Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 47 - Knowledge (XXG)

829:)Some sources describe her as a philosopher, others as as an amateur philosopher, others specifically exclude her from that title. The quality and origin of the sources also counts. So the decision to exclude her from a major international dictionary of Philosophy is significant. Our job is to balance those sources and come up with some that reflects the balance of the sources. To do so is to demonstrate proper care. If you (Yworo) bother to check above you will see various suggestions including self professed. You can of course participate in that discussion or you can make silly threats and use childish abbreviations of user names. Your call ---- 959:

one perspective only. I am not wild about 'amateur' as it doesn't reflect the rejection of any claim both stated and defacto by significant authorities. So if it is to be in the lede there has to be an accurate summary of the position. So we need to explore options rather that write 'Period' at the end of our posts as if that somehow or other conferred them with special authority. We could just leave it out, or that say its controversial or say that she has been called, or called herself a philosopher. What we can't do is to assert a controversial title without qualification. ----

4729: 4527:"It is unfortunate that Ayn Rand’s ideas have not been taken seriously by many professional philosophers. I would like to suggest that readers view Rand’s potential contributions to philosophy as analogous to those of the German writers Goethe and Schiller. Neither of the latter was a professional philosopher—both were poets and playwrights—yet they did write philosophical essays that have been taken seriously by philosophers. Similarly, Ayn Rand was a novelist who wrote philosophical essays that should be taken seriously by philosophers." 3422:, The Virtue of Selfishness, Philosophy Who Needs It etc. Leave the Ad hominem arguments and stay on the sources that I present like the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers etc If she only had philosophical novels on her resume then you may had a point (even though you don't need to leave written text in order to be a philosopher, i.e Socrates) but she was both a novelist and a philosopher and she has the books to prove it, and philosophers that are objectivists, and sources that refer to her as a philosopher without adjectives -- 3310:

why she was dismissed: "Her views of past and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy, however, seem to have been based largely on summaries of philosophers' works and conversations with a few philosophers and with her young acolytes, themselves students of philosophy. Unfortunately, this did not stop her from commenting dismissively, and often contemptuously, on other philosophers' works." In other words, she criticized philosophers without a basic understanding of their views, which explains why the OCP calls her an amateur.

3576:"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers." "Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers. "Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!" "What's the problem?" said Lunkwill. "I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!" 2216:. Neutrality means following our sources, not avoiding those which might make her look good or bad. Your evaluation of the positive or negative connotations of these terms is wrong in the details, but it's wrong-headed to begin with. The unquestionable fact is that academic philosophers generally have a very low opinion of her qualifications. Is that "negative"? We don't care. We just report what our sources say, even if some of her fans are offended. 4314:

RFCs. While the guideline (not "policy") does suggest that the initiating editor may modify the question at the suggestion of others, they are under no compulsion to do so. You could have suggested a modified opening statement either privately or in a threaded discussion; instead you chose to edit war, cry foul when you were reverted, and respond to every contrary opinion with hostility and condescension. Please - lower the temperature a bit. --

31: 4622: 3875:– as an amateur philosopher. Thus we add "in early years she described herself as an amateur philosopher". If this quote (in the Journals article) is correct, then it satisfies the Less Filling faction because it uses that particular term, and the More Taste faction gets their way because the article does not go on to keep the "amateur" moniker as the be all and end all descriptive. – 2771:

of the sources say. To do so is not original research, the idea that every statement has to be directly sources is a common error of naive editors; if we followed that all articles would simply string together quotes. What we are not allowed to do is draw a conclusion not present in those sources. If you take that attitude vast swathes of the article have to be deleted. ----

3460:

The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers is an indispensible reference work for scholars as is also the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Britain Objectivism never took off and we can't take Oxford Companion book as our primary source. No offence to British, I'm not American, I'm European but that can't be the primary description, only a criticism --

1447:

other meaning is an opinion about the quality of the person's work: it means inept or lacking in skill. If Quinton (the author whose article you consistently cite as the source for "amateur") classified Rand as "amateur" because he evaluated her work as lacking, then that is his opinion of her and should be attributed as such in the article. (See the policy at

1174:"amateur philosopher" or the like. Another argument advanced that there are some people who are generally agreed to be philosophers because a system of thought or major achievement(s) in the field are attributed to them. Some also argued that exclusion from a single source does not constitute sufficient justification to begin using qualifiers. 577:, but if you write it in typical English, it gets even smaller. If you take out the duplication with this article, it's barely a stub. Still, it's a completely reasonable idea and you're welcome to try. Maybe you could find some material about how he reacted to the Branden affair; there's plenty from Barbara's POV but Frank had to have said 5037:

the most emphasis. In this case, the mainstream view is that Rand does not meet the standards for being considered a professional academic philosopher, which is why we're trying to find a nice way to say that she did work in philosophy but it's not directly comparable to what someone might expect from the unqualified term, "philosopher".

2390:- You don't have to be a card-carrying philosopher to be a philosopher, but in any case, Rand has a card - from the University of Petrograd. The addition of various qualifiers, invariably with negative connotation, is a blatant NPOV violation. To argue that using a neutral term is guilty of positive POV is disingenuous to say the least.-- 380:

incredibly well-cultivated. Meatpuppetry is not easily disproved since we don't have access to everyone's off-wiki communications, but I have not seen any positive evidence for it either. More realistically, it seems like some editors are positioning themselves to reject the likely outcome of the RFC. That's unfortunate. --

1953:"Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication" 2424:

are in disagreement, the correct course of action is to use the most neutral term in the lead (unqualified) and then detail the controversy, such as it is, later in the body. Your insistence that a non-neutral term is needed to reflect what your perceive as a majority POV is a severe misinterpretation of WP:NPOV.--

3199:

standards for professionalism and therefore gets to judge Rand an amateur. In short, your argument is based on a false premise -- that we can dismiss the consensus due to "hostility" -- so the conclusion doesn't matter. Not that it matters, regardless, as this RFC is invalid due to the biased opening statement.

4279:

sources which deny she is a philosopher altogether. But that would begin to make the RFC wording clumsy, and in any case the point has been made many many times in the discussion. I suspect a refusal to accept what is looking like a quite decisive outcome in this RFC will not be looked upon forbearingly. -

1067:

then we take the weight of sources into account. We also have sources which reject or qualify the word. You seem to be assuming that one position (that she is) should be in lede despite the fact that the designation is controversial. I think that puts you onto one side of the 'usual collection' ----

5088:

Miles you rejected previous compromises. You wanted a qualifier, you accepted novelist-philosopher as per Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers. This qualifier describes precisely what kind of philosopher she was, she is the novelist-philosopher par excellence. Κατ' εξοχήν novelist-Φιλόσοφος ;-)

4935:

Comments are not necessarily opinions one way or the other. By "not in harmony" I was pointing out that not all of the comments were of the same opinion. In my first response, I pointed out that there was no consensus - by which I meant that the original request had been objected to - but apparently,

4844:

The RfC was initiated 22:47, 24 September 2013, and 30 days from 24 September 2013 is 24 October 2013. Besides which, there are several other threads subsequent to that where disagreement exists; and on this thread there have been comments from five different people (myself included) which are not in

4568:

Rand could perhaps be described as "a socioeconomic polemicist" or "socioeconomic essayist", but to use the word "philosopher" is at best an undeserved courtesy (note that Sciabarra is described in his article as a "political theorist", not a "political philosopher"). Reading her work, and about her

4313:

which suggests that the RFC above would be invalid. The phrasing is at least close to neutral, certainly not blatantly and shockingly biased as your protestations imply. The suggested change you give above is fine, but only really a less wordy version of yworo's. I have seen many far more long-winded

4202:

may ask for help if I want. If I did want, I wouldn't ask you. Your "revision" was at best equally biased in the opposite direction (that's being extremely generous), and in my personal opinion was way way more intentionally slanted to get your desired result than is my rendition. (Especially since I

3459:

Stay on topic and leave the personal attacks out of this discussion. Many of her books stand alone without any knowledge of her novels, your source is British and just one, my sources are of high quality and American like Ayn Rand was and that's the place where she developed her philosophy. As I said

3365:

which is an indispensible reference work for scholars. Nowhere in this source is she mentioned as an amateur philosopher or with any other kind adjective. In fact it says "Peikoff is the preeminent interpreter of the ideas of the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand." pp 1889 novelist is no adjective, it is

3309:

In the SEP bio that everyone's always pointing at, it says, "Contemporary philosophers, by and large, returned the compliment by dismissing her work contemptuously, often on the basis of hearsay or cursory reading." Note that this is not restricted to the UK. The pair of sentences before that explain

3238:

What's silly is that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says outright that academia is hostile towards her, but you want us to ignore that. She's not an unqualified philosopher because, according to philosophers, she doesn't have the training or equivalent knowledge. Instead, she is acknowledged

3095:

You should know by now that bald conclusions are unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, your unsupported statement just means you didn't understand what I said. If you have a concrete argument, rather than an unexplained rejection, you're still free to share it. In its absence, I don't know what else to

2727:

Pointless if you don't want to deal with evidence maybe. Your suspicion is a complete nonsense if you do the most basic research on some of the very minor figures included in the major dictionaries of Philosophy. The fact she is excluded and adversely commented on even by objectivists in respect of

2423:

Original research!! How, might I ask? There are numerous high-quality sources which use the term without qualification, and numerous more which verify her education. Yes, there are other high quality sources which explicitly disagree with that view. In the case of numerous, high-quality sources which

1534:

This view is refuted by the problem of the amateur gynecologist. If we wait until the body to mention that he's not actually a trained, licensed gynecologist, we mislead the many people who never make it out of the lede. The term, without qualifiers, is not accurate, so we have to use qualifiers from

1244:

If I call someone an amateur gynecologist, I'm not sharing my opinion of them, I'm qualifying the designation to highlight the fact that they're not actually licensed to practice medicine. In the same way, if we call Ayn Rand a philosopher without qualifications, we would be implying that she has the

1216:

Ayn Rand is described by multiple reliable sources as a "philosopher". Some, but not all, of these sources qualify this by adding opinions such as "amateur", "self-styled", etc. Is it appropriate to include any of these opinions in the lead sentence, or should they rather be discussed and compared in

958:

IN fact a whole bunch of major sources where she should be mentioned if she was considered a philosopher ignore her completely. You can't say that if there is one source that says something that established it when calling her a philosopher is controversial. That would mean that the lede was taking

4969:

Despite Yworo's, uhm, inflexibility, I think the rest of us are actually making some headway towards consensus. The key may be in avoiding her status as a "philosopher" and instead focusing on her output, which consisted of "philosophical novels and essays". The former gets a lot of heat because one

4800:

What exactly is the rush? Putting on my admin hat for a moment, I would say two things: 1) the RFC results so far favor a particular conclusion but are not what I would call "snowy", so (assuming I were an uninvolved party) I would not close it early; and 2) as long as the RFC is still open, I would

3741:

With all due respect, you are showing your ignorance on the facts. "Philosophical essayist" is no more a "special term" than "amateur philosopher", and has a least as much support when applied to Rand. More to the point, it may be a way out of the current debate over "amateur". Your comments are out

3482:

to suggest that Rand was loved by the American philosophical establishment while Britain spurned her. Everywhere around the world, professional philosophers mostly ignore Rand, and when they don't, they most typically express extreme unhappiness with her. I'm not American, either, and I can tell you

3436:

You'd think that a single-purpose account like yours would at least be good at that one purpose, but you keep making the same mistakes. Mostly, you just don't read. As the SDP article points out, her essays did not stand alone; they quoted from and required knowledge of her novels. Even when writing

3047:

Great response, so you are saying that you would call me stupid but that would be a personal attack so you won't call me stupid. In effect you did call me stupid. And you continue to deny you plainly stated words, plus you have used that same reasoning several times against other editors. I would

2770:

If you go back into the history, her exclusion from the Oxford companion, the statement that she had not read Kant, the major objectivist philosopher who questioned her ability. The talk pages of this example a littered with examples over the years. Given that we have to summarise what the weight

2539:

philosopher is directly contradicted by our sources, and I don't just mean OCP. We've seen her philosophical status qualified with a variety of terms, from "popular" to "self-avowed" and, yes, even "amateur". With all this, we can't just call her a philosopher because it would be misleading. We have

2248:

As I explained in the stuff you erased, this is not an opinion, it's a qualification. If I say someone is a Russian author, the "Russian" is a qualification of "author", so that you don't mistakenly assume they wrote in English. It's a fact, though, not any sort of opinion. Likewise, we have to call

1173:

and set an unnecessarily negative tone. They also argued that aspects of this controversy are better handled in the body, rather than in the lead, and that not only are there are indeed many sources that describe Rand as a philosopher (without any qualification), but few that actually use the terms

4998:

You know we can't do that because it's just not true and we know that because our sources contradict it. She's not a philosopher, pure and simple. At most, she's a philosopher, impure and complex. Her status as a philosopher must be qualified to avoid lying to the readers, who would otherwise think

4120:

your biased opening statement to be changed? Well, you can either have your cake or eat it. If you change the statement to something neutral, then you might get enough people unfamiliar with the issue to support you, or you might not, but the results would be binding for a time. But if you leave it

3474:

I looked it up: I'm allowed to mention that you're an SPA; it's not a personal attack. And I'm allowed to criticize your argument for being so weak; also impersonal. You don't deny what I said about Socrates being excluded, so you're the one ignoring the points being made. Does that mean you accept

2329:

place where "amateur" is a subset of "popular". In standard usage the two don't mean the same thing, so unless someone specifically references the OCP article or gives a similar explanation to it, there is no reason to think they mean "amateur" when they say "popular". "Popular philosopher" in most

1760:

The second edition identifies Rand as an amateur philosopher, and it goes out of its way to say that it rejected an article on Rand, along with one on "marital act", because they "did not penetrate fortress of philosophical principle". Sounds pretty clear; she's not a philosopher in general, she's

1431:

How about that's not what our sources say about Rand so we have to go with our sources. Making stuff out of wood, even if you get paid for it, doesn't mean you work at the level that professional carpenters do. Professional carpenters get to evaluate your work and decide if they also consider you a

706:

I offered up a compromise. It just wasn't good enough. Agreed on page protection until disputes are resolved. I want to emphasize that I have not engaged in, nor do I intend to engage in any edit wars. Nonetheless, I cannot in good conscience walk away from what I perceive to be a violation of NPOV

107:

Anyone looking at the history of this article will find a series of concerted meat puppetry sites as well as the normal set of socks. Everytime there is a controversy on the page you can guarantee that there will be new pro-Rand SPA accounts created. I'm not sure if there is a wikipedia procedure

5036:

and the rest. They all say that sources are unequal, with tertiary sources worth more than secondary, and primary being risky. More than that, we don't look at a flat majority and ignore the rest. Instead, we seek out the sources which tell us what the mainstream view is and make sure that's given

4553:

If we want to judge Rand by the same standard as Goethe --their bodies of work-- then Rand is no philosopher at all. Goethe was a polymath and, as with artists then and now, his wide-ranging body of work was his credential. Rand really has no such body of work; she was to philosophy what Richard

3279:

As for Hitler, look at what it says about him as a painter. He was a "professional" in that he sold a few paintings, but he was ruled as an amateur by the organization capable of giving him professional status. Ayn Rand was a philosopher the way Hitler was a painter; they both made stuff, sold it,

2937:

You are mistaken: that is not my argument. The OCP is very clear on the possibility of someone lacking a degree but not being an amateur. I suggest you read the OCP article and re-read what I've been saying, because you're showing a lack of understanding. It's not that we disagree, but that you're

2696:

But that is the point, she is ignored because nearly all serious philosophers who even look at her realise quickly that she wasn't one. Its far from clear that she even read Kant despite criticising him. We now have specific evidence of rejection as well as de factor so its perverse to deny it.

2187:

source for "amateur", and it doesn't even use the specific phrase "amateur philosopher". "Popular" is used in a number of sources but could be interpreted as positive POV. Another phrase used somewhat commonly is "public philosopher", but this doesn't seem to offer any information beyond the plain

2182:

is my first choice, simply because it is clear from the past weeks of debate that any qualifier will be perceived as POV by some group of people. This was also the stable wording for several years before the current dispute. I had proposed "non-academic" as a neutral qualifier that is supported by

1898:

Your comments are just an excuse for engaging in original research. It simply isn't appropriate to call someone an "amateur philosopher" if there is no source that actually uses that expression to describe her. I will be changing my vote to exclude the qualifiers from the lead - and I thank RL0919

1184:

to describe Rand, which is a term that indeed sends a fairly clear, negative message about the quality of her work. Evidence that this was a common manner to describe Rand was not adequately demonstrated. Furthermore, removal from a single compendium of philosophers does not seem to constitute a

1082:

Sorry, but that's not acceptable reasoning. The absence of a particular person from an encyclopedia or dictionary of philosophy doesn't mean that the person in question isn't a philosopher - it may mean that they are a philosopher, but that the editor or editors of the work didn't consider them an

4680:

Having said this, I'm not particularly fond of "untrained", even though I'm the one who came up with it as an attempt to compromise. For one thing, the fact that she has any academic exposure, however minor, gives people like Yworo something to complain about. I also considered "undertrained" and

2712:

It's pointless to debate why most philosophers don't mention Rand (though I suspect most philosophers pay little attention to anyone, besides a handful of recognized major figures, outside their own specialities). The more important issue is that, despite assertions to the contrary, there doesn't

1703:

We can't use "self-styled" - it's a blatantly biased, unencyclopedic term. It wouldn't be NPOV to use it in the lead, just as it wouldn't be NPOV to use a term like "fraudulent so-called philosopher", even if it did appear in a reliable source. Regarding the Oxford Companion, what edition are you

1446:

That's interesting. "Amateur" has more than one meaning. One of them is purely factual: in that meaning, the person pursues an avocation without pay or professional position. This is somewhat true of Rand (she did get paid for her philosophical writings, but did not have any formal position). The

1066:

Oh my God, more 'periods' and the odd swear word. If someone is a philosopher one would expect to find him or her in the major dictionaries and encyclopaedias on the subject. Its a bit like pseudo-science articles. If a few sources say its objective but the majority of sources simply ignore it

4916:

were the one who stated that you had an opinion: "comments from five different people (myself included) which are not in harmony". I would have had no idea if you hadn't mentioned it. And yes, now that you mention it, I think it would be good policy for admins not to respond to reopened requests

4862:

If that's true, you are "involved" and should be letting another admin respond to this. Sorry, reopening. Should be handled by an uninvolved admin, and if you were an admin who had volunteered for recall, I'd be asking you to exercise it based on this admitted violation of the standard that only

4278:

Personally, I think it is an overreaction to suggest the question is biased. Certainly not so biased as to invalidate the RFC, or influence it's outcome in any way. It is factually accurate - "some but not all". If you wanted to be really really balanced, you might add that there also exist some

2310:

The problem with "popular" is that it's doubly-ambiguous, not that it's positive or negative. It's ambiguous in that the OCP offers three definitions, applying only one to Rand. It's more ambiguous because the common meaning is that she's popular, which is uncontested but also irrelevant to this

2263:

If we don't want anyone to mistake her for an academic philosopher, the most direct qualifier to use would be "non-academic". That's undoubtedly neutral, since it doesn't have the alternate negative meaning of "inept" (as "amateur" does). It is also used to describe Rand in several peer-reviewed

1868:

No, it does not. The entry is titled "popular philosophy", which the author breaks into three subgroups, one of which is "amateur philosophy". In the discussion of this subgroup, the author states, "In the twentieth century amateur systems increasingly failed to find their way into print..." The

1402:

That's like saying that if I took woodworking for shop in primary school, I'm a carpenter. We don't get to do such original research; we have to trust our sources when they say she's not trained at the level expected for a professional. If they call her an amateur -- and they do -- then we must.

4676:

FWIW, Yworo is factually wrong. Rand took a couple of undergrad classes, but she was by no means a trained philosopher. She has no degree in philosophy, and we have sources calling her self-styled, self-professed and amateur. Yworo quotes a fan site, but the more neutral Standford Dictionary of

3213:

That's just silly. You admit hostility plays a role yet say we should ignore that? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The New York Times call her a philosopher, a chair at Austin studies her philosophy, there are dozens of books written on her philosophy, her books are shelved in the

4583:

We definitely have sources that speak of her polemical writings. In the general public, she is best known for her political philosophy, which is to say her support for what everyone but her called libertarianism -- and not for her insights into epistemology. In academia, the situation is often

3924:

Yworo, if I were you, I would simply accept the rewording of the rfc. There's not much point in complaining about whether it is "permitted" for someone to alter the wording, if altering the wording has the effect of making the rfc more neutral. Why insist on a slanted wording, when it could be

3294:

There is no consensus by the "pros", there are "professional" philosophers in the USA that consider her a philosopher. The Standford Encyclopedia of philosophy is a highly respected source and refers to her as a philosopher without adjectives. At best you could write in a paragraph in the lead

3062:

Bringing this back to the topic, I'm gonna point out your error. No amateur philosopher has a degree in Philosophy, but not everyone lacking such a degree is an amateur. Rather, some people have equivalent knowledge, so they're not amateurs regardless of education. Rand, however, is an amateur

2280:

No, non-academic is incomplete. The OCP article mentions non-academic philosophers who are nonetheless not counted as amateurs, but counts Rand as an amateur. As for the negative connotation, so what? Even if it's true, it doesn't matter; the negative connotations are accurate according to our

379:

Best I can tell, there are only two editors participating in the RFC who have accounts less than three months old or less than 1000 edits, and those two are on opposite sides of the argument. Most participants have accounts over 3 years old with 10,000+ edits. If these are socks, then they are

181:

I'm ok, but your argument just fell apart. The article not only limits her philosophy with a qualifying term -- "novelist-philosopher" -- but it explains exactly what it means: "Rand worked primarily as a novelist and her philosophy is found in a variety of places, including novels, essays and

3492:

So, in the end, you didn't even tackle some of my points but I refuted everything you said. Try not to take this as a personal attack, but for someone whose sole purpose on Knowledge (XXG) is to defend Rand, you could do a lot better. For one thing, you could actually address your opponents'

3198:

Hostility is not a disqualifier. Consider that an article on Creationism is going to describe the scientific consensus even though it's "hostile" towards the subject. It is a simple fact that Rand is not highly valued within academic philosophy, and yet it's academic philosophy that sets the

4712:

Is it true that I'm the only editor pushing for qualifying what type of philosopher she is in the lede? No, it is not, so you lied. Is it true that I am the only editor who has restored such qualifications in the article? No, it is not, so you lied. Is it true that you lied? Yes, yes it is.

657:

for the article to be full-protected again, since it appears folks just can't let the RFC play out. At least one editor is already at 3RR and a couple of others are at 2RR. Also, anyone who perhaps missed the notice at the top of this talk page should be advised that this page is subject to

3257:

if the "Freaking Adolf Hitler gets an opening sentence that describes him in neutral terms. --RL0919" I don't see why Ayn Rand can't get a neutral opening. In the Standford encyclopedia and other encyclopedias gets a neutral opening she must get a neutral opening in the wikipedia too. Some

553:

I noticed that Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's husband, does not have his own article on him. (However, he does on Simple English Knowledge (XXG), which is interesting.) Even if his acting career was not significant enough to grant him a separate article, he did illustrate the original cover of

4294:

Personally, what we think personally is a lot less important than what policy says, and policy says this is a fake RFC. Read the policy and see for yourself. There's a reason why RFC's require a neutral framing: when they're biased, we get meaningless results. It doesn't help that so many

2295:

Source. You keep citing one and referring to it with the plural. It's interesting how some folks are OK with a negative connotation supported by one source, but a term used by many more sources ("popular philosopher") is unacceptable to them because it might be interpreted with a positive

471:

However we frame the RfC it is absurd to insist that the editors responding are confused, tricked, or not making their informed opinions perfectly clear. I am reminded of a friend from junior high who would invite us over to play scrabble, then overturn the board when loss was inevitable.

1958:

Like I said, you can't argue that this summary changes the meaning, unless you can somehow explain how a professional philosopher makes an amateur philosophy. You can't, of course, so you're misinterpreting policy to avoid accepting what our source say. This makes you opinion incorrect.

127:

The RFC is a huge joke because of the biased opening, and the comments are mostly "I love Rand so let's not say anything bad about her, no matter what our sources say". Nobody but nobody has come up with any sort of reasonable basis for calling her a philosopher without qualifications.

3110:

Then why do you continue to make them? I am not sure why you continue to deny what you have said. It does you no good to refuse to accept your own words. That you are unable to understand your own words is no fault of mine. In the future don't make arguments you don't understand.

4587:

It would not be at all difficult to find sources calling her a narcissist, both in the casual and clinical sense. Keep in mind that her close associate (read: ex-lover) Nathaniel Branden has been instrumental in the pro-narcissism "self-esteem" movement in psychiatry, so it all fits

2408:

Thank you for your original research, but that "card" was viewed and rejected by the experts, so we have to go with their view, not yours. Calling her "amateur" is factual. If you dislike the term itself, come up with a better one. People have tried: "self-professed", "self-avowed".

353:

It doesn't matter, because the RFC is framed dishonestly with a deeply biased opening statement, so it's worthless. It doesn't help that the comments are a repetition of "But I like her!", and do not address policy and sources. Nobody will be bound by the results of this fake RFC.

4203:

don't actually give a rat's ass about Rand, I just saw a sitation where I believe that other editors were being repeatedly browbeaten by a couple of forceful personalities using bad arguments and mostly intimidation. Not naming any names, but if the shoe fits, feel free to yowl!)

167:. For example in page 1889 she is called novelist-philosopher, nowhere does she have an adjective. You think that novelist-philosopher is a type of philosopher and not two vocations? Fine by me. You wanted the exact type of philosopher she was, there you have it. Are we ok now? -- 1014:. Not permitted. Period. RFC opened below on the topic. Let's get some real biographers in here instead of the usual collection of pro- and anti-Rand people sniping at each other. From Knowledge (XXG) POV, it's only "controversial" if you have one or more reliable sources that 3444:

sources call her a philosopher; we need to reflect all of our sources, and give more weight to higher-quality ones. We can't call her a philosopher because we have too many sources that qualify this term in various ways. That's the bottom line argument that you cannot refute.

486:

Sound like you're talking about Yworo's refusal to allow his hugely biased and factually inaccurate opening statement to be corrected, although comparing him to a child is probably a personal attack on your part. And if framing didn't work, millions wouldn't be spent on it.

4052:

Yworo is behaving foolishly. He was obviously biased in how he framed the rfc, and now he can't or won't admit this. His comments really aren't worthy of any further reply - and I do have better things to do than to discuss this with him. (Maybe he should be reminded about

2681:

How do you know this? Did someone survey philosophers worldwide, to find out what they think of Rand? I would be surprised if most philosophers had expressed any opinion about her at all. Some philosophers outside the Anglo-Saxon world probably haven't even heard of her.

1461:." Such an opinion should not go into the basic description of the person, although if it were shared by enough sources (more than one actual, explicit source, not just referring to one source as "our sources"), then it might be mentioned somewhere later in the lead. -- 4677:

Philosophy says: "She majored in history, but the social science program in which she was enrolled at Petrograd State University included philosophy, law, and philology." She then went on to attend the State Institute for Cinematography, you know, like any philosopher.

2480:

I'll spell my reasoning out for you: I find the sources sufficiently reliable to verify Ayn Rand's unqualified status as a philosopher.I don't think I've ever had an editor so barefacedly refuse to engage - please Miles, take a step back and consider your behaviour.

3486:

Quinton used "amateur" matter-of-factly, not simply as an insult. He didn't single her out as being bad, he just recognized that her work wasn't up to professional standards, yet it got published. We have other sources admitting this even while defending her (see

4238:

Then we could have each given our arguments and debated them on neutral terms. An RFC like that would actually count for something and I would abide by its results, however grudgingly. Your "RFC" is halfway between an insult and a joke, and your insistence on

691:

Nothing like an RfC to bring a bit of order out of chaos. I am wondering how long it will take the regular editors to propose actual workable third and fourth compromise options, which seems to have eluded them in spite of such a lengthy prior discussion.

773:

That's simply not true. Many sources give one of her professions as "philospher". That's not an opinion, it's a description. You seem to be a bit misguided about what the lead sentence is for. By the way, I am not a fan of Rand's. But if any number of

3003:

I don't see how to answer this without, in effect, calling you stupid, so let's move the focus away from your error and back to the topic at hand. Regardless of what you imagined my argument to be, it's not what you said. Where does that leave you?

1689:, which is over a thousand pages long and has plenty of room for a paragraph or two on her, yet the editor stated that he chose not to include her. We cannot call her, without qualification, a philosopher. We have to use "amateur" or "self-styled". 5173:

I'm the one who added that word and I stand by its accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a lot of pressure from people whose love for Rand exceeds their understanding (or loyalty to) Knowledge (XXG) policy. There's no other way to say it than that.

5051:

Sorry, Miles, you are excluding sources based on your particular presuppositions and opinions. Everyone can see it. Please remember that compromise is required to achieve consensus. You seem to me to be being fairly uncompromising, and it's not

2348:

That's why it's misleading: she's not a trained professional who writes for a general audience. She's someone who bypassed the training, bypassed writing for academia and wrote only for the general audience. That's what makes her an amateur.

1512:. Discussion about ranges of opinions of a biographical subject belong in the article body. No one of several conflicting opinions should be arbitrarily be chosen to qualify a profession in the lead sentence. That is a direct violation of 3998:

Neither the original wording nor the revised were neutral. They just slant in different directions. In theory it should be worded neutrally, but in my experience it doesn't make much difference what the slant is as long as it is obvious.

2330:

cases is going to mean "philosopher who writes for a general, non-specialist audience". (In a few cases regarding Rand it clearly means "she's popular" because the text is explicit about it.) That person might or might not be an amateur.

782:. The correct way to do this is to detail the range of opinions in the body of the article along with who holds each opinion. If this is done, then the word "philosopher" can be qualified by "according to some sources". We don't pick the 4970:

side sees any qualifier as an insult while the other sees the lack as a lie. But by focusing on the paper, not the person, we might get past this. I'm certainly willing to compromise to make the article better and end this bickering.

3770:

And she's not a philosopher, at least not a regular one, right? But this actually sidesteps the problem. Whether she's qualified as popular, amateur, non-academic or whatever, nobody denies that she wrote philosophical essays.

1883:

You tried this before, and I asked you what sort of philosopher makes an amateur philosophy. You were unable to come up with any way to avoid the obvious answer: an amateur philosopher. Basic English comprehension is required.

4121:

biased, then RFC as a whole is compromised and therefore invalid. Nobody has to follow an RFC that's based on a biased opening statement, and nobody will. So you decide which way you want it, but you can't have it both ways.

2751:

that "her status as a philosopher is controversial"? Because that's what Knowledge (XXG) needs if you want to present it as "controversial". You can't just say "the sources disagree" if the only way you know that is by doing

1557:- It all depends. Some terms ("self professed", or "self styled") are so obviously biased that we couldn't use them. In other cases, such as "amateur", they might be acceptable, but it depends on exactly what the sources say. 4155:

It would be refreshing (and helpful) to see actual suggestions for a revised RfC statement. Consider, this is a debate about the best way to resolve another debate. To complicate matters we see violations of NPA and AGF. –

5013:

Nonsense, of course we can do it. If most sources that deal with the question of Rand's being a philosopher call her a philosopher, then a philosopher she is. A small number of sources saying otherwise doesn't negate that.

4025:

and also means that the various respondents are responding to different questions, queering the outcome. Nobody gets to change other people's comments, even an RfC, even if they think it is "non-neutral". Sheesh. Idiots.

1775:

I wouldn't use Scruton as an example because, while he doesn't have a biographical article, he is referenced as a source over half a dozen times. Rand is mentioned twice, both times dismissively, and never as a source.

240:

So, sure, it does look like there's a lot of fakery, but even if it wasn't the case, they still lose. Well, unless they can trick some admin into doing a quick count and not looking at the details. But that wouldn't be

2988:

Not sure how it is possible to misunderstand when you made them so clearly. In the future don't make arguments that you can't defend without saying that the other party didn't understand your porly written argument.

3893:

Unfortunately, while she recognized that she started as an amateur, she was convinced that she'd become trained herself out of it. Hwoever, According to Quinton, she didn't stop being an amateur until 1982-06-03.

3483:

that my non-American intro-to-philosophy professor immediately shut down the poor Objectivist who spoke up and supported Rand. This is normal! Whatever merit her work had, it has not made much headway in academia.

3295:

section that most of the British "pros" consider her as an amateur philosopher. The lead should start with a NPOV description like "Ayn Rand was an American novelist, playwright, an essayist and a philosopher" --

800:

I have no objection, in principle, to calling Rand an amateur philosopher, but if you look you'll probably find that most sources do indeed simply call her a "philosopher." So it's not much use to insist that she

4085:

The revision history of this talk page shows that Yworo directed an obscene comment at me, then immediately removed it. This is unambiguous vandalism. I hope that the user won't continue such infantile behavior.

3276:

is expected to "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Your attempt to bury the controversy is part of a pattern of consistent bias on your part, and it is counterproductive.

2296:

connotation. Anyhow, if a source (or sources where multiple exist) expresses an opinion about the quality of Rand's work, then it needs to be characterized as such rather than presented as an undisputed fact. --

4229:

By no means was your opening statement brief and neutral, so what you've created is an RFC in name only, and no more binding than any other fraud. Based on the examples, you should have written something like:

3032:

You invited me to personally attack you, but I declined. You have successfully attacked an argument I never made, then fallen flat on your face when the straw-manning was pointed out. Is this your standard MO?

2116:

Thank you for your original research, but it's irrelevant. The ARS is a group of actual philosophers, but Ayn Rand is their inspiration, not a member. Think this through and follow our sources, not your heart.

1685:- We have many sources which qualify her brand of philosophy as "popular", "amateur", "self-styled" and "self-professed", while others intentionally exclude her from the list of philosophers. This includes the 4554:

Feynman was to art: both produced a small body of work that was narrow in scope and not of high quality when judged dispassionately, but is nevertheless appreciated by those with an emotional reason to do so.

1083:

important enough philosopher to be worth including. In any case, the simple absence of someone's name from such works doesn't cancel out statements by other reliable sources that the person is a philosopher.

528:

I've played a role in the article being locked down so I apologize for the inconvenience that it's caused you. It's absolutely reasonable to give the new "Anthem" staging a sentence, perhaps near the end of

273:

Another way of putting this: 1. If the facts are against you, you pound on the law. 2. If the law is against you, you pound on the facts. 3. If the facts and law are against you, you pound on the table. –

2183:

several sources, but apparently some think this is somehow too flattering. "Amateur" and "self-styled" are obviously negative POV and only rarely used in sources -- note that one editor keeps referencing

1869:

author then lists some exceptions, one of which is "Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." The exact phrase "amateur philosopher" is not used in the article to describe anyone. --

4569:

life, strongly suggests to me, a clinical psychologist, that she was little more than a borderline-diagnosable opportunistic narcissist who realized she could make money appealing to others of her kind.

1913:

There's no original research in understanding basic English. Someone who makes an amateur philosophy is an amateur philosopher. This is uncontroversial and obvious, but RL0919 put his little spin on it.

259:

The Rule of Law: 1. If the facts are against you, argue the law. 2. If the law is against you, argue the facts. 3. If the facts and the law are against you, start a new thread with vague accusations.

4563:. It's a good description. I don't care for his work, but one comes away from it with the feeling that he spent a lot of time thinking deeply, which is pretty much the definition of a philosopher. 1189:. There were also several compromises/suggestions on the table that offered to describe this controversy differently in the lead, but were not discussed sufficiently for the purposes of consensus. 399:

that nobody is allowed to fix the biased statement and has edit-warred to keep it (and the biased subject line) intact. No matter what comes out of it, it does not represent any sort of consensus.

