something close to it. Sciabarra writes:

Academics have often dismissed her ideas as "pop" philosophy.

Unlike "popular philosopher", which makes her sound just popular, not amateur (or the other two meanings), "pop philosopher" makes it clear that she was both popular and amateur. However, while it's accurate, I'm not sure how flattering it is. On the other hand, it's not our job to flatter. MilesMoney (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

To describe the use of the exact phrase found in multiple cited sources ("popular philosopher") as "original research" and "misinterpretation" is ridiculous, especially when you keep adding an alternative phrase ("amateur philosopher") that is used in none of the cited sources. Also, the term "popular" is not misleading in any way, since in comparison to most philosophers who get little notice from the general public, Rand is quite popular. But "non-academic" could work -- there is support in sources for the phrasing, including The Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy, Contemporary Women Philosophers, and several others. It is also decidedly neutral, having no opinion-based coloring that might be found in some other terms. "Non-professional", on the other hand, has no support, and it would be misleading because it suggests Rand wasn't getting paid for her non-fiction work, when in fact she was. This is also a possible implication of "amateur" that makes it misleading in comparison with "popular" or "non-academic".

I think there is something more that needs to be taken from the sources: several of the sources brought up in this discussion make a point of the change in Rand's career, going from mostly writing fiction to writing non-fiction exclusively. The last 15-20 years of her career was not the same as what went before. This change is mentioned in the body of the article and is clear enough biographically. I would suggest a more substantial rewording of the lead to take account of this career division. I propose we say something like the following: she was "a Russian-born American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career became a non-academic philosopher and essayist." ("Essayist" has support in sources also, although the term is so obviously applicable I would hope it doesn't require another raft of footnotes.) Thoughts from others? --RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that the Oxford Companion tells us that "popular philosophy" has at least three distinct meanings, and common sense adds a fourth as a foreseeable misinterpretation. Fortunately, it removes any ambiguity by specifically identifying "amateur" as the meaning of "popular" in this context. Now, if you want to argue that the other sources mean it in some other way, you're going to fail, since neither of the other two meanings is even plausible. By exclusion, every source that calls her a popular philosopher is necessarily supporting her being an amateur one. As a result, showing us sources that call her popular only strengthens the argument for amateur. Refute this or accept it. MilesMoney (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because you interpret a phrase in a particular way does not mean that is what the author meant. Sheehy, in particular, is very clear about meaning both "popular" as in non-academic and "popular" as in well-known. So your belief that it isn't plausible for any of the sources to mean this is provably wrong. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your premises cannot lead to your conclusion. If a usage of "popular" refers to how many books she's sold, then it's irrelevant. If it doesn't, then it's calling her an amateur.

Anyhow, you're wrong in a few other ways because you're sloppy and can't read. The Oxford Companion lists three meanings for popular philosophy, none of which are about having lots of readers. So, once again, you get everything wrong. You are not WP:COMPETENT, much less WP:NPOV. MilesMoney (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The 3 footnotes after "amateur" contain 10 references. Do each of these 10 references use the term "amateur" to describe Rand? If not, then it is improper to conflate the description of Rand by using any of them which uses the term, with the others that do not. WP:RS says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." . (This guidance applies whether or not editors consider the term "amateur" to be positive or negative.) This does not mean "some of the sources should support". If there are particular sources that describe Rand as an amateur, those sources can be cited (preferably with quotes) later in the article. Including this term in the lede (without proper sourcing) is UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, have you read the Oxford Companion entry? MilesMoney (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether I've read something. The question is whether we are conflating the sources. I agree that "popular" is a vague and poorly chosen word to use when describing Rand. Perhaps using the term "philosophical fiction writer" would work. – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even in the information box, we classify her as a novelist who wrote about philosophical topics, but RL is right about her career shifting towards essays about her amateur philosophy. The problem is that any use of "popular" will mislead readers into thinking we're just saying she sold a lot of books, which is incidentally true but irrelevant. I could write popular philosophy while being an unpopular writer. In addition to many sources that refer to her "popular philosophy", which is ambiguous in four different ways, we have an extremely good source which has an article on the subject of popular philosophy and uses Rand as an example of amateur philosophy, in as many words. No conflation is required here. That's why I asked you if you read it. If you didn't, say so and I'll dump quotes here. MilesMoney (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question asked: Of the 10 cited references, five (Den Uyl & Rasmussen, Sciabarra, Kukathas, Burns, and Badhwar & Long) use the term "philosopher" without a qualifier. Four (Sheehy, Gladstein, Younkins, Baker) say "popular philosopher". (I would also note that in some cases, a source might use a qualifier in one place and no qualifier or a different qualifier elsewhere in the text.) None of these sources uses the phrase "amateur philosopher", but Quinton discusses her in a context that makes it clear that is how he categorizes her. Since all of these sources support "philosopher", removing that word would be entirely out of line (and it has been discussed ad nausem in the past). I'm open to the use of a qualifier as quite a few sources do use some sort of qualifier. "Popular" is a one specifically cited in the body of the article, but others used in reliable sources (not all cited currently) include "non-academic", "public", and "pop". The last is specifically described by sources as being the view of critics, so emphasizing it in the lead would be non-neutral. "Popular" is used by sources from a variety of POVs, possibly because it is ambiguous. As noted above, I'm fine with "non-academic", which seems very neutral and says something clear and meaningful. "Public" is also neutral, but doesn't seem very informative. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, it is not a question of conflation being "required". Rather, conflation is to be avoided. As per the reference count by RL0919, we do not have sufficient basis to use the term "amateur". (Even if it were a 1/9 or 9/10 split, we should avoid the terms "popular" and "amateur" because of their vagueness.) In any event, how many "professional philosophers" are out there in the world? University professors would qualify, but do they typically describe themselves as professional philosophers? Well, here is some interesting reading on the idea. . – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem not to have the Oxford Companion handy, I posted a section about it at the bottom of this page. You should read it.

How many professional gynecologists are there? All of them, right? If I was an amateur gynecologist, then I wouldn't be a gynecologist at all, just some strange perv. And to be a professional, I'd need the academic background. It's the same with philosophers: unless otherwise specified, we assume it's a professional with relevant academic degrees. MilesMoney (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to go back to what I suggested before, that we could say something like: she was "a Russian-born American novelist, playwright, and screenwriter, who later in her career became a non-academic philosopher and essayist." Does anyone object to "non-academic" as a description? I already noted multiple sources using this term, which could be added to the cited sources. --RL0919 (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RL's suggestion looks good. Thanks to MilesMoney for the amateur gyn remark -- it was a LOL moment. – S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer amateur, it is closer to 'largely ignored' (which is reality) than non-academic which would be a very modern phrase anyway. ----Snowded 06:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Amateur" doesn't have enough support in sources to stand in the lead. (As often happens, this discussion is overly lead-focused -- we should be incorporating the relevant POVs in body.) I'm not sure I understand your concern about "non-academic" being "very modern". Philosophy was an academic profession during Rand's lifetime. It's not like we are imposing a distinction on some ancient figure who predates professional academia. --RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion really deals as to whether or not the words "amateur" and/or "popular" should be in the lede. And I note there is a lot of dispute/opinion on the basic question as to whether or not AR and Objectivism are philosophic/philosophers/a philosophy. With this in mind, I think the best WP approach to the lede is to follow guidance in WP:LEDE. In writing it, we've got to consider NPOV, the most important aspects of the topics, and any prominent controversies. For the most part the lede works well. But the 3rd paragraph needs work. While AR's fiction may have been "poorly received", the fact that The Fountainhead (film) was filmed by King Vidor is significant, but ignored. Also, book sales increased markedly in later years. So, I recommend that the first sentence be broken up into two parts. First cover some of the specific literary criticisms and praise, and popularity of her works. Next we add remarks about how academia has accepted/rejected her ideas – using the terms "popular", "amateur", and "whatever". – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, there's universal agreement that Objectivism constitutes a philosophical system of some sort. There's some disagreement about whether it's any good, but that's another matter entirely. Likewise, Ayn Rand is some sort of philosopher. The question, in both cases, is what sort. Not academic, certainly. Popular, in the sense of having many supporters, sure. Popular, in the sense of being amateur, sure. These are important aspects that we can't ignore.

