2782:- and what you see as negative pov pushing - could also be a result of you carrying an unabashedly positive view of Rand as your stated "intellectual hero". Is there any critique of Rand that you deem valid or acceptable? Have you ever added any such critique to one of her articles, so that maybe an example of what you deem to be "properly contexted" criticism could be viewed? ---- Your remaining concerns seem to be the Von Mises' letter, Rand's rejection of the civil rights act, and the Q&A sessions mentioning her angering of libertarians for her stance on Native Americans etc = is out of context or cherry picked. Well if you aren't going to add this supposed missing context, and you aren't going to use the talk page here to demonstrate why you believe these are out of context, and you aren't going to work on the article, then unfortunately there isn't any basis to remove such well documented material from secondary sources. Simply stomping your feet and saying "pov" is not enough, and not how Wiki is designed to work.
2833:
re-writing bits as I've had the time to address the concerns that I see, and intended to continue doing so unless others beat me to it. I don't want to see the article sanitized of items that are negative or potentially embarrassing, but I do agree to an extent with the concern about unnecessary and sometimes one-sided detail being added. I would encourage
Karbinski to join in selectively removing or rewriting the bits that he finds most egregious, and if needed we can talk out each specific item when there are disagreements over what to change. My own stance will continue to be in support of 1) focusing the article on items that are given prominence by secondary sources, and 2) summarizing rather than extensively quoting. --
2878:
misrepresent the person. If reliable secondary sources don't give it coverage, then its not notable enough for the person's biography - if there is, then report within-context. For example: you can report that Rand opposed government giving groups special treatment - or you can blurt out that she rejected the Civil Rights Act - or you can report the former and give the latter as an example. However, just blurting it out isn't reporting anything about Rand per se, its just POV pushing (cashing in on the fact most people think the Civil Rights Act was, in whole, good and as of yet do not know why Rand would oppose it - and NPOV is the responsibility of the contributor as much as anyone else).
3327:
and have too much detail. Every so often a fan will be shocked to discover that their favorite show/movie/game that mentions Rand for ten seconds isn't discussed in the article (sometimes even when it is), and will insert some ham-handed sentence (or more) with no reference and an unnecessary level of detail. (Note the "Left 4 Dead" edit a few days back.) This has to be fought constantly to prevent the section from becoming one of those crappy trivia lists that are seen far too often in WP articles. I do like that the pop culture section has been merged back into a single section. I'm going on vacation, so try not to have too much fun while I'm gone. --
2591:
act without any - again - context as to why (the litmus test thing is quite meaningless out of context as well). Naturally the fringe theory smuggled to include a comparison to Hitler (archived discussion). The Von-Mises letter without Ayn Rand's reply to conjure up and imply Rand had a collectivist view of the masses. Objectivist movement details with the "Cult" smear included - when a detailed in-context article already exists to report on the movement (only there to get the cult thing in). The entire cherry-picked QA section - you could report what secondary sources have to say if it isn't just a collection of cherry-picked Q&A quotes. --
438:, but rather that when describing Roark, Rand reverted to some of the same attitudes that she had when she was writing about Hickman. Anyhow, there are a few issues to sort out here: 1) Was Hickman an "influence" on Rand in the broad sense, such that he should be listed in the "Influences" section of the infobox? The talk page consensus seems to be a clear 'No' on that. 2) Is her interest in him deserving of some other mention in the article? I don't have a strong opinion about that and don't see any clear consensus from others. 3) If it is mentioned, how should it be sourced? I
1274:." Similarly, if there are a number of similar views about Rand's meta-ethical arguments, then the Objectivism article might list the more notable ones, with quotes from a couple of them. But in the Rand article, it would just be something like "Philosophers such as X and Y have described her meta-ethical arguments as blah blah blah." This would allow a number of the more common/prominent views about Rand's ideas to be mentioned without the section taking over the article, while fuller details would be available in the other article. Which is exactly what
1738:"the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf). Smyth, I would hope you would agree that this quote allows me to label Hitler as a racist. Do you agree? The quote I placed is directly from Ayn Rand's mouth. It is rather appalling that you think her comments are not racist when she refers to Arabs as savages. People should know about her views on other races. What are you editors and admins trying to hide???
31:
2032:. In this case, the application of that solution is straightforward enough: secondary sources give virtually no attention to Rand's opinions of Arabs, or even of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At best it might warrant a passing mention in a summary of Rand's opinions on various topics. To give it a whole paragraph of discussion, highlighted with its own header, elevates it well beyond the significance it is given outside of Knowledge (XXG). --
785:
even-handed portrayal. Reviewing it now, it appears to be pretty sanitized. The word 'cult' isn't used once (I know it appears in the article on objectivism, but it seems relevant here as well), and the philosophical criticisms have been truncated considerably. I know
Objectivism enjoys a large following on the Internet, but it dismays me that it has such a stifling effect on these kind of articles.
1408:
references and with good will its not difficult to agree a restricted list. If you want a simple criterial I would say
Hostile and Pro (with neutral if there are any) at the time of publication and a similar set in the current day. Open to other ideas however and there is always the option of adding links as references in a summary as critical reception if people really don;t like lists. --
2774:(ing). I understand and agree that Colbert is not a reliable secondary source, for any other claim than what Colbert himself thinks. His example above was merely to note that Lavey's connection to Rand has been mentioned in an array of sources. But like I said, feel free to remove Lavey if you find it "irrelevant". Additionally, no policy has been ignored here, and all of your concerns above
2728:
sources. Essentially the POV push has ignored the policy of reporting what is in reliable secondary sources - the new local policy is just toss in whatever. To suggest those that oppose such lousy editting simply mimic the behaviour as a solution is to, well, really show how satisfied one is to ignore the policy of simply reporting what is in secondary sources (reliable ones). --
966:
Huemer thinks her views are no good. I don't think that all of the criticism should come from people as well known as Nozick, but it should preferably come from people who have broad recognition in the scholarly community - otherwise, I question how relevant it is that they have expertise. Frankly, what value is the expertise if it has not lead to their becoming well known?
1833:"She writes an essay claiming racism is abhorrent yet makes a racist comment. This is important information that you two are trying to hide. RL0919: The fact that you personally think this "controversial" comment should not appear is not enough to warrant it not being included. We should include it in a criticism section regarding her contradictory remarks on racism.
1591:
1307:
1533:
writing such material. The article history will preserve the links if someone needs to find them again. But by the same token, I don't begrudge anyone a few days when the matter isn't critical, so if
Snowded thinks he might be working on this over the next few days, I've no problem with the links remaining over the weekend. --
344:
Possible examples - Aristotle, Hazlitt, maybe even Garet
Garrett. If Hickman qualifies, then so does every other person she has ever mentioned in any of her writings, private or public. In any case, the source cited is unreliable and has completely dropped the delicate context of the original material - for obvious reasons. ā
900:
and articles on the subject. Indeed, he is a well-known enough critic of Rand that the Cato institute chose him to participate in the symposium on Rand. His essay from that symposium is from where the quote is drawn. I do not think that Vobo has proper grounds to delete the entry, and would like to see what others think.
2533:
ideally they should be examples that are cited in secondary sources, and extensive quotes aren't needed. POV isn't the only issue, although one-sided quoting can indeed be a POV issue. Equally important is that this is an encyclopedia article, which should summarize controversies rather than playing them out. --
1757:. Ayn Rand says, "amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages," when referring to Arabs. I will take this matter up with other admins if you do not retract your statement that "calling 'racist' is not acceptable." She is clearly racist. Readers of her wikipedia article should know this information.
3342:
Synth worries aside, there are several things I'm dissatisfied with about the article in its current form. "Popular interest and culture" is a poor title for a section - the "culture" part broadens it into meaninglessness. And if
Dennett's reference to Rand should be included, it ought to be included
2516:
In just about every section, we have quotations being added in. They all offer nothing in terms of biography, what almost all of them do offer is a soap-box for those with published negative opinions. Those that are not a pure soapbox, are of the form - Ayn Rand did QAs, lets have an example of one
1962:
Its obviously not correct to use a label such as "racist" unless there is a broad body of reliable third party sources that say as much. There are two quotes, this one and the West Point speech on Native
Americans which indicate a general attitude towards any people who fail to act in a certain way.