1185:

need to qualify the term. Lastly, because there are some sources that present objections to Rand as a philosopher, it is of course recommended that these be described in the body with respect to

2974:

Well, I'm sorry you misunderstood, but my words don't mean what you'd like them to. You should learn to read more carefully, and maybe you should ask questions instead of jumping to assumptions.

2667:

Philosophers overwhelmingly rejected her philosophy as preposterous. Many RS qualify her as an "amateur" or "popular" philosopher. She held no academic position or formal training in philosophy.

131:

I don't see any comment like "I love Rand" what I see is comments like mine with sources like the Dictionary of American Philosophers that call Ayn Rand a philosopher without any adjectives. --

4673:

I object to this, of course. While I don't think "untrained" is the ideal word, calling her a philosopher without qualifying it appropriately would violate policy by going against our sources.

108:

for a mass check on sock puppets or a bad on newly created editors taking part on RfCs etc but if there is we need it, if not it should be created. If any passing admin has any ideas ....----

513:

Altho the main article may still be in dispute, I truly hope the dominant editors of Knowledge (XXG) will allow some mention of the play, "Anthem", opening in New York in September 2013.

182:

monographs, but she never wrote a step-by-step explanation of her philosophy as a whole". In other words, she's not a novelist/philosopher, which is someone who is both; she's a philosopher

4538:

This is a fine example of someone supporting Rand while still admitting she's not a professional philosopher. She was some sort of philosopher, but not a straight-up one, as this confirms.

4400:

The only thing that makes an RfC valid is its adherence to the rules. This one violated them from the start, so being "closed" by a non-admin who doesn't appear to understand the basics of

844:

Does any source other than the Oxford Companion to Philosophy call Rand an amateur philosopher? The other terms that have been proposed, including 'self-professed', are quite unacceptable.

5072:

Per policy, I don't reject, I prioritize. Sources like the OCP are worth a dozen lesser sources. As for your intimations and personal slights, I find them insulting and counterproductive.

4404:

carries no weight. On the positive side, it does end the farce, since we no longer have to pretend to have an RfC. On the negative, you're going to claim victory and continue to edit war.

3440:

I've pointed out a few times that the OCP article directly excludes ancient philosophers from amateur status, but you keep bringing up Socrates as if he matters. It also doesn't matter if

3327:

We have a deal then :) Start the lede with the NPOV "Ayn Rand was an American novelist, playwright, an essayist and a philosopher" and then put on your own words and sources this fact. --

612: 1744:

as well. He is well known as a philosopher, and had been included in the first edition. Obviously one can't use exclusion from that volume as evidence that someone isn't a philosopher.

3239:

as an amateur in the field. It is our job to reflect our sources, and if they're dismissive and hostile towards her, so be it. We are not their censors. Why don't you go complain that

1152:

an evaluation of policy-based arguments, so I sense that this is actually a request to consider equally the weight of a minority and majority view here. So, allow me to do just that.

339:

Checking the user contribs, I spot only one blatant SPA on the RFC thread above. By all means point it out, but it does not appear that puppets are seriously influencing the debate. --

3785:

The point is that calling someone a "philosophical essayist" cannot mean anything different from calling them a "philosopher." So there is no possible advantage to using such a term.

2644:

She's known for her Objectivism, but not for being a proper philosopher. We call her an "amateur" because that's the neutral, accurate term. It doesn't matter if it offends her fans.

124:

I'm sure you're right, but it shouldn't make any difference. No matter how many "different" people repeat the same view, none of them have the weight of policy and facts behind them.

1790:

What exactly does it say about her? Could you please quote the relevant passages? (I looked at your comments above, but there weren't any direct quotations, as far as I could see).

924:. So, your argument is simply a bad one that ignores several different policies and guidelines about sourcing and how to deal with ranges of opinion when sources differ. Including 3727:. You won't find 1/100th the number of sources calling her a "philosophical essayist" than you will denying she's a philosopher, let alone the sources calling her a philosopher. 3525:

Excuse me, but I'm going to have to insist that you redact your personal attack. I am not a bigot. I was arguing against the notion that we should exclude non-American sources.

4698:

Agreed with Yworo, although I think snow closing the RfC and opening the article is a better solution, with blocks for further disruption by the sole editor here causing it.

413:

You may not believe it represents any sort of consensus, however it does. Just becuase you don't like the results does not invalidate the process. You may want to drop the

4328:

I'm not going to take responsibility for Yworo's absolute refusal to change his long, biased and inaccurate opening statement. He's the reason the RFC is dead in the water.

2847:

Very few professions require a specific acedemic degree to be recognized in that field. You must have an accredited medical degree to call yourself an MD, but others, like

2905:

You mean the source that says "Amateur philosophy as a genre is really a creation of the nineteenth century with its mass literacy and self-education"? Thanks for playing.

872:

You are incorrect, Snowded. It is not our job to judge or balance the sources other than to make sure that they fit the criteria of reliability. To do so is to engage in

735:, and not all sources agree on it. The lead sentence should give the nationality and profession(s) of the subject. It should not introduce opinions which are not held by 320:

of the case (check the archives) are that several editors have been banned for meat puppetry on this article, and new SPAs emerge every time there is a controversy. THe

3063:

because she has neither the degree nor the equivalent knowledge (says OCP). Now that your error has been made clear, you conclusion has been invalidated. Nice chatting!

2877:

Thank you for your original research, but the source that calls Rand an amateur does not consider Socrates one. Again, we have to go with our sources, not your beliefs.

928:

in the lead sentence is not something that can be done by "consensus", so the long and tedious discussions you refer to above are also moot with respect to this issue.

3178:

the wording is not only obviously from a hostile POV, it is simply false. She did her senior oral exam on Plato. Any qualifications belong in the text, not the lead.

3960:. The wording of the originator may be picked up and used elsewhere, such as on a list of RfCs. This is an RfC I wrote, neither you nor anyone else get to change it. 786:

which best matches our own and try to push it. That's POV-pushing, and there are Arbitration enforcements in effect against that for this article. Be careful, Snowy.

533:. What you could do is write up that sentence here, including a citation to confirm it, and we can ask for it to be inserted into the article. How does that sound? 4895:, you are asking that an admin should judge the circumstances, and then take some action - which might be to explain why the request should not be carried out. -- 1262:

I have taken the liberty of reverting your striking of Yworo's comments. Please do not do that kind of thing. Alter the RfC if need be, but don't do it that way.

659: 2960:

You stated them at the top of the RfC. Clearly this is your primary objection. If this wasn't an issue for you than you should not have made this statement.

595:

There is actually an "article" page for him, but currently it redirects to this article. This was decided after a discussion in 2009 about whether he was truly

2958:

In the same way, if we call Ayn Rand a philosopher without qualifications, we would be implying that she has the academic background and standing in the field.

186:

her novels, not through peer-reviewed papers, like regular philosophers. Your own citations shows that we must qualify "philosopher" when applying it to Rand.

1030:

by doing original research to compile a dubious "list of sources she would be in if she were really a philospher". That's utter crap as a research technique.

2627: 2079: 916:

In addition, the exclusion from a "major international dictionary of Philosophy" is actually moot. Because an international dictionary of Philosophy is a

4440:. Don't try to downplay my close by using scare quotes and calling me a non-admin, as though that actually matters for a close like this (it does not). 4584:

reversed: her political philosophy is treated like garbage, while the more technical material is picked over carefully before ultimately being rejected.

1854:

OK, I found it. But it doesn't really answer what I wanted to know - does the work use the specific expression "amateur philosopher" to describe Rand?

1432:

professional, if they accept you as one of them based on your abilities. That's how it works with philosophy, anyhow, and it's why Rand is an amateur.

3597:

It does not appear that your reasoning has anything to do with Knowledge (XXG) policy or the content of the sources. It seems like original research.

2633: 2311:

issue. You claimed that you didn't understand what "popular" meant, so we narrowed it down to the specific intended meaning: "amateur". Deal with it.

3419: 4649:

Remove word "untrained" from lead sentence. It is false. Rand studied Philosophy at University of Petrograd and did her senior oral exam on Plato.

3258:

philosophers are critical to her not all of them as the sources I gave you before point out and the space to point it is the criticism section. --

1245:

academic background and standing in the field. This is flatly false: the consensus of actual philosophers pointedly excludes her from their ranks.

4801:

decline this edit request (again, if I were an uninvolved party). When the RFC closes, an appropriate edit can be made based on how it closes. --

880:

to do is to present what the sources say, in detail. Where they disagree, we detail who says what. But we don't do it in the lead sentence - we

2728:

her abilities is significant. Its something her fans don;t like but it is a simple fact that her status as a philosopher is controversial ----

3125:

Your comments are neither accurate nor relevant to this discussion. I find them counterproductive and counsel you to reconsider your actions.

4382:

Well, the RfC has been closed in my favor, with a thoughtful analysis, so I think it must be you lacking the understanding and who has been

3478:

This is Knowledge (XXG), not Amurkapedia; we don't exclude sources for being British, or even for not speaking English at all. It's also a

2028:

According to our sources, creating a philosophical system while lacking a degree or equivalent knowledge makes you an amateur philosopher.

2572:

Yes, some sort, but not a regular philosopher. That's why we have to specify that she's not a regular philosopher, just some sort of one.

1140:

For the record, Yworo's opening is neutrally phrased and is not problematic for the purposes of an RfC. I am closing this per request at

2010:- You don't need a license/degree to be a full-fledged philosopher any more than you need one to be a full-fledged author or painter. -- 4595:

to support these phrases. By far the hardest is to get them into the article against the wished of her ardent fans. It has been a slog.

2613:

as she is known mainly for her philosophy and such terms as "amateur" and "self-styled" are inappropriately biased against her views.--

2102:(University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill). It appears that in the USA Academia it is recognized as a philosophy with no qualifiers. -- 5160: 4570: 4507:

Which consensus is that? The "consensus" of opinions from people who are huge fans of Rand and don't understand what our sources say?

1457: 1248:

The question is not whether she is some sort of philosopher, but precisely what sort she is, hence what sort we must describe her as.

778:

call her a philosopher, we also call her a philospher. Picking and choosing what sources are "better" or "more accurate" is a form of

754:

Then it should not call her a Philosopher as that opinion is not held by all the sources either - see extensive discussions above ----

573:

Poor Frank. I feel sorry for him, sometimes. Sure, he's notable enough for his own article, but there's just not a lot to say. I read

2513:

I don't for a moment think we should ignore the OCP. It is an excellent ref for the controversy over Rand's status. However it does

1368:

You do need a degree or equivalent knowledge to be anything but an amateur philosopher. Rand had neither, as our sources confirm.

1180:

My conclusion is based on a higher burden of evidence that the term "amateur philosopher" or similar description is used often by

888:

a summary of what the sources say, it is the choosing of one opinion from among several, and we should not be doing this. Period.

4999:

she was a regular philosopher, not a writer who lacked the training or knowledge to be accepted as a professional philosopher.

2622: 2087: 5019: 4989: 4091: 4062: 3930: 3818: 3790: 3761: 2789:

is pretty explicit: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are

2718: 2687: 1937: 1904: 1859: 1827: 1795: 1749: 1709: 1609: 1563: 1295: 1267: 1154:

Editors who supported the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead argued that Rand's removal from the

1088: 979: 849: 810: 3018:

You have no defense for your argument so you resort to personal attacks. I would say this is pretty standard for your MO.

1162:

were sufficient reasons to include an appropriate term such as "amateur." Using terms such as "amateur" was argued to be a

1211:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

324:(in so far as Knowledge (XXG) has them) ban this type of activity. I'll leave you to complete that for the third item ---- 3915:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3667:– describe her as a "philosophical essayist". This term has not been suggested in any of talk, here or in the archives. – 2149:

Rand is dead, so Objectivism is no longer hers alone. If they wish to rescue it from amateur status, they're free to try.

2540:

to say that she "wrote philosophical essays" or "created an amateur philosophical system", both of which are verifiable.

3415: 1586:

By the same logic, since they don't agree that she is, in the unqualified sense, a philosopher, we can't call her that.

