Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 3

Gulching nominated for deletion

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gulching. KD Tries Again (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Personal Information

At this point a great deal of personal information about Mr. Valliant has been revealed on this talk page and others. I think oversight would be in order. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? We should probably move fast, before this gets backed up by bots and spread to all corners of the internet. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was hesitant to go that route unilaterally, but you are probably right - especially as the editor responsible has twice said that Mr Valliant disapproves of what's happening. It seems unlikely that the trickle of information will cease of its own accord.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This is all getting really weird, and honestly, this is why our god-king created admins. I say we notify ANI, bring them in here, and have them clean it out with whatever oversight, etc. is required. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed a significant block of personal information about him previously, but there are still little bits here and there. Since he has apparently made a public posting elsewhere about the one pertinent fact (his publishing arrangements with Durban House), I don't see any relevance to any personal information that might remain here. It should go. --RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any personal information here that represents a violation of WP:OUTING. Pelagius1 made one slightly-too-frank comment that didn't seem very significant, and RL0919 went ahead and removed it. This is not in the same category as revealing someone else's street address or phone number, or making an embarrassing revelation about their personal life. It seems likely that per WP:MEAT Pelagius1 and Valliant would count as one editor for Wikipedia purposes anyway. The sharing of each of the two accounts (IP 160 and Pelagius1) between two people is more troubling, but may not need any immediate action. If Valliant wants the Pelagius1 comment to be oversighted, he can write to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Center for the Advancement of Capitalism

I have proposed this article for deletion due to notability concerns. If you think it can be rescued, please add references and remove the {{prod}} tag; alternatively, {{prod2}} can be used to endorse the proposal.  Skomorokh  03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the Center, but I seriously doubt it has sufficient notability to warrant an article. The only mainstream press coverage I could find was when they filed a friend of the court brief in the Microsoft antitrust case, and that was years ago. --RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet one more dead plant in this little walled garden. To the compost heap with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:PROD notice expired and it was deleted by an admin today. I removed it from the Objectivist movement template and de-wikilinked it in all remaining main-space articles. Links to the deleted page now exist only in Talk, User, etc. pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Valliant: Attempt at a Summary

I know Karbinski asked for a vote above. I'd like to see if I can narrow the terms of the vote a little more specifically. Here is where I think we are:

• A number of editors (with different perspectives on Objectivism) expressed reservations about the numerous citations to "PARC" across several Rand-related articles; by consensus, the citations were removed (NOT, please note, all references to "PARC" which rightly remains listed in Bibliography of work on Objectivism). The removals were (in part?) reverted and the initial consensus challenged.
• My own opinion is that this week's discussion has provided no reason to overturn the initial consensus. Indiscriminate citation of "PARC" remains problematic for the following reasons:
  • 1. Not a Reliable Source per WP policy (nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not, still less whether works it criticizes are reliable or not). Any editors still in doubt should check the policy. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors...The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse...Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications..." I acknowledge that there can be a problem with a topic like Objectivism, which is generally not part of mainstream academic discourse, but we nevertheless have plenty of acceptable references in the Rand articles.
  • 1.(a) And this is huge problem where "PARC" is making claims about living persons.
  • 2. Probably Fringe, i.e. under "novel re-interpretations of history" (this still doesn't mean it's wrong), and not even notable fringe, i.e. has "been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."
  • 3. A product of a publisher widely reported as a vanity/subsidy press (whether or not exclusively). I agree that this is circumstantial; the author - who reads and comments on these Talk Pages but will not participate see here- has stated otherwise (same reference). For some editors that is probably an end of the matter, but it brings me to the elephant in the room.
  • 4. Almost certainly a Conflict of Interest is reflected in the extent of citation before the cites were removed. It is undisputed that IP User 72.199.110.160 was the editor primarily responsible for these multiple citations. Per Wikipedia's Duck Test (as an Administrator pointed out to me) it is beyond serious doubt that the 72.199.110.160 is closely associated with the author of the book/his friends/his house/his computer.

I appreciate Karbinski's "use with caution" option above, but I am concerned that one editor's caution will be another editor's license-to-promote. And so here's my specific proposal:

The citations to "PARC" in Rand/Objectivism-related articles should remain deleted, per the initial consensus. If an editor can identify a specific location in an article where a citation to "PARC" (or a citation to Rand quoted in "PARC" - bearing in mind the care required with using Primary Sources), the editor should first make the case either here on the relevant Talk Page, and achieve consensus before inserting the citation. Agree, disagree, comment, whatever...KD Tries Again (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Disagree strongly Let's take things one at a time. Item #1 says that PARC isn't a reliable source. It's a published book sold in major bookstores. The author was granted access to Ms. Rand's journals by ARI, which is a major Objectivist institution. KD Tries Again acknowledges somewhat dismissively the fact that Objectivism is rarely covered by the mainstream media and academia. Since the subject here is Objectivism, what constitutes a reliable source must be seen in the context of Objectivism. Therefore, if the book has been discussed by Objectivist sources which are considered mainstream in an Objectivist context, the book must be considered a reliable source. It is only by dropping context entirely that PARC can be considered other than a reliable source.

I've discussed my issues with Item #2. It is not a "novel reinterpretation of history". The sole accounts with which it disagrees are those presented in two books, each one written by another involved party. While the books written by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have been discussed in scholarship, and Barbara's book was even made into a movie, no one has produced a single scholarly source which examines the claims made by the Branden and concludes that they are accurate. Said claims were merely assumed to be true in the absence of any rebuttal. With no scholarly weight behind the claims of the Brandens, those claims cannot be considered the standard interpretation of history against which all others must be compared. A matter of two decades does not suffice to turn unsupported claims into "the mainstream view".

Point #3 is contentless. Rumors of vanity publishing by the publisher of PARC are just that. Rumors. Until and unless they are substantiated, they simply don't enter into the discussion. And point #4 says that neither Valliant nor his roommate (?) should be modifying the content to include Valliant's book. I'll stipulate that, but in terms of whether the content belongs here, it's a bit of an ad hominem argument. I've never met the author. I found the book very difficult to get through. No offense, if Mr. Valliant is reading this, but I found myself skimming. Maybe I'm just not cut out for reading legal briefs or books written in that style. But I still think the content belongs here. So being that there's no COI in my case, I don't see how #4 relates to the question of the content itself.

