Archive

Sorry, didn't know it was an issue .. incidentally, you may be interested in WP:RENAME. Best, --EmbraceParadox (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is blocked from editing, as an anonymous user, then to unblock them an administrator must know their exact IP address; otherwise it is impossible to unblock the correct address. This can be gotten by the user in three easy ways that I can think of:

1. Visiting Special:Mytalk, which sends the user to their talk page. In the case of this person, while not logged-in it would send them to the talk page of their IP address.
2. Attempting to edit a page, which causes the block message to be displayed. It should tell the user what their IP address is.
3. Using an external IP-displaying site which reveals to one their IP address without them needing technical knowledge. I don't know any in particular, but I'm sure that Google would make finding one trivial.

Once we have the IP address, it would be easy to check for blocks or range blocks, and then either grant the user (as a registered user) IP block exemption or to unblock the address.
I hope this helps; let me know if you need any further help with this. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How seriously do we take this list? I've checked some of the entries of the philosophers I actually know by emailing them. This could be a long process. But what is the source for these names? Some of them just appear to be those who have spoken at the institute - almost certainly because they were invited, in my view, with expenses and so on. Where is the evidence that they endorse the view of Rand as a bona fide philosopher? Peter Damian (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that people who really don't like her or her work AND are doing editing on that page because of their dislike won't be open to any argument. Others, even those who don't like her or her ideas, but are fair, will see that she is a philosopher. The fact that she is listed as such in more than one encyclopedia would be enough. The fact that more than one professor emeritus of a major university has written papers on her philosphical ideas would be enough. The fact that there are books out discussing her philosophy would be enough. The fact that she is mentioned in some philosophy text books would be enough. Look at the Wikipedia article on Objectivism - the system she created. Look at Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to examine some of her work in that field. For a reasonable person, no more needs saying. --Steve (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the RFc on the Ayn Rand page, there is no consensus to support the edits and deletions made by one faction following the Dec 31 freeze. The vote as to whether there was a consensus for the changes was 9 to 3 against, 7 to 5 if one counts only experienced editors, and adds votes for two editors who commented but did not make an explicit vote. In either case, a minority, no matter how vocal (the talk page has never been so large, and so empty) cannot claim to have established a new consensus.

Hence, we shall revert to the actual consensus version of Dec 31, and I respectfully request that all editors accept and defend this long standing consensus version as the starting point for new edits. Reversions to the controversial shortened article should not be supported against the vote of the RFC. I request that those who wish to modify the article state the changes they want on the talk page, and request a vote for the changes they wish to make. I request that editors not simply assert that there is a new consensus for deletions as has been done, since the RFC clearly shows that this is not the case.

If you have suggestions for improving the article (I support trimming down all sections which have their own separate wikipedia article, such as Objectivist movement) please discuss them, conscisely now, but let us not revert to an edit war. Kjaer (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Next step==