I'm ok with some of RL's suggestion, where we say she started off as a novelist/screenwriter/etc. and then segued into philosophical essays and speeches. I'm not ok with using the ambiguous "popular" when we really mean amateur. I'm also not ok with ignoring the fact that her writing was initially very unpopular, meaning nobody liked it. It's not enough for what we say to be accurate, it has to give an accurate impression. MilesMoney (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice you are still arguing against "popular", even though others have more recently been discussing the alternative of "non-academic", which is supported by at least 6 sources (I put three into the article in my last edit) and is 100% clear and non-misleading. But I see you've chose to revert in favor of the specific term "amateur", which is supported by 1 source and is misleading because it suggests Rand wasn't writing her philosophical essays as her career (which she was for about 20 years). Would you like to explain what your objection is to "non-academic"? --RL0919 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, either you're not WP:COMPETENT or you're lying. Every source that describes her as a popular philosopher (and doesn't just mean she had lots of fans) is supporting the idea that she was an amateur. You keep skipping over this as if nobody's gonna notice. Well, guess what, someone noticed.

I know a web site that calls her popular, but is honest about it. It says:

"Also, Objectivism is a "popular" philosophy, which originated in the writings of novelist with no formal background as an academic philosopher."

See how it explains that what sense "popular" is intended and even puts in in quotes to make sure nobody mistakes it for "lots of fans"? That's the sort of honesty we need here. Why are you against this sort of honesty when you wrote that quote? MilesMoney (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to the difference between "popular" (which has multiple meanings) and "amateur" (which also has multiple meanings, one of which overlaps with "popular"). If the sources were as clear as I was, we wouldn't have an issue, but they aren't. They often say "popular philosopher" without clarifying which meaning they intend. I can interpret my own thoughts but I don't presume that I can resolve every ambiguity in a printed source. In some cases they might be using the ambiguous term on purpose, either to mean both or to leave it open to interpretation. Your own argument against "popular" is based on a concern that it will be ambiguous! I prefer the entirely unambiguous term "non-academic", which you seemed to be OK with above. What changed, other than I accepted it and found multiple sources to support it? --RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really? Show me an ambiguous "popular" in a reliable source about her. If you can't, then I call BS. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

'Amateur' or 'pop' work, 'popular' might it if was qualified by some reference to the narrow range of that popularism. Non-academic does not as there are many who fit within that who have international repute, she does not ----Snowded 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The Oxford Companion contrasts Rand with Coleridge, who was non-academic but not amateur. MilesMoney (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So in the thread below you "don't disagree" with Yeti Hunter that "amateur" isn't negative because it can apply to reputable philosophers. (Yeti's example is Aristotle, one of the most renowned philosophers in history.) But here you agree with Snowded that we should exclude a perfectly neutral term precisely because it allows that interpretation. Is "amateur" neutral or negative? Please pick. --RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What does "popular" mean in reference to Rand if not amateur? I'll answer your question when you answer mine. MilesMoney (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In a number of cases it is ambiguous, because the author clearly understands that Rand has lot of fans and that she isn't an academic, and when they use the phrase "popular philosopher", it isn't clear whether they mean one, the other or both. Examples:

• Gladstein, Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind, p. 28, says that novel "ended her career as a novelist and launched Rand as a popular philosopher." No further explanation of the term is offered.
• The description in Younkins, Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion, p. 1, says it "propelled her into a career as a popular philosopher."
• The American Writers entry is similar: "No longer merely a best-selling novelist, Rand quickly became a popular philosopher."

Etc. There are several more short uses like these that simply don't have sufficient indicators to pick a meaning. (You might leap in your own mind to your own preferred interpretation, but the text doesn't provide that.) In contrast, there are instances where one or both meanings are clear:

• The entry in The Encyclopedia of Ethics says "many intellectuals continued to dismiss her as a reactionary popular philosopher". That seems clearly the "amateur" interpretation.
• In an article in the International Journal of Applied Philosophy the author says "Rand's influence as a novelist and popular philosopher can hardly be overstated. She is without doubt, America’s most popular, popular philosopher." The double use of the word makes it clear that both meanings are being invoked.

So, is "amateur" the neutral term envisioned by Yeti Hunter, or the implicit critique envisioned by Snowded? Or is it ambiguous? --RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not even a little bit true: any competent person can see that all of the links are about her practicing popular philosophy, rather than being a philosopher who's popular. MilesMoney (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Amateur is neutral in respect of the balance of the sources which do not take her seriously as a philosopher. As to her status in the US she is very popular within a particular political grouping, both outside (a minority party) and within (a minority section) of the Republican Party. Internationally she is more or less unknown and we are an international encyclopaedia. Being popular for espousing a political doctrine of selfishness is not the same thing as being popular as a philosopher. ----Snowded 06:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Amateur is undoubtedly accurate. Whether it's neutral, positive or negative depends on who you ask, and doesn't matter one bit to us. Every mention of her as popular either means she had lots of fans or she was an amateur. Even if we ignore the fans, the remaining mentions all support calling her an amateur. Frankly, the Oxford Companion is such a great source that it's good enough all on its own. But it's not all on its own. MilesMoney (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words in the lead

This edit by Medeis changed the wording of the lead, with the apparent goal of putting a more positive spin on how philosophers and literary critics reacted to Rand. It should be reverted, per WP:WEASEL. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be reverted, although I don't know that WP:WEASEL is the reason. "During her life" is just wrong as a qualifier, since the qualified remark is still true after her death. "With some exceptions" is true, but already absorbed earlier in the sentence where it says "generally" (not "universally"). Poorly vs. hostilely is a subtle difference, but "poorly" is more general and therefore I think more correct, since not every negative review was openly hostile. The "often for non-literary reasons" part is intuitively correct from reading the reviews, but it is not in the source that is currently cited, so to keep it would require an additional source -- preferably a peer-reviewed academic to minimize wrangling about source biases. So definitely revert for now, and perhaps add back the one phrase (or something similar) later if it can be supported with sources. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

List of people Rand influenced

I was considering the problem of the "Influenced" list in the infobox, which has been discussed on this talk page in the past. There are more people who could be added to the list, but at some point it becomes unwieldy to list them all, not to mention problematic to cite them if her influence on them isn't properly cited in their own articles. I wondered how this was handled for other popular thinkers, so I looked at the infobox for Rand's own idol, Aristotle, one of the most influential thinkers in the history of the world. Seeing what was done there has led me to create a new article, List of people influenced by Ayn Rand. There are about a hundred people listed therein (all bluelinks), with supporting citations. I'm hoping we can use this to both shorten the infobox list and perhaps cut down on the prose discussions of people she has influenced. Let me know what you think. --RL0919 (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reducing the list here to the really notable would be a blessing. I am less sure of the list itself as there are some potential BLP violations. The fact someone is listed in a book on the "cult" would really need corroboration for example. I suggest a drastic reduction to self-identification of a major influence ----Snowded 10:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP is of course a concern for any article that mentions the living, but limiting to just explicit statements of self-identification creates oddities because not everyone makes public autobiographical statements. So, for example, if we can't find an autobiographical statement by Robert Bidinotto or Peter Schwartz, both of whom have worked for Objectivist organizations, should they be excluded? That seems weird. That's why I went with the three-part statement of inclusion that appears at the top of the list (partially modeled on a similar list at List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction). In most cases additional sources could be provided; I actually tried to limit the number of different sources used to avoid reference overload. --RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If they worked for an objectivist institution then there is a case - my point is they are to some thing they said or did which makes it clear, not just someone claiming they were ----Snowded 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that should be mostly accounted for in the initial list; I tried to avoid any instances that seemed unconfirmed or gossipy. I didn't include some people mentioned by Branden or Merrill for this reason. The Block book is all autobiographical essays and Weiss did one-on-one interviews, so anything referenced to them should be very solid. I used Walker sparingly, although despite the title and tone of the book he was relatively careful about what he said about living individuals. That said, going forward over-inclusion is probably one of the biggest potential problems for the new article, since we have seen here the tendency to name-drop every celebrity who mentions one of her books in an interview. --RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK sounds good, not able to check all the books but assume you have done your work there. Fully agree on name dropping. Suggest we now cull the list on this page to maybe 4/5 and link?----Snowded 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried, but if any seem dubious I can double-check. Everyone makes mistakes. (In the other direction, I already noticed a couple of omissions.) As for the infobox on this page, I'd be happy if we omitted names from the Influenced list entirely and did something like this:

If folks can live with that, it would short-circuit future wrangles over who is "worthy" to appear in the box. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that - no one else seems engaged so I suggest you do it!

