Ayn 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 Date Process Result March 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 2, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 4, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted September 15, 2009 Good article nominee Listed April 20, 2010 Peer review Reviewed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 6, 2017. Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WP1.0 Biography: Arts and Entertainment GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance). Objectivism GA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Libertarianism GA‑class High‑importance Ayn Rand is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Atheism GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page. Quick help Project's main talk page Article layout Links to atheism-related information · List of free online resources Writing about religion · Article development Citing sources · Verifying sources · About original research Assume good faith · Be civil Recent activity Core articles the "Atheism" article Articles recently added to Category:Atheism To do edit history watch purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold. Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members. Help with articles. See this month's adopt-an-article. Help out with this to-do list. Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles). Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box) Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it. Maintenance, etc. Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references). Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process). Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly. Always write for an encyclopedia. Articles to improve Agnosticism Create Articles on notable atheists Expand an atheism stub Immediate attention State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments. False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes. Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century. Politics GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Philosophers / Aesthetics / Metaphysics / Ethics / Social and political GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Aesthetics Metaphysics Ethics Social and political philosophy Conservatism GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:Vital article

I think a brief statement on Rand's metaphysics ought to be mentioned at the very beginning of the second paragraph. The paragraph briefly summarizes her views on epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics but makes no mention of her views on metaphysics, the only one of the five major branches of philosophy (according to Rand) not mentioned in the paragraph. Her metaphysical views are also where the term Objectivism is derived from, so it seems like a very important point to mention. I also think the sentence on her esthetics could be improved by adding what she opposed in art, matching the structure of the other sentences, and I think some mention of non-religious epistemologies that she rejected (e.g. innatism) could be helpful as well. Michipedian (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What text about metaphysics were you proposing to add? I don't think it serves any useful purpose to expand the material on Rand's view of art. She is known more for her political and moral views, not for her views on art. I also doubt that the point about "innatism" is worth mentioning. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe something along the following lines should be added to the beginning of the second paragraph: "Rand believed that reality is objective and argued against subjective and supernatural metaphysical views." Michipedian (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in knowing "what she opposed in art". I don't think the article says. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article does not say what Rand opposed in art, that is all the more reason why the topic should not be mentioned in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article's topic as a whole, and if Rand's opposition to abstract art is not mentioned in the main body of the article, then it should not be in the lead either. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources tell us Rand's opinion on modern art. Here for instance I find that Rand did not include in fine art abstraction, photography, or craft. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is opportunity to include more in the lead, but FreeKnowledgeCreator is correct that the lead is supposed to be a summary of material found in the body. Our first effort should be to decide what details belong in the body, and once present there (with appropriate sources), then they might be summarized in the lead. Her metaphysical views are briefly discussed in the body, so something could be added to the lead on that. Her epistemological views are also discussed, including her opposition to several views similar to innatism, but that view itself is not currently mentioned. If added, it should probably be referred to as innate ideas, which is what she called it and how it is more commonly named in sources discussing her views. (The link is a redirect.) Her esthetic disapprovals are also not mentioned in the body currently, but it would not be unreasonable to add something. As far as sources go, I would not use Salon as a source for any factual material in this article, but it would be easy to find this information in high quality sources. --RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead should summarize the body, so perhaps we should take this as an opportunity to look at the content of the body, as well. Rand quite succinctly advocates and rejects particular views in what she identifies as the five major branches of philosophy (i.e. metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics). I would consider those views—both those that she advocates and those she opposes—as basic information on Objectivism. I believe that, for each of the five major branches, the lead and especially the body should make mention of her position on the matter as well as the broad, common views on the matter that she rejects. If nothing about abstract art or naturalistic art is mentioned in the body currently, I believe it should certainly be added, as a basic tenet of Objectivism. Michipedian (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also open to the idea that that which she opposes philosophically is not basic information on Objectivism, in which case we could perhaps trim some of the content that she "rejects", thus inadvertently solving some of the disagreements FreeKnowledgeCreator and I have had over the excessive, in my view, use of the term "rejected" in the lead. Michipedian (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most (all?) of the content about what Rand rejects belong where it is and explains the issue well. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly some mention of her rejection of metaphysical subjectivism is appropriate for the lead, would you not agree, given that her rejection of metaphysical subjectivism and support for metaphysical objectivism is the very namesake of her entire philosophy? Michipedian (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think I'm fine with leaving her statement on esthetics alone in the lead, but I think her criticism of naturalistic and abstract art could and should be added to the body. Michipedian (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it up to the next level, the discussion of these areas in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should be at least as complete as the Philosophy section of this article, but there is no mention of innate ideas or the esthetic concerns there either. --RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would most definitely be appropriate for the bodies of each article. Michipedian (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rand argued that philosophical entrees into ontology were its downfall. She rejected dualism, but did not espouse any cosmology or metaphysics beyond the terminology of Aristotelian hylomorphism with concrete entities as the givens of our perception. The rest was left to science. Whay do we have all this revisionist fervor? The suggested change should be shot down as uninformed at best, and disinformation super ficie. μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which change suggestion are you even referring to? I feel as though you are misunderstanding my edit suggestions. Michipedian (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change the language of the lead from rejected altruism to opposed altruism. Rejected is already present in the lead three times, and opposed is only present once. Additionally, as FreeKnowledgeCreator has pointed out, opposed is stronger than rejected, and since the lead already notes that Ayn Rand opposed collectivism and statism, it seems quite appropriate to me to use the term opposed to describe Rand's stance on altruism, since she opposed altruism more fundamentally than she opposed statism and collectivism, in my view. I welcome all thoughts on this change, whether in support or opposition. Michipedian (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to raise this issue again. There is nothing wrong with the way that the lead is currently written. Maybe Rand considered altruism a more fundamental problem than statism and collectivism, but I don't consider that a crucial point (I'm not an Objectivist, after all). I have already explained my reasons for opposing the change from rejected to opposed, and I stand by them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you have not explained why the term opposed is appropriate for her stance on collectivism and statism. You have not explained that anywhere. If we take your logic seriously, we ought to change opposed collectivism and statism to rejected collectivism and statism. That's the conclusion to your logic. That would also bring us to four instances of the word rejected in the lead, but, as you said, "we should not choose diversity over accuracy or simplicity." Michipedian (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I did explain myself, clearly, as you will see if you review past discussions. See the pointlessness of this? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you have not explained it satisfactorily. Your reasoning has been that opposed is stronger than rejected and thus appropriate for her stance on collectivism and statism. My point is that, using that logic, then opposed is most definitely appropriate for her stance on altruism, since she opposed altruism more fundamentally and more aggressively than she opposed collectivism and statism, in my opinion. You have not responded to that point. Michipedian (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See what I had to say here. I stand by it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so your argument there is that rejected is appropriate when beliefs and attitudes are more the matter of concern, as opposed to what? How are collectivism and statism not beliefs and attitudes? They are by nature beliefs and attitudes, primarily. Yet the current lead reads that Rand opposed them, not rejected them. I don't see how that in any way holds up under your criticism of the term opposed for altruism. Michipedian (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collectivism and statism are not primarily, or at least not only, beliefs. They are institutions and policies, and are not at all comparable to altruism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collectivism is absolutely, entirely, beliefs. Institutions and policies might be based on collectivism as a premise, but collectivism is an entirely ideological concept. Statism might refer to both the ideology (which is certainly the more fundamental meaning of the term) as well as its associated institutions and policies, but collectivism is not in any way about institutions and policies, it is about beliefs and beliefs only. Michipedian (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing the point, as this is not a discussion forum. Either get a consensus for your change here or simply give the issue up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not interested in discussing it because your opposition to the change makes no sense. OK, so far, we have one in support and one in opposition. Let's see if anyone else chimes in! Michipedian (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult me or tell me that my views are something other than they are. Despite what you may believe, I do indeed think that my views make sense. I also really believe that arguing with you about the nature of collectivism is futile, pointless, and a misuse of this talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to believe your views make sense. They don't. We also are not arguing about the nature of collectivism for the sake of arguing about the nature of collectivism. We are arguing about the nature of collectivism because you have stated that it is appropriate to use the term rejected instead of opposed in the lead of this Wikipedia article when beliefs and attitudes are concerned, and thus if collectivism is primarily and entirely beliefs and attitudes (which is my stance on its definition and which is also the correct stance, given any definition of that term in any dictionary), then, according to your logic, FreeKnowledgeCreator, the lead should not use the term opposed to describe Ayn Rand's views on collectivism but should instead use the term rejected. Let me know if I missed anything in there. Michipedian (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Michipedian, since you insist on trying to argue about the meaning of the term "collectivism", I will change my approach and indulge you. I hold open in front of me the 12th edition of The Chambers Dictionary. It defines "collectivism" as, "the economic theory that industry should be carried on with a collective capital, a form of socialism; a system embodying this." Take special note of the final part of that definition, please. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think theory is the key word in that definition. It is a theory about actions, yes, but so is altruism. According to that definition, collectivism is no less theoretical than altruism. Michipedian (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "collectivism is primarily and entirely beliefs and attitudes", and that any dictionary would support you. You stand refuted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure, it may also refer to "a system embodying" those beliefs and attitudes, just as altruism may refer to behavior that embodies the beliefs and attitudes of altruism. In both situations, the beliefs and attitudes are the fundamental definition, and the actions that are derived from them are derivatives. You're admitting with that definition that collectivism is no less theoretical than altruism and thus that your support for opposed for collectivism but opposition to it for altruism is irrational. You're applying a double standard, saying that the action-focused definition of collectivism matters more than the action-focused definition of altruism, yet you have no valid reason to have that double standard and are thus proving my point, that either opposed is appropriate for altruism or it is inappropriate for collectivism, but it cannot be neither. Michipedian (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If any other editors can comment on this, it would be very helpful, as I need consensus to make the change. FreeKnowledgeCreator's logic on this topic is clearly faulty, as evidenced by the above conversation, and he demands at least one other person to support my position in order to make the change. Michipedian (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh, FKC (KFC?) is substantially correct. I hate to have to weigh in. But yes, she rejected altruism as an incoherent ethical position. She had no problem with you being able to devote your energy toward helping others, the "we won't stop you" quote from Branden is a classic.

She objected to (rejected the coherence of) an altruist morality, which defined "that which is good" as "that is good which benefits others" as both incoherent and as begging the question of what is good. She argues quite explicitly that the individual's own life is the only objective standard of his good. She leaves open the values that make that individual's life livable to him, within the bounds of reason (i.e., arsenic is not a good, long-term weight-loss program). μηδείς (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the question is, why is the term opposed inappropriate and why is it appropriate for both collectivism and statism? I guess I just don't see where your comment is in support of FKC and not of me. Michipedian (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collectivism and statism are political programs back up by force, she opposed them. Altruism is a personal ethical stance, which she rejected. But she did not think the use of force was justified to shut down charities, while she did think the use of force was justified to combat dictatorship. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of that belief of Rand's. Why do you think that to oppose something means to combat something with force? I don't even think FKC was saying that. Could you point to a definition of oppose that backs that definition up? Merriam-Webster defines it as "to place over against something so as to provide resistance, counterbalance, or contrast". I don't see how oppose cannot be a purely intellectual stance. I, for example, oppose racism. I don't just oppose it on a political level, I oppose it on an ethical level. I don't want to use physical force against people who are racist yet don't want to use the government to do anything about it, yet I still want to persuade them to not be racist. Philosophical literature uses oppose this way, as well, such as here (e.g. "there is no reason in principle why the pantheist should oppose the idea of that which is epistemically transcendent to us") and here (e.g. "he did not yet openly oppose the principle itself, but sought to differentiate it"). Those are two instances of oppose being used to mean a philosophical disagreement, not a situation where the opposer seeks to use force against his opponent. Michipedian (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see no difference, why then are you arguing for the change in the first place? This is simply tendentious, and I'll bow out with this quote: "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them". μηδείς (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, the only reason I am advocating for the change is because rejected appears three times in the lead, and opposed only appears once. The change would bring both words to two instances, which I think would be better stylistically. You should ask FreeKnowledgeCreator why they find the change so egregious. I don't think their opposition to the change makes any sense. Michipedian (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've already invested time in the discussion, do you mind commenting on whether or not you now find the change to be acceptable? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else care to chime in on this? The question at hand is whether or not it is acceptable to change rejected altruism to opposed altruism in the lead. My basis for this change is that rejected appears three times in the lead currently and opposed appears only once and that the change would be better stylistically due to less repetitive wording. Michipedian (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key lies in your early note that "opposition" suggests a stronger (more active) position than "rejection", combined with the observation that Rand historically urged stronger efforts against collectivism/statism than against "altruism". One also has to know what Rand's unconventional use of the term "altruism" meant; as Medeis remarked, Rand didn't oppose the act of helping others, rather she objected to such action being regarded as a primary ethical goal. On the other hand, she detested the practice of statism/collectivism as well as its theory. So if there is to be any change at all along the lines proposed, it would be to say that Rand rejected valuing altruism (in the sense of choosing to help others) as a primary ethical standard, whereas she was utterly opposed to the theory and practice of collectivism/statism. — DAGwyn (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never made the claim that oppose is stronger than reject. I originally called them near-synonyms, and FKC is the one who made the claim that oppose is stronger than reject, so I just began working with that premise, considering that I don't think it makes a difference, particularly in the case of altruism. Rand's use of the term altruism is not in fact unconventional; she uses it precisely as the term's originator, Auguste Comte, intended it. Rand accurately referred to the act of helping others that you are pointing out as benevolence or charity, and the term altruism is often misused in common parlance to mean benevolence or charity. She detested altruism—true altruism—more fundamentally and more primarily than she detested collectivism and statism, as those two are dependent on and the result of altruism. Michipedian (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is included in Category:Pseudonymous writers. Was "Ayn Rand" really a pseudonym, or is it more accurate to say that she changed her name? Pburka (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She never took Rand as her legal name. She was Rosenbaum, then became O'Connor when she married. --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress lists her legal name as Alice O'Connor. Source: [[1]] -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Representation of name in lead

An unrelated discussion led me to read MOS:LEGALNAME, which in combination with the discussion above suggests that the lead should be revised to begin: "Alice O'Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), better known by her pen name Ayn Rand (/aɪn/), was a ..." Footnotes omitted for this discussion, but they would still be present in the article, and we might want to add one to cite that this was her legal name. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should still start with her pen name, as the common name, and could then explain the others. Look at Max Reger, which certainly follows some guidelines, but think doesn't do justice to the fact that the name under which he published and is known is not his lengthy birth name. Perhaps the guideline should allow for such cases. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article takes a vanishingly minor intellectual and rather minor cultural figure and treats her work -- of which actual philosophers and literary scholars take little or no note -- as if it were the combined output of the Enlightenment. The article is far too broken to be fixed line-by-line. It should be deleted and begun anew. It need only be a paragraph or two. Its sheer size and detail belies all claims to a "neutral point of view". It seems written by fan-boys, with more objective editors only able to tamp down some of their enthusiasm by introducing some of the criticisms that are made of Rand; this has the paradoxical effect of magnifying her importance by making it seem that actual philosophers think of her much or often, which, because they consider her work so poor and insignificant, they do not. In fact, virtually no philosophers consider her work to be philosophy at all. Articles like this are what keep Wikipedia from being a trusted and citable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.29.0 (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to hold whatever view you wish of Rand and her work, but this page is not a forum for discussing people's personal views of Rand. Realistically the article is not going to be "deleted and begun anew", as you propose, so you will have to think of less drastic methods of improving it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is she Russian in the lede and not Jewish in the lede? Her family did not fit comfortably within Russian society, and that was because her family were Jews. "Her father, a pharmacist, had his own shop, a rare position for Jews in Russia. A precocious child, Alyssa declared herself an atheist in her early teens, and while she never denied her Jewish heritage, she also never softened her opposition to religion or any other form of 'mysticism.' The privations she and her family endured as a result of the Russian Revolution, including the Bolsheviks taking possession of her father’s business, affected her deeply."[2] If the Russians (Bolsheviks) took possession of her father's business and it affected her deeply, and she is a Jew and she never denied her Jewish heritage, then why are we calling her "a Russian-American novelist" in the lede? She was a Jew within a country which repressed Jews. "Her work continues to appeal to those who search for nonreligious answers about human progress and agency. Certainly her declaration that selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice is contrary to traditional Jewish values—yet her exaltation of personal ambition is not so different from that of many Russian Jewish immigrants of her generation who savored the relative freedom of America."[3] She embodied contradictions and there is discontinuity between Russian identity and Jewish identity within Russia, at least at the beginning of the 20th century. It is simplistic to characterize her as "Russian-American" in the first sentence in the lede. The Infobox as well as the body of the article expand upon her identity as being Russian, and of course more can be added if needed. I've suggested here that we just omit the Russian aspect of her identity from the lede. It would not be incorrect to do that as she is an American novelist. It is just that a more full exploration of her Russian and Jewish origins are treated in the body of the article due to the relationship between Jews and Russia. During certain periods in history it was an uneasy relationship. My edit was reverted so I am initiating a discussion here. Bottom line: she should just be referred to as an "American novelist" in the first sentence in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply "was a Russian born American novelist, playwright,...."