Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverback (talk | contribs) at 18:56, 3 April 2006 (→Criticism section only two paragraphs long?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:FAOL 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

3 Categories suggested

I suggest that what we need is a third category related to LGBT rights: something like "LGBT Rights (Friend and Foe)". (Al, you're the wordsmith; feel welcome to do better on any of this.)

All 3 cats would include the same message, like the following:

"Members of support the aims of the --TJ 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Members of may support some of the GRM aims, and may oppose others.--TJ 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Members of oppose equal rights for LGBTs, and may oppose any LGBT rights at all."--TJ 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My intent is that all AR/O/Lib articles be removed from the two categories and added to the new kid.--TJ 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If we can agree on wording (& the basic idea! :-), I'll volunteer to do the actual editing. Let's wait at least a week to collect comments, OK? (Signed in multiple places for easy interpolation.)--TJ 14:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the benefit is to creating a third category for the mixed cases.

In particular, I can see how doing so might interfere with searches by giving us false negatives. Consider the use case where someone reading PFLAG's article might want to see what other organizations support gay rights. Here, we want the Outright Libertarians to show up, because they really do support some aspects of gay rights, but they won't under your scheme.

What do you think? Alienus 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My principal motive is to produce a consensus that is accepted freely rather than grudgingly. 3C may do that because:

1. It is more precise, a desirable attribute in an encyclopedia;
2. It eliminates a false dichotomy, and the natual rancor which results from shoving square pegs into round holes. I suggest that some of that "us or them" false attitude has spilled over into the work on the article. There is plenty of middle ground here; we have acknowledged that implicitly by the dual listing. Let's do it explicitly by creating a middle category.

As to searches, I'm not sure what method of searching you're thinking of. Going to any of the Category pages should show that tripartite message as above, with links to the other two Cats.--TJ 10:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how this gets over the problem of unnecessarily excluding articles from categories they have a significant fit for.

Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that Fred Phelps had a change of heart, got in touch with his inner homosexual and decided that gay men should have all the rights of straight men, but still thought lesbians go to hell. He would clearly be a gay rights advocate, but just as clearly in opposition to gay rights. If we put him into a special, third category, how is anyone ever going to find him when searching under either of these two categories? Alienus 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is possibly a technical question (newbie here, remember): how does one search a category without going to the Cat page? Then, is is reasonable to assume that the searcher will read the page, before looking at the links? If so, then the tripartite message will broaden the search as desired.--TJ 11:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. If Rand is excluded from the gay rights activists list, nobody looking at other gay rights activists will even think to search for her in a third category. People mostly search a category by clicking on it from an article that lists the category at the bottom of the page. Could you explain? Alienus 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Influence

What does "influenced" mean in the "Legacy" section? A musician is said to have been influenced in that apprently, he wrote some lyrics that referred to Rand in some way; well, maybe (though it's pretty weak) — but how were the tennis players influenced, for example? I realise that we're talking about a sort of secular cult rather than about a philosopher, so perhaps that's the explanation; no article on a genuine philosopher has to find her influence in politicians, rock musicians, and sportspeople, none of whom is noted for depth or acuteness of thought. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel, I was smoking some weed and listening to Rush, and man, those lyrics are deep and thoughtful. I stuck a sugar cube with LSD on my tongue and suddently Atlas Shrugged made perfect sense. The more stoned I got, the more philosophical Rand became! Next week, I'm going to get lobotomy and become a Randist for life. Alienus 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• influenced
  • The musicians referenced chose to use Anthem as a title. This could have many antecedents, but the one they meant was Ayn Rand's novel.
  • Championship tennis (or any highly-successful career) requires intense dedication and hard work. These qualities are celebrated in her fiction, and exhibited in her life; hence, she would be a source of inspiration.
• philosopher
  • What criteria do you propose for "genuine philosopher"? She wrote about fundamental matters of metaphysics, episthemology, and ethics, in a systematic (system-building) fashion. She considered herself a philosopher, and left a movement (Objectivism) still going strong. (You might wish to consider the discussion in the "Controversy" section, regarding popular vs. academic venues.)
  • The category of "people noted for depth or acuteness of thought" is unfortunately rather sparce. (Whom would you nominate?) The number of people in that category and also in the "notable" (thus citable) category is even sparcer. Perhaps, being thinkers, they are wise enough to avoid being "notable", except in narrow, professional circles.--TJ 23:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One rough and ready approach would be to look at one of the various books about notable philosophers; ones that I've used for articles include:

• Robert L. Arrington A Companion to the Philosophers (2001: Oxford, Blackwell) ISBN 0-631-22967-1
• Peter J. King One Hundred Philosophers (2004: New York, Barron's) ISBN 0-7641-2791-8

There are many more. See which of the modern philosophers have been influenced by Rand. There are probably similar books on political and economic writers (I have one or two of the former, but they don't reach recently enough), and you could do the same with those. (Tip to save time: I don't think that you'll find anything useful — I've checked the two I mention. That's probably why the article cites rock musicians, tennis players, and B-film actors turned politicians.)