I would like to see you and Kjaer sign on to the mediation. A lot of editors have signed on and many of them seem like reasonable and good faith people like Slim Virgin and Ethan. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but I think the interest expressed is generally a good thing and people who didn't know anything about Ayn Rand are learning a bit about her background and significance. Rome wasn't built in a day... If you're not going to participate in the mediation the matter will move up the chain to Arb com. This doesn't seem any more attractive as an option. What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people on that list claim that Rand is not a philosopher despite massive amounts of citable evidence to the contrary. A great many people on that list have stated a dislike, even hatred for Rand. How do you expect to get any worthwhile results with people that won't respect the outcome of the RfC? It appears that everyone else has forgotten that prior to the previous freeze, we had reached a consensus on the Influence section. This would not be a fair mediation - a fair mediation can only come after recognizing that we need to start with the last stable version, apply the changes that had been agreed upon for the Influence section, and then take up, in the talk pages the next suggestion - get a consensus, then apply. Not the mad avalance of negative edits that occurred after the previous freeze and remains unacknowledged. What you are asking is for us to play in a game with a stacked deck and a pretense of fairness. Just curious, why didn't you say anything about these issues as raised on your talk page? --Steve (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to intrude on a private question here, but one of the real questions is citation and weight. So the list of philosophers you gave Steve is just a list, its not citation. Two that I checked just attended a seminar sponsored by a Rand institute. That doesn't provide support that those people think she is a philosopher. If you look on the talk page I have suggested that one function of mediation would be to provide an assessment of what is or is not evidence. The limited number of sources and their origins make this process difficult. I think it may end up in AFD and I would have thought you would be better starting mediation as more can be negotiated there. Starting off, not with the content but (i) an agreement on the issues and (ii) a process for determining evidence in respect of source and weight might be a way to calm down some of the passions on both sides. --Snowded TALK 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, you have already written about your personal opinion of Rand, you chose to ignore valid citations - in fact you went along with their being deleted. You seek out two items, from a list of hundreds, to make a vague question of, you ignore encyclopedia entries declaring Rand a philosopher, you ignore professional papers written about her philosophical writings, you ignore books written about her, as a philosopher, by credentialed philosophers... so why should anyone treat your question as having any merit? You bring up discussing the issues. If you will remember, I was working with you and everyone else on attaining agreement on the subject at hand - the Influence section - and we had come to an agreement. I, along with everyone else, participated in the RfC. You chose to ignore that outcome and go along with those who unleashed a flood of negative edits with out consensus. I can not see a way to mediate with those who do not recogize agreements or desire a middle ground. I see no way to make a good article if it is based exclusively on the edits of people who have expressed an intense hatred and dislike for her and her work. --Steve (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or editors who have express love and intense "like". Look Steve you need to deal with the issues on citation and weight. The RFC was not agreed, and even if it was the result was not a consensus. Either way its your call. If you don;t want to work with a mediator then it won't work --Snowded TALK 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, ultimately this dispute will go to either mediation or ArbCom. Personally, I'd prefer mediation because in mediation a neutral editor will help us arrive at a compromise version. The mediation is not binding, so we could opt out of the process if we see that it is not working. ArbCom, on the other hand, will result in a binding ruling being given by factfinders who can pretty much do whatever they want. I think the consensus that comes from mediation beats the heavy administrative oversight that will result from an ArbCom decision and I'd encourage you to sign on to mediation. Idag (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idaq, I believe that ArbCom is unlikely to produce a result as bad as we have now. I do not believe that the mediation, as it is being put forth, would result in a decent article. There are many people who have expressed extreme dislike for Rand and refuse to even acknowledge that she is a philosopher. I was, and still would be, ready to negotiate and work on getting the best, and the most honest article we could if there were some recognition of starting with the version that was frozen Dec. 31st. Then we should finish applying the changes to the Influence section that we had worked out and had a consensus on. Then people could make suggestions for the next area to be worked on, and after a battle on the talk page, and achieving a consensus, applying those changes. There is no