Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Yevgeny Zamyatin

I added a passing mention of Yevgeny Zamyatin and his book We to the article. I sourced it from the Rand journal. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While its a useful addition it needs modification. Firstly the source specifically states that the link is SPECULATION so it can't be stated as fact. Also you have have simply cut and pasted the first paragraph of the article which is unnecessary in a reference, or if it is then it should be in quotes. --Snowded (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting comical

Plato a communist mystic! What was this about? its getting worse "anti-mind materialist Marxist-Leninist detractors", starting to read like a student political leaflet--Snowded (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Such language is totally unacceptable and should be removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's hilarious, but sort of true. The Republic is quite similar in structure to totalitarian communist states, and Plato was certainly somewhat of a "mystic". Still, pretty inappropriate language. CABlankenship (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Brushcherry (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pat Boone Anthem reference

This really, really seems like trivia to me... does anyone else agree? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the Anthem article. Skomorokh 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

glad tallnapaleon and skomorokh agree, guess there is no need for consensus.Brushcherry (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

How can we move past the Philosopher debate?

any ideas? just asking. don't like my idea of a "ayn rand status as a philosopher" section, with both sides limited to a paragraph or two? what is your idea? we can't have the main page be a re-hash of the ayn rand talk page. i was a little disappointed all i got was feedback from banned editors. (yes i know you are banned from editing the "ayn rand" page not from the talk page).Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

You know I just don't think I am going to put myself through working on this article, I don't see this arrangement as a working arrangement. Why try to gain consensus from banned editors? Why should anyone put themselves through such an experience. I added in a link to an article I created one that is sourced and it was instantly called into question. I was then told that my contributions would get a "push back" by another banned editor on the talkpage here before I had even begun. This is about politics and not establishing a environment that fosters contribution. The article is lacking allot and I have sources that I could reflect into the article to give sourced dates and times for Rand's time in Russia and for the influence on her of the Russian Silver Age but I just don't have the time to fight about it. I think other editors would also rather not be bothered so they won't even reply to you. I stand up for myself and get told I can be banned. Just not worth the hassle. Note also how little the article has about Rand's time with Paterson and her time as a journalist. But sobeit. I could add allot but it's just not worth it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm trying gain consensus from non-banned editors. but you are one of the few ones here, help me out here pal. tallnapoleon, snowded, and Idag are banned from editing the article but not the talk page. stevewunder, should not be here.Brushcherry (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

[Comments from User:Stevewunder removed per topic ban by Skomorokh 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Banned editors have a place already Talk:Ayn Rand/SandboxBrushcherry (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Ignored by academia

How should this be phrased? This was recently changed from "largely ignored by academia" to "ignored by some in academia" (paraphrasing). How should this be phrased? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article at all; all the cited ref says is that one philosopher considers Rand an "amateur philosopher". Not even a proper reference at that. Skomorokh 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But now we get to the core of the philosopher issue and others, the question of negative evidence. With the odd exception no one even mentions her. The reference isn't brilliant, but there are a lot worse in this article. I agree it should be removed as is, but the issue can't be ignored and needs a sensible and structured discussion --Snowded (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that we get to the core of the philosopher issue...how do we deal with it? piecemeal? "largely ignored by academia" vs "ignored by some in academia"? deal with the core of the philosopher issue.Brushcherry (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

We take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard instead of continuing to bash our heads against this wall ourselves. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, but we probably need to get to a statement of fact and issues to present first, its mostly there but submerged. Its not the only issue in effect we have three (i) should she be called a philosopher (ii) how to treat 'ignored' in criticism and (iii) the sources for philosophical claims. They are not all the same issue. --Snowded (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Arbcom not enough for you? The reliable sources board is not going to decide if ayn rand is a philosopher. neither will (or have) the multiple conflict resolution forums. make a "ayn rand is not a philosopher" page...others can make a "ayn is a philosopher" page. just make a small section " ayn rand as a philosopher" both sides give a paragraph or two, and fight it out on your own pages. let the person searching for ayn rand for whatever reason on wikipedia, find their own path to your argument.Brushcherry (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry, Arbcom specifically said that those were the places we should take that debate. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You also need to realise Bushcherry that part of the interest/concern here is a wider issue on Wikipedia. It hits articles on pseudo-science as well articles such as this which attract cult like followings. Such matters need discussion in the community as a whole. Your idea (which has attracted no support) is not really the wikipedia way. The contention about her status will need coverage, but the debate is about a label in the introduction paragraph and the information box. I'd recommend you take Arbcom's recommendation to broaden your interest a bit and look through some of the guidance articles that were in your welcome notice. --Snowded (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

you also need to realize Snowded, the talk page is about content issues. not threatening people with this or that wikipedia policy. while you are good at quoting wikipedia policy, i have seen no evidence of you following it. hence you being banned from editing the ayn rand page. the few new editors i have seen since arbcom have been scared aware.

the debate is about her status as a philosopher, not the label in her introductory paragraph and the information box. you can not prove she is not a philosopher. others can not prove she is a philosopher. arbcom is never gonna decide on this content issue, reliable sources is never gonna decide it either, or any other wikipedia forum. get over it. Brushcherry (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

No one is threatening you Brushcherry and I'm more than happy to stand by my edit history on many wikipedia articles. The debate is actually about wikipedia policy, there is little dispute on the facts per se, its how they are interpreted. Oh, and if I have "scared aware" a few new editors then I will take it as a task well done. --Snowded (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

debates about wikipedia policy should be directed to the appropriate venue. debates about content issues such as ayn rands status as a philosopher should be taken up in the ayn rand talk page.Brushcherry (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Such as the "Reliable Sources notice board" for example? Whether Ayn Rand is a philosopher or not depends on policy in respect of sources. I don't think there is much new evidence to gather, hence TallNapoleon's suggestion. --Snowded (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for example the "Reliable Sources notice board" Yes, there is no new evidedence. we, you, i, they, have beat that horse to death. Arbcom for example?Brushcherry (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

She is called a philosopher in the New York Times. I have qualms about that particular paper's reliability, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned it generally passes muster. ;) I haven't seen a source for her being ignored by academia and that type of statement seems rather POV. I think her ideas and significance are certainly controversial and that shoul dbe covered based on reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat the counter argument to that and there is no point in going through the debate yet again. What is needed is some type of summary of the issues (and arguments) then take it to some form of review (possibly reliable sources). --Snowded (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[Comments from User:Stevewunder removed per topic ban by Skomorokh 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Why is the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy not considered a reliable source?

So the reference to 'amateur philosopher' has been removed. The chief editor of the encyclopedia is Ted Honderich, who is a luminary of British philosophy, and he was helped by a team of sub-editors and article writers who hail from the great and good of the Anglo-American philosophical establishment. The reference to 'amateur philosopher' was by Anthony Quinton, who was made a peer of the realm for a lifetime of service to academic philosophy. Whoever removed this is a complete WP:DICK.

Note that Rand is only mentioned once in this comprehensive work (namely as an amateur philosopher). Peter Damian (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a reliable source, and probably belongs in the article. Could you provide the full citation (ISBN and page number is fine) if you have access to it? And, it it is a brief mention as you say, would it be too much trouble to quote the relevant sentence(s)? Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to steer clear of this farce. Peter Damian (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but if we neither have access to a work nor the means to do so, we cannot responsibly include it in an encyclopaedia article. Skomorokh 13:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

p. 704 in a section by Quinton on "Popular Philosophy" and specifically about the kind of popular philosophy that is the "amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy;" p. 703. "In this century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print: most languish in typescript and photocopy. One arresting exception is the "Social Contract of the Universe", by C. G. Stone a most ambitious piece of deduction. There are also the works of LL White and George Melhuish, and in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." It is available on Amazon's look inside, [1]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So I suppose the Rand-relevant claim would be something like "In a discussion of amateur philosophical systems, [adjective here] Anthony Quinton cited Objectivism as one of the few examples from the twentieth century which made their way into print". Cite: Quinton, Anthony (1995). "Popular Philosophy". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198661320. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help). This would seem most relevant to the Philosophy and Legacy sections. Thoughts? Skomorokh 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Amateur is not accurate because Ayn Rand was paid for her work. If we need say anything at all, then Popular follows the source in a more accurate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a strange statement given that Quinton specifically uses the term amateur twice. Amateur does not imply payment/non-payment; as an adjective it means something coming from a non-professional and/or one lacking in experience or competence.[2]. --Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument here, but note that in my proposed wording above, Wikipedia is not calling Rand amateur, all we are saying is that Quinton discusses Rand in the context of amateur philosophy. If we put this in the Legacy section, the reader ought to already know very well from the biographical sections Rand's degree of amateurishness or lack thereof. Skomorokh 14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no logic in this. Quinton does not merely discuss Rand 'in the context of amateur philosophy', he gives her as an example of an amateur philosopher. Earlier in the section he makes clear that by 'amateur' he means self-taught, a product of mass education and mass literacy. He also says that Coleridge is 'too substantial' to count as an amateur. So it is clear what he means. Peter Damian (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear from the quote provided above that Quinton "gives her as an example of an amateur philosopher"; if you can supply a citation where he does this, then by all means we can put it in. Skomorokh 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its surely clear that the quote states that she is an example of an amateur whose work got published. --Snowded (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to those who say that Rand earned money for her work. Not correct: she earned money for her romantic fiction. This is not the same as philosophy.Peter Damian (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Her non-fiction philosophy books and collections earned her quite a significant amount of money, without doubt. Skomorokh 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ I think it is reasonable to state that Quinton uses her as a illustration of an amateur philosopher who made it into print (the word amateur is not necessarily linked to be paid), it is not reasonable to remove the material as it is one of the very few references to Rand in any of the various encyclopaedias and directories of philosophy. Quinton is clearly calling Rand an amateur by the way. --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded is mistaken as a brief search indicates that there are better sources to be found in works of this sort. For example, see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which contains a good entry for our topic. We need not glean other sources for passing mentions when we have better material to work from. This source talks of her popular success and says nothing of amateurism in any sense of the word so our presentation should state the former, rather than the latter. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check back in the history of this talk page you will find a large number of ones where she is not referenced (and where if she had any international recognition you would expect her to be listed). The Quinton quote is reliable and provides balance (I trust by "better" you do not intend "more favourable"). The Routledge one you reference makes the point that her novels are the primary way in which any philosophy is expressed. --Snowded (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Ask yourself why Rand only gets 'passing mention'? Could that be because her work is in fact largely ignored? However the Routledge is no less objective. Routledge "Rand's political theory is of little interest .. her attempts [to solve her rejection of anarchism with her hostility to the state] are ill-thought out and unsystematic". "Of more enduring interest is her fiction, belonging to a genre she labelled 'romantic realism'." It says that her work "has attracted little attention from academic philosophers". Peter Damian (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. We may thus dispense with the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy which does not address the topic directly. Are we done with this section now? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just make the article about her as a novelist and its done, otherwise all the points above stand. --Snowded (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

removing more rubbish

I removed this sentence and the long incoherent and rambling citations that were meant to support it.

Rand held her metaphysical, epistemological and ethical views to be fundamental, saying "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."

The sentence gives no explanation of what 'metaphysical, epistemological and ethical' means, and it does not say why they are fundamental. It mentions 'egoism' but without any explanation of what egoism is. Peter Damian (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone (an IP) asked for more discussion on my removal and reversion. I don't think we can say anything in the introduction about Rand's belief that her political views could be derived from basic and fundamental principles (identity and existence and so forth) without also mentioning the view held by all serious philosophers that her belief was simply mistaken. By all means say that she believed her views could be founded in this way. Peter Damian (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)