Aristotelian Philosophers

She certainly liked him (the famous 3As and all that) but to say she was one requires a third party source. So I have deleted the addition of that category ----Snowded 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not too hard to find sources that say this: Edward Younkins says it Philosophers of Capitalism, Thomas Gramstad in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, David Kelly in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, James Sterba in From Rationality to Equality. In The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, Jack Wheeler argues that Rand is even more Aristotelian than she thought herself. On the other hand, it is not an entirely non-controversial classification: Roderick Long argues that Rand isn't really an Aristotelian in Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. On balance it seems there are more sources saying she is than saying she isn't, with the usual large number of sources that don't discuss the question. YMMV about how one-sided it needs to be to justify a category. --RL0919 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly its controversial and given that she is hardly taken seriously in main stream philosophical circles the balance (if its there) is understandable. How anyone can read Aristotle on virtue and think that Rand is an Aristotelean I can't understand. I would want to check some of those sources anyway, saying that she was influenced by is not the same thing ----Snowded 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources with quotes and page numbers to facilitate the discussion:

• "I am an Aristotelian." Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 394
• "Ayn Rand's philosophy is Aristotelianism without Platonism." Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 459
• "Ayn Rand, whose philosophy is a form of Aristotelianism, had the highest admiration for Aristotle ..." Younkins, in Philosophers of Capitalism, p. 82. In the preface, he calls her philosophy "neo-Aristotelian" (p. ix).
• Sterba's section about Rand is titled "Ayn Rand's Aristotelian Alternative" (From Rationality to Equality, p. 94).
• "...Rand is an Aristotelian. Although much of Objectivism (especially its metaphysics) differs significantly from Aristotelian philosophy, Rand falls generally within the Aristotelian tradition..." Smith, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, p. 191
• Notwithstanding what Smith says, Kelley says her metaphysics is "basically Aristotelian" in The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, p. 81.
• Burns calls her "neo-Aristotelian" in Goddess of the Market, p. 148.
• Sandefur also calls her "neo-Aristotelian" in an entry on individualism in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (p. 241). The Rand entry in that same encyclopedia (by Sciabarra) refers to her "Aristotelian premises" (p. 414).
• In Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, Sciabarra manages to mention Aristotelianism numerous times without ever quite saying whether Rand was an Aristotelian or not.
• Machan refers to "Aristotelian characteristics" and "Aristotelian-inspired" metaethics in Ayn Rand (pp. 12, 19). He calls her metaethics "neo-Aristotelian" in an essay in Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Relativism in Ethics, p. 116.
• Long says that while her philosophy "proclaims itself a version of Aristotelianism", it takes various positions that "undermine her basically Aristotelian inclinations and sentiments". (Reason and Value, p. 5)

I started this list not particularly caring whether the category was included or not, but after accumulating the material I'm inclined to say it should be there. I also note that the category page says (in text stable since 2006), "This category is for philosophers who have been strongly influenced by Aristotle." That seems to fit Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of those are reliable third party philosophical sources? If those say it OK, otherwise its dubious and even influence has to show some understanding :-) ----Snowded 06:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Add to that the simple fact that she is not universally accepted as a Philosopher and I think we need something that is third party and authoritative ----Snowded 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't want to turn this into a reprise of the lopsided "philosopher" dispute. Only one of the sources above is Rand herself, so most are "third party", but I expect that isn't what you really mean. Sterba and Burns are non-Objectivist academics writing in books published by a prestigious university press. Machan and Younkins wrote in peer-reviewed academic essay collections. To the sources above I can now add the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Rand by Chandran Kukathas, and an essay by John C. Merrill in Ethical Communication: Moral Stances in Human Dialogue. Both are non-Objectivist academics. So even if you dismiss everyone who is an Objectivist or even "Objectivish", that's at least four peer-reviewed sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue of how do you prove a negative on Misplaced Pages is well illustrated by the "philosopher" issue, no idea why its "lopsided". Not sure the Burns quote counts, Sterba possibly. Long would be a contra argument and I own up to that being my sentiment. Routledge is more the sort of source I was looking for. If that is unambiguous (unlike Sterba) it could be enough ----Snowded 22:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

oh my god ......you guys are still fighting over Ayn Rand. its been like 4 years since i last checked in. i guess everyone needs a hobby. Brushcherry (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)brushcherry

The use of Sciabarra's "Transcript" article as a source

I have a question on the use of Sciabarra's 1999 JARS' article "The Rand Transcript". The article is used several times, mostly for very innocuous information. However, as I was reading the second edition of Essays on Ayn Rand's We The Living (ed. Robert Mayhew, 2012), I came across this very interesting critique of Sciabarra's source by Shoshana Milgram (p108-110, notes 26 and 32). Milgram makes several arguments as to why Sciabarra's analysis is problematic. Since the article only cites Sciabarra for evidence that Rand studied Plato and Aristotle in college, I don't have a problem with the citation per se. But I'm wondering if it's more intellectually honest or whatever to cite Milgram's article in conjunction with Sciabarra's? (In any case, the citation for the Mayew essay anthology should probably be updated with the information for the second edition as it incorporates three new articles.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonk2009 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 May 2013‎

What claims in the article would Milgram's piece be cited in support of, and why? The notes you mention above relate to matters that aren't discussed anywhere in this article, so there would be no reason to cite Milgram in relation to them. As to the book citation, we ought to be citing the edition used to source the material, regardless of what the most recent edition is. To change the edition, someone should review the four instances where it is cited to confirm that the text still supports the claims and that page numbers haven't changed, updating the citations if needed. Otherwise we will have a mismatch. --RL0919 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the notes I pointed to in particular cite problems with Sciabarra's 1999 analysis of Rand's transcripts. His article is used to back up very innocuous facts, such as Rand's introduction to Aristotle and Plato (note 14). As such, it's not really a problem. However, Milgram's article supports the exact same fact with additional and up-to-date scholarship. The article could reflect that--or it doesn't need to. Brandon K (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"un" or "less"?

In this sentence, "After two early novels that were initially less successful, she achieved fame with her 1943 novel The Fountainhead...", the mistaken impression is that there were "more" successful novels that preceeded AR's two early novels. I suggest that you replace "less successful" with "unsuccessful"; it's accurate and succinct. Autodidact1 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

What it says now is that "We the Living" and "Anthem" were unsuccessful in America, moderately successful elsewhere. For the first, "Initial sales were slow and the American publisher let it go out of print, although European editions continued to sell". The second, "initially could not find an American publisher". MilesMoney (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Input for Night of January 16th

I have been working recently on the Night of January 16th article, with the thought of nominating it for good article status. Since this page has a lot more watchers than that one, many of whom are familiar with Rand's works and perhaps that play in particular, I'm hoping others can take a look and see if there are further improvements needed before moving forward. Thanks in advance for any input. --RL0919 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For anyone watching, I've opened a peer review request for the article. No feedback yet after the first week. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rand on discrimination

An editor has been attempting to edit the description of Rand's statements about homosexuality into a more general statement that she had views "opposing laws against private-sector discrimination while also opposing public-sector discrimination" (in this edit, for example). First this was done with no source, in the process mistakenly suggesting the information may have come from the source previously cited for Rand's views on homosexuality. When challenged for a source, it was re-done with a source borrowed from the Objectivism and homosexuality article. There are a couple of problems here. Most important, the cited source still does not support the text. It says nothing about homosexuality or gay rights, and only briefly alludes to discrimination without explicitly stating any view Rand had on the subject. Second, the mention of Rand's views on this subject in this particular article is in a specific biographical context, that of her making controversial statements in public appearances. To fit into the article as it stands, the stated position would not just need to be an accurate (and sourced) representation of her views, but it would need to be a view she stated in a public appearance and which a secondary source had described as controversial. Even if the cited source could be interpreted as representing Rand's views on discrimination (which it doesn't explicitly do), it gives no such biographical context. So I've reverted the change here, and tagged the source as "failed verification" in the Objectivism and homosexuality article. --RL0919 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Before we talk about sources, let's make sure we got the facts right, so lemme know which ones are off:

1) She opposed public-sector discrimination against gays.