1568:
So, it is now over two weeks later, and there is no sign that the disputed links are going to be used to expand the article. Instead, the list has expanded, as I feared it would. Excepting one link for the new SEP article on Rand, the additional links are to undistinguished opinion pieces about Rand,
1423:
Personally, I don't object at all to critical reception being discussed in the body of the article. There is already a "Contemporary reception" section with direct citation of four reviews and indirect reference (via secondary sources) to many others. The directly cited reviews include the best-known
1407:
The critical reception of her work is significant, and its important for people to be able to receive it. Representative would mean both historical (at the time of publication) as well as current. We don't want an ever expanding list - agreed. However that is always a problem on wikipedia with any
1347:
link is to a special issue with multiple articles and replies, not just a single piece, but I'd be fine if it went as well. They perhaps could be used as sources, although at first glance I see little of use for this article that would not be better sourced elsewhere (such as the biographies that the
1205:
and make a simple, clean summary, even if that means that someone's favorite Rand quote or Rand-critic quote goes into the
Objectivism article rather than here. The Huemer criticisms mentioned in the section above are one of the many examples: any detail about his criticisms (preferably from his peer
827:
I am one of the editors who has 'sanitized' this article. I actually think it is a good idea to keep things sanitary. Much of the material I removed was repetitive over-kill: writer after writer after writer saying that they didn't like Rand and that they thought she was no good - stuff intended just
2981:
If full quotes aren't wanted, then mentioning
Colbert at all seems wrong. I'm not even sure exactly what the sentence about her acclaim in popular culture being met with criticism means, exactly, much less what the source for it is. Note that there's also a synth problem with mentioning that several
2934:
I believe that the sentence "Her acclaim in popular culture has also been met with criticism" is synth, since I don't know where in the several sources used that specific claim can be found (I also consider it to be a poorly written sentence, and I do not believe that it should appear in the article
1703:
Ayn Rand made a racist remark about Arabs. The quote is directly from her mouth and was referenced correctly from none other than the Ayn Rand
Institute. I think any rational person can agree that her remarks are racist. So you removing this information is inappropriate based on your claim that I
1651:
Frankly, the remarks in question can be seen as racist. That doesn't alter the fact that they shouldn't be called that without a reliable source, and they definitely don't deserve a section unto themselves. They probably don't warrant inclusion anywhere in the article, and I will be removing them if
1532:
We appear to agree that expansion of the reception information to include more recent reception would be acceptable, in which case the disputed EL articles could potentially be used as sources. That doesn't mean that I want them to hang around in the EL list indefinitely until someone gets around to
899:
Surely Huemer, a professor of ethics, is an expert on the subject, and expertise is the main factor we ought to consider? Second, Huemer is a tenured professor at a large university; has authored and contributed to textbooks on ethics; and is a trenchant critic of Rand, having written several essays
526:
Regarding the same section, but otherwise unrelated to Jdlech's point: Why is Bob Nozick's critique of her philosophy no longer mentioned? This might be fine if other criticisms of Rand were mentioned in that section but it's almost all about the small number of academics who take her seriously in a
442:
have a strong opinion that if this is going to be in the article, we should be using the best sources for it (Burns, Sciabarra, and Rand's own journals) rather than opinion pieces that have a strong incentive to distort the situation in order to attack present-day political opponents. Unless what we
3326:
Let me note that the reference Redthoreau "found" has been in the article for months and is listed in the "References" section because it was already used in multiple notes. The biggest problem in the popular culture section is typically not synthesis, it is the tendency for examples to proliferate
2590:
Specifically: all of it. What a satanist quipped is relevant to the satanist, not the subject of the quip (archived discussions). That there is criticism can be reported and skip sources using the words "Bitch" and "Asshole". Bioshock has been discussed in the archives. Against the civil rights
2011:
material about Rand than can reasonably be included in an encyclopedia article, or even several articles. There are thousands of pages of her own writings, speeches and interviews, plus dozens of books and hundreds (thousands?) of published essays by others about her and her works. That a statement
1631:
secondary sources. I don't recall seeing discussion of this particular quote in any reliable secondary source, and certainly none has been presented in the article. So the inclusion of the quote (not just the labeling of it) also appears to be POV, again affirmed by the edit summaries ("they give a
1378:
What sort of criteria would be used to determine the "representative sample"? There have been at least a dozen significant articles about Rand in just the past year, and I see nothing about this particular one that merits inclusion over the others in the EL list. It seems to me that the more likely
644:
status. But I thought it better to start by soliciting opinions from the editors who already follow it. What do you think needs to be improved (reworded, added, removed, etc.) in this article to make it FA-worthy? I could name some items myself, but I'd be more interested in seeing what others have
362:
Rand's view of Hickman hardly belongs in the article about him, as it really concerns her - what she made of him and his actions during one period of her life. It might belong here, or perhaps better a related article dealing with Rand's fiction. I agree Hickman shouldn't be listed as an influence.
3046:
Could you please rephrase the sentence to make its meaning clearer? I see Snowded has restored the Colbert reference; I still think that does not belong here at all in that form, since its meaning is so obscure - if it isn't clear what "the Rand illusion" is supposed to be, the reference serves no
2950:
If you consider it "poorly written" then feel free to re-word it. The Colbert reference was not vague before when it had a full description, but I condensed it in regards to Karbinski's concerns about using full quotes. The sentence could be added back in to make more sense. Lastly, are you really
2087:
Again, whether a particular remark by Rand is "interesting" to a Knowledge (XXG) editor is not a good reason for including it in the article. The glaring lack of coverage in secondary sources means that this should have little to no presence. If there is consensus for a section on Rand's "opinion"
1073:
I agree with that. It just needs another sentence or two to summarize why he says what he says. There is no question that Huemer article counts as a reliable source as he's a professor of ethics who has published with mainstream academic publishers (he doesn't need to meet any criterion of being
1038:
Very well then - I stand corrected. What I was trying to say was that it isn't helpful for a Knowledge (XXG) article to have content that can't be understood without reference to an off-site article. If the content is important enough to include here, it should be possible to summarize it in a way
915:
Adding more criticism simply for the sake of adding more criticism is not a helpful approach. There are endless criticial things that people have said about Rand, but we don't want to (and can't) include them all. The material you added about Huemer doesn't make the basis of his criticisms clear -
110:
Having hashed out Heinlein (for now at least), I thought we should perhaps look at the other "influenced" persons listed in the infobox. There are over 30 of them. Quite a few are known members of her circle, so her influence seems obvious on those. Some others have clear citations provided in the
2458:
Under legacy we are told there is recent negative opinion of Ayn Rand in the media (generously called criticism). No reliable secondary source is used to back this up. It is simply synthesized from the fact that some examples may be enumerated. The contributing editor and those supporting this
1927:
then they could be worthy of inclusion in this article, but should probably be blended into the articles relevant and present sectional content. As for critiques of her philosophical positions, that would probably be best for the aforementioned article on Objectivism. I hope my answer was of some
1257:
The Objectivism article is not as well-developed as this one, but it does have a basic structure generally similar to what you described in your first comment above. If necessary, the Philosophy section of the Rand article could be written as an "idealized" summary of what the Objectivism article
965:
No it isn't helpful - basically, it's just one more writer saying Rand is no good. The article already has quite enough of that. Knowledge (XXG) articles are designed to stand as sources of information in their own right - people shouldn't have to go read some other article elsewhere to learn why
424:
Well the whole thing is based on the Jennifer Burns bio which suggests that the case had a significant influence on the character of Danny Renahan in the unfinished book "The Little Street" (pages 24-5). This article doesn't meantion "The Little Street" though let alone Renahan. Burns also states
319:
in the article on Hickman. If folks think this episode of her life should be discussed in this article, that's a possibility, but inserting his name under "Influences" is a misrepresentation of what the best sources say. Normally, considering someone as a possible inspiration for a character in a
2832:
Personally, I think von Mises quote is more revealing of him than of Rand, so perhaps belongs in his article instead. I just replaced it with a more widely reported anecdote that I believe shows more about Rand. Some of the other items mentioned are problematic for various reasons, and I've been
2727:
The POV push is a hinderance to me editting the article. And the process is not, throw in some out-of-context stuff and insist that others come in to add context. Noting opinions is not the purpose of this article. Stephen Colbert's segment and other primary sources are not reliable secondary
511:
In the academia section, the statement "any in the Continental tradition think her celebration of self-interest relies on sophistic logic, and as a result have not thought her work worth any serious consideration" should be changed. There is no such thing as 'sophistic logic'. Sophistry is not
2532:
I agree that extensive examples aren't needed. To say that Rand has been criticized, or that she said controversial things, is true and can be supported from reliable secondary sources. An example or two may be appropriate to make it clear what type of criticism and controversies there are, but
1461:
I think we are moving towards an agreement here, namely to a body text with references. So I am happy to move in that direction (and will have some time over the weekend, or happy for someone else to draft. For the moment I am putting the reference back in as we don't want to loose it in the
934:
It's "helpful" because it gives readers two things: an idea of what experts (like Huemer) think about Rand's work, and links to where they can read more from that expert. If a person wants to know more about why Huemer says such things, they may follow the link in the reference. Regarding your
710:
I've been reviewing the article's citations to make sure they have all the correct details, and in the process I found one that simply doesn't support the article text. The article says "Many in the Continental tradition think her celebration of self-interest relies on sophistic logic, and as a
488:
That's the same AlterNet article that was cited in the edits leading to this discussion. The "solid references" on this topic are already known: Jennifer Burns' book, an article by Chris Sciabarra, and Rand's own notes. However, these sources do not portray Hickman as "the basis for much of her
3075:
To Redthoreau again: changing the sentence to "Rand has also been subject to various criticisms" is not an improvement, and actually makes things worse, since it implies that the criticism by Gillespie and Colbert is the important criticism of Rand. If the section is about popular culture, the
343:
IIRC, isn't the Hickman reference from a marginal comment in a private journal? That would certainly not qualify as an "influence". An Influences section would preferably consist of scholarly or reliable sources tracing the way in which an individual has influenced Rand throughout her writing.
