Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:47, 15 August 2006

On August 11, 2006, Ayn Rand was linked from Atlantic Monthly, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Ayn Rand was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: June 4, 2006.

Ayn Rand received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured article candidate. To see why the nominations failed, view the first discussion and the second discussion.

Template:FAOL Template:Todo priority

	Objectivism (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism

Archives
Archive 1:Oct 2002–Aug 2004 Archive 2:Aug 2004–Jun 2005 Archive 3:Jul 2005–Feb 2006 Archive 4:Feb 2006–Mar 2006 Archive 5:Mar 2006 Archive 6:Mar 2006–Jun 2006 Archive 7:Jun 2006

"Exclusive intellectual heir?

The legacy section says this: "Following her death, continued conflict within the Objectivist movement led to a proliferation of independent organizations, a few of which claim to be her exclusive intellectual heirs."

People are born Jewish, American, Russian whatever. She was born in Russia and she was born Jewish. People don't care that Alan Greenspan, Bob Dylan, Sandy Koufax aren't religious. Most Jews aren't religious. It doesn't make them not Jewish. Its DIFFERENT to Christianity and Islam, where if you stop believing you are no longer a Christian or a Muslim. Ayn Rand was influence by her Russian-Jewish-American experience.... and they were crutial to her theories and writings. Her experiences in communist russia, freedom in America... and judaisms belief of not converting others and not having ANY problem with people of other religions... as long as they don't hurt you. --User:Adamhman 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no organization claims this. At most, Leonard Peikoff is Ayn Rand's legal heir, but no organization that I am aware of has claimed to be her intellectial heir. Even if Peikoff did make that claim, he shouldn't be confused with the Ayn Rand Institute, which he founded but no longer leads, and which is not the legal heir of her estate. Futhermore, the books Peikoff and other Objectivists have published usually have a disclaimer stating that "these views do not officially represent the philosophy of Objectivism" --GreedyCapitalist 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that that bit is badly worded. Peikoff has claimed time and again (correctly) to being Ayn Rand's Legal and CHOSEN intellectual heir. I am not aware of anyone else making that SPECIFIC claim (being her exclusive intellectual heir), though Nathaniel Branden did openly hold that title until the schism. I am also not aware of any great disclaimer that Peikoff has put in any of his books aside from those not specifically about objectivism. On the other hand though, Peikoff has argued (I think correctly) that Technically Objectivism As defined by Ayn Rand is a closed system.--Courtland Nerval 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, GreedyCapitalist. I agree with you that this section is poorly worded. Want to go ahead and correct the wording? If you made the correction before, it appears to have been reverted. On a related topic, I noticed that the text next to the external link to ARI described Peikoff as "Ayn Rand's legal and intellectual heir." Nobody contests that he is Rand's legal heir, but the many requests for proof that she ever designated him her "intellectual heir" (as she had done for Branden, before the schism) have never, to my knowledge, been met. And the body text of the article states only that he is her "heir." So I've shortened the text next to the external link to read "Ayn Rand's heir."--Jzader 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I again added the three things Ayn Rand believed and taught--especially at the time the NBI was a going concern. If anyone cares to argue that she did NOT believe and teach any of the three assertions, have a go. It is precisely by deleting these items and shifting attention to irrelevant decoys that intellectuals of the looter persuasion are spared the effort of having to identify what she actually advocated--much less refute it. translator 16:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Neil Peart

It's true that Peart was influenced by Rand, but our consensus is that this list of influenced people is restricted to those who are philosophers. Therefore, Peart really should be removed. Al 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument from consensus is also appealed to to deny that Ayn Rand was a philosopher. I would like to know whether William Graham Sumner (The Forgotten Man), or H.L. Mencken, who translated Nietsche's "Antichrist" and summarized ethics as it stood in 1936 qualify as philosophers by that nebulous standard. translator 16:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

change

This is trivial, but since I was incorrectly accused of vandalism, I will state here that in the introduction, I changed this - "Her philosophy and her fiction both emphasize, above all, the concepts of individualism, rational egoism ('rational self-interest'), and capitalism" - to this - "Her philosophy and her foction both emphasize, above all, the concepts of reason, rational egoism ('rational self-interest'), and capitalism." I think this is fair because Ayn Rand herself said, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism, and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason." - A.T.

Laissez-faire Capitalism

A sentence summarizing Rand's views currently ends with "and capitalism, which she believed should be advanced to a full-fledged laissez-faire capitalism."

This is accurate but wordy. In fact, when Rand spoke of capitalism, she meant the laissez-faire variety. She did not consider a mixed economy as true capitalism.

Based on this, I shortened the sentence to "and (laissez-faire) capitalism." I thought this was quite clear, as it used the term Rand preferred, but qualified it with the parenthentical specification.

An anon IP disagreed and reverted the change. So, rather than engage in an edit war, I'm going to ask for input and offer four options:

1) Keep the long version.

2) Keep the short version, with "laissez-faire" in parentheses.

3) Keep the short version, with "laissez-faire" but no parentheses.

4) Write in your own suggestion.

Al 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. 2. Keep the Short Version with "Laissez-faire" in parentheses. the long version is needlessly wordy. --Courtland Nerval 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. 3. A parentheses is a "a comment departing from the theme of discourse" - here the clarification is necessary, not optional. --GreedyCapitalist 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Capitalist, I see your point. --Courtland Nerval 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Centrx went ahead and picked #3, without offering a reason. The problem with removing the parentheses is that Rand used "capitalism" a whole lot, "laissez-faire" only rarely. She took the former to be the latter sort, but not everyone else does. For this reason, I used her term, "capitalism", but hid the clarification in parentheses to show that she didn't typically use the phrase "laissez-faire capitalism". That's my reasoning and nobody so far has addressed it. Al 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You did not state that reason before. Did Rand have a specific objection to the term "laissez-faire" for some reason? Otherwise, this is just a normal clarification of what is meant, and uses the common meaning of "laissez-faire capitalism". Parenthesis should be avoided. —Centrx→talk • 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand seemed to think that capitalism could only mean laissez-faire capitalism. It's not clear that she understood that there were many varieties, each with their respective supporters. Can you find any examples of Rand using the phrase "laissez-faire capitalism" to describe her ideal instead of just calling it "capitalism"? If you can, I'll immediately withdraw my complaint. Al 21:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"When I say capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez faire capitalism, with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."-Ayn Rand

--GreedyCapitalist 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the exception that proves the rule. We already know that she used "capitalism" to mean "laissez-faire capitalism". What I'm asking for a case where she goes against this by casually speaking of "laissez-faire capitalism", implicitly acknowledging that other forms are also worthy of being called capitalism. Instead, you're showing me her attempt to explain once and for all that what she means when she says "capitalism" all by itself. Try again. Al 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a spectrum between socialism and capitalism. Ayn Rand advocated for what (she thought) was one extreme of that spectrum – that’s why she identified herself politically as a “radical for capitalism.” No nation has ever actually achieve that extreme, so when we call a society “capitalist,” we do so in context to less-capitalistic societies. That’s why Ayn Rand said that the U.S. is capitalist even as she bashed its socialist institutions and identified it as a “mixed economy.”

Ayn Rand understood that hers was a minority definition, and was harsh on those who did not share it:

“I consider National Review the worst and most dangerous magazine in America. The kind of defense that it offers to capitalism results in nothing exept the discrediting and destruction of capitalism ... because it ties capitalism to religion.” --GreedyCapitalist 22:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is from Ayn Rand's interview with Playboy Magazine: "I never describe my position in terms of negatives. I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual rights -- there are no others -- of individual freedom. It is on this ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, such as communism, socialism, the welfare state. fascism, Nazism and modern liberalism. I oppose the conservatives on the same ground. The conservatives are advocates of a mixed economy and of a welfare state. Their difference from the liberals is only one of degree, not of principle." A.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.246.20 (talk • contribs)

This is a pretty good source. My main problem is that it's the transcript of an interview, not her own writing. In my experience, while such transcripts usually get most of the words right, they're only guesses at intended puncutation.

In other words, it may well be that Rand shifted her voice to indicate that the "laissez-faire" was parenthentical, but this distinction wasn't recorded. However, as this is still a pretty good source and it's a fairly minor matter, I'm inclined to leave things as is.

On another matter, I encourage you to create a Misplaced Pages account if you're going to participate further. It's only a small bother but it gives some handy benefits. Al 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong? The Playboy interview was heavily edited by Rand herself prior to publication--according to the fellow who purchased the item. translator 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cult censorship

We have a number of citations indicating that Ayn Rand led a cult. Despite this, there have been repeated attempts by fans of Ayn Rands (or, in one case, supporters of cult rights) to hide this fact by removing the article from the "Cult leaders" category. This is a matter of WP:NPOV, not "consensus", as if the unilateral rejection of the category by members of the cult carry any weight. Al 03:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh) Man, you and LGagnon are getting paranoid about this. May I suggest you a short break?... Justice III

Please note that, after my original response, Justice III altered his text to insert the word "you" between "suggest" and "a". This had the intended effect of making my response nonsensical. When added went back and added a comment in square brackets to point out that the word had been inserted after the fact, he deleted it. Now you know. Al 05:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a short break would be a great idea. I welcome you to take one. Al 04:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. Please see:

1. Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation
2. Misplaced Pages:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations

It is all very well explained in these guidelines: Unless this is most essential about this person, do not add. From the material in this article there are just a couple of people that consider Objectivism a "cult" and less that have referred to this person as a "cult leader". We have argued this point already many times. Rather that keep reverting each other ad nauseum, I will place an RfC so that other editors can weigh in, as a first step in dispute resolution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're in the other category. Now, I've read these various links, and they simply do not support your conclusion. Al 04:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Take some time and read them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

An argument as powerful as "yes, they do" can only be refuted with apathy. Consider your argument refuted. Al 04:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Now, I've read these various links, and they simply do not support your conclusion" can only be refuted in the same manner. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That can be refuted by actually showing how the rules apply. Oh, wait, it can't be done in this case because they don't apply, which leaves you nothing but edit-warring on your side. Congratulations for showing such a good example, admin. Al 04:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor that holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many different offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factional categories, for those categories that require an assesment of personal characterisitics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."

My highlight. Unless you can provide evidence that the best 4 or 5 word that best characterizes this person included "cult leader", there is no adding this person to this category. And by the look at this article, there are only a few voices that make that claim, against a wide consensus that doesn't. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, my name is Jossi, and I am editing this article not as an "admin" but as a fellow editor. Please keep your sarcasm at bay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have placed an RfC. I will wait for 7 days for comments from other editors. If there is no response from other editors, I will proceed with next step on the dispute resolution process. Until such time I will not edit this and related articles as it pertains to the subject oif "cult accussations". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it is that you have to admit that the category fits, so you're trying to block it based on your interpretation of a technicality. This is not particularly convincing. Al 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, suppose the Objectivists were to say, "okay, we agree with you, Ayn Rand's philosophy is a cult." Exactly what bearing would that have over her ideas? Al and others have spent a lot of time pushing for the inclusion of pro-cult statements into the article. On the discussion page people are not talking about the idea of Objectivism but whether some Objectivists belong to a cult. In my opinion, this is syill.

Selective quoting

Alienus: First you quote partially, then when I check the source, I see that you only cite the portion that support your POV. Then I add more of that cite for context and for NPOV. Why do you delete it? Have you notice your behavior in these articles? It is most disruptive and unnacceptable. The fact that you are not afraid to revert as a way to assert your POV, does not mean that you can get away with it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

First I insert a quote in a way that is entirely accurate. The section was on critical response, not popularity, and I quoted the part that concerned the former. I initially tried to use the whole quote, but it was awkward to insert into this context, as shown by your own attempt, which led to a false claim. In fact, some of her works were popular, but not all of them were bestsellers. Seeing your error, I gently corrected it so that it used almost the whole quote, yet did not leave a misconception in the reader's mind.

Sadly, in addition to your constant edit-warring over the cult issue, you are now assuming bad faith. Please try to be a better editor in the future: admins are supposed to be role models. Al 05:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is exactly edit warring here? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, nobody. Rather, your error is in sloppy editing and bad faith interpretations. Al 06:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC summary

There is a dispute about the inclusion of Ayn Rand in Category:Cult leaders. 04:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the discussion

Note to involved editors: Let other editors comment freely, without challenging each and every one of them. We know the dispute, let's hear what they have to say. That is what an RfC is all about. '≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• My argument is that this violates WP:NPOV, as it is makes a de facto and controvesial characterization of a person based on a minority viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a consistent pattern of pro-Rand and pro-cult editors doing everything they can to move cult allegations off the main page, then off into oblivion. Some, including Jossi, have edit-warred to keep the cult categories off these pages at all costs. It's gotten very ugly.

What has to be acknowledged is that there are some quite notable people, including Rothbard and Shermer, who have quite publicly and verifiably accused Rand of being a cult leader. There's a book by Walker entitled The Ayn Rand Cult, as well as a chapter dedicated to the topic in one of Shermer's books.

Given the controversial nature of such accusations, we cannot suppress them just because not everyone agrees. Suppressing a singificant minority view violates the due weight clause of WP:NPOV. Also, please remember that insertion in a category is intended to allow better navigation, not to make an absolute statement of fact. Al 05:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The sort of cult referred to by the sources is not like those in Category:Cult leaders. The persons in that category are leaders of suicide cults, have proclaimed themselves prophets of God, messengers of aliens, etc. —Centrx→talk • 05:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is any requirement for a cult to be overtly religious. Objectivism is a comprehensive life philosophy that takes the role of a religion and has been characterized as a pseudoreligion. For example, Turner writes that "For its inner circle, Objectivism in its early days was a university, a political movement, a religion, a social life." In short, you don't need cyanide in your Kool Aid to be a cult. Al 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I personally don't think there's any amount of evidence that could justify the category of "Cult Leader" except perhaps for religions that have died out. For all intents and purposes, "cult" mean "bad religion". Having a category of cult leaders is like having a cateogry of "Bad People"-- I have to think the very category probably violates NPOV. About the best you could do is mae the category "Alleged Cult Leaders"-- but that has a lot of it's own problems.