So here's my counter-proposal. PARC should be used as a source on an equal par with The Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgement Day. Neither Valliant nor his roommate should be allowed to insert or modify references to this book, per COI. Claims of vanity publishing should cease pending hard evidence (which does not include rumors). -Lisa (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the scope of PARC is narrow and consequently that proper usage of it as a source will be exceedingly rare. I think there is no concensus here that it fails WP:RS, but that the policy informs us to proceed with caution if using it. To go off-topic, let the trimming effort cut deep - all the point & counter-point tripe is an indication of too much detail for what is supposed to be a summary. --Karbinski (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Karbinski. Briefly, Lisa, Objectivism doesn't provide the context for mainstream reliability, Wikipedia policy does. Wikipedia policy precisely overlooks the context you propose. The Branden books just are acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy (it's the easiest thing in the world to find hundreds of citations of The Passion of Ayn Rand in the secondary literature) - I haven't a dog in the race as to their truth (remember, Wikipedia's threshhold is verifiability, not truth). In any case, whether PARC is a reliable source can't be inferred from whether or not someone else's book is a reliable source. I think that responds to everything (I don't rely on the subsidy publishing point), but more importantly - which specific claim in which article do you want to use PARC to support? Where must it be used in order to improve Wikipedia? I am agreeing with Karbinski that the need to use it is rare.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I also agree that appropriate use of PARC will be rare. If there is a specific situation where it is a crucial source for something that properly belongs in a Wikipedia article (not original research, POV or excessive detail), then it should be used and appropriate explanation provided. And of course the author and his close associates should not be the ones placing citations to it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden knew Rand. In addition, Barbara Branden interviewed over 200 people for her biography. Valliant didn't know Rand and didn't interview anyone, so far as I can tell. No one is saying the Brandens' books are the last word on the split, but Valliant's book is not a source on their level, with the exception of the diaries. Incidentally, the current issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies has an essay by Rand scholar Robert Campbell (The Peikovian Doctrine of the Arbitrary Assertion) which discusses Valliant's book and the discussion is quite negative. This is the only print discussion of the book that I'm aware of (with the exception of the Kirkus review, which I haven't seen).--Neil Parille (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Neil, Rand knew Rand even better than the Brandens did. She also knew the Brandens. Furthermore, some of the editors here have not been trying to ban the book "with the exception of the diaries". They've been trying to ban it in toto, including the journal entries. -Lisa (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, this is not about banning the book. It is quite properly cited in the Objectivism bibliography. It is a discussion about where it can be used to support claims in articles in accordance with WP policy. It would be helpful if you could either (a) explain to me or other editors where we are wrong about WP policy, and (b) what passage in which article you specifically want to use PARC to support. As for Rand knowing Rand, please see policy on using primary sources. I think you are the only editor (without a potential COI) holding out against the consensus, so I think the burden falls on you either to tell us exactly where the rest of us are wrong, or let us move on.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

May I ask for that "summary"? Per consensus, may the Valliant book be cited or used at Wikipedia outside of the Bibliography? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

This is the letter sent to Mr. Wales from Ayn Rand heir, Leonard Peikoff, PhD, on May 29, 2009 (posted with his permission here):

"Dear Mr. Wales,

"I learned recently to my astonishment that while books by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, attacking Ayn Rand and her personal life, enjoy the status of reputable references in Wikipedia, a book disputing their claims and presenting the opposite viewpoint has been removed from your list as non-reputable. I refer to The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant published in May 2005. On its face, this is a policy of egregious injustice on your part.

"As Ayn Rand’s executor, heir, and longtime personal friend, I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant’s book. I do not pretend to know every detail of the clash between Rand and the Brandens, but I do know firsthand the essential truth of the Valliant book. I leave aside here my own personal observations and discussions on this issue with Rand, because the book itself contains lengthy excerpts from her own personal notes, which completely bear out Valliant’s thesis in her own words. I released these notes only after a 20 year wait, because in Valliant I found at last a writer who would give her personal viewpoint a rational hearing, neither hostile nor worshipful.

"My understanding, which may not be correct, is that one of the instigators of your new policy is Barbara Branden, one of the two persons identified in the Valliant book, with substantial corroborating evidence, as hostile to Ayn Rand. Surely such an individual and her claque have a transparent motive to kill this book. Can you justify removing one side of this dispute, the one endorsed by someone with my credentials? Do you describe as 'reputable' only enemies of Ayn Rand?

"There are those in the academic world who question the objectivity of Wikipedia. I hope that your action on this matter will prove that they are wrong.

"Sincerely yours,

"Leonard Peikoff

"Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand" Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Incidentally, the Wikipedia biography of Peikoff currently reads: "Kelley has worked with the libertarian movement in the United States and other groups with which Peikoff refused to associate. Nathaniel Branden, whom Rand herself had publicly repudiated, later joined with David Kelley and The Objectivist Center. This resulted in a number of members ending their own association with Kelley's group.[citation needed]" The needed citation, of course, are the numerous statements of scholars and writers influenced by 'The Passion of Ayn Rand;'s Critics.' This is bizarre, as most did not leave until they read Valliant's book. Have you decided to omit history as well? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Valliant's eyewitness testimony re Rothbard, the actual Rand notes themselves, his arguments -- whatever the positive Kirkus Review said about it the book -- the impact of the book on scholars within the movement, are all censored, while the factually dubious works of Walker, Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis, and the Brandens are not? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

<outdent>Pelagius1, you've brought up a bunch of issues, so pardon the somewhat lengthy reply. First, regarding consensus, I'm not sure that there is one. There is some unresolved tension between the "use with caution" and "don't use at all" perspectives. "Use freely" seems to be a distant third. Not every dispute is resolved on the first (or second or third) pass, and this is probably such a case. There does seem to be a general willingness to consider the use of PARC as a source in a specific case if arguments are brought forward as to why it is the best source to use in that particular instance. No one has taken the initiative to offer such a specific case yet. If you want to do so, I'd suggest picking the absolute strongest case you can find based on Wikipedia sourcing standards.

Regarding that, I think it needs to be said again that the standards for using a source in Wikipedia are not focused on whether the source is factually accurate. Most editors simply are not in a position to evaluate the specific factual claims made in all of the sources that may be used in even one article. Instead, editors look at more general guidelines for considering a source reliable or not. For example, Barbara Branden's biography of Rand has the necessary indicators (e.g., major commercial publisher, positive reviews, widespread use as a source in academic literature). I think Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis and Nathaniel Branden are more dubious for use in support of claims of biographical fact, but they are mostly cited about their own criticisms of Objectivism. Since these individuals are notable and their criticisms have been widely repeated, that seems an appropriate use. Neither Barbara Branden nor these four are relevantly similar to Valliant.

Walker is the closest parallel to Valliant. Walker's book is similar to Valliant's in a number of ways: Both have been trashed as unreliable by reviewers. Both have strongly tendentious approaches to their subjects. But both also give voice to opinions that are held by "better" experts, but which those experts do not care to express in their own writings. For Walker, these are academics who disdain Rand and do not wish to dignify her with discussion; for Valliant, these are prominent Objectivists (Peikoff, Gotthelf, etc.) who detest the Brandens and prefer not to even mention them in their works. Walker's book is treated pretty much as I think Valliant's should be treated: it is used sparingly, when it attests things widely believed but not often mentioned in reliable sources. IMO, this is the appropriate use for a source like this.

Regarding the email from Peikoff, this is an example of what I just mentioned. If Peikoff endorses Valliant's book and the claims therein, he has many venues available to him where he could say this. He could publish a review. He could write an essay that includes the use of Valliant as a source. He could mention the book in a radio or tv interview. These would be verifiable references from a reliable source that could be used to bolster the book's status, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But that would effectively require him to mention the Brandens in public. So what we get instead is a second-hand posting about a private email. While I personally believe this is probably a legitimate email from Peikoff, it is not independently verifiable unless he confirms it directly in some more trustworthy venue. Which brings us back to the practice of not talking about the Brandens. To put it bluntly, the major-league Objectivists need to either crap or get off the pot on this subject. If they support Valliant's view of the Brandens, they should say so in reputable public venues: reviews in third-party magazines, citations in academic articles, etc. That is what will gain the book status as a reliable source. Private emails aren't going to do the trick. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Far more shocking is the silence of all those (still) associated with David Kelley's group -- since Kelley had overtly called for such a debate about B. Branden's work in his initial attack on ARI. Here, a detailed reply, complete with Rand's own notes is published, and they stand silent after trumpeting the alleged silence of their opponents(!) Of course, this excludes those scholars who left association with TAS ~ because ~ of PARC.

Walker? He spread total nonsense. There is no reason to treat PARC differently from the Brandens' works. Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009.

Dr Peikoff has published this letter on his official website, http://www.peikoff.com -Roberto Sarrionandia

Yes, there is, namely the substantial number sources covering and citing Branden's book, and the movie that was made out of it. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, stop with the movie. That has no bearing on anything. They thought it was a cool story, so they made a movie. Second of all, not a single one of the sources "covering" the Brandens' books deals with the question of whether what they wrote is likely to be true or not. They simply took them at face value, which was reasonable when there was no material to the contrary. Valliant's book is the first (only) published work that contains substantial entries from Rand's own journals. Why you want only one side of an issue to be heard is beyond me. That's the very definition of POV. -Lisa (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the movie is not significant as an indicator reliability. But widespread use as a source in other works, especially peer-reviewed academic works, definitely does count. Counter-factual speculation about how a source would have been received if there was "material to the contrary" is not evidence and doesn't change the evidence that is available. At this time, Valliant's book does not have anything close to the degree of established third-party evidence of reliability that Barbara Branden's biography of Rand does. That is true without regard to POV, and trying to argue that reality away is a waste of time. The better use of time would be to find additional reliable sources that treat PARC as reliable, because that is what is needed to turn the argument regarding usage of the book as a source on Wikipedia. For example, having looked at what Brian Doherty has to say about it in Radicals for Capitalism, I would say it needs to be added to the (still slender) list of works that accept PARC as a source. If there are not enough other citations of this type to be found, there is no blame on Wikipedia editors for being unable to find non-existent references. As I note above, the blame goes to those who support the book in private but do not cite it in public. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I had deleted these last two comments from Neil Parille and Pelagius1, per WP:TPO, on the grounds that the discussion was veering into a heated debate over the subject matter rather than a polite discussion of how to improve the encyclopedia articles. Another user didn't care for that approach and reverted the deletion. So be it. But I do want to reiterate my own comments from the reverted version: this simply isn't the place for debates about the content of Valliant's book or Branden's book. I would strongly encourage Neil and Pelagius1 to take any such discussion to a different forum if they wish to pursue it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone care to itemize what we are talking about here? I'm too lazy to do so, but I'm curious if someone is up for it - how much content is taken from the Brandens' books in Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? In the Objectivist Movement article? What I'm fishing for is if there even exists some great wrongs - and if there is, do they even belong in an encyclopedic article - and if they are relevant, are the sources reliable. If we still have them after that scrutiny, does PARC offer us anything that is relevant - if the final question's answer is 'yes,' then we can resume discussion how PARC measures up to wikipedia policy for verifying the specifics. Otherwise there is no need to work this out. --Karbinski (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a whole summary, but stuff like this (from the Ayn Rand article) keeps coming up, again and again:

"Stressing that this 'is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought,' Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Branden's suggestion that her 'wholesale rejection' of some other viewpoints was due to her 'theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style.' As a polemicist, he [?] argues, she often dismissed her opponents on 'moralistic or psychologistic' grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor.[77] For example, Rand has been criticized for her critique of Immanuel Kant. Rand was strongly opposed to certain views she ascribed to Kant, particularly that reason is unable to know reality 'as it is in itself." She considered her philosophy to be the "exact opposite" of Kant's on 'every fundamental issue'.[78] Objectivist philosophers George Walsh and Fred Seddon have both argued that Rand misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated her differences with him.[79][80] According to Seddon, Nathaniel Branden stated that Rand never read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason,[81] while Walsh contends that Rand and Kant adhere to many of the same basic positions."

Branden's credibility as a witness against Rand, his alleged "facts," and, most especially, his accusations (and their alleged basis in "fact") of what he calls Rand's moralism and psychologizing are all considered in detail with new evidence in PARC.

And, as participant in the exchange RL removed, I think it also should go as an irrelevant distraction, as well, so I removed it. Pelagius1 (talk) 8 June, 2009.

I think RL0919 sums up where we are very accurately: "There is some unresolved tension between the "use with caution" and "don't use at all" perspectives. "Use freely" seems to be a distant third." I strongly support the request that any debate about the truth of these various accounts be taken to another forum. There are still editors participating here who don't seem to have even glanced at Wikipedia Verifiability. Barbara Branden's work may be false from beginning to end - that's not the issue (this conspiracy theory that she is controlling the discussion here is hilarious). The outstanding question is this: precisely where is a citation to the Valliant book required? I think Pelagius is trying to answer that question, but it's not clear to me. The problem with the specific example Pelagius gives is that it comes from Sciabarra - unquestionably a reliable source - and is preceded by Sciabarra's own qualification to balance Branden's reported comments. Adding some additional qualification from Valliant doesn't seem necessary here, and if it's a matter of Valliant contradicting Sciabarra, then we are back to questions about Valliant's reliability again. What does Valliant say about Rand and Kant?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was just playing with Google Scholar this morning, and I discovered that while Valliant is cited in only one work.

