Talk:Ayn Rand

Template:FAOL Template:Todo priority Archive 1: October 2002 to August 2004
Archive 2: August 2004 to June 2005
Archive 3: July 2005 to February 2006
Archive 4: February 2006 to March 2006
Archive 5: March 2006

"Literary" criticism

I cut down this section, pasted this text here - IMO it is just a list of some pretty subjective opinions about which characters are strong/weak, etc. I think the point works better as a summary rather than an exhaustive list, but I may have been overzealous in cutting Kaisershatner 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :"Defenders of Rand point that the sympathetic characters Eddie Willers and Cherryl Taggart are neither especially gifted nor intelligent; Leo Kovalensky suffers enormously due to his inability to cope with the brutality and banality of communism; Andrei Taganov dies after realizing his philosophical errors; Dominique Francon is initially bitterly unhappy because she believes evil is powerful; Hank Rearden is torn by inner emotional conflict brought on by a philosophical contradiction; and Dagny Taggart thinks that she alone is capable of saving the world. Two of her main protagonists, Howard Roark and John Galt, did not begin life wealthy. Though Rand believed that, under capitalism, valuable contributions will routinely be rewarded by wealth, she certainly did not think that wealth made a person virtuous. In fact, she presents many vicious bureaucrats and waspish elitists who use statism to accumulate money and power. Moreover, Hank Rearden is exploited because of his social naïveté. As for the purportedly weak and pathetic villains, Rand's defenders point out that Ellsworth Toohey is represented as being a great strategist and communicator from an early age, and Dr. Robert Stadler is a brilliant scientist."

Peer review

Anyone else think this is ready for WP:PR followed by a "real" run at WP:FA? Kaisershatner 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite.

• Somebody with a copy of The Passion of Ayn Rand has to make the requested citation (Shirmer lists some page numbers).
• The "cult" section is well-cited, but needs POV balance. Perhaps from the Peikoff essay on "closed" philosophy?

Have a big atta-boy for all your work on this article.--TJ 13:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; it has been fun so far to look into this stuff. I found the Branden citation in the Shermer ref. I added some quotations from the Peikoff essay, will keep looking to see if there's a more direct response to the charges of cultism. Are there other things before Peer Review? Kaisershatner 16:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Submitting for Peer Review. I think we'd benefit from a broader range of commenters. Kaisershatner 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Economic criticism of The Fountainhead

I have eliminated the economic criticism of The Fountainhead for four reasons:

1) If it belongs at all, it belongs in the article on The Fountainhead, not in an article on general literary criticism of Rand.

2) Of all of the attacks on Rand's literary worth (of which one can find many), an economic criticism of The Fountainhead on the grounds that Roark is not sufficiently capitalistic is not one of the them.

3) It was highly misleading as written, claiming that he criticized the book on "objectivist grounds." Careful reading of the article indicates that its author is almost certainly a Christian, not an Objectivist.

4) Echoing the second reason, it just isn't a common critique, and is really a fringe viewpoint. I think quotations supporting more common, manistream critiques wouid be better. For example, many people argue that Rand's characters are not fully fleshed out, that they're archetypes, that they're unrealistic, that they're emotionless robots, etc. 24.94.5.94 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this before I re-placed the section in question, hence my comment in the edit summary that it was "unexplainably" removed. I have already remedied point 3 (he is indeed a Christian; I changed it to "pro-market"), but I don't think the remaining points have merit.

It is a somewhat common criticism among libertarians that in her novels, Rand failed to give much weight to the rights of the consumer where she felt broader issues were at stake: witness Roark's demolition of the building for which a client entered into a contract with him to build. This point belongs in this article because it happens in Atlas as well: witness the deaths of the train passengers, followed by the narrator's reassuring the reader that they (the passangers) had all committed grave crimes against reality.

That a figure as relatively notable as Skousen makes this point, in my view, prima facie proves its notability, and hence aptness for inclusion. The lack of other criticisms should be addressed by adding them, not by subtracting others. --zenohockey 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's out of place, as it stands. There's a section on general literary criticism of Rand, and then an entire section by Skousen discussing only The Fountainhead. If it belongs at all, it belong in the article on The Fountainhead, not here. 68.7.212.152 10:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section only two paragraphs long?

Come now. There's a lot more criticism than that of Ayn Rand. The criticism doesn't even touch on Rand's dogmatic dichotomy of collectivism and individualism as mutually exclusive concepts-- which is perhaps the most controversial aspect of her "philosophy". And although the criticisms of Objectivism by traditional minarchist Libertarians are alluded to, they are not explained. Not to mention the article repeats the myth of Ayn Rand's early hard-scrabble existence after the Bolsehvik Revolution. Could someone take the time to edit this who is not themselves an "Objectivist" or an Ayn Rand worshipper? In other words, someone who is not a teenager or pseudo-intellectual.

Nicky Scarfo

If you think the article could be improved, feel free to improve it. However, be careful to avoid OR and POV. Alienus 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think you weren't logged in properly, because it's using your IP instead of your name and you're not signing correctly, either. Alienus 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Could someone take the time to edit this who is not themselves an "Objectivist" or an Ayn Rand worshipper? In other words, someone who is not a teenager or pseudo-intellectual." Hey, how about this instead - you avoid personal attacks and assume good faith, and then make a positive contribution to the article? Kaisershatner 15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is not the most controversial aspect of her philosophy. That dichotomy is pretty easy to make and defend. What has been the most problematic is her contention that she can derive it all from "A is A". Most academic philosophers agree that "A is A" does not get you very far unless supplmented with empirical data. It is probably best to think of Rand as a "way of life" philosopher ala Jesus or Buddha or Marx rather than someone who contributed to the western philosophical tradition. Her attempt at a moral defense of capitalism instead of the weak apologias being offered at the time is probably explains her popularity and is her most enduring contribution. Those who continue in her moral defense of capitalism tend to base it on modern evolutionary understanding of human nature and classical liberal criticism of restrictions on freedom, and empirical criticism of central planning rather than attempting something a priori from "A is A". She gave the defenders of liberty a much needed bit of spine with her stirring fiction, which still endures today. Her contributions to academic philosophy have been minimal although her influence and inspiration have been great.--Silverback 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nicky Scarfo was looking for neutral contributors, but your Objectivist apologetics rule you out. Alienus 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was just looking for someone who was not an objectivist, a teenager or a pseudo-intellectual. I qualify on the first two, I'm not sure about the third, but I am not an existentialist and that is perhaps what he meant.--Silverback 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that Nick sees a strong pro-Rand bias among the editors here. If that is indeed what he means, then I have to agree. For the most part, the only people editing articles about Rand are those who are followers or at least fellow travelers. You appear to be the latter, if not the former. Alienus 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I would edit the article if I thought I could avoid POV, but I think Objectivism is such a load that it would be hard for me to avoid my own bias. So I just thought I'd point out that this article needs some editing more critical of Rand so it can be a little less biased towards her, and hopefully someone will be up for the task. Oh, that and I'm basically lazy. I'd rather bitch about the article than invest the time in "fixing" it. --Nicky Scarfo 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am a moderately frequent editor of the philosophical sections (especially criticism). Was once a bit of a Randite, now am emotionally neutral. ----Wilanthule 07:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Ack! sorry not to have signed... my former username was BenGolub (in the histories) but I decided real names were bad form.