1230:
You make some reasonable points. The Objectivism article seems like a real mess to me. I don't think it's a very good template for the philosophy section of this article. In my opinion, general philosophy sections should be put together with the layman in mind. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
1193:. I don't know that five paragraphs are necessary for that, but that should be the target regardless of the number of paragraphs. If important commentary on the philosophy (pro or con) is missing, it should be put into the Objectivism article first, and then added to the Philosophy section of
784:
After hearing the founder of wikipedia was an Objectivist, I had visited this page a few of years ago to see if it biased in favor of his views. At that time, there was a lot more in the article about criticisms and controversy. After perusing it, I was satisified that it presented a pretty
567:
Is Rand's daily use of amphetamines appropriate to include in the article? It has been referenced in at least one published (mainstream) biography of her. To me it is obvious as an influence on both her writing and philosophy, but that may be "original research" although it is documented to
2877:
I agree with Redthoreau that stomping my feet is unproductive. I commend RL for his productivity. And the practice of tossing out one's(the one being the biographical topic) view without an associated -why- she held the given view is POV pushing - its letting an out-of-context sound-bite
895:
Vobo deleted the entry on the grounds that Huemer is not a "major philosopher," or "well-known". First, I'm not sure what counts as a "major philosopher". Is it being "well-known"? What is "well-known"? "Well-known" to whom? Is one "well-known" if they are a "major philosopher"? Uh-oh.
1432:) and negative pieces by several notable authors (Chambers, Hooks, Vidal). An additional section on later critical reception using a similar approach would be a helpful addition to the article. But body text with sources is something entirely different from just listing external links. --
1338:
Newspaper and magazine articles about Rand and her works shouldn't be in the external links section, because there are dozens (probably hundreds) of them, with little to distinguish one as more relevant than another. This one in particular is no different. For that matter, neither is the
943:). Further, I see no reason why the property "well-known" is important, and you haven't explained why it is important. Expertise in the relevant field (in this case, Huemer is a professor of ethics, and also commenting on Rand's ethics) seems like a more objective and important factor.
1362:
Settling on a representative sample of reviews makes a lot of sense. This one handles both literature and philosophy and I think its worth inclusion. Finding a few others is fine, maybe finding a better one that the Nation's could also make sense in the meantime deleting it is wrong.
916:
why, precisely, does he think her views are not plausible or well-defended? It's too vague to be helpful. And whatever Huemer's achievements, he is definitely not as well known a figure as, say, Nozick, so I'm not convinced there is any special reason his views have to be included.
599:
That she used amphetamines is discussed in several published bios, including the two most recent, so it seems fair game for the article. However, speculation on effects needs to be sourced, preferably to quality sources and not whatever op-eds can be trawled from the web.
1963:
Abhorrent as this view is, I think it is not born of racism, although it might be racist in its implications (and that is an important distinction. A third party source which placed these in context would be valuable, but using them in isolation is not really valid. --
1719:
The point is that "racist" is a heavily loaded term. You therefore cannot call someone racist on Knowledge (XXG), you can only refer to reliable sources who called them racist. And even this should be set within the context of a balanced discussion of the subject giving
1008:. There is still plenty of room for disagreement over what should go into those articles, but it is not the case that the material related to Rand has to be fully in this article. In some cases, "some other article", is exactly where the detail should go. --
1113:
Would you add anything from a reliable source that criticizes Rand here? I'd have thought that there would be concerns about article length, at least, that would mean that not all criticisms of Rand that can be properly sourced should necessarily be added.
2459:
alledgedly important content, seem to think that no coverage of this in secondary sources means that it is obviously important that *they* report it within an encyclopedia article. Its not fine to treat this article as a blog on Ayn Rand. --
1446:
Snowded, you commented that "if anything some of its material should be in the main body of the article." It would help here if you could say which of the material in that review you think should be included in the main body of the article.
2063:
The interest is that she took the same position on Native Americans and on Arabs. Its an interesting working out of her "philosophy" in particular the legitimisation of violence. I'm surprised there is no third party reference though.
182:
My suggestion is that for those that have legit sources that aren't in the body of the article, we should refnote them in the infobox. If there isn't a reliable source that actually claims influence, they should be removed from the list.
2181:
in their July 2009 issue, critically remarked that "Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed." Meanwhile,
1619:
with no secondary source to support it. That this is Corrector555's personal opinion being inserted into the article is clear from the edit summaries ("An opinion that is racist should be called just that", "She does not get a pass",
2630:, has been noted in several recent articles on Rand and Stephen Colbert's segment. It's not crucial for inclusion, but certainly not entirely irrelevant. If you believe so however, then remove it and see if anyone objects - I won't.
2555:
examples would be helpful, along with your particular reason for objecting to a particular quote. As for the Q&A paragraph, the sessions and subsequent anger by Libertarians to her answers is mentioned in the Burn's biography.
1923:. Usually you will find "Legacy" or "Reception" sections if possible, where both the pro's and con's can be examined per their proportionality in the reliable published material. If you have sourced criticisms of Ayn Rand
2474:
Burns, Gladstein and Doherty were all cited as secondary sources in the material you deleted. Your point might be valid as regards some of the criticisms quoted directly from critical articles (e.g., the article from
168:ā Mentioned in the article body has being influenced by her, but the source is a YouTube video in which he talks about her but doesn't indicate any particular influence she may have had on him. Needs a better source.
1318:
is only one of who knows how many reviews of Rand's books. I can't see why it should be considered so specially valuable that it should be added as an external link when none of the other reviews are, and Snowded's
469:
2493:
Agreed that those three were in there sourcing the the financial crisis related stuff. Disagree about cutting the whole section. The sourced stuff can be added back by someone familiar with the source material.
320:
novel wouldn't be enough to classify that person an "influence". Political opinion pieces like the one LGagnon is using play up Rand's interest in Hickman as a way to tar present-day conservatives (especially the
134:ā Was a friend of Rand's, but I'm not sure she was a significant influence on him. He was older than her and had already published several books before they met. Might belong in the "Influences" section instead.
2914:
If the article is to cover Rand's influence, then the statement by Lavey that Satanism is like Objectivism is at least potentially relevant. I don't thing it's of huge importance, though, and won't restore it.