? It's obviously significant that she was born and spent her childhood years in Russia, but the first sentence in the next paragraph and the Early life section tell us the religious bit was not a major part of her life. Readers can interpret that influence of the cultural impact of being Jewish from that Early life section. We don't need to give her a double-barrelled label of the kind Americans seem obsessed with today. Pretty sure she wouldn't have been given one at the time. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Properly written biographical articles just don't list people's ethnicity in the way that Bus stop for some reason feels is appropriate in the case of Jewish people. Does the lead of the article on Donald Trump refer to him as a "European-American"? No. The description of Rand as a "Russian-American" is accurate and relevant (since Rand's moving from Russia to the United States was a major part of her life) and should not be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Russian born American", as I proposed? HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a slightly more verbose way of saying the same thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way. The American custom of using double barrelled labels is confusing. African American rarely means born in Africa. Irish American often doesn't mean born in Ireland. Does Russian American always mean born in Russia? Even if you think you "know" the answer, I'm sure you can see the possible ambiguity. Why not be precise? HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if you just refer to her as an "American novelist" in the lede you gain the advantage of deferring the addressing of the relatively more complex relationship between Jewishness and the Russian identity until the "Early life" section of the article. That is because during certain periods in time Jews in Russia were not seen simply as Russians. It is true that she was Russian. But it is also true that she was Jewish. Not religious, but Jewish nevertheless. After this edit the lede is saying she "was a Russian-American novelist". This is slightly at odds with the terminology found in a source: "Certainly her declaration that selfishness is a virtue and altruism a vice is contrary to traditional Jewish values—yet her exaltation of personal ambition is not so different from that of many Russian Jewish immigrants of her generation who savored the relative freedom of America." The source refers to "Russian Jewish immigrants". Why don't we skip the relatively complex "Russian Jewish" identity in the lede and address it instead in the "Early life" section of the article? Bus stop (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't support "Russian Jewish". I've made my point about double barrelled descriptors. But it's pretty significant that she wasn't born in the USA, so I think that should be up there at the front. So, back to "Russian born American novelist...." HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then you would want to say "Russian born Jewish-American novelist....", wouldn't you, HiLo48? Or would there be any objection to that? Bus stop (talk) 09:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I get the impression you're neither reading nor understanding what I've written. Let's await input from others. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48—"Jewish-American" always means "Jewish-American". You've objected to double barrelled labels. But "Jewish-American" does not under any conceivable circumstance not mean "Jewish-American". What would be your objection to the wording "Russian born Jewish-American novelist...."? Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression you're neither reading nor understanding what I've written. Let's await input from others. HiLo48 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading what you've written and understanding what you've written. You have written "The American custom of using double barrelled labels is confusing. African American rarely means born in Africa. Irish American often doesn't mean born in Ireland. Does Russian American always mean born in Russia?" But this does not apply to "Jewish-American". Does "Jewish-American" ever mean anything other than "Jewish-American"? Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, that's a ridiculous question. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider "Jewish-American" to be what you are calling a "double barrelled label"? Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, and it's worse than those involving countries, languages or continents (ever noticed that problem?) because of the ambiguity of the word "Jewish". Does it mean the culture or the religion? The labels people in America have invented for people are insanely confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the term "Jewish American" too ambiguous but Ayn Rand is included in Category:Jewish American novelists and Category:Jewish American dramatists and playwrights. Do you suggest we remove Ayn Rand from those Categories based on your perception that "Jewish American" is too ambiguous? Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I suggest abolishing such categories. They are all part of the massive problem of labelling people and racism that divides America. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new topic for this Talk page (see, for example, Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 48#Russian-American). I don't particularly care whether Rand is described simply as American or if some additional modifier is added, but if we are going to use a modifier, we should follow the sources in deciding what modifier is most relevant. Rand's Russian background is a widely discussed subject, taking up large portions of the major biographies and being a key focus of works such as Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical and Ayn Rand and Song of Russia. She wrote a novel and a play set in Russia, did interviews discussing her background there, and testified about it before HUAC. In contrast, her Jewish heritage is a smaller element in the literature. It takes up less space in biographies, it is not the focus of any major works about her, and she generally did not speak about it during her lifetime. So between the two modifiers, 'Russian' is the much more relevant for sources. As far as categories are concerned, that's a different thing from the lead -- there are a bunch of categories attached but we don't mention all the related details in the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This was my point initially up above, before it got buried by someone in love with double-barrelled labels. Her Russian background is clearly significant. Her Jewish background far less so. Hence my suggestion of "Russian born American...."

"Ayn Rand was born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, a Russian Jew, on February, 2, 1905, in St. Petersburg, then the capital city of the most anti-Semitic and politically divided nation on the European continent."[4] Of course her Jewish identity is worth mentioning in the lede. She was 20 when she first visited the US. "By the time Ayn Rand was born, Zabalkanskii Prospekt and the streets around it were calm again. It was an illusory calm: all over Russia and the vast Russian territories to the south and east, massive labor strikes, anti-czarist peasant insurrections, and anti-Jewish violence were erupting. This would continue, in waves, until 1914, when World War I briefly united the nation against the Germans, and would grow yet more explosive from 1915 to 1919, when the country was war torn and starving." Do you seriously think this had only minor bearing on her formative years? "In these years, it was dangerous to be a Jew. As the economy deteriorated and the czar grew more repressive, the brunt of popular anger often fell upon Russia’s five million Jews. At Czar Nicholas II’s court, as elsewhere in Europe, Jews had long been identified with the supposedly pagan notions of a money economy, urbanization, industrialization, and capitalism. Given traditional Russian fear of modernity and fierce anti-Semitism, Jews were ready-made scapegoats onto whom the czar, the landowners, and the police could easily shift workers’ and peasants’ resentment for their poverty and powerlessness." Ayn Rand was a Jew in entirely antisemitic circumstances. To me it is entirely obvious that her being Jewish calls for mention in the lede. "It was in this volatile and often frightening atmosphere that Rand grew up. She was the eldest of three daughters of this upwardly mobile pharmacist and his religiously observant, socially ambitious wife; Anna would later appear in her daughter’s novels as a series of superficial or spiteful characters." Just because Ayn Rand does not often speak of her Jewishness is not a reason that we should not note it in the lede. Sources guide us in telling us what is important. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Why did you revert my latest edits? The first section is supposed to be a summary, not a biography.

There's also the (less important) issue of the whether the first sentence should describe Rand as a "Russian-born Jewish-American" or a "Russian-American". I prefer the former because she identified less as Russian than she did as Jewish. VwM.Mwv (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits because they did not improve the article. I have no idea what your comment, "The first section is supposed to be a summary, not a biography", is based upon or what its relevance to your edits is. You did not bother to explain. The emphasis on Rand's ethnicity is unnecessary in my judgment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: It means excactly what it says. The first section is simply not supposed to be a biography. Look at any other article about an individual. "Not an improvement" doesn't actually mean anything.
Why is it any more "necessary" than the Russian part? VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It means nothing without explanation. I don't even know what you think the phrase "the first section" means. Are you talking about the lead or only some section of it, such as its first paragraph? Please understand that while the expressions you are using are meaningful to you, they are not necessarily meaningful to other people. You didn't explain what your position was based upon. As for, "not an improvement", it obviously does mean something. It means that your edits made no improvement to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I am referring specifically to the first paragraph of the lede of the Wikipedia article titled Ayn Rand. Is that precise enough for you? VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You could have made that clear from the outset. I continue to see no benefit whatever to your recent edits to the lead, which have no clear rationale. I suggest that you wait for further discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Look at Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, John Stossel, etc. Do you see any biographies in their first paragraphs? VwM.Mwv (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of that comment? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: The point is obviously to demonstrate an inconsistency. If your next reply, too, is nonsense, I will not answer again.
And if nobody presents any logical objections within considerable time, I will restore my latest version. VwM.Mwv (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VwM.Mwv, if you want to revise the lead, and someone objects to your changes, then it is up to you to present a compelling and coherent explanation of why you believe that your changes are an improvement. So far you have not done that. You have made a series of comments and assertions expressing your views, but there is nothing that amounts to a case that might convince another person that you are correct. It is pointless to list a series of articles that you believe support your views. This is a different article, about a very different writer; there is no reason why it has to be written in the same fashion as some other article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]