This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.82.133.73 (talk) at 06:34, 15 September 2009 (→Chait article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:34, 15 September 2009 by 75.82.133.73 (talk) (→Chait article: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
Ayn Rand is currently a Philosophy good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 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. |
 | Ayn Rand was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
|
Ayn Rand is currently a Philosophy good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 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. |
| Ayn Rand was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
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. |
|
| 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 |
Article Cross-Talk
| Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles | |
|---|---|
| Articles | |
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)
Rand
How is 'Rand' a 'Cyrillic contraction' of Rozenbaum, which sounds the same whichever way you write it? And where did Ayn come from? I suggest deletion.
Bandalore (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're suggesting deletion because you don't grok her pseudonym?? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would help if a source was provided to explain the "Cyrillic contraction" theory, which is a bit cryptic when described so briefly. I'll add one. As for 'Ayn', she adapted that from a Finnish name, a point which can also be explained and sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- what's grok? and who is edward g nilges?Brushcherry (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- Don't know about grok, but Edward G. Nilges is our ultimate authority on all matters he sees fit to comment on. --Karbinski (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- See grok for further information. Also related to Thou Art God. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know about grok, but Edward G. Nilges is our ultimate authority on all matters he sees fit to comment on. --Karbinski (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- what's grok? and who is edward g nilges?Brushcherry (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- It would help if a source was provided to explain the "Cyrillic contraction" theory, which is a bit cryptic when described so briefly. I'll add one. As for 'Ayn', she adapted that from a Finnish name, a point which can also be explained and sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 'Ayn', an editor put in a short passage noting that Rand might have derived the name from the Finnish writer Aino Kallas. No source was provided. This had been in the article some time back and was removed. After filtering through endless repetitions of material from earlier versions of the article, the best source I could find for this claim is ... me. Now I like my website and believe it provides useful information, but understandably it does not qualify as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. This claim in particular is mentioned on the site as pure speculation suggested by a fan email. Does anyone know of a better source for this claim? If not, it needs to be removed again and stay out until there is a better source for it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of grokking, I was just confused by Bandalore's message--when he wrote "I suggest deletion" my immediate thought was "delete the article?? Waaah?" BTW, for brushcherry, Edward Nilges, aka banned user User:Spinoza1111 is a troll who comes by this page every now and then and leaves overlong, pretentious screeds which the rest of us delete on sight. He makes this really easy, since he always signs his posts. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is, ideas about the origin of the name is all just speculative, and of no intrinsic interest. Therefore, the topic should not mentioned be in the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that mere speculation about the origin of her pen name is not that interesting. Is the origin of her pen name uninteresting per se?-RLCampbell (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Philosopher citations
I just made some tweaks to the citations inside footnote number one, the documentation of Rand being called a "philosopher." This was mostly formatting, but I also tried to verify the citations where I could. Without wishing to re-open debate on the subject in general, I do have a concern about one of the sources. Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics is cited, with a page number of 328 given, but no quote. The cited edition is from the UK, and I know that pagination can vary, but my US edition of the book doesn't even have 328 pages. I ran into a similar situation with Machan's Ayn Rand, where the page number was given as 163 from a European edition, which puts it in the index in my US edition. For Machan, I was able to find pages with relevant discussion in my copy, albeit much earlier in the book, and I adjusted the citation accordingly. Smith's book is much longer and I have not readily found a relevant passage. Does anyone have access to the UK edition to verify this citation? --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that with Cambridge University Press there is any difference between US and UK editions. The hardback in my possession is 318 pages long, so the page reference is just wrong. I've put in what I think will be an acceptable reference, to a discussion of the main published sources for Ayn Rand's moral philosophy.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Lead Section doesn't mention Reason
This seems to be a rather glaring oversight. --Karbinski (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. Since the lead has a high profile and the article is under review, we should be careful about any additions, but something about her pro-reason stance should be there. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, normally I would just edit, but since I advised caution, I'll run my idea up the flagpole here first. I'd suggest rewriting the last two sentences of the lead to the following: "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. She was also an atheist and considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge." The only new part is the final clause of the last sentence, but I rearranged the material to put related ideas together. I'd also drop the unnecessary clarification about "rational self-interest," which is made in the article body and doesn't need to be included in the lead also. (All wikilinks and reference notes would stay, I just didn't recreate them here.) Any objections? --RL0919 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- "An atheist, Rand considered reason to be the only means to acquiring knowledge." It's cleaner. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still understates the importance of the concept to her, I think. The lead section is far too short for an article of this length, and I think it could benefit from a re-introduction of the quote "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." It goes a long way to showing her conception of Objectivism not as a collection of consistent positions (like most philosophers belief's are) but of positions derived from a core insight/methodology. Skomorokh 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with restoring that quote back into the lead. --Karbinski (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, here's another draft: 'She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. An atheist, she considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge. Rand saw reason as the most important aspect of her philosophy: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."' Again, this is only the end of the lead, the sentences going up to this point would remain unchanged.
- Yeah, much better. The current lead unduly emphasizes Rand's political views. She would have complained that it leaves out the fundamentals, and gets the cart before the horse.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, here's another draft: 'She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. An atheist, she considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge. Rand saw reason as the most important aspect of her philosophy: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."' Again, this is only the end of the lead, the sentences going up to this point would remain unchanged.
- I agree with restoring that quote back into the lead. --Karbinski (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still understates the importance of the concept to her, I think. The lead section is far too short for an article of this length, and I think it could benefit from a re-introduction of the quote "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." It goes a long way to showing her conception of Objectivism not as a collection of consistent positions (like most philosophers belief's are) but of positions derived from a core insight/methodology. Skomorokh 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- "An atheist, Rand considered reason to be the only means to acquiring knowledge." It's cleaner. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
To make the proposed revisions more clear without actually editing the article, I created a sandbox version of the lead. This includes all the wikilinks and reference notes. In addition to the wording changes discussed above, I also took the opportunity to sort (chronologically) the list of sources for the "philosopher" issue (in reference note number 1), and slimmed down an overlong quote about her views on fascism and communism (in reference note number 5). I actually wonder whether all the quotes used in these reference notes (leaving aside note 1) are even necessary. It's not as if Rand's works are hard to obtain for verification of the source citations, and frankly most of the points being documented are well known as being her beliefs. Seems like overkill. Anyhow, I invite folks to take a look and see if they have any other feedback. Feel free to edit the sandbox version directly if you like. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Two thumbs up on the sandbox version as of my comments time-stamp --Karbinski (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- TallNapoleon did a little bit of copy editing and I put a page number in one of the cites, so hopefully your thumbs up still hold. I just made the edit to the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Landing
The event had influence on her writing and links her life in with a very notable event. This gives some context for the time period she lived in. Any objections to restoring this content? --Karbinski (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the one that deleted it, so I'll explain my thinking. The event itself is of course off-the-charts notable, but its significance within Rand's life is not so great. She did write 1.5 essays about it (the second being split with the Woodstock festival), but this was in a period of her life where she wrote lots of essays inspired by current events, ranging from student protests to Supreme Court rulings to Watergate. She had already written about Apollo 8. So she might well have written about the event even if she didn't attend it, making the significance of the visit itself even less. Therefore, when weighing the color added by this detail vs. the desire to trim down article's lengthy biography, I went with the latter. --RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with RL. It's not essential to understanding Rand, therefore it shouldn't be there. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also agree. The moon landing needs to be in any full-dress biography of Rand, but that's not exactly what this article is trying to be.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with RL. It's not essential to understanding Rand, therefore it shouldn't be there. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- and me --Snowded 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it's any help, I agree.74.64.107.49 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Further Reading Section
This section was recently dramatically expanded from content in the Bibliography on Ayn Rand article. I think that this list is unnecessarily detailed for a general overview of the subject, and we should cut it down to a minimal list with most of the less well heard of works back in the bibliography article. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Being discussed at WP:RANDWATCH. I suggest we figure out what to do overall there, and then come back here and optimise for this article. Skomorokh 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Objectivist philosophers
Regarding this edit, do we have any reliable sources to indicate that Walsh and Seddon are Objectivists rather than simply scholars of Objectivism? Skomorokh 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Walsh had articles in The Objectivist and The Intellectual Activist and was on the board of advisors for the Ayn Rand Institute. So he definitely was an Objectivist at one time. He did leave ARI prior to the article in question being written, so the main question would be whether he was still an Objectivist at the time. I suspect the answer is yes (assuming that 'Objectivist' means someone who self-identifies as such), although at this moment I don't have any specific evidence to cite one way or the other.
- As for Seddon: In the book cited in the article, Seddon refers to himself as "an (insert qualifying adjective here) Objectivist". --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good enough for me, thanks Richard. Skomorokh 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've had to reinsert that little fact several times. Someone keeps removing it. It's certainly relevant to the point; these aren't hostile critics, but self-professed followers of Rand's philosophical ideology. Indeed, that's why I found their thoughts on the matter interesting enough to insert.CABlankenship (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, CA. If necessary, we can insert a hidden comment warning against removal. Skomorokh 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the matter is controversial or it was being cut out as an unsupported claim, in-body citations might help. It is easy enough to provide a citation regarding Seddon's self-identification, as I quoted above. Walsh might be trickier but probably something could be found. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, CA. If necessary, we can insert a hidden comment warning against removal. Skomorokh 15:02, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- <cough cough> The current title, "Academia", should do.--RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree with that, implies there is something of substance ro reject :-) --Snowded 16:14, 8 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
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.
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
Article Cross-Talk
| Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles | |
|---|---|
| Articles | |
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)
Rand
How is 'Rand' a 'Cyrillic contraction' of Rozenbaum, which sounds the same whichever way you write it? And where did Ayn come from? I suggest deletion.
Bandalore (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're suggesting deletion because you don't grok her pseudonym?? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- It would help if a source was provided to explain the "Cyrillic contraction" theory, which is a bit cryptic when described so briefly. I'll add one. As for 'Ayn', she adapted that from a Finnish name, a point which can also be explained and sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- what's grok? and who is edward g nilges?Brushcherry (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- Don't know about grok, but Edward G. Nilges is our ultimate authority on all matters he sees fit to comment on. --Karbinski (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- See grok for further information. Also related to Thou Art God. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know about grok, but Edward G. Nilges is our ultimate authority on all matters he sees fit to comment on. --Karbinski (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- what's grok? and who is edward g nilges?Brushcherry (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
- It would help if a source was provided to explain the "Cyrillic contraction" theory, which is a bit cryptic when described so briefly. I'll add one. As for 'Ayn', she adapted that from a Finnish name, a point which can also be explained and sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 'Ayn', an editor put in a short passage noting that Rand might have derived the name from the Finnish writer Aino Kallas. No source was provided. This had been in the article some time back and was removed. After filtering through endless repetitions of material from earlier versions of the article, the best source I could find for this claim is ... me. Now I like my website and believe it provides useful information, but understandably it does not qualify as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. This claim in particular is mentioned on the site as pure speculation suggested by a fan email. Does anyone know of a better source for this claim? If not, it needs to be removed again and stay out until there is a better source for it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of grokking, I was just confused by Bandalore's message--when he wrote "I suggest deletion" my immediate thought was "delete the article?? Waaah?" BTW, for brushcherry, Edward Nilges, aka banned user User:Spinoza1111 is a troll who comes by this page every now and then and leaves overlong, pretentious screeds which the rest of us delete on sight. He makes this really easy, since he always signs his posts. TallNapoleon (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is, ideas about the origin of the name is all just speculative, and of no intrinsic interest. Therefore, the topic should not mentioned be in the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that mere speculation about the origin of her pen name is not that interesting. Is the origin of her pen name uninteresting per se?-RLCampbell (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Philosopher citations
I just made some tweaks to the citations inside footnote number one, the documentation of Rand being called a "philosopher." This was mostly formatting, but I also tried to verify the citations where I could. Without wishing to re-open debate on the subject in general, I do have a concern about one of the sources. Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics is cited, with a page number of 328 given, but no quote. The cited edition is from the UK, and I know that pagination can vary, but my US edition of the book doesn't even have 328 pages. I ran into a similar situation with Machan's Ayn Rand, where the page number was given as 163 from a European edition, which puts it in the index in my US edition. For Machan, I was able to find pages with relevant discussion in my copy, albeit much earlier in the book, and I adjusted the citation accordingly. Smith's book is much longer and I have not readily found a relevant passage. Does anyone have access to the UK edition to verify this citation? --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that with Cambridge University Press there is any difference between US and UK editions. The hardback in my possession is 318 pages long, so the page reference is just wrong. I've put in what I think will be an acceptable reference, to a discussion of the main published sources for Ayn Rand's moral philosophy.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Lead Section doesn't mention Reason
This seems to be a rather glaring oversight. --Karbinski (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. Since the lead has a high profile and the article is under review, we should be careful about any additions, but something about her pro-reason stance should be there. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, normally I would just edit, but since I advised caution, I'll run my idea up the flagpole here first. I'd suggest rewriting the last two sentences of the lead to the following: "She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. She was also an atheist and considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge." The only new part is the final clause of the last sentence, but I rearranged the material to put related ideas together. I'd also drop the unnecessary clarification about "rational self-interest," which is made in the article body and doesn't need to be included in the lead also. (All wikilinks and reference notes would stay, I just didn't recreate them here.) Any objections? --RL0919 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- "An atheist, Rand considered reason to be the only means to acquiring knowledge." It's cleaner. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still understates the importance of the concept to her, I think. The lead section is far too short for an article of this length, and I think it could benefit from a re-introduction of the quote "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." It goes a long way to showing her conception of Objectivism not as a collection of consistent positions (like most philosophers belief's are) but of positions derived from a core insight/methodology. Skomorokh 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with restoring that quote back into the lead. --Karbinski (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, here's another draft: 'She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. An atheist, she considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge. Rand saw reason as the most important aspect of her philosophy: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."' Again, this is only the end of the lead, the sentences going up to this point would remain unchanged.
