Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Good articleAyn Rand has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 7, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 2, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 4, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 20, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Ayn Rand in Popular Culture

Is it alright if I put down an appearance of Ayn Rand in "Popular Culture" or in "In Fiction" in a separate section on the article? What I wanted to put down is below me.

In the North American Confederacy Series novel The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, in which the United States becomes a Libertarian state after a successful Whiskey Rebellion and the overthrowing and execution of George Washington in 1794, Ayn Rand served as the 22nd President of the North American Confederacy from 1952 to 1960. After Harriet Beecher Stowe and Rose Wilder Lane, she was the third woman to hold the office of the presidency.

I would have wrote down what I said on the article, but I was afraid of it being removed. Like what happened to Sequoyah, since he also was mentioned as being President of the NAC in the series. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian[reply]

I have no opinion on such a section, but she is also mentioned in the Simpson's Episode "A Streetcar Named Marge" as well as on Futurama, in Bill Buckley's fictionalized account and in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, as well as the movies Heaven Can Wait and Dirty Dancing. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose such an addition as being unnecessary trivia. The article currently notes that Rand has appeared as a character in a number of novels, been mentioned on TV shows, etc., but it doesn't list them, because at an individual level this is not significant information about her. If she is an important character in the novel (or other work), then it could be mentioned in the article about that work. If not, then this may be the type of detail that just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Years ago, the article for a while had a list of cultural personages who were significantly influenced by Rand, partly as a counterbalance to the attempt in the article at that time to marginalize her impact. (More of that occurs above in this page.) After a lot of arguing and editing, the consensus seemed to be that it was too close to being "trivia." Some attempts to wedge in minor academic criticisms also were excised. I suggest that unless there has been a major new development, facts about Rand belong in the article while spotting isolated mentions of her do not. — DAGwyn (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't a separate article be made for Ayn Rand's appearances in media and popular culture? It really shouldn't be that hard to do so and shouldn't require so much Bureaucracy,regulations, and waiting forever to get something done. --75.68.122.13 (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Jacob Chesley the Alternate Historian[reply]

The phrase "popular culture" used in this way is merely a euphemism for trivia, and trivia does not belong in the article. Obviously there will be references in "media" to virtually all famous people, and Wikipedia readers understand this; they don't need a list of specific examples. TheScotch (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave

User:DrKiernan removed an external link to Find a Grave, citing guidance around when to link to this site. User:Srich32977 subsequently restored the link, stating that it "has unique image (gravestone) & is under editorial control of FAG". I can't speak to the editorial control, but we already have a gravestone image and burial details in the article. Unless there is some other unique information on the linked page that I'm missing, it seems that DrKiernan was right to remove the link. --RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the gravestone image in the article. But given that Rand is a popular figure in culture, I think the link is appropriate. It is not being used as RS (per template guidance) and the other justification cited is simply an essay (not guidance). I'll favor keeping it. In accordance with WP:ELMAYBE it is a helpful and noteworthy link for those readers who enjoy tracking such details. – S. Rich (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EL, which is a guideline, external links should be kept to a minimum and those that provide no further information than that already found in the article are usually avoided. DrKiernan (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing what WP:ELMAYBE criteria this link addresses. It appears to be superfluous, in an article that has a lot of ELs (probably too many) even without it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the FAG page has (relatively) numerous "virtual flowers" and fame star ratings, which indicates that Find a Grave readers are enjoying it. Accordingly, providing the link is helpful to WP readers who may wish to contribute there as well. As for this EL section, it is pretty clean – the additional short link hardly serves to clutter it. (Let's see if others agree before we remove it.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photo

The recent change to the infobox photo (this diff) doesn't strike me as an improvement; it is informal and from an era well before she came to fame as a writer. The previous image, although tagged fair use, is of excellent quality for a lead photo, showing Rand in a relaxed but formal pose with her trademark cigarette. The recent photo is marked as public domain on account of it being a passport photo, but it doesn't look really look like one. How do we know this is actually the case? It is sourced to a writer's blog which does not state the date of the photo, and I haven't been able to find any other instances of the photo other than Pinterest. Pinterest say the image was found on aynrand.org, but the image does not appear to be published there either. Verification of the passport's issue date comes from other sources (eg here), but without an example of the image. If someone could shed some light on the provenance of this photo, that would be of help. My preferred option would be to reinstate the previous image and move the new image to the section on Rand's early life (providing appropriate licensing is possible). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same image appears in Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made, where it is described in the caption as "Rand's Russian passport photograph, dated October 29, 1925, when Rand was twenty years old." So the origin of the image appears accurate. I agree that it is not representative of the era of Rand's life in which she was notable, so on that basis it might be acceptable to switch back to a fair use photo of the mature Rand. Our content guidelines allow non-free images only when there is no free image "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" -- an arguable point in this instance. However, if this is going to be reverted it should happen soon, because the non-free file is subject to deletion tomorrow as an unused non-free image. --RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophers of mind

The category "philosophers of mind" should be removed from this article. The category description is, "Philosophers in the philosophy of mind". I do not believe Rand qualifies. Simply mentioning the mind in her work does not make her a recognized philosopher of mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rand's philosophy covers the nature of consciousness, sense perception, abstraction, concept formation, and other topics in the philosophy of mind. She also covers important problems in the philosophy of mind, such as the mind-body problem, free will, qualia, etc. These are covered in detail in Rand's Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Peikoff's Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapters 1-5, Binswanger's How We Know, and other books, as well as in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in the section on Metaphysics and Epistemology. BRIAN0918 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically regarding recognition, Stanford's article indicates in its first sentence that her philosophy included a theory of epistemology. BRIAN0918 15:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Rand wrote about mind just as she wrote about many other things. One cannot, however, legitimately apply the category just on the basis that Rand wrote about the mind, as she has no reputation at all as a philosopher of mind, no acknowledgement from writers within the field. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a huge fan of categories in the first place, but Rand not only published only one philosophical monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she considered it her most important philosophical work. David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses and various other fully scholarly works have been published on facets of her epistemological positions. What would indeed be wrong would be classifying her as a logician or cosmologist. But there is certainly nothing wrong with describing her as an epistemologer. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's epistemology, not philosophy of mind. It's not the same thing. To classify Rand as a philosopher of mind, one would have to have evidence that mainstream philosophers (non-Objectivists) regard her as a philosopher of mind. I doubt there is any such evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main topic of the philosophy of mind is the mind body problem. All the Stanford article says is that she saw dualism (which I assume she disagrees with) as leading to false dichotomies such as between economic and personal freedom. It says in her book on epistemology,
Q: "I'd like to apply this to the "mind-brain" issue-that is, what is the relation of consciousness to brain activity? That would be a scientific question."
A: "Yes."
That's all she wrote - not enough to qualify her for the category.
TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not about to get into an argument based on unsupported dismissiveness . Rand considered mind relational, and for her primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness was a central concept. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the requirement is that philosophers of mind mention her or her work in connection with the phrase "philosophy of mind", then obviously the evidence is much more limited than if the requirement were that her topics of discussion fall under the philosophy of mind. But in general philosophers don't go around referring to eachother as "philosophers of the mind" - rather, they reference the relevant topic. A more reliable method would be to look at lists/databases of articles in the field, and see whether Rand is cited or mentioned. For example: David Chalmer's database of articles on consciousness, which he states is a "topic in the philosophy of mind", includes several articles by Rand and/or mentioning her. Likewise with the PhilPapers database section for philosophy of mind. BRIAN0918 00:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And she uses her concept of the primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness to argue against the meaningfulness of the philosophy of mind. Again in her book:

Q: "Isn't there a sense in which Locke, Berkeley, and Hume-less so Locke, but all of them-don't really have a concept of existence as a metaphysical fact?"
A: "No, they don't."

TFD (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless to suggest that Rand should be categorized as a philosopher of mind simply because some article by her appears in a database. The fact of the matter is that she has had no discernible impact on the field. It makes sense to categorize her as a political philosopher because she has had some (albeit limited) impact on that field; not so philosophy of mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links cleanup

There was a cleanup tag for excessive external links since last May. I've cleared out several links for the reasons explained below:

That cuts the EL list by a third, and all the remaining links seem appropriate, so I've removed the tag. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd restore the Stanford Encyclopedia Link. It's a good, objective (npi) article, and having it as an external link makes sense, since the article is wider than any reference for which it is used. Having to look for it amongst the small print of scores of references is not as helpful to our readers. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open-minded about the SEP link if folks want it back; it's the most deserving of the links I removed. The "C-SPAN video" is an interview from 1961 put in a C-SPAN wrapper. There are other recordings of Rand available online, so I'm not sure why this one in particular should be linked, and not (say) this one or this one. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently folks do want the link back. I have restored it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have re-added the link (with a new URL that specifically points to the correct program) for the C-SPAN American Writers: A Journey Through History program on Rand (Link here). Please let me know if any concerns. Thanks. KConWiki (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation?

Since Ayn Rand was a philosopher, should we have "philosopher" under Occupation in addition to "writer"? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. Its mentioned in the article text. The infobox encapsulates key information, and she is most known for being a writer. The philosophical nature of the writing and explaining her status as a philosopher is a complex matter and covered in the main text. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rand was not employed as a philosopher, so no, it clearly was not her occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When she was paid to make speeches, it was for her to discuss her philosophy, not for her to perform writing. Also the word "employed" is irrelevant. One can be a writer or a philosopher without being an employee of someone else. -- Netoholic @ 22:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're missing the point. Someone is not a philosopher by occupation if they are not employed as a philosopher. It's irrelevant that they might be a philosopher in some other sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you find yourself so often claiming that others aren't getting the point, it might be because you're not clear on the point that you're trying to make. In fact, I think very few philosophers ever collect a paycheck based on that as their stated profession. They are more often payed as writers, professors, etc. (if we have to define something as their "occupation"). That's why I said right away that her occupation is better left as just "writer". -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her speeches were to present her ideas -- the assertion that they were to discuss her "philosophy" begs the question here. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your goal is to somehow belittle her contributions as meer "ideas", and not philosophy, then I think you need to stop trying to participate so unconstructively in conversations in this knowledge area. Even someone who thinks its a *bad* philosophy should at least acknowledge that it is one. Historically, we have had many bad philosophies that have failed the test of time, and yet we still call them "philosophy" and not just "ideas". Doing so would be disingenuous to the ongoing process of human understanding.-- Netoholic @ 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here. Firstly is her occupation Philosopher? To that per FreeKnowledgeCreator the answer is no, she was a writer. Secondly is she a philosopher? Well anyone can call themselves that and anyone can engage in philosophy. But to use wikipedia's voice to make the statement requires some evidence. Given that she has few if any references outside a very narrow context in the US my long term opinion here has been that she does not deserve the label per WP:WEIGHT and in general on philosophy articles her views have not been notable enough to deserve inclusions. However there are academic references to her and historically that has been enough to support the statement in the lede. ----Snowded TALK 07:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be listed as one of her occupations and of course those who view her with disdain her are going to insist it shouldn't. Employment as a philosopher doesn't mean you have to be on the payroll of a university. Self-employment is employment. She was self-employed as a philosopher. It's a false dichotomy to say she spoke about her ideas as differentiated from her philosophy - a philosophy is composed of ideas. Her novels exist to communicate her philosophy. Besides nonfiction works regarding her philosophy, she gave lectures, put out publications, spoke on her own radio show and was a guest on other broadcasts. She was paid by those who found her philosophy to be of interest. The Ayn Rand Institute exists specifically to promote her philosophy. It's ludicrous to claim she wasn't employed as a philosopher. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&oldid=725880026

Leave a Reply