Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

A brief bibliography?

I was skimming over the article and wondered if it might be helpful to readers to have a brief list of Rand's major works in a Bibliography section before the references. This would save the reader who has finished the prose and decided to follow up on some of the material the trouble of having to dig back through the prose to find the work she or he was looking for. I'm thinking of her novels, play, and the notable non-fiction published during her lifetime, perhaps ten items total; with a {{further}} link to Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism as a hatnote. For an example, compare William_Gibson#Selected_bibliography and List of works of William Gibson. Any objections? Skomorokh 14:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Accomplished as described. Skomorokh 21:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Colbert's Report

Not discussed in any secondary source, and consequently not any reliable secondary source. How can it be said to be notable? --Karbinski (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In the context of that section it is clearly notable and was discussed above. If we want to talk about shortening the whole section then I think that would be a good idea, but it would need to be balanced. Just removing that on its own is POV --Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The point being made in the paragraph is that Rand has been a target of jibes and satire, which is something stated in multiple secondary sources that can be cited without the need for a list of examples. The mentioning of specific examples is optional. The main justification for listing examples at all is the perpetual desire of fans of the particular examples to place them in the article: having a brief list of cited examples preempts the longer descriptions they tend to introduce, which just bulk up the article with trivia. Because The Colbert Report has an active fan base, it is a good choice for the example list. But no description of the segment is needed, just a mention with the accompanying citation. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability hasn't been shown, just alluded to. Removing until notability is shown. --Karbinski (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to keep the discussion on track, let me point out that "notability" (in Wikipedia terms) is a guideline for determining what subjects get their own articles, not for determining what the content should be within an article. See WP:NNC for the explicit statement of this. We can talk all we want about whether this specific example is worth including, but the notability guidelines are not a determining factor in that discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We started with a simple statement about the Colbert report, then we had pro-Rand editors arguing it wasn't valid becuase it wasn't clear, then it was clarified, and it was argued it was excessive. Now we have the nonsense that Colbert reference isn't notable. In popular culture a highly rated show of this kind is clearly notable. In addition the various words have been discussed and agreed. Karbinksi has no right to remove it against that prior consensus without agreement just because s/he doesn't like it. --Snowded ^TALK 16:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And there it is: "In popular cultrue a highly rated show of this kind is clearly notable." This is wrong. The standard for notability HERE is not our discussions on the talk pages, its what policy and guidelines say it is. And what does the policy say? Correct me if I'm wrong, but its coverage in reliable secondary sources. What is required is exactly that for inclusion of the material, and the burden lies with those demanding its inclusion. --Karbinski (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy that says that every detail included in an article must come from a secondary source. There are policies and guidelines that say subjects must be notable in order to have their own articles; that issues/viewpoints should not be given undue weight within an article, with coverage in reliable sources being the key weighting factor; and that sources used must be reliable, with secondary sources being preferred. Anyhow, I just trimmed the two-paragraph discussion of references to her in tv/movies to one paragraph that uses only secondary sources. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job hopefully that will stabilise it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rand and academia revisited

"Universities, the Major Battleground in the Fight for Reason and Capitalism", discussion on academic freedom/neutrality and the changing reception of Rand's work in light of the recent scholarship grants. Might be worth including overleaf. Skomorokh 12:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but you might want to also include the take from Leiter: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/07/how-do-you-get-scholars-to-take-ayn-rand-seriously-pay-them-of-course.html "How do you get scholars to take Ayn Rand Seriously? Pay them of course!" CABlankenship (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you are disagreeing are you? The reference is pretty clear on the payment issue and providing some reference to it seems a good idea. We hovered around this some time ago with the grants to Texas but that source (per Skomorokh and by reference from Leiter) looks good --Snowded ^TALK 10:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the link through Leiter, but there's a reason I didn't suggest using him instead; on this topic (unlike say, Nietzsche) he's a partisan hack with, as far as I am aware, no peer-reviewed publications or indication of studying Objectivism in any depth. The AAUP on the other hand, though pro-traditional academic (aka slightly anti-Rand) and slightly anti-capitalist, might be a good counterweight to the sources we have (basically regurgitated press releases and positive "Rand is booming in academia" puff pieces in otherwise acceptable sources). It would be good to treat the topic with a little nuance, and not give the reader the impression that independent academic philosophers are suddenly en masse taking Rand seriously. Skomorokh 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Leiter blog post would not be useful even if he were an published expert on Rand, since it says nothing substantive. He just blegs for comments on the subject of donations with strings attached. The Academe article, on the other hand, seems usable. I note that the specific grants it discusses aren't even mentioned in the Ayn Rand article currently, nor are most of the schools that received them, nor is is the foundation that gives them, although it is mentioned briefly in the Objectivist movement article. This seems a little odd given that I was able to quickly find multiple news sources discussing the foundation's activities. In fact, I wonder if a BB&T Charitable Foundation article is in order. --RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prominent criticism"

A description of Objectivism as "pseudophilosophy" in the opening paragraph of Rand's philosophy is POV, especially when referenced to this. "Prominent Criticism"? It's a regional newspaper, a staff-written opinion piece with zero comments, and the supposed description of Objectivism as "pseudophilosophy" comes as a perjorative in the final paragraph of the article - it's given as an insult, not as critical commentary on the philosophy. NPOV? Hardly. If it belongs at all, it belongs further down in the section where criticisms of Objectivism are mentioned (NOT a separate "Criticism" section, I'm as against them as you are), or in the Objectivism article. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the positioning, then merely move it. You've been deleting it though. BigK HeX (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A few months back I asked a philosophy professor (not an Objectivist, but someone who has some familiarity with Rand's works) to give me comments on the article, and his comment in regard to the "pseudo-philosophy" crack was "sorry, but this is just crap. A newspaper is no authority for what is or is not philosophy." Leslie Clark is a book reviewer, and his article doesn't even mention the word 'Objectivism'. He's writing about Rand's novels, and says, "These are romance novels with a patina of pseudo-philosophy which is well-suited to those desperate for adulthood." If this belongs anywhere in the article, it should be in the Reception section, where the other criticisms of Rand's novels are found. So in the WP:SOFIXIT spirit, I moved it there. Whether the opinions of a local newspaper book critic are significant enough to belong in the article is something I leave for further discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably not.TallNapoleon (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Mad Men

This is my first time contributing to wikipedia!!

Atlas Shrugged was referenced *TWICE* in early episodes of Mad Men. Cooper tells Draper they're both the same type and gives it to him as a gift. In another episode, Pete mentions to Don that Cooper gave him the book as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.238.211 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Rand and her works have been mentioned in numerous tv shows, movies, songs, etc. That general fact is something that is mentioned in the article, and in past versions of the article some specific shows, including Mad Men, have been mentioned. But it would be tedious and trivial to list them all, so the current version of the article sticks to just the general statement rather than mentioning specific shows. --RL0919 (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, there's also an episode of The Simpsons, called A Streetcar Named Marge, (episode 2, season 4) that includes references to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Quoting WPs article on this episode:

The episode contains multiple references to Ayn Rand's novels and Objectivist philosophy. Maggie's daycare center is called the "Ayn Rand School for Tots", and Ms. Sinclair can be seen reading a book called The Fountainhead Diet, a reference to Rand's novel The Fountainhead. On the wall of the daycare is a poster that reads "Helping is Futile", an allusion to Rand's rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism. Another wall sign reads "A is A," the law of identity, which plays a central role in Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.122.57.126.131 (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Victor Davis Hanson

This man's quote should not be preempted on basis that he is "someone with no expertise on Rand.."; (RL0919, how do you know this—your statement—is true?) Pls refer to Victor Davis Hanson's BLP article; there I read that Dr. Hanson (PhD, Stanford) is a senior fellow of the Hoover Institute and a fellow of the Claremont Institute; that he has accomplished a distinguished career as an academician and writer in the very regimes of thought that Rand was concerned with—and more besides. I'm guessin'—am I wrong to do so?—he speaks, writes, and publishes under the auspices of the Hoover Institute—no small criteria there for the reliability and authenticity of whomever represents it, which is whenever they speak or write publicly.

What criteria did you employ to decide he is "...someone with no expertise on Rand.."? Is this 'singular' application; ie, are the same criteria applied to the other commenters this article presents and quotes?

I mean no disrespect to anyone here, but I am concerned that so quickly is decided (for Wikipedia) such a negative assessment of someone who presents such credentials for his published opinion. Did you presume he was dissembling by implying he has read Ayn Rand? Did you dismiss that he might have the intellect or the opportunity to study Rand's work—sufficiently to join the erudite commentary of such obvious Rand scholars and thinkers already quoted here? (FTR, until I noticed these posts—edits and revert—I had never heard of V.D. Hanson.)

Does it reflect on Wikipedia when such reliable speakers are dismissed in so offhanded a way? (Offhanded is the word!) I am surprised and disappointed that an articulate and cogent comment is so quickly dismissed without posting any discussion or providing for any. To preempt such an obviously qualified scholar and thinker because... he is "someone without expertise on Rand.." smells of squelching the messenger because he brings an unapproved opinion.--Jbeans (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Its not clear why that quote is particularly notable; that applies regardless of the status of Hanson. --Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As Snowded hints at, there are any number of similarly qualified people. Where lengthy third-party quotes are appropriate in a biography (which is rarely), they should come from the most significant or highest quality sources, and we have plenty better than Dr. Hanson in this respect. The articles on Rand in philosophical encyclopaedias and the well-regarded scholarly biographies are just some instances of these; see the references and bibliography sections for more. Skomorokh 13:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. People can be impersonated and it is not possible to know for sure that the quote is authentic. Find the quote in a reliable source, then we can discuss if and how much of the quote to include. Yworo (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To address the remarks aimed at me: You may think that removing the quote was "offhanded", but it was not. There is only so much room in an edit summary to explain one's actions, and I didn't see a need to post to the talk page unless the removal was challenged. Since it has been, I will explain at greater length.

First and foremost, I know Hanson lacks expertise on Rand because he says as much himself in the source being quoted, which begins with "I am neither a philosopher nor a literary critic, and have only read, years and years ago, Atlas Shrugged." (This is the only sentence in his entire post that wasn't included in the block quote.) So I don't think he was "dissembling" in any way; he seems to have been quite up-front about his limited knowledge of Rand. Furthermore, I am familiar with the literature on Rand and have never heard of any publication about Rand by Hanson, nor does his own website indicate any such publication, nor could I locate one by searching. Facebook is a self-published source, and the reliable sources guideline, which I linked to in my edit summary, is clear that we should only accept self-published material if it comes from an established expert, with such expertise being indicated by the author having non-self-published work on the subject. That is why my edit summary mentioned his lack of expertise. Regarding his relationships with the Claremont and Hoover Institutes, it would be a grave mistake to assume that someone associated with a group is publishing under the group's auspices when they post a note on a personal Facebook page.

As to other sources in the article, you are welcome to review them for yourself. You will find that they are mostly books, academic journal articles, and articles from reputable magazines, with a few online news sources and web pages from organizations specializing in Rand's ideas. Poor sources in the article (for both pro-Rand and anti-Rand material) have been challenged before, so I don't think there is any special standard here. Personally, I think the sourcing could be improved even further, but I believe everything used currently meets the reliable sources guideline, unlike this quote.

Finally, the excessive length of it would give it undue prominence in the article even if it were from a reliable source, not to mention that quoting 90% of a posting probably exceeds what is permitted as fair use. If length were the only issue, I would have trimmed the quote and put in into the article prose somewhere. But given the sourcing problem discussed above, I just reverted it instead. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for responding; and for your thoughtful---excepting one---points; you clear my concern, RL0919, reacting to your editsum, when you state the author-himself declared himself "...without expertise.."; no further complaint, then, with that which drew sparks! Pls, however, these points in response to yours: 1)WP: RS does not dismiss an otherwise authoritative author because their comment is found only in Facebook. >your link recites: "All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." (italics mine; the last phrase implies they may be either). 2) I agree people sometimes make 'grave mistakes' posting on Facebook; my view is: those who have achieved their ambition of appointment to 'grave' institutes can be counted-on (usually) to self-censor their displays of impetuous 'personal' opinion, just as though they were indeed under the sheltering 'auspices'. (Those who ignore ((self-censoring)) may check with Christopher Buckley. Still, on both points, I agree that research would have been necessary to fact-check authenticity of the quote.) In your revert, Snowded, you dismissed, with "the quote is excessive"; thank you for Your Opinion—I'm sure you have many to agree with you—but, I, for one, don't; and, to the point, such a YO provides no good faith infomation (of Wikipedia criteria) for other good faith editors, when you choose to revert that way. Again, thank you all.--Jbeans (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-philosopher

Ayn Rand shouldn't be labelled as a philosopher on wikipedia. It's almost as bad as Sarah Palin being labelled a philosopher. I will have my degree in philosophy soon, and I know that none of the professors at my university would consider Rand a philosopher. The only time they mention her name is when they are making a joke. The scientific community doesn't consider creation scientists as being real scientists, and in the same way Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy doesn't make her a real philosopher. My 12 year old sister isn't a philosopher either. --Caute AF (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You may not be surprised to learn that this issue has been raised before, and you can read about it to your heart's content from here. Skomorokh 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, old stuff, repeated periodically but well-resolved at this point. The article currently has five reliable sources that refer to Rand as a philosopher, and many more could be added if overkill was desired. If any of the professors mentioned above want to publish in reliable sources arguing that Rand was not a philosopher, their arguments could be mentioned. If not, then we are left with a one-sided situation: those who consider her a philosopher publish books and articles calling her such, and those who do not, publish nothing, which means their views don't meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. --RL0919 (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.199.110.160, 15 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Popular interest

...

Actress Raquel Welch, who met Rand, has referred to her as one of the "all-time great human being[s]... certainly one of the extraordinary people of the century," and Oscar-winning actor Michael Caine named his daughter "Dominique" for the heroine of The Fountainhead and reports that the novel is the one to which he "returns."

72.199.110.160 (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've stuck this in as it's on a par with the material about the other actors and so on, but I have to question whether this stuff rises above trivia. The effect on Reagan, the novelists I can see as a manifestation of meaningful political and literary influence – i.e. the fields in which Rand worked, but I'm not sure the other platitudes are much more than celebrity gossip. Skomorokh 08:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general attitude on this. We developed consensus to limit the number and detail on popular entertainments (tv, movies, etc.) that mention her, but now the list of people that have mentioned her has exploded instead. Do we really think that among the key indicators of Rand's influence that should be mentioned in a reasonable-length encyclopedia article, the name of some celebrity's daughter should make the cut? --RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)--RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.199.110.160, 17 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Legacy

...economists Walter E. Williams...

Political influence

...

Economist Walter E. Williams has described Rand's Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal (1967) as "one of the best defenses and explanations of capitalism one is likely to read."

...

72.199.110.160 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Well, half done. I'm going to add Williams to the list, albeit with a little hesitant as I'm not sure he's notable enough for that list. I'm definitely sure that he's not notable enough that a quote from his own faculty page should be included in the article about Rand. Countless people have said positive and negative things about Rand; to be included quoted here, I think we would need to show that his claim is particularly important. Since the claim didn't even appear in a reliable source, I don't see how that can possibly be true. Feel free to discuss the issue here, however. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.199.110.160, 17 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Fountainhead and political activism

...

According to renowned architectural photographer Julius Shulman, it was The Fountainhead that "brought architecture into the public's focus for the first time," and he believes that The Fountainhead was not only influential among 20th century architects, it "was one, first, front and center in the life of every architect who was a modern architect."

72.199.110.160 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Since this a section about political activism, it doesn't make sense to me to add in a quote about her impact on architecture. I could imagine a new section being added under legacy to include "other" influences, or a new section about "architecture" if there are other sources we can draw on. However, I'd prefer that editors with more experience on this page chime in on whether or not a new section is warranted. Qwyrxian (talk)

I think this particular detail would be better placed in the article on The Fountainhead. --RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, the IP added it to the article on 16 November. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Rand as a Cult Leader

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html - Should be source enough. Comments on including prominent criticisms from this?--81.159.232.223 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

These accusations are already discussed in this article (using higher-quality sources than the essay you link above), and there is further coverage at Objectivist movement#Accusations of cultism. --RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard article has been criticized for factual inaccuracy. Pelagius2 15 Feb 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelagius2 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rand's Degree

The source given does not go into any kind of detail regarding evidence of her degree. Furthermore, the source is from an organisation devoted to the lionisation of Rand, and is therefore unreliable. Rand's acedemic record has been a matter of constant dispute; I would very much like clarification of it. The article currently fails to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.112.206 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is an article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, which is an independent academic journal, not "an organisation devoted to the lionisation of Rand". It gives a detailed review of her college transcript, so it is bizarre to say it "does not go into any kind of detail regarding evidence of her degree." Moreover, the claim that you have marked as "dubious" is that she graduated college in October 1924. There are some areas of controversy regarding Rand's education (such as the her relationship with Nikolai Lossky), but I'm not aware of any controversy over the date of her graduation, nor have you provided any conflicting sources to indicate such a controversy. I'm removing the tag, and please give some justification here before placing it again. If you think the article should contain additional detail about her education, please state what you want rather than tagging an entirely uncontroversial fact as "dubious". --RL0919 (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Statue

Lee Lawrie's statue was created 20 years before Ayn Rand published her book Atlas Shrugged, the photo of it here makes it appear that it might have been created as an homage to her work.Ninahexan (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's female "characters"

[My point(sub-title)]: "Ayn Rand and the individual's right to give Love and Compassion"

Yes, I am guilty...of "talking" about Any Rand, the author and not this Wikipedia Article...

Are they blogs that discuss Any Rand?

Here is my two cents worth: I think "Love" and "Truth" are the higher laws. Wisdom is understanding gained through experiences of the heart and mind.
I like Any Rand's female characters. They are individuals, they are rational, they are direct and clear...and they have serious relationship problems with men! I think that is very interesting!
Question: I keep mis-spelling Ayn Rand, I pronounce it like: An(n) Ran...is this pronunciation correct???C-ritah (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum about Ayn (pronounced Eye-n) Rand. Try looking in the External Links for discussion forums about Ayn Rand. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Trimming

The article had inflated to over 102K of wikitext, corresponding to almost 7000 words of main body prose. While I appreciate comprehensiveness as much as the next geek, at some point we have to consider readability. I've trimmed it to just under 95K (about 6400 words). Based on numerous past discussions of the article's length, I assume the consensus would support this and probably even further trimming. There seemed to be a bit of cruft and peacocking, so I focused on that first, but I'm curious whether anyone has any particular thoughts on what else might belong on the chopping block. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While you suggest trimming, I suggest that the article isn't nowhere near comprehensive. It focusses mainly on the reception within the US (and to some degree the UK). While it claims that Rand's works continue to be widely read, the fact is that outside this sphere, there are countries where her books are out of print for lack of demand for a reprint. On a global scope, Rand simply doesn't happen and objectivism has pretty much been bulldozed by other developments in the theory of knowledge. The article gives far more importance to her ideas than is due. If you trim, trim out some of the claqueurism and replace them with the healthy yawn that a large part of the planet has for her, considering her a second rate author with delusions of grandeur not quite unlike L. Ron Hubbard.... --46.59.161.140 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard to take you seriously, Mister Anonymous One-Poster. Hubbard has an article as well. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Rand and Hubbard meet the standards of WP:Notability regardless of 46.59.161.140's opinion or the opinion of "a large part of the planet" or anyone else. A large part of the planet once held the opinion that the earth is flat as well. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hard to take such a comment seriously. What part of "article isn't nowhere near comprehensive" did you fail to understand? The only one talking about notability is you. Better luck at your next reading comprehension test... ~~----84.46.18.60 (talk)

Stop sniping at each other, both of you; WP:CIVIL still applies here. Doctor, don't disparage someone just because they use an IP. Anon, if you have material from reliable sources that you feel should be added, please suggest it under another section title, but also keep in mind WP:NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaand the trolls never returned. I don't see why the article should say that Rand is irrelevant, had delusions of grandeur or whatever. I can't think of any way that wouldn't violate NPOV, and I don't see why the article needs to list a bunch of reasons for why the article shouldn't exist. Notability has already been demonstrated. If that's not what 46.59.161.140 and 84.46.18.60 are getting at then I would appreciate it if someone would explain further. Perhaps my reading comprehension needs work, but I'm doing the best I can here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing Social Security benefits mention

The paragraph regarding Rand accepting Social Security Benefits in grossly unfair. Rand had long advised her admirers to take such benefits themselves. Rand had previously published her view that it is perfectly morally permissible to accept such benefits. In her article, "The Question of Scholarships," 'The Objectivist' June, 1966, reprinted in 'The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought,' L. Peikoff, edit., she wrote that since the government so badly impoverishes us, individually and collectively, it is perfectly appropriate to accept government research money or scholarships. She also wrote, "The same moral considerations apply to the issue of accepting of social security, unemployment insurance and other payments of that kind." She wrote that the payroll and other taxes taken from us make any other policy impossible, in any case. It is a gross misconception that Rand attacked recipients of welfare: the "moochers" in her novels are businessmen, labor leaders, etc., themselves seeking new or additional handouts in Washington, D.C., every time. Her heir, L. Peikoff has echoed Rand in saying that "welfare" recipients should be the "last" place cut in the budget, "not the first," in broadcast interviews. Not only is there no hypocrisy shown in Rand's unremarkable taking of such legally-entitled benefits, but this was no news headline, either. Rand's differences with her friend Isabel Paterson over this very issue were previously known and discussed by Pat's biographer, Cox. The breathlessness of the report is itself biased, as well. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011

It is also worth noting that in characters like Ragnar Danneskjold in 'Atlas Shruggged', Rand fully endorses the concept of "restitution" from a coercive, slave-state. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011

Please discuss this topic with me before reverting, if you can. There is no reason for this to be of interest. Rand publicly said it was kosher for her or anyone to take such benefits. Any other policy seems impossible to live, anyway, given payroll tax hit. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

Pelagius, hello and nice to meet you. As I stated in the edit description – sourced accompanying context on the situation is preferable to completely removing mention of it from the article. All full removal will do is guarantee that new editors will show up every few days or so and attempt to re-add the "look Rand took Social Security" material, which will then be reverted and cause edit wars. In situations such as this, inclusion with the full context (referenced to reliable sources) is the best route to go. For instance, you added some additional context on her usage of Hickman (that was fine), I would suggest you do the same for Rand’s use of government funds.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done as you advised, but the result is ridiculous. To include this at all is a distortion. And why not include the various reasons why Lincoln did not beat his wife...? etc. Sources of this criticism obviously were very unfamiliar with Rand's work. None of Rand's readers will be phased, but this will make Wikipedia look absurd. Pelagius2 (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Pelagius, I don’t think it is "ridiculous", and think your addition makes the article more informative - while addressing the issue nicely. Moreover, we can not assume that every reader of the article is "familiar" with Rand’s work – so tackling the matter (which has become a notable "criticism" for the "supposed hypocrisy") is appropriate. Leaving the matter out would only lead to frustration, as editors would continually attempt to add it in (believing that its omission was part of a concerted effort by Rand supporters to conceal the matter). I’m not sure what you find so "absurd" about including a mention of the issue with the surrounding context that you yourself believe is suitable.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's fine, even preferable, to include the mention of Social Security but accompanied with Rand's justification of taking it. Pelagius, I think the points you made above could be quite effectively added to the paragraph if adequately sourced. Rand's own writings would probably suffice for this.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is preferable to cut the whole business as too insignificant to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic overview of Rand's life. As I commented in an earlier discussion, the inclusion of material about Rand getting these payments is more recentism than anything else. It is based on obscure primary sources and a few recent web opinion pieces. Only one biography even mentions that she took Social Security, and that is a single sentence. There is zero scholarly discussion of it. For the moment it is circulating in blogs, so some mention of it is needed to help fend off poorly-written, POV-laden insertions. But just as we once had weekly attempts to add a paragraph about BioShock into the article, most likely this will eventually fade away and the material about it will be cut as pointless trivia. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Recentism??? The event in question is over 30 years old. I'm of the opinion that "recentism" is among the least plausible objections to the material. BigK HeX (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, recentism. It is being included based on the short-term surge in blog discussions about it, driven mostly by a recent Huffington Post opinion piece plus amplification from our own inclusion of it. Before that there was no interest in inserting this minor factoid into any encyclopedia article about her. And it is just a minor factoid, with no more justification for being included in this article than two dozen other minor points about Rand that are not included. It is only the recent flurry of interest that has caused it to be here, and when that dies down, readers will scratch their heads in puzzlement that an encyclopedia article includes two full sentences explaining that an old woman took Social Security. --RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave it in, assuming we accept that the sources adequately verify that it happened. Apart from being an interesting indication of her take on the morality of taking one's own taxes back, it exposes the hypocrisy of some on the Left being so quick to condemn her for it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Scoring political points is exactly what a good encyclopedia article is not about. The article has seen dozens of these ginned-up controversies come and go. --RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with RL. This article is long enough as is without dealing with this kind of minutiae. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's a line-ball as far as I'm concerned. It certainly looks a little odd to include a detailed explanation of why Rand took social security, just like, oh, a few hundred million other Americans.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Seamstress?

Rand was not "hired" by DeMille as a seamstress, as article currently asserts, and nor had I read that he ever suggested such a job for Rand. This "suggestion" is not in Heller's recent biography, although she covers the issue, not in Burns's. Nor does Binswanger, Gotthelf or Peikoff. It does not come from Rand, I have heard the biographical interviews myself and neither Ms. Branden, nor N. Branden, nor any other associate of Rand's has ever said this. She never worked or applied for work from DeMille's wardrobe dept., from the data available, although she did later work in RKO Wardrobe Dept, but never as a seamstress. Rand had no skills in this area and no training from what the sources do say, so it's also highly unlikely. Please remove this.Pelagius2 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, further review of the sources indicates that DeMille knew her goal and that his studio took her application for work as a screenwriter.Pelagius2 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor introduced this and some other material a couple of weeks ago, using the memoirs of journalist Lee Shippey as the source. Assuming the source is represented accurately, it is clear that he diverges from other biographical sources that tell this story. The article about Shippey suggests that his memoirs are of dubious veracity (apparently he omitted mention of one of his own wives and their child) and I have never before seen them used as a source about Rand. I don't have access to a copy of the source itself, but given all this, I am very doubtful about its reliability. I've removed all the changes that were based on this source. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of Social Security and Medicare

Recent news reports indicate that Ayn Rand under the Name Ann OConnor enrolled in both Social Security and Medicare to cover costs related to her lung cancer case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.

In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.

given the relative controversy around Ayn Rand, it would be better if a moderator made these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a moderator, but being bold, I see no reason why I should not have made those changes. After all, if it is true, it would be a pretty blatant case of "do as I say, not as I do". Please feel free to edit my addition or move it to a more appropriate location (I wasn't going to be as provocative as create a "criticism" section, though I'd normally think that would be appropriate). Regards Ingolfson (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that she accepted these was already in the article when the IP posted. As for the criticism, if we quoted every op-ed critic, the article would be three times its current length or more. The effort to add whatever was published this week is classic recentism. --RL0919 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, the Huff isn't exactly known for its impartiality. Other sources being added include a couple of leftist blogs, one of which apparently did the FOI. That one concedes that the issue is unresolved. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Note too that she would have spent her life paying social security and medicare taxes... so I'm not sure the hypocrisy charge really sticks, or that this is particularly notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And in this way how was she different than anyone else? Yet she still expounded the belief that people should not make use of these programs while she herself did. That is the very definition of a hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.24.95 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

She said that the only people who deserve to use a government program are those who oppose it. She did not say that no one should ever make use of these programs, as far as I know. Can you provide a reference for your statement? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand in fact said that it was perfectly alright to accept Social Security and Medicare and government scholarships and research grants, etc., etc., etc. Rand's article, "The Question of Scholarships," The Objectivist, June 1966 (reprinted as Chapter 7, Part I, The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, L. Peikoff edit., NAL, 1990), covers these things in detail. She said that the coercion used to collect the funds for these very programs, and the impoverishment caused thereby, fully justify taking such benefits without "guilt" of any kind whatever. People are "not responsible for the immorality of the world into which they were born," she wrote in that article. Moreover, since these effects are inseparable, "it does not matter whether a given individual has or has not paid an amount of taxes equal to the amount" the person takes in government benefits. The title of the article specifies scholarships, but, Rand writes, "[t]he same moral principles and considerations apply to issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, and other payments of that kind." And she repeated this position at more than one Q & A session over the years. So, she would never have had an issue with someone receiving such benefits, and the interview subject in McConnell's book is simply mistaken as to Rand's publicly stated position. The Huffington poster was irresponsible and inaccurate about everything. Since this was her previously published position, Rand would not have needed to commit the criminal fraud of using a bogus name, either -- for which the linked "source" has no factual basis in making in any case. Added to this stack of flat out inventions and lies, it is simply the case that Rand never criticized anyone for taking such benefits. In her novels, for example, it is those in Washington, D.C., calling for ~ more ~ handouts who get the titles "moochers" and "looters" -- never those accepting such benefits in order to get by in a nation wrecked by such things. Also, Rand is hardly remarkable in accepting such benefits -- even as critic of these programs accepting such benefits. Any mention of this at all, i.e., the entire reference as it now stands, is an unjustified and baseless smear of Rand. Once more, the existing text of this Wikipedia article repeats low grade Internet defamation that has no basis in fact whatever.-Pelagius2 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The text as it currently stands is accurate, since it says she accepted the same benefits that she told others it was OK to accept. But the issue is too minor to be worth covering in the article, as is discussed in one of the discussion sections below. Since the brief tempest in a teapot stirred up by the HuffPo piece, discussion of this has died down, and I see no reason this shouldn't be cut as the trivia it is. --RL0919 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -Pelagius2 (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be WP:BOLD and delete this. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hickman mention, i.e. "monster"

The paragraph regarding Rand and the child-killer Hickman is grossly unfair to Rand who repeatedly (3x) refers to the killer as a "monster." This has been repeatedly excised from the Wikipedia article simply because she also said positive things about him. These do not negate the negatives, however, especially ones so negative as "monster of cruelty" and the like, as Rand originally used. To omit this context, her strong moral condemnation of Hickman is to distort even the positives in what Rand said about him. The cited sources themselves compare Rand's use of this journalism to Truman Capote's in 'In Cold Blood,' etc. To omit Rand's negative opinion can only result in biased presentation and a disgusting smearing of Rand. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011

Rereading these notes, it is clear Rand's interest was in what ~caused~ Hickman to become such a "monster," for she calls his crimes "terrible," repeatedly, as well, and writes, for example, "the worst must be the cause that drove him to this." David Harriman, edit., 'Journals of Ayn Rand', pp.36-39 --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011

Pelagius, I think your additional context is fine, and tried to blend it into the text for flow.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thank you.Pelagius2 (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the Hickman stuff should be removed entirely; it's too much minutiae for a general overview. Who's with me? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In my personal view the issue is notable enough for inclusion; although I believe the full context of the matter (as it is now) should be included.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tall Napoleon, thats three to one, get a consensus before adding it back --Karbinski (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Karbinski, Pelagius found my revision to be "nicely done", that would make it 2-2. But Wiki is not a WP:DEMOCRACY anyway. It seems you are unilaterally and deliberately trying to removal all notes of her potential Nietzschean influences, for some unstated reason and with no TP discussion.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Redthoreau formula: Find a quote relating to AR that without a full context paints AR as amoral or immoral even by her own standards, identify an existing topic to weasel it in with, post the new POV content, deny that some narrow philosophical research or discussion is undue weight at the level of a person's biography and or overview of a philosophy. --Karbinski (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Karbinski, I would prefer to discuss the content and not the editor per WP:NPA, but since you want to go there and make the matter personal – I could just as easily offer up ...

The Karbinski formula: Operate as a self-proclaimed Objectivist "advocate" (testing the limits of both WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY) while removing all potentially unflattering material about his self-professed "intellectual hero" Ayn Rand.

Now would you actually like to discuss your large removals of material cited with reliable sources, or just continue to impugn each others objectivity by offering up hypothetical theories on how we both supposedly operate?  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As per my edit comment: No justification for inclusion - just compare opening clauses, this content DOES NOT GO WITH: frist literary succes / first novel / novella was published --Karbinski (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Red formula in play: the quote: some cherry picked text from AR that suggests a positive appraisal of a child killer, the missing context: the entire story, which gives reason to the cherry picked text being written, the painted picture: AR is at least somewhat pro-this-child-killer, the existing topic: her early fiction!!, the weaseling: the cherry picked text is from early writings, the POV: just drum up a history of Red's contributions, the denial: that a philisophical study of one of her unpublished works, narrowly focused on early influences - not even on her explicit philosophy, deserves any mention whatsover when reporting things such as Anthem being published. --Karbinski (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough, both of you. If you want to snipe at each other, do it on your talk pages or over email. Otherwise, it's counterproductive. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Nietzschean influence

User:Karbinski has now made large disputed removals both here and here of well sourced material from reliable sources (her mainstream biographers) that make note of potential Nietzschean influences on Rand’s early writing. Karbinski claims through his own WP:OR that there is “no justification for inclusion” despite the hundreds of references which could be offered up to show that Rand’s work on her first unpublished novel The Little Street and her potentially unflattering usage of a romanticized psychological portrait of William Edward Hickman (along with her influence by Nietzsche) - is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Since we are both sitting at 2RR without a resolution in sight, I figured I would provide a space here for Karbinski to provide his specific rationale for why both sizable passages (which have been worked on previously on the TP), should be unilaterally removed on his whim.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"Hundreds" of sources is an exaggeration, unless perhaps you are counting partisan blog posts (which we usually don't). But there are indeed reliable sources for this material. The question really isn't about sourcing; it is about proportion. With dozens of full-length books and multiple magazines devoted to discussing Rand and her works, there is far more material than will fit in an encyclopedia article of reasonable length. So what subjects are significant enough to include, and at what length? I would say that Nietzschean influence is a significant enough topic to warrant inclusion, and there is already a paragraph about it in the "Philosophy" section of the article, which Karbinski hasn't touched. The conflict is more about discussion of The Little Street and her unfulfilled plan to model the hero on Hickman. As I read the previous discussion, Karbinski and TallNapolen don't think the Hickman matter is important enough to include at all. Pelagius2/IP160 (presumed to be the same editor) seems to prefer that it be cut, but if it is there wants "additional context" to counter implications about Rand. Red definitely wants the material in, and likes the long version.

My own take is that I think the article would be fine without mentioning this detail, but if it is to be included it should be discussed much more briefly than the current material. At the moment there is more material about this totally unpublished novel than there is about much more significant matters in Rand's life, and it goes into details such as the name of the unpublished character (who cares?) and multiple sentences of psychological assessment from one particular biographer. If the interpretation of this early work as bearing Nietzchean influence is the heart of what we want to address, then none of this additional detail is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That Rand was "influenced" by Nietzsche is not controversial. Rand herself discusses his influence in her "Introduction" to the 25th Anniversary edition of The Fountainhead in 1968. Part of the assumption here is that F.N. was a kind of pre-Nazi, which leading scholars (like Kaufman) have repeatedly shown is not the case, e.g., he was not antisemitic, and he opposed both the German nationalism and socialism of his time. Another seems to be that Rand had somehow hid this "influence," which the Fountainhead's "Introduction" (and other sources) conclusively refutes. Another assumption appears to be that Rand somehow downplayed the influence. This, too, has been thoroughly refuted. Rand's earliest philosophical notes, written when she was still in her 20s, show that she has already rejected F.N.'s view of "instinct," determinism, "perspectivism" in epistemology and other ideas which characterize Nietzsche's own philosophy. (Journals of Ayn Rand, David Harriman, editor, Dutton, 1997, pp.66-74.) She fully rejects the idea that a history or "genealogy" of morals is required in philosophy, only a "logical" system. (pp.69-70) This last is significant because that is precisely what Rand herself reported: she had rejected his view of the nature and role of reason, which she held to be the most important premise of any system of thought. That Rand developed a "system" of ethics with a set of fixed normative virtues may itself be regarded as highly anti-Nietzschean, as well as Rand's endorsement of natural rights. Rand's discussion in those earliest notes of emotions as a form of "unrealized reason" even suggests that her mature view of human psychology was already emerging. In the context of the child-killer Hickman, Rand's notes (the only material that exists on this subject) show her repeatedly calling him a "monster" and his crimes "terrible." Saying that she somehow admired his actions, and that this reflects a "Nietzschean" influence, would be both a crude misunderstanding of Nietzsche and a gross injustice to Rand. That these notes do show a Nietzschean influence, however, is not controversial. Here is an character who sets himself apart from standard conceptions of "good and evil," a kind of misguided "individualist." As Rand's notes show, she read the major Nietzschean writers of her day, e.g. Mencken, Oretga y Gasset, Nock. But it would be wrong to impute to her any crude misunderstanding of F.N., particularly with Rand's disgust at Hickman's crimes from the start, or any attempt on her part to minimize what influence F.N. did exert on her. She advertised this impact, years before any controversy on this point, but she also seems to have correctly indicated its severe limits on her philosophical ideas. The influence appears to have been largely one of aesthetics and (in part) of F.N.'s critique of altruism (although even here, Rand went places F.N. did not, nor likely would have.) Therefore, the influence of F.N. is both important to mention and equally important not to exaggerate. So, I must agree with RL.-Pelagius2 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that Rand is so critical ("monster, monster, monster") of a character she thinks IS so "Nietzschean" shows the highly qualified impact of F.N. even at this earliest stage of Rand's writing.-Pelagius2 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RL, (a) I don’t believe that “hundreds” is an exaggeration, considering the fact that in a basic google search Rand + William Hickman = 35,400 results. Of note, I never said all of them would meet WP:RS), but as you note, many do – including all of the recent mainstream biographies. (b) To correct your assertion, I do not "favor the long version", in fact I am fine with a shorter summary of the matter being included. However, the lengthier explanation was added to be fairer to Rand, and to prevent the accusation that the anecdote was taken out of context by her critics. On a personal note, I am sympathetic to the potential of unfairly using quotes or issues out of context, and so I personally usually favor including more information in order to allow for a more nuanced and complete view of a potentially controversial matter. This obviously conflicts with those editors who favor brevity or favor a streamlined handling of a subject. In relation to this specific matter, I believe that completely removing any mention of the novel or the allusion to Hickman - would resemble a hagiographical omission of a notable and potentially controversial issue. However, nobody should want to see a "hatchet job" or unfair smear either, which is why I would only insist on using the views of Rand’s mainstream biographers that are already included in the article, and not the attacks from political blogs or her overt critics. Lastly, the evolution from Danny Renahan to John Galt later in her literary career, I believe displays the evolution of her ideas and philosophy – an issue that the author Robert Mayhew himself makes note of ---> here. How that is ultimately dealt with I believe could be left to WP:Consensus, but I would be skeptical of completely omitting the issue altogether, which could resemble a small group of Randian admirers whitewashing the matter (which in reality and full context is not even that damning in my view), but an interesting window into Rand’s early Nietzschean philosophical thinking (i.e. the lone 'rebel' vs. the mob and the potential value of using force, as discussed in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical ---> here).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted a version that adds back some discussion of her early projects, but with less detail and more focus on how this relates to her view of Nietzsche. Hopefully it can become the basis of a compromise consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RL, I believe that your condensed addition is acceptable.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not acceptable at all. It is not even factually accurate. It is also grotesquely unfair to Rand, absent the inclusion of Rand's highly negative opinion of Hickman at the time. In those early notes Rand calls him a "monster" on three occasions. This is remarkable in notes to herself. She also repeatedly calls his crimes "terrible." She is disgusted with his crimes, and the text suggests otherwise. Rand also notes that she is trying to understand the causes of what she sees as his pathology, i.e., what "made him" become this way is "worst of all," she writes. As it reads now, Rand simply seeks to "idealize" a child killer(!), which she -- as a simple matter of fact -- did not. It is a gross injustice to Rand as it reads now. Moreover, as I have shown in the previous comments here, Rand's view of F.N. does not appear to have substantive changed, in terms of philosophical ideas, from this evidence. So, this aspect, too, is factually inaccurate. And, as I have already indicated, this is also a grossly unfair implication to F.N. himself. I must strongly disagree with RL now. This repeats the lowest grade internet smears out there and reduces Wikipedia to that level. It is pure defamation as it reads now, with all due respect to RL. -Pelagius2 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If Rand was so disgusted at the "monster, monster, monster" Hickman, who she says also has "the innate psychology of the Superman," then how Nietzschean can she have been even then? In any case, some hint of the repeated "monster" evaluation is required for simple accuracy. -Pelagius2 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word "idealized" (which I believe you were reading using the wrong sense of the word, but I suppose that is a mistake that other readers could make as well) and expanded a bit on Rand's view of the case. Your opinions about how Nietzschean she was or wasn't are based on your interpretation of primary source material, so they are not really usable unless you have third-party reliable sources to offer. As of this revision, the new version is about 500 characters shorter than the old one, so I'll leave it to Karbinski, TallNapolean and others who support the "omit entirely" viewpoint to say whether it is too much for them. --RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the original text was an "interpretation" that stands in opposition to certain basic facts. As to the word "idealized," this is the given definition: i·de·al·ize (-d-lz) v. i·de·al·ized, i·de·al·iz·ing, i·de·al·iz·es 1. To regard as ideal. 2. To make or envision as ideal. v.intr. 1. To render something as an ideal. 2. To conceive ideals or an ideal. What other sense is there? I could not find it. -Pelagius2 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The text is still objectionable as it does not adequately convey Rand's extremely negative evaluation. It mentions "monster" only in the most qualified form Rand uses it and the term is repeated thrice in these private notes, as is the word "terrible." -Pelagius2 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think most readers here realize that any version of the article that is not a pro-Rand apologetic will be objectionable to some, just as any version that is not an anti-Rand screed will be objectionable to others. The relevant issue is not whether it is "objectionable", but whether it summarizes the subject in a way that accurately reflects the perspectives of third-party reliable sources. I'm not going to argue about your original research or your personal opinions, since nothing about them requires a change in the article text. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I reiterate: the purpose of the article is to provide a brief overview of Rand's philosophy. The Hickman matter and, for that matter, her early flirtations with Nietzsche, are simply not notable enough to deserve the attention they have received. I recommend removing the whole section. Perhaps one sentence noting that she was at one point influenced by Nietzsche would be worthwhile, but no more. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I think the article would be fine without it, so if my (somewhat) shorter version appeals to no one but Red, then maybe that is the best result. Anyone else want to weigh in for or against having this material, in any particular version? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Tall, you state that "her early flirtations with Nietzsche are simply not notable", however author Chris Matthew Sciabarra has an entire 6 page discussion (pg 100-106) of her "Nietzchean phase" in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical ---> here, while Rand biographer Jennifer Burns discusses her "Nietzchean Phase" in Goddess of the Market, as seen ---> here.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So? This is an encyclopedia article, not a booklength scholarly biography. As an encyclopedia article, its purpose is to quickly familiarize readers with the essential information about its subject. Early flirtations with Nietzsche do not qualify as essential information, given that she dumped him before her philosophy became particularly notable, and the Hickman affair certainly doesn't. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