- Yeah, much better. The current lead unduly emphasizes Rand's political views. She would have complained that it leaves out the fundamentals, and gets the cart before the horse.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, here's another draft: 'She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state, and promoted ethical egoism while condemning altruism. An atheist, she considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge. Rand saw reason as the most important aspect of her philosophy: "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."' Again, this is only the end of the lead, the sentences going up to this point would remain unchanged.
- I agree with restoring that quote back into the lead. --Karbinski (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still understates the importance of the concept to her, I think. The lead section is far too short for an article of this length, and I think it could benefit from a re-introduction of the quote "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows." It goes a long way to showing her conception of Objectivism not as a collection of consistent positions (like most philosophers belief's are) but of positions derived from a core insight/methodology. Skomorokh 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- "An atheist, Rand considered reason to be the only means to acquiring knowledge." It's cleaner. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
To make the proposed revisions more clear without actually editing the article, I created a sandbox version of the lead. This includes all the wikilinks and reference notes. In addition to the wording changes discussed above, I also took the opportunity to sort (chronologically) the list of sources for the "philosopher" issue (in reference note number 1), and slimmed down an overlong quote about her views on fascism and communism (in reference note number 5). I actually wonder whether all the quotes used in these reference notes (leaving aside note 1) are even necessary. It's not as if Rand's works are hard to obtain for verification of the source citations, and frankly most of the points being documented are well known as being her beliefs. Seems like overkill. Anyhow, I invite folks to take a look and see if they have any other feedback. Feel free to edit the sandbox version directly if you like. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Two thumbs up on the sandbox version as of my comments time-stamp --Karbinski (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- TallNapoleon did a little bit of copy editing and I put a page number in one of the cites, so hopefully your thumbs up still hold. I just made the edit to the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Apollo Landing
The event had influence on her writing and links her life in with a very notable event. This gives some context for the time period she lived in. Any objections to restoring this content? --Karbinski (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm the one that deleted it, so I'll explain my thinking. The event itself is of course off-the-charts notable, but its significance within Rand's life is not so great. She did write 1.5 essays about it (the second being split with the Woodstock festival), but this was in a period of her life where she wrote lots of essays inspired by current events, ranging from student protests to Supreme Court rulings to Watergate. She had already written about Apollo 8. So she might well have written about the event even if she didn't attend it, making the significance of the visit itself even less. Therefore, when weighing the color added by this detail vs. the desire to trim down article's lengthy biography, I went with the latter. --RL0919 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with RL. It's not essential to understanding Rand, therefore it shouldn't be there. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also agree. The moon landing needs to be in any full-dress biography of Rand, but that's not exactly what this article is trying to be.-RLCampbell (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with RL. It's not essential to understanding Rand, therefore it shouldn't be there. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- and me --Snowded 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- If it's any help, I agree.74.64.107.49 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Further Reading Section
This section was recently dramatically expanded from content in the Bibliography on Ayn Rand article. I think that this list is unnecessarily detailed for a general overview of the subject, and we should cut it down to a minimal list with most of the less well heard of works back in the bibliography article. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Being discussed at WP:RANDWATCH. I suggest we figure out what to do overall there, and then come back here and optimise for this article. Skomorokh 17:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Objectivist philosophers
Regarding this edit, do we have any reliable sources to indicate that Walsh and Seddon are Objectivists rather than simply scholars of Objectivism? Skomorokh 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Walsh had articles in The Objectivist and The Intellectual Activist and was on the board of advisors for the Ayn Rand Institute. So he definitely was an Objectivist at one time. He did leave ARI prior to the article in question being written, so the main question would be whether he was still an Objectivist at the time. I suspect the answer is yes (assuming that 'Objectivist' means someone who self-identifies as such), although at this moment I don't have any specific evidence to cite one way or the other.
- As for Seddon: In the book cited in the article, Seddon refers to himself as "an (insert qualifying adjective here) Objectivist". --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good enough for me, thanks Richard. Skomorokh 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've had to reinsert that little fact several times. Someone keeps removing it. It's certainly relevant to the point; these aren't hostile critics, but self-professed followers of Rand's philosophical ideology. Indeed, that's why I found their thoughts on the matter interesting enough to insert.CABlankenship (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, CA. If necessary, we can insert a hidden comment warning against removal. Skomorokh 15:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- If the matter is controversial or it was being cut out as an unsupported claim, in-body citations might help. It is easy enough to provide a citation regarding Seddon's self-identification, as I quoted above. Walsh might be trickier but probably something could be found. --RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, CA. If necessary, we can insert a hidden comment warning against removal. Skomorokh 15:02, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- <cough cough> The current title, "Academia", should do.--RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't agree with that, implies there is something of substance ro reject :-) --Snowded 16:14, 8 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
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.
Categories: