Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Ayn Rand and those influenced by her

The article is about Ayn Rand, not a depository for arbitrary wiki articles of "people" who claim they were/are influenced by her philosophy. In fact, there are (were) many in that paragraph who are Libertarians. Please see what Rand has to say about Libertarianism. Anyway, IMO the paragraph should be removed altogether. I made a compromise by leaving the most "notable". Plus, there are many who are listed in the info box. Remember this is about Ayn Rand, not those who claim to admire her. That paragraph is bloated as it is. How many people know or care about most of those people listed connecting them to Ms. Rand? And how does that improve the article having a bunch of blue links leading to people not remotely related to her in any way? Let's duke it out on the talk page if you disagree, so that consensus can be gained. Cheers. ←Gee♥Alice 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(I copied the above from my in-box.)

The article is about Rand, but that particular section is about her influence. The list of "prominent" (which I changed to "noteworthy") individuals who claim to have been significantly influenced by her has existed for a long time, presumably as a correction to the notion widely promoted by academics that Rand appeals only to ignorant youngsters. There have been many editorial attempts to add several people who are now in that list to the "Influenced" list in the Infobox instead, but the consensus seems to be that the Infobox list is reserved for connections in some kind of graph structure pertaining to academic philosophy. Moving the entries to the cultural impact section seems to have satisfied those editors.

In fact, many Libertarians have claimed to have been significantly influenced by Rand. It doesn't purport to be a list of Objectivists. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's "existed for a long time" does not improve the article or help others understand her and her philosophy. It's a bunch of links that take away from the artcile. The infobox, including prominent and truly "noteworthy" are already there. Why clutter the page with links to articles of people who really have nothhing to do with her, and take up a whole section? It makes no sense to me, anyway. If people keep adding everyone who has an article about them into this article then revert it. Just as we do when people add others to a list of notable alumni or residents. Even though many have their own articles too, which does not automatically make them notable to another subject or article. ←Gee♥Alice 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(The following section, "How does having a paragraph linking to numerous people improve this one?", really belongs here. I'm resuming the discussion here; it was inappropriate to create a new section in the middle of the thread, and GeeAlice keeps undoing my attempts to glue it back into the single thread that it actually is.) In response to GeeAlice's comments below, he/she has ignored the counterarguments and appears to be spinning everything to fit a preconceived notion: The lead sentence of the disputed paragraph was not "added to justify its inclusion" (it is integral to the section containing that paragraph); My example about the female rôle model was just that, one example (illustrating that adoption of the full philosophy is not a germane criterion for inclusion); The analogy with articles about other philosophers is weak, because their cultural influence has not been the subject of dispute (Rand's has); The "edit conflict" was annotated within the Talk page as of 22:30:08, and was mentioned by GeeAlice twice in the edit log as some sort of justification for creating a separate section, as well as in my personal Talk page. I see now that I stand accused of a lack of good faith (with respect to my question about archiving), another indication that he/she is not bothering to understand what is actually said and is instead reinforcing preconceptions. Because valid information that supports legitimate purposes of the article should not be arbitrarily removed, it should be restored until the debate is settled. There is no good reason to let the recently disputed, less informative change stand, as opposed to the long undisputed and more informative original version. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the peacock term "greatly" or "deeply" influenced is inaccurate, and that is very much discouraged. So I removed that adjective. I also added fact tags to those without wiki articles, as was used in a prior argument that those on the list were notable because they had their own article. Again, inaccurate. If ALL these people deserve a place in this article then please be accurate and source it. Take Clarence Thomas for instance - he never said he was "greatly" or "deeply" influenced by Rand. He supposedly said his favorite movie, yes movie, was The Fountainhead. That does not mean he was "greatly" influenced by Rand as a philosopher. All of Rand's fans find this type of connection when one does not exist. At least not for her psuedo-philosophy. I'm sure this is true for many of the others listed in that section. It is original research to list those that may have enjoyed one of her books, or even a movie, or some antidote of hers, and then report they were "greatly" influenced, etc. It's absolutely irresponsible, and unverifiable. ←Gee♥Alice 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP policy is that articles are allowed only for notable people, not the converse. Erika Holzer, for example, wrote several novels which sold fairly well (as I recall she won at least one Edgar); among these was "An Eye for an Eye" which was adapted for a major motion picture. I would say she qualifies as a notable person, and she was certainly influenced by Rand; in fact she was one of Rand's associates in NYC. That she does not yet have a WP article means only that nobody has yet created one. Maybe some day when I have more time I will do that myself.