1326:

to modify anyone else's talk page comments. I started and framed this RfC, you do not get to change it. That's standard

731:

An opinion about Rand as a philosopher, namely the word "amateur", has been added to the lead sentence. "Amateur" is an

608: 200:

If you are ok, I'm ok and if there is no objection from any other editors lets proceed with the novelist-philosopher. --

1290:

Alter it as I have now altered it. Remember that the revision history of the talk page stores all past versions of it.

3940:

I will not permit it to be changed. Period. Don't like it, wait until the RfC is over (one month) and start your own.

3407: 3362: 2094:(University of Auckland), Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin–Madison), William Glod (Institute for Humane Studies), 1837: 164: 4295:

participants are actively ignorant of the relevant sources and policies, and are instead going on gut feeling alone.

3644:

I'm not against a more balanced lede, overall, but why start by misleading (no pun intended), only to correct later?

4984:

The best way to end the bickering would be to accept the sources that call Rand a philosopher and leave it at that.

4217:

RFC's are not personal property; they're meant to organize the community into a productive discussion. According to

3411: 2855:, a philosophical system. To say that you can't call her a philosopher would be as stupid as saying you can't call 2614: 1276:

Alter it how, then? I didn't want to remove the dishonest framing because then I couldn't point out its dishonesty.

4650: 3629: 38: 4949: 4628: 3214:

philosophy section of bookstores and libraries, there's no such thing as being a licensed philosopher, yet she is

2653: 1383: 3313:

Regardless of the word "amateur", the lede absolutely must make it clear that she was dismissed by philosophers.

4531:

Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism, Educational Theory for a Free Market in Education, Jerry Kirkpatrick, p. 83,

3620:. As proposed, I find this lacking in neutrality. There are better ways to describe this controversy, such as 1448: 1148:

asked that this discussion be "closed on the basis of policy, not consensus". However, assessment of consensus

600: 5015: 4985: 4476: 4224:"Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template." 4087: 4058: 3926: 3855: 3814: 3786: 3757: 3582: 2714: 2683: 1933: 1900: 1855: 1823: 1791: 1745: 1705: 1605: 1559: 1291: 1263: 1235: 1084: 975: 845: 806: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5159:"Trained" is generally taken to mean a terminal credential, not anything less, so "untrained" is appropriate. 4940:). The world isn't black-and-white. Also, please note that it is not only admins who are permitted to decline 4244: 1932:

is a very strict policy. If the sources don't call someone an amateur philosophy, then we can't do so either.

1163: 1144:

and because this discussion has been generating a great deal of heat and similar arguments. The participant,

3222:, exactly? Can we have the exact reason why she, as opposed to the playwright Sartre, is not a philosopher? 4943: 4890: 4742: 3813:

Yes it is. "Philosophical essayist" means the same thing as "philosopher", but it's a bad way of saying it.

2234:

either. We don't put such opinions in the lead sentence. We detail them, with sources, in the article body.

439:

Would you say than an RFC framed like this would be valid? Also, which of the two do you prefer, witch? :-)

3380:

No, a novelist-philosopher is a writer of philosophical novels, such as "Atlas Shrugged". It's yet another

2919:

Your basic argument is that you need to have an acedemic degree to be called a philosopher. Based on your

2891:

Thank you for completely missing the point. Your source, by the way, would consider Socrates an Amatuer.

5164: 5094: 4574: 3465: 3427: 3371: 3332: 3300: 3263: 2107: 1391: 1110: 205: 172: 136: 4736: 4652:

So "untrained" is simply not true and should be removed. Furthermore the current consensus in the RfC is

3724: 1186: 921: 242: 4493:

How many threads are you going to start on this? You are being disruptive rather than admit consensus.

4319: 4284: 4170:

I already provided a revised RfC statement, but Yworo won't "permit" it, as if they have any say in it.

3625: 2563: 2522: 2486: 2457: 2429: 2395: 2095: 2047: 2015: 1572:

If all the sources agreed on a single term, sure. But if they don't, we can't make it "as if" they did.

1422: 1359: 1354:

Do you need a license to be a philosopher? Is there an expectation that a philosopher has a license? --

682: 563: 455:

I would prefer is you are going to make some lame analogy that it have some logical thought behind it.

344: 5090: 4936:

by not agreeing with the OP (you), that automatically means that I took sides with the first objector (

3461: 3423: 3367: 3328: 3296: 3259: 2103: 1387: 1232:

The opening statement by Yworo is neither neutral nor factually correct, therefore this RFC is invalid.

917: 201: 168: 132: 974:

That some works of reference dealing with philosophy don't mention Rand at all is totally irrelevant.

5179: 5108: 5077: 5042: 5004: 4975: 4718: 4689: 4600: 4543: 4512: 4483: 4448: 4409: 4373: 4333: 4300: 4252: 4175: 4161: 4126: 3899: 3880: 3868: 3804: 3776: 3747: 3712: 3690: 3672: 3649: 3602: 3530: 3498: 3450: 3393: 3346: 3318: 3285: 3248: 3204: 3130: 3101: 3068: 3038: 3009: 2979: 2943: 2910: 2882: 2672: 2649: 2577: 2545: 2504: 2471: 2443: 2414: 2354: 2316: 2286: 2254: 2221: 2154: 2122: 2065: 2033: 1964: 1919: 1889: 1845: 1813: 1781: 1766: 1731: 1694: 1639: 1591: 1540: 1480: 1437: 1408: 1373: 1309: 1281: 1253: 1197: 634: 586: 538: 492: 444: 404: 359: 293: 279: 250: 219: 191: 154: 4684:

I'd be fine going back to "amateur" or "self-avowed". I'd also be ok with leaving it alone for now.

3403: 2697:

The odd source making a claim against the weight of evidence would skew a lot of wikipedia pages----

2249:

Rand an amateur philosopher, qualifying it so that nobody mistakes her for an academic philosopher.

4960: 4903: 4853: 4755: 3851: 3578: 2189: 1097:“Ayn Rand (1905–1982) was a philosopher and a novelist who outlined a comprehensive philosophy ….” 518: 4839: 4233:"Should we refer to Rand in the lede as a philosopher or should we modify this with a qualifier?" 712: 1217:

detail in the body of the article without including any of the qualifiers in the lead sentence?

1141: 1018:

that it is controversial. Do you have such sources? If you did, then you wouldn't be relying on

414: 3077:

Actually all you did was invalidate your own argument. Good Job! Also, your understanding of

2851:

are called Statisticians without the appropriate acedemic degree. Rand is known for promoting

3366:

just her other vocation. We follow the sources and we stick with a NPOV description of her. --

2083: 1106: 5033: 4783: 4193: 4185: 3273: 2231: 2213: 1662: 1661:- the designation philosopher is controversial so its use is problematic (and a violation of 1513: 1327: 1170: 1159: 4806: 4703: 4498: 4315: 4280: 4004: 3732: 3515: 3227: 3183: 2559: 2518: 2482: 2453: 2425: 2391: 2339: 2301: 2269: 2197: 2140: 2099: 2043: 2011: 1874: 1805: 1466: 1418: 1355: 1178:

consensus was to exclude the use of qualifiers for the descriptor "philosopher" in the lead.

678: 667: 620: 559: 477: 385: 340: 264: 4819:

the edit was not done. Perhaps the next admin to reply could give a reason that's actually

4419: 4401: 4310: 4189: 4054: 4022: 3385: 1947: 1929: 1665:

without either qualification in some way or as an alternative removal from the lede. ----

1158:, her lack of a degree in philosophy, and leaving the term "philosopher" as it is violates 1019: 654: 5175: 5104: 5073: 5061: 5038: 5000: 4971: 4937: 4926: 4868: 4828: 4791: 4714: 4685: 4661: 4596: 4539: 4508: 4479: 4441: 4427: 4405: 4391: 4369: 4359: 4342:

That's your opinion. I don't think there is a consensus that it is, and unless there is a

4329: 4296: 4248: 4208: 4171: 4157: 4122: 4031: 3985: 3965: 3945: 3895: 3876: 3800: 3772: 3743: 3708: 3686: 3668: 3645: 3598: 3526: 3494: 3446: 3389: 3342: 3314: 3281: 3244: 3200: 3126: 3116: 3097: 3086: 3064: 3053: 3034: 3023: 3005: 2994: 2975: 2965: 2939: 2928: 2906: 2896: 2878: 2864: 2802: 2761: 2668: 2645: 2573: 2541: 2500: 2467: 2439: 2438:

There are numerous sources that call Canseco an athlete, yet we have to mention baseball.

2410: 2350: 2312: 2282: 2250: 2239: 2217: 2150: 2118: 2061: 2029: 1960: 1915: 1885: 1841: 1809: 1777: 1762: 1727: 1690: 1635: 1587: 1577: 1536: 1521: 1476: 1452: 1433: 1417:

How about, if you make things out of wood as your occupation, then you're a carpenter. --

1404: 1369: 1335: 1305: 1277: 1249: 1222: 1190: 1145: 1035: 933: 893: 791: 744: 697: 630: 582: 534: 488: 460: 440: 422: 400: 355: 289: 275: 246: 215: 187: 150: 5029: 4592: 4437: 4383: 3384:

subset of "philosopher". Speaking of which, I'm going to gently point out that you're an

2786: 2753: 1181: 1023: 1011: 873: 779: 604: 2091: 1386:, I think this case is closed, we can remove qualifiers like amateur, self-styled etc -- 4953: 4917:

which they handled the first time. The whole point of reopening is frequently to get a

4896: 4846: 4748: 4561:

Eric Hoffer (July 25, 1902 – May 21, 1983) was an American moral and social philosopher

2331: 514: 596: 3240: 2078:

with the American Philosophical Association which hosts talks about Objectivism with

1741: 1169:

Editors who did not support use of qualifiers stated that such terms were inherently

708: 567: 288:

Ah, well, then that explains why the two of you are pounding on the table so loudly.

47: 17: 4368:

I don't think you understand the role of consensus here. Please re-read the policy.

3756:"Philosophical essayist" is no good. It's just a fancy euphemism for "philosopher." 1928:

You are of course free to conclude whatever you want from the Oxford Companion, but

3048:

call you a liar, but that would be a personal attack, so I won't call you a liar.

2812: 2811:

And explicitly not including her in a list of philosophers is directly related ----

2772: 2729: 2698: 1666: 1068: 960: 830: 755: 677:

Holy crap, just LOOK at this page. This is what drives people away from editing. --

509:

Please include some mention of the opening of "Anthem" in New York, September 2013.

325: 109: 2923:

logic, several well known historical philosophers fail. You lose your own game.

1726:

The current edition, which is to say the second. I quoted from it above; go look.

739:. The rest of the article should be checked for the misuse of editorial opinions. 4921:, certainly not to be quickly shut down by the same admin who made first denial. 4422:. I am glad that you have an opportunity to be a gracious loser. Don't waste it. 3621: 2859:

a philosopher because he didn't have a PhD, yet he is credited with philosophy.

1451:.) For instance, in the section on academic reaction, it might say, "Philosopher 613:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Objectivism/Cross talk/Archive 5#Inherited notability

4802: 4699: 4494: 4000: 3728: 3511: 3223: 3179: 2852: 2848: 2335: 2334:, for example, was a popular philosopher who was also a trained professional. -- 2297: 2265: 2193: 2136: 1870: 1462: 663: 616: 473: 381: 260: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2188:

term "philosopher". I have worked up a list of sources using various phrasings

1634:

I wouldn't base anything on what RL0919 says. Go read the source for yourself.