Noted. I've never been either a fan or enemy of Rand, for what it's worth. Alienus 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a substantial amount to the 'philosophical criticism' section. More citations should be forthcoming. I feel I provide an analytic perspective on Rand, or at least I've shed light on why Rand is not taken seriously by the whole of analytic philosophy. I'm not bias in either direction, but I'm perhaps the only one within this small realm of discussion to have submerged himself in both Rand's epistemology and traditional epistemological concepts in Western philosophy (especially analytic and pragmatist), which I think uniquely enables me to compare them and point out their disparities. -- User:Kallath

It's a good start, but you should add more references for it. -- LGagnon 13:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentations

Someone wrote that Peikoff views refusal to engage in dialogue and complete adherence to all of Rand's views as integral to Objectivism. This is wrong at best and an attempted smear at worst. In the first place, Peikoff (and other ARI affiliates) often speak to non-Objectivist groups. Peikoff's objection to Kelley (in that context), whether right or wrong, was Kelley's speaking UNDER THE AUSPICES OF a libertarian group. Secondly, Peikoff does NOT view total agreement with Rand's views as integral to Objectivism. He (and many other prominent members of the "collective" openly disagreed with her views on music, and Peikoff disagrees with her views of homosexuality. I reworded the paragraph slightly, but it still needs work. 68.7.212.152 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think you're referring to my additions in response to the "cult section is too POV" comments above; I was looking for balance. I am not an expert in this and am reading much of the secondary material for the first time, so your corrections would be welcome. Kaisershatner 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a good addition; it just needed some wording changes. 24.94.5.94 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

References and articles list

Some cleanup is probably appropriate here (I took a first shot). A major question I have is do people think we should re-list the articles already referenced in the "Notes" section. As it stands, of the articles listed at the end, most are already linked in the text, including Turner, Rothbard, Shermer, Sharlet, and McLemee. That leaves "CSPAN", Wolf, Huben, and Hari. Of these, the first isn't an article, and the last is of dubious value in this bio article. I'm not looking to cut it because it is critical of Rand, but because it has to do with Objectivists more than Rand, and is probably better suited in that article if at all. Rand died long before the tsunami. Kaisershatner 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• C-SPAN program "American Writers" featuring RealVideo discussions of Rand's writing.
• Wolf, Chris. FAQ - What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?
• Huben, Mike. Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand) Links to criticism of Rand.
• Criticisms of Objectivism — from the Objectivism Reference Center site
• Hari, Johann. "Don't give to tsunami victims - the message of the American right's philosopher-queen" — critical column from The London Independent
• Ayn Rand Centenary Tribute "Ayn Rand 100" including "Concerto of Deliverance," inspired by Rand's description of inspiring music.

Nozick's Criticism and Rand's Reply

Recently an unsigned addition to the article augmented the Legacy:Philosophy section with a comment by Rand about Robert Nozick. The insert was:

Rand was in turn critical of Nozick, saying in an appearance at the Ford Hall Forum "I don't like to read this author because I don't like bad eclectics — not in architecture, and certainly not in politics and philosophy — particularly when I'm one of the pieces butchered" (Ayn Rand Answers, 75). Further, Rand maintained that she arrived at her ethical conclusions through induction, not deduction.

There are four serious problems with this "reply". The first problem is that the vast majority of it is an ad hominem attack on Nozick. Rand's somewhat nonsensical accusation about "bad eclectics" is not a substantive reply to any criticism whatsoever. (Moreover, there is no elaboration on this remark in the source -- that's all there is, so she really doesn't offer anything beyond name-calling.)

The second problem is that this "reply" is taken out of context and is not even intended as a response to the essay of Nozick that is discussed in the article. I have since looked up the reference, and Rand is talking about Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in which the essay about the Randian argument does not appear. The fact that Rand criticized some other book of Nozick's doesn't bear on this section of this article, especially since her criticism is so brief and insubstantial.

The third issue is with the sentence, "Rand maintained that she arrived at her ethical conclusions through induction, not deduction." This is not supported by the citation given, nor any other document that I could find. At present, it's unverifiable. But the main problem is this: the assertion that she defends her moral system inductively is also just plain wrong. If you read any of Rand's nonfiction books about ethics (The Virtue of Selfishness, etc.) she always argues that the concept of life is "metaphysically prior" to the concept of value, and so value should aim to preserve one's own life. This argument is seriously problematic, but putting all this aside, it's not an inductive argument no matter how you twist it. Anything that invokes metaphysics is not empirical/inductive in nature. Nobody (and certainly not Rand) has ever given any account of how to extract universal moral imperatives from observations about the world.

The final, and perhaps most important issue, is one of balance. Nozick's article is an extremely scholarly 20-page work in which he charitably and respectfully analyzes and criticizes each main point of Rand's argument, in many places trying to do a lot of her work for her so as to see whether her argument could be salvaged. Rand's response, insofar as it exists, is a glib sentence attacking the author. Citing the latter as a legitimate reply to the former grossly misrepresents the true state of the philosophical debate on this issue, which is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.

I would be grateful for any comments and would be glad to discuss this further. --Wilanthule 17:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To boil your argument down to a sound byte, you're saying that Rand's response is unscholarly and underwhelming. Perhaps so. However, to hide her response on the basis of its low quality would have the side effect of making Rand look better. Any distortion of the facts that has the effect of making her look better or worse is at risk of violating WP:NPOV. Perhaps it would be better to let Rand speak for herself on this matter, no matter how well or how poorly she does. Alienus 17:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but I think the relevance points I made still apply. If we quote a reply, it should be a reply (even a terrible one) to the essay in question, and the essay in question wasn't even written when she made this reply. (Anarchy, State, and Utopia doesn't mention Rand at any length, as far as I know.) --Wilanthule 17:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. It would be nice if someone could find any direct response she might have made, but until we have it, your version is reasonable. Alienus 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the response to Nozick is inappropriate for the article. However, Rand DID say that she arrived at her ideas through induction, not deduction. I'm not sure how to cite things in articles, but the source for this is Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction," lecture 1. Also, Anarchy, State, and Utopia does have a few pages discussing Rand, and cites her books (primarily The Virtue of Selfishness and Atlas Shrugged) several times. LaszloWalrus 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Peikoff's exposition of Rand's ideas doesn't count as Rand's reply. Also, the source you cite is a set of audio lectures. This is less good than a written document of some kind for reasons of verifiability. Since Peikoff claims that Rand herself used induction to arrive at her ideas and said so, there must be some record of Rand saying something like this. Do you think you can find it?

A more crucial point: Nozick does not base his objections on the premise that Rand's argument is deductive. He has no preconceptions about it, and criticizes exactly what she wrote. When I said "deduce", I should have said "defend". A reply that Rand's reasoning is "inductive" is not relevant to Nozick's critique. In fact, if I remember the essay correctly, he does consider and answer the objection that values might be obtained from empirical observation.

Short version: I corrected my exposition of Nozick's argument to remove my original error, so the reply by Peikoff no longer seems relevant. I have left it pending your reply. Tell me what you think. --Wilanthule 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Nozick in a while, so I don't remember exactly what his objection is. Here's a summary of Peikoff's lecture series, where he says that in Rand's own words she claims to reach ALL of her fundamental ideas through induction, not deduction. A page at the Kellyist Objectivist Center makes similar claims. Here are links to both relevant Ayn Rand Institute and the Objectivist Center pages. [1] and [2] LaszloWalrus 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but unless you can tell me how that relates to Nozick's argument, it seems the response is irrelevant anyway. What do you think? --Wilanthule 04:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It depends. If Nozick is criticizing Rand based on her alleged deduction of moral principles, then I think it should stand, as it implies that Nozick may have misread her (whether he actually did so or not is a different matter). If we make the critique more general, simply saying something like "Nozick disagreed with Rand's ethical arguments," then I don't think we have to mention induction.LaszloWalrus 06:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current critique doesn't mention deduction, so presumably you agree the response is not relevant. I will remove it, but I would welcome a sourced reply from Rand or one of her expositors responding more directly to Nozick's criticism. --Wilanthule 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rand's Associates

The Branden’s are not associates of Ayn Rand’s as specifically stated by her in "To Whom It May Concern" in The Objectivist (1968). Also, if you check her revised version of "The virtue of selfishness," and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" you will find that she states that Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with her. She clearly seperates herself from the Brandens.

An associate is someone you choose to associate yourself with. At one time she chose to associate herself with the Brandens but after realising their true character she disassociated herself with the Brandens and therefore they were no longer her associates. In a law firm, you and I are associates but when you fire me I am no longer your associate neither are you mine even if I want you to be.

Finally, the issue of tense. "Rand's associates" seems to refer to her associates up to the time before her death; or the present, should she still be alive. So, in her last days, who were her associates; those would have been people she saw on a regular basis and/or confided in. If you want to use it in the past tense, everyone she associated herself with at any point of her life, even if she disassociated later on, Alan Greenspan, Barry Goldwater, and Frank Lloyd Wright...etc should be included. In fact, there is a section for “influenced” where the Brandens can be mentioned. The only point of having an “associates” section is to boost interest for anyone listed under that category. Since the Brandens are not her associates anyone putting the Brandens in that category is only doing it to dishonestly boost interest in the Brandens; and this is done simply by allowing the Branden's name to be associated with Ayn Rand's name and reputation.

To include Barbara and Nathaniel Branden in “Rand’s Associates” is to misrepresent the reality of their relationship. Any one who is interested in Ayn Rand would be mislead by this category. The Brandens are not associates of Ayn Rand but were once associated with her. --darnoconrad 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is no longer alive, and so she doesn't currently have any associates. All her associations are past. The section could, in principle, be retitled "Rand's Associates during her Lifetime", but this would be an awkward restatement of the blindingly obvious. Why we should restrict such a section to Rand's associates on the day of her death, I don't know. If you browse other biographical articles on Wikipedia, you will note that people are often listed as "associates" even if the relationship ended badly or the associate in question died before the subject of the article. Since this is widely accepted convention, I don't know why Objectivist politics should trump it.

