This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zarenon (talk | contribs) at 04:31, 5 December 2023 (→Rand was a philosopher). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:31, 5 December 2023 by Zarenon (talk | contribs) (→Rand was a philosopher)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. |
|
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: 30 days  |
|
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Ayn Rand is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 | Ayn Rand has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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 | | September 6, 2021 | Guild of Copy Editors | Copyedited | | April 11, 2022 | Peer review | Reviewed | | February 27, 2023 | Featured article candidate | Not promoted | | Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 6, 2017, March 6, 2022, and March 6, 2023. | | Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
Template:Vital articlePlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
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.
|
Articles to improve
Create
- Articles on notable atheists
Expand
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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. |
|
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Women writers Top‑importance |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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 writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers | | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. |
| 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."
For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page. |
Organization of criticism
This is a followup to a comment made by Vanamonde93 at WP:Featured article candidates/Ayn Rand/archive2 § Comments from Vanamonde, but I thought it might be more useful to discuss here. A recent change that I made is part of the reason for the distribution of critical material across five sub-sections
, as I was trying to avoid a criticism section. I do see your point, and I admit that in some ways the article was more logically organized before my change. However, I think the solution here is solving the other problem that you mentioned: in many places the text mentions the existence of reviews or critique rather than summarizing their substance
. I feel like if the criticisms were more usefully summarized, then they could be more directly connected to Rand's ideas, and the current structure would feel less disjointed. Thoughts? — Freoh 15:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wondered if your edit was related to the FAC or not, so thanks for clearing that up for me. From my side of things, I don't object to your change in general. I think combining aesthetics into the same subsection as metaphysics and epistemology is a bit awkward – I would probably split aesthetics into its own subsection. Otherwise, I have no problem with distributing the previous "Criticisms" subsection into a different structure. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I put aesthetics there because it seemed like a short section on its own and because of the quote about the "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments", but feel free to restructure. — Freoh 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion of the name Alice O’Connor
I’m not aware of any instance of that name ever being used to identify her. Ayn Rand is more than a pen name, it is the name used to refer to her by everyone, including her protege Leonard Peikoff and those in the Ayn Rand Institute.
I propose that this article eliminate the name “Alice O’Connor”, and change the phrase “pen name” to better reflect reality. 2600:4040:59D1:9A00:51F6:6504:AD45:E767 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- That "Ayn Rand" was a pen name was known in her lifetime; she said it was a pen name herself in multiple letters to fans that are reproduced in Letters of Ayn Rand. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Are there any sources for the use of the name "Alice O'Connor"? Mporter (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Already cited in the endnote related to the name is Shoshana Milgram's biographical essay in A Companion to Ayn Rand. Additionally, Mimi Reisel Gladstein gives her full legal name in The New Ayn Rand Companion, and one of Rand's former attorneys gives it in an interview documented in 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (in answer to a question specifically about what Rand's legal name was). It is also given in passing in footnotes in Ayn Rand and the World She Made and Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living that relate to legal documents (one of the few situations where she used her legal name). There are a couple of newer sources also, but those were published after I added the name in the lead, so potentially they might be WP:CIRCULAR. --RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Is "Saint Petersburg Governorate" necessary?
@SuperSkaterDude45 has reverted my edit, but I am not sure why he considers the subdivision necessary. Thedarkknightli (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Thedarkknightli: First level subdivisions are generally included in infoboxes. This is consistent with other articles on philosophers such as Friedrich Engels and Blaise Pascal for example. I see no reason why Rand should be an exception to this for a removal that really has no basis other than it being "unnecessary". SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @SuperSkaterDude45, sorry for the late reply. I'd argue that Rand's case isn't the same as the ones of Engels and Pascal. Also, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says, "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content," which applies to this imo. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with removing the subdivision. The governorate is not mentioned in the article text and has no importance in Rand's story. I don't think it is mentioned in any biography of her. It is not needed to distinguish which Saint Petersburg is meant – the country does that. It almost doubles the length of the birthplace entry, and keeping infoboxes concise is desirable, as indicated by the MOS. These combined issues point towards not including this low-relevance bit of data. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RL0919: So from what I've interpreted it, your main point is
and keeping infoboxes concise is desirable, as indicated by the MOS
but it seems that with this logic, you'd think that many infoboxes on really, any Amerian figure have the states shortened down to their initials if that was what MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE were to primarily be about. If trimming really was the goal, wouldn't the pre-existing revision without the governorate face this exact same criticism with the usage of the "Russian Empire" over simply Russia? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- That Rand was born in the Russian Empire is relevant to the article (read the "Early life" section if you haven't already). But honestly I wouldn't be particularly bothered if it just said "Russia". Either way, whataboutism doesn't justify inclusion of the governorate. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- @RL0919: Not exactly a whataboutist argument when you take into consideration that you're citing a MOS which emphasizes the importance of
the style manual for all English Misplaced Pages articles
. Again, similar and consistent to other infoboxes in general with again, no genuine exception for this one other than personal preferences. I highly doubt any confusion is even necessary even with article context given that even with every Soviet era birth rarely displays the constituent country and I highly doubt Rand is known with her brief life in the Soviet Union. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I can see your only argument for including the governorate is that it's similar to what other articles do. Frankly that's not much of an argument. Maybe the other articles shouldn't do that. If you think it should be done in all bios, then you can bring that up at the MOS. I'd be against it, though -- as one regular contributor to MOS discussions says, if the MOS doesn't need to have a rule on a particular thing, then the MOS needs to not have a rule on that thing. On a related note, inter-article consistency is not nearly as important as some people think. --Trovatore (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Trovatore: I could also apply the same thing to nearly every argument here with the only arguments presented towards me being that of editorial preferences with the only exception to this being a very vague interpretation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. By the way, article consistency does play a big role when it comes to discussions, especially regarding infobxes. A major example I'd wish to highlight is this discussion regarding the inclusion of an infobox for Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as at the time, the article lacked one due to previous consensus ruling out the possibility of one. The reason the article currently has an infobox is due the main argument being that there's again, really no reason to omit one besides a personal editor preference which is arguably a weaker argument than simply keeping the consistency between established articles and formats. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- "arguably" a weaker argument, but actually not a weaker argument. I.e. you can argue that but you're wrong. The editors who work on a given article try to make it as good as they can, and not everything is specified by guidelines nor needs to be the same as other articles. The mention of the governorate doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to the article and it makes the infobox messier. That's a fine argument for removing it. --Trovatore (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Trovatore: Yeah, you're right, it's not an arguably weaker argument, it is a weaker argument. Present me a definitive MOS that specifically states that subdivisions are to be omitted to or that consistency ultimately doesn't matter, and I'll look a different way. Otherwise, this just comes across as an advocacy for a group of editor's personal preference that doesn't present a mass consensus unlike the Talk Page archive I have just described to you. By the way, can you clarify on
The editors who work on a given article try to make it as good as they can
given that what you've described is by definition, subjective? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Point to me a section of the MOS that specifically says the subdivisions need to be included. Otherwise, like everything else not covered by policies and guidelines, it's down to editorial consensus at the article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Trovatore: Nice whataboutist argument on your end with the very opening line. When the best argument presented here is personal editorial preferences, what honestly makes it different from an essay? While there's admittedly no specific guideline dictating that the use of subdivisions in infoboxes, downplaying the significance of article consistency on Misplaced Pages articles will just lead to further discussions that are really just delaying established consensus such as again, the case with the Mozart article. Way to also omit any of the other counterarguments I've made as well. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- You have the burden of proof here if you want to edit against consensus. You haven't met it. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Trovatore: No I really don't, especially when you're the one insisting on claims such as
inter-article consistency is not nearly as important as some people think
without any direct MOS to back it up. I'll re-iterate once more: A small group of editors with a specific preference is a consensus not. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah you really do. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Trovatore: This seems to be the only argument you have and thus, I see no reason to continue this discussion, especially when you aren't bothering to substantiate your claims and deliberately ignoring arguments. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I agree there's no reason to continue, because you haven't given any good reason to keep the governorate. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Thedarkknightli: Can you clarify on
I'd argue that Rand's case isn't the same as the ones of Engels and Pascal
because the only point you've really made is citing MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE... despite again, many other biographical infoboxes including first-level subdivisions. especially in a historical context. If this were about shortening the names of say, the Russian Empire to just Russia then yeah, the usage of the MOS would make sense. Otherwise, I'm just frankly confused. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- @SuperSkaterDude45: Oh, forgive my poor wording then. My English isn't that good. Yes, I was actually talking about only one thing (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is all I can find) in my last comment here. However, I just don't see why we can't omit the subdivision despite your argument. I think RL0919's one is clear enough. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- My 2 cents: I don't see what the difference is from Pascal or Engels, but I also don't immediately see the point of being so verbose at their articles either. Maybe there is a reason to include this info at their bios. In any case I agree with Thedarkknightli and RL0919 that I don't see any compelling reason to include it here. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
two comments on the lead
First, as a well-sourced, GA article, the body of the article should be the source of everything in the lead. This seems to be the case here, so I would suggest moving the references down to the appropriate section, or else removing them if they are already cited below.
Second, in the first sentence, should "writer and philosopher" be changed to was a "novelist and popular philosopher" or "novelist-philosopher"? According to the article, which does call her a "popular philosopher", she has no training in philosophy, little interest in its history, and no engagement with contemporary philosophy. "Novelist-philosopher" is what is used in the SEP article. Or, Tolstoy, who similarly wrote long philosophical novels as well as more directly philosophical tracts, is simply called a "writer". Oh, and possibly "public intellectual" should be somewhere in there too.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- The items cited in the lead are cited because of past challenges to the content. This is in keeping with WP:CITELEAD.
- As to the phrasing of the opening description, this has been the subject of many past discussions, including multiple RFCs. In the past, 'writer' has been preferred over 'novelist' since she also has notable work as a playwright and screenwriter. This was last discussed in a 2018 RFC. As to 'philosopher', attempts to change this have typically brought forth commenters who want the term to be removed entirely or modified in a way that casts her in a negative light ('amateur philosopher', 'pseudo-philosopher', etc). For this faction, any other modification is unacceptable. That made it difficult to get a consensus for a modifier like 'popular' that could be interpreted as flattering. It has been a number of years since the last big row over it, so you are welcome to give it a try, but I would not expect much good to come from it. --RL0919 (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @RL0919,
- Thanks for the clarification about the citations. When I see these in the lead of a well-developed article, I tend to suspect unproductive drive-by editing or a well-meaning, but unnecessary, addition.
- With respect to the title "philosopher," I wonder if the issue is a misframing of the question, namely, framing it in terms of the quality of her ideas, rather than in terms of her training and profession. With respect to the first question, Misplaced Pages should not take any position. With respect to the second, it is just a neutral matter of fact that she does not fall into this category.
- I should add that this is not in any way specific to her. Lots of scholars and intellectuals weigh in on philosophical issues without thereby becoming philosophers, e.g., Einstein, Christopher Hitchens, Antonin Scalia, John Maynard Keynes, Lenin, Marilynne Robinson, and I could go on.
- Exceptions I can think of are all internationally renown scholars in other disciplines such as Chomsky and Amartya Sen. Rand is also internationally known and admired by many, but she chose to publish for a popular audience without the validating scrutiny of the philosophical community. And – hey! – in this way, she reached a larger audience than what most philosophers would dare to dream. But what this makes her is a public intellectual or perhaps a social critic or something of that kind.
- Anyways, I have zero interest in a protracted debate over a basically harmless misclassification. I just don't see why anyone would dispute the fact unless, for them, "philosopher" is an evaluative term. Which, even aside from Misplaced Pages policy, it is not. There are plenty of entirely legitimate philosophers whose ideas are widely regarded as terrible or even borderline incoherent. In some circles it is even a term of disparagement, as in the phrase "to wax philosophical."
- I'll leave this up for a while so that others have a chance to chime in. I have not worked on this page, and I have no intention of changing the lead without consensus.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
- With so many watchers, I expected more people to weigh in.