If you don't buy that-- then there should at least be a consensus that said person IS a Cult leader before you add them to the list. In this case, I don't think there's anywhere near such a consensus. I doubt there's even a simple majority that thinks Rand was a cult leader. The fact that her teachings are not usually regarded as a religion doesn't help the case. I'm sure there are people that regard her as cultish, I'm sure some people find ways in which her teachings qualify as "cultish"-- but the fact remains that it's not a univerally agreed consensus supported fact that she IS a cult leader. So, she can't be on the list of people who ARE cult leaders.

--Alecmconroy 05:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, if you oppose the entire category then you should join in the effort to have it deleted rather than argue for the removal of one entry. Your argument is primarily that nobody should be listed, not that Rand shouldn't. Because of this, you would raise the bar unreachably high. Al 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel compelled to mention that you were personally invited here by Jossi, rather than responding to the RfC. This has the appearance of an attempt to stack the deck. Al 06:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh contrar, my dear Alienus. Jossi invited me to the two Category for Deletion debates AFTER I posted on this page. I came here on my own because I saw the RFC. Additionally, even if the category survives deletion, I have a secondary objection to the inclusion of Ayn Rand in it-- an objection I wouldn't have to say Jim Jones or Charles Manson.--Alecmconroy 11:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. None of the sources currently being considered by the apparently "pro-cult-inclusion" editors here is that reliable, actually:

Michel Shermer focuses more on Rand's success as a writer and the fascination her works inspired, which by definition would make all the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien "cult leaders".

Rothbard's essay has almost no other sources at all except hearsay, and his opinions are based mostly on remarks about people (that is, a few individual objectivists he claims to have heard about "from a friend of mine" or something similar) - and not the ideology and philosophical movement per se

Jeff Walker's book has been definitely debunked by numerous reviewers since it was published, , Even Scott Ryan, well-known for his acid criticism of Ayn Rand, says

"If you want philosophical critiques of Objectivism, you'll get just a little in Walker's book (...) If you're looking for a scholarly and philosophical account of Objectivism, you don't want this book; you want Chris Matthew Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, which has set the standard for scholarly works on Objectivism."

Well, here's what Sciabarra has to say, in his own critique of Walker's book :

"Unfortunately, the book stands as a mean-spirited textual analogue to the "politics of personal destruction" about which we’ve heard so much lately. Whatever one might learn from Walker’s insights is undermined by his endless tirades, strung together in a rather disorganized fashion, amounting to a series of vitriolic ad hominems directed toward most of the major figures in Objectivism."

In sum, a rather poor source to rely on.

This is the sort of "reference" you seem to be dealing with here. And I'm not sure this would be enough to classify her as a cult leader. LibertariaNZgo 06:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the fact that Objectivists disagree with these allegations is not interesting or convincing. Few groups admit to being cults. Rothbard, for a start, is far more reputable than Rand, and even Shermer is more respected. Sciabarra is biased because he's made a career out of his unique Marxist interpretation of Objectivism, so cult allegations interfere with his thesis. I also feel compelled to point out that you reveal yourself to be libertarian, hence you have a positive view of Rand's ideology. Al 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I should add that some of the strongest support for the cult allegation comes from Rand's former lover and intellectual heir, who "characterised the credo of the NBI thus: ‘Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived. Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world. Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter of any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral or appropriate to man’s life on earth.’" Al 07:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. If it is indeed so strong, why then haven't you added it to the article before (or have you, perchance?)? With all due respect, this looks like the last resort of a losing cause. I also feel compelled to add that you are obviously a liberal, hence you have a negative view of Rand's ideology. The fact that liberal PointO'View disagrees with these objections is not interesting or convincing. I should add that you have not provided a reference to the quote, which totally undermines its credibility as a piece of evidence. Please notice that unreferenced "quotes" are quite unhelpful, to say the least. Thank you for understanding.LibertariaNZgo 09:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But I have to say, I think we get off track here whenever we try to debate whether or not Objectivism is or is not a cult. For our purposes, that debate is completely irrelevant. The question here in not "Is Objectivism a Cult?". The real question is this: "Is there a true consensus that Objectivism definitely is indeed a Cult?". I think everyone agrees the answer to this question is "No", and I really think that's the right standard we should have if we're going to put somebody into a category entitled Cult Leaders. --Alecmconroy 12:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing Rand as a cult leader seems unneccesarily POV to me. Yes, there does seem to be a very vocal minority (outside of Misplaced Pages) that call Objectivism a cult, but more people seems to identify it as a philosophy. Mentioning cult accusations in the article is fine, but adding her to a category of such is... Silly. Come on, a cult? Objectivism makes me rolls my eyes, but I'd never think of Rand comparing to David Koresh. DejahThoris 21:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the quote that alienus posted above, though I do not have a web link for it. Just as damning however are many of the things said By Nathaniel Branden (whom all the Objectivists here will pounce on as "biased") in the article entitled: The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand. You can find it here. This is a taste: ""It would have been wonderful, given how much many of us respected and admired Ayn Rand, if she had encouraged us to develop a more open-minded attitude and to be less attached to a model of reality that might be in need of revision. But that was not her way. Quite the contrary. Other people’s model of reality might be in need of revision. Never hers. Not in any fundamental sense. Reason, she was convinced, had established that for all time. In encouraging among her followers the belief that she enjoyed a monopoly on reason and the rational, she created for herself a very special kind of power, the power to fling anyone who disagreed with her about anything into the abyss of “the irrational”—and that was a place we were all naturally eager to avoid. ""

He also refers to her earlier as the "Twentieth centuries most passionate champion of individual rights against the state". I would humbly suggest that at least Gandhi also be considered for such as honor (since he was afterall fighting against the British state and its right to control india and her people). regardless that sort of sweeping agrandizment of Rand was still being made by Branden in 1982.

• a note on the whole "cult" label. If we are to make the category workable we must proceed with a dictionary definition of "Cult", and thus "cult leader". when this is done you will find that: 1. Cults are by no means limited to Kool-aid drinking or David Koresh, and 2. David Koresh had much more in common with Ayn Rand (that even her closest associates attest to) than Most of the Objectivists here are comfortable hearing. --Courtland Nerval 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If "Cults" were broadened to include the non-Kool-Aid variety, it would have to be either a separate category or have different subcategorizations, possibly with a differently named super-category. —Centrx→talk • 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That just sounds absolutely ridiculuous. Categories are there for easy of navigation. Breaking it up into innumerable sub and sub-sub (or super sub) categories defeats the entire purpose of the category,l or even having them ther for navigation; but then I guess that is the goal isn't it (it certainly seems that way to me). I might also point out that simply because You choose to read the word cult extremely narrowly does not mean that everyone else does; I for one, never have, and our article for cults does not narrow itself to the extremely focused form of cult you are focusing on. I would oppose such changes for very practicle reasons, as well as on principle.--Courtland Nerval 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting it up into two or three categories is common in Misplaced Pages categories and assists navigation by separating articles from others less related and grouping them with others more related. —Centrx→talk • 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is some more from you, from the Same Nathaniel Branden Article:

""Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path.""