• Mimi Gladstein's work: The New Ayn Rand Companion, which is featured on the "Further reading" section of the Ayn Rand article, is cited by 3. However 2 of those citations are The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies—one where it is cited for bibliographic material only. It is also cited by the same book as Valliant's—Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy.
• Mim Gladstein's work: Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand is reviewed once by CM Sciabarra (conflict of interest?), and then is cited twice by The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
• Upon Scholar searching The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, I found that at most, any article in their entire journal is cited maybe 3 or 4 times—and that is with articles dealing with art or literature—articles about philosophy or psychology are cited maybe once. And what is extra suspicious is that they are all cited by the same authors writing for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Not many of the article seem to be cited by any work outside of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

With that said, I'd like to know why the sources mentioned above are being used enthusiastically, and yet there is still reservations about Valliant's work. Yes, I'd say that one citation is not much. But neither are the sources I mentioned, and yet they seem to be used quite often. So for the sake of consistency let's review all sources by the same standard. Brandonk2009 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We do need to treat sources consistently, but I think we should keep the discussions separate. I'll start a new section below.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Regarding KD's questions: I don't believe Valliant addresses Rand's views on Kant, although I say that from memory as I don't have the book in front of me at the moment (I can check later this evening). I believe what Pelagius1 was getting at is that PARC does raise general issues about Nathaniel Branden's reliability as a source. Unfortunately, I think we would run into an issue with synthesis if it were used in this particular case. I believe (again from memory which I will verify) that the criticism from Branden ultimately trace back to his "Benefits and Hazards" speech, which is only briefly mentioned in PARC and not in a way that presents any specific criticisms of it. So although PARC criticizes Branden a great deal, it would require an editor to connect the dots in order to attach it to this particular material. (Note that I consider criticism of Branden to be well deserved, but my opinions are not appropriate encyclopedia content.)

I previously did a cursory review of the past uses of PARC as a source, and it was significantly over-used. Essentially it was being inserted as a source whenever either Branden was cited or mentioned, even when it lacked direct relevance. I believe this is part of what created the backlash against it. A useful exercise might be to go through the old cites more systematically to see if there are particular ones that are relevant and should be restored. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm about to post on this topic again. Whilst one or two remaining editors contemplate this lengthy (and perhaps fruitless) endeavor, it really is appropriate to remember Wikipedia's policy on WP:UNDUE lest we forget the white elephant in the room (emphasis added): "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each..... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well...Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Now for the research results. The fact is -- newspapers and academic articles both qualify as reliable sources in determining undue weight as much as they apply to determining notability. The sheer paucity of reliable publications discussing Valliant's book in comparison with the mountain of articles discussing the Brandens' two books is an extremely bad sign if we are going to consider a one-to-one relationship. Thankfully, no established editor is entertaining that possibility given the policies and the evidence. That leaves us with citing PARC for facts (and not opinions). Why would Wikipedia cite PARC for facts given that (1) it is a self-described partisan book from (2) a minor commercial publisher written by (3) a non-notable (and virtually unknown) author with (4) neither academic credentials nor (5) a publishing track record in the field and (6) received virtually no attention in either (7) the mainstream media or (8) peer-reviewed academia? The fact that most editors have stopped posting on this subject begs the question: why is it necessary to bend over backwards to get PARC cited on Wikipedia given the policies and the evidence? J Readings (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is asking anyone else to bend over backwards to do anything, and any editor is free to continue not posting on the subject if that is their preference. However, it is clear from both the postings here and the ongoing discussion of the matter in other forums (including Peikoff's recent posting of his email to Wales on the front page of his web site) that some supporters of Valliant's book believe it has not received fair consideration. I for one am willing to make a bit of extra effort to ensure both its fair consideration and the appearance thereof.

To that end, I have created a compilation of old citations of PARC that can be used for further discussions if editors find it relevant. Since I have the book, I've checked each citation (within reason: some of the citations are to the entire book or to huge blocks of pages) and included my own comments on the relevance of the cited material. To summarize it bluntly, most of the old citations were very obviously deserving of deletion. In many cases obvious editorial synthesis had been used to connect indirectly related book passages to the article, or the cited material was just flat-out irrelevant. A couple of minor cases may be arguable, but I did not see any compelling instances where citing PARC brought something important and helpful to the article. My research covered selected old versions of Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movement.

Given the history on this and the lack of evidence that PARC was a well-used source in the past, I would say this: If supporters of the book want to point out some appropriate past use that I missed or argue for some new specific use, they are welcome to bring forward a case. I'm asking for a positive case for using PARC in a particular instance that accounts for Wikipedia sourcing policies and the goal of improving an encyclopedia article. I for one will consider any such case as objectively as I can, if and when it is made. If the case is worthy, then I will support the citation in that instance (for whatever my support is worth). If they can't or won't make such a case, then I don't see much grounds for complaint on the matter. --RL0919 (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your effort and fair-mindedness, but we must all avoid being lured into trying to demonstrate that our edits are not being directed by Barbara Branden.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Arbitrary section break

Let those who want to see PARC used propose a place they would like it cited, and explain how they would like it used. However, I see no point in continued abstract debate about this. It is a waste of our time, and we all have lives. Propose something specific, or drop it. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. J Readings (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say any and all are welcome to boldly contribute content that is sourced from PARC, and that they may expect reversion and discussion to take place. That is the only discussion (on a specific usage) worth having on the subject at this point. If someone wants more than that, and yearn for a 'yes its reliable' or a 'no its not' decision from the wikipedia community, the best thing you can do is post on the noticeboard. Note that any result will be a statement according to wikipedia policy and standards as opposed to a direct judgement on the veracity of PARC by a panel of qualified experts (I'm not saying some editors are not deluded, nor that qualified experts won't participate). --Karbinski (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TallNapoleon, and emphasize that it would be against the consensus which has emerged here boldly to contribute content from PARC. As RL0919 said above, ""Use freely" seems to be a distant third." See WP:BRD- "BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus." In any case, WP:BRD is not policy. WP:RS is. It would be inappropriate for editors boldly to ignore the discussions which have taken place here.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Well, If one skips Bold, and Revert - so be it. But if one doesn't - no need to get all uppity and slam 20k of text onto the talk page about how the editor didn't sort through 50k of tendentious discussion first. --Karbinski (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be a loss to start with discussion, since we would be missing a precise picture of what edit is intended, and we would be missing an assertion of why that specific edit is considered contentious. --Karbinski (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I still sign up to what you yourself post a while back:

Anyone care to itemize what we are talking about here? I'm too lazy to do so, but I'm curious if someone is up for it - how much content is taken from the Brandens' books in Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? In the Objectivist Movement article? What I'm fishing for is if there even exists some great wrongs - and if there is, do they even belong in an encyclopedic article - and if they are relevant, are the sources reliable. If we still have them after that scrutiny, does PARC offer us anything that is relevant - if the final question's answer is 'yes,' then we can resume discussion how PARC measures up to wikipedia policy for verifying the specifics. Otherwise there is no need to work this out.

It's been established, to my satisfaction at least, that PARC citations were freely inserted in the past by an editor (or editors) with a COI. It's also evident that discussion of its reliability here prompted wild discussions (really funny) on a series of objectivist forums. I am simply concerned that an invitation to insert the citations first and discuss them later will encourage interested parties (who clearly have plenty of time on their hands) to bombard the articles again.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Please be specific about the alleged COI being claimed. How has that been shown here? As the editor of these, and someone who makes no money on the book, I am at a loss with regard to this accusation. Also, I am here, which per the guidelines, is evidence of "playing it straight." In any case, this would only go to the editor, and not the reliability of the source. Please be clear: can other editors, in your view, then, use the source? Also, what actual conflict are we talking about? Is it me we're discussing, or the book?

Also, the issue is not, for example, Kant (who is actually discussed at length in the book) but Sciabarra's ~ use of Branden ~ as the original source of "facts". Such a comment using N. Branden, any such comment, must include its qualification by the book in question, or the Branden material must not be used at all. The principle is clear and simple: any use of Nathaniel or Barbara Branden in Wikipedia must be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics." It must be mentioned in their biographies, obviously, and it must be referenced in any factual claim made by the Brandens regarding Rand or the movement, or the Wikipedia description will distort matters.

If there is a claim, any claim, made by one the Brandens about Rand or her movement in the books criticised by Valliant, it must come with a reference to PARC. The use of primary material from Rand's own notes, and Peikoff's endorsement, place this source on a par with Brandens. That is the issue. It is not vague or abstract at all. It pertains to the use, any Wikipedia use, of the Branden books as "reliable sources," since that is PARC's case. Pelagius1 (talk)11 June, 2009.

That's an interesting rule you propose, but I doubt it will attract consensus. As for the conflict, please review WP:COI. My understanding is that the 72.199.110.160 and/or Pelagius1 accounts are used by close associates of the book's author, if not the author himself; I believe that's what you told us.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thank you, but does that apply to this discussion? The underlying issue is still pressing. And the application of PARC references is as broad and specific as the use of the Brandens as sources. Just that broad. The questions "where does censoring this source cause injustice?" and "how does this come up?" will come up that commonly. Including PARC exactly to the extent that the Branden books are mentioned or used is the only way to avoid a Wikipedia endorsement of a highly partisan view of the "reliability" of the Brandens' books as sources and of Ayn Rand herself. PARC argues that sources which had such a "falling out" with the subject of their books cannot be accepted uncritically, and that they are the "unreliable" sources when the evidence is examined. Why Rand's own notes or Peikoff's opinion should be ranked below that of the Brandens is unclear. Peikoff has published his letter at his own website. [1] Pelagius1 (talk)11 June, 2009.

I am going to disengage with this, but of course I disagree for all the reasons already given. And yes, COI policy does apply to discussion of the editing of articles. Please review it.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

This material from Ayn Rand should be removed unless PARC is used as qualification:

"In a 1984 article called "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden, while noting that he was still in general agreement with her ideas, criticized Rand for her 'scientific conservatism' resulting from preconceptions of what was 'reasonable.' Branden noted that: 'Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. ... This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.[76]' (Paragraph) Stressing that this 'is not to deny the sophistication or originality of Rand's thought,' Chris Matthew Sciabarra discusses Branden's suggestion that her 'wholesale rejection' of some other viewpoints was due to her 'theatrical, emotional, and abrasive style.' As a polemicist, Branden argues, she often dismissed her opponents on 'moralistic or psychologistic' grounds, and her broad generalizations often lacked scholarly rigor.[77]"

Since this would not be an addition of PARC, but simply a removal of questionable critical material, can this simply be removed? If reference to all Branden material criticised in PARC is removed from Wikipedia, there is no need to include reference to the book, except in the N. Branden and B. Branden biographies themselves. Is this a reasonable compromise? Pelagius1 (talk)11 June, 2009.

I am sympathetic to many of the arguments in PARC, but the idea of pairing it up with every citation of material by the Brandens is so far off base that it is hard to know where to start with a response. The reason this suggestion will not draw consensus is that it completely misconstrues the significance of source citations and the meaning of 'reliable source' on Wikipedia. This is also why editor after editor is simply giving up on discussing this, because it has no foundation in Wikipedia's purposes or policies. The use of a source in a citation is not an "endorsement" of that source, and a source is qualified as 'reliable' based on its provenance and apparent acceptance in other sources, not based on its content or any agreement with its viewpoints. If a cited work contains a claim of fact about Rand that PARC does not contradict, and the article only repeats that factual material, then there is no justification for attaching PARC to the citation. The author of the cited work might surround the fact with interpretations or speculations that PARC disputes. But that is not relevant to the article if those interpretations or speculations are not repeated in the article. Wikipedia reference notes are not a forum for righting all wrongs done by its sources. --RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, it is the "critical" material, such as that just mentioned above, which is "Critics" focus. PARC does not take issue with certain matters, like Rand's date of birth, but if another source is available for this fact, it should be cited first.

RL, don't you think that PARC should be noted in the biographies of each of the Brandens?

It is the context of suppressing PARC but including the Brandens books which would create the distortion and implied partisanship, RL, not merely their use in the abstract. Pelagius1 (talk) 11 June, 2009.

RL wrote:

"but the idea of pairing it up with every citation of material by the Brandens is so far off base that it is hard to know where to start with a response."

How about with "No"? Pelagius, the Brandens' criticisms and work is orders of magnitude more notable than PARC, because of the closeness of their relationship with Rand. What Branden thinks of Rand is therefore inherently extremely notable. PARC, on the other hand, is an extremely dubious and partisan work, and does not rise anywhere near the notability of the Brandens' works. To weight Valliant's opinion as much as the Branden's would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Furthermore it would be a blatant, POV attempt to water down criticism of Rand, and would be exactly the kind of "criticizing the criticism" nonsense that has been such a problem on Objectivism related pages. You can try to make your case on the reliable sources noticeboard, Pelagius, but that's the consensus here, and if the other editors will forgive me the indulgence, I don't think any of our minds are changing. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not to be counted as being for any blanket "policy." To be clear, if you want to edit something away or make a contributing edit, do so. If there is a problem with a specific edit, it'll be reverted for discussion with the burden of proof falling on those restoring or contributing. --Karbinski (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius1 -- If you are not Jim Valliant, then who are you? What role does Jim Valliant have in contributing to your posts? As you know, Wikipedia prohibits "sockpuppetry." --Neil Parille (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Parille, Wikipedia strongly frowns as a policy on "meat puppetry" which is the more technical classification of Pelagius1's activities to date. Whether Pelagius1 is a "sockpuppet" of James Valliant is largely irrelevant provided that (1) WP:COI is read and understood and (2) Pelagius1 does not attempt to edit unilaterally Objectivist-related articles to promote PARC. In addition, Dr. Piekoff's problematic call to his listeners to "reverse Wikipedia’s decision in this issue" is -- perhaps unwittingly -- a further example of soliciting future readers to act as meat puppets and single-purpose accounts without ever understanding the policies and guidelines that apply to *all* articles on Wikipedia, not just this one. We should all respect WP:BITE as it applies to new editors (yourself included). I also have no objection to Richard Lawrence spending his valuable time reading PARC references and demonstrating why they were highly inappropriate in the context that they were given (I would have added further objections based on other policies). However, there are fair limits to how many times established editors acting in good-faith need to explain to a new user (e.g., Pelagius1) how Wikipedia works as a tertiary source and what needs to be read before boldly editing and commenting. This whole drawn-out experience has been remarkably disheartening and tedious. Sadly, it is not the first time and it will not be the last time that shameless self-promotion of an author's work by closely affiliated personnel will happen on Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Neil -- Wikipedia policy against outing (WP:OUTING) takes precedence over policies against sockpuppetry or shared accounts (WP:NOSHARE) or conflicts of interest. According to the 'duck test' (WP:DUCK), and taking into account the information Pelagius1 has shared here -- we know that there is a link between the topic-banned IP 160 account and Pelagius1's account. But it is up the account holder himself to declare a conflict of interest, or to acknowledge a connection between accounts. We still have to respect a user's chosen anonymity on Wikipedia, even if the identity, as seen here, is an open secret. Administrator Ed Johnson made it clear: (It seems likely that per WP:MEAT Pelagius1 and Valliant would count as one editor for Wikipedia purposes anyway. The sharing of each of the two accounts (IP 160 and Pelagius1) between two people is more troubling, but may not need any immediate action. If Valliant wants the Pelagius1 comment to be oversighted, he can write to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org.) Wsscherk (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I cannot even participate in the discussion here?

I was the victim of a rule violation about outing. I also got attacked just for trying to give any information about myself. I came to the discussion and got none of the credit the rules are supposed to give me for this. The recent of surge of interest in Ayn Rand's work, and the wish to correct some terrible errors at Wikipedia in that context, was my only purpose. Mentions of this book were not aimed at selling the now aging backlist title, but to correct the record. As I say, I am satisfied that the book is not being censored, despite the opinions of some. Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.

Common Ground

1. The beginning of all this was the gratuitous injection of PARC as a source for all sorts of content
2. This was improper
3. The sources were backed out
4. WP:COI needs to be adhered to
5. Any repetition of #1 will be improper

Yes? --Karbinski (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all that.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

As do I. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And I understand the rules and will adhere to them.

I take it, then, that I may still edit more on this and related topics, but not mention this book again in light the COI concerns? And that other editors may use the book, if it is found to be relevant, meets the standards in that context, etc.? Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.

Can I try to make the case that RL calls for here in the discussion? Pelagius1 (talk) 13 June, 2009.

Bibliography revisited

There was a discussion here about the Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism (formerly named "Bibliography of work on Objectivism") last month, but it's been archived, so I guess I'll start a new section. I've spent a fair amount of time of the last week editing the article, and I think many of the issues raised before have been addressed. Assuming that the bibliography article is in good shape, I'd like to discuss how it relates to the bibliographical material in other Objectivism-related articles.

• Objectivist movement has a descriptive bibliography section that is very similar to what the separate bibliography article used to contain, with all the same problems of POV and original research. My take is that this material should mostly be cut in favor of linking to the bibliography article. Some of the narrative about wider influence might belong, but the long lists of works are redundant. Cutting this section would have the side benefit of shrinking this long article by about 20K. Update 2009-05-29: Cut everything except the material about wider influence, which discusses different works than those in the bibliography article.
• Ayn Rand has a further reading section that is, fortunately, just a list of works for further reading. But again it is redundant to the bibliography article, which now has a distinct subsection for biography and literary analysis that contains most of the same works. Update 2009-05-29: Further reading list has been shortened to just introductory surveys and a few prominent longer books.
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has a section on monographs and essays that is just a paragraph-formatted list of books. Again, totally redundant. Update 2009-05-29: Section retitled and rewritten.

What all three articles lack, however, is a "Works cited" section. My thinking is that the works actually cited in the article should be listed, but all the "further reading," "monographs," etc. should be cut in favor of linking to the more comprehensive bibliography article. These are contentious articles and I'm relatively cautious about making major changes, so I'm putting notice here before I take the axe to any of these sections. But if no one objects, that is what I intend to do. --RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Works cited" isn't required on account of the "Notes" sections, yes? --Karbinski (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how the citations are handled. If the full bibliographical information is contained within "Notes", then in theory you don't need "Works cited". But if the same sources are used repeatedly, it is more compact to just refer to them by name/year (plus page number if applicable) in "Notes" and put the extended information in "Works cited." The references for these articles are a bit of a mess, but there is a great deal of repeat citing of the same books (B. Branden, Britting, Rand's letters and journals). So using abbreviated references might make sense. But that is somewhat secondary for me. My initial goal is to eliminate the redundant bibliography lists. Fixing up the references would be a whole other project. --RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you did a good job, and thanks also for changing the title to something easier to find. I agree with your comments on the bibiography in Objectivist Movement - a link would surely be enough, and agree likewise on Objectivism. I am comfortable with having a simple list of works at Ayn Rand for readers who just want to get quick info about her - a short list of her books, anyway - but agree further reading could be replaced by a link.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

A Selected bibliography simply linking the major works with year of publication is an option; see William_Gibson#Selected_bibliography for an example.  Skomorokh  04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank Karbinski for the rename, which I agree was an improvement. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go through the books listed there that are bluelinks and prod the ones that don't belong. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say that the bibliography article is looking great, and that guidelines governing "works" sections in articles are available at WP:LAYOUT.  Skomorokh  04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The little house of horrors

Jeff Britting

Dubious notability on this--his only claim to fame appears to be the soundtrack to Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, which was nominated for an academy award. Perhaps redirect to that film, and mention that there, while including his book in the bibliography? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The references include several links to mainstream news coverage. Perhaps this one should be stubbed first to see if someone can make a reasonable article out of the source material. --RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The links at the end of the article establish notability per WP:GNG; it would be a solid keep at AfD. That said, again, there is such little content that a merge elsewhere might not be a bad idea.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at those links he definitely shouldn't be deleted, and probably shouldn't be merged, as he has notability for two things, his book and his music. Speaking of music, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life is an awfully short article for a film nominated for an Academy Award. I'm gonna bump its importance up a notch, and maybe see if I can get some folks from one of the film projects to help with it. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone's noticed] the complaints about A Sense of Life :)  Skomorokh  22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted a request at Wikiproject Film and they knocked it out of the park :) TallNapoleon (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America

No evidence this book is notable enough to get its own article. Could easily be merged or redirected to Schwartz if we decide to keep him; otherwise, would people oppose prodding it? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not notable. I don't even see a need for a redirect. Just prod it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and it's a plausible search term.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article Redirected to Peter Schwartz (writer)

The Objectivist Forum

I have prodded this as well, as it also appears nonnotable. However, it could also be redirected/merged with the bibliography. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Four sentences is barely a section, much less an article. I just put additional publishing details in the bibliography article. The sentence about Rand helping to found it is appropriate for the Ayn Rand article. I don't really see a need to redirect unless there is a concern that it will get repeatedly re-created. If there is a redirect, it should probably be to this section. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit in deletion. I'd rather see the Objectivist periodicals covered in a combined article; they are very relevant to the history of the movement, and the content should not be difficult to verify.  Skomorokh  05:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say the best place to do that would be in the bibliography. List the periodicals Rand was involved in with chronology and explain how much the newsletters helped sustain the movement and how important they were. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion was made previously to merge the articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, which I support. I've been working on The Ayn Rand Letter article recently, and most of the same sources could be used to support a fully merged "Objectivist periodicals" article. So it is plausible to redirect them all into one. The Objective Standard could also be pulled into this. So could The Intellectual Activist, which currently redirects to Peter Schwartz (writer), a redirect that I frankly think is inappropriate given that Schwartz sold the magazine almost 20 years ago. So overall a combined article seems like a good idea to me. However, I do not think the bibliography article is the place to do that. A bibliography should be just that, not a more detailed history of the magazines. --RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur in full.  Skomorokh  05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. What should we call it? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Objectivist periodicals" seems reasonable to me, but I'm open to suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist periodicals Who wants the honor? --Karbinski (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lower-case 'p' (fixed above). I may be able to work on it later today, but if someone else has time sooner, that's fine too. --RL0919 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod tag removed by me. If there is a merge then it will redirect, and if the merger idea crashes then we can discuss whether this article should be deleted when the dust settles. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I created the Objectivist periodicals article. I created an outline for it, gave it a lead, and then copied in the content from the separate articles. Where there was no separate article, I put in some extremely basic starter text. I copied the Works Cited from The Ayn Rand Letter (the only article from the group that had any) and added preliminary See Also and External Links sections. It still needs considerable cleanup and expansion, but it at least looks something like what a combined article would. Please take a look. If this seems like the direction we want to go, then merge tags should be added to all the relevant articles. Or if folks think this looks like a bad approach, then we should discuss options. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No strong object, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better (and the information more easily found) as a section in the Objectivist Movement article?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The movement article is already over 50K. A fork article on a well-defined, non-tendentious topic that has notability and reliable sources is a good way to control the length of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have placed merger tags on the articles for The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, The Ayn Rand Letter and The Objectivist Forum, proposing that they be merged into Objectivist periodicals. Please visit the Talk:Objectivist periodicals page to register your support of or concerns about this proposal. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposed merger drew support and no objections, so it has been completed. The individual periodical articles now redirect to Objectivist periodicals. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reason's harvest

Prodded per WP:NFT. Dear God... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a speedy deletion would be more appropriate than prod. --RL0919 (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with speedy --Karbinski (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not meet any speedy deletion criterion.  Skomorokh  15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess I should refresh myself on the criteria. Anyway, prod it is. I just seconded. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Final outcome: Article deleted by an admin based on the expired prod, June 5, 2009. --RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Perigo

There's a lot of really dubious sourcing here, and given some of the extravagance of the claims that Readings tagged and I removed, I'm not sure how much I'd trust all of them. It's not clear that he's sufficiently notable. If we AFD him, though, I think we might well expect trouble from his corner of the Internet... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've pretty much exhausted my list of source databases. I found one independent article comparing Lindsay Perigo to Rush Limbaugh. That was it, I'm afraid. Of course, there's also the Perigo biography by his own former company employer so I don't know if that really constitutes "independent". Further consultation might be a good idea. In any case, I don't know what to think about this article if multiple independent reliable sources are unavailable. If we leave it the way it is, it (at least) should be tagged for notability and have someone (perhaps one of his fans or followers) fix it. If none exist, we can come back to it. J Readings (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Check lindsayperigo.com, it's not independent but it strongly suggests notability. Is it possible your databases don't cover NZ too well? TallNapoleon (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What in particular on lindsayperigo.com do you think strongly suggests notability? I remember getting involved late in the game with writing the biography of G. Edward Griffin who kept saying to his fans and followers that anything one ever needed would be found on his self-published website. So that's exactly what happened. Fans and followers wrote the entry based entirely on what Griffin supplied. It didn't help that there weren't any independent third-party sources for the claims being made about winning this or that award that no established editor apparently heard of, or making claims that independent third-parties didn't state. Because other editors couldn't confirm virtually any of the material in the article, another editor put it up for AfD and it was deleted by consensus.[2] As expected, Griffin's fans and followers flooded the AfD to vote keep without providing the third-party sources needed. Slp1, another editor and I managed to re-instate the article after deletion when we showed what the databases had to say. The closing admin agreed; the article was re-instated and only high-quality sources were used thereafter. The Griffin fans and followers were overjoyed, but they weren't helpful either. They naturally assumed that anyone questioning the article was out to get G. Edward Griffin. Hardly. J Readings (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Slp1, I'm going to ask if she could do me a favor and cross-check my research results on Factiva and the other databases. Hopefully she still has access to them. I want to see if she and I can save this article somehow. J Readings (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote from Metro Magazine calling him the doyen of something or other was striking. I also saw a YouTube hit that appeared to back up that he was in fact well known in NZ. Neither of these are good sources of course (I couldn't corroborate the metro quote on google). They suggest notability, but don't prove it. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also checked these places. No luck in independently verifying any of this stuff, assuming the magazine counts as reliable (it probably does). Apparently, there is a Metro magazine in Australia, one in New Zealand, and another in New York. I'll try the National Diet Library here in Tokyo, Japan. It's the Japanese equivalent of the US Library of Congress. J Readings (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look Factiva, Lexis-Nexis etc soon, but it seems to me that there are plenty of (admittedly usually fairly brief) mentions of him on Googlenews and the NZ herald archive. calls him a "renowned right winger"[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and no doubt there are more. I think it's clear he is indeed notable. These sources, on a cursory look, seem to give a somewhat different spin than the current article, and I would certainly suggest a significant effort at appropriate rewriting based on the sources --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also being quoted by prominent person; this bookthis one (all three University presses); and this one and various others.--Slp1 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Slp1. It's much appreciated. I'll read these links and let's see what we can do about re-writing the article. J Readings (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, we already knew about the Perigo! biography. J Readings (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've taken a quick look at Factiva, and my version seems to include NZ papers; here's a very useful looking one "FUMING PERIGO CALLS PRIME MINISTER A WOWSER" from the Sunday Star Times, 22 June 2008 about him and his career more. I could download it and send it to anybody who was interested, if it isn't in some online archive somewhere. There are others too--Slp1 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't have that one (can you please send it to me?). I've got the Rush Limbaugh article that discusses Perigo's controversial atheist right-wing opinions in comparison with Limbaugh's pro-religion conservative views, but that was the only one that specifically focused on Perigo rather than articles written *by* Perigo (which don't count for establishing notability) or brief mentions of Perigo in throw-away contexts (that weren't exclusively about the subject). If there is another independent third-party article in a reliable source that focuses exclusively on Perigo, I'm basically satisfied with the notability requirements. Now, it's just a question of re-writing the article to reflect what the independent sources actually say. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Making articles work together

I'd like to discuss the best way to work out some of the overlaps among what I would consider the three main articles: Ayn Rand, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and Objectivist movement. Currently they each have sections discussing academic reaction/criticism. In Ayn Rand there's a subsection on "Rand's work and academic philosophy." This is a subsection of the "Legacy" section, but the longest paragraph is about an article that appeared during her lifetime. There is also a "Literary reception" section that discusses critical reaction to her fiction. In Objectivist movement, there is a section on "Objectivism in academia." In Objectivism (Ayn Rand) there is a section on "Intellectual impact," which refers to Objectivist movement as it's main article, but the content of the section is a series of specifics rather than a summary of the supposed main article. The Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article also has a "Criticisms" that is surprisingly tiny considering that criticisms are not distributed into the main discussion of the philosophy (which would be the preferable approach). My suggestions would be as follows:

• Since Ayn Rand is supposed to be about the person, not just her philosophy, then the reactions to both her fiction and non-fiction should be discussed. So "Literary reception" should become just plain "Reception" or "Critical reception," discussing the reaction to Rand during her lifetime from both academic and non-academic sources, literary and philosophical. The "Legacy" section should have a "Rand's work and academic scholarship" section, which discusses the subsequent (after Rand's death) developments in academic discussion of Rand, again considering both philosophical and literary discussions. Because there is a separate article on Objectivism, the details of philosophical criticism and defense should not be in this article.
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should have the relevant criticisms of the philosophical ideas (not of Rand's personality or the behavior of her followers) integrated into the discussion of her ideas, eliminating the separate "Criticism" section. The "Intellectual impact" section should continue to direct the reader to Objectivist movement as the main article, but be rewritten as a summary of that article.
• Objectivist movement should continue to discuss the historical progress (or lack of progress, as the case may be) in bringing discussion of Objectivism into academic venues. Any detailed points from the "Intellectual impact" section of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) that aren't already there should be brought over.

Agreements, objections, alternative suggestions, etc., are requested. --RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you prefer integrating criticisms into the individual branches of philosophy? Can you give an example? --Karbinski (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with almost all of your suggested changes. The one thing I'm in opposition to is the elimination of the "Criticism" section. I think the present structure is a much clearer and more logical presentation of the philosophy. Interspersing critical arguments throughout the explanation of Objectivism's positions would only convolute the article.Brandonk2009 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An example of explanation and criticism being documented in together is in the Philosophy section of the Ayn Rand article. But upon reflection, I think that only works in a shorter section such as that one. In the more detailed Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, it would make the sections too unwieldy. So I withdraw that particular suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation Guidelines

Being relatively new to WP:A=A, I want to ask if there are any particular citation guidelines to follow throughout the articles. Is there a particular format or method of citation editors are following? Brandonk2009 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There's WP:CITE, but it allows for a variety of different citation formats. Personally, I've recently started using the template for "Harvard citations without brackets" to create compact citations where a work is used repeatedly. (The full citation has to be in the Works Cited list, so it only really saves space if the citation is used more than once.) If a source is only used once, I use one of the citation templates, such as "cite book," "cite journal," or "cite web" for full inline citation and don't bother to put it in the Works Cited list. But that's just what I do personally (and even then only recently), not a standard. And there are a lot of citations that were added over the years by various people, so consistency would require reformatting a lot of existing material. --RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Periodical Merges

Looks like we are ready to blank-out and re-direct? --Karbinski (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just blank/redirected The Objectivist Forum and The Objectivist Newsletter. Just a note, I'm pretty sure that per the GFDL if any substantial content is reused elsewhere the page cannot be deleted--it must be blanked/redirected to maintain contribution history, unless you get an admin to do a history merge. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you're on a roll already, did you want to go ahead with the same for The Objectivist and The Ayn Rand Letter? There's also The Intellectual Activist, which is currently redirecting to the article about its former publisher, Peter Schwartz. I think a redirect to the periodicals article would be more appropriate, if that can be arranged. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Those have a bit more content, so I'm not sure if people are interested in merging any more over. I'd like to get a bit more feedback before I proceed. I did change the redirect for The Intellectual Activist, though. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the content, and there was nothing significant in the two remaining articles that wasn't already in the combined article. I did the final two redirects and removed the merge tag. I believe it is all done. --RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Talk Page

The last month of discussion [14] here seems to have gone missing, and I can't find it archived or in the history. Am I just confused?KD Tries Again (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My view of the history says a chunk was archived yesterday, and the diffs for the archive seems to match the diffs for the talk page. Are you saying that more is missing than what went into the archive? --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a problem with the topic bans page. Should all be clear now. --Karbinski (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine now.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again