Talk:Objectivism/Archive 6

Ayn Rand as a philosopher?

I had to read Ayn Rand in my college ethics class at Texas A&M. Her essay from "Selfishness, the Unknown Ideal" was in my textbook. Questions about it were on my midterm. No, the professor wasn’t an Objectivist (he was a fan of Dewey), but he (and the book) called her view a “philosophy.” It’s becoming standard for Ayn Rand to represent the “ethical egoist” position in ethics classes. So I don’t see how you not call her philosophy a … philosophy. I run the Objectivist Wiki, where her stance as a philosopher is pretty obvious: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/ --GreedyCapitalist 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism isn't accepted by the vast majority of academic philosophers. Because of that, it's pseudophilosophy by the same terms that intelligent design is pseudoscience. If we accept Randism as real philosophy, we'll have to accept ID as science. We'll have to claim the flat earth "theory" is a real scientific theory. We'll have to throw out all academic credibility and replace it with equal validity (which is against Wikipedia's rules for obvious reasons). The fact of the matter is, these articles favor an anti-academic's views over that of academia. It's favoring the least credible research over the most credible. Essentially, the Rand-related articles are the epitome of POV in its worst form. And for this, we must have the POV tag here until that problem is solved. -- LGagnon 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing standards to establish a valid scientific theory with standards to establish a recognized philosophy. A valid scientific theory is endorsed by the vast majority of scientists. It's absurd to imply that all philosphers endorse all philosophies. It should be needless to say, but validity within philosophy is very different from validity in science. --Serge 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon I have to agree with Serge on this one, what is considered scientific is reletivly rigid whereas what constitutes a philosophy is much more up to interpratation. Crazynas 01:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is "real philosophy"? No such thing. RJII 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, there is such a thing as a philosophy, although it is quite different from a scientific theory. Crazynas 01:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we include Scientology in the philosophy category? It's not accepted by academia, but I'm sure Hubbard's crew would love a brand new title. And they simply have a set of beliefs, which fits the vernacular definition of philosophy.

And no, not all philosophers agree with every philosophy. But they do agree on what is a philosophy and what isn't. If they didn't, they could teach any random set on nonsense in universities. Everything from I'm OK, You're OK to Scientology to Mein Kamphf would flood academic philosophy. There's a need to point out that this stuff is rejected by the experts.

As I've suggested, we should not call Randism a philosophy, but claim that Randists call it one. To call it a philosophy is to take up one POV, and as we do so in the articles now we must have a POV tag warning those the this article is not neutral. And that tag will be there, as well as in other Rand-related articles, until the problem is solved. -- LGagnon 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You've already been provided with sources that refer to her philosophy as a "philosophy" so you're arguing is fruitless. RJII 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) For example, "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." -Encyclopedia Britannica. So, I'm going to remove the POV tag. RJII 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We hold Britannica as having the final say now? Britannica, who's known to make even more mistakes than Wikipedia does, is the end-all-be-all source, beyond further discussion? This is a controversial subject, and we are not going to simply cite one source and say that's that. We're going to be NPOV about editing this whether you like it or not.

We're supposed to remove those tags by consensus that the problem has been fixed. I'm reverting your vandalism again. -- LGagnon 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is a credible source. And, stop accusing me of vandalism. Removing the POV tag is not vandalism. You're the one being disruptive here. I've provided a source for it being a "philosophy." RJII 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the POV tag is not supposed to be removed by the opposite side of the argument just because you disagree. That is considered vandalism, whether you believe it or not. You're imposing your views on a controversial article by pushing the idea that there's no controversy when there is one.