5183: 5168: 5112: 5098: 5081: 5065: 5057: 5046: 5023: 5008: 4993: 4979: 4964: 4930: 4922: 4907: 4872: 4864: 4857: 4832: 4824: 4810: 4795: 4787: 4759: 4722: 4707: 4693: 4665: 4657: 4604: 4578: 4547: 4516: 4502: 4487: 4450: 4431: 4423: 4413: 4395: 4387: 4377: 4363: 4355: 4337: 4323: 4304: 4288: 4256: 4212: 4204: 4179: 4165: 4130: 4095: 4066: 4035: 4027: 4008: 3989: 3981: 3969: 3961: 3949: 3941: 3934: 3903: 3884: 3859: 3822: 3808: 3794: 3780: 3765: 3751: 3736: 3716: 3694: 3676: 3653: 3633: 3606: 3586: 3534: 3519: 3502: 3469: 3454: 3431: 3397: 3375: 3350: 3336: 3322: 3304: 3289: 3267: 3252: 3231: 3208: 3187: 3134: 3120: 3112: 3105: 3090: 3082: 3078: 3072: 3057: 3049: 3042: 3027: 3019: 3013: 2998: 2990: 2983: 2969: 2961: 2947: 2932: 2924: 2914: 2900: 2892: 2886: 2868: 2860: 2821: 2806: 2798: 2781: 2765: 2757: 2738: 2722: 2707: 2691: 2676: 2581: 2567: 2549: 2526: 2508: 2490: 2475: 2461: 2447: 2433: 2418: 2399: 2358: 2343: 2320: 2305: 2290: 2273: 2258: 2243: 2235: 2225: 2201: 2158: 2144: 2126: 2111: 2069: 2051: 2037: 2019: 1968: 1941: 1923: 1908: 1893: 1878: 1863: 1849: 1831: 1817: 1799: 1785: 1770: 1753: 1735: 1713: 1698: 1675: 1643: 1613: 1595: 1581: 1573: 1567: 1544: 1525: 1517: 1484: 1470: 1441: 1426: 1412: 1395: 1377: 1363: 1339: 1331: 1313: 1299: 1285: 1271: 1257: 1226: 1218: 1199: 1114: 1102: 1092: 1077: 1039: 1031: 983: 969: 937: 929: 897: 889: 853: 839: 814: 795: 787: 764: 748: 740: 716: 701: 693: 686: 671: 638: 624: 590: 542: 522: 496: 481: 464: 456: 448: 426: 418: 408: 389: 363: 348: 334: 297: 283: 268: 254: 223: 209: 195: 176: 158: 140: 118: 4881:? On that basis, no admin could answer the same request more than once, and 3799:

That's not an objection if you believe she should be called a philosopher.

2713:

seem to be a source that specifically calls Rand an "amateur philosopher".

3510:

So, is that what this is all about, your anti-Amurkan bigotry? Seriously?

2856: 1304:

Ok, I've altered it. They can go look at the history if they're curious.

732: 530: 4475:

Before participating in the invalid RFC, you should read the key source

920:, which we are actually supposed to be avoiding in preference for using 3479: 3341:

I'm sorry, but I'm not authorized to make "deals" that violate policy.

2466:

You're offering a conclusion without reasoning. That's not persuasive.

603:, and as far as anyone was able to determine, all discussion of him in 4350:

who get to judge this, by consensus, not you alone. You've have your

5089:

So how do we proceed now if there are no objections from others? --

4436:

Miles, if you disagree with the close and wish to have it reopened,

2325:

The problem with this interpretation is this one OCP article is the

1234:

They key source, which it does not appear anyone actually read, is

4532: 3850:. Best explained in the body for many of the reasons given above. 3622:

Rand faced opposition from academics who viewed her as an amateur.

1133:

Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence

574: 434:

Request for Comment: Arzel, burn as a witch or drown as a witch?!

2075: 1950:

before you say stuff that's not true. What it actually says is:

4952:

uses the phrase "responding editor", not "responding admin". --

4386:

as well as generating more smoke than light on this talk page.

4218: 3624:

This can be stated in the lead, outside of the first sentence.

3096:

say other than I've shown you to be mistaken. Have a nice day.

2517:

negate the numerous RSSs that do consider her a philosopher. --

607:

stems from his relationship to Rand. Historical discussions at

4616: 1822:

I looked, but I didn't find anything. Is that the right page?

25: 558:, which is a pretty notable feat. Anyone else have thoughts? 145:

Tell me, if I visit my library and look this up, what will I

5103:

I say we proceed by creating a binding RFC, unlike Yworo's.

1600:

Based on what RL0919 has said below, I am changing my vote.

1382:

She is a trained philosopher, she studied Philosophy in the

4243:

it is ridiculous and contrary to policy. You show a strong

4354:

about it, and hardly anyone responding to the RfC agrees.

1899:

for explaining what the Oxford Companion actually states.

4524:

I don't want this to get lost, so I'm reposting it here:

2495:

Nowhere in there do you explain why we should ignore the

1176:

Based on these arguments, I am inclined to conclude that

1455:

described her philosophy as "amateur" in an article for

4883: 4346:

that it's invalid, then it's perfectly valid. It's the

3723:

Sorry, but making up special terms like that is called

3437:

philosophical essays, she took the novelist's approach!

2556:"Everyone considers her to be some sort of philosopher" 1026:. Knowledge (XXG) policy does not allow us to conclude 4681:"slightly trained", but these aren't so great, either. 1659:

Wrongly phrased but has to be qualified given evidence

2131:

Good catch, Miles. What these philosophers study is

4247:

mentality that makes it very hard to work with you.

3742:

of touch with reality and highly counterproductive.

3272:

No, we don't hide criticism in its own section; the

1836:

Sorry, that's the disambiguation page. It should be

1010:

But again, you only know this because you are doing

4887:would be waiting for somebody else. No, by placing 3402:You obviously ignore her philosophical essays like 2212:Thank you for showing us that you don't understand 4877:What? Because I declined it once already, I'm now 1704:talking about? What does the editor actually say? 4021:The problem is that changing it clearly violates 3685:That's better than claiming she's a philosopher. 2135:not Ayn Rand's philosophy, but her hair cut.(/s) 1166:description in English given the circumstances. 2264:sources -- more than use the term "amateur". -- 4786:majority for removing any and all qualifiers. 3363:The Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers 2743:I've asked you about this before, do you have 3707:I think this is both clear and unassailable. 2452:Your example is NPOV. Your proposal is not.-- 2060:, which is an extremely high quality source. 395:It doesn't matter; the RFC is a joke. The OP 163:You don't have to, go to the Amazon site and 8: 3475:that you're wrong about that? If so, say it. 884:it in the lead section. "Amateur philopher" 5028:That's not how it works. I've been reading 4656:to use any qualifier in the lead sentence. 4559:The late Eric Hoffer's wiki article begins 3702:"She wrote polemical, philosophical essays" 3388:, so your opinion should be taken lightly. 1475:I don't think you know what an opinion is. 1103:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ 4863:uninvolved admins should answer requests. 4192:doesn't give anyone authority to override 4184:Of course I have a say in the matter, per 3699:Ok, here's some direct support, from SDP: 3280:but were considered amateurs by the pros. 2558:- I couldn't have said it better myself.-- 4782:agrees with it, but there is a clear and 4438:you can open a discussion about it on AN 3976:Also, the changes made the presentation 3420:Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 1330:. Don't you or anyone else do it again. 662:, so please be on your best behavior. -- 4418:I consider your final sentence to be a 3867:Take a look at the second paragraph of 2535:philosopher, but the idea that she's a 1099:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1804:Please take a look near the bottom of 609:Talk:Frank O'Connor (actor)#Notability 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4739:for this alteration before using the 7: 4591:The second-hardest thing is finding 3493:arguments while defending your own. 2938:mistaken about what the issues are. 1207:The following discussion is closed. 629:Poor Frank, always the third wheel. 3956:Changing it indicate that you also 1808:. Search for 762, the page number. 3871:. We see her describing herself – 2086:(Bowling Green State University), 1458:The Oxford Companion to Philosophy 1101:, Fall 2013 ed., s.v. “Ayn Rand.” 24: 5056:source-based and we all know it. 4613:Edit request on 26 September 2013 2793:to the topic of the article, and 1238:. 16:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4727: 4620: 3911:The discussion above is closed. 3574:I am reminded of this dialogue: 3243:makes him sound like a bad man? 29: 4533:http://www.tljbooks.com/MDC.pdf 5024:23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 5009:23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4994:23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4980:22:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4965:22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4931:21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4908:21:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4873:20:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4858:20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4833:20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4811:20:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4796:20:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 4760:09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 4723:05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 4708:04:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 4694:00:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 4666:22:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4548:19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 4517:05:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 4503:04:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 4488:18:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4180:16:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4166:16:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4131:15:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4096:00:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 4067:22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 4036:22:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 4009:22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3990:22:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3970:22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3950:22:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3935:22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 3823:23:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3809:23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3795:23:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3781:22:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3766:22:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3752:22:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3737:21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3717:19:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3695:19:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3677:16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3654:16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3634:10:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3607:19:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 3587:10:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 3535:22:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3520:22:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3503:22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3470:21:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3455:16:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3432:11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3398:04:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3376:15:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3351:19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC) 3337:13:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC) 3323:16:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3305:15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3290:14:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3268:11:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3253:05:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3232:04:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3209:19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 3188:19:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 3135:19:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3121:16:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3106:16:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3091:15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3073:04:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 3058:13:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC) 3043:16:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3028:16:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 3014:15:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 2999:15:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 2984:00:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 2970:20:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2948:17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2933:17:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2915:17:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2901:17:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2887:16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2869:16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2822:14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2807:10:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2797:the material being presented. 2782:09:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2766:08:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2739:08:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2723:07:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2708:06:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2692:06:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2677:05:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2654:15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2634:22:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2582:05:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 2568:04:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 2550:04:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 2527:03:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 2509:00:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 2497:Oxford Companion to Philosophy 2491:23:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2476:19:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2462:07:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2448:05:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2434:05:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 2419:15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2400:13:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2359:17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2344:17:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2321:17:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2306:16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2291:16:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2274:16:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2259:16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2244:22:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2226:12:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2202:12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2159:04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 2145:20:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC) 2127:16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 2112:20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2070:04:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2058:Oxford Companion to Philosophy 2052:04:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2038:04:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 2020:04:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1969:04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 1942:19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1924:16:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1909:22:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1894:12:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1879:12:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1864:05:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1850:05:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1832:05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1818:05:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1800:04:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1786:04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1771:04:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1754:04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1736:04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1714:04:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1699:03:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1687:Oxford Companion to Philosophy 1676:23:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1644:16:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1614:22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1596:04:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1582:23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1568:23:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1545:12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1526:22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1485:17:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1471:16:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1442:16:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 1427:14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1413:12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1396:08:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1378:04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1364:04:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1340:22:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1314:04:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1300:04:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1286:04:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1272:04:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1258:03:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1227:22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1156:Oxford Companion to Philosophy 1093:01:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC) 1078:23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 1040:22:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 984:22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 970:22:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 938:22:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 898:22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 854:22:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 840:22:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 815:22:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 805:be called just a philosopher. 796:22:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 765:22:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 749:22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 717:02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 702:02:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 687:00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 672:00:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 497:23:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 482:21:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 449:19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 427:16:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 409:16:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 390:16:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 364:19:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 349:12:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 335:08:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 298:04:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 284:04:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 269:04:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 255:03:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 196:22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 177:21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC) 159:21:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 141:21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 119:03:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 1: 4950:Knowledge (XXG):Edit requests 3869:Journals of Ayn Rand#Contents 2531:Everyone considers her to be 2056:One place is page 762 of the 2098:(University of Pittsburgh), 1740:The second edition excludes 5184:17:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 5169:16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 5113:03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 5099:00:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 5082:03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 5066:14:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 5047:00:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 4643:to reactivate your request. 4631:has been answered. Set the 4605:14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 4579:13:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 4451:18:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 4432:18:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 4414:18:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 4396:17:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 4378:17:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 4364:16:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 4338:16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 4324:14:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 4305:03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 4289:23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 4257:03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 4213:15:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 3904:22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 3885:22:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) 3860:13:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC) 2042:Where do they say that? -- 1838:Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) 1200:17:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 1115:03:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 639:14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC) 625:14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC) 591:14:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC) 568:06:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC) 543:03:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 523:03:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 465:14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 224:03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC) 210:01:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) 5204: 1946:You need to actually read 1604:qualifiers from the lead. 3218:a philosopher because.... 2230:And you don't understand 2090:(Seton Hall University), 1840:. Again, search for 762. 649:Page protection requested 531:Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest 3958:don't know how RfCs work 3913:Please do not modify it. 3416:The Nature of Government 1761:am amateur philosopher. 1209:Please do not modify it. 4221:, you're obligated to: 3404:Introducing Objectivism 1384:University of Petrograd 660:discretionary sanctions 4815:Just objecting to the 4348:respondants to the RfC 3412:Collectivized “Rights” 3408:The Objectivist Ethics 214:There are objections. 4768:above in the RfC for 2074:The Ayn Rand Society 1510:No qualifiers in lead 42:of past discussions. 5016:FreeKnowledgeCreator 4986:FreeKnowledgeCreator 4384:editing disruptively 4088:FreeKnowledgeCreator 4059:FreeKnowledgeCreator 3927:FreeKnowledgeCreator 3815:FreeKnowledgeCreator 3787:FreeKnowledgeCreator 3758:FreeKnowledgeCreator 2715:FreeKnowledgeCreator 2684:FreeKnowledgeCreator 2617:The Devil's Advocate 1934:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1901:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1856:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1824:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1792:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1746:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1706:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1606:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1560:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1292:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1264:FreeKnowledgeCreator 1085:FreeKnowledgeCreator 976:FreeKnowledgeCreator 846:FreeKnowledgeCreator 807:FreeKnowledgeCreator 548: 165:click to look inside 4766:clearly established 4764:Consensus has been 4735:please establish a 3725:wikipedia:synthesis 3418:and books like the 1683:Needs qualification 707:and source policy. 