The link for the article is at the bottom of the page I posted above. --Courtland Nerval 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming that this be the uniform opinion of many reliables sources, this does not entail that Ayn Rand is a cult leader in the context of that category. Do you think Ayn Rand should be added to Category:Religious leaders also? —Centrx→talk • 02:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Self-consistent" does not mean "true". It means self-consistent. A work of fiction can be self-consistent. An absolute lie can be self-consistent. Absolute consistency does not imply absolute truth. Kafziel 15:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

""Even assuming that this be the uniform opinion of many reliables sources, this does not entail that Ayn Rand is a cult leader in the context of that category""...Assuming? Assuming? It IS the more or less uniform opinion of MANY reliable sources. Is it a majority? NO it is not. But it is a large and rather vocal minority. it is also a minority that has been demonized by orthodox Objectivists and Casual fans of Ayn Rand alike. And Please, tell me honestly what OTHER possible, reasonable interpretation of that quote you can come up other than to say that Branden is telling us that for many people Objectivism in the person of Ayn Rand was a dogmatic religion. Doesn't that strike you as exactly like david koresh? Doesn't that strike you as at least a passing accusation of cult leadership? at least for some? --Courtland Nerval 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The effort to label Rand a cult leader seems like a provocation. The label serves a minority of readers and almost certainly will infer more POV views than NPOV ones. Sorry, it just does. Use labels carefully or not at all. Put some of the information in article under "criticisms" or something. When in doubt, inform the reader of the facts and spare them the labels. --Vector4F 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment What useful, neutral purpose is served by her inclusion in that category? In what way does it aid research on any topic? Seems like nothing but veiled criticism to me, and that belongs in the criticism section, not used as a category as if it were absolute fact. The word "cult" is always tricky when applied to anyone, but this certainly doesn't seem to qualify. Kafziel 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm going to chime in with a bit of prose from the current WP article on cults: "Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics." (My emphasis.) I think in this situation, the issue here is the definition of the word "cult." AR, her beliefs and followers do not quite qualify as a cult. They lack a few essential, intrinsic religious/spiritual components. That is, her followers my exhibit cult-like behavior, but exhibiting cult-like behavior does not make one a cultist any more than exhibiting feminine/masculine behavior makes one female/male. SO: My conclusion is that the article should absolutely note that AR has been described as a cult leader and her followers described as participating in a cult. Such references are easy to find. However, she should not be amongst the WP list of actual cult leaders, and a bit of prose clarifying the issue (That the description of her and her beliefs as "cult-like" differs from an actual cult) should be included. It is the metaphoric use of the word "cult" being used by such critics rather than the substantial one in common useage.

Uncited claims from cited articles?

I didn't find anything in the Misplaced Pages:Citing sources about this specific topic, but what is the policy on citing a conjecture from an article, which itself does not substantiate its claim? The source given for this sentence in the article:

Rand's novels, when they were first published, "received almost unanimously terrible reviews"

is given as: "As Astonishing as Elvis", which is a review about a biography of Ayn Rand written by an unpublished author. This author does not cite her source for this claim. So how can it be considered valid here? It would have been unacceptable if she simply wrote that statement in this article. So how is writing it (unsubstantiated) in another article, on another site, then citing that article here valid?

Scratching my head here... --WayneMokane 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. It does appear to be a weak reference. The basis for it as a source is on accepting the authority of the London Review of Books to hire an honest, careful, knowledgeable person and to edit their articles in the same way. Jenny Turner or the editors may indeed have a fairly good knowledge of how this book was accepted when it was published, or have access to databases which confirm that. However, it would warrant solidifying or verification by citing major book reviews at the time of publication actually giving it terrible reviews. Because the statement may not be the result of careful consideration, other reliable sources that directly research the matter would be overriding. —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-philosophers

I believe we previously discussed the fact that other philosophers had non-philosophers listed in the list of people they influenced, and thus it was ok for Anton LaVey et al to be on the list. There has been no counterargument given to this, and I expect some form of one to be made rather than another undiscussed revert. -- LGagnon 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on how philosophical it is. I removed Nick Peart, a musician, from that list after this comment, but the listing may be more appropriate for LaVey. However, if indeed LaVey's church be a farce, then I don't think it should be listed. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly a farce. Granted, I don't agree with LaVeyan Satanism, but they seem to be pretty serious about what they are doing. -- LGagnon 14:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What would make you say that Lavey's church is a farce? I will admit that I don't take them seriously, but it is more than clear that they do take THEMSELVES seriously, which is really all that matters here. Fortunately our approval or endorsement of their beliefs or claims is not required. --Courtland Nerval 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is just an argument I encountered somewhere in one of these discussions related to cults. The assertion was, indeed, that LaVey himself created it as somewhat of a joke/farce. I was only allowing for the possibility of that premise in my comment and have no independent reason to think it true. —Centrx→talk • 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

The new link "* - An Objectivist Community dedicated to Ayn Rand and the Art of Living Consciously" has only 191 registered users - I am thinking that it isn't notable enough for inclusion - thoughts? --Trödel 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete that spam. -- LGagnon 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't belong. LaszloWalrus 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

" Jewish American"?

You said below that, "Ayn Rand was influence by her Russian-Jewish-American experience.... and they were crutial to her theories and writings"

Do you have a source to cite for the claim that her ethnicity affected her as much or in the same way (or in any way) as her experiences in Russia and the United States? Contrary to being influenced by Judaism, as her parents were agnostic and largely non-observant, Ayn Rand may have been more influenced by Eastern Orthodox Christianity than any other religion. While her ethnic heritage should be mentioned in her "early life" section, it does not warrant being part of the defining, introductory paragraph, as it is not one of her essential characteristics. Her experiences in Russia and America are clearly an influence on her philosophy, however, the fact that her ancestors were Jewish is not.

Furthermore, your claim that her work was influenced by or based on the hackneyed subjectivist notions "of not converting others and not having ANY problem with people of other religions..." is a monstrous falsehood, as her entire life's work was dedicated to revolutionizing philosophy, a task only possible by "converting" people, and opposing all manifestations of whim-worship and mysticism - AKA "other religions." No amount of subjectivist slogans such as "don't convert others" will whitewash the fact that Ayn Rand advocated just that, most famously in her article reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness where she states that a "fundamental aspect" of leading a rational life in an irrational society is to form and communicate moral judgements. "Judge and prepare to be judged"

As she was an avowed atheist and rejected all forms of collectivism, including the most primitve version - tribalism, labeling Ayn Rand as a "Jewish American" is a sham. It's a dishonest (and unreferenced) attempt to attribute her identity and achievement to her ethnic heritage. 83.46.66.236 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)American Einherjer

People are born Jewish, American, Russian whatever. She was born in Russia and she was born Jewish. People don't care that Alan Greenspan, Bob Dylan, Sandy Koufax aren't religious. Most Jews aren't religious. It doesn't make them not Jewish. Its DIFFERENT to Christianity and Islam, where if you stop believing you are no longer a Christian or a Muslim. Ayn Rand was influence by her Russian-Jewish-American experience.... and they were crutial to her theories and writings. Her experiences in communist russia, freedom in America... and judaisms belief of not converting others and not having ANY problem with people of other religions... as long as they don't hurt you.

She may have been of Hebrew decent, but not every article on a person includes their ethnic background. She never identified herself as Jewish, was never identified as Jewish, and most definately did not practice Judaism. As the Jewish label is irrelevant I have edited it to simply American. 83.33.206.126 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)American Einherjer

Nietzsche an influence?

I believe that after reading an except of one of his books, she liked him and was possibly influenced by him. However, after reading more of his ideas, she began to disagree with him. I am not entirely sure about this, but if it is, I think we should remove his name from the Influences section.

If she was influenced by him, as consensus seems to indicate, then even if she didn't agree with all his viewpoints, he was an influence. —vivacissamamente 08:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am still amazed at how endless repetition by looters still influences thinkers who try to be objective. Visit gutenberg.org and retrieve a copy of Nietsche's "Antichrist." Notice the name of the translator? Part of H.L. Mencken's appeal to the mad philosopher was his revulsion at prohibition--brought about by organized mysticism. Mencken resuscitated the memory of Nietsche in part to needle the bigots behind the coercive prohibition movements and undermine their authority. Mencken discusses Nietsche's flaws in his "Treatise on Right and Wrong," where he also discusses William Graham Sumner, whose "Forgotten Man" figured so prominently in "Atlas Shrugged." That neither is included among her influencers is a shameful indictment of the lack of research going into this page--or the stealth of her detractors in deleting such info.translator 15:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Critical views

There seems to be only one link in the "critical views" section. That seems like a natural place people for critical links. I know there are some in the footnote area; would it be reasonable to reproduce them below? —vivacissamamente 08:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Hilary Putnam

I'm trying to make Hilary Putnam into a featured article. But do you know what the problem is? I cannot find practically ANY biogaphical information on someone who is universally acclaimed as one of the leading philosophers (even outside the analytic school, I can assure you!) in the world today. I ask this out of simple frustration and incomprehension, not as an anti-Randian pot-shot: why is there so much damned info about Rand and almost nothing about Putnam. How can I find out more info about Putnam?' Do I have to wait until he is dead, or what? Or is this really a question of a cult of fame and popularity, not in a negative sense, versus someone who hasn't published popular books and so forth? Does anyone here know anything or can find out anything about Putnam? Why is EVERYONE battling over the time details of Rand articles and no-one gives a damn about Hilary Putnam? Alienus, can you help me out here?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow Putnam didn't inspire the same kind of devotion Rand did. I mean, there wasn't a community devoted to his teachings that immigrated to live near him. No one wrote a pamphlet explaining in rather positive terms who he was. I've met people who say things like "The Fountainhead changed my life!" I can't recall hearing that about any Putnam piece. He was a philosopher in a traditional sense, who didn't give "non-philosophical types" the answers they were looking for, so he doesn't have devotees. Alienus seems to have left, according to his user page. Incidentally, what did you hope to accomplish by putting that on this page, an influx of pro-Rand biographers contributing to the Putnam article? —vivacissamamente 04:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Rand built a cult following on a bunch of low quality romance novels (as someone who studies literature, I can guarantee you that's an accurate assesment of their value). She attempts to dumb down "philosophy" into merely "whatever I say it is" out of spite for academia. She had the "rebel cool" image that worked for pseudo-rebels who wanted to still be conformists by ditching religion but still conforming to bland right wing politics so they could still be part of the in-crowd of conformity. Essentially, Rand is "mall punk" for right wingers; and like in the case of mall punk, it has much more followers than the real thing (in this case, both philosophy and real non-conformity). With so many conformists following her, she had no trouble getting biographies written. -- LGagnon 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In answer to viv's question: No, it's just that I used to follow this page a while back and remember that there were not just pro-Rand contributors but huge numbers of people: pro-Rand, anti-Rand, neutral, etc.. who all flocked to this page. The obvious answer just struck me though after reading LGagnong's comment above: Rand is not just more popularly known, but she is extremely controversial. Puntnam is marginally "controversial" among academic analytic philsophers who know about him. So that's pretty much settled. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's "virtue" of selfishness versus satanism.

I continually edited the Ayn Rand page to remove the unconscionable reference to satanist Anton LaVey. Ayn Rand no more influenced his revolting species of pseudo-selfishness than a pedophile could claim that Mother Teresa's lifelong dedication to some of the world's most vulnerable children "influenced" his attraction for a child's touch.

That is first-order conceptual perversion. --[[User:AOluwatoyin 08:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV to see why you edits are unacceptable. -- LGagnon 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To those who think that Ayn Rand influenced Anton LeVay: do you believe that these two individuals advocated the same kind of selfishness?

No, but I don't see how that's relevant. The Anton LaVey article cites a reasonable source that says "Despite the fact that LaVey described his religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (cited in Ellis, p. 180)." It would be better to get this sourced directly to LaVey directly, but if LaVey himself calls Rand an influence, that seems to me to settle the matter.

Someone can be an influence on someone else, even if the person who is influenced has a significantly different belief system... or misunderstood the influencer. Did Ptolemy influence Copernicus? Did Jesus influence Torquemada? Surely the answer to both questions is "yes."Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Two days ago I wrote to Andrew Bernstein's assistant publicist, asking him to forward a letter of questions pertaining to philosophy to Bernstein. I included this issue of Misplaced Pages listing Anton LeVay as an individual influenced by Ayn Rand. I'm very curious as to what his response will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.246.20 (talk • contribs)

Obviously you couldn't cite a personal communication, but if you can find a citable source that says in so many words that Ayn Rand was not an influence on Anton LaVey, that would certainly be relevant information for both the Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey articles. Neutrality does not involve suppressing points of view, but it certainly allows representing conflicting points of view. It may be embarrassing to supporters of Ayn Rand that LaVey claimed to have been influenced by her, and, I'm not very familiar with either Rand or LaVey but I think it likely that most would regard LaVey as having misunderstood or distorted whatever he said he took from Rand. Every promoter of a belief system has proselytes they rather wish they didn't have; it goes with the territory. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing the reference to satanism from the Ayn Rand article.

There seems to be some confusion about the exact nature of a neutral point of view with regard to the Misplaced Pages cannon. Neutrality is not a licence to assert associations and intimate linkages that otherwise would require rigorous argument and analysis.

As a philosopher, I well know that neutrality cuts both ways. This protects against assertions that in fact serve hidden agendas such as attempts to sneak in legitimacy for unspeakable perversions like satanism and pedophilia. Again, the prohibition, explicit in the Misplaced Pages discussion of neutrality, is precisely against such brazen assertionism.