- If no one speaks up to the contrary, I'm going to go with public intellectual. This covers her essays on philosophical topics as well as her political interventions, her salon, her involvement with the Objectivist movement, and so forth.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- I held back from immediate reply to see if anyone else wanted to comment, but if you are suggesting that you will change the description of 'philosopher' to 'public intellectual', then I definitely object. There have been multiple discussions about this, and it has been shown repeatedly that she is called a philosopher in many reliable sources. We are supposed to follow sources, not the personal views of editors about whether she is or is not a philosopher. --RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- But there is no shortage of reliable sources describing her, just as an objective matter of fact, in extremely unflattering terms. Her profession, however, was no more (for instance) neoliberal ideologue than it was philosopher—even though she is at least as notable as being the former according to many journalists, pundits, and academics.
- EDIT: I'm sure there are other (good) policies that would prohibit "neolibral ideologue" from the lead. Please let me point out instead that reliable sources (per Misplaced Pages standards) regard her claim to being a philosopher as a joke, which some sources say explicitly and others consider it too obvious to bear mention. Misplaced Pages's standards for reliability are in many respects quite low, so this fact about what's been published in no way decides the question. But it does help to demonstrate that what is in question is a matter of subjective assessment.
- Perhaps readers would be best served by a sentence along the lines of "A highly polarizing figure, Rand is regarded by some as among the 20th century's greatest philosophers; many academics, however, just as confidently dismiss her work almost entirely." This (or something like it) could follow the first sentence describing her as a writer and public intellectual. Then a paragraph break could optionally be added to set off the rest of what is currently the first paragraph.
- I'm not committed to this particular wording – especially if I seem to be taking a stand! – but it is supported by the article. One of the most notable things about Rand is the extreme disagreement about the character of her accomplishments. (The staggering 51 archived talk pages, I assume, attest to this in abundance.) Where there is widespread disagreement among reliable sources, Misplaced Pages should report that, rather than take a side—as I am sure we agree in principle.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- As an aside, I'm not sure "neoliberal ideologue" is all that unflattering. To be sure, "ideologue" by itself connotes excessive rigidity of thought, but if you have to be an ideologue, I'd think a neoliberal one is one of the better ones to be. --Trovatore (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the "ideologue" part that I would consider inappropriate without very strong sourcing. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter what her profession was; the primary description of a biographical subject is not limited to their profession. (To take an extreme example, the opening sentence about John Wayne Gacy is never going to focus on him being a construction contractor.)
- As far as I can tell, the term 'philosopher' (including with various modifiers) is used for her a lot more than 'public intellectual', although she was that as well and the term is sometimes used. I'm happy to have the term 'philosopher' supplemented with a relevant modifier, such as 'popular' or 'non-academic' to make it clear that she was not, for example, a professor of philosophy. But this in no way justifies removing the commonly used term from her description, any more than it would for Chomsky, Sen, Camus, Nietzsche, and others well-known as philosophers despite not being part of any philosophy department's faculty. As to sources that "regard her claim to being a philosopher as a joke", ones that explicitly say that can certainly be considered, but what you imagine a source thinks is "too obvious to bear mention" is not helpful. There are many alternative explanations for why any given source might not say something.
- That she is controversial and rejected by most academics is indicated later in the current lead. We could possibly expand on that, but the fact that she is also controversial among Wikipedians will create problems for any attempts to be colorful. --RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey again,
- Just to start, I want to say that I really appreciate the civility of this discussion. I've seen talk pages on much less controversial subjects descend very rapidly. So thanks for that. (Really!)
- To me, "popular philosopher" is an appropriately neutral description, being as she wrote works on philosophical topics for a popular (=general, non-academic) audience, for which she is certainly notable. But this is, as you previously pointed out, ambiguous. Also, there's no entry on the term in English (or German) Misplaced Pages. So I'm a bit concerned that it might confuse some readers and be challenged in the near future.
- Similarly, "amateur" would be good with me (as in "amateur historian"), but somehow that sounds pejorative as applied to a philosopher. (I'm not sure why, but it does.)
- May I ask why you are not attracted to the option of presenting this as a matter of ongoing disagreement among serious-minded, intelligent people?
- The SEP article, for instance, states in the lead that most philosophers (=the closest thing we have to experts on what is and is not philosophy) do not consider her a philosopher. To quote directly:
only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously. As a result, most of the serious philosophical work on Rand has appeared in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed journals, or in books
- So according to this (high-quality) source categorizing her as a "philosopher-novelist", even this is a minority position. I have not looked at the academic anthologies beyond the author bios of one (which checked out as quite legit), but I would be surprised if they do not state the same in their introductions.
- Presenting the evaluative label as a matter of good-faith disagreement among well-educated people might also help forestall future debates about the matter. (Because, again, even though the auto-archiving settings are a bit aggressive, 51 archived discussions is insane.)
- The article itself I think is good. It is appropriately sympathetic in its presentation of her views while acknowledging that they have (of course! – as with anyone who has anything to say!) been criticized by others. But the minority of readers who do not know coming in how controversial she is would be well-served by having this highlighted at the top of the piece.
- Oh, and I consider "public intellectual" a higher badge of honor than "philosopher", and I think that the label is well-supported by the article. But I do not feel strongly about its inclusion one way or the other. Very few people read the whole article, but that does not mean we need to pack everything into the first paragraph.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- As a specialty encyclopedia about philosophy, the SEP focuses on the philosophy-related parts of her career and persona. Misplaced Pages is a general interest encyclopedia, and our article is about Ayn Rand overall, so the focus is not the same. Even then, the SEP only mentions the controversial nature of her ideas after 180 words of overview about her. If we did the same, in our current lead that would be about halfway through the second paragraph, not the second sentence of the first paragraph as I take you to be suggesting. Currently we do mention that her ideas are rejected by most academics, but not until a bit later, in the third paragraph.
- Looking at the lead with a "cold" eye (having not read it in full for several months), I think one of the best things we could do is trim some of the detail out of the description of her ideas in the second paragraph. That would shorten the distance to the reaction summary, and make the lead overall more readable.
- In regard to 'philosopher', my preferred phrasing is 'non-academic philosopher'. That clarifies any possible confusion of readers thinking that she was a philosophy professor, and it has no alternative meaning the way 'popular' or 'amateur' would. If we want a phrase that has an article, 'public philosopher' is also an option. Or maybe a combo such as 'non-academic public philosopher'. However, none of those were the conclusion of the last RfC on the matter, which landed on 'philosopher', unmodified (which I supported to end the divisive wrangling over the matter). That said, the RfC was years ago, so it seems OK to try out an alternative and see what the reaction is, if we can agree on which alternative to use. And yes, civil discussion is the best discussion for making better articles. --RL0919 (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Okay! I think we might be moving in the direction of consensus. I entirely take your point that the second sentence of the lead should not suggest that she is some kind of fraud. Anything more than is currently included about the controversial nature of her ideas, whether in the lead or body of the article, must be neutrality presented as a debate among parties presumed to be of equal intellect, moral character, integrity, et cetera.
- Further down in the lead (without being the closing sentence, which might suggest it being the final word) would be an entirely appropriate place to more explicitly emphasize how polarizing she is. Also, what is currently the second sentence already describes her ideas (unproblematically, as far as I am concerned, as "philosophical"). So the fact that she is publicly engaging with the field is right up there without further claiming that she is a member of a profession which, since the early 19th century, has acquired an institutional definition that does not include Rand. (One can certainly argue that philosophy is the worse off for this professionalization, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to hash that out.)
- I do stand by my contention that, if she is to be described as philosopher (which is hardly necessary to justify her encyclopedic significance), it needs to be immediately added that many people who are uncontroversially philosophers strongly reject such a classification. This seems to be already adequately documented in the article, but it would be easy to find additional high-quality sources if necessary.
- As to the second paragraph, I won't get in the way of any edits/cuts you might make, but the level of detail seems fine to me. She is, after all, a major figure in American intellectual life.
- Looking forward to your further proposals —
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I made the trims I was thinking about for the second paragraph, so if you do have any particular concerns about those, feel free to comment or edit.
- I also edited the Philosophy section to explicitly state the point that there are academic philosophers who do not consider her to be a philosopher. The previous text of the article did not actually say that. That said, there is no formal body in philosophy equivalent to the IAU deciding that Pluto is a 'dwarf planet' instead of a 'planet'. To determine how this article should describe Rand, we would be looking at how she is discussed in quality secondary and tertiary sources, not limited to "people who are uncontroversially philosophers". Having done searches for it before, I can tell you that she is called a philosopher in a bunch of such sources, and she is explicitly denied the designation in just a few. So in terms of what belongs in the lead, I still think you are asking to give too much prominence to a point from a small minority of sources. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey again, those edits look fine to me. Also, I take your point that there is no governing body to determine who is and is not a philosopher (although not without considerable reservation; for this is, in fact, pretty much the role of the modern research university).
- What I would emphasize in response is that I am not at all suggesting that we modify to lead to deny that she is a philosopher. Per the article, this is contested among the closest thing we have to experts, as well as among educated members of the public. So the first sentence should not state it as a fact.
- While I still think that she should be neutrally described as simply a "writer," what I am going to do now is to take your suggestion of "public philosopher" and link back to this discussion in the edit summary. Perhaps then more folks will chime in. If this does spark a larger conversation, I would submit in advance that this be shared on the WikiProject Philosophy board (and anywhere else as appropriate) to help correct for the likely issue of self-selection bias among article-followers.
- If there is stuff from the archives that you or anyone else wants to stand behind, perhaps consider re-posting? I don't want to bury the history, but there's just too much material there to reasonably expect participants in this conversation to review in its entirety.
- Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Notable mentions sorely missing
Article nneeds to catch up with popculture. Nothing about Obama, or for that matter the responses he received after his disparaging comments. Nothing about the highly unusual for Argentina politician Milei, although he is of course not an Objectivist. Etc. 83.255.180.77 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Obama commented about Rand briefly in 2012, people responded, and >99.999% of the population has not thought twice about it since that week. That isn't a matter of "catching up"; it is something that wasn't important then and definitely isn't now.
- As for Milei, he may be more relevant since we do call out examples of politicians that she has influenced, and he could be the most important of those if the influence is firmly established. Can you point out some reliable secondary sources that establish a meaningful connection? The news articles I've seen say that he claims to have spoken with her ghost, which is not the usual sort of influence we have documented here. --RL0919 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Rand was a philosopher
The expression "public philosopher" will not be recognized by most people and is useless to readers. Also, it is a preposterous and basically meaningless expression. No one is called a "private philosopher", so why describe someone as a "public philosopher"? Calling Rand a philosopher is good enough. Zarenon (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- The term is linked to an article that explains what it means to anyone who is unfamiliar. Rand did what that article describes, and she is mentioned in it as an example. Contrary to your comments here and in edit summaries, the term public philosopher is not "meaningless" or the "opposite" of philosopher – public is simply a modifier to indicate a specific mode of engagement with philosophy. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm doubtful of PP, as opposed to P. Can you point to other examples? For example, I see Sharyn Clough (born 14 May 1965) is professor of philosophy at Oregon State University. Her teaching and research specialties focus on public philosophy... so here we have someone called a P, even though her research focusses on PP. PP sounds very much like not-as-good-as-a-proper-p William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- A "public philosopher" is just a type of "philosopher" so in theory anyone who is the former could simply be called the latter in a lead, or both. Walter Terence Stace is "public philosopher" as part of his initial description. Jane Addams is "philosopher" in the initial sentence, then "public philosopher" later in the lead. Susan Schneider is "philosopher" in the lead and "public philosopher" in the body. In none of these cases does there appear to be any disparagement intended. There are modifiers for philosopher that would be widely considered disparaging, such as amateur, that have come up in the past. But I don't see how public is in that category.
- Anyhow, the modifier was added following a September discussion that is still above on this talk page. You are welcome to read through that for more background. I don't mind if the lead doesn't have any modifier for philosopher, and I don't mind if it does have one as long as that modifier is accurate, neutral, and supported by a decent amount of sources. As I said to User:PatrickJWelsh previously, I thought it was "OK to try out an alternative and see what the reaction is". If the reaction is negative, then we can return to the status quo ante and/or discuss it more. --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- The term "public philosopher" is useless and stupid. We are told in the article Public philosopher, that "Public philosophy is a subfield of philosophy that involves engagement with the public". The definition is hopelessly vague and it does not improve the article at all to add that kind of vague language. The article also says that, public philosophy involves "doing philosophy with general audience", which is nonsense. When Rand wrote her novels and her books she wasn't "doing philosophy" with a "general audience". Zarenon (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
.jpg){kind=small}