other way to handle an article as controversial as this one. All other attempts will fail and some people just don't realize that, or they don't care because they just want to do damage to how Rand is percieved. --Steve (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, if you're serious about making changes to the article, then it doesn't matter what version we start out with. The old version is still there in the edit history and we can look at it to get ideas for any changes that we may want to make. Once we agree on what each section should look like, we can craft the language accordingly, it doesn't really matter where we start from. I'm asking you to give mediation a try, if you don't like it, you can opt out at any time. But you may also be pleasantly surprised by the results. Essentially, there's nothing to lose and quite a bit to gain if we can avoid ArbCom. Idag (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that. Mediation for example could provide an independent assessment of what is or is not evidence and take a lot of heat out of this debate. Arbcom, if they engage can impose sanctions on edits, editors, time etc. etc. --Snowded TALK 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Snowden and Idag "if you're serious about making changes to the article, then it doesn't matter what version we start out with." If you mean what you say, then let's revert to the last consensus version per the RfC and work from there. Kjaer (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kjaer, RFC's are closed by admins and are not set up and closed within a short period by protagonists. Neither are they settled on narrow majority votes. None of this is going to progress until there is a process in place to determine contentious issues. The question of what counts as evidence is at the heart of many of the disagreements and getting something in place for that makes a lot of sense. Mediation might create that, if not Arbcom may well end imposing it. --Snowded TALK 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, I've asked you not to treat my talk page as a place where you carry on with univited arguments. Please respect that. --Steve (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since your request at 1651 on the 16th (21 minutes after the above comment) I had not contributed anything to you talk page Steve. Check your facts (oh and that is generic advice) --Snowded TALK 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is that this will go to either mediation or ArbCom. Would you rather the admins help create a compromise between us (mediation) or force a solution that everyone may hate (ArbCom)? Idag (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, Please don't make your arguments on my talk page. I'll leave this here for a day or so and then I'm deleting it. You chose to participate in that avalance of edits on a page newly unfrozen following an edit war, and you ignored the outcome of the RfC and now you, who suggested that the particular version doesn't matter, choose to ignore our request to use the last stable one, the last one with a solid consensus. You have chosen to not just ignore valid evidence, but to delete it, which makes your little lectures to me or to Kjaer seem less than convincing. If you are truely honest in your request, then agree to move back to the Dec. 31st version and begin with making those changes we can come to common agreement on. That is an honest and reasonable request that needs neither mediation or arbitration or endless squabbling. --Steve (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idag, I believe that ArbCom would make a better job of this than the proposed mediation. I say this because I have no faith in those who refuse to consider starting with that last unfrozen version, where we had reached a consensus on the Influence section. And because there is no recognition of the RfC outcome. And because of the unwillingness of some of the "anti-Rand" faction to admit that she was a philosopher despite a multitude of references. And because of the extremes of anti-Rand sentiment amoung those who are calling for this mediation and have been doing the negative editing that is behind the edit warring. --Steve (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why we need mediation. You don't think some of the editors are working in good faith, so why not work with a neutral mediator? Idag (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I was hoping you'd be willing to sign on for mediation. Let's give it a try and see what happens. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The choice is between participating and seeing what happens. And not participating, and having the matter move to Arb Comm. I think it's worth trying mediation. I don't see the harm in it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your position more fully. I found your comments to be lucid and reasonable. I also find your position a bit idealistic, as article development here is more chaotic than the procedure you are recommending. I think mediation is a reasonably good forum for hasing out what changes should be made, even if it doesn't start from the point you recognize as valid. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note for you here, Steve. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of consensus and to avoid edit warring I have have placed a request for assistance here and have named you in that request. --Snowded TALK 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand - can you just confirm what your plans are? You have three options really;

1. You can proceed with the mediation.
2. You can withdraw from the mediation, but state you are happy for other participants to continue without you.
3. You can decline to participate, but this would lead to the whole mediation being rejected.

The choice if entirely your own, but I'd just like you to confirm to me what your thoughts are. Best regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve can you include you list of source in the Arb discussion? I haven't looked and I don't know what the guidelines are, but if you've already put a lot there I'd be happy to include it in my comments. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left this on TallNapoleon's talk page related to the "debate" regarding his Anti-Rand paper seen on either TallNapoleon's or TheJazzFan's page and he subsequently deleted it with the comment "not interested". Yes, he does seem to be averse to the truth.

"You pedantically assert that words have meaning and then proceed to dance around to avoid defining them. Jazz completely outed your fallacious methodology.

Your analogy of "faith" in God & in the sun rising is beyond absurd. One is observation of an event involving observable bodies with measureable properties and interacting in a known, observable fashion - even if the mechanism isn't completely understood there's nothing to suggest they'll interact in a different manner during a given period. You most certainly can prove the validity of the assertion that "the sun will rise" (i.e. the Earth will rotate) - you can see it happen. The sun never *stops* rising.

So-called "faith" in God is an amorphous urge that doesn't even rise to the level of a valid assertion given that it's related to some equally amorphous pseudo-entity you've failed to define, thereby rendering impossible anything that can be called a "belief" that's worthy of serious consideration. You're trying to avoid that evidence requires a criteria against which to evaluate it.

Reason an evil idol? You're just another in a long line of folks trying to use reason to disprove the validity of reason, and as is always the case, utterly failing."TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since certain editors have indicated that they do not wish me to beat babies, I will refrain from doing so on the article's talk page until ArbCom decides whether I am in fact beating babies (that's a really horrible phrase btw). If you'd like to continue this debate, I will gladly do it on one of our talk pages so that we're not bothering others. As I've indicated earlier, I am open to compromise, but, to get a compromise, each of us must give up a portion of our position so that we can meet in the middle. Since you seem interested in people's personal motivations, the reason that I edit this article is because I find Rand's life compelling. I am also a Russian Jew and I know what she must've gone through when she moved to the U.S. The fact that she was able to accomplish as much as she did is pretty inspiring. I do not have strong feelings about her philosophy, I simply feel that calling her a "philosopher" without any qualifications does not reflect the majority view. Idag (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why you would say, "...without any qualifications..." when there are many sources that say she is a philosopher and sources that show she meets any reasonable qualification thereof. Here are some of the points that I would make.

• Contrary to what others have said, many sources that have been named are not just Rand supporters, many are solid academic philosophers that don't agree with her ideas but believe they are worth study, and
• Even if that were not the case, we don't delete a source that supports Aristotle, from an article related to Aristotle, because the source is an advocate and enthusiast of Aristotle - we only discard it if it is not sufficiently reliable or authoritative.
• She has published original works in philosophy. You accept that publishing fictional works makes her a novelist (some sources use this category for her, but some do not - some only say philosopher - yet you are comfortable with the category of novelist).
• A majority is not something attainable in many areas. A majority of sources might not agree with given philosophical position of Aristotle, and if they do, they won't agree with it's opposing view given by Plato. If you mean a majority of editors, it doesn't matter, because we have to follow WP - not a vote.
• Clearly, anyone that writes an original work in the area of epistemology and finds it selling in large number around the world, and discussed in scholarly academic works, and is listed in various authoritative works as a philosopher, then they must be a philosopher - and our job is to use those sources in our article's description of her.
• Compromise is a reasonable goal when WP is not able to give clear guidance on an issue. But here we don't need any compromise. There are valid sources for her being a philosopher, and no valid sources saying "not a philosopher"
• What exists to 'support' her not being a philsopher is lots of personal opinion and Original Research that is attempting to remove material with valid sources.
• I hope that you can see the strong anti-Rand bias that is at work in many of the editors (impossible to miss in some, like Niles and SmashTheState).
• If you aren't sure that I'm correct in saying anti-Rand bias is at work, take a look at the various lists of philosophers that you can find on Wikipedia, and look at the articles on those 'philosophers' - you will notice two things: 1) many of them have weaker credentials as philosophers than Rand, by almost any criteria, but, 2) there is no heated, fierce debate going on through time to have them removed or to change their articles. Doesn't that make you wonder? --Steve (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original issue of whether she is a philosopher was indeed brought up by someone with an anti-Rand motive (Nilges). JReadings and I picked it up because, despite his POV-pushing and general a**holishness, Nilges had a point. An idiot can say that the sun will rise tomorrow, just because the person making the statement is an idiot doesn't mean that the sun won't rise tomorrow :-)

The thing is, you're conflating two different policies. WP:V and WP:RS prohibit us from including information that is not verifiable. We agree that the philosopher label gets past that hurdle. But that's not the end of the inquiry. WP:Undue requires that we indicate how prevalent a view is. For example, I can cite you 50 verifiable sources stating that the government can read your brain if you don't wear a foil hat. There will be very few, if any, sources actually stating that this is false. So should Wikipedia include this as a fact simply because verifiable sources state it? That's where WP:Undue comes in, we indicate how prevalent a particular view is among secondary sources.