Reverting this edit again, without further argument should be subject to blocking.--AOluwatoyin 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I agree with LGagnon - I rarely do anywayz ;) But AOluwatoyin, please notice that I consider your comments, if not your edits, highly biased and unacceptable for a serious discussion. Your persistent comparison of LaVeyan Satanism with "pedophilia" is laughable, to put it mildly. My understanding is that LaVeyan sysmbolism (that is all they claim to practice, no evil Moloch worship implied) relies on totally false premises and historical misinterpretations, and he probably doesn't deserve the title of "philosopher" at all. However, that system is simply a "ritualistic-atheistic" system of ideas drawing from radical individualism, hedonism and Nitzschean dyonesianism allegedly filtered through Ayn Rand plus some minor, less serious, sources. It may not be a great philosophy, but it isn't simply a "perversion" (calling it such names and engaging in wild comparisons is precisely the kind of flamewar publicity these people are looking for.)Justice III 21:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to critics: I do not know what your exact intellectual preparation is but please refrain from ad hominem attacks such as you disgracefully engage in with regard to what you reference as "your comments." An intellectual responds to (a) specific comment(s) with (a) specific argument(s). Your loose, generic attack on " comments" -- as if you, or indeed anyone, with regard to anyone else, could possibly cover such a range -- is paradigmatically the sort of personal mode of reference that Misplaced Pages properly, professionally, abhors.

Now, being with regard to the analogy involving satanism and pedophilia as employed in my discussion, you are gravely conceptually confused in terms of the exact logical force of "analogy." As a logic professor, I can tell you that an analogy is not a mere comparison. That is why when people take offence at analogies, one has to flesh out the force of the parallel, cognitively as well as emotively.

My point is that there is nothing in the exact Ayn Rand cannon that can be conceptually linked in terms of "influence," with regard to satanism. You do not in fact dispute this. But then you cannot simply go on to maintain your position, status quo ante. You will need more than generic nihilism/atheism to do this. Ayn Rand was many things in generic terms. She was a woman, for instance. That establishes no link of intellectual nuance between her and, say, women in philosophy, or in any other field of endeavour for that matter.

"llegedly filtered through Ayn Rand," as you assert, will not do. The reference to Nietzsche covers too much ground. Others have used it to brand Ayn Rand a Nazi!!!!!!! You will need to flesh out specific components of Ayn Rand's theory of selfishness, something unique to her, that can then be linked in loaded terms like "influence" to satanism. This you do not even attempt to do.

I am re-editing the Ayn Rand article accordingly. Please do not revert again on the mere basis of your assertionism, as I have previously adumbrated.

I have still to hear from a mediator with regard to previous blocking perpetrated against me. I now add your threats to the matter. Please refer to the appropriate authorities. I am very disappointed that no-one has contacted me in this regard. I cannot believe that Misplaced Pages, particularly in view of recent accusations of bias and plain inaccuracies/distortions that made their way into the mainstream media, would leave such matters at the mercy of your failure to provide needed analytic muscle to this debate. -- User: AOluwatoyin 21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can quit claiming to be a professor; with the way you write, you wouldn't have been given a job in any department of any accredited university. That, of course, is irrelevant to anything here whether you are telling the truth or not, so please stop using phony and/or real accrediation to back your claims, because it'll get you nowhere here (trust me, the Randists don't trust my real educational value).

Likewise, stop veiling personal attacks in bloated jargon. The last sentence of your comment was obviously one. That kind of thing could get you banned again if you go too far with it.

I have already explained to you that your edits are in violation of WP:NPOV. I suggest you come up with a logical argument instead of throwing around an illogical strawman of "Rand has nothing to do with satanism" (which we never accused here of being involved with in the first place). -- LGagnon 05:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. So you accuse me of being unpolite, and yet then goes on to dismiss "your comments" as a "failure" and "assertionism". Very coherent. But never mind. Anyway, I should mention that I do agree with your edit for the very reasons I mentioned before (LaVey isn't really a Philosopher and his alleged phlisophical genealogy is flawed and confuse, so better not add Rand to the mélange.) I was just commenting on your quite passionate comment above, which I thought was somewhat exaggerated (as we really do not need such extreme arguments and spicy analogies, the issue is very simple), that's all. I wonder what sort of "threat" you might have seen in it? Please read again and tell me. Are you sure you're not mistaking me for someone else??? Now, in response to this other, quite illogical accusation:

• "Please do not revert again on the mere basis of your assertionism"

I really don't know what you are talking about, since I have not edited this article for a long time, and never reverted a single edit from yours. If you want to protest those reverts, please do a simple search for the person responsible before you start blaming the first fellow wikipedian who comes your way for things they haven't done. If there's anyone who should take umbrage here, believe me, it's me. Justice III 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove LaVey because he's not a philosopher? Rand is not a philosopher! She has only one academic in the entire world on her side! It's bad enough we misinform readers by calling her a philosopher; it's utterly ridiculous that we hypocritically denounce LaVey's philosophic value on the same grounds that we accredit Rand's value. -- LGagnon 05:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Further responses to critics: Unfortunately, since I focus on reasoned argument, I do not draw personal distinctions between critics. My concern is argument, not the actual man behind the argument. So please abide the non-personal conflations.

The advantage of my cognitive, non-personal approach is all the more clear when you read the juvenile mode of vulgarian reference, by one of my critics, supra, to my intellectual status.

I'll also try to make the most of the situation as I wade through the bad grammar, misspellings and/or typos, and related infelicities of articulation.

You make mention of the need for a logical argument. I responded earlier, very specifically to the issue of the Misplaced Pages Neutrality of articulation. But here's yet another specific argument, point and counter-point.

You attempt to vindicate, if not actually justify, the reference to satanism in the Ayn Rand article, in terms of what you claim to be "allegedly filtered through Ayn Rand." I said this will not do. Let me unpack that riposte further here.

When you say "allegedly" in this matter, you all but concede that the claim is not buttressed, only asserted. Now, the reference to satanism is what is at issue. It is what is being disputed. To say it is "alleged" is not to establish it but in fact to acknowledge the very dispute that I make. In other words, you cannot appeal to the very "alleged" matter in order to establish it. That is to say, you commit the "petitio" fallacy. Begging the question. Circularity.

You fail then to make good the reference to satanism in terms of the "influence" of Ayn Rand.

I don't know what you mean by such assertions as that Ayn Rand has only "one academic in the entire world on her side!" Concepts are not consensus. That too is a logical argument. Please focus on reasoned debate, not poll taking. Again, I cannot believe that Misplaced Pages would allow this kind of democratized failure, if not downright refusal, to argue. This is what I call intellectual apartheid. It makes a fetish of mere optatives, with a familiar concession to relativism.

I do not attack the "scholar" of satanism in this respect at all. I simply argue the analytic point of linkage or lack thereof. Please do not conflate "explanation" with assertion. You cannot simply "allege" the influence of Ayn Rand. Otherwise, a prosecutor could secure a conviction simply because there was a charge made on the basis of allegations in the first place.

You cannot simply claim "influence" on satanism. Otherwise, you might as well include "Neo-Nazis," on the grounds that "many" (you like numbers) "allege" that!

You're confused with regard to the Straw Man argument. Rand "has nothing to do with satanism" involves only Ayn Rand; there is no Straw Man nor does it make one of her. In fact, my point is to argue the matter in favour of Rand, i.e; with reason, not distortion.

Perhaps the sticker: "The neutrality of this article is disputed" might help.

Oh, by the way, they're Randians, not Randists. --[[User: AOluwatoyin 07:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Misplaced Pages works. We are not here to write our own views into the article. We are not here to add original research to the articles. What we are here to do is collect outside research and edit it into the articles. We aren't here to argue over the facts as we see them, but as outside sources see them. You have your own philosophic opinion? Good for you, but if you can't cite an outside source and have nothing but your own original research to back it up, then you have nothing to argue for here.

Second of all, it is already mentioned in the article that LeVay considers Rand an influence. That, and the fact that bits and pieces of Randism are found in LaVeyian Satanism, is all the proof we need to add him to the list. You have yet to prove otherwise outside your own "rationalization". And no, we won't add neo-nazis, because we don't have a source for that, just as you do not have a source for your claims. -- LGagnon 19:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to LGagnon: Thanks for the note, LGagnon. Timothy McVeigh cited Libertarian Randianism as an influence, and there are certainly "bits and pieces," as you put it, of a uniquely Randian opposition to non-limited government in interview materials involving him. Why is he not in the "influenced" box in the Ayn Rand article? Why was he left out/not included/deliberately kept out?????? There is perhaps not room for everyone, so why (is it important to)include LaVey, but not/instead of McVeigh? Why does LaVey but not McVeigh belong? Thus I am again editing LaVey out. Thankyou. This matter does need to go to editing mediation/arbitration.AOluwatoyin 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

What???!!! What? Has reason finally prevailed???? I proceeded to edit the Rand piece as promised just supra , lo and behold, LaVey had been subject to a waylay. He's no longer in the "influenced" box. What happened? Who did the dirty job? Why? Again, I'm obssessed with reasoned discourse.AOluwatoyin 22:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

LaszloWalrus is a known vandal who makes pro-Rand POV edits. His edit was reverted, as this is just one of the many edits Misplaced Pages's vandal-coddling admins let him get away with. -- LGagnon 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to LGagnon: My goodness. I thought you were going soft in the head there for a moment. Nice to see you back in personal attack form. Gee! "pro-Rand POV edits," allowed by "vandal coddling admins".... Do you need an updated dictionary, LGagnon??? My dear, as no less than Freud himself would say, some edits are just edits. Not necessarily "pro" anyone. It is possible to edit without even having any interest in, let alone bias in favour of the subject (matter). That's yet another elemental and elementary logical point I have to make to you before I return to revert what you reverted. Good for you, LaszloWalrus!!!!!!!!!!!! AOluwatoyin 06:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

If you had been here long enough, or at least read his user page, you'd know he has a bias in favor of Rand. He's made tons of biased edits over the past year, almost all of which have been rverted due to the fact that his edits fly in the face of cited facts (as in this case).

And don't worry, LaVey will be back in the article tomorrow; I just have to wait for the anti-anti-vandalism timer (better known as WP:3RR) to wear off. In the long run, both you and him will fail to force your biases into the article. -- LGagnon 06:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon: Warning, Another Warning, Final Warning: Your Foul Conduct.

Please STOP sending ill-written messages to my talk page. I will continue to edit the satanism reference till it goes to mediators/arbitrators who hopefully employ reason rather than emotion in dealing with conceptual disputes.

You have engaged in personal attacks with regard to everybody, including the people you call "vandal-coddling admins" at Misplaced Pages. The only thing they seem to be coddling is your foul, fiendish conduct. Perhaps you don't get the message from anybody. Perhaps something is lost in translation. Perhaps you don't get their French -- only your threats!!!

STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You violate every Misplaced Pages rule of professionalism and seem to get away with it. I order you to stop!!!!AOluwatoyin 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

I've simply given you warnings in the appropriate manner. No admin is going to claim what I did was wrong, because, unlike you, I've followed the rules. You have now recieved your final warning; I suggest you quit your personal attacks immediately. -- LGagnon 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to LGagnon: You seem to relish your apparently buddy-buddy relationship with admins. I gather that's why you can insult even them, subject them to name-calling, "vandal-coddling," you called them, and get away with it. Why does Misplaced Pages continue to indulge you in this regard? You bring shame to Misplaced Pages as an intellectual enterprise.AOluwatoyin 20:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

You do know that I'm reporting each and every personal attack you make, right? That's why there was an admin telling you to cut it out on your talk page. You have 2 post-final warning personal attacks reported; you're only making this hard on yourself by persisting. -- LGagnon 20:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality sticker and Ayn Rand article.

Lo and behold, again!!!!!!!!!!!! I suggested the addition of the sticker ("The neutrality of this article is disputed") to the Rand article in my relentless pursuit of a truly neutral POV, fair, reasoned presentation, and again, again,again, lo and behold, the sticker emerges!!!!!!! Is reason once again about to prevail???!!!!AOluwatoyin 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

This is a temporary warning until I am able to revert your edit. It'll be gone once I get around to putting LeVay back in the article. -- LGagnon 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, LGagnon strikes again: Did I celebrate too soon???? LGagnon has just posted another "post-final" warning!!!!! Oh no!!!!!!! And before I could save this ... another "temporary warning"!!!!!! Oh no!!! Shouldn't that be "post-temporary"???? Oh no!!! AOluwatoyin 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

"Rhymes with"

It seems like saying "'Ayn' rhymes with 'whine'" is a little insulting. I think "mine" is more appropriate, but a more neutral term would be preferable. lordspaz 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why LaVey anyway????

Well, so far, Reason Rules. The Neutrality sticker is still up, though LGagnon threatened, I believe, that it would only be temporary. Intellectually, I am actually rather satisfied to leave it at that.

But --- Not!!!!!!!!! For one thing, I enjoy intellectual duelling much too much. All Hail Misplaced Pages! Ah, for the days of learning for the sake of learning!

I raised the question as part of my pursuit here: why LaVey? Why not Timothy McVeigh? Again, there's not enough room for everyone, so how were the selected selected? We know who is included. Who was excluded, or perhaps simply "non-included," i.e; unintentionally, in contradistinction to intentional exclusion?????!!

What is more, in view of the evolution of terrorism – to all intents and purposes – virtually morphing into a veritable weltanschauung, Timothy McVeigh takes on a new urgency, relevance and intellectual/philosophical challenge.

My fear is that the whole effort is loaded, biased, in violation of Misplaced Pages rules. The whole thing seems to be a charade to ride satanism in on the ratiocinative coattails of Objectivist Ayn Rand. Otherwise, again, why not Timothy McVeigh? Again, he explicitly mentioned, and is often discussed in terms of Randian libertarianism. She would disown him like a Bolshevik, of course, but then she would disown LaVey in utter disgust!!!! So, if there's room only for one of the two, why LaVey?