That a musician refers to a book in the title of a song is pretty feeble as a citation of influence. What you say about the tennis players has nothing to do with her as a philosopher, and could be said of any number of writers, of whatever significance and worth, not to mention cults and self-help fads.

I don't hold the existence of the "Objectivist" movement against her; for all I know she'd have had the same opinion of it as I do. It's hardly an indication of being a genuine philosopher, though. My view of her wavers between thinking of her as a genuine but tenth-rate philosopher and thinking of her as a dabbler in philosophy who knew enough to make non-philosophers who liked her views able to think of her as a genuine philosopher. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mel, Rand's influence on Rush extended past the titles and deep into the lyrics. For a concrete example, check out the words to "Antham" here; straight-up Objectivism. A quick google reveals articles like this one, too. So the issue isn't whether she's significantly influenced people who are notable in irrelevant contexts; she clearly has.

The issue that remains is whether it's worth mentioning these people in a context normally reserved for philosophers, economists, and so on. If we're sticking to the ARI party line that Objectivism is a comprehensive school of philosophy, then I don't think we can justify mentioning people like Peart. However, if we're considering Objectivism as a social movement (or even a cult) that was initially engineered by her buddy Nat, then any social influence is relevant, even if it's of musicians and atheletes. In short, I see the decision as depending on how we treat the focus of the article. We need to find a consensus about whether it's about Rand as a philosopher or Rand as a generic public figure. Any suggestions? Alienus 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, TJ killed my buzz. Anyhow, if Rand is a philosopher then we should list her influences on philosophers, not plumbers or actors, no matter how famous they are. Since she wrote about politics and economics, those might also be fields where it would be reasonable to list her as an influence. However, if she's a cult leader, then anything goes. You decide. Alienus 04:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I see this discussion continues on in the billions of forums which even touch on the question of Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher. Just let me make one thing excruciatingly clear to all of you Randroids out there: Ayn Rand DOES NOT EXIST in Europe!! She is completely ignored among both the so-called Continental philosophers and the analytics (whose number and influence is actually very substantial and growing, contrary to the popular misrepresentation of European philosophy fostered by anti-scientific American humanities departments). Now, if she is completely unknown even in Europe, she certainly can't be considered very important by the inhabitants of the rest of the planet (Asia, Africa, etc..) I don't know how things are in the Uk and so on, but it seems to me that, even the tiny amount of influence that she does have, is limited to the United States alone. As Mel Etitis and others, including myself, have pointed out, you will very rarely find this person mentioned in peer-reviewed professional journals of American philosphy, or cited by major American philosophers of the twentieth century as one of their significant influences, or discussed in any fundamental courses or fundamental textbooks on ethics, epistemology, etc.. Considering all of these facts, I thinks it's extremely difficult to consider this person a significant philosopher worthy of any consideration. As a cult leader, on the other hand, I think she should be taken very seriously. Objectivism reminds me quite a bit of Scientiology and Rand is as much a philosopher as L. Ron Hubbard is a psychologist because he wrote about engrams and other psychological phenomena and considered himself to be a scientist.--Lacatosias 12:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not wrong to say that Rand is isolated from the academic philosophical mainstream (even in America) and that she is far more popular in America than anywhere else. There are certainly concerted attempts by the ARI to overcome this, but it remains the case at this time. In fact, my first exposure to Rand was in an old survey-of-philosophy text, written during Rand's heyday and used for entry level college courses, which gave her all of one page. Most of it was a summary of her views, ending with a brief dismissal.

The hardest thing here is that Rand's popularity and esteem is largely confined to non-philosophers. There are all too many people whose grasp of philosophy is entirely constrained to what they learned from Rand, leaving them in a position relative to regular philosophers that is parallel to the relation between theologians and philosophers of religion. Such Rand specialists can, for example, explain the beliefs of Kant, but only from the rather limited (and some say erroneous) perspective held by Rand.

Classifying Rand is really hard, especially if you want to be fair instead of dismissing her outright. I even read one non-Randian Rand scholar who says she should be understood as an extension of Continental philosophy in the Russian mold, which would mean that an evaluation of her status as a philosopher must use somewhat different criteria. In the end, it's a bit like that old comedy skit in which a substance is described as being both a dessert topping and a floor wax. Alienus 17:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my first encounter with the "phenomenon" of Rand was in several reverential passages from a book by her ex-apostle and heir designate Nathaniel Branden. I was in my first year of music school and had no idea of philosophy or anything else outside of the world of art at that time. I picked up the book in a used bookstore in the self-help pseudo-psychology section, along with Dianetics and all the other fads and nonsense that artists try to find inspiration in. Years later, I went back to the University to study Computer Science with a minor in philosophy. Not a word was mentioned about Rand in any of the serious departments of my university that wasn't sarcastic or satirical, of course. As I garudally learned more and more about mathematics, science, logic and philosophy, I picked up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and immediately realized that she was a fraud. Period. When I moved to Italy, I switched to the major in philosophy and have concentrated on philosophy of language, philosophy of science, histroy of science, etc.. The more I learn and the broader my horizons of knowledge and exprience become, the more likely it is that I will pick up something like Anthem, read through about 5 pages and start laughing out loud. That's all there is to it!! I simply cannot understand a different reaction to such....lordure.--Lacatosias 18:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, your reaction is quite typical among those who encounter her in an academic setting. But let me contrast it with another case, which is also quite typical, in its own way. A friend's son read Atlas Shrugged while a bitter and unhappy teenager, and immediately found it appealing. By the time he was out of high school, he'd read everything else by Rand that he could get a hold of.

Now, the guy's quite bright and a very good student, but knows absolutely nothing of philosophy outside of what he's learned from Rand's fiction and non-fiction. In fact, he's convinced that there is nothing worthwhile in the field of philosophy outside of Rand's fiction and non-fiction, and can only evaluate ideas with regard to how well they match up to Rand's. Regardless of the merit of Rand's ideas, I find it tragic that some people are misled into limiting themselves this way.

His devotion is in every sense religious, and I've never bothered to make a serious attempt to shake his faith. However, even though he used to be a pretty good kid, he's done some rather nasty things that he's convinced are moral under Objectivism, so I've found it necessary to keep my distance from him, and have given up on my friendship with his parents.

Does all this make me an evil collectivist Rand-basher? Apparently. After all, if I don't support Rand, I must oppose her; there can be no middle ground. Or at least that's what he told me.

Now, I realize that there are plenty of people who, however much they support Rand, are not like this guy who I knew. However, I've never seen such rabid and clueless support for any other philosopher, except perhaps Nietzche.

The reason I got involved with this page was not to bash Rand or to rescue young Randroids. Rather, I saw that some editors were willing to hide simple facts on the basis that were not entirely flattering towards Rand. As a result, I've gone through quite a bit of nonsense, including one ban. Fortunately, I'm a stubborn asshole, so I'm still here. Alienus 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Philosopher - King's website, mentioned above by Mel, lists Rand as a philosopher, albeit with disparaging comments.
• Influence on (and with) philosophers - Rand took a very dim view of most modern philosophers and their work. It is hardly surprising if they return the sentiment.
• Cult - despite the oxymoron of "a cult of reason", this charge continues to be mentioned (see King). The reaction of new admirers tends to be an explosive "YES!", as she validates their own sense of life. This sometimes leads to admittedly cult-like behavior, but that is a problem of philosophical integration, easily correctable. Leonard Peikoff has a long essay on the "exclusivity" issue, referenced in the TOC article. It is interesting to compare that with King's essay on Tolerance (ref at his bio). I wonder why King never introduced the concept of "rights", which could have clarified his difficulties with "respect".--TJ 11:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure why you're arguing that Rand is a philosopher. She wasn't an academic philosopher, certainly, and there have been criticisms about just how good a philosopher she was, but that doesn't change anything. Plato didn't have a college degree in philosophy, yet he somehow counts.

2) Yeah, she's not very influencial in academic circles. I won't comment on why.

3) What matters for inclusion into Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. It may or may not be true that Objectivism (or some part of it, or for some people) is a cult. Regardless, there are a number of verifiable books and essays that credibly accuse it of being a cult, so I don't see why we should exclude it from the category.

Categories, in particular, are more about allowing people to find articles than about being completely accurate. For example, many people think Nixon was impeached, even though he resigned before it could officially happen. Therefore, it's not a bad idea to include him in the same list that contains the 62 people (including Clinton) who were actually impeached. Alienus 18:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow TJ's comments about King's Web page; King's book was used to indicate that Rand had had no influence of philosophers, not that she wasn't a philosopher (that was my comment, and I was equivocal about it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done some plumbing, so I guess that makes me a plumber. Doesn't mean I'm a good plumber, though. Alienus 23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent removal of Gay Rights Activism cat

I have removed the "Gay Rights Activists" category from Any Rand. Believing homosexuality should be decriminalized does NOT equate being a supporter of Gay rights.

"Rand's one explicit statement about homosexuality, however, came in 1971 after a public lecture in Boston. She made it clear that her philosophy of personal rights and limited government required that homosexuality be decriminalized, an enlightened view for the time, but then went on to say, “It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises .... Therefore I regard it as immoral ... And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It's disgusting.”"

Being even 20% for and 80% against stills puts her on the "opponent" side.