2) She opposed laws interfering with private-sector discrimination against gays.

You run http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/index.html so you should know this stuff, right? And it's not like you've got any sort of conflict of interest or anything... MilesMoney (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Did I say anywhere, "this statement is factually wrong"? My suggestion is that you read WP:VERIFY and WP:TRUTH before proceeding. To play off a common phrase, "sources or it didn't happen". Also please note the concern about biographical context. As for your personal comments, you are also welcome to read WP:COI and then explain specifically what conflict of interest you believe exists, rather than vaguely insinuating that there is one. My talk page is linked in the signature stamp for this comment. --RL0919 (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, I've been reading up on policies with names like BLP and RS, and behind all the jibber-jabber, they're here so that we don't post nonsense. If we agree that those two statements are true and we both want this bio to be correct, then we're on the same side. All we gotta do is make sure that we back it up with refs so nobody has any doubts.

Your own site quotes her with "All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed" and "...I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it", so that backs up the first.

It also backs up the second by quoting her as opposing laws against private discrimination, even when it means allowing racism, which she despised.

Now, if we didn't say that Rand was against discriminatory laws, we could just stop there. But we do, so we have to add the part about her being opposed to anti-discriminatory laws, otherwise we wind up lying by omission. We can't do that, can we? MilesMoney (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We omit lots of things, since an encyclopedia article cannot recount every detail of Rand's life and views -- it would be hundreds of pages long. We try to use secondary sources as a guide to what should be included. The portion of the article you have been editing discusses what secondary sources have called out as controversial commentary Rand made in her public appearances. It is not a list of every thing Rand ever thought or that we might infer she thought. To my knowledge, Rand never made any public statements about laws against private anti-gay discrimination. Such laws were rare in Rand's lifetime and arose after she stopped most public speaking, so possibly it just never came up. It is not acceptable for us to infer what she might have thought and claim it as her view.

She did make statements about racism and laws against racial discrimination, which is a different topic from homosexuality. If there is a secondary source that says Rand's public statements on race were controversial, then potentially we could include that in addition to what we now say about her controversial statements on homosexuality and other topics. But we would need a source for that. The two main sources being used now, Burns and Heller, describe no such controversy. --RL0919 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In Commando, Arnold lied by saying "I let him go", when he'd just dropped the guy off a cliff. He lied by telling part of the truth. We're not going to do that.

The way it sounds now, Rand opposed discrimination against gays. That's a lie. She opposed any laws pro or con. This means she opposed discrimination by the government but also opposed the government getting in the way of other discrimination.

Now, you already admitted it's true, but now you're flip-flopping like Romney. She said that the government has no business trying to stop discrimination. It's original research by you when you say she only meant racism. In fact, she opposed racism as immoral but still supported the right of racists to discriminate. Since she thought homosexuality was immoral and disgusting, it's sticking your words in her mouth to say she'd make an exception by supporting laws forbidding private discrimination against gays.

I'm going to fix the article. If you want to break the rules, you're going to get in trouble. MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You should worry less about whether I am "flip-flopping" or might "get in trouble" (I got a good chuckle from that), and more more about whether there are sources to support the changes you want to make. There is a difference between what a Misplaced Pages editor might believe and what can be documented using sources. We should not put a claim in the article that Rand made controversial public statements about something that she is not documented as speaking about. To call such restraint "sticking ... words in her mouth" is an Orwellian way to describe the situation. Your latest, much more modest edit is close enough to what the sources say that I don't object, so it may be an acceptable compromise. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment

This article has been vigorously policed by a Rand fan base that will not continence the inclusion of information they feel "damaging" to Rand's legacy as an iconic avatar in the field of philosophy. The grip of this Rand watch group is continuous, and manipulatively vigilant, compromising the integrity of Misplaced Pages. That this entry has been considered for "Good Article" status is particularly egregious. The caution box posted on top of this page, only confirms the lack of impartiality practiced by "interested parties."Betempte (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to list specific items rather than make general accusations. There are plenty of non-randinistas who monitor the page, but we have to take an evidence based approach ----Snowded 16:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll bring one up. Rand is known for having a typically libertarian position on gay rights, which is that she's against the government discriminating but also against the government preventing discrimination. This isn't a secret, it's not even embarrassing (among libertarians), but I've had a lot of push-back when trying to fix the page so it says all this correctly. Coincidentally, this all came from a huge fan of Rand who runs a popular pro-Rand web site. MilesMoney (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What is not coincidental is that there are no sources for this, because that's why you are getting pushback. Similarly, when another editor attempted to insert a long, blatantly non-neutral commentary against Rand based primarily on a posting to a political blog, it was quickly reverted by an editor who seems to have little interest in Rand but can recognize tendentious content. We are also confronted with the other side of the POV coin, editors who want to remove negative comment, no matter how well sourced. This fellow, for example, insisted that her literary and academic reception was not negative. Fortunately there was a cabal of hardened anti-Rand critics who resisted this ... oh, wait. --RL0919 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Companion to Philosophy

This is a very high quality source because it's an academic reference, not just the opinion of some particular philosopher. The book is over a thousand pages and it's recent. It represents the mainstream view and beats out cherry-picked opinions.

Now, it does briefly mention Ayn Rand on her own, but only in the context of listing some articles that were submitted but did not pass muster because of their subject material. In other words, the editor rejected the idea that Rand deserves a biographical article. This is typical: academic philosophers generally don't think much of her, so the editor's view once again reflects the mainstream. It also helps remind us of why we can't just call her a philosopher; it would mislead readers into thinking she was someone like Bertrand Russell.

Rand gets mentioned again in an article that's not about her, though. It's about "popular philosophy", and starts by offering three different definitions. Here's the first sentence, on page 739:

"There are three main kinds of popular philosophy: first, general guidance about the conduct of life; secondly, amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy; thirdly, philosophical popularization."

Rand only fits into the second category, and the author explicitly puts her there, removing any ambiguity. Note that none of these listed categories includes "a philosophy that just so happens to be popular among the masses"; that's an obvious but incorrect inference that we can nonetheless expect readers to make.

The author goes on to talk about how amateur isn't always bad and having a degree doesn't always make you an amateur. Then he shifts to more recent examples, writing:

"In the twentieth century amateur systems increasingly failed to find their way into print; most of them languished in typescript and photocopy. One arresting exception is 'The Social Contract of the Universe' by C. G. Stone, a most ambitious piece of deduction. There are also the works of L. L. Whyte and George Melhuish, and, in the United States, Ayn Rand, stren-uous exponent of objectivism and self-interest."

He's saying outright that her philosophy was amateur. Of course, there's no way she could be a professional philosopher if what she created was amateur philosophy, so this necessarily makes her an amateur philosopher.

If you think I'm cherry-picking these quotes, please post something I skipped but that you think is important. Otherwise, I think it's pretty clear that Rand is an amateur philosopher and Objectivism is an amateur philosophy. MilesMoney (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeping company with Aristotle is unlikely to be seen as an insult.-Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and yet her biggest fans are against us calling her an amateur. RL runs a Rand fan web site, which shows his biases. MilesMoney (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just gotta say that SRich and RL have been awful quiet here. Guess they agree. MilesMoney (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of the original, so I don't need to read via your excerpts, and I don't see a need to discuss the same topic across multiple threads on the same page. As long as 'amateur' is fueled by this one source, it isn't going to last. --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Amateur" is fueled by each and every mention of popular. I've asked you, both here and the other page to explain what "popular" means if not "amateur". Still waiting. Guess you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you replied to Yeti but not me, I'm absolutely certain you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misconstrue my quietness. And please don't misconstrue RL's interest in Objectivism. Discussions on article talk pages must focus on the articles, not the editors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is about a source for the article, but you've been silent. Guess you agree. MilesMoney (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We, as editors, seek to improve articles by considering policy, guidelines, etc. Guesses do not help. – S. Rich (talk)

So long as you stay quiet on the topic, we can only guess. Do you deny anything I said in this section? MilesMoney (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney has at least provided a short, quotable citation that could be either incorporated into the text or into a note. There is no reason to simply ignore the reference, because we don't have a dozen other references sharing an identical perspective. Dimadick (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thing is, I think we do. The only thing special about the Oxford Companion is that it's more precise.

Think about it. We have dozens of references calling her a "popular philosopher" or saying her work was "popular philosophy", but RL claims he doesn't know what the term means. Fortunately for RL, we do, because the Oxford Companion tells us, in as many words, that Rand's popular philosophy is an amateur one. Of the three legitimate meanings of "popular philosopher" (and the one misunderstanding about having fans), we don't even have to guess. We know the right meaning and can just use the word itself to prevent people like RL from misunderstanding further. We can say amateur instead of popular.

We can't use non-academic because it's not what the source says and it contradicts the source, which gives the example of Coleridge, who is not an amateur despite not being an academic. In other words, it's possible for a non-academic like Coleridge to avoid being an amateur, but Ayn Rand is both a non-academic and an amateur. Again, it's right there. We don't get to disagree with it.

According to WP:OR, high-quality tertiary sources such as the Oxford Companion are exactly what we need when summing up many different views with due weight. And that's what we're doing when we try to briefly explain what sort of philosopher she was. It's more valuable than wrangling over which secondary sources to count, because the wrangling has been done for us by experts in the field. All we have to do is read and understand the source. MilesMoney (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I have no objection to the word "amateur". I take it as a compliment, and so would Rand, I have no doubt. As an amateur sportsman, I know perfectly well that it means only unpaid (from the latin amator, "lover") , and its connotation of "novice" is merely a hangover from the total victory achieved by the professionals in the amateur/professional sport conflict.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and she had no love for the pros. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Srich -- Policy states that you should respond to Miles, not remain silent in response to his attempts to engage you in resolution of a disagreement. Miles is not "guessing" about content, and your remark to him on that score is either mistaken or disingenuous. SPECIFICO talk 03:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeti Hunter, the problem with the term "amateur" is that only this one source has been found to use this term for her. Other terms are used in far more sources. I can name over a dozen that just call her "philosopher" without a modifier. At least a half-dozen call her "non-academic". Even more call her by the ambiguous term "popular", often leaving it unclear whether they mean she is popular as in well-known (which is true) or popular as in non-academic (also true). Maybe they mean both. Some sources call her a "public philosopher", others a "novelist-philosopher". Some sources use more than one of these. Given the many references, to prefer the term used least often (cited to a single source) goes against WP:UNDUE. --RL0919 (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's usually pretty clear whether they mean lots-of-fans or amateur. But the right word here is amateur, because that's what our best sources say "popular" means when it comes to her. In other words, every time she's called popular (but not lots-of-fans popular), it supports amateur. You need to deal with this, not ignore it. If you ignore my argument, I gotta ignore your opinion; that's policy. MilesMoney (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RL, I do think the debate is ridiculous and that failure to have a degree or be part of the club in no way determines one's status as a philosopher or otherwise. However this debate is unlikely to go away if even sources like Routeledge and Stanford are apparently unacceptable, and I think "amateur" is a perfectly informative modifier. It gives context to her later financial troubles, as she derived no income from her philosophy. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And I oppose non-academic purely for the reason that it would be blatantly obvious what a silly debate has been had, and what a silly compromise was reached. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

SRSLY. There is almost consensus for "amateur philosopher". Take it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be 2-2 in the most recent comments, which is hardly consensus. If you think "amateur philosopher" is some sort of compromise with removing the word "philosopher" entirely, then I don't think so. There are literally dozens of sources that support calling her a philosopher, so there is no serious risk of permanent removal. "Amateur" only made it into the article because Miles has been very aggressive in comparison with other editors, but if it comes to it I will open an RFC before I let a handful of editor push a single-sourced, non-neutral term into the lead. "Non-academic" is supported in more sources than "amateur". Take take up Miles' interpretation (arguendo), any source that says "amateur" or "popular" (where the meaning clearly isn't what he calls "lots-of-fans popular) is also supporting "non-academic" since the meanings overlap. Also, I don't know what you mean to say she earned no money from philosophy, since she published a magazine and had several books released, which did in fact make money. Not as much as a bestselling novel, to be sure, but definitely income. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Way I see it, you and SRich are both breaking the rules by refusing to engage, so you don't get a vote. Besides, consensus isn't voting. MilesMoney (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and your argument's bogus because it's based on a false premise. The Oxford Companion distinguishes between amateur and non-academic, and uses the amateur. Look at Coleridge. MilesMoney (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when is a dozen replies over the last two days "refusing to engage"? But to engage once again: one source is not sufficient to justify placing a controversial term in the lead, particularly when there are better-sourced alternatives that overlap the meaning. There are multiple sources backing other terms, but you reject any other term. Well, stubbornness is not consensus either. --RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since they're bogus replies. You take out the ones that are evasive, dishonest or incompetent, and you're as quiet as a church mouse. Look how you never answer what "popular" means if not "amateur" or how you keep ignoring how each "popular" supports "amateur". Do you have an answer? MilesMoney (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Answered in detail in the thread above. It isn't my problem if you don't have the patience to wait a few hours while I put together detailed information from multiple sources (something I notice you don't have for the word "amateur"). --RL0919 (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

One rock-solid, high-quality source beats a million of your misunderstood ones. MilesMoney (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

L. L. Whyte? Would that be Lancelot Law Whyte who printed works on an unified field theory of physics? Dimadick (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The same. In his spare time, when he wasn't helping Einstein, he dabbled in philosophy. This lists some papers published by the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Not many people are familiar with the breadth of his word, and his Wikibio does not do him justice. MilesMoney (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The tale thus far

Dimadick made a relevant point above that deserves response, but it was inserted into the middle of a long thread. I want to respond at some length and give some context to this discussion. Dimadick wrote, "MilesMoney has at least provided a short, quotable citation that could be either incorporated into the text or into a note. There is no reason to simply ignore the reference, because we don't have a dozen other references sharing an identical perspective." That's entirely true. We don't need to ignore this source or exclude it from the text of the article. That does not mean, however, that this one source should be made more important than all other sources when it comes to the description of Rand in the lead. This one source, the only source produced so far that uses "amateur" as the description of Rand (technically as a description of her work, but I recognize the inference). It is the least attested wording of all the choices attempted, so I don't think it is out of line for me to prefer one of the others. But MilesMoney isn't having any of that. The discussion around "amateur" has followed an interesting path:

• MilesMoney first said that the article should not falsely claim Rand was an academic philosopher. To my knowledge the article has never said this, and I replied noting that.
• Miles then inserted "amateur" as a qualifier for "philosopher" in the lead, claiming that I had agreed to such an insertion. Note that at this point there is no source for the term; it's just MilesMoney's own conclusion.
• I reverted the addition due to lack of any source for it.
• Miles then found one source and reinserted the term into the lead. At this point he also notes that the same source could be used to justify the term "popular", although he doesn't prefer that term. Supposedly it is OK if I look for sources supporting other terms -- "amateur" is just a "placeholder".
• I notice that the phrase "popular philosopher" is already used in the body of the article, and already has a source there. I also find it in other sources. And as Miles had said, the source he used for "amateur" also supports "popular". With one term we can make the same point about Rand's status, encompass more sources, and comply with the WP:LEAD rule that the lead summarize material that is in the body of the article. Perfect! So I switch the term and supply the relevant source that was already in the body.
• Nope, it has to be the term that Miles decided on before he even had a source. Maybe it isn't a placeholder after all.
• Now the insults begin. I'm not competent, and finding sources that use a different term is "original research".
• Thinking that I wasn't clear enough that there are several sources supporting the term "popular", I add more of them to the article and supply even more on the talk page.
• Nope, it has to be the term that Miles decided on before he even had a source, regardless of how many sources use the other term instead. Clearly this was no placeholder.
• Somehow, using the exact wording from multiple sources is claimed to be "misinterpretation" and "original research". However, supposedly alternatives are still acceptable, just not the word "popular". "Non-academic" is one that Miles would be "happy" to accept.
• OK, I propose that we accept the alternative Miles suggested and use "non-academic". I also suggest some other wording improvements based on what I've found in my research of multiple sources.
• Miles likes most of what I suggest (maybe I'm not incompetent?), but implements it with one exception: the term "amateur" has to stay, not the supposedly acceptable alternative "non-academic".
• I switch to the supposedly acceptable alternative of "non-academic" and add multiple sources that support that specific term.
• Nope, it's got to be the term Miles decided on before he even had a source.
• I'm open to any neutral term that is supported by multiple sources. I do not, however, agree with the particular way Miles wants to interpret some of the sources.
• The insults start up again: I'm "sloppy" and "can't read", as well as being biased and incompetent. Or maybe I'm "lying". If I don't respond within hours to every specific point Miles makes in multiple threads across two different talk pages, I'm secretly in agreement with his position and I'm "refusing to engage". My replies are "bogus" and "evasive, dishonest or incompetent" and thus not to be considered as replies at all! Ad nauseam. Similar insults are repeated on other pages, even on my own talk page.

So, I ask Dimadick and any other viewers, what am I supposed to think of this? I accept alternatives suggested by Miles, and I provide multiple sources in support of these alternatives. But every time I am reverted and heaped with abuse because I don't agree with the specific term that he decided to use before he had even looked for a source. Does that seem like collegial editing or an attempt to follow the sources? Is this how we come to content decisions now? --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

RL, you gonna be surprised when I say that I don't think your summary is accurate? I'm not gonna spend the rest of my life correcting each mistake, but the big one is your misrepresentation of what our sources say. Remember, you insist that you don't understand what "popular philosophy" means, which means you are in no position to evaluate our sources. On the other hand, English is one of my native languages, so I got no problem understanding simple words and phrases. I also understand that the Oxford Companion is much more reliable than any cherry-picked secondary source, and that none of those secondary sources disagree with the statement that Ayn Rand's philosophy is amateur.

So, when it comes down to it, you wasted a big chunk of your life cranking out a summary that's not only wrong but entirely misses the point. Bet you wish you hadn't done that now. MilesMoney (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I know you have been around these pages long enough to be a little more robust than implied by your comments above. The argument against non-academic and popular have been made above. Ignore any assumed insult and focus on the content issue. ----Snowded 19:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As one who neither knows nor much cares about Ayn Rand, I agree with Snowded's remark. This is really not a big deal of an issue but various editors appear to feel they WP:OWN this article or its subject matter. On the content: It's not a big deal of an issue because the text of the article cites various RS that make clear that Rand was no philosopher. In fact the whole discussion only arises because unlike L. Frank Baum, whose Wizard of Oz has inspired hundreds of millions, Rand has a group of followers who apparently are highly concerned that she be labeled a philosopher. That dubious title, not the substance of Rand's writings, is in dispute. Now, looking at text of the article, it seems to provide considerable well-sourced detail as to why "philosopher" is not the best label for her, but even if it were the best it would only be a label. The solution to this contentious dispute will come through further development of the article text on Rand and her work. I can't see that anything useful will come from arguing it in the abstact, certainly not before some uninvolved editors arrive on the scene. At some point the lede will be edited to reflect whatever stable content emerges in the article itself.

Meanwhile, if any of you can't let go of this, why not post for additional input on the WP Projects listed at the top of the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I constructed the timeline above to show precisely that I have repeatedly focused on content and replied to substantive issues, so I'm not clear on why I would need to be advised to do that. I will open an RFC if needed, but in the meantime, here's some more content for you: I've updated User:RL0919/Randbox with dozens of quality sources calling Rand "philosopher" with and without various modifiers. Some are cited in the article already, others aren't. The phrase "amateur philosopher", which some editors are so eager to impose, is not among them. There are several alternatives to pick from that are better supported, with multiple reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we've had several earlier debates on "amateur" in this article's talk page (see/search the 46 archive pages), plus a debate at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Amateur, and an extensive Ayn Rand ArbCom discussion indicates using the term "amateur" is controversial within Misplaced Pages itself. (I would think there are other debates on this particular topic outside of WP.) There are even more talkpage discussion to be found in the archives regarding the word "popular". With this in mind, editors ought to seek a consensus for a re-write of the first sentence of the lede, and give a brief mention of the "controversial" aspects (e.g., the amateur status) of her philosophy later down in the lede. So, here are some suggestions:

1. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and developer of the philosophical system she called Objectivism."
2. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and developer of a philosophical system she called Objectivism."
3. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and founder of the philosophical system she called Objectivism."
4. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and founder of a philosophical system she called Objectivism."
5. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and developer of Objectivism."
6. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and the founder of Objectivism."
7. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and essayist in philosophical subjects."
8. "...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter, and essayist in Objectivism."
9. Add your suggestion here

Of course there are other possibilities. Develop one, pick one, and then avoid another go-round the mulberry bush. – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not just drop the term "philosopher" altogether? It's not at all clear that she was a philosopher. Some RS say she is but others certainly would not. She was openly dismissive of the philosophical tradition since Aristotle (and contemptuous of Hume, Kant and basically all other enlightenment thinkers) and the philosophers returned the favor. Her philosophy is (unlike that of Robert Nozick, who developed (though later repudiated) similar ideas but actually made an effort to examine and respond to opposing arguments in the philosophical tradition) not taken seriously among academic philosophers. Steeletrap (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We'd be lying if we just said she was a philosopher without explaining what kind she is. MilesMoney (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would we drop a term that is used for her in dozens of sources, including all the sources used to support "popular philosopher", "non-academic philosopher", etc.? --RL0919 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we also have dozens of RS that explicitly say she isn't one. Steeletrap (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, dozens? This subject has been debated here for years and I don't recall these dozens of explicit sources being cited or quoted. Perhaps you could produce some examples so we can compare their content and quality with the sources that call her a philosopher. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

None of these are any good because they don't mention that Objectivism is an amateur philosophy and Ayn Rand is an amateur philosopher, which is what our sources say. Try again, only stick to the sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The treatment of Objectivism & Rand as amateur can be/is/should be handled in the Objectivism article and lower in the lede/Ayn Rand (this) article. Any one of these suggestions would work (IMO) as the introductory sentence for the lede. The lede, as stated, should mention controversies. But should not do so in the opening sentence. WP:BALANCE must be considered and observed. The RS, pro-amateur and anti-amateur, gets treated later on. – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the moment we call her a philosopher without saying what kind, we've screwed up. There's no controversy here: she was an amateur. Feel free to provide any reliable source at all which said otherwise. MilesMoney (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