2479:), but there absolutely is secondary coverage of the fact that such criticism exists. If you want to trim some of the non-secondary material, that's fine, but you should use a sharper knife for your cutting. --
2685:, with additional references for specificity. If you would like to include others, then feel free to do so - Include more of the "cherries". Nothing is stopping your participation in editing the article.
407:
Agreed. As I said, the source given is unreliable, and for it to be a valid "Influence", the source should examine in detail how the individual has made a clear influence on the subject's life and work. ā
2880:
Most of the QA stuff isn't pinned/stapled to any of Rand's reasons for the given views - and simultaneously lacks the coverage in reliable secondary sources to do so without the contribution being SYN or
2517:
of the questions and answers, and the example isn't "How did you come up with measurement ommission in your theory of concepts" - no example is needed - readers know what happends in a Q&A session. --
2639:. Moreover, these terms are included in a popular culture section and do not carry with them the implication of being a serious critique. Plus the article doesn't endorse their view, it merely notes it.
1704:
need a source to call someone racist. The Ayn Rand Institute isn't hiding this comment and neither should Knowledge (XXG). I believe it should remain as it gives readers an insight into her character.
2935:
unless it can be clarified). While the comment about Rand's influence from Nick Gillespie seems helpful, I find the Colbert reference irrelevant, as well as unhelpfully vague; it should be removed.
1499:
The links have been there for some time as far as I can see, hence my BRD reference. Better to put your energy into working on a replacement per the above general agreement I would have thought. --
2088:(hopefully something more like "Political and social commentary" and not a random grab bag of her opinions on anything), then it should be informed by secondary sources and weighted accordingly. A
891:
Libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer disagrees. According to Huemer, Rand's ethics "is simultaneously the most distinctive and the least plausible, worst defended of all of Randās major ideas."
198:
I'm going to go ahead and remove the ones that are unsourced or dubiously sourced (Beck, Clavell, Hazlitt, Jillette, Limbaugh, Murray, and Paul). They can obviously go back if sources are found.
156:ā He is mentioned in the article for discussing her on his show, but that does not demonstrate influence. No mention of her in his article. We need a source that actually claims influence.
2007:(outdent) The particular facts of Rand's opinions on this subject (distinct from the interpretation of it) are merely one case of a problem that exists for many subjects: there is more
1863:- while removing the "racist" description, which is for readers to determine on their own. As for this specific article on Rand herself, I donāt believe this quote merits inclusion per
764:
Since there's no indication that anyone is going to resource/rewrite it, I've removed the sentence. Obviously it could be added back later if someone can find an appropriate source. --
857:
It has only been mentioned in a footnote in this article since June of last year. I just "promoted" it back to the body with a brief description, but there is somewhat more detail in
1859:
believe they are. However, I believe Rand's remarks via Israel/Arabs were relevant to her views on what she deemed "primitivism" and thus I included them in her accompanying article
512:
logic. In fact, sophistry is not logical by definition. Available terms are either "sophistry", "sophist argument" or "sophistic reasoning". But "sophistic logic" is an oxymoron.
736:
1915:
Corrector555, you're welcome. Per your suggestion, specific "Criticism" sections are usually to be avoided if at all possible in a Knowledge (XXG) article, as they tend to become
1819:
rather than being stated outright by the encyclopedia. They also have to be placed in context, as I said above. Those are the rules and I'm sure you can see why they're there. ā
813:
I think that there is a good deal of truth to this; even if the main controversy section belongs in the article on her philosophy it seems like we need to have a bit more here.
1680:
If it is felt necessary to include something about what Rand thought about Arabs, it would be better to quote a reliable source analysing her views than to quote Rand herself.
1149:{"P" = paragraph; each section should contain a brief statement of Rand's overall theme, with both positive and negative views from experts regarding her work on the subject}
1231:
Philosophy offers us a basic template: a brief and simple explanation of the overall theme on an issue, together with evaluations of those ideas (pro and con) from experts.
1897:
Redthoreau, thank you for adding it to the Objectivism article. I do believe the Ayn Rand entry needs a criticism section based on her views regarding race. Any thoughts?
315:. It is known that Rand once had a sympathetic view of Hickman (who murdered a young girl) and considered him as the basis for the hero of a novel she never wrote. This is
472:
is a lengthy article from Mark Ames. It appears the subject of William Hickman is the basis for much of her work. But I will see what solid references can be found. ā
261:
Agree with Orangemike. Of the ones listed, I would only include Glenn Beck. One person I just thought of that we could add to the list, given the recent news about him -
324:), but there is no scholarly support for this. The few scholarly sources that discuss the matter portray Rand's attitude towards Hickman as evidence of the influence of
3385:
I'd like to add my long-standing dissatisfaction with this section as recentist, trivial and out of context, and concur with the sentiments of UserVOBO and RL above.
3152:
Could you please respond to my point about the sentence? Obviously Rand has been criticized and we need to say that, but why follow that with Gillespie and Colbert?
1636:
If there is any non-POV basis for including this quote in the article and giving it the header of "Racist Remarks", would someone please bring it forward? Thanks. --
1481:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy, but it does, in general, work by consensus. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for including these links, and I'm not sure how
1000:
guideline. This article would be waaay too long if it incorporated the detail on Rand's ideas and the criticism thereof that would appropriately go into the article
2142:
recommended the novel to their audiences, and opinion articles compared real-world events with the plot of the novel. Signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero
887:
I thought I'd put this to the board. Given the call for more criticism, I added the following to the philosophy section from philosophy professor Michael Huemer:
443:
want to discuss in the article is present-day criticisms of her, in which case that's a whole other topic, one in which Hickman plays only a very small role. --
935:(apparent) claim that only experts as well-known as Nozick should be included in the article, this seems completely unreasonable. Nozick is quite possibly the
212:
Leave them in for a little bit; with the exception of Jillette I'm quite sure that all of these have cited Rand directly. I'll find some sources this weekend.
842:
I haven't checked in here in a while, but the loss of the Nozick criticism, however it happened, damages the article's credibility. It needs to be restored.
3399:
I'd agree that its excessive and wordy and should be a simple couple of sentences referencing the material but not elaborating it to the current level. --
1611:) keeps reinserting a quote from Rand about Arabs with its own header describing the quote as "Racist Remarks". There are multiple problems with this:
3008:
as a ref for the "criticism" claim, although many more could be located if you want. I will add further secondary sources for the others as well.
1815:
is not acceptable. Any potentially-controversial value judgements, especially negative judgements of people (even Hitler), have to be attributed to
543:(Chomsky is probably more notable, but to the best of my knowledge, hasn't provided a philosophical argument in support of his disdain for Rand.)
992:
I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at by saying "people shouldn't have to go read some other article elsewhere", but it is definitely
2429:
2365:
2346:
2334:
2241:
2229:
2217:
1667:
I have no problem with the remarks being in the article with adequate context, but I concur that calling them "racist" is not acceptable. ā
2667:
Not sure about your interpretation about the Von Mises letter, but you are certainly free to add whatever "context" you think is missing.
379:
Listing him as an influence would be... questionable, at best. But I would say that it might belong in the section on the early Ayn Rand.
801:
532:
1262:
be, even if it isn't there yet. But the key is that it should be a summary. So if John Doe wrote a notable book of criticisms, then in
527:
positive manner. Nozick is easily the most well-known philosopher to discuss her in any depth (Tara Smith and the others mentioned are
1608:
671:
587:
2123:
1202:
721:
434:
There isn't any mention of Rand's other early, unfinished projects either. And Burns doesn't exactly state that Hickman influenced
1779:
that apply that label. This is an encyclopedia, not a series of essays of personal opinion. Please take a look at the policies on
140:ā Used to be mentioned in the article, but the source was a Facebook page of dubious provenance. I'd like to see a better source.
1146:
The philosophy section is sloppy and lacks focus. It needs to be reworked. I suggest a tight style with the following format:
2158:
quipped that "going Galt" had become the "libertarian-conservative's version of progressives threatening to move to Canada."
1518:
only a few days ago. I don't know about the others. If there's an agreement between you and RL0919, I'm not sure what it is.
1270:, it would just say something like, "Philosopher John Doe criticized Rand's views on the ethics of egg-sucking in his book,
2951:
claiming that there aren't refs for the first sentence? That could easily be ref'd about 50 times from reliable sources.