Looking at the research can you comfortably state that there is universal agreement that Ayn Rand was a philosopher? I think that we can get around this hurdle by using JazzFan's approach. Let's just tell the reader what the woman did and let him make up his own mind. Something along the lines of "Ayn Rand wrote two best-selling books in which she developed the philsophical system of Objectivism." I would also be willing to state that Rand was a philosopher with the qualifier that she is not generally acknowledged by certain parts of the philosophical movement (which is true, we can all agree that she's not really acknowledged by academia, as she was a populist philosopher). The problem we have is that the label "philosopher" is essentially a value judgment, so the best compromise is to replace it with objective facts that no one can dispute. This way this debate won't pop back up in a few months. I'm also open to other suggestions. Idag (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, I've looked at some other articles to see how they resolved this issue (i.e. if they discussed it). The only pertinent discussion I found was on the David Irving article when they discussed whether to label Irving a historian, and they examined all the sources to see what the prevalent view was (they ultimately left off the "historian" label). I couldn't find any other relevant discussion, but if you see something, I will of course take a look at it. Idag (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't conflated any of the Wikipedia policies. Your example of the sources presented to support tin foil hats would fail to meet WP:RS. Actually, even in your strange example, it would be possible to find sources that refute the tin foil hat assertion. If you think that Rand being a philosopher is equivalent to people claiming that tin foil hats are needed, then I have no interest in discussing this any further. You said that Rand is "not generally acknowledged by certain parts of the philsophical movement." That doesn't describe the situation. Most of the academic participants do not study her, but there are many, many philosophers that aren't studied by many of the academics. Many people, academics and others, don't like her views, or her - but that is not the same as saying that she is not a philosopher. You are conflating 'don't like' and 'don't study' with 'not a philosopher' - those are very different. She is acknowledged by some of academia. She is taught in some philosophy classes. She is in some philosophy text books. The fact that she is a philosopher with a popular following does not change the fact of her being a philosopher. You say that the label "philosopher" is a value judgement. That may be so in your mind, but for Wikipedia, and for most of the world, it is a category like novelist, or screenwriter. The fact is that she is a philosopher according to verifiable, reliable sources. There are other philosophers that are studied as little as Rand is. Objective facts are that she has the verifiable, reliable sources and that some editors refuse to accept that, yet they don't show that attitude towards other philosophers. The problem here isn't with Rand, or with academics, or with sources. It is with some of the editors. --Steve (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then how about the statement "some have acknowledged her as a philosopher"? Idag (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would remind you of AGF. Not everyone who disagrees with you has ulterior motives. Idag (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idag, I don't know why you are fighting so hard on this issue - she was a philosopher. People don't have to like her or her ideas, but it is wrong to try to call her something other than what the sources show her to be. You have cautioned me about AGF and I'll ask you to reconsider doing that. 1) we are in the middle of an ArbCom which is addressing that specifically, so it isn't like it isn't an issue that is now in the open. 2) There are editors who have stated that their ulterior motives (see ArbCom evidence). 3) Look at my statement above. What I said was "some editors refuse to accept [that verifiable, reliable sources show ther to be a philosopher], yet they don't show that attitude towards other philosophers." That is just pointing out a fact. --Steve (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I look at the definition of philosopher, then yes she was a philosopher. However, my looking at the definition is OR. So then we turn to the secondary sources. Some have unquestionably called her a philosopher. But the fact that she's left out of comprehensive dictionaries of philosophers gives me pause. The fact that Encyclopedia Britannica and similarly notable sources have likewise omitted the label philosopher for Rand while bestowing it liberally upon others also gives me pause. I don't care if the other people advocating this view are anti-Randists or Satan worshippers - they have a point. I'm not saying let's say that she's not a philosopher, I'm saying we need to find a way to address this unique divergence of secondary sources. Idag (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Branden points out, Rand went far beyond simply asserting the correctness of her basic positions and asserted that everything in her philosophy was absolutely true, and that deviation from any of her positions on philosophy would lead to error. This is dogma. While it is true that Rand rejected faith and insisted that her followers think for themselves, her actions show very little patience with anyone who disagreed with her. Followers were routinely kicked out of her collective for such disagreements. Furthermore, every cult-leader says that they're not a cult leader and that they want their followers to think for themselves. Very few cult leaders actually say that they are teaching dogma, and that they want blind faith from their followers. For instance, Ted Haggard made basically the exact same claim as Rand — that he wanted his followers to think for themselves. Rand's actions and statements on this regard seem to me incompatible. If she wanted her followers to think for themselves, then she shouldn't have made them so afraid of disagreeing with her. It also doesn't help that she routinely misrepresented her opponents with gross straw men, and it certainly wasn't a good idea for her to refer to people who disagreed with her as "evil", which Branden states she did often, even over trivial things. Finally, we have her bizarre and unscientific resistance to admitting the possibility of error or mistake on her part about anything, which is very damning. CABlankenship (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually about to make the same edit, then I realized that "mothers" might be useful, as there are MANY founders of Libertarianism, but not many female founders. I don't feel strongly about it though, so if you want to take a second look, I'll defer to your choice =) Idag (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong feelings about it either. "Founding athers" seems wrong on gender, and therefore a little awkward. "Founding mothers" seems somewhat cutesy and may even be condescending towards females - as if these three would only have been notable in their achievements because of their gender. And though Libertarianism goes back in history before these three, they do hold a special place in "American Libertarianism" which is what the sentence is about. I like just plain "founders" best, but wouldn't fight over it :-) --Steve (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through the referenced article. I think we do need to put something about women back into that sentence because the author focuses heavily on how these three women did something that the men of that time could not accomplish. Though I agree with you and the anon that "mothers" was really awkward. Any ideas? Idag (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd leave it as is. I think the sentence makes it clear that the three are women. The article is about Rand, so dwelling too much on the three women, or that they are women, rather than the fact that Rand was one of them, would shift the article's focus away from the subject. To go on any more about women as such, or about the other two would be getting off track. --Steve (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff in the lede about Rand struggling before her books were published, you added that, right? Kjaer has gone on a warpath mass-reverting the lede, claiming that Peter added a lot of the stuff there, but for most of the stuff that he reverted, I remember you and I adding that last night. Idag (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We worked on the wording for "founders" versus "founding mothers" or "founding fathers" - I didn't like the language about "limited outside of the United States" for a number of reasons, but I didn't address it right then. If we want to talk about influence in any specific way, the lede isn't a good place to make more than a generalization. Other than that, the only thing that we worked on was that source (two sources, then just one) to support that her fame began after Fountainhead. (Unless I'm forgetting something?) I had hoped that most of the lead would stay fairly stable, not because I like it - I don't, but because edit warring while we are still doing the ArbCom seems pathetic. It looks to me like Peter Damian is the one who isn't choosing to honor our current situation. I would much prefer Kjaer's lede, even without "philosopher" to what Peter has put up, which is disrespectul to the work we are doing, and exhibits a negative POV which we were trying to stay away from.