None of the/my proposed first sentences uses the term "philosopher". Please endorse one version, or propose your own. Either way, let's move on, reach consensus, and finally get away from this Great Taste ... Less Filling! discussion. No matter what, insisting on "amateur" in this debate will not help build WP. – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We face the problem that is that it appears to be an article of faith in Randian circles that she is a Philosopher (with a capital P etc. etc). We also need to avoid confusing Objectivism, Objectivism in the Randian sense and Rand. To many in the US there are the same but not so in a wider community. Objectivism has a long history before Rand. Objectivism in the Randian sense has professional and respected Philosophers such as Nozick in its modern tradition. Mind you they all tend to apologise for Rand as a 'philosopher'. RL0919, am I correct that you are responsible for one of the Ayn Rand think tanks or associations? I know you are normally careful to pay attention to sources but here I do think we have cherry picking. Dropping philosopher completely but saying that as a writer she was in part responsible for a recent philosophical position called objectivism is possible (none of the phrases do this and she is not solely responsible). If we use the term philosopher then amateur is the best qualifier ----Snowded 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not run, work for, or hold membership in any "Ayn Rand think tanks or associations". I do have a website (not updated in the last few years) of information about Rand and Objectivism -- lists of books on the subject, links to online criticisms, etc. The link is on my user page. As for the content of the article, "amateur" is one of the least-used modifiers for "philosopher" in sources discussing Rand. There are several alternatives that are better attested in sources. If I am "cherry-picking", then it should not be terribly difficult to come up with a list of sources using the phrase "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand, just as I have produced lists of sources using other phrasings. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the honesty. So what do you think of the alternative below? It avoids a choice between 'popular' and 'amateur' but links to the philosophical movement for which she was the starting point. ----Snowded 06:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the one you suggested immediately below, then I prefer the current wording over it. I think we should note her mid-life career change (a point overlooked in the lead until the recent discussions), and numerous sources identify her as some sort of "philosopher", even if it sometimes attached with a qualifier or critique, like the guy who called her "the worst philosopher in the history of Western Civilization". Even if you think the spade is blunt and rusty, you still call it a spade. --RL0919 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A variation:" ...was a Russian-born American novelist, playwright and screenwriter whose views gave rise to Objectivism" ----Snowded 04:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Snowded, I like your commentary and suggestion. But "Objectivism" in the WP sense is tied in directly with Rand. E.g., we have Objectivism (Ayn Rand), not Objectivism (pre-dating Ayn Rand). What can we do in this regard? – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The way it is normally handled is through the dab link. We have faced attempts in the past to change the name of that article to Objectivism rather than Objectivism (Ayn Rand) but todate they have failed despite an off-wiki campaign and meat puppetry ----Snowded 05:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism is in fact a disambiguation page, as it should be. --RL0919 (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, all of your suggestions are unacceptable for the same two reasons. They either call Objectivism a philosophy (without mentioning that it's amateur) or they don't identify it at all, leaving the reader guessing (and probably guessing wrong).

Snowded is right that objectivism is something that's been around long before Rand, but Objectivism (note the capital) is Rand's own amateur system of philosophy, which she claims to be solely responsible for.

Mainstream academic philosophy qualifies "objectivism" by saying what in specific is objective, such as metaphysical objectivism or ethical objectivism. Rand combined all of the above, and then some, into something of her own. Rand's Objectivism is therefore not a philosophical position, but a system that includes many positions that are supposedly linked. Essentially, it's whatever Rand believed, plus any authorized changes by her "intellectual heir" (originally Branden, but then Peikoff).

This is a bit hard to grasp for people educated in academic philosophy, particularly the idea of owning a system and authorizing its contents, but it is what it is. MilesMoney (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you might be going a little far there. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) does have several professional philosophers and also political scientists engaged. I have a personal opinion that it is amateurish in respect of science and perverted in terms of ethics and aesthetics, but that is a personal opinion and it has no place in the article. Yes while she was alive (and with some of her adherents) the attempt to control was problematic but it didn't work. Hence my use of 'gave rise to', to indicate that she did not own or control what happened although I am happy to hold her responsible! ----Snowded 05:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to downplay the idea of phrasing this with "system of", perhaps we are getting too hung up on "philosophy" and/or "system of philosophy" terminology. Compare, we have systems of law, religion, mathematics, measurement, etc.. Is one these any more professional or amateurish than the other? But when we seek to say "my system of...." is valid/professional/academic etc. and your "system of ...." is invalid/amateurish/plebeian etc ... and here is the RS that backs up my view!, we are ignoring the fact that these philosophies, religions, beliefs, views, etc. are non-empirical. What do we have to back up our views? Nothing more than the views of others. As Wikipedians we set aside these views and present the material as objectively and non-partisanly as possible. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

SRich, it depends on the expectation of professionality in the field. I joked about the amateur gynecologist, but the core of truth is that we expect doctors to be professionals as part of the definition. In other areas, amateur versions exist, but we'd default to an expectation of professionality. For example, if someone who has no training as a lawyer writes essays on legal theory, we might consider them an amateur lawyer. Philosophy is somewhere in between; there is such a thing as an amateur philosopher, but unless we're told otherwise, we're going to assume it's not an amateur. That's why we have to head off the foreseeable misunderstanding by calling her a philosopher (which, in some sense, she clearly is) but not JUST calling her that.

Snowded, there are some pro philosophers who are either associated with an Objectivist organization or at least write about Objectivism. If we said otherwise, we'd be lying. But if we made it sound as if it was anything but rare, we'd also be lying. We have to avoid making overstatements but also avoid leaving too much unsaid. It's a tough balancing act.

Even though a few pros are involved, Objectivism is still not a professional, academic philosophy. It is an amateur, popular philosophy that has caught on with a few pros but is mostly the domain of amateurs and laymen. MilesMoney (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a little more complex than that. We have for example Tara Smith is tenured in a Philosophy Department, but of course it takes funding from a Randian Foundation. Money can always buy pseudo-respectibility. It's is clearly very minor, cult like etc but we can't call the whole Philosophy amateur ----Snowded 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, a little more, but not by that much. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, lemme start off by giving you some ammo to use again me, though.

If you're saying we can call Objectivism a philosophy without qualifying it (as amateur, popular, non-academic or something else), then I disagree. If you're saying there's been a somewhat successful attempt to legitimize it as philosophy, then I concede as much. I think we all agree that Objectivism started off as an amateur philosophy, was mostly ignored in academia while Rand lived, and has only belatedly and half-heartedly been allowed any purchase within academia since, although it is still more a negative example -- a target for worthy criticism -- than a positive one.

Does that make it a semi-amateur philosophy? An amateur philosophy that is a bit less amateur now? Semi-pro? Pro-am? I don't think we should be judging this. Do we have any reliable sources that touch on it? And, by reliable, I specifically mean neutral sources, not people like Sciabarra who've made their career out of Rand and have a strong motive to bias them on this exact issue. MilesMoney (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to show you that I'm not crazy biased against Sciabarra, here's a quote from that article I linked to, with original emphasis: "in the wide scheme of things, I'll still take any mention of Rand I can get if it brings attention to her life and work."

The article lists examples of Rand being mentioned academically (like the Oxford Companion to American Literature, a fine place for a novelist), but it doesn't list conspicuous absences (like the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which explicitly chose to exclude her from the ranks of notable philosophers). It's more rah-rah-rah cheerleading than an honest, balanced argument for the professional status of Objectivism today. That's why I don't see Sciabarra as neutral. MilesMoney (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Scibarra is a cultist, I wouldn't count that as ammo! Negative evidence (ie not being mentioned) is problematic on WIkipedia but being specially excluded (which we now have) is stronger. Otherwise I agree its an idea that would have died without the cult followers and money from the Anthem Foundation and others. But it is a philosophy, albeit largely ignored, contradictory, poor logic etc. etc. ----Snowded 19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is Scibarra? Please provide a link. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given how vehemently Rand opposed homosexuality, for Sciabarra to be a Rand cultist would be like Herman Cain joining the KKK. Or has Objectivism softened up so much since Rand's death that such self-contradictions are now possible?

Regardless, the hard problem here -- and I don't think we're in any position to really solve it -- is how many adjectives it takes to undermine the noun. An "amateur gynecologist" is no gynecologist at all. An amateur carpenter may well be competent, even if falling somewhat short of the range and reliability of a pro. A (modern) amateur philosopher is somewhere in between, but I would say closer to the gyno because there's so little call for (or value to) amateurism in the field.

In hindsight, dying was the best thing Rand could have done for Objectivism, because she was holding back its spread by being so harsh in its defense and obstinate about defining its boundaries. But has Objectivism grown and changed since she died or has it just gotten a bit more credible? Is it still amateur or has it evolved into something truly professional?

Compare Kant, who was wrong about so many things, yet always interestingly and meaningfully so. He was highly influential and respected, even among his critics, and his ideas have born much fruit, even if he would have rejected some of it. But Rand's legacy is bipolar; either you love her and fawn over her exact gospel words or you hate her and pretend she's not worth spitting on. I'm strange because I'm somewhere in the middle, so each side sees me as the enemy for not being in their extremist camp. I think she's sometimes worth listening to and other times at least worth spitting on.