In short, the fact that she publicly broke ties with some of her one-time associates (which is clearly and neutrally documented in the article) does not change the fact that they were, at one time, her associates. I would not object to including other former associates of Rand in this category, so if you'd like to add Greenspan, Goldwater, etc., I doubt anybody would object. Finally, if your thirst for accuracy (or overstating the obvious) is so strong, you may wish to retitle the section "Rand's Former Associates, Including Some Who Were Not Her Associates on the Day of Her Death", but this would probably meet with some opposition for other reasons.

Finally, your repetitive comments about the Brandens' "true character" casts doubt on the neutrality of your point of view on this issue. You would make your point stronger if you stuck to the facts.

For all these reasons, I am reverting the article to its previous state. --Wilanthule 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Will, I agree with your reasoning, and support your conclusion. This looks like yet another case of ARI orthodoxy at the cost of neutrality. Alienus 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, an associate is someone you choose, Ayn Rand specifically chose not to associate herself with the Brandens and therefore they were no longer her associates; and this would apply to Barry Goldwater as well (that’s why I wouldn’t add him either). I pointed out adding all the other people to show why it would be ridiculous and lose meaning; and that’s why her housekeeper, doctor, etc... should not be added. You may think that it is relevant to add the Brandens because they helped to develop her philosophy. There is no evidence of this and it’s quite unlikely; Ayn Rand points out in her works that what she has written are her thoughts alone. Why should Leonard Peikoff be under the associates section? Because he was her associate by choice. Our dispute has to deal with a different interpretation of “associate,” in order to resolve it we will have to agree on its meaning; that means finding the correct meaning. If you insist on keeping the section and keeping and adding anyone she was once associated with then I propose adding dates beside each person’s name to indicate time of association. I think that it will be an appropriate addition because it will add clarity, be less misleading, and be more useful to the readers.

Nathaniel Branden 1950-1968

Barbara Branden 1950-1968

Leonard Peikoff 19-- - end (I don’t know when they started their relationship)

The fact remains that Ayn Rand, later on in their relationship, discovered the Brandens "true character." Had she known it when she met them she would not have continued to see them. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. The Brandens did lie about themselves and mislead Ayn Rand. Therefore, during the time Ayn Rand did associate herself with the Brandens she did not know their true character (because they were lying to her and Ayn Rand did not know it.) Had they said that they were liars from the start of their relationship then she would have known their true character from the start; knowing this she most probably would not have chosen to engage in a relationship with them (but that’s just my guess). --darnoconrad 22:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting sequence of counterfactuals, but the fact remains that, for a time, they were associates. That is all that Wikipedia documents. (Note also, that neither Rand nor anybody else gets to decide ex post who is a "real" associate. The fact that the relationship was, according to you and other people, a mistake does not imply that it did not exist.) Save the catechism about the vileness of the Brandens for the Rand church. --Wilanthule 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat netural on this. I don't think that we should eliminate the Brandens from the associate list. Though Ayn Rand clearly did break ties with them, they were associates at one point. I don't have a problem listing associates by year however, though I don't think it's a major issue. By the way, Leonard Peikoff was associated with Rand from 1951 to 1982 (her death). LaszloWalrus 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and if the Brandens had been swallowed whole by giant iguanas in 1967, then they'd avoid Darnoconrad's criteria for exclusion. Isn't "What if?" fun! We can all play. Uh, or... we could just stick to what reliable sources say and leave the Brandens on the list. Alienus 23:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Alienus and Wilanthule; you are both still avoiding the issue and instead trying to start some kind of personal war. The issue is that we cannot agree on what the term "associate" refers to: past, present, everyone she came into contact with, only those with whom she spoke about her philosophy with, chosen or not. If you want to solve the issue you will have to make it clear why what you are suggesting is right and I am wrong.

Associates are chosen just as friends are. If we had a "Rand's Friends" category would you add the Brandens? I would not because, even though they were at one time her friends, she deliberately ended that friendship. “Ayn Rand’s Associates” is in the present tense and since she is not alive (and a corpse can have no associates) what should we assume? If it were 1982 before her death and this bio was being written who would be listed under her associates? What does “associates” mean in the present tense? These are some questions that must be answered to resolve the dispute. If I publicly repudiated, with a proper explanation of my reasons, a lifelong friend, who I encountered with once in a while, because I found out that he was a thief and a murderer and I died the next day; who would you list under my associates? Would you list the murdering ex-friend? I would not because I am dead… pause for laughs… Seriously, I would not because I place emphasis on choice, you on the other hand would. If I were wrongfully imprisoned for 20 years and found out a few years after my imprisonment that my cell mate was a convicted murderer and I chose not to interact with him for the rest of my sentence; would you consider him my associate? Remember there were a few years of friendship and I was in the same cell as him for 20 years because of the circumstance; there had to be some level of interaction. I would not; I think that associates are a matter of choice. Adding a category of “Chosen associates” would be redundant because I am saying that the term “associates” assumes choice. The Brandens along with Goldwater could be placed under “Rand’s former associates;” this category would assume the phrase “you might be interested to know that…” --darnoconrad 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no abstract truth about what "associates" means for people who have died. The broad consensus among editors of this article is that it includes long-term associates like the Brandens with whom Rand later had a falling out. You might not like this, but this is clearly a personal issue for you (since you have taken such a clear stance about the Brandens being bad characters) so it doesn't seem to me like your sole voice of dissent, which is probably not wholly neutral, should trump the consensus. Best, --Wilanthule 03:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I would be much more open to Darnoconrads argument if it didn't fit so well into the pattern of ARI hostility towards the Brandens. Because it does, I have trouble accepting it at face value in good faith. However, even if play dumb and ignore this link, the argument cannot stand on its own merits. It's hardly clear that a list of associates must exclude anyone who the subject of the biographical article later had a falling out with. A long-term association is more notable than whether it lasted to the death. 05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to include the years. Although my personal view is that "associates" clearly implies professional associates and would include associates who were later disavowed, this may not be a universal view. However, even Rand would have to agree that from 19xx to 19xx the Brandens were her associates. There's no sense in denying reality, and one can't just disappear the Brandens from history like Stalin did with that guy in the picture. Especially ironic given Rand's view of objective reality. Kaisershatner 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... But their "true character" was deeply corrupted. Maybe that means they existed only in their own corrupted little minds. :-P --Wilanthule 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added George Reisman and Robert Hessen to the associates list. Reisman was one of Rand's friends and was affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute for a while. Hessen wrote an article in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. Any objections? LaszloWalrus 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• <! --Ayn Rand Biography --> probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me. --Wilanthule 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.

A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.

Hbackman 00:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

68.237.222.135 = Vandal?

68.237.222.135 has written things like this: "This nonsensical incongruence of opinions is one of many such examples of Rand's insincerity." He has also written: "Her lassiez-faire philosophy crashed upon the rocks of rational thought when it became obvious what her true philosophy was; 'I can do whatever I want, but other people's actions have consequences.'" Finally, there was this great gem of insight and wisdom: "The Ayn Rand Institute's main goal is to spread Objectivism throughout academia, particularly in humanities departments; unfortunately it also works to expose high school and college students to Ayn Rand's depressing writings and selfish ideas." I think this constitutes vandalism. Is there a way to have 68.237.222.135 blocked? LaszloWalrus 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This user's edits are clearly too strongly biased against Rand to fit within WP:POV. Having said that, they're anonymous and haven't made any attempt to edit-war, so I think this is a dead issue. Alienus 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate over "Cult of Objectivism" title

Stating in the heading that Objectivism is a cult is by no means neutral. We should indicate in the heading that it's a controversial position; after all, no Objectivist would claim Objectivism is a cult, and even among those opposed to Objectivism, those who would brand it a cult are in the minority. LaszloWalrus 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't see your comment (heading didn't relate to the point). I have changed the heading to avoid this controversy, hopefully you will be happier with the more neutral POV. --Wilanthule 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks good now. Thanks. LaszloWalrus 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

cult section

firstly let me say i found this article informative and relatively objective. however, i think the closing section on the cult nature of objectivism is misleading, and serves as an inappropriate closing paragraph on an otherwise positive article. as someone readily familiar with objectivist philosophies, i find the label of cult to be wholly wrong, no more than other philosophical pioneers are cult leaders, or their adherents cult members. if nothing more, perhaps it should be included that no cult characteristics exist today. thank you. Dosterschill 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

that would not adhere to NPOV. Serious writers like Shermer have suggested that Objectivism did and, in some ways, still does resemble a cult. We may disagree with that, but not mentioning the criticism would bias the article. Best, --Wilanthule 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The objectivists here at Wikipedia have been making your argument over and over again, deleting anything critical of Randism in a manner not unlike Scientology's followers' actions. If anything, the fact that objectivists are so rabid about their cult only gives further reason for this section to be here.