Plus, having "activist" and "opponent" on the same page is confusing and redundant. Anyone who cares can easily find out what Rands's views were. 14 MAR 06

I'm familiar with her views on homosexuality, and you're right that there was a substiantial proportion that can be seen as both negative and in opposition to the conventional gay rights movement. However, she also supported gay marriage and, to the best of her understanding, full equality under the law. This puts her in much the same position that non-Objectivist libertarians find themselves in; both supporting and opposing, but not being neutral.

In this way, using both categories does make sense. Moreover, it's the reasonable compromise that we've agreed to after much fighting over whether to remove one or both of these categories. Therefore, I'm going to revert your change unless the consensus changes. Alienus 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The key lies in what rights are. A right is a moral claim to freedom of action, where freedom is the antonym of coercion. Ayn Rand did not think much of the use of recreational-drugs-other-than-alcohol in moral terms, yet stood in opposition to laws throwing hippies in jail for getting high. To observers, and especially to someone rotting in jail for victimless activities, this means she was in effect an advocate of stoner rights (by double negation). If released based on her views, I doubt anyone so coerced would return to jail because Ayn Rand did not also deem them paragons of moral virtue. By the exact same argument she was an advocate of gay rights in that she stood in opposition to the laws against "sodomy" (and gomorrarhy) that are used by organized mysticism and its agents to coerce gays. If the LP (which she in effect designed) ever gets more than 5% of the vote and those laws are all repealed, I am willing to bet money that no more than one gay individual will insist on staying in jail awaiting her "moral" approval as well. Q.E.D. The issue, where rights are concerned, is always a question of freedom versus coercion. translator 20:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with translator on this. Grudging acceptance of rights based on far broader principles does not constitute "activism" one way or the other. Other people in that category have participated in marches, advocated special legislation, written explicitly on the topic, etc. I assume no one would wish to put J.K. Galbraith in the "capitalist activists" category, if there were one, on the basis of his grudging acceptance of a broadly market-directed system. --zenohockey 03:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Activist has clear connotations of deep moral commitment and outspoken promotion of a certain cause: Gloria Steinem is an activist for women's rights, Jesse Jackson is an activist for the rights of African-Americans to equal opportunity, etc.. Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war (or anti-Iraq war) acitivist. People who blow up abortions clinics are activists. Protestors, hunger-strikers, peopl who organize sit-ins, etc.. are "activists" who engage in extremely open, public activities to support a cause. Writers can also be activists, but it has to be a constant and throughgoing theme in their writing: Susan Sontag, for example. Ayn Rand was certainly a capitalist" acitivist, but I do thing it has been even close to demonstarted that she was a gay rights activist. Ask the question: How prominent a theme was it in her writings? How much was she willing to give for this cause? not much? Then it should be removed obviously. It's an insult to REAL activists. Also, the contradition is ridiculous: it doesnìt provide information. It confuses the hell out of people!!--Lacatosias 07:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to try to convince me that Ayn Rand did not, on the whole, support gay rights or act as an activist in that cause. That category is there as a compromise. She only grudgingly supported certain gay rights, and even then, it was more as an attack on the sovereignty of the state than for its own sake. If anythimg, it's clear that she harbored no shortage of negative views about homosexuality. If I had my way, we'd leave the category that correctly labels her as notable for her opposition to gay rights, and dump the claim that she was a pro-gay rights activist.

It's not up to me, however. Misplaced Pages is, in the end, run by amateur admins who tend to be incompetent, biased, and worse. These admins, in their infinite wisdom, have left us in this stalemate. To remove the activism category would cause the immediate removal, of the opposition category. I'd rever this, which would launch LaszloWaltrus and his Randist partisans into another edit war. The last time this happened, the article was Protected for days. Do we really want to reopen this can of worms? Alienus 07:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Objectivism WikiProject

For those who may be interested, I am proposing a formal WikiProject to co-ordinate work on Objectivism-related articles here on Misplaced Pages. I have written a little about what I hope the project would achieve on my User page. Interested users should "sign" their usernames here. WikiProject guidelines suggest that at least 5 and ideally at least 10 users express an interest in a proposed project before a formal project page is set up. --Matthew Humphreys 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of removed categories

• Category:Atheist thinkers and activists - for people involved in atheist atvicism, not activists who happen to be atheist
• Category:Epistemologists - epistemologist not her primary subject
• Category:LGBT rights activists, Category:LGBT rights opposition - contradictory, confusing, not a major aspect of her work
• Category:Political writers - political philosopher or political writeR? pick one.
• Category:Polyglots - how many languages does she know? 6 or less is not enough for this category
• Category:Pro-choice celebrities - not a celebrity, nor doe sshe primarily focus on pro-choice
• Category:Social philosophy - not her primary area.

-- infinity0 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with the reinsertion of the contradictory LGBT cats? Am I missing something? -- infinity0 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

The apparently contradictory LGBT categories are the result of a compromise after a rather long and ugly fight, so I'm not quick to remove them. For some idea of what's going on, look at Objectivism and homosexuality as well as Libertarian perspectives on gay rights. Once you've read those, please talk to me and I'll fill you in on all the details you never wanted to know and were afraid to ask. Alienus 00:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever arguments made about Ayn Rand being pro or anti LGBT, they are redundant. The article has way too many categories attached to them already - Ayn Rand is not primarily any-opinion towards LGBT, so both cats should be deleted as extraneous. -- infinity0 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read the two articles I linked to? Alienus 00:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted another one:

• Category:Anti-Vietnam War - "vietnam" doesn't even appear in the rest of the article; so Ayn Rand is in no way notable as being anti-vietnam war.

-- infinity0 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted another one:

• Category:American dramatists and playwrights - "She continued to write short stories and screenplays and wrote sporadically in her diary" does not make her a playwright. Did she publish any plays, at all, during her lifetime?

-- infinity0 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Justification for these categories:

• Category:Atheist thinkers and activists - she argued contstantly for freedom from religion and against such prohibitions as South Africa's anti-atheism laws (see "Ayn Rand Answers)
• Category:Epistemologists Yes, actually epistemology was her primary interest. In any case, she wrote an entire book on it, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
• Category:LGBT rights activists, Category:LGBT rights opposition - contradictory, confusing, not a major aspect of her work - I agree with you here, although these categorizations are the result of long edit wars (see the archived talk). I don't want to get into it again.
• Category:Political writers - Rand wrote both on abstract political philosphy (in books like The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal) and on current political events, like the Vietnam War, Nixon's presidency, abortion laws, etc.
• Category:Polyglots - the definition of "polyglot" is speaking several languages; Rand spoke four (Russian, English, French, German)
• Category:Pro-choice celebrities - she was certainly a celebrity in her day, as a popular novelist and screenwriter; she wrote several articles defending abortion rights
• Category:Social philosophy - Social philosophy was (to a large extent) the subjects of Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness. It was also the subject of her book "The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution."
• Category:Anti-Vietnam War - Rand was clearly against the Vietnam War; see her article "The Lessons of Vietnam"
• Category:American dramatists and playwrights - Rand had two plays produced, "The Unconquered," which was unsuccessful, and Night of January 16th (produced as "Woman on Trial"), which was quite successful. In addition, two other plays of hers, "Ideal" and "Think Twice" were published posthumously. LaszloWalrus 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LaszloWalrus, you are missing the point. She may have done some of those things, but those things were not her primary area. Adding her to every category you can think of is spam, and really not useful to the reader. When someone wants to find anti-vietnam war people, they usually want someone who is well known for it and an expert or primary authority in the field.

• Category:Atheist thinkers and activists - I can't find the word "atheist" in this article; I can find the word "religion" only once, explaining her opinion.
• Category:Epistemologists - She created her own branch of epistemology. Many philosophers are interested in epistemology but we would not call them epistemologists because that is not what they focus on.
• Category:LGBT rights activists, Category:LGBT rights opposition - Please consider deleting both. Adding categories in just for the sake of it is completely pointless. It's superficial
• Category:Political writers - Like I said, "political philosopher" or "political writer", pick one.
• Category:Polyglots - She is not known primarily for her language speaking skills. Many people can speak four languages, but they aren't in the category, because it is NOT their primary area.
• Category:Pro-choice celebrities - Again, I can't find the word "abortion" in the main article, which means she is not notable as a pro-choicer.
• Category:Social philosophy - No, she focuses on the individual, not societal relations.
• Category:Anti-Vietnam War - I can't find the word "vietnam" in the main article, which means she is not notable as an anti-vietman war person-thingy.
• Category:American dramatists and playwrights - OK, so she produced one play. Is that important enough to warrant inclusion? Does one play make her a "playwright"?

Remember, categories are for people who are notable FOR that category - not to just dump someone in there because they did some things for it. -- infinity0 16:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get up in all of these categories, so I'll stick to the ones I've been most involved in. Some time ago, an anonymous user added the LGBT rights opposition category to the article, and it was immediately removed without further comment. This intrigued me so I did further research, both in terms of reading articles and talking to Objectivists. It turns out that Rand's very public statements about homosexuality are something she is well known for in the Objectivist community, to the point where it has offended some and excited others.

If I had my way, I'd say she fits in quite soundly under the opposition category, but there's also a lesser case for considering her a supporter, as well. After a long, bloody fight, we compromised by including both categories. The bottom line is that, however people classify it, Rand's position on gay rights is something she's quite notable for.

Let me just put it this way: if LaszloWalrus and I both agree on something, it's an event worth noting. We both agree, however reluctantly, to include both categories, and I think you should join us in this. There are bigger fish to fry. Alienus 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the "Further Reading" section

Per the recommendation from FrancisTyers at the article's FA candidacy page, I've removed two less-important items from the "Further Reading" section: the books by Tucille (it's not all, or even mostly, about Rand; it's a general history of the libertarian movement during the '60s-'70s) and Hamel (who?). Perhaps the books on her fiction should be moved elsewhere as well. --zenohockey 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BDSM

A recent edit removed the uncontroversial fact that Rand endorsed BDSM in her work and is a minor celebrity in the BDSM community. Unfortunately, this article did not have sufficient citations and quotes to justify the mention of the fact (largely due to a historical coincidence; the page was Protected during a crucial period). I've moved some of the BDSM-related content from Objectivism and homosexuality into Ayn Rand to fix this. Hopefully, it'll be enough to stand on its own without repeating too much of the fork that it references. Alienus 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction. I had removed the one reference because it was one dominatrix's website that listed "The Fountainhead" in her suggested reading list. If the refs you added back support her "minor celebrity" status in the BDSM community, then so be it. A is A, right? Kaisershatner 19:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; she said what she said, and we just have to accept the fact of it, regardless of how it makes us feel.

It's hard to balance the need for the main artile to stand on its own with the need to avoid duplication and keep that main article short. My rule of thumb is that it's ok to abridge heavily just so long as what remains isn't misleading. In fact, I'm going to be adding two changes to the homosexuality section of article for this reason. Alienus 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just want to briefly list and explain the changes I made, to avoid any misunderstandings.

1) I added a short comment about how Rand did support some of the goals of the feminist movement, while opposing the movement itself. For example, she was pro-choice and opposed any legislation that discriminated against women. This is much like her opposition to the gay rights movement despite supporting same-sex marriage and opposing discriminatory legislation.

2) The sole quote in response to her view of homosexuality shows one POV, but by no means the predominant or most significant one. Yes, many Objectivists (and fellow travelers) have made excuses for her homophobia, saying it was just par for the course in those days, but others have held her responsible for her words, often quite viciously. Follow the citation or, especially, check out the Objectivism and homosexuality article for examples.

3) I broke up a large paragraph and got rid of a phrase that made it sound like Rand only supported discrimination against gays during hiring. In fact, she also supported discrimination in terms of who a business does business with, whether buying, selling or renting. She supported all discrimination by anyone against anyone, just so long as it was not by the government. Alienus 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, this reference is the website of one woman, who lists dozens of books about bondage and other subjects, and includes "The Fountainhead" in a section about Literature that also lists works by a number of prominent authors. I'm not disputing that there seems to be some affinity for Rand in the BDSM community, but this link is just one person's personal website. To substantiate this point would require a more systematic reviewing of the BDSM community or a reference to a study of the same. I think the other reference you have provided here is also pretty weak (one person's blog-like one sentence mention of Rand). The book review we have also referenced that describes the sexual imagery in terms of its violence etc. is more supportive of this point, IMO. Kaisershatner 22:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

By any other name.

There's a frequently-deleted line about how Rand and Branden were both born with different, more ethnic names, which they changed. The line also contrasts this with Rand's statements about not giving in to societal pressures. Since fans of Rand find this disturbing, they tend to erase this text a lot. I'm one of the people who keeps restoring it, though.

Recently, it was deleted again, this time by 24.94.5.94, whose comment said "see talk". Well, I'm here, but I don't see any hint that this stuff was discussed previously. Perhaps 24 was planning to insert some text here and I'm just being hasty.

While I think I understand the motivation of people deleting this text, I don't understand their justification. It is demonstrably true that Rand both said these things and changed her name. Now, it may be that some change can be made to the text that preserves its valid content but makes it more neutral. If so, I'd be happy to consider such proposals. As it stands, though, I see no reason not to restore the text in its original form. Alienus 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been a while and I still don't see anything here. I think it's reasonable to go ahead and revert, since no explanation has been given thus far. If 24 comes back at some point and wants to remove that text again, I'd appreciate it if they discussed that change here in advance, just to avoid a lot of wear and tear on the main article. Alienus 01:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently my post didn't go through on the talk, and I forgot to log in. I think it's reasonable either to 1) delete that text or 2) offer an explanation. Rand discussed her reason for changing her name, and it had nothing to do with societal pressure. She changed her name to protect her family still living in the Soviet Union from reprisals; she also saw it as a way to break with her past and start a new life in the US. She did not consider this an act of bowing to "societal pressure," as she stated that "morality ends where a gun begins" and that "one doesn't stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it." I don't know why Branden changed his name from Blumenthal; if there's a citation that he did it in deference to "societal pressure," than it belongs. Until then, I'm deleting it. LaszloWalrus 01:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've recategorized Rand as an "atheist thinker and activist." In almost every book she wrote (including her novels) she upholds atheism; in the introduction to Isabel Patterson's "The God of the Machine," Stephen Cox even calls her a "crusading atheist." As far as Anti-Vietnam War goes, see "The Voice of Reason," "Ayn Rand Answers" and look here . Categorization is not just for people who were "primarily" adovates of these things; they're for anyone who fits the category. To draw a parallel, Lance Armstrong is not "primarily" a cancer survivor or a pro-choice celebrity; he is primarily a cyclist. Nevertheless, it is completely reasonable to include him in all three categories. LaszloWalrus 01:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Good christ!! (sorry for the pun) do not remove Rand from the category of prominent Atheists or atheist philosophers, activists (whatever). It is the ONLY thing I agree with her on and respect her for!! She was quite outspoken and courageous in maintaining this position despite the onslaught of conservative critics such as William F. Buckley and friends. She's an important member of the category.--Lacatosias 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If those things are not notable enough to be put into the article, they shouldn't be put as a category (I am talking about anti-vietnam war, and pro-choice). She may have criticised religion, but what did she actually do for it? This article is in about 40 categories - way too many. Also, wtf? Jewish? I thought she was an atheist?? How she was brought up as a Jew is irrelevant - she is certainly not part of Jewish American history. -- infinity0 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought "Jewish" was generally considered at least in part to be an ethnic category. At least, to me, to say that someone is Jewish does not imply any particular religious beliefs on their part. Cadr 11:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought Russian was the ethnic category. Jewish used to mean one race, which shared the same religion, thousands of years ago, but you can't apply that today. -- infinity0 12:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm no. Russian is a nationality, whereas Jewishness has always been considered a partly ethnic notion. I agree it's difficult to come up with a coherent concept of race or ethnicity, but the fact is that many people who consider themselves Jewish do not believe in the Jewish religion. Cadr 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian is also an ethnic race. Is Ayn Rand is more ethnically Russian, or Jewish? -- infinity0 12:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, she can go in both categories. Cadr 12:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's spam. I don't think she considered herself Jewish, but American. Include her either in American, Russian or Jewish categories, but not all or two. -- infinity0 12:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not all? I don't think self-identification is a condition for categorisation on Misplaced Pages. And what's your basis for saying that she didn't consider herself Jewish? Did she ever deny being Jewish, or say that she considered the term inappropriate? Cadr 13:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Did she explicitly call herself Jewish, as opposed to American? There is already about 40 categories on the page, and most of them are repetitive (eg. American philosophers, Philosophers). Putting another (American writers, Jewish writers) etc, is spam. Is she primarily known as Jewish, or is she primarily known as American? -- infinity0 13:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While it well be true that Rand was ethnically (though not religiously) Jewish, I don't think it's something she was particularly known for. In my experience, Objectivists are quick to identify her as a Russian courageous enough to renounce the evils of Soviet Communism, even though she considered herself fully American. And of course they identify her as an atheist.

There seem to be a number of (ethnic) Jews at the core of the Objectivist movement, but few, if any, are notable for their Jewishness. Partly it's because some of the first wave of Objectivists changed their last names, but mostly it's because Objectivism rejects Judaism and doesn't seem to have much patience with Jewish culture, either. Once you call altruism a sin and praise selfishness, you pretty much cut your ties with polite society.

In short, I think that categorizing her as an atheist is really important, while mentioning that she was Russian is only somewhat important. Her Jewishness seems to be particularly unimportant and irrelevant. That's my take on this. Alienus 15:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alienus to an extent; she was outspoken in her hatred of Tzarist and Communist culture in Russia; her "Jewishness," on the other hand, was totally meaningless to her. I read almost of all her works, and, until I found out her original name, I had no idea she was ethnically Jewish. I really don't see the point of categorizing people based on irrelevent ethnic characteristics, particularly when those characteristics had no meaning for them. Why does she keep getting deleted from the "atheists" category? She was quite noted for it, and it was one of the main reasons she rejected conservatism. I'm restoring the "atheists" category. 68.7.212.152 05:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I take the point that her Jewishness is probably not notable enough to be worth categorising. (But I guess this all depends on what the criteria are for putting someone in a category -- do they just have to be a member of that category or notable for being a member of it?). Cadr 10:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've come here in response to a request. The key in deciding whether or not Rand was a Jew is not how we define Jews, but what reliable sources say on the matter. The Guardian describes her as "diminutive Russian Jew". The historian John C. Chalberg, describes her as a "A Russian, a Jew, and an immigrant". According to the Jewish Virtual Library, "she never denied her Jewish heritage", and the Objectivism Reference Center says "Ethnically, yes, Rand was Jewish." All in all, based on Misplaced Pages policy, I think you'd have to classify her as a Jew. Jayjg 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the issue isn't whether she's Jewish or even considered Jewish; it's whether adding her to Jewish categories is helpful. As much as she may factually be ethnically Jewish, she did not see herself as Jewish and is not generally considered in light of her ethnic Judaism. If the purpose of the category is to alert people to writers (or whatever) who happen to be in some way Jewish, then perhaps adding her to some of these categories may be acceptable. But if the purpose is to help people find "characteristically" Jewish writers who write "Jewish things", however that's defined, then her addition could only be misleading. Alienus 21:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The category doesn't differentiate between ethnic Jews and "practicising" Jews. Albert Einstein is in there, as is Sigmund Freud, Noam Chomsky, and dozens of other atheist Jews who had nothing particularly "Jewish" about their work. Jayjg 21:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're looking for Jewish writers, have a gander at Category:Jewish American writers. Large numbers of them have nothing at all "characteristically Jewish" about their writing, nor did they write "Jewish things". Once you start using subjective measures for these things, you get into trouble. Best to stick with policy instead; reliable source describes them as a Jew, they go in the category. Jayjg 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories (Not just the LGBT ones)