If I don't receive reasoned responses, I will edit LaVey out again. Again, boys and girls, my emphasis is on a truly Wikipedian neutral POV.AOluwatoyin 08:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

Oh, by the way, regarding my being blocked -- on grounds of incivility, no less -- LGagnon who started all the trouble, on the other hand, does not get blocked? He who refers to admins as "vandal-coddling"??!!! That's not "incivility"?!!!! Such revolting double-standards will not stand. I'm just getting warmed up, here!!!!!AOluwatoyin 08:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin.

First of all, you are once again violating WP:NPA and WP:Civility. If you don't want to get banned again, I suggest you show some respect for your fellow editors. Do not call my edits (or anyone else's edits) "a charade".

Second of all, if you remove LaVey again, you will be violating WP:NPOV again. We have a source cited, thus you have no reason to remove him other than your own bias (which is all you have to say for yourself).

Your Tim McVeigh arguement is just a red herring to avoid giving a logical argument for the disinclusion of LeVay. McVeigh has nothing to do with his inclusion. And McVeigh isn't in the article because he did not create a specific belief system as Rand and LeVay did. Also, both are psuedophilosophers, while McVeigh was just a terrorist. Nonetheless, this is no more than an attempt to distract from the argument, and thus has nothing to do with LeVay. If you really are a logic professor as you claim to be, you would understand such a simple "logic 101" concept.

And you were banned because you treat other editors like dirt. My comments were commenting on the flaws of the system (admins are encouraged to do very little about vandals until things get out of hand), not the other editors or any specific admin.

I'm reporting you again for your actions here. -- LGagnon 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rand is not a philosopher

I don't think we ever resolved one big problem with the article: Rand is not a philosopher. The article continues to push the POV suggestion that she is indeed a philosopher, which is an opinion only supported by her and her followers. There is only one professor in all of academia that supports the idea that she is a philosopher, and thus the article is pushing an extreme minority view as the truth. We are essentially doing the complete opposite of what we are supposed to do with psuedoscience articles in an article about psuedophilosophy. The NPOV warning will remain on this article until we truly resolve this dispute. -- LGagnon 04:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A few suggestions for what we should do with this article:

• Change the infobox to Template:Infobox Writer
• Remove all POV claims that she is a philosopher; replace them with something along the lines of "Rand claimed to be a philosopher."
• Do not refer to Objectivism as a philosophy; a term such as "ideology" would be more neutral.
• Remove categories that refer to her as a philosopher. -- LGagnon 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out this line from the article:

Rand viewed herself primarily as a novelist, not a philosopher -- LGagnon 04:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Suggestions

There are too many conceptual difficulties with LGagnon's suggestions. Again, we need good grounding, not unsourced opinion.

To begin. The distinction between philosophy proper and pseudo-philosophy requires a fleshing out of criteria. Don't conflate Anglo-American analytic philosophy with the ubiquitous belief-system development that preceded it. Or you can scrub virtually all Continental systems (endless varieties of Existentialism(s))from the category (of philosophy).

In fact, the analytic of North America is merely a method for doing philosophy. It eschews systems as such, due to the influence of empiricist/positivist skepticism going all the way back to David Hume. (Recall Hume awakened Kant -- at least so Kant relayed -- from "dogmatic slumber." Philosophy has not been the same since.)

Further, though we speak of belief-systems, since the decline of the Middle ages, and the notorious rote of the Trivium/Quadrivium, these systems have been increasingly secular and secularized in knowledge and value emphases.

In that respect, Objectivism is no less than its equally original, equally American conceptual cousin: pragmatism. Indeed, LGagnon's very student-musings about the exact status of Objectivism in this regard remind one of the reception pragmatism suffered (and suffers still) by comparison to earlier Theocentric philosophic systems. William James famously claimed that the very first real lecture on philosophy that he ever attended was the one he himself taught.

Ergo, "ideology" would not be a neutral mode of reference with regard to Objectivism anyway. That loads the controversial "Objectivism-as-cult" smack into the supposedly neutral explication of the system. It utterly distorts the sourcing and external material that is required by Misplaced Pages. It loads original opinion/research of the most expansive sort. It fails to unpack the place of reason in the Randian corpus.

Oh incidentally, many, very many philosophers in the analytic school disdain the Continentalists as philosophers. They used to refer to them, when favourably disposed, as philosophes -- a la that great Continental Trio of the Enlightenment, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu). Othertimes, analytics would dismiss your average Continentalist as a "philosoher-manque."

Ayn Rand did not consider herself primarily a novelist. She explicitly addressed the issue of the novelist-philosopher distinction and with characteristic disdain: sneering at what she perceived to be the implication that one ruled the other out. She could not have been more univocal on the symbiotic connection she saw between the two. This is very serious indeed.AOluwatoyin 08:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin

And now -- back to LaVey.

Causa belli: Foundational logic lessons in response to LGagnon: Calm down, LGagnon. I requested a reasoned response. So stop getting hysterical. If you want proof of your hysteria, consider but this: you so emotively take issue with my calling your edits a "charade," indeed you make mention of this in the context of a flat accusation of uncivil conduct, an accusation utterly disabused of hard-core evidence, then you proceed immediately to call my counter-argument a "red herring." You go further. You say that a perspective rooted in bias is "all you have to say for yourself." You accuse me of "distraction" and again sarcastically make personal professional references of me and to me.

To put it in the most tentative mode of inquiry LGagnon, exactly what is the conceptual distance between your characterization of my position and my characterization of yours?

I'm going to be honest with you LGagnon, the sort of elemental and elementary inconsistency you so wantonly display would get a student of mine a very special grade of: "F - -" That is, a grade I save for students whose work I consider a disgrace even to the "simple" F students.

Not surprisingly, you no more consider your personal attacks of me to be problematic, than you consider your personal attacks of (your fellow admins) a problem. You attempt to vindicate your personal attacks on admins (never mind me) with that lamentable arrogance unique to the under-educated. You all but say explicitly that any criticism of your work is unacceptable but any personal attack by you is unassailable.

Your discussion of Timothy McVeigh follows suit. You say he "was just a terrorist," who "did not create a specific belief system." Neither did others included in the list of those the article claims were "influenced" by Rand.

So again, what are the reasoned criteria of inclusion/non-inclusion/dis-inclusion/exclusion from the list? "Creation of a belief system," I have just shown, cannot be a criterion. Spell out the criteria, criterion by criterion. Again, you are required to follow reason, not emotion.

Again, to model for you a man of reason, I am not yet going to revert the LaVey inclusion. (And it is LaVey, not LeVay.) You have another chance to provide a reasoned response!!!!AOluwatoyin 08:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)AOluwatoyin.

1. Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. ""The Rand Transcript."". Retrieved 2006-03-23.
2. Lawrence, Richard. ""The Objectivist Newsletter - Article Descriptions."". Retrieved 2006-07-22.
3. Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, ISBN 0-451-16393--1.

• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)