Bottom line is that the best we can do is try to focus on our best sources and try to cover the range of opinions honestly. MilesMoney (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is Sciabarra? Don't you mean, who is John Galt?

Chris Matthew Sciabarra is the author of this, as well as an actual academic philosopher who writes about Rand. MilesMoney (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Rand's stuff is "a philosophy" but it's not "philosophy", i.e. what philosophers do. We have the same issue on many of these cult articles, for example many of the figures associated with the Mises Institute to whom their fans refer as "economists" and many of the Tea Party "social theorists" such as (amateur?) gynecologist Ron Paul, ophthalmologist Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, bachelor of arts, and stockbroker Peter Schiff. Eventually these things get sorted out or one concludes that the labels matter far less than the description of their views from RS sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to Ron Paul, etc., but I'm comfortable that there are academic philosophers studying and debating Objectivism. Sciabarra is a relatively weak example, actually, because I'm not sure he has ever gotten tenure. Better examples include Tibor R. Machan, Tara Smith, Fred Miller, Allan Gotthelf, Douglas B. Rasmussen and James G. Lennox. Presumably when these folks write journal articles or books published by academic presses, they are doing "what philosophers do" even by the most academy-focused standards. --RL0919 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this is not an area in which I'm knowledgeable, but that sounds great. Could you add a group of RS sourced discussions of the philosophical details, issues and contributions of Rand's work? If a significant body of such work is incorporated in the article, these abstract questions as to labeling will go moot. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a significant project for which I have not volunteered. However, those who want to look for material can check Bibliography of Ayn Rand and Objectivism for sources. Most such content should presumably go in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article rather than in Ayn Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope some future editor will feel disposed to undertake that improvement. In the meantime, in the absence of that new content, do you agree she should not be called a philosopher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 August 2013‎

Of course I don't agree with that. We have many sources already cited in the article that call her a philosopher. Why would we ignore those? --RL0919 (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any source in this article which calls her a philosopher. As noted, "popular philosopher" is not a "philosopher" just like "hot dog" is not a "dog." Until the article provides clear RS statements that she is a philosopher, how can WP call her a philosopher? I don't think there's any rationale for that. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I gather then that you have not read the sources as there are several that call her "philosopher" without modification (some counts of sources calling her "philosopher" with and without various modifiers can be found here). However, I think we my be talking past one another here. I am not opposed to having the article refer to her as "modifier philosopher" as long as modifier is well-supported in reliable sources. "Popular philosopher" is well-supported and I would be fine with that; however, some others have objections to it. --RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop pointing people to your Randbox, because it's completely dishonest. It brags about Routledge calling her a philosopher, but the actual entry is insulting and dismissive of her. If we're going to use that as a source, we'll have to use "bad philosopher". MilesMoney (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Brags? That emotional coloring is your own invention; the page is lists of sources that use particular terms to describe Rand. The exact sentence in this case is, "Ayn Rand was a Russian-born US novelist and philosopher who exerted considerable influence in the conservative and libertarian intellectual movements in the post-war USA." If he then goes on to criticize her, I don't see how that changes his use of the term. If we can use a term that both supporters and critics use, and thus avoid unnecessary WP:POV wrangles, then all the better. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will frame my response in the form of a comedy skit:

Albert: Maude, did you read the review? It's wonderful!

Maude: What do you mean, Al? She said you were the worst actor ever to stink up a stage.

Albert: Yes, yes, but she called me an actor!

Get it? MilesMoney (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the basic descriptions used for classifying someone ("actor", "philosopher") with critical reception. They are not the same thing. For example, the article about Ed Wood first describes him as "an American screenwriter, director, producer, actor, author and film editor." Then it explains that he is considered an especially terrible director. By the way, I took your suggestion and searched for sources that might have referred to Rand by the term "bad philosopher", but the results would disappoint you. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of tone-deaf, biased and desperately literal misinterpretation that I've come to expect from you. It's the sort of behavior that makes me question your basic WP:COMPETENCE and write off your opinions as noise.

Albert is handsome, funny, and charismatic, but he just doesn't understand the craft of acting. He doesn't know which side "stage left" is. He forgets his lines, misses his cues and faces away from the audience when speaking. It's not that has any shortage of the raw talent that could one day make him an actor, even a great one, but that he doesn't have the training, so he's not really an actor at all. He's just an amateur who's trying and failing to act. When this failure is referred to as bad acting, it's granting him too much because it's not even the same sort of badness that you'd get from a competent actor who's doing a poor job. Albert isn't even good enough to be bad correctly! He's bad in the sense of not being good enough to be an actor at all, not in the sense of not being good enough to be a good actor.

Even Rand's harshest detractors grant that she was brilliant, passionate and earnest. She threw herself at philosophical problems and tore at them, but she didn't have the background to understand where she failed. She suffered from the Dunning–Kruger effect. Rand lacked rigor, substituted polemics for analysis, and was dangerously overconfident. She was often right but couldn't credibly explain why. And where she was wrong, she was oh so very wrong.

Where academics address other academics and hedge their claims in careful language, she brought philosophy to the people. She didn't expect readers to first gain a deep understanding of the history of philosophy, because she didn't have any such thing. She was on the same wavelength as laymen, so she connected with them, convinced them, inspired them. In this she was a great success: she brought many to philosophy by teaching that this field was actually important. The problem was that, despite touting the value of philosophy, she was herself an amateur in the field, justly disregarded by academia for her novice errors and her arrogance.

So is Ayn Rand a philosopher? No, not without adjectives to warn that she wasn't qualified to do philosophy but stumbled through it anyhow. MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Two straightforward quotes from our reliable sources guideline: 1) "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article"; and 2) "any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." You keep saying that I "misinterpret" when I directly quote the exact thing that a source says, but you are the one who just made his case with five paragraphs of unsourced personal opinion. In this entire discussion, I've never tried to argue about what my opinion is of Rand, because the personal opinions of Misplaced Pages editors are not the proper basis for article content. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading "reaction" section

The section regarding the reaction to Rand's work from the academic community is misleading at best and biased at worst. It mentions that Rand's work received "increased attention" following her death, but it does not describe the nature of this attention. To be sure an increasing (though still remarkably small) number of academic philosophers did "convert" to Randianism after her death; but most of this "increased attention" afforded objectivism was criticism and even ridicule. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy bluntly notes that even today, "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously." (1) This context needs to be provided in the section. Steeletrap (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is quite objective to find that attention increased. The phrase follows a paragraph describing that only two academics, Nozick and Gladstein, devoted much attention to her work while she lived. Then we have paragraphs with multiple academics either teaching her work or criticizing her work, and a political scientist arguing that she failed to acknowledge further philosophical influences on her work. This seems to be a quite striking indication that attention has increased.

The problem is that the section fails to indicate the reasons behind this increased attention, and that little to no attention is actually paid to either the works or the arguments of her defenders and critics. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am almost tempted to add "Ayn Rund Cult by Jeff Walker to the sources. A work critical of the cult-like mentality of Randian "Objectivists",equating their adoration for their founder to "guru-worship". Walker argues that their overrating of Rand's quality as a writer is quite "comical". He cites for example Nathaniel Branden's claims that Atlas Shrugged is "the climax of the novel form" and "the greatest novel that has ever been written", John Ridpath's belief that Rand was an "infallible" genius, and Edwin A. Locke's claim that Rand managed to solve a philosophical problem, that puzzled lesser philosophers "for 2,500 years", "with half an hour's thought". Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Dima, those seem to be interesting sources, why don't you add some content to the article based on their analysis? SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

These are reliable sources. As for philosophers "converting", a lot of them are so young that it seems more likely they found Rand first and only went into academic philosophy because of her. This is actually common; what's comparatively rare is for them to remain attached to Rand after becoming educated. MilesMoney (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• High-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Atheism articles
• Mid-importance Atheism articles
• GA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class philosopher articles
• Mid-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• GA-Class Aesthetics articles
• Mid-importance Aesthetics articles
• Aesthetics task force articles
• GA-Class metaphysics articles
• Mid-importance metaphysics articles
• Metaphysics task force articles
• GA-Class ethics articles
• Mid-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• GA-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by London Review of Books