And your source is only one. Like I said, it's not the end-all-be-all source. All arguments are not overridden because Britannica says so. You're basically arguing that because we have one source there's no other source that can argue agianst it. And if that's not your argument, then I think the debate continues on. -- LGagnon 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting to establish someone is not a "philosopher", you must maintain that no reputable source claims this; you can't play "mine cancel yours". Brtannica is a reputable source. Case closed. MrVoluntarist 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not closed. That's not how it works. NPOV is about showing all view points. We don't say "oh look, one source in our favor; so much for NPOV". We are not going to throw away the rules just because of one source when multiple sources will reveal multiple opinions. -- LGagnon 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know how NPOV works. The requirements for listing someone as a "philosopher" are much lower than listing them as being "correct". There's no special privilege associated with being called a "philosopher". The fact that people who disagree with her and were denigrated in her work don't want to give her the title doesn't hold a lot of weight. You're the one throwing away the rules by allowing a small cabal to overturn a long-held consensus. MrVoluntarist 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to draw the line between being a bad baker and not being a baker at all. Consider that anyone can burn a cake. Al 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that your philosophy? MrVoluntarist 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously guys, this is getting ridiculous. Having a filter for whose belief system is a real, academia-endorsed philosophy and whose isn't? Come on. MrVoluntarist 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Really. I thought one of the purposes behind the creation of Wikipedia was to be free from the political correctness restrictions of academia. RJII 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't PCness. This is about the truth. Like I said, if we call this philosophy, then Dianetics is psychiatry and intelligent design is science. -- LGagnon 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics doesn't claim to be psychiatry, analogy expert. And "philosophy" doesn't attempt to enhance the prestige of the beliefs like calling something a "science" would. Lots of ridiculous belief systems get to retain the title of philosophy. Just look at the philosophy portal! MrVoluntarist 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics was originally a "psychiatry alternative" until it was banned by the APA and had to switch to "religion". And yes, calling something a philosophy does enhance its prestige. It legitamitizes it over all the mental snake oil that's thrown around by various wackos. And that's what's happening here. -- LGagnon 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"I support objectivism. Objectivism holds that ... ." "That's stupid." "Oh yeah? Well, it's a philsophy." "oh. Tell me more then." And on dianetics -- you're making my point. They present it as an alternative to using psychiatry. MrVoluntarist 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You prove my point there. If it's called a philosophy, it's considered legit, while "ideology" could be anything. It's blatantly POV language used for the sake of making Randism sound like it's on level with anything academic. And as for Dianetics, the term "psychiatry alternative" also gives it an air of legitimacy, as it sounds like it's a valid alternative. -- LGagnon 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that was your sockpuppet. I agreed with no such thing. In fact, I mocked your claim that people lend additional credence to something because it's a "philosophy". And no, "psychiatry alternative" does not imply "valid psychiatry alternative". Where do you get this?MrVoluntarist 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Al is not my sockpuppet. We have totally different edit histories which you can easily verify on your own. For instance, he never helped out when East Bay Ray tried to destroy the Jello Biafra article. Don't use such a ridiculous ad hominem attack on me.

As for your claims, you've made no argument other than "I don't agree". Typical Randian arguments: all personal attacks, no substance. Makes me wonder if you're a sockpuppet for someone. -- LGagnon 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You claimed I agreed with you due to your inability to read. You've claimed I've made no arguments. You can't tell when someone's joking. Who's wasting whose time here? MrVoluntarist 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that "philosophy" does sound more legit than "ideology", "political view", or "personal beliefs". Al 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for "admitting" something everyone already knew was your position, based on your express hostility to calling objectivism "philosophy". So honest, so heartfelt of you. MrVoluntarist 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

θ

Philosophy can and should be approached as a science (although most mystics would disagree with this) but the epistemological process for validating the highly abstract ideas contained in a philosophical worldview is necessarily more open to disagreement due to the difficulty of validating philosophical concepts. For example, the process of concept formation is a key point of argument in different philosophies, with vastly differing takes between, say Schopenhauer (materialism), Ayn Rand (objectivism), and Plato (idealism). But we don’t take the fact of disagreement as such as evidence that the theories are not philosophical theories, and we do not take popularity polls to determine the truth. Any two different philosophies contradict each other at least in part by definition.

Due to the constraints of the philosophical profession, it is accepted that these are differing theories, and the validity of each up to each individual to judge. This is different from the field of evolutionary biology, where ideas be experimentally validated, and where consensus is necessary for progress, and even for a coherent understanding of a field. To call a theory a “scientific,” we have objective criteria regarding the *process* - not regarding the popularity of its advocate. The fact of community consensus only servers as confirmation of the validity of the experimental process, not as validity of the theory itself, since scientific theories are not taken on faith. There is no commonly-accepted criteria for the *process* of deriving philosophical ideas. Indeed, this is a key point of philosophical debate itself. For this reason, the only questions we Wikipedians should be concerned with is the prominence of a philosophical theory.