• 20th century philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
• American novelists: Not an American. If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
• American philosophers: Not an American. If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
• American screenwriters: Not an American If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
• American women: Not an American. If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
• Aristotelian philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
• Atheist philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
• LGBT rights activists AND LGBT rights opposition: She was neither; saying "Gays are an abomination, but the Government doesn't care" doesn't make you either.
• Moral philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
• Political philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher Preston 03:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are premature. For one thing, she was an American citizen, so she qualifies as an American whatever. For another, while her credibility as a competent philospher is certainly questioned by the academic community, she was a philosopher of one sort or another. Remember, even a bad plumber is still a plumber. For these reasons, I am going to revert your entire edit and ask that you gather some consensus here before making such changes in the future. This article has been edit-warred over and spent weeks Protected; we don't want to go back to that. 03:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I think the idea of Ayn Rand as a philosopher is ridiculous, some people do think she is a philosopher. The closest "type" of philosophy she mostly talked about is moral philosophy, so that category is suitable. I think "american philosophers", "atheist philosophers", AND "aristotelian philosophers" is over the top - perhaps one or two of those three should be removed. -- infinity0 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the LGBT categories, but since it was a long-worked compromise, I'll wait for a (long) while before asking for its removal again. -- infinity0 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with this issue. I understand how frustrating it may be. Alienus 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources, Please

Many scholars see the Categorical Imperative as being compatible with Objectivism.

Who are the many??? What are your Sources???

Misleading sentence

The statement that the Ayn Rand Institute was named "Ayn Rand" "despite Ayn Rand's wishes that her name be kept separate from her ideas" is horribly misleading. Rand was against the use of her name only insofar as the naming of her philosophy went; for example, she strongly objected to calling Objectivism "Randism" or calling Objectivists "Randists"; but outside of these, I can't find a single source indicating that Rand objected to the use of her name in promoting her philosophy; indeed, she herself used her reputation (from The Fountainhead) to spread her ideas. 68.7.212.152 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the organization founded to promote her philosophy was named after Nat. Only after his excommunication did the ARI form, right? Alienus 17:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NBI was formed by Branden (with Rand's endorsement) to spread her ideas; as far as I know (and my knowledge is admittedly little on this point), it was mainly controlled and operated by Branden. After the falling out, Rand formed the Foundation for the New Intellectual to continue spreading her ideas; that foundation was dissolved soon after Rand's death, and was replaced by the Ayn Rand Institute (founded by Leonard Peikoff) in 1985. LaszloWalrus 08:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this history. It does suggest that she avoided using her own name, since the ARI is posthumous. Alienus 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Purple Flowers for Ayn

I realize that a lot of the people who contribute to this article are fans of Rand's fiction, but this is supposed to be biographical, not hagiographical, and it's supposed to tell about her, not concatenate a series of overwritten essays about how wonderful her stories are.

I'm talking about the recent inflation of an already-large section summarizing The Fountainhead with the addition of copious flowery language and unalloyed praise. People, the book has an article of its own; all that belongs here is a brief, accurate summary and a link where people can go to find out more. The text I removed would probably be too biased even for the article on the book, and it's definitely out of place in this article about the author. Alienus 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No leading research university

Ok, it seems clear that the academic philosophy community doesn't regard Rand very highly. But the "Leiter report" cited doesn't prove this precisely (Brian Leiter's report ) - it lists the fields of study popular at lots of prominent philosophy departments, which isn't the same thing. I'm not disputing the fact, just the use of this particular citation. I think the JARS link I just added leads to some better evidence for this claim and I am pursuing it, but if I'm in error about the Leiter citation, please help me understand why. Kaisershatner 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, the idea that Rand isn't talked about in academia seems a little dated to me. Today, lots of universities include discussion of Rand in philosophy classes. RJII 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A few universities in America is not "lots of universities". -- infinity0 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said "lots." RJII 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Call it OR, but in my experience, Rand's name only comes up in college-level philosophy classes when a student brings it up. Rand and her philosophy are then summarily dismissed. Unfair or not, I think this is a fairly accurate summary of the reality. Alienus 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)