Talk:Ayn Rand: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:44, 1 October 2009 edit203.218.81.14 (talk) This will be removed but it must be said← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:02, 1 October 2009 edit undoRL0919 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators75,589 edits Undid revision 317277333 by 203.218.81.14 (talk)Banned userNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Still no philosopher

	Ayn Rand is at best a self-proclaimed philosopher.

	Philosophy is not necessarily an academic affair. However, it is, if meaningfully distinct from a common human interest in ultimate questions, the discussion of which is often vague and cracker-barrel in form, philosophy is a conversation, over time.

	Recursively, recognized philosophers (recognized by previous philosophers) recognize new entrants when they join the conversation ''having read the text in the class''.

	The Columbia History of Western Philosophy puts this cleverly. If I may paraphrase, it says that the first philosopher, Heraclitus if memory serves, saw only water: subsequent philosophers see only texts. This is not a limitation: it defines philosophy as opposed to a general human activity.

	Philosophers, independent of their formal academic certifications, participate in a civil dialog, a precondition of which is agreement on certain tenets of elementary logic independent of philosophical conclusions and a willingness to engage previous texts.

	Ayn Rand is a cracker barrel philosopher (eg., no different from an ordinary human being in a philosophical moment) because she consistently ignored elementary logic, had no committment to truth, spoke in the predecided hortatory mode, viciously slimed opponents noncollegially, and committed the informal logical fallacy of redefinition against disproof.

	As a dean of American philosophy, Sydney Hook, pointed out in an excessively kind review of Ayn Rand's ''Notes for the New Intellectual'' in 1962, her axiom a=a, in terms of an elementary logic which philosophers must agree on to dialog at all, is an unproductive tautology, an "analytic apriori" statement which can't imply anything substantive...least of all the alarming and counterfactual claims that Ayn Rand makes about political philosophy and even the historical record (such as her contention that the Irish potato famine of the 1840s was caused by government).

	This claim in itself showed none of the committment to a search for truth that constitutes "the love of wisdom".

	Her books are almost completely without interest. They are rambling screeds in which she vents much in Hitler's style. The hortatory genre is not philosophical.

	Philosophers are also collegial and kind enough to opponents to allow the dialog to proceed: Sydney Hook's 1962 review of Rand's "Notes" is an example of this. Rand, on the other hand, treated dissent as heresy in a way more theological than philosophical.

	Her most common fallacy was when presented with the absurd consequence of her absurd ideas (such as a need for an ethics of selfishness) was to make the informal-logical fallacy of redefinition against disproof. In the case of selfishness she redefined "selfishness" as a "rational selfishness" in which we perform eleemosynary acts either because they please us or to get a return. But as Hook pointed out, "rational selfishness" becomes thereby an empty concept in the sense of adding nothing new: it is a label for conduct which is in fact at times purely altruistic, and this contradicts Rand's dislike for altruism.

	This Discussion entry ''will be removed''. This is because Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, is a Randroid cult member and will brook no dissent. He's also in probable violation of the tax code of the United States because in a truly Randroid spirit, he is stealing intellectual production (as opposed to intellectual property) from deluded fools whose altruism is intended by Wales to secure Wales' fortune. I do hope to see his hairy ass in the slammer real soon now.

	Nonetheless, it has to be said.

	Edward G. Nilges Hong Kong



	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\| action1 = FAC		\| action1 = FAC

Revision as of 14:02, 1 October 2009

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
Current status: Good article

Skip to table of contents

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.

Article policies

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: 14 days

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

	Biography portal 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:WPLibertarianism

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

Recent activity

To do

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

	Politics portal 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

This article was reviewed by London Review of Books on 20 May 2009. (Link to review)
Comments: "...Reads as though it has been worked over far too much, and like any form of writing that is overcooked it alienates the reader by appearing to be closed off in its own private world of obsession and anxiety." Article may have subequently substantially changed as review says it has 8000 words when, as of 30 May, it has 6500 words.
For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

This article, Ayn Rand, has frequently become the subject of controversies and criticisms regarding her and her philosophy. While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism, and make sure to provide references to reliable sources when proposing a change.
This is not a forum for general discussion about Ayn Rand; any such comments will be removed.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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
Current status: Good article

Skip to table of contents

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.

Article policies

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

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

	Biography portal 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)

Template:WPLibertarianism

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Atheism Mid‑importance

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

Recent activity

To do

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

	Politics portal 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

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

Template loop detected: Talk:Ayn Rand/Topic Bans

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.

Article policies

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

Article Cross-Talk

v t e Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles
Articles	Project Home Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) Talk:Ayn Rand Talk:Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Template talk:Ayn Rand Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism Talk:Objectivism and homosexuality Talk:Objectivist movement

Use of cross-talk page

This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk. (edit | history)

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)

A Couple More Things

RL0919's trimming has improved the proportions of the article noticeably. A couple of things that might still need attention: (1) The sequencing of the section on Atlas Shrugged and Rand's later life isn't right. At least the paragraph about her return to New York and the beginnings of The Collective pertain to events several years before the publication of Atlas Shrugged. There are lesser sequencing problems when the break with Nathaniel Branden (1968) shows up before a bunch of her speaking engagements on college campuses. (2) I realized this stuff has been hashed over before, but given the unscientific nature of at least the Modern Library survey, why even mention it? Phony polls aren't data. The Zogby poll estimating how many adult Americans have read Atlas Shrugged is a real poll. -RLCampbell (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with point 2; haven't had a chance to look at point 1 closely, so no comment there for now. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, I just fixed the Branden/speeches chronology. Right now the sections on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged break chronology around the time Rand started working on each book to cover each in full, then the main chronology returns in the following sections. Not breaking chronology might be better, but the current approach has its own logic, so the need to "fix" it is less pressing.

On point 2, we should remember that what sources mention as signs of Rand's popularity may not match our opinions about valid polling. The Modern Library lists got a lot of press coverage, and people still mention them (and the also-dicey Book of the Month Club survey) when discussing Rand's popularity. The amount of detail could be trimmed further, but complete omission would seem to push a particular POV about these lists. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I combined the sections on "The Fountainhead" and "Early activism and professional success" into a single chronological section. It was easy enough to do and allowed the elimination of some minor redundancies in the text. I'm less certain about combining the "Atlas Shrugged" and "Later years" sections. The discussion of the Collective is nicely compact in its current form, and I'm concerned that breaking it up to discuss the publication of Atlas Shrugged would not be an improvement. I've put the relevant sections in the Randbox to see what I can come up with. Other editors are welcome to edit them there as well. --RL0919 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I created a chronological combination of the "Atlas" and "Later" sections, and it actually came out OK. I had to relocate a bit of info about the novel to the "Legacy" section, and the edits don't really reduce the size of the article the way some of the earlier ones did, but the bio is largely chronological now. --RL0919 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The consolidated "Atlas" and "Later" sections read quite well, and the flow of the article is improved.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

evil?

What the heck? That's a pretty subjective opinion isn't it? Can that be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.1 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What you saw was the result of vandalism from about half an hour ago, and it has now been reverted. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason 597,234 why we should implement flagged revisions. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Detail creep

A couple of weeks back there was an effort to trim down the size of the article by removing unnecessary detail. This recent edit leads me to raise the question of how aggressive we ought to be in preventing the re-inflation of the article. On the one hand, this is a good-faith, appropriately written, cited addition. On the other hand, it seems to be an unnecessary detail, no more significant (probably less) than some that were recently cut. I don't want to stomp on editors trying to improve the article, or give the impression of "defending" a particular version. But it doesn't take long to get back into 80K+ size if there isn't some effort to prevent it. Thoughts? --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if we are able to establish a concensus here, then we can be somewhat aggressive against detail creep. There may be a feeling that we already have such a concensus, but for the sake of editors not involved in the deep cuts we made, IMHO, an explicit concensus here would make things easier and clearer for all. --Karbinski (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's any help, I agree.74.64.107.49 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

and me --Snowded 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

/agree. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist philosophers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Academic scholarship section oddly named

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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

Initial Review

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

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

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

Full Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the opportunity to review such a stimulating article!

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

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

Chait article

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

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

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

Photo

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

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

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

Anarcho-capitalism bad

This:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Article policies

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

Article Cross-Talk

v t e Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles
Articles	Project Home Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) Talk:Ayn Rand Talk:Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Template talk:Ayn Rand Talk:Libertarianism and Objectivism Talk:Objectivism and homosexuality Talk:Objectivist movement

Use of cross-talk page

This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk. (edit | history)

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)

A Couple More Things

Agree with point 2; haven't had a chance to look at point 1 closely, so no comment there for now. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The consolidated "Atlas" and "Later" sections read quite well, and the flow of the article is improved.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

evil?

What the heck? That's a pretty subjective opinion isn't it? Can that be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.1 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What you saw was the result of vandalism from about half an hour ago, and it has now been reverted. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason 597,234 why we should implement flagged revisions. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Detail creep

If it's any help, I agree.74.64.107.49 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

and me --Snowded 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

/agree. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist philosophers

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

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

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

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

Academic scholarship section oddly named

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

Initial Review

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

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

Full Review

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

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

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

Thanks for the opportunity to review such a stimulating article!

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

Chait article

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

Photo

Anarcho-capitalism bad

This:

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

Thomas, William R. (2008). "Objectivism against Anarchy". In Machan, Tibor; Long, Roderick (eds.). Anarchism/Minarchism. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 0754660664.
Kukathas, Chandran (1998). "Rand, Ayn (1905–82)". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge. pp. 55–56. ISBN 0-415-07310-3.
Thomas, William R. (2008). "Objectivism against Anarchy". In Machan, Tibor; Long, Roderick (eds.). Anarchism/Minarchism. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 0754660664.
Kukathas, Chandran (1998). "Rand, Ayn (1905–82)". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge. pp. 55–56. ISBN 0-415-07310-3.

Categories:

Misplaced Pages