And yes, cult characteristics do still exist. For instance, veneration of the leader is still quite common. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to find some sources to back it up.

On a side note, this article and the objectivism one are getting a bit big, so I'd like to propose a new article about the cult controversy, which would help to centralize the varying cult criticisms that appear across the articles relating to it.

Also, I think a few quotes from Jeff Walker's book (already in the references section, but not cited in the article) would help. Here's a link for some quotes from it: [3] -- LGagnon 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed similarities to Scientology, up to this day. BRussel 14:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism doesn't teach that an Alien named Xenu dumped his excess population into the volcanoes of Hawaii and then dumped Hydrogen bombs on them. There are very few (if any) connections between Objectivism and Scientology so don't insinuate that there is more to this than there is (which there isn't much). The Fading Light 01:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stating any more than what Jeff Walker did - which does in fact belong here. -- LGagnon 01:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Same old bias

The "Ayn Rand cult" article was deleted, so now this article is set back. We're going to have to work to recover all the info that the "unbiased" editors deleted without even thinking about transfering it here. So much for Wikipedia being unbiased; it's unbiased until the facts make Objectivism look bad. And don't get me wrong; I'm a pretty loyal editor to this website, but I'm not about to pretend that it doesn't let a few special interests get away with whatever they want. Without safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, we're always going to have this problem. -- LGagnon 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to recover the info deleted from the "Ayn Rand cult" article? There was a lot of NPOV info there that should be added here at the very least. -- LGagnon 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Her heroes are physically attractive

I take exception to my source citations being deleted as "vandalism."

That Ayn Rand's heroes are physically attractive is very commonly commented on and is valid (as is shown by being supported by two citations; examples could be multiplied).

The observation is in the context of criticism of her novels as literature. To observe that Rand's characters are physically attractive is just as legitimate as to observe that Dickens' plots often turn on impossibly unlikely coincidences. It is a valid and, dare I say reasonably objective observation.

I included two references, one respectful (asserting that the physical beauty is supposed to be symbolic reflection of inward beauty) and one jocular. This, too, is neutral and reflects an actual range of opinion.

Those disposed toward Rand either accept that Rand's heroes being paragons of physical attractiveness is plausible, or that it is acceptable in the context of a novel that is intended to be more than a realistic story, or a small but lovable flaw.

Among those not so disposed, the perfection of her supermen and superwomen is indeed something of a joke, and my second citation reflects that. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I was wrong. Sorry for the deletion. I did not see that the quotes were in a footnote... I was reading the code and it didn't seem coherent, but now it all makes sense. Apologies. --Wilanthule 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. Thanks. And apologies for my huffy tone. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: moving homosexuality article.

There's been a move-war over the naming of the Objectivism and homosexuality article, with LaszloWalrus repeatedly renaming it to Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality. I won't rehash the arguments here or otherwise prejudice interested parties. Instead, I ask that you consult the Talk page and participate in forming a consensus. Al 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

More eyes, please. Al 04:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anton LaVey

I have removed Anton LaVey (founder of Satanism) from the list of philosophers Rand has influenced; my problem with including him is the fact that he is not referred to as a philosopher, and the list is for philosophers. He's a (dubious) religious leader; if we include him, we might as well call the Rush drummer a philosopher. LaszloWalrus 00:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say he's a religious authority too, rather than a philosopher. Likewise, I wouldn't call Billy Graham a philosopher. But, I don't know enough about LaVey to say for sure. RJII 02:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it's iffy. Anton's religion is in many ways a philosophy and — dare I say it? — Ayn's philosophy is in many ways a religion. It's not like he's a drummer or an athlete; he's a writer and a thinker, of sorts. It's also quite clear that he was influenced by Ayn. So, in short, while it never occurred to me to add him, I would resist any attempt to remove him. Frankly, it gives me a mild itch to see Anton removed. Al 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, Anton LaVey was not a philosopher, nor, I'd submit, a sincere believer in what he propounded, but merely a faithful applier of P.T.Barnum's famous adage.Timothy Usher 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Anton's article says he "synthesized his understanding of human nature and the insights of earlier philosophers". This makes it clear that he is himself a philosopher. As for your claims about his honesty, I don't see how it might be relevant. Al 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If I claim to have synthesized the insights of earlier philosophers into my golf technique, does that make me a philosopher?Timothy Usher 04:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to me to decide what it would take to make you a philosopher, so let's stick to Anton. What's your objections, exactly? That his religion is not a philosophy? Al 05:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

My problem with LaVey is that the does not call himself a philosopher, and no one else calls him a philosopher. How about this compromise: if someone can find an academic source (preferably, but not necessarily online) callingn LaVey a philosopher, he stays? LaszloWalrus 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look up the professional review of his "Satanic Bible" on Amazon, it reads "The Satanic Bible is less bible and more philosophy (with a few rituals thrown in to keep us entertained), but this philosophy is the backbone of a religion that, until LaVey entered the scene, was merely a myth of the Christian church." Al 22:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's something worth adding:

• LaVey described his religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" [4]

I think we should add more info on the relationship between LaVey Satanism and Objectivism to the article, especially now that we have a source to back it up. -- LGagnon 16:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's an excellent quote. I agree that it's odd for LaVey's article to mention Objectivism without this one doing more than dropping his name. I'm going to see if I can add a one-liner, backed up by your quote. The next step would be to expand it a bit. Al 16:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting fact: LaVey is in Category:Cult leaders despite the fact that his article says nothing about cults. Meanwhile, this article has about 3 pages about cult activity and doesn't have this category. Which article has a problem, this one or that? -- LGagnon 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Jimbo is an admirer of Rand, not LeVay. I'm also reminded of the cliche about a religion being a cult with an army behind it. Connect the dots. Al 04:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This can never be a featured article

Sorry, but it's true, and you need to know this before you waste the FAC's judges time again. The objectivist bias on Wikipedia is too strong to ever meet the requirement of the article being non-controversial. Tons of NPOV info on criticisms of objectivism are constantly deleted, and have been deleted throughout the years I've been here. There's a few problems you'd have to get over for this article (or any objectivism-related article) to have a chance at being a FA:

• Stop the deletion of criticisms of objectivism that are in fact NPOV.
• Bring back all the usable info that was hastily deleted from the "Ayn Rand cult" article (yes, there was some there; even pro-deletion people admitted that), and any other legit info related to this deleted from other articles (what happened to the Rand-as-fascist criticisms?).
• Stop the biased pro-objectivism editors from vandalizing the articles (you know who you are).

None of this has happened as long as I've been at Wikipedia, and thus no objectivism-related article will ever be worthy of featured article status. -- LGagnon 04:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree. Al 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty ironic for someone to assert a pro-Objectivism bias on Wikipedia and simultaneously claim that the Ayn Rand article can never have featured status. Thanks for making my evening. AscendedAnathema 04:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I say "never" because there's no effort to fix the problem. For all Wikipedia's claims of NPOV, I've never seen any serious attempt to fix the POV problems with the objectivism-related articles. They've always been POV, and if they continue to be such (which I wouldn't doubt), then none of them will ever be worthy of FA status. Theoretically, yes, they can become FAs. Theoretically, we can put an end to the pro-objectivism bias here at Wikipedia. In reality, the objectivists have too much power here, and are allowed to get away with destroying the "objectivity" of any article related to their cult. -- LGagnon 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that Jimbo is a big fan of Ayn. Al 05:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, allow me to say that I am not a subscriber of Rand's philosophy and have distanced myself from some of the core beliefs since becoming familiar with her works. However, considering your comments and the massive section on the "Objectivism = cult?" issue in the Ayn Rand article , I'm inclined to believe that the problem isn't so much pro-Objectivist POV in Objectivism-related articles as much as it is the pretentiousness of someone who believes in a Objectivist conspiracy on Wikipedia and blatantly refers to Objectivism as a cult while simultaneously airing POV accusations over Objectivists who "have too much power here" while blindly ignoring the nature of his own comments. If there ever was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is indeed it.AscendedAnathema 05:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You do know that personal attacks are a fallacy, right? You've essentially made no real argument with the above comment. And yes, I do call them a cult, but only on the talk page; in the articles, I source other people's claims of cult activity (which is the proper NPOV way of doing so). Is it wrong for an anti-objectivist to edit an article when objectivists are altering it to fit their POV? No, in fact we need both sides editing here to ensure that bias will not be in the article from either side. And it's not a conspiracy; it's just a lack of work to stop a biased "collective" from screwing things up. Call me a "looter"/"wog" for pointing that out if you want. :) -- LGagnon 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My advice: Arguing and competiveness is the only thing that's going to improve the article. Keep it up. But, be sure to source everything that's contentious. If anyone sees something they don't agree with, then request a source. If a source is provided, it stays --don't delete sourced information. If no source is provided after reasonable time, delete or modify the information to accord to a source. Eventually, this will be a high quality, well-sourced, article with reliable information. The more intense the competion, the faster that will happen. It's pointless to argue over things without providing sources --such arguments will go on indefinitely with no resolution. Almost all the disputes can be resolved by providing sources and putting them in the article. (Put tag after any statements that you think may be B.S. in order to request source). RJII 05:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, not everyone here does. Objectivists delete information whether there's a source or not; they don't care how well backed up something is, they just care that it doesn't offend them. They're anti-intellectuals, and they've demonstrated that here by deleted sourced info on more than one occasion. -- LGagnon 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack? LGagnon just did the same thing he accused AscendedAnathema of doing. LaszloWalrus 00:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. From a rhetorical viewpoint, this is not a personal attack. I have backed up my claim that they have behaved anti-intellectually by mentioning that they delete things without justification (the deletion of the Ayn Rand cult's sourced info comes to mind). I am merely pointing out what has happened here; I am not making claims of hypocrisy, nor am I trying to divert the other person from the subject at hand. Thus, this is not a personal attack. -- LGagnon 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kant

"In Objectivist epistemology reason is the highest virtue and reason and logic can be used to understand objective reality. This is diametrically opposed to Kant's analytic-synthetic dichotomy, as Kant believed that metaphysics cannot talk about what exists ("things-in themselves") since it is unknowable, but rather must focus on what is experienced and how it is experienced. In Rand's view, Kant's dichotomy severed rationality and reason from the real world"

I feel like this is misreading Kant, particularly the point of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Maybe the original author confused this with the phenomenal/noumenal distinction? That seems to be the case, but I want to get some feedback before that is changed. (It is Kant after all, so I may be the one misreading him.) --169.233.3.16 03:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be right about this being an inaccurate view of Kant, but keep in mind that Rand has often been considered to have an inaccurate view of Kant. In other words, this may accurately reflect Rand's beliefs about Kant. Al 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an accurate summary of Rand's (controversial) interpretation of Kant. LaszloWalrus 20:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the right answer, then, is to qualify the text so that it's clearly about Rand's view, not about what Kant actually said. Al 01:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like an true explanation of Kant to me. Kant thought all we could have knowledge of is our experience of an object, rather than the object itself. RJII 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you agree with Rand on the matter of Kant. However, Kant is not known for clarity of writing, so it's not uncommon for people to disagree on interpretation. Al 17:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it, Kant was more concerned to show that (say) our intuitions about the nature of time don't tell us anything about time, but only about the way in which we perceive time. He was not so concerned about whether we could have knowledge of (say) actual chairs as opposed to perceptions of chairs, since that doesn't bear on so many important metaphysical questions. On the question of whether or not the chair you're sitting on exists, I expect Kant had roughly the common sense view: yes, it exists, but of course it is impossible to refute completely standard skepticism about the senses. Anyway, I agree with Al that the interpretation should be labelled as Rand's, since the interpretation of Kant is a pretty controversial area. Cadr 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So in essence Kant's philosophy is the art of Not-Thinking and how no one is responsible for their actions since thinking happens at a level that is cut off from logic and reason. No wonder Ayn Rand called Kant a monster. The Fading Light 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Kant's philosophy is the art of Not-Thinking and how no one is responsible for their actions": well, i have some doubts about that...:)--Greece666 01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

allegations

(Moved from User_talk:Alienus)

"Alienus has allegedly raped five-year-old boys."

"Alienus has raped people alleged to be five-year-old boys."

You see the difference. The latter asserts guilt, rather than merely asserting that allegations were made. The same applies to you recent edit in Ayn Rand: you put the word "alleged" in the wrong place. I've fixed it.

On another matter, in view of the discussion at talk:list of philosophers, I think you should respectfully express yourself there before editing the article according your view that may be disputed there. Michael Hardy 22:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What a wonderful, civil example you chose! Keep it up.

Look, when I removed one of the two "alleged" weasel-words from that sentence, I chose the one that denied that Objectivism contributed, not the one that denied that what Objectivism contributed to was a cult.

Now, it's questionable whether LeVayan Satanism is a cult (although I personally lean towards that direction), but there is no question that Objectivism contributed to it. We have quotes where LeVay freely admitted to this fact. In short, you kept the wrong one. Therefore, I'm going to fix it.

As for the philosopher list, I do not oppose her being listed as a philosopher. However, she does not qualify as major. After all, popularity is not a guarantee of significance. Al 03:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus: what michael hardy wrote is obviously provocative a) the example is simply obnoxious b) i do not think the problem here is that you do not understand the rules of english language as michael hardy maintains. in any case, i do not think it was michael intention to offend you or anybody else- he just wrote his opinion in a simple and somehow provocative way.

however, i might agree with michael hardy that since rand was known for her lack of sympathy toward religion, it might be better to put an "allegedly"before the claims that objectivism contributed to LeVayan satanism.--Greece666 03:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LaVey himself said that Objectivism inspired him. That's not alleged, that's definite. If he said it inspired him, how can you claim that it did not or even may not? You'll have to find another source in which he said "Objectivism didn't inspire me" to claim otherwise. -- LGagnon 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough- after all i do not make much about this issue- however, if i find a citation of hitler saying he was inspired by nietzsche could i add hitler to nietzsche's students?(by that i do not mean that hitler and LaVey are similar in any way, im just making an exaggerated analogy) LaVey had every reason to claim he was inspired by objectivism, after all this made his theories sound more "serious", but i think that maybe we should be more critical with his claims. maybe we could rephrase: "anton LaVey considered Rand as one of his major intellectual influences". best--Greece666 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, admitting that he made a religion out of Objectivism doesn't actually ADD legitimacy to his Satanism. 05:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you'd have a better argument that Rand is an alleged philosopher. If I remember correctly, she once wrote a whole book denouncing philosophy and academics, institutions that on the whole have rejected her as a philosopher (ironically and, in my opinion, not coincidentally, L Ron Hubbard did the same with psychiatry when that institution rejected him). -- LGagnon 03:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivist wiki

I'm looking for people with knowlege of Objectivisim to contribute to the Objectivist Wiki This project is just getting off the ground, and needs lots of love :). Crazynas 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some, not many

Laszlo, you have yet to give a source proving that "many" oppose the cult accusations. You've only sourced Rand and one Objectivist, thus making it "some". If you want to change "some" to "Objectivists", then that is OK, but "many" is too weasely. -- LGagnon 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As a further note, I'd like to point out that I'm double checking your sources. You've had more than one case where you misrepresented the info from a source for a pro-Objectivist message (specifically, misrepresented Jim Peron's claim about Scientology and Camille Paglia's opinion on Atlas Shrugged). -- LGagnon 00:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Critics of Objectivism

Considering the fact that we've got a Category:Critics of Scientology and that we have at least a handful of articles on people who are critical of Objectivism, how about we create a Category:Critics of Objectivism? There's at least six with articles mentioned in this article and the Atlas Shrugged article, and I could think of a few more (Alan Moore considers Objectivism laughable) -- LGagnon 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't oppose this, keep in mind that there are a number of Objectivism-related categories out there, so we'd have to coordinate them all. Al 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm creating this now. -- LGagnon 18:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophical Legacy

This section makes it sound as though university departments ignore her work for political reasons, when it's actually ignored because of it's low quality and rigor compared to commonly accepted academic philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.205.90 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I remember asking my philosophy prof about this and he said that her work varied between unoriginal and mistaken. I'd say his views are fairly typical of the academic mainstream. As far as I can tell, there are perhaps a few dozen people in the entire country who mention Rand more than casually in their classes or who have written anything substantial about her. Outside of America, it's hard to find someone who'll let you even finish asking them what they think of her. Al 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure part of it's political. Everybody knows how much the average college professor hates laissez-faire capitalism. But, also Rand refused to submit papers to journals when asked. She didn't want to be a part of the establishment and derided philosophy professors. RJII 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she avoided peer review because she hated criticism and analysis. She was so obsessed with keeping people from disagreeing with her that she threatened to sue anyone who wrote a criticism of Objectivism (again, more L Ron Hubbard inspired cultism). In her words: "I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer.... What I am looking for is intelligent agreement." -- LGagnon 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The claim that it was political sounds like a conspiracy theory. What Gagnon says makes more sense: she refused to submit her ideas to venues where they would be criticized by peers. Al 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

She did not threaten to sue anyone who criticized her. Also, you're taking her quotation out of context. She meant it humorously, not literaly. LaszloWalrus 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Quote aside, she was never much of a fan of disagreement. Al 06:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A few excerpts from this article:

"She once threatened to sue a professor for writing a critical study of her work."

"Rand's feelings about academia did not mellow with age, as Mimi Reisel Gladstein of the University of Texas at El Paso learned while working on a critical study, The Ayn Rand Companion. Toward the end of Rand's life, Gladstein wrote to her, informing Rand of the project. Rand warned that, if the study appeared, she would sue."

We could even prove it now if we wanted to add it to the article. -- LGagnon 12:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You did good research and the information is certainly relevant. It belongs in the article. Al 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy

As per the debate at Talk:Objectivist philosophy, this article has a POV tag on it. It should stay until either Objectivism is proven to be a philosophy or we change the article to reflect the dismissal of it by academia. -- LGagnon 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder: You are not supposed to delete the POV template when the debate is still ongoing. -- LGagnon 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such debate that I can see. RJII 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the bottom of this section. -- LGagnon 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was involved in that discussion. But, it's not a debate on whether Objectivism is a philosophy. It's a discussion, which I started, about the fact that there is no criticism of Objectivism in that article --just attacks on the people who happen to agree with Obectivism as being in a cult, etc. RJII 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Now it's a debate over that. We're working on the first step to remedying this (changing the name of the "Objectivist philosophy" article) right now. When that step is done, we are definitely going to have to work on the pro-Rand bias of these articles that falsely claims that Objectivism is a philosophy without any real proof. -- LGagnon 17:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Prove that Kantianism is a philosophy. Of course Objectivism is a philosophy. Need a source? Here you go: "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic...Rand's philosophy underlay her fiction but found more direct expression in her nonfiction, including such works as For the New Intellectual (1961), The Virtue of Selfishness (1965), Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1967), and Philosophy: Who Needs It? (1982). She also promoted her objectivist philosophy in the journals The Objectivist (1962–71) and The Ayn Rand Letter (1971–76)." (Ayn Rand entry in Encyclopedia Britannica) Even this critic who attacks people who like Objectivism as cultists calls it a philosophy: "How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is the antithesis of reason and individualism?" [5] RJII 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My "philosophy" is to live and let live. Does that make me a "philsopher"? Clearly, "philosophy" has a number of meanings, and it may well be misleading to suggest that Rand's literary notions about aesthetics and politics are the same sort of philosophy as, say, the work of Plato.

In any case, if the article were not named Objectivist philosophy, what else might we call it? I once suggested Objectivism (Randian), but I don't remember garnering much support for the proposition. Al 18:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Argue with the sources all you want, but you won't get anywhere. It says right there that Objectivism is a philosophy. RJII 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Here's a line from the essay you apparently didn't read: "Meanwhile, adherents of Objectivism (as Rand called her worldview) have an active interest group within the American Philosophical Association." Note how he admits that there's a SIG in the APA while carefully calling Rand's ideas her "worldview", as distinct from "philosophy". Anyone for "Objectivism (worldview)"? Al 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

McLemlee refers to it as a philosophy many times in that article. For example, "In 1958, Nathaniel Branden offered to present the quintessence of Rand's vision--the philosophy embodied in her novels--in a course of twenty public lectures titled "Basic Principles of Objectivism." [6] So, there's yet another source. RJII

The article has been moved to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). As for the word "philosophy"'s use, there is a technical term (works with academic credibility such as Cartesian, Marxist, & Nietzschian philosophy) and then there's the vernacular term (opinion on how things work). These two are as different as scientific theory and "wild guess" theory. Rand asserts herself to be a legit philosopher, thus she is trying to take on the 1st definition for her views. However, her work takes on only the vernacular definition. Thus, she is acting much like the intelligent design proponents who want their wild guess "theory" to be accepted as a scientific theory. Given this, it would be misleading to call her ideas a philosophy in the article as it misleads the reader into misunderstanding what the article is talking about. -- LGagnon 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Sources abound. Need another? [7]. Whether you or I think she's a philosopher doesn't matter. Wikipedia has to reflect sourced information. RJII 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources abound that are dismissive of her claim to being a philosophy. What's your point? Al 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where? Show us one credible published source. RJII 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By Alienus's reasoning, we should have a disclaimer on the George W. Bush article saying he's not the "real" president because he "stole" the 2000 election. Similarly, I don't believe that postmodernism is a philosophy (random words strung together, maybe, but not a philosophy) but my personal view on the matter doesn't change anything, even though I could find many sources that are dismissive of postmodernism. The facts are: she's read in philosophy classes in universities (Duke, Stanford, University of Texas at Austin, NYU, Ashland), she's listed as a philosopher in the Routledge Encylopedia of Philosophy, in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series and a volume on her ethics was published by Cambridge University Press. Whether or not you or I like Objectivism, it's a philosophy. LaszloWalrus 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There are countless books saying God is real. There are whole universities build on this concept. Should we tell all the objectivists that they have to accept the existence of God? No, because despite all the references claiming such, none of them have proven it. There are, however, philosophers and academics who have given very good arguments that Objectivism is a pseudophilosophy. Admittedly, this does not necessarily prove that it isn't a philosophy, as others claim it is, but then again the other side of the argument hasn't proven it either, and has done much less to prove their point. Thus, if we claim that it is a philosophy, we are simply backing only one side's argument instead of being NPOV. Whether or not we brand it a fact that it's a pseudophilosophy or not is not what's important; what is important is that we do not take up one side. By simply giving in to one side we unbalance the article instead of treating both sides fairly. Thus, we can not call it a philosophy or a pseudophilosophy outside of neutral claims of what others have called it. -- LGagnon 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is your source that Objectivism is not a philosophy? And, even if you find out, it will be an extreme minority viewpoint. Everybody knows Objectivism is a philosophy. RJII 01:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's no big deal. All we have to do is use careful phrasing, such as "Rand considered her worldview to be an important new philosophy". Note how this doesn't state as a fact that it was a philosophy, much less an important or new one. Al 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should deal with it the same way postmodernism is dealt with; don't insert the POV of not calling it a philosophy. Call it a philosophy, then cite critics who question its validity. "Philosophy" does not mean true philosophy or academically respected philosophy or even coherent philosophy. LaszloWalrus 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still POV to call it philosophy. By calling it such, we are backing the objectivists' side. And yes, I know there's a vernacular definition of philosophy. But we don't call intelligent design a theory, despite being a theory in the vernacular "wild guess" definition. And that is because it confuses the reader into believing the wrong definition - which is exactly what you're trying to do. -- LGagnon 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've checked the postmodernism article. It doesn't call it a philosophy (except for in the name, which probably should be called "Postmodernism (philosophy)") but a movement. That sets an example for how we should do these articles. -- LGagnon 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism, as an artistic and literary movement, is much broader than just a philosophy, and nearly all of the postmodernism article is about those art, architecture, literature, etc. It links to Postmodern philosophy, which is called a philosophy. -- Centrx 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If something as mainstream as Encyclopedia Britannica calls it a philosophy, then we're going to call it a philosophy. You and Gagnon have presented no sources to the contrary. RJII 01:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quit lying, cut the truthiness, and read the link I gave you before. I cited a source and you've ignored it every time it comes up; you just don't want to acknowledge that it exists because it makes objectivism look bad. -- LGagnon 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And if you're in a really lazy/elitist/biased mood, please note that some info from the link is already cited in the article. -- LGagnon 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a credible source. It's self-published. Review our policy at WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." Rimric press is the publisher, which is owned by Parrott himself. [8] So, you're going to have to do better than that. RJII 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a debate on the exact definition of philosophy (see definition of philosophy). Isn't this discussion just an instance of this debate as applied to Ayn Rand and Objectivism? To settle whether Objectivism is a philosphy, don't we need to first ask and answer, "What is a philosophy?" In applying the main points of agreement about what philosophy is to Objectivism, I come up with:

Method:

• general agreement: The philosophical method is rational, systematic and critical, or characterised by logical argument
• Objectivism: other than with respect to the axioms, I see this as applying to Objectivism

Intrinsic Character:

• general agreement: It can be distinguished from empirical science and religion; it differs from science in that its questions cannot be answered empirically, (i.e. by observation or experiment); it differs from religion in that its purpose is entirely intellectual, and allows no place for faith or revelation.
• Objectivism: Objectivism makes intellectual arguments rather than empirical ones (e.g., argues that capitalism is a moral system rather than an effective one); it is criticized for making certain almost "faith-like" leaps of logic in its axioms, ethics, and aesthetics, but it specifically claims to respect reason and dismiss revelation.
• general agreement: Philosophic enquiry is second order, having concepts, theories and presupposition as its subject matter; it is "thinking about thinking," or reflective thought about particular kinds of thinking.
• Objectivism: ???
• general agreement: It is critical thinking that examines the beliefs we take for granted.
• Objectivism: Objectivism seems to meet this criteria; in fact, some of its unorthodox conclusions are what draw such strong-willed critiques and defenses
• general agreement: It IS NOT mysticism or simply an outlook on life.
• Objectivism: Objectivism is not mysticism, but it may simply be an outlook on life (its tag line is, "A philosophy for living on earth").

Subject matter:

• general agreement: Philosophy examines the fundamental reasons or causes of all things.
• Objectivism: Objectivism attempts to integrate various branches of philosophy and ties the view back to axioms

Branches:

• general agreement: Metaphysics, epistemology and ethics and possibly logic are the main branches of philosophy. Some secondary branches are cosmology, theory of mind, politics, and aesthetics.
• Objectivism: Objectivism takes a position in each of the main branches; it also offers opinions on politics and aesthetics.

Goals:

• general agreement: the goal of philosophy is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
• Objectivism: I think Objectivism fails in this respect, because its rejects the concept of knowledge for its own sake.

Bottom line: Seems like a philosophy to me, with only a mild degree of reservation Johnskrb2 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And what underlies this reservation? Al 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reoccuring vandal

User:The+Invisible+Man has been vandalizing Rand-related articles with a pro-Rand stance. Be wary of his edits. -- LGagnon 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on it. I've reverted his vandalism and left a note on his talk page. If necessary, I'll report him on WP:ANI. Al 04:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I run the biggest (in terms of traffic and active users) Objectivist community on the internet. I used to fight and jostle with other Objectivist websites for links in this article, but I’ve become convinced that Wikipedia is not a link directory, and other than the major Objectivist organizations (those with an actual office building and non-profit status) and intellectuals (those with an actual well-known published books) such links do not belong here because Wikipedia Is Not a Link Directory. So, I don’t link my sites site here, and neither should anyone else. --GreedyCapitalist 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, we're not wiping out all these links. Sorry. Al 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an argument to offer? I don't want to wipe any links out, I like the way it was for about a month prior to the new ones I removed. If you want to keep these links, do you have a criteria to propose? --GreedyCapitalist 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need an argument. You've offered no legitimate reason for removing these links, and they will be restored. Al 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_normally_avoid : "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." - this applies to SOLO, which is a blog. "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." - this applies to the Atlasphere, which is both a product and a blog. --GreedyCapitalist 04:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not being consistent. For one thing, the ARI sells things, too, yet we link to them. In any case, it only says "normally avoid", and WP:EL is a style guide, not a rule. So, once again, you have no legitimate reason. Al 05:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sites such as the Atlasphere, SOLO, and ObjectivismOnline seem like bona fide borderline cases. They each have blog elements, but none of them amount to traditional blogs. The style guidelines make exceptions for sites of particularly high quality. All three of these sites have a large body of members, are not merely installations of generic (e.g. discussion) software, and attempt to offer a broad range of services of interest to adherents of Ayn Rand's philosophy. There seems to be a significant case for including them, as a service to readers. I don't think it's a huge deal, however, and I can see a case in the other direction as well. Jzader 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

I've cut out Raimondo's criticism of Objectivism. He uses the word "cult" in a very narrow context. Ayn Rand died in 1982, over twenty years before the beginning of the Iraq War, and, it is wrong to say that support for the Iraq War is consistent among members of the Ayn Rand Institute; it's president, Yaron Brook, opposes the war [9], it's founder opposes the war (scroll down and listen to his statement on the 2004 election) [10], and so does ARI fellow John Lewis [11]. LaszloWalrus 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a citation for Raimondo's claim and a citation for Yaron's claim. Yaron bitched about the US not killing more people and Raimondo responded by calling the ARI a death cult, as cited. I don't see the problem with what we have in the article. -- LGagnon 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if Raimondo is completely mistaken, it's not for us to decide this and use it as a basis for removing text about him. Rather, we should just mention some verifiable counterarguments. Al 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be better mentioned in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Leonard Peikoff since this relates more to the modern day Objectivist movement than to Ayn Rand herself (who has been dead for roughly 20 years). The Fading Light 13:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should make a single "Criticisms of Objectivism" article, but I'm wary of doing so given that the Randists will attempt to have that (along with all the information in it) deleted to suit their bias (they've done it before and likely will do it again). Funny how they're willing to use collectivism when it suits themselves. -- LGagnon 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the creation of such an article, but the kinds of Objectivists your talking about are the Randroid breed that make everyone else even REMOTLY interested in Objectivism look like mindless robots. This is one of the reasons I consider myself to be a Libertarian-Objectivist, it allows me to stay connected to reality. The Fading Light 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that there is no such thing as Libertarian Objectivists. Al 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this: Yaron Brook is not Ayn Rand, and the Brook did NOT support the Iraq War. LaszloWalrus 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read the article cited? And Raimondo insulted Randism itself, not just Yaron, so it stays. -- LGagnon 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong Alienus but I think that I am more qualified to decide what label to apply to my philosophical/political stance than you are. Currently my politics reflect a mix of Libertarian ideas and Objectivist ideas therefor the label Libertarian-Objectivist fits me quiet nicely. But if you want me to I will be more than happy to inform you of any changes in the labels that I apply to myself so that you don't have to suffer any inconvenience <Sarcasm>. The Fading Light 03:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fading, my tongue was firmly in cheek. I'm on record saying that the Objectivist political stance is a form of Libertarianism, but there are Objectivists who strongly disagree. This can be traced back to Rand's own rejection of the L word, which seems to be based on a confusion between libertarianism and anarchism. The article on this is Libertarianism and Objectivism.

Speaking of related articles, I took a quick peek at your home page and it led me to think that you might be interested in the awkwardly-named but often-interesting Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Homosexuality.

Sorry for any confusion. Al 06:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Objectivism a Cult?

That's a good question but it has a lot more to do with the fate of Objectivism as a philosophy and a movement than with the person of Ayn Ran herself, which is the subject of this article. I have replaced a section on this subject in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article which had been notable for its lack of source citations. I think the move improves both articles, though the 'cult' section as it now stands is overwrought in including such highly peripheral subjects as L. Ron Hubbard, etc. We can improve it in its new and more appropriate location. Blanchette 21:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Centrx 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this cult stuff. I don't think ever met anyone who agrees that everything Rand says is correct. The idea that there's some "cult" out there worshipping Ayn Rand seems like a strawman. Where are these people? RJII 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding ans agreement is unnecessary; there are adequate citations from reliable sources to support the inclusion of this subject. Al 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that. That wasn't my point. I'm becoming convinced that this is more of a made-up thing. I've never seen this alleged cult or come into contact with anyone that has absolute devotion to every idea of Ayn Rand's. I suspect that it's imaginary. RJII 18:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you never (or should I say, still don't) read any of the sources. -- LGagnon 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reliable sources we reference seem genuinely convinced that cultism applies to Randism. Al 19:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the real cult is the people who work to convince each other that there is some "Objectivist cult" out there. It seems a bit paranoid. RJII 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII, read ad hominem and logical fallacy. The reason why you (and at least one other member of your cult) are failing to win this argument is because you literally have no logic behind your arguments. Again, you throw around a personal attack thinking it'll make you look smart when in truth it makes you look like you have no proof that Randism isn't a cult and are just trying to change the subject so you don't have to face the truth. -- LGagnon 14:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't misconstrue my comment as attacking editors here. I was talking about the writers of articles who claim such a thing. I haven't seen any evidence of this "cult" --just a lot of talk about it. I think it's imaginary. RJII 20:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And your argument against them is still ad hominem. They have given evidence (for instance, the claim that we should kill more in Iraq), yet if you don't actually read the sources you wouldn't know that. If you have a problem with their arguments, find some sources arguing in Randism's favor against these accusations. Find some proof for your own opinion. It'll help a lot more than personal attacks will. -- LGagnon 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An individual asserting that the U.S. military "should kill more in Iraq" (even if there were an accurate description of Brook's statement) is not evidence of a cult. -- Centrx 03:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no such cult. It's a myth that keeps feeding on itself. I don't mind it being in the article at all. I think it's hilarious. And, you help to feed into it. For example, you have called me a "Randist fundamentalist" when I'm not even an Objectivist. You find someone that looks like he may be interested in learning about Rand's philosophy or that may agree with a few of Rand's points and you automatically accuse them of being a member of this mythical "cult." But, it's all in your head. You want their to be some kind of "cult" out there worshipping Ayn Rand, but it just doesn't exist. RJII 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you are so obsessed with backing her when you yourself admit to not know much about her ideology? You vandalize in her favor despite self-proclaimed ignorance? That's just how cult members act. You and the others who vandalize these articles only help prove there's a cult around Rand.