304:
743:
3106:
I have increased the Colbert sentence to make more sense and added secondary ref's for Southpark & The Simpsons.
1816:
1623:
There is no reason for little-known comments like this to be in the article at all, much less with its own header. Per
828:
to trash her. There is some more thoughtful criticism of Rand (eg, an article by Nozick) that might usefully be added.
393:
Hickman as an influence on Rand is more than simply questionable; it's POV pushing at best, plain vandalism at worst.
749:
in case someone can find an alternative source or wants to reword the passage to better match the existing source. --
1791:. The fact that you personally think "people should know" X or that X is interesting or important or appalling does
1206:
reviewed article on the subject, and not a handy internet post, but I guess we go with what we've got) should be in
38:
2020:
that is verifiable. The preferred solution to this problem was hashed out years ago and is not specific to Rand:
1485:
means that your position prevails, rather than that of the two editors who have expressed disagreement with you.
1170:
P6: Conclusion: comments from experts (positive and negative) regarding the overall scope and style of her work.
614:
I just rewrote the section on the 1940s and included her amphetamine use there, since that is when it started. --
1079:
847:
97:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
2779:
2771:
2636:
2092:
section intended just to get this one topic into the article is no better that what was being done before. --
909:
536:
3249:
2762:
Karbinski, taking your proverbial ball and going home is usually not a good solution. Many of your concerns
2177:
1236:
1175:
948:
905:
797:
675:
159:
2285:
789:
667:
575:
2051:
1993:
1902:
1860:
1838:
1762:
1743:
1709:
1602:
1263:
1207:
1190:
1001:
858:
818:
583:
552:
481:
384:
316:
308:
262:
217:
2029:
489:
work", so anyone looking to insert that conclusion to the article will naturally want to keep looking. --
128:. That seems a thin basis for claiming influence, unless there is some other source we could use instead.
124:ā No source given. The article about him mentions that he once sent one of his books to Rand, sourced to
3076:
sentence should deal with popular culture specifically; it's not acceptable at all in its current form.
2654:
2397:
174:ā No source given and no mention of her in his article, but his website explicitly states her influence
2047:
1989:
1898:
1834:
1758:
1739:
1705:
1598:
739:
can be viewed using Google Books, and it simply doesn't say that. For the moment I've tagged this with
2672:
The word "cult" does not appear in the article - despite the fact that there is an entire book called
517:
3375:
3316:
3271:
3207:
3123:
3025:
2968:
2799:
2702:
2573:
1945:
1884:
1005:
251:
111:
article. But there are some that seem less firmly established. Here are the ones that may need work:
146:ā No source given, but the article about him mentions the connection and provides a seemingly valid
3245:
2888:
2733:
2596:
2522:
2499:
2464:
2196:, Rand found in man's struggle for survival amongst nature, "a logical foundation for capitalism."
1075:
843:
415:
351:
325:
272:
3348:
3157:
3081:
3052:
2987:
2940:
2920:
2147:
1685:
1657:
1523:
1490:
1466:
VOBO, especially when a discussion is taking place and an alternative path is being explored. --
1452:
1398:
1328:
1232:
1171:
1119:
1044:
996:
the case that every article is supposed to be a comprehensive standalone on its subject. See the
971:
944:
921:
901:
833:
793:
513:
398:
368:
321:
231:
203:
3296:
2175:
for the economic crisis, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan. The left-leaning
1864:
425:
that Hickman influenced a "The Fountainhead" character but thats a passing mention on page 42.Ā©
125:
2259:
687:
2442:
1775:, what allows you (or any other editor) to label Hitler or Rand or anyone is the existence of
814:
727:
718:
579:
548:
474:
380:
298:
213:
2650:
2089:
1920:
1788:
711:
result have not thought her work worth any serious consideration." The citation for this is:
3332:
2838:
2538:
2484:
2097:
2037:
1800:
1641:
1574:
1538:
1437:
1384:
1353:
1283:
1215:
1013:
866:
769:
754:
695:
650:
619:
605:
494:
448:
333:
188:
2046:
OK, I will create a Rand Opinion section near the end. Feel free to add whatever you like.
2025:
1988:
Snowded, you say the material is valid, but doesn't belong there. So where does it belong?
1916:
1721:
1624:
1616:
1482:
1463:
3371:
3359:
3312:
3300:
3267:
3255:
3203:
3191:
3119:
3107:
3021:
3009:
2964:
2952:
2795:
2783:
2698:
2686:
2627:
2569:
2557:
2410:
2311:
1941:
1929:
1880:
1868:
1824:
1729:
1672:
245:
2021:
1852:
1780:
1776:
1628:
1275:
1186:
997:
641:
637:
2163:
During this period there was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the
3386:
2884:
2729:
2592:
2518:
2495:
2460:
2164:
2155:
2151:
410:
346:
267:
118:ā No source given and no mention of Rand in the article about him, so we need a source.
2982:
different cartoon shows have mentioned Rand unless a source specifically states that.
2008:
1784:
3344:
3153:
3077:
3048:
2983:
2936:
2916:
2139:
1681:
1653:
1519:
1486:
1448:
1394:
1324:
1115:
1040:
967:
917:
829:
664:
I heard that she was a Beekeeper in her spare time. Can we find an source on this?
394:
364:
227:
199:
171:
153:
137:
131:
121:
47:
17:
2130:, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis. Conservative talk show hosts, such as
3400:
2681:
The Q&A section is mentioned with the examples that Rand biographer Burns does
2388:
2193:
2172:
2065:
1964:
1627:, the prominence given to material should be based on the weight they are given in
1500:
1467:
1409:
1364:
294:
1753:
Please take a look at this youtube clip, especially starting at 00:40 seconds in.
147:
547:
Not sure why Nozick is no longer there. He definitely should be. Any objections?
240:
You can cite somebody without that constituting reliable evidence that they have
3328:
2834:
2778:
derived from secondary sources. What you view as "lousy editing", could also be
2767:
2623:
2534:
2480:
2307:
2281:
2168:
2135:
2093:
2033:
1796:
1637:
1570:
1534:
1433:
1380:
1349:
1279:
1211:
1009:
862:
765:
750:
691:
646:
615:
601:
490:
444:
329:
184:
143:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3190:
Vobo, I went ahead and removed the sentence altogether that you objected to.
3409:
3393:
3379:
3352:
3336:
3320:
3275:
3211:
3161:
3127:
3085:
3056:
3029:
2991:
2972:
2944:
2924:
2892:
2842:
2803:
2737:
2706:
2600:
2577:
2542:
2526:
2503:
2488:
2468:
2447:
2255:
2184:
2131:
2101:
2074:
2055:
2041:
1997:
1973:
1949:
1906:
1888:
1842:
1826:
1820:
1804:
1766:
1754:
1747:
1731:
1725:
1713:
1697:
1689:
1674:
1668:
1661:
1645:
1578:
1542:
1527:
1509:
1494:
1476:
1456:
1441:
1418:
1402:
1388:
1373:
1357:
1332:
1287:
1240:
1219:
1179:
1123:
1083:
1048:
1017:
975:
952:
925:
870:
851:
837:
822:
805:
773:
758:
699:
679:
654:
623:
609:
591:
556:
540:
521:
498:
452:
429:
402:
388:
372:
337:
256:
235:
221:
207:
192:
115:
1919:
nightmares and are out of place without an accompanying "praise" section per
2143:
939:"well-known" philosopher who has paid any attention to Rand (one chapter in
730:
426:
2016:
standard for inclusion in an article, but we don't/can't/shouldn't include
175:
1267:
1201:
2) it is of such significance that it should be. We need to get past any
1194:
312:
165:
2189:
1323:
summary "that one is valuable to readers" doesn't answer the question.
226:
I've removed them, but as noted, they can easily go back with sources.
2617:
Karbinski, thanks for including specifics. To address them in order -
1314:
I really don't understand this - the "Garbage and gravitas" review in
1039:
that makes sense, without people having to visit a different website.
2383:
311:
into the "Influences" section, citing a political opinion piece from
3252:, Centenary Symposium, Part I Ayn Rand: Literary and Cultural Impact
1379:
result is an ever-expanding list based on editorial whim and POV. --
2635:
Words such as "bitch and asshole" are indeed colorful, but Wiki is
2188:
alleged similarities between the "moral syntax of Randianism" and
569:
328:. They do not portray Hickman as an influence in his own right. --
1851:
Corrector555, unilaterally declaring Rand's comments "racist" is
1462:
meantime, and wikipedia is not a democracy 2:1 does not overcome
568:
contribute to grandiosity, paranoia, delusional thinking. See
293:
Now that we've trimmed the "Influenced" field of the infobox,
25:
2653:
and add some additional context for Rand's rejection of the
1632:
glimpse into her character", "Reverted last coverup", etc.).
1569:
which are a dime a dozen. The commentary links should go. --
780:
For a controversial figure, surprisingly little controversy
715:
Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond
1861:
Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Rejection_of_indigenous_primitivism
1795:
mean that X should appear in a Knowledge (XXG) article. --
1185:
The Philosophy section should be, but currently isn't, a
1152:
P1: Brief answer to the question: "What is Objectivism?"
1515:
1320:
3343:
in the philosophy section, since he is a philosopher.
3047:
useful purpose, no matter how well known Colbert is.
1197:
only if 1) it is not covered by the existing summary
2883:
The Later Years section has been vastly improved. --
1266:
you might find a whole paragraph about them. But in
162:ā No source given, no mention of her in his article.
2644:Agreed on Bioshock, although that note is minimal.
2126:spurred renewed interest in her works, especially
1210:, with only the briefest mention here, if any. --
2764:("Hitler", "Cult", additional Bioshock info etc)
1811:Yes, I should have said that calling her racist
2333:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGladstein2009 (
2240:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGladstein2009 (
2120:
636:I'm interested in taking this article through
3244:Vobo, please see the new ref I found ---: -->
2622:As for relevance, the quip and connection to
2364:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDoherty2009 (
2345:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDoherty2009 (
2228:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDoherty2009 (
861:, which is where such detail belongs, IMO. --
717:. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p.Ā 194.
8:
882:
2428:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurns2009 (
2216:harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBurns2009 (
1855:, regardless of how obviously "racist" you
1755:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
640:with the goal of eventually getting it to
2328:
2235:
1773:For purposes of a Knowledge (XXG) article
2662:The Hitler comparison has been removed.
2377:
2375:
1424:positive review of any of her works (an
531:as prominent), and yet gets no mention.
2359:
2340:
2260:"March to Socialism - Capitalism dead?"
2223:
2204:
1615:Labeling the quote "racist" is obvious
1348:articles used as their own sources). --
2406:
2395:
2167:, with critics blaming her support of
1343:article also included in the ELs. The
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2423:
2211:
686:You missed the day for posting this.
7:
1514:The Garbage and Gravitas review was
2117:The quoted material in question ...
1004:, or the detail on her legacy from
883:VoBo's deletion of Huemer criticism
2286:"How About A Mini Atlas Shrugged?"
2012:is verifiable as her opinion is a
24:
2512:Infusion of quotes is POV pushing
1652:no one gets to them before I do.
1208:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)#Criticisms
2766:have already been alleviated by
1813:in the voice of the encyclopedia
1589:
1305:
29:
3295:(outent) So Vobo, what further
570:http://www.slate.com/id/2233966
1:
2124:financial crisis of 2007ā2010
1155:P2: Objectivist epistemology
522:22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
430:03:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
403:07:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
389:07:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
373:02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
338:23:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
257:21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
236:20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
222:10:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
208:02:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
193:21:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
1158:P2: Objectivist metaphysics
713:Younkins, Edward W. (2005).
2770:because he is proactive in
2683:(and her as a ref for each)
1167:P5: Objectivist aesthetics
3426:
3358:That sounds reasonable.
3006:The New Ayn Rand Companion
1777:reliable secondary sources
1587:
1303:
1288:00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
1241:00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
1220:21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
1180:19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
1124:19:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
1084:22:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
1049:00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
1018:00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
976:00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
953:23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
926:22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
910:19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
871:04:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
852:03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
838:01:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
774:13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
655:20:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
624:05:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
3410:16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
2843:02:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
2804:02:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
2738:21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
2707:20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
2601:15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
2578:20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2543:17:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2527:15:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2504:15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2489:17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
2469:16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
2028:based on its handling in
2024:material and give it the
1857:(or I or any editor here)
1579:19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
1164:P4: Objectivist politics
823:07:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
806:02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
759:19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
700:18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
680:18:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
610:18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
592:18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
557:03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
541:01:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
499:21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
453:15:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
3394:14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
3380:22:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3353:21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3337:13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3321:04:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3276:04:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3212:04:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3162:04:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3128:04:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3086:04:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3057:04:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
3030:04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
2992:04:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
2973:03:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
2945:03:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
2925:21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
2893:19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
2384:"And the Rand Played On"
2112:Criticism under LegacyĀ ?
2102:15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
2075:14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
2056:23:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
2042:14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
1998:06:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
1974:05:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
1950:00:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
1907:00:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
1889:23:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1843:23:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1827:23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1805:23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1767:23:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1748:23:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1732:23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1714:23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1690:22:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1675:22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1662:22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1646:18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
1543:21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1528:21:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1510:09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1495:08:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1477:06:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1457:22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1442:19:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1419:16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1403:07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1389:04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1374:03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1358:02:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1333:22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
3250:Chris Matthew Sciabarra
1161:P3: Objectivist ethics
2456:
1264:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
1191:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
1002:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
859:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
309:William Edward Hickman
307:) is trying to insert
263:Paul Ryan (politician)
2655:1964 Civil Rights Act
2284:(December 18, 2008).
1789:neutral point of view
1724:to other opinions. ā
1278:is supposed to do. --
1203:main article fixation
632:What needs to be done
42:of past discussions.
3246:The Illustrated Rand
3004:I added Gladstein's
2443:Garbage and Gravitas
2382:Benfer, Amy (2009).
2192:, opining that like
1300:Garbage and gravitas
1006:Objectivist movement
3299:concerns remain?
2674:"The Ayn Rand Cult"
2316:Wall Street Journal
2312:"Is Rand Relevant?"
1393:Agree with RL0919.
1272:Ayn Rand Sucks Eggs
1268:Ayn Rand#Philosophy
744:failed verification
484:ā¢ 2010-03-03 21:13Z
420:ā¢ 2010-02-27 23:48Z
356:ā¢ 2010-02-27 01:48Z
326:Friedrich Nietzsche
277:ā¢ 2010-02-23 03:40Z
150:that we could cite.
2405:Unknown parameter
2310:(March 14, 2009).
2148:Tea Party protests
1142:Philosophy Section
322:Tea Party movement
3408:
2680:
2671:
2666:
2661:
2648:
2643:
2634:
2626:, founder of the
2621:
2258:(March 3, 2009).
2073:
2030:secondary sources
1972:
1781:original research
1701:
1508:
1475:
1417:
1372:
809:
792:comment added by
690:was yesterday. --
670:comment added by
595:
578:comment added by
563:Amphetamine usage
485:
421:
357:
278:
103:
102:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3417:
3407:
3405:
3391:
3390:
3369:
3364:
3310:
3305:
3265:
3260:
3201:
3196:
3117:
3112:
3019:
3014:
2962:
2957:
2793:
2788:
2696:
2691:
2677:
2668:
2663:
2658:
2645:
2640:
2631:
2618:
2567:
2562:
2452:
2445:by Corey Robin,
2440:
2434:
2433:
2421:
2415:
2414:
2408:
2403:
2401:
2393:
2379:
2370:
2369:
2357:
2351:
2350:
2338:
2326:
2320:
2319:
2304:
2298:
2297:
2295:
2293:
2278:
2272:
2271:
2269:
2267:
2252:
2246:
2245:
2233:
2221:
2209:
2072:
2070:
2026:weight it is due
1971:
1969:
1939:
1934:
1878:
1873:
1817:reliable sources
1695:
1593:
1592:
1584:"Racist Remarks"
1507:
1505:
1474:
1472:
1430:The Fountainhead
1416:
1414:
1371:
1369:
1309:
1308:
941:Socratic Puzzles
808:
786:
748:
742:
734:
688:April Fools' Day
682:
642:featured article
594:
572:
478:
473:
436:The Fountainhead
418:
409:
354:
345:
275:
266:
254:
248:
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3425:
3424:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3401:
3388:
3387:
3365:
3360:
3306:
3301:
3261:
3256:
3197:
3192:
3113:
3108:
3015:
3010:
2958:
2953:
2932:
2789:
2784:
2692:
2687:
2628:Church of Satan
2563:
2558:
2514:
2455:
2441:
2437:
2427:
2422:
2418:
2404:
2394:
2381:
2380:
2373:
2363:
2358:
2354:
2344:
2332:
2327:
2323:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2291:
2289:
2280:
2279:
2275:
2265:
2263:
2262:. GlennBeck.com
2254:
2253:
2249:
2239:
2227:
2215:
2210:
2206:
2114:
2066:
1965:
1935:
1930:
1874:
1869:
1596:
1595:
1590:
1586:
1501:
1468:
1410:
1365:
1312:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1144:
885:
854:KD Tries Again
787:
782:
746:
740:
724:
712:
708:
665:
662:
634:
573:
565:
509:
476:
416:
352:
291:
273:
252:
246:
108:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3423:
3421:
3413:
3412:
3383:
3382:
3340:
3339:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3290:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3253:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3175:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3170:
3169:
3168:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3164:
3139:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3131:
3130:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3066:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3033:
3032:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2976:
2975:
2931:
2928:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2814:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2780:Wp:Idontlikeit
2772:WP:COLLABORATE
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2637:WP:NOTCENSORED
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2546:
2545:
2513:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2454:
2453:
2451:, May 20, 2010
2435:
2416:
2371:
2352:
2329:Gladstein 2009
2321:
2299:
2273:
2247:
2236:Gladstein 2009
2203:
2198:
2197:
2165:political left
2162:
2161:
2156:Will Wilkinson
2152:Cato Institute
2128:Atlas Shrugged
2113:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1910:
1909:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1846:
1845:
1830:
1829:
1808:
1807:
1751:
1750:
1735:
1734:
1702:
1693:
1692:
1665:
1664:
1634:
1633:
1621:
1588:
1585:
1582:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1444:
1341:New York Times
1304:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1223:
1222:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:KD Tries Again
1076:KD Tries Again
1074:"well-known").
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
958:
957:
956:
955:
929:
928:
884:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
844:KD Tries Again
781:
778:
777:
776:
722:
707:
704:
703:
702:
661:
658:
633:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
564:
561:
560:
559:
508:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
359:
358:
290:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
238:
180:
179:
169:
163:
160:Charles Murray
157:
151:
141:
135:
129:
119:
107:
104:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3422:
3411:
3406:
3404:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3392:
3381:
3377:
3373:
3370:
3368:
3363:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3350:
3346:
3338:
3334:
3330:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3318:
3314:
3311:
3309:
3304:
3298:
3277:
3273:
3269:
3266:
3264:
3259:
3254:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3202:
3200:
3195:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3163:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3141:
3140:
3129:
3125:
3121:
3118:
3116:
3111:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3087:
3083:
3079:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3058:
3054:
3050:
3045:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3041:
3040:
3039:
3038:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3020:
3018:
3013:
3007:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2974:
2970:
2966:
2963:
2961:
2956:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2930:Synth problem
2929:
2927:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2805:
2801:
2797:
2794:
2792:
2787:
2781:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2739:
2735:
2731:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2708:
2704:
2700:
2697:
2695:
2690:
2684:
2679:
2675:
2670:
2665:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2647:
2642:
2638:
2633:
2629:
2625:
2620:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2568:
2566:
2561:
2554:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2511:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2450:
2449:
2444:
2439:
2436:
2431:
2425:
2420:
2417:
2412:
2399:
2391:
2390:
2385:
2378:
2376:
2372:
2367:
2361:
2356:
2353:
2348:
2342:
2336:
2330:
2325:
2322:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2303:
2300:
2287:
2283:
2277:
2274:
2261:
2257:
2251:
2248:
2243:
2237:
2231:
2225:
2219:
2214:, pp.Ā 283ā284
2213:
2208:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2186:
2180:
2179:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2159:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2140:Rush Limbaugh
2137:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2119:
2118:
2111:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2069:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2044:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2010:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1975:
1970:
1968:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1940:
1938:
1933:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1895:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1872:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1831:
1828:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:verifiability
1782:
1778:
1774:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1736:
1733:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1699:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1670:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1600:
1583:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1506:
1504:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1473:
1471:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1415:
1413:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1370:
1368:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1299:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1276:summary style
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:CABlankenship
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1172:CABlankenship
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1141:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
998:summary style
995:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
977:
973:
969:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
954:
950:
946:
945:CABlankenship
942:
938:
933:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
902:CABlankenship
897:
893:
892:
888:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:Mbroderick271
791:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
756:
752:
745:
738:
737:relevant page
732:
729:
725:
723:0-7391-1076-4
720:
716:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
681:
677:
673:
669:
660:Personal life
659:
657:
656:
652:
648:
643:
639:
631:
625:
621:
617:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
571:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
542:
538:
534:
533:64.134.148.23
530:
524:
523:
519:
515:
506:
500:
496:
492:
487:
486:
483:
480:
479:
471:
468:
454:
450:
446:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
428:
423:
422:
419:
414:
413:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
355:
350:
349:
342:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
300:
296:
288:
276:
271:
270:
264:
260:
259:
258:
255:
249:
243:
239:
237:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
177:
173:
172:L. Neil Smith
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
154:Rush Limbaugh
152:
149:
145:
142:
139:
138:Penn Jillette
136:
133:
132:Henry Hazlitt
130:
127:
123:
122:James Clavell
120:
117:
114:
113:
112:
105:
99:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
18:Talk:Ayn Rand
3402:
3384:
3366:
3361:
3341:
3307:
3302:
3294:
3262:
3257:
3198:
3193:
3114:
3109:
3016:
3011:
3005:
2959:
2954:
2933:
2913:
2879:
2790:
2785:
2775:
2763:
2693:
2688:
2682:
2678:
2673:
2669:
2664:
2659:
2646:
2641:
2632:
2619:
2564:
2559:
2552:
2515:
2476:
2457:
2446:
2438:
2419:
2398:cite journal
2389:Mother Jones
2387:
2360:Doherty 2009
2355:
2341:Doherty 2009
2324:
2315:
2308:Brook, Yaron
2302:
2290:. Retrieved
2288:. Boortz.com
2282:Boortz, Neal
2276:
2264:. Retrieved
2250:
2224:Doherty 2009
2207:
2199:
2194:Adolf Hitler
2183:
2178:Mother Jones
2176:
2173:free markets
2160:
2150:, while the
2146:appeared at
2127:
2121:
2116:
2115:
2067:
2048:Corrector555
2045:
2017:
2013:
2006:
1990:Corrector555
1966:
1936:
1931:
1925:(the person)
1924:
1899:Corrector555
1875:
1870:
1856:
1835:Corrector555
1812:
1792:
1772:
1759:Corrector555
1752:
1740:Corrector555
1706:Corrector555
1694:
1666:
1635:
1605:
1599:Corrector555
1597:
1567:
1502:
1469:
1429:
1425:
1411:
1366:
1345:Cato Unbound
1344:
1340:
1315:
1313:
1271:
1259:
1198:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
993:
940:
936:
898:
894:
890:
889:
886:
815:TallNapoleon
783:
714:
709:
706:Bad citation
672:71.204.3.216
663:
635:
580:Mydogtrouble
566:
549:TallNapoleon
529:nowhere near
528:
525:
510:
482:Symbology101
477:Symbology101
475:
439:
435:
411:
381:TallNapoleon
347:
301:
292:
268:
241:
214:TallNapoleon
181:
109:
78:
43:
37:
2624:Anton LaVey
2551:Karbinski,
2362:, pp.Ā 51ā52
2256:Beck, Glenn
2226:, pp.Ā 51ā52
2169:selfishness
2136:Neal Boortz
1696:Moved from
788:āPreceding
666:āPreceding
638:peer review
574:āPreceding
247:Orange Mike
144:Anton Lavey
36:This is an
2477:The Nation
2448:The Nation
2424:Burns 2009
2212:Burns 2009
2185:The Nation
2132:Glenn Beck
2018:everything
2009:verifiable
1722:due weight
1698:Talk:Smyth
1428:review of
1316:The Nation
645:to say. --
289:Influences
242:influenced
116:Glenn Beck
106:Influenced
98:ArchiveĀ 45
90:ArchiveĀ 42
85:ArchiveĀ 41
79:ArchiveĀ 40
73:ArchiveĀ 39
68:ArchiveĀ 38
60:ArchiveĀ 35
3389:Skomorokh
2885:Karbinski
2730:Karbinski
2593:Karbinski
2519:Karbinski
2496:Karbinski
2461:Karbinski
2409:ignored (
2292:April 10,
2266:April 10,
2144:John Galt
2022:summarize
317:discussed
3345:UserVOBO
3297:WP:Synth
3154:UserVOBO
3078:UserVOBO
3049:UserVOBO
2984:UserVOBO
2937:UserVOBO
2917:UserVOBO
2649:Then be
2553:specific
2426:, p.Ā 283
2343:, pp.Ā 54
2331:, p.Ā 125
2318:. p.Ā A7.
2238:, p.Ā 125
2090:coatrack
1928:help.
1865:WP:Undue
1682:UserVOBO
1654:UserVOBO
1629:reliable
1609:contribs
1594:Resolved
1520:UserVOBO
1487:UserVOBO
1449:UserVOBO
1395:UserVOBO
1325:UserVOBO
1310:Resolved
1195:Ayn Rand
1116:UserVOBO
1041:UserVOBO
968:UserVOBO
918:UserVOBO
830:UserVOBO
802:contribs
790:unsigned
731:59147844
668:unsigned
588:contribs
576:unsigned
507:Academia
395:UserVOBO
365:UserVOBO
313:AlterNet
305:contribs
228:UserVOBO
200:UserVOBO
166:Ron Paul
3403:Snowded
3367:thoreau
3308:thoreau
3263:thoreau
3199:thoreau
3115:thoreau
3017:thoreau
2960:thoreau
2791:thoreau
2694:thoreau
2651:WP:Bold
2565:thoreau
2407:|month=
2190:fascism
2068:Snowded
2014:minimal
1967:Snowded
1937:thoreau
1921:WP:NPOV
1876:thoreau
1503:Snowded
1470:Snowded
1412:Snowded
1367:Snowded
1187:summary
295:LGagnon
244:you. --
39:archive
3329:RL0919
2835:RL0919
2768:RL0919
2535:RL0919
2481:RL0919
2094:RL0919
2034:RL0919
1917:WP:Pov
1797:RL0919
1638:RL0919
1625:WP:DUE
1620:etc.).
1571:RL0919
1535:RL0919
1483:WP:BRD
1464:WP:BRD
1434:RL0919
1381:RL0919
1350:RL0919
1280:RL0919
1260:should
1212:RL0919
1010:RL0919
863:RL0919
766:RL0919
751:RL0919
692:RL0919
647:RL0919
616:RL0919
602:RL0919
514:Jdlech
491:RL0919
445:RL0919
330:RL0919
185:RL0919
148:source
2200:Notes
1853:WP:OR
1821:Smyth
1726:Smyth
1669:Smyth
1516:added
412:BRIAN
348:BRIAN
269:BRIAN
16:<
3376:talk
3349:talk
3333:talk
3317:talk
3272:talk
3208:talk
3158:talk
3124:talk
3082:talk
3053:talk
3026:talk
2988:talk
2969:talk
2941:talk
2921:talk
2889:talk
2839:talk
2800:talk
2734:talk
2703:talk
2597:talk
2574:talk
2539:talk
2523:talk
2500:talk
2485:talk
2465:talk
2430:help
2411:help
2366:help
2347:help
2335:help
2294:2010
2268:2010
2242:help
2230:help
2218:help
2171:and
2138:and
2122:The
2098:talk
2052:talk
2038:talk
1994:talk
1946:talk
1903:talk
1885:talk
1867:.
1839:talk
1801:talk
1787:and
1763:talk
1744:talk
1710:talk
1686:talk
1658:talk
1642:talk
1603:talk
1575:talk
1539:talk
1524:talk
1491:talk
1453:talk
1438:talk
1399:talk
1385:talk
1354:talk
1329:talk
1321:edit
1284:talk
1237:talk
1216:talk
1176:talk
1120:talk
1080:talk
1045:talk
1014:talk
972:talk
949:talk
937:only
922:talk
906:talk
867:talk
848:talk
834:talk
819:talk
798:talk
770:talk
755:talk
735:The
728:OCLC
719:ISBN
696:talk
676:talk
651:talk
620:talk
606:talk
584:talk
553:talk
537:talk
518:talk
495:talk
470:Here
449:talk
427:Geni
417:0918
399:talk
385:talk
369:talk
353:0918
334:talk
299:talk
274:0918
265:. ā
253:Talk
232:talk
218:talk
204:talk
189:talk
176:here
126:this
3362:Red
3303:Red
3258:Red
3248:by
3194:Red
3110:Red
3012:Red
2955:Red
2881:OR.
2786:Red
2776:are
2689:Red
2560:Red
2154:'s
1932:Red
1871:Red
1793:not
1617:POV
1426:NYT
1199:and
1189:of
994:not
250:|
3378:)
3372:--
3351:)
3335:)
3319:)
3313:--
3274:)
3268:--
3210:)
3204:--
3160:)
3126:)
3120:--
3084:)
3055:)
3028:)
3022:--
2990:)
2971:)
2965:--
2943:)
2923:)
2891:)
2841:)
2802:)
2796:--
2736:)
2705:)
2699:--
2676:.
2657:.
2599:)
2576:)
2570:--
2541:)
2525:)
2502:)
2494:--
2487:)
2467:)
2402::
2400:}}
2396:{{
2386:.
2374:^
2339:;
2314:.
2234:;
2222:;
2134:,
2100:)
2064:--
2054:)
2040:)
1996:)
1948:)
1942:--
1905:)
1887:)
1881:--
1841:)
1803:)
1783:,
1765:)
1746:)
1712:)
1688:)
1660:)
1644:)
1577:)
1541:)
1526:)
1493:)
1455:)
1440:)
1401:)
1387:)
1363:--
1356:)
1331:)
1286:)
1239:)
1218:)
1178:)
1122:)
1082:)
1047:)
1016:)
974:)
951:)
924:)
908:)
869:)
850:)
836:)
821:)
804:)
800:ā¢
772:)
757:)
747:}}
741:{{
726:.
698:)
678:)
653:)
622:)
608:)
600:--
590:)
586:ā¢
555:)
539:)
520:)
497:)
451:)
440:do
401:)
387:)
371:)
336:)
234:)
220:)
206:)
191:)
183:--
94:ā
64:ā
3374:(
3347:(
3331:(
3315:(
3270:(
3206:(
3156:(
3122:(
3080:(
3051:(
3024:(
2986:(
2967:(
2939:(
2919:(
2887:(
2837:(
2798:(
2732:(
2701:(
2595:(
2572:(
2537:(
2521:(
2498:(
2483:(
2463:(
2432:)
2413:)
2392:.
2368:)
2349:)
2337:)
2296:.
2270:.
2244:)
2232:)
2220:)
2096:(
2050:(
2036:(
1992:(
1944:(
1901:(
1883:(
1837:(
1823:\
1799:(
1761:(
1742:(
1728:\
1708:(
1700::
1684:(
1671:\
1656:(
1640:(
1606:Ā·
1601:(
1573:(
1537:(
1522:(
1489:(
1451:(
1436:(
1397:(
1383:(
1352:(
1327:(
1282:(
1235:(
1214:(
1174:(
1118:(
1078:(
1043:(
1012:(
970:(
947:(
920:(
904:(
865:(
846:(
832:(
817:(
796:(
768:(
753:(
733:.
694:(
674:(
649:(
618:(
604:(
582:(
551:(
535:(
516:(
493:(
447:(
397:(
383:(
367:(
332:(
302:Ā·
297:(
230:(
216:(
202:(
187:(
178:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.