My suggestion is that you agree to let that go from the lede, and then we work on a way to describe her influence in the U.S. versus other countries in the influence section. The lede should be more general in that area. --Steve (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede needs to be global. The quote I put up was from a Rand-friendly source (the same "founders" source we were discussing last night). If you want, I can find a number of other sources stating that Rand's influence was limited outside the U.S., though I think its an uncontroversial point. Peter's edits sucked, but that still doesn't mandate a mass-revert without first having a discussion. Especially considering that a lot of the edits that he got were not Peter's. Idag (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The particular quote isn't specific and that's unfortunate. Everything is 'limited' - how much is the question. We know that her books sell in fairly high numbers in foreign countries, and we know that many of them have gone through a number of foriegn language editions, but we don't know what the numbers are outside of America as opposed to domestic. I think we can get actual numbers from somewhere and put up some good information, in a neutral fashion, in the influence section that describes her actual influence outside of the U.S. And the influence section would be a better place. If we had that information now, we would know what we could or could not accurately put in the lede or even if it makes sense there. Peter did mass-edits, did them disruptively and that is where the problems started. I'd suggest just opening up a section describing what changes you think should be put into the lede - we can work on consensus and on some neutral language and then put it up. There wasn't much lost when Kjaer removed Peter's mass edits, nothing we can't fix in minutes, and without an edit war. --Steve (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True dat. As far as the quote, I used a quotation to (ironically) avoid an edit war over paraphrased language. If you can think of a good way to paraphrase it, I'm all ears (especially considering that the source goes into a fair bit of detail about her lack of influence in other countries). I do think that we need to expand on this in the Influence section, but I was trying to keep it to one sentence in the lede to avoid giving it undue weight. Idag (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if we can find the number of books sold in recent years. With something like that, we could have a sentence that says something like, "Sales of Ayn Rand related books in America exceed sales in the rest of world by a factor of about 10." Or, "Only a small portion of Ayn Rand related books are sold overseas." But we have to have some better information first. --Steve (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Cato "founders" source talks about book sales in other countries. Its actually a really great influence source =) Idag (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have listed works as supporting your view when you had not even verified this. One can only conclude that you just made it up. You argue that you simply had not checked the sources when you included them in your list of works that mention Rand as a philosopher — but this is my entire point. You should have checked the sources before including them in support of your position. Your failure to do so shows extremely poor scholarship, and forces me to view your other sources with skepticism. You have already been shown to be faulty in your sources on multiple occasions now. Such behavior makes it difficult to show you the good faith for which you plead. CABlankenship (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were presented as a raw list of source information that would support Rand as a philosopher, a list of nearly 50 items - two of which were accidently mixed in when I did my copy-paste. I did not put these in an article, they were part of comments on a talk page. When you say, "One can only conclude that you just made it up," you engage in a personal attack, a failure to exercise any attempt at good faith, as well as very faulty reasoning cobbled up as original research. You continue to make loose and unfounded accusations that amount to character assasination. --Steve (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you presented them as evidence and then spent a lot of time complaining that other editors were ignoring all the work you had done! Its not just the fact that these two were wrong, but several were dubious (the ones I checked) being limited to turning up at a seminar. After that you really can't expect people to check 50+lists that you present until they are properly cited. You still owe me the name of your Californian by the way .... --Snowded TALK 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowded, when you make a comment, like you just did, without a saying anything about CABlankenship's accusation of dishonesty, it could be understood as agreement with CABlankenship. I presented an apology for a honest error. I don't give a damn about your opinion of the alledged dubiousness of some of the data I put on the talk page - not when I'm being called intellectually dishonest. If you want to get into that bed with CABlankenship, do so openly and explicitly. You can't expect anyone to take seriously any complaints you might have about bad behaviors if you aren't willing to take a stand on CABlankenship's level of name calling. --Steve (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made my comments in response to yours Steve. Suggest you read them and try and "give a damn" --Snowded TALK 21:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You comment about CABlankenship's post but say NOTHING about his outrageous and insulting claim that it was a matter of dishonesty rather than an error. You who have posted your protests of what you called acts of "intimidatory abuse" and "slurs on motivation" on the ArbCom evidence page, have nothing to say here. So, I take it that you have no problem or objection to his bad faith name-calling. If that's the kind of bed you want to get into, it's your decision. Given that, why I should give a damn about anything you say or do? --Steve (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you claim its an error, and if so it was a foolish one and your apology would be more credible if had been voluntary admitted rather than forced on discovery. If you want (as you seem to) by opinion then I would not have used the word "dishonest" although the facts can support that statement as much as the "honest mistake". I would say it shows a generally casual or lazaire faire (sic) attitude to evidence coupled with a seeming unwillingness to look at some of the language you have used of other editors, while complaining of others treatment of you. I think I have referred you to Matthew 7:5 before and I do so again. Oh and the californian professor? Can we have the name or is this something you don;t want checked? --Snowded TALK 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]