And if you're not that well versed in her work, why are you so quick to back it? Why are you so quick to accuse others of ignorance? Why aren't you open to different interpretations of it? You seem a little too zealous about Rand for me to believe you're seriously not devoted to it yet. -- LGagnon 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not worthy of a response. RJII 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet you responded. How confusing. Al 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The cult label would be better applied to Leonard Peikoff and his ARI group than to Objectivism in general, saying that the whole Objectivist movement is a cult is like saying that the Democratic Party is a cult because it promote an ideology and a way of thinking and living in the world. The Fading Light 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources we have claim that Randism itself is a cult. Peikoff and ARI are pretty cultish, but Rand and her ideology also recieve this criticism. And it's not mere fact that it creates a way of thinking & living that makes it look like a cult; it's because of the very robotic nature of that way, which has the same qualities of a cult (check the Michael Shermer article for more info). -- LGagnon 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it with all the people obsessed with denigrating Ayn Rand? Don’t you have better things to do? It’s like we’re a global conspiracy obsessed with taking over the world. I’m a fan, I admit. I think her ideas have the potential to change the world for the better. That doesn’t mean I treat Objectivism as a religion. Sure, a few people do, but they are a small minority in my experience. I met Dr Peikoff last year. I was pretty intimidated, but he seemed like a nice guy, genuinely interested in my life. He once remarked that he didn’t like that people always behaved so formally and seriously around him.

Anyway, this is a quote from the radio show he used to do regarding the “Objectivism as a cult” discussion. This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:

"If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.

"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]

"She knew in great detail of the conflicts -- such conflicts or disagreements as there were -- and as long as you could specify what you liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were not an assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there's no such thing. It's a complete, total lie." http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4082/rtat.html --GreedyCapitalist 23:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

In the Literary criticism section I found this unsourced phrase, "Scholars of English and American literature have largely ignored her work.". Unless someone can dig up an UNBIAS source for this little phrase I'm going to remove it sometime tomorrow. The Fading Light 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it works out. There's a source for that in the Objectivism article. -- LGagnon 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Power difference fetishism

The source for Ayn Rand endorsing "power difference fetishism" is pretty thin. The only thing I can think of is the scene in The Fountainhead, which lies in interpretation. Rand herself did not view this scene as an endorsement of power difference fetishism. Also, in her view, men being the "metaphysically dominant sex" had nothing to do with "power difference fetishism"; it just meant that due to the nature of a man's anatomy, he is generally the prime mover and initiator in sex (see the section on sex in Ayn Rand Answers). This is a long way from "power difference fetishism." LaszloWalrus 17:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not my interpretation, just a cite. It stays. Al 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sexual discrimination

Ayn Rand never defended the right to discriminate based on sexual preference. Yes, one can infer that she WOULD have defended this right, but she never did so explicitly. Likewise, one could infer what her position would have been on many issues she never wrote explicitly about, but let's keep this verifiable. LaszloWalrus 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually, she did. She opposed and laws that would interfere. Please stop whitewashing. Al 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand of Miss Rand's views on sexuality is that she was opposed to any government interference in the sex lives of adults but that she considered things like homosexuality to be "sick" and never formally renounced this view in public. So I'm not sure if we should even bother putting her into the either or categories about LGBT support and opposition. The Fading Light 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been hashed out over time to a stable compromise. She's not at all neutral on LGBT issues, but her view was somewhat mixed. Therefore, she supports LGBT rights in some senses, opposes them in the rest. Al 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

LaszloWalrus recently reverted the article, citing "rv v". This is a blatant lie. There was no vandalism to revert. In fact, the version he tried to remove had a long explanatory edit comment and itself only rearranged and added to previous content. In short, LaszloWalrus intentionally left a deceptive edit comment, which is in violation of Wikirules. Al 21:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was in intentionally removing a sourced statement that directly addressed (and disputed) a controversial claim. LaszloWalrus 00:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This is, quite simply, false. A diff reveals that no text has been removed. Instead, some was moved and some was added. Please do not make statements that are demonstrably false. Al 01:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is "demonstrably false" as you claim then maybe you should DEMONSTRATE how it is false rather than just say that it is. Otherwise revert LaszloWalrus's edit back. The Fading Light 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fade, you still have some credibility. If you back Laszlo unthinkingly, you will lose it. Think about that. Al 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

All I was asking was for proof of what exactly you had done Al, unless we are not allowed to question your actions? The Fading Light 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See below. It took me a few seconds to go through the page history to find it. It's not like he was covering up some big secret. -- LGagnon 15:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:[12] -- LGagnon 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fade, if you'd asked politely, I would have answered politely. Instead, you accused me of lying and demanded that I revert my text, without bothering to even look at the history. This is a violation of WP:AGF. Al 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote, I didn't accuse you of lying, I just requested that you present EVIDENCE that your revert was necessary. But as I said before if we are not allowed to question your Divine Right to Absolute Authority... The Fading Light 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: you are in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as WP:NPA. Al 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No I am not, stop lying Alienus before this becomes a bigger problem than it was in the first place. The Fading Light 18:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

By saying that I am lying, rather than simply mistaken, you are once again violating WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Do you plan to stop anytime soon? Al 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

These rules are NOT designed to allow you to get away with vandalizing other people's comments Alieuns. And by the way, if your trying to piss me off your doing a VERY good job. The Fading Light 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the rules before commenting on them. In particular, note that WP:CIVIL says:

Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.

By removing your uncivil remark, I was doing you a favor. Al 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed this part on WP:AGF, "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.". The Fading Light 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fading Light, stop making a big deal out of nothing and check the link I already pointed out to you twice before. There's your proof, given to you for the third time, now stop complaining about nothing. -- LGagnon 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian?!

Ayn Rand was a Jewish, not Russian author! All people who lived in Russia or in The Soviet Union weren't Russians!--82.131.6.67 17:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand didn't identify as Jewish; she didn't like religion. Also, to call her an anarchist (as a previous edit by you said) would be wrong, as her views do not fit into anarchist theory. -- LGagnon 17:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Jews are nation, not religion. People who don't like religion are Russians???--£ 09:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult section

There's been some reverting on the title of the cult section. Those who favor Rand seem to support "Is Objectivism a cult?". Others, including myself, favor "Objectivism as a cult". Note that nobody is suggesting "Objectivism as a cult" or "The Objectivism Cult", which would be asserting the controversial claim that Objectivism is a cult.

My feeling is that a question mark is inappropriate for a section heading. In contrast, "Objectivism as a cult" is about Objectivism taken as a cult, whether or not it genuinely qualifies. This seems accurate and neutral. What's your opinion? Al 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivism as a cult" creates a POV that Objectivism is designed to fuction as a cultic group (like Scientology) when there is only one group in the Objectivist movement that could be called a cult (the Ayn Rand Institute) and they are in the minority. "Is Objectivism a cult?" is the more neutral choice and is the one that I support. The Fading Light 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Scientology is a cult is just as much a controversial POV as the parallel claim about Objectivism. Both organizations have been viewed as cults, so we can speak "X as a cult" for either with equal accuracy. Again, this heading does not assert that X is a cult, only that it is viewed as one. A question mark, on the other hand, implies that the question will be answered, which is untrue. Al 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)