The interviewees themselves tended to use terms like "made a tremendous impact" or "changed my life", so the adverb was fairly accurate. However, we can tone it down, but not so far as to mislead (as "influenced in some way" does). Those in the list were influenced in more than a minor way by Rand, most of them cited as such in the referenced article. In the previous discussion about the list, I remarked that I try to exclude many other persons who have claimed only a minor influence. Over the years I have seen or heard direct quotations from most of the persons in the list verifying the substantial nature of that influence (thus the referenced article seems accurate). As I recall, Clarence Thomas gave an entire interview that focused on Rand's influence on him. Finding individual citations would take a lot of work, and is not necessary where they are already covered by the cited reference. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just having the word "influenced" is enough without an adverb. Not all those listed were "tremendously impacted" or even "deeply influenced" by her. It appears that it was a positive influence, which is not true of the many listed. I will remove the adverb as a compromise. ←Gee♥Alice 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is supposed to list only "notable" people who have claimed that Rand was a positive influence. If you can prove that an entry is mistaken, it can be removed. I have seen direct evidence supporting most of them. By the way, your claim that Clarence Thomas doesn't belong in such a list is mistaken; to see that he does all you have to do is read his autobiography. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GeeAlice, Don't use the term "randroid" in your edit summaries. It is insulting and a violation of WP:CIVIL [1] You're starting to remind me of a past editorEthan a dawe (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what is wrong with the reference that made GeeAlice revert DAGwyn's edit. Do you care to explain Alice? Ethan a dawe (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll explain. If that long list is to stay, and then say that all those people were profoundly, deeply, greatly or positively influenced by Ayn Rand is misleading, and more importantly... not verifiable. This project is about verifiability, not truth. Just because some people read Atlas Shrugged and/or The Fountainhead, does not make one positively influenced by Ayn Rand and her "philosophy". That's what the section is saying. Many high-school and early college-aged kids where influenced by those books of fiction. I was one of those "kids".

Every encyclopedia is primarily about knowledge, which ideally is an attempt to ascertain the truth; the WP's emphasis on verifiability is meant to address discrepancies between different reasoned views of what is true. The people in the list have in fact stated that they were significantly, positively influenced by Rand's works. It has been explained repeatedly that "just having read" was not a criterion for inclusion in that list, and that only the (self-identified) significantly influenced were meant to be included. (If you have reliable evidence that somebody in the list has been miscategorized, we can remove him. I have personally seen or heard direct supporting quotations from many of them.)

The source is verifiable, and from my own observation, accurate. I see no need to research dozens of separate individual quotations (which could in principle be done) to supplement that source, and doubt that it would add any real value to the article.

That Rand's influence is often first felt when people are of the age where they are open to new ideas doesn't signify anything. The list of successful adult achievers is a useful corrective to the often-heard distortion that Rand's influence is limited to such kids and that they "grow out of it", which is undoubtedly true for some people, but it is not valid as a generalization. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If I remind you of a "past editor" that should tell you something, that it may not be right to puff up the article as if Rand is some type of Aristotle or Nietzsche. Dissenting views are allowed on Wikipedia, and I see that this article is protected by those who are deeply, positively and greatly influenced by Rand which does not make for a balanced article. It makes it POV. Even the criticism section is positive and protected against the real criticism out there that is verifiable by reliable sources. This section is not verifiable by a reliable source! Don't you get it? ←Gee♥Alice 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal prejudices are showing. The article is not "puffed up" as you describe. Ethan and I (among others) have worked to ensure that it is accurate and presents the facts neutrally, including reasoned criticism. We have omitted reference to the vast amount of wild rantings by people who felt threatened by Rand's ideas, as well as rantings by fanatical "true believers", because including either or both of those "POV"s does not serve the fundamental goal of knowledge and is inherently not "neutral" (it would give equal weight to reason and to nonsense). However, even rantings such as Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged were mentioned if they are historically significant. To take one example for analogy: In the Einstein article, we do not consider it appropriate to present historically unimportant criticism of his theories, even though there was considerable opposition to them, largely by people who didn't understand the ideas (but who seemed to think they did). That isn't promotion of a "pro-Einstein" POV; it's done for clarity of exposition, to reduce misleading, low-quality clutter in an article that is already too long.

The Ayn Rand article has been particularly difficult to stabilize, precisely because there are fanatics on both sides who think that a neutral presentation must be supporting the opposing POV, since it isn't supporting their POV. Don't forget that the article is about Rand, and her critics are only incidental. I think we got it about right. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

It appears any edits not favorable to Rand and her "philosophy" are quickly reverted, therefore the article is biased (NPOV). Even the criticism section is whitewashed - in that, it does not included the more harsh criticism of Rand and her "philosophy", which is overwhelming - having many reliable sources to support this. Yet, any changes are quickly reverted that are not favorable to Ayn Rand, her works, and her philosophy. Even the "Criticism" section is more apologetic than critical. Please leave the NPOV tag until the article is allowed to included a balanced view. ←Gee♥Alice 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only "POV" claim(s) for the article I have seen come from someone who has exhibited a clear bias against the subject (e.g. putting quotation marks around "philosophy" above, labeling other editors "randroids", etc.), and has made incorrect claims of fact (e.g. Thomas not being significantly influenced by Rand). His/her concern seems to be that "neutrality" requires not just explaining the subject's ideas, but actively belittling them. That would be imposing a POV.

The question at issue is whether it can be stated from the neutral point of view that Rand is a philosopher and not a writer. The belief that she is, is a belief of people who agree in the main or in total with Rand's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.96.211 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, most of the "more harsh criticism" is not worth citing because it doesn't meet normal intellectual standards (e.g. is based on a caricature of the philosophy rather than on the actuality). Reasoned academic criticism has long been included in the article, and absurd criticism has long been excluded. That is the way it ought to be. There is no "balance" in including hysterical denunciations, any more than there would be in including worshipful paeans; both have been excluded in the past and should continue to be so. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, with just enough supplementary material to provide context and pointers to closely related information. Challenges concerning factual validity are taken seriously, but we do not promote either an anti-Rand POV or a pro-Rand POV in this biographical article. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the criticisms section is adequate. It says that critics found her works "terrible", philosophers did not take her work seriously and her followers have been described as a cult. Her thoughts do not merit the attention that a serious writer or philosopher would attract. --The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)ю

Certainly that point of view (with which many reasonable people disagree) is represented. Keep in mind that this is an article about Rand, including her works and ideas and the response to them. As to WP:NPOV, that pertains to disagreement over what the (article-relevant) facts are, not to whether other people might hold other ideas (because of course they do). The latter slant on "NPOV" would apply in a general article on ideas, e.g. metaphysics or epistemology, where there are clearly a number of distinct POVs about the facts of the subject as such. In Rand's case, what she maintained on major philosophical issues is usually quite clear from her own writings, so there should be little dispute about presenting that in an article about her and her ideas.

I get the impression that some people are not willing to let facts stand on their own merits (or lack thereof), but want to influence the reader's evaluation by steering it in the "right" direction. That is inappropriate, and indicates a lack of confidence in the reader's ability to think for himself. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How does having a paragraph linking to numerous people improve this one?

Why is this paragraph necessary to have "numerous" people with wiki articles claiming to be or have been influenced by her philosophy, when there are already many listed in the infobox? I would like to delete that section entirely, but I made a compromise by just trimming it -- excluding those who are not really notable, at least not to Ayn Rand, and most, if not all, of the people articles I removed are Libertarians or more closely related to that party, which Ayn Rand did not have good things to say about and disputes that it is related to her philosophy. Thanks in advance for comments.←Gee♥Alice 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A major justification for the cultural influence list is to support the claim in the introduction that Rand was "influential". Originally this said "broadly influential", and the cultural influence list conveys some of that breadth. As I note above, that is important information that helps to correct a common misconception; I know of no better way to do that. The fact that it catches one's attention is an intended effect.

Please refer to the first sentence of the disputed paragraph to confirm that it does not serve the same purpose as the Infobox list, and is not limited to wholehearted proponents of Rand's philosophy. Rand touched, in a way they consider positive, the lives of many who didn't completely adopt her philosophy; one typical remark is that her character Dagny provided an inspiring rôle model as a strong, independent female working at a high level in a "man's world". Such influence is notable, and relevant for an article about Rand. (It wouldn't be very relevant in the "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" article, but that has a different focus.) — DAGwyn (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As it shouldn't. Just because someone adds a sentence to a paragraph to justify its inclusion is not enough. And the influence section, by your argument, was that she was influential in inspiring role models for women, except for a couple of the names listed most where MEN, not women. Everyone and their mother is influenced by someone, does that mean we include a long list of persons with Wikipedia articles in each philosopher's article they were influenced by? Also, please stop refactoring the talk page. This is my heading and this is the way I intended to present my dispute. It's disingenuous of you to "glue" it to your heading because I encountered an "edit conflict" while I was typing my entry. I'm taking a break because I've become frustrated. I realize that that is not helpful, but I was not frustrated until now. So, leave what is here as it is for now, until I become unfrustrated, or until others weigh in with their views. Good day. ←Gee♥Alice 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Response in original section, above.) — DAGwyn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DAGWyn Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How to archive?

How do we archive past, inactive discussions? I know there is a way, since it has been done for other Talk pages. It would be a good idea to do the same for much of this Talk page. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not archive the above section that I just noticed, that disputes the same thing that I dispute here. In that, the influence section is too long. So there IS consensus to justify removing many of those names, if all of them. You're making it difficult to assume good faith here. I hope it's just because I'm frustrated with what appears to be your ownership of this article, and your refusal to listen to others. ←Gee♥Alice 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to archive that section, which is clearly relevant for an active discussion. I asked about archiving because in my efforts to glue back together the sections that you artificially split in two, I had to edit the entire article (rather than the usual single section), and found that the amount of text made it painfully slow (typed characters would echo minutes after they were typed, for example). Thus the Talk page is clearly too large, and would be improved by archiving inactive discussions, as has been done for many other Talk pages.

The consensus is not what just what some subset of people said in the course of a discussion, but what the editors all together have agreed to live with for quite a long time now, until you decided to rock the boat. Also, the idea that the list is too long is not identical to the idea that the list should include only people who support Rand's full philosophy, which you have suggested and which I explained before is not what appropriate for the topic of that particular section, which is about cultural impact.

I don't "own" the article, but I do have a strong interest in maintaining its quality (including accuracy, comprehensiveness, fairness, clarity, etc.). If you check, you should see that I've let stand (or occasionally mildly improved) many contributions by other editors, including some by you. It is only the one particular change that I am adamantly opposing. If there is a better way to convey, to the general reader, the intended information about the extent of Rand's popular influence, I am certainly open to suggestion and to working together toward a proper presentation of this important information.

As to a "refusal to listen to others"; isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I have not yet seen evidence that you have understood any of the counterarguments that I made. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)