4471:Key source for RFC 2084:Fred D. Jr. Miller 1210: 653:I've requested at 575:that small article 4843: 4647: 4646: 4309:I see nothing at 4116:Yworo, you won't 3361:She is listed in 2820: 2780: 2754:original research 2737: 2706: 2092:Christine Swanton 2080:Academic speakers 1674: 1323:are not permitted 1208: 1076: 1024:original research 1012:original research 968: 922:secondary sources 874:original research 838: 780:original research 763: 333: 117: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5195: 4956: 4947: 4899: 4894: 4886: 4849: 4837: 4751: 4746: 4731: 4730: 4638: 4634: 4624: 4623: 4617: 4593:reliable sources 4446: 3626:NinjaRobotPirate 3623: 2819: 2817: 2795:directly support 2791:directly related 2779: 2777: 2736: 2734: 2705: 2703: 2665:Qualifier needed 2630: 2625: 2619: 2100:Gregory Salmieri 1806:Talk:Objectivism 1673: 1671: 1195: 1182:reliable sources 1075: 1073: 967: 965: 837: 835: 776:reliable sources 762: 760: 599:. Notability is 332: 330: 116: 114: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5203: 5202: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5194: 5193: 5192: 4954: 4941: 4897: 4888: 4882: 4847: 4749: 4740: 4728: 4636: 4632: 4621: 4615: 4473: 4442: 4420:personal attack 4196:. It says that 3922: 3917: 3916: 3522: 2813: 2773: 2730: 2699: 2632: 2628: 2623: 2615: 2554:Amen, brother! 1667: 1453:Anthony Quinton 1449:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 1328:talk page rules 1213: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1191: 1135: 1069: 961: 918:tertiary source 876:. What our job 831: 756: 729: 651: 551: 511: 326: 110: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5201: 5199: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5086: 5085: 5084: 4944:edit protected 4919:second opinion 4891:edit protected 4835: 4743:edit protected 4682: 4678: 4674: 4645: 4644: 4625: 4614: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4589: 4585: 4565: 4564: 4556: 4555: 4536: 4535: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4472: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4434: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4245:WP:BATTLEFIELD 4236: 4235: 4234: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 3993: 3992: 3973: 3972: 3953: 3952: 3921: 3918: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3888: 3887: 3873:in early years 3862: 3852:Jason from nyc 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3697: 3680: 3679: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3637: 3636: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3590: 3589: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3509: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3484: 3476: 3438: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3311: 3277: 3191: 3190: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 2872: 2871: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2637: 2636: 2621: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2403: 2402: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2332:Mortimer Adler 2205: 2204: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2096:Allan Gotthelf 2023: 2022: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1773: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1679: 1678: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1529: 1528: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1415: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1246: 1214: 1205: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1095: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1016:directly state 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 768: 767: 728: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 650: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 556:Atlas Shrugged 550: 549:Frank O'Connor 547: 546: 545: 510: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 469: 468: 467: 437: 436: 435: 431:Imagine this: 429: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 125: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5200: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5166: 5162: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5114: 5110: 5106: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5096: 5092: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5044: 5040: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5006: 5002: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4951: 4945: 4939: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4928: 4924: 4920: 4915: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4892: 4885: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4841: 4840:edit conflict 4836: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4818: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4776:does not mean 4773: 4772: 4771:no qualifiers 4767: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4744: 4738: 4734: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4642: 4639:parameter to 4630: 4626: 4619: 4618: 4612: 4606: 4602: 4598: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4567: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4557: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4534: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4525: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4478: 4470: 4452: 4449: 4447: 4445: 4439: 4435: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4312: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4237: 4232: 4231: 4228: 4223: 4222: 4220: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4201: 4200: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4163: 4159: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4119: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4024: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3974: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3954: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3919: 3914: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3863: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3848:No qualifiers 3846: 3845: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3701: 3700: 3698: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3619: 3618:No qualifiers 3616: 3615: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3577: 3573: 3572:No qualifiers 3570: 3569: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3523: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3491: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3364: 3360: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3278: 3275: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241:Adolph Hitler 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3176:No Qualifiers 3174: 3173: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3081:is lacking. 3080: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2845:No Qualifiers 2843: 2842: 2823: 2818: 2816: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2778: 2776: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2735: 2733: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2704: 2702: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2635: 2631: 2626: 2620: 2618: 2612: 2611:No qualifiers 2609: 2608: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388:No qualifiers 2386: 2385: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2180:No qualifiers 2178: 2177: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088:Robert Mayhew 2085: 2081: 2077: 2076:is affiliated 2073: 2072: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008:No qualifiers 2006: 2005: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1774: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742:Roger Scruton 1739: 1738: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1672: 1670: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1656: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1552: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1212: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1194: 1188: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1167: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1132: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1074: 1072: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 985: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 966: 964: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 855: 851: 847: 843: 842: 841: 836: 834: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 816: 812: 808: 804: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 772: 771: 770: 769: 766: 761: 759: 753: 752: 751: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 726: 718: 714: 710: 705: 704: 703: 699: 695: 690: 689: 688: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 673: 669: 665: 661: 656: 648: 640: 636: 632: 628: 627: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601:not inherited 598: 594: 593: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 557: 544: 540: 536: 532: 527: 526: 525: 524: 520: 516: 508: 498: 494: 490: 485: 484: 483: 479: 475: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 446: 442: 438: 433: 432: 430: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 411: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 393: 392: 391: 387: 383: 365: 361: 357: 352: 351: 350: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 331: 329: 323: 319: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 299: 295: 291: 287: 286: 285: 281: 277: 272: 271: 270: 266: 262: 258: 257: 256: 252: 248: 244: 239: 225: 221: 217: 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 199: 198: 197: 193: 189: 185: 180: 179: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 161: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 143: 142: 138: 134: 130: 129: 126: 123: 122: 121: 120: 115: 113: 102: 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 5161:98.118.26.43 5091:DagonAmigaOS 5053: 4918: 4913: 4884:this request 4878: 4820: 4816: 4779: 4775: 4774:. Consensus 4770: 4769: 4765: 4747:template. -- 4732: 4653: 4648: 4640: 4629:edit request 4571:98.118.26.43 4560: 4537: 4526: 4523: 4474: 4443: 4352:big bold say 4351: 4347: 4343: 4277: 4240: 4198: 4197: 4117: 4057:, however?) 3980:, not more. 3978:less neutral 3977: 3957: 3923: 3912: 3872: 3864: 3847: 3664: 3617: 3575: 3571: 3462:DagonAmigaOS 3441: 3424:DagonAmigaOS 3381: 3368:DagonAmigaOS 3329:DagonAmigaOS 3297:DagonAmigaOS 3260:DagonAmigaOS 3219: 3215: 3175: 2957: 2953: 2920: 2844: 2814: 2794: 2790: 2774: 2748: 2744: 2731: 2700: 2664: 2616: 2610: 2555: 2536: 2533:some sort of 2532: 2514: 2496: 2387: 2326: 2184: 2179: 2132: 2104:DagonAmigaOS 2057: 2007: 1686: 1682: 1668: 1658: 1601: 1554: 1553: 1509: 1456: 1388:DagonAmigaOS 1322: 1321: 1231: 1230: 1215: 1206: 1192: 1187:WP:DUEWEIGHT 1177: 1168: 1164:common sense 1155: 1153: 1149: 1107:Dervorguilla 1098: 1070: 1027: 1015: 962: 925: 885: 881: 877: 832: 802: 783: 775: 757: 736: 733:opinion word 730: 652: 578: 555: 552: 512: 396: 378: 327: 321: 317: 243:WP:COMPETENT 202:DagonAmigaOS 183: 169:DagonAmigaOS 146: 133:DagonAmigaOS 111: 106: 78: 43: 37: 4845:harmony. -- 4444:I, JethroBT 4316:Yeti Hunter 4281:Yeti Hunter 3920:RFC wording 3665:Alternative 3480:big fat lie 2853:Objectivism 2849:Nate Silver 2560:Yeti Hunter 2519:Yeti Hunter 2483:Yeti Hunter 2454:Yeti Hunter 2426:Yeti Hunter 2392:Yeti Hunter 2044:Doctorx0079 2012:Doctorx0079 1535:the start. 1419:Doctorx0079 1356:Doctorx0079 1193:I, JethroBT 737:all sources 679:Yeti Hunter 560:Michipedian 341:Yeti Hunter 36:This is an 5176:MilesMoney 5105:MilesMoney 5074:MilesMoney 5039:MilesMoney 5001:MilesMoney 4972:MilesMoney 4948:requests: 4938:MilesMoney 4715:MilesMoney 4686:MilesMoney 4633:|answered= 4597:MilesMoney 4540:MilesMoney 4509:MilesMoney 4480:MilesMoney 4406:MilesMoney 4370:MilesMoney 4330:MilesMoney 4297:MilesMoney 4249:MilesMoney 4172:MilesMoney 4123:MilesMoney 3896:MilesMoney 3801:MilesMoney 3773:MilesMoney 3744:MilesMoney 3709:MilesMoney 3687:MilesMoney 3646:MilesMoney 3599:MilesMoney 3527:MilesMoney 3495:MilesMoney 3447:MilesMoney 3390:MilesMoney 3343:MilesMoney 3315:MilesMoney 3282:MilesMoney 3245:MilesMoney 3201:MilesMoney 3127:MilesMoney 3098:MilesMoney 3079:set theory 3065:MilesMoney 3035:MilesMoney 3006:MilesMoney 2976:MilesMoney 2954:your words 2952:These are 2940:MilesMoney 2907:MilesMoney 2879:MilesMoney 2669:Steeletrap 2646:MilesMoney 2574:MilesMoney 2542:MilesMoney 2501:MilesMoney 2468:MilesMoney 2440:MilesMoney 2411:MilesMoney 2351:MilesMoney 2313:MilesMoney 2283:MilesMoney 2251:MilesMoney 2218:MilesMoney 2151:MilesMoney 2119:MilesMoney 2062:MilesMoney 2030:MilesMoney 1961:MilesMoney 1916:MilesMoney 1886:MilesMoney 1842:MilesMoney 1810:MilesMoney 1778:MilesMoney 1763:MilesMoney 1728:MilesMoney 1691:MilesMoney 1636:MilesMoney 1588:MilesMoney 1537:MilesMoney 1477:MilesMoney 1434:MilesMoney 1405:MilesMoney 1370:MilesMoney 1306:MilesMoney 1278:MilesMoney 1250:MilesMoney 1146:MilesMoney 727:NPOV check 631:MilesMoney 583:MilesMoney 535:MilesMoney 489:MilesMoney 441:MilesMoney 401:MilesMoney 356:MilesMoney 290:MilesMoney 247:MilesMoney 216:MilesMoney 188:MilesMoney 151:MilesMoney 95:Archive 50 90:Archive 49 85:Archive 48 79:Archive 47 73:Archive 46 68:Archive 45 60:Archive 40 4780:everybody 4737:consensus 4733:Not done: 4588:together. 4344:consensus 3925:neutral? 3865:Solution! 3382:qualified 2281:sources. 2133:obviously 1020:synthesis 882:summarize 581:, right? 579:something 515:Tripodics 4879:involved 2857:Socrates 2745:a source 1142:WP:ANRFC 1028:anything 709:Adam9389 415:WP:STICK 316:And the 5034:WP:NPOV 4194:WP:TALK 4186:WP:TALK 4158:S. Rich 3877:S. Rich 3669:S. Rich 3487:below). 3274:WP:LEDE 2815:Snowded 2775:Snowded 2732:Snowded 2701:Snowded 2537:regular 2232:WP:NPOV 2214:WP:NPOV 1669:Snowded 1663:WP:NPOV 1602:Exclude 1514:WP:NPOV 1171:WP:NPOV 1160:WP:NPOV 1071:Snowded 963:Snowded 926:opinion 833:Snowded 784:opinion 758:Snowded 605:sources 597:notable 397:insists 328:Snowded 276:S. Rich 184:through 112:Snowded 103:Puppets 39:archive 5054:really 4957:rose64 4900:rose64 4850:rose64 4817:reason 4803:RL0919 4752:rose64 4700:μηδείς 4495:μηδείς 4402:WP:RFC 4311:WP:RFC 4241:owning 4219:policy 4190:WP:RFC 4188:. And 4118:permit 4055:WP:NPA 4023:WP:TPO 4001:RL0919 3729:μηδείς 3579:Warden 3512:μηδείς 3386:WP:SPA 3224:μηδείς 3180:μηδείς 2629:cntrb. 2336:RL0919 2298:RL0919 2266:RL0919 2194:RL0919 2137:μηδείς 1948:WP:NOR 1930:WP:NOR 1871:RL0919 1463:RL0919 886:is not 803:cannot 664:RL0919 655:WP:RPP 617:RL0919 474:μηδείς 382:RL0919 261:μηδείς 149:find? 147:really 5058:Yworo 5030:WP:RS 4923:Yworo 4912:Hey, 4865:Yworo 4825:Yworo 4788:Yworo 4784:snowy 4778:that 4658:Yworo 4637:|ans= 4627:This 4424:Yworo 4388:Yworo 4356:Yworo 4205:Yworo 4028:Yworo 3982:Yworo 3962:Yworo 3942:Yworo 3113:Arzel 3083:Arzel 3050:Arzel 3020:Arzel 2991:Arzel 2962:Arzel 2925:Arzel 2893:Arzel 2861:Arzel 2799:Yworo 2787:WP:OR 2758:Yworo 2747:that 2236:Yworo 2082:i.e. 1574:Yworo 1555:Maybe 1518:Yworo 1332:Yworo 1219:Yworo 1032:Yworo 930:Yworo 890:Yworo 788:Yworo 741:Yworo 694:Yworo 457:Arzel 419:Arzel 318:facts 16:< 5180:talk 5165:talk 5109:talk 5095:talk 5078:talk 5062:talk 5043:talk 5020:talk 5005:talk 4990:talk 4976:talk 4961:talk 4927:talk 4904:talk 4869:talk 4854:talk 4829:talk 4821:true 4807:talk 4792:talk 4756:talk 4719:talk 4704:talk 4690:talk 4662:talk 4601:talk 4575:talk 4544:talk 4513:talk 4499:talk 4484:talk 4477:here 4428:talk 4410:talk 4392:talk 4374:talk 4360:talk 4334:talk 4320:talk 4301:talk 4285:talk 4253:talk 4209:talk 4176:talk 4162:talk 4127:talk 4092:talk 4063:talk 4032:talk 4005:talk 3986:talk 3966:talk 3946:talk 3931:talk 3900:talk 3881:talk 3856:talk 3819:talk 3805:talk 3791:talk 3777:talk 3762:talk 3748:talk 3733:talk 3713:talk 3691:talk 3673:talk 3650:talk 3630:talk 3603:talk 3583:talk 3531:talk 3516:talk 3499:talk 3466:talk 3451:talk 3442:some 3428:talk 3394:talk 3372:talk 3347:talk 3333:talk 3319:talk 3301:talk 3286:talk 3264:talk 3249:talk 3228:talk 3205:talk 3184:talk 3131:talk 3117:talk 3102:talk 3087:talk 3069:talk 3054:talk 3039:talk 3024:talk 3010:talk 2995:talk 2980:talk 2966:talk 2944:talk 2929:talk 2911:talk 2897:talk 2883:talk 2865:talk 2803:talk 2762:talk 2749:says 2719:talk 2688:talk 2673:talk 2650:talk 2624:tlk. 2578:talk 2564:talk 2546:talk 2523:talk 2505:talk 2487:talk 2472:talk 2458:talk 2444:talk 2430:talk 2415:talk 2396:talk 2355:talk 2340:talk 2327:only 2317:talk 2302:talk 2287:talk 2270:talk 2255:talk 2240:talk 2222:talk 2198:talk 2192:. -- 2190:here 2155:talk 2141:talk 2123:talk 2108:talk 2066:talk 2048:talk 2034:talk 2016:talk 1965:talk 1938:talk 1920:talk 1905:talk 1890:talk 1875:talk 1860:talk 1846:talk 1828:talk 1814:talk 1796:talk 1782:talk 1767:talk 1750:talk 1732:talk 1710:talk 1695:talk 1640:talk 1610:talk 1592:talk 1578:talk 1564:talk 1541:talk 1522:talk 1481:talk 1467:talk 1438:talk 1423:talk 1409:talk 1392:talk 1374:talk 1360:talk 1336:talk 1320:You 1310:talk 1296:talk 1282:talk 1268:talk 1254:talk 1236:here 1223:talk 1111:talk 1089:talk 1036:talk 1022:and 980:talk 934:talk 894:talk 850:talk 811:talk 792:talk 745:talk 713:talk 698:talk 683:talk 668:talk 635:talk 621:talk 615:. -- 611:and 587:talk 564:talk 539:talk 519:talk 493:talk 478:talk 461:talk 445:talk 423:talk 405:talk 386:talk 360:talk 345:talk 294:talk 280:talk 265:talk 251:talk 220:talk 206:talk 192:talk 173:talk 155:talk 137:talk 4955:Red 4914:you 4898:Red 4848:Red 4750:Red 4654:not 4635:or 3220:why 3216:not 2956:. 2921:own 2515:not 2185:one 417:. 322:law 5182:) 5167:) 5111:) 5097:) 5080:) 5064:) 5045:) 5032:, 5022:) 5007:) 4992:) 4978:) 4963:) 4946:}} 4942:{{ 4929:) 4906:) 4893:}} 4889:{{ 4871:) 4856:) 4831:) 4823:. 4809:) 4794:) 4758:) 4745:}} 4741:{{ 4721:) 4706:) 4692:) 4664:) 4641:no 4603:) 4577:) 4546:) 4515:) 4501:) 4486:) 4430:) 4412:) 4394:) 4376:) 4362:) 4336:) 4322:) 4303:) 4287:) 4255:) 4211:) 4178:) 4164:) 4129:) 4094:) 4065:) 4034:) 4007:) 3999:-- 3988:) 3968:) 3948:) 3933:) 3902:) 3883:) 3858:) 3821:) 3807:) 3793:) 3779:) 3764:) 3750:) 3735:) 3715:) 3693:) 3675:) 3652:) 3632:) 3605:) 3585:) 3533:) 3518:) 3501:) 3468:) 3453:) 3430:) 3414:, 3410:, 3406:, 3396:) 3374:) 3349:) 3335:) 3321:) 3303:) 3288:) 3266:) 3251:) 3230:) 3207:) 3186:) 3133:) 3119:) 3104:) 3089:) 3071:) 3056:) 3041:) 3026:) 3012:) 2997:) 2982:) 2968:) 2946:) 2931:) 2913:) 2899:) 2885:) 2867:) 2805:) 2764:) 2756:. 2721:) 2690:) 2675:) 2652:) 2580:) 2566:) 2548:) 2525:) 2507:) 2499:. 2489:) 2474:) 2460:) 2446:) 2432:) 2417:) 2398:) 2357:) 2342:) 2319:) 2304:) 2289:) 2272:) 2257:) 2242:) 2224:) 2200:) 2157:) 2143:) 2125:) 2110:) 2068:) 2050:) 2036:) 2018:) 1967:) 1940:) 1922:) 1907:) 1892:) 1877:) 1862:) 1848:) 1830:) 1816:) 1798:) 1784:) 1769:) 1752:) 1734:) 1712:) 1697:) 1642:) 1612:) 1594:) 1580:) 1566:) 1543:) 1524:) 1516:. 1483:) 1469:) 1440:) 1425:) 1411:) 1394:) 1376:) 1362:) 1338:) 1312:) 1298:) 1284:) 1270:) 1256:) 1225:) 1150:is 1113:) 1105:-- 1091:) 1038:) 982:) 936:) 896:) 878:is 852:) 813:) 794:) 747:) 715:) 700:) 685:) 670:) 637:) 623:) 589:) 566:) 541:) 521:) 495:) 480:) 463:) 447:) 425:) 407:) 388:) 362:) 347:) 296:) 282:) 267:) 253:) 245:. 222:) 208:) 194:) 175:) 157:) 139:) 64:← 5178:( 5163:( 5107:( 5093:( 5076:( 5060:( 5041:( 5018:( 5003:( 4988:( 4974:( 4959:( 4925:( 4902:( 4867:( 4852:( 4842:) 4838:( 4827:( 4805:( 4790:( 4754:( 4717:( 4702:( 4688:( 4660:( 4599:( 4573:( 4542:( 4511:( 4497:( 4482:( 4426:( 4408:( 4390:( 4372:( 4358:( 4332:( 4318:( 4299:( 4283:( 4251:( 4207:( 4199:I 4174:( 4160:( 4125:( 4090:( 4061:( 4030:( 4003:( 3984:( 3964:( 3944:( 3929:( 3898:( 3879:( 3854:( 3817:( 3803:( 3789:( 3775:( 3760:( 3746:( 3731:( 3711:( 3689:( 3671:( 3648:( 3628:( 3601:( 3581:( 3529:( 3514:( 3497:( 3464:( 3449:( 3426:( 3392:( 3370:( 3345:( 3331:( 3317:( 3299:( 3284:( 3262:( 3247:( 3226:( 3203:( 3182:( 3129:( 3115:( 3100:( 3085:( 3067:( 3052:( 3037:( 3022:( 3008:( 2993:( 2978:( 2964:( 2942:( 2927:( 2909:( 2895:( 2881:( 2863:( 2801:( 2760:( 2717:( 2686:( 2671:( 2648:( 2576:( 2562:( 2544:( 2521:( 2503:( 2485:( 2481:- 2470:( 2456:( 2442:( 2428:( 2413:( 2394:( 2353:( 2338:( 2315:( 2300:( 2285:( 2268:( 2253:( 2238:( 2220:( 2196:( 2153:( 2139:( 2121:( 2106:( 2064:( 2046:( 2032:( 2014:( 1963:( 1936:( 1918:( 1903:( 1888:( 1873:( 1858:( 1844:( 1826:( 1812:( 1794:( 1780:( 1765:( 1748:( 1730:( 1708:( 1693:( 1638:( 1608:( 1590:( 1576:( 1562:( 1539:( 1520:( 1479:( 1465:( 1436:( 1421:( 1407:( 1390:( 1372:( 1358:( 1334:( 1308:( 1294:( 1280:( 1266:( 1252:( 1221:( 1109:( 1087:( 1034:( 978:( 932:( 892:( 848:( 809:( 790:( 743:( 711:( 696:( 681:( 666:( 633:( 619:( 585:( 562:( 537:( 517:( 491:( 476:( 459:( 443:( 421:( 403:( 384:( 358:( 343:( 292:( 278:( 263:( 249:( 218:( 204:( 190:( 171:( 153:( 135:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index