While it may be unfair to Nietzsche, the connection does come up and some reference is needed. I think RL's shortened form, or some variation is OK. No need to go over the top, but it would be wrong to remove completely. --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But is the detail about Hickman necessary? TallNapoleon (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In context I would have thought that was notable. Not sure why you would want to exclude it?--Snowded ^TALK 10:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it could easily be lost in the ample text above, let me point out again that Nietzschean influence on Rand is also addressed in the Philosophy section. I just tried an alternative approach to incorporating the point about her notes for The Little Street that puts this material in that section. I omitted most of the details, including any mention of Hickman, but that could be incorporated if desired. --RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article on The Little Street ?

I think a potential solution to the recurring Little Street/Hickman issue would be to have an article on Rand's unpublished novel The Little Street (novel). That way the entire novel, and her usage of Hickman in its full context could be discussed - and then merely linked to in this main article. Thoughts? With hundreds of potential high quality refs, I believe it meets WP:NOTABLE.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. That would also allow a bit of reduction in the emphasis on Rand in the Hickman article, which has a whiff of WP:Coatrack to it because of the percent of the article it takes up. There is also a precedent for an article on one of her unfinished works that met notability standards.--RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about it some more, I've changed my mind. I think the better place to address this would be in the existing article on the Journals of Ayn Rand. The Little Street does not exist as a novel, only as Rand's notes in her journals (unlike Red Pawn, which was fully written and sold as a screenplay, just never produced). So any commentary about it is effectively commentary on the journals, and we have an existing article on that subject that can easily accommodate some additional material. --RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)