Andthere is plenty of evidence for the prominence of Objectivism. For example, if you Google Ayn Rand on Google News, I get 174 hits. Nietzsche gets 177. Immanuel Kant gets 31. By this (admittedly nonscientific) comparison, Ayn Rand is clearly taken sufficiently seriously in our culture to merit inclusion here as a philosopher.

--GreedyCapitalist 04:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's false. She's a popular writer, but she's a nobody in the world of philosophy. Al 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If having your essays published in philosophy textbooks does not qualify one as a philosopher, what does?

--GreedyCapitalist 04:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Publishing peer-reviewed essays instead of suing critics. -- LGagnon 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She wished to get her philosophy to the masses. She did so remarkably with Atlas Shrugged and her books designed to be read by the masses. Just because you don't like it and you try to slander it by making comparisons to bad things like Dianetics does not make it "not a philosophy." --Neverborn 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not because I don't like it. It's because academia rejects it. Again, the Randists prove me right that they're illogical ad hominem users. -- LGagnon 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She certainly wanted to affect the masses and get masses of money, but that doesn't make her ideology count as philosophy. Al 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "philosophy": [1] RJII 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're published in philosophy textbooks, then you're a major philosopher. Aristotle and Plato didn't publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, but they count. Even where Rand is condemned, she referred to as a philosopher. LaszloWalrus 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle & Plato didn't have the same standards in place as modern philosophers do. You can't compare their situations to today. Today, in a world with tons of snake oil salesmen, we need such standards to weed out everything from Dianetics to the Time Cube. A&P didn't have an anti-academic/anti-intellectual front to battle against, but modern intellectuals do.

And no, Rand is not always called a philosopher by opponents. Plenty simply call her a cultist, a McCarthyist, or any number of political insults. -- LGagnon 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not true. The list of major philosophers excludes Dennett, even though he has a huge footprint in academia as compared to Rand. Whereas Rand shows up once in a while and is often laughed at, Dennett's a standard in classes on philosophy of the mind. Despite this, he's just not as big a name as Plato and some of the others who rank as major. Rand is minor, at best. Her status as a professional philosopher is suspect, and the quality of her work is extremely questionable. Al 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a philosopher whose "quality of work" is not questionable? Quality of the philosophy is irrelevant. Look at the definition of "philosophy" in the dictionary. It says nothing about quality. RJII 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary (assuming the ridiculous idea that there is even one dictionary) is not the end-all-be-all truth source. Again, you try to claim that one source overrides all. So much for working towards NPOV. -- LGagnon 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is a list of PhD philosophers and members of the Steering Committee of Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division. They have published academic works on Ayn Rand. I don't know how much more legit you can possibly get.

• Allan Gotthelf is Visiting Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he holds the University's Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism.
• James G. Lennox is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Robert Mayhew

• Robert Mayhew is Professor of Philosophy at Seton Hall University.
• Douglas Rasmussen is Professor of Philosophy at St. John's University (NYC).
• Tara Smith is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, and holder of the University's Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism.
• Darryl Wright is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Harvey Mudd College, and Adjunct Professor at The Claremont Graduate School.
• Fred D. Miller, Jr. is Professor of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University, and Executive Director of the University's Social Philosophy and Policy Center.
• Lester H. Hunt is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Here are some other philosophers (members of the American Philosophical Association and their invited speakers) who have spoken professionally about Ayn Rand's philosophy:

• Helen Cullyer (Center for Hellenic Studies and University of Pittsburgh)
• Christine Swanton (University of Auckland)
• Jaegwon Kim (Brown University)
• David Kelley (Verbank, NY)
• William Bechtel (Georgia State University)
• Harry Binswanger (Ayn Rand Institute)
• George Walsh (Salisbury State University)
• Fred D. Miller, Jr. (Bowling Green State University)
• Richard Kamber (Trenton State College)
• Andrew Bernstein (Pace University)
• Neera Kapur Badhwar (University of Oklahoma)
• Gary Hull (Claremont Grad. Sch. of Business)
• Susan Haack (University of Miami)
• Stephen Hicks (Rockford College)
• Jan Narveson (University of Waterloo)
• Tibor Machan (Chapman University)
• Paul E. Griffiths (University of Pittsburgh)
• Douglas B. Rasmussen (St. John's University)
• James G. Lennox (University of Pittsburgh)
• Allan Gotthelf (University of Pittsburgh)
• Fred D. Miller, Jr. (Bowling Green State University)
• Robert Mayhew (Seton Hall University)
• John M. Cooper (Princeton University)

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is now abstracted and indexed in whole or in part by Arts and Humanities Citation Index, CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, IBR (International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Political Science Abstracts, The Left Index, The Philosopher's Index, MLA International Bibliography, MLA Directory of Periodicals, Social Sciences Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Women's Studies International. Also linked to EpistemeLinks.com, The History Journals Guide, History Resources, The Insight, Literature Online, NEXUS, and SOSIG (Social Science Information Gateway)

Want more? --GreedyCapitalist 00:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have been invited to the [graduating class (and the philosophy departments) of West Point. Is West Point “biased” too? --GreedyCapitalist 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fascist smear of Ayn Rand

"Randism is a very (in my opinion, extremely) right-wing ideology. I have left-wing political views. Thus, it makes sense that I would not want to follow Randism. And given that it looks little different from fascism to me (like I said, Atlas Shrugged reminds me of Mein Kampf), I have a very good reason to have such a view of it. You can disagree with my views if you want, but I am not coming from an irrational viewpoint."

As someone whose entire extended family was slaughtered by Nazis (my grandmother and grandfather survived the massacre of our Ukrainian shetl because they served in the Soviet army) I am slightly offended at being called a fascist-worshiper. I was beaten up many times for being a Jew as a kid, but you’re the first to call me a Nazi. Perhaps if you had read one word of Ayn Rand, you would know that she was equality harsh on conservatives as she was on leftists. (I was a member of the Young Democrats before I became an Objectivist) Perhaps you have not heard of Peikoff’s book, which was dedicated to understanding the cause of Nazism and defending individual rights. And you call my attack ad-hominem?

--GreedyCapitalist 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to call other Wikipedians fascists, at least have the balls to defend your claims instead of trying to erase the evidence. --GreedyCapitalist 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever erase evidence? That's blatant libel and you know it.

And my claim of fascism is due to the plot laid out by John Galt. What do you think would happen to society if he actually orchestrated the fall of civilization? Do you think everyone would live to bow before Galt's ubermensch gang? Galt's plan, in reality, would cause widespread poverty, and thus widespread chaos, killing off tons of people. And Galt would just sit back and watch them die. That's utterly disgusting at least, fascism at worst.

And ya, I know Rand didn't say that would happen. Rich girls like her don't understand what extreme poverty does to people, so of course she can't show the situation in a realistic manner. But the fact of the matter is that if you cause the downfall of a civilization's economy the worse of human nature comes out. Poor people will rob and kill to survive, those with power will abuse it to improve themselves, and the Klan & neo-nazis will blame it all on minorities and slaughter them.

The fact that Atlas Shrugged is unrealistic (which is pointed out time and time again by critics) is very important to note because if it was realistic it'd look a lot like Mein Kamphf.

By the way, I'd recommend you look into a book called Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler. It'll give you a better perspective on what would happen in such a world. -- LGagnon 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn what fascism is. RJII 02:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"When did I ever erase evidence? That's blatant libel and you know it."

What do you call this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=57649409&oldid=57649023 --GreedyCapitalist 02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I call it an accident. Honestly, I didn't mean to do that; I thought the landscape of the page seemed a bit different, but didn't realise that was why (my guess was that you'd deleted it yourself). I apologize for that technical error, so long as you're willing to accept that it was one and not vandalism.

Still, I wouldn't call it "evidence". It's evidence that you aren't a fascist (I never explicitly called you one anyways), but it is not evidence against Rand. -- LGagnon 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"And my claim of fascism is due to the plot laid out by John Galt."

It's obvious to me that you have never read Ayn Rand's writing, nor have you actually read the Wikipedia pages on Ayn Rand's life or work, since you don’t have the slightest familiarity with her ideas or biography. Ayn Rand (and I as well) came to America from Soviet Russia as penniless immigrants to escape anti-Semitism and a totalitarian state. She dedicated her life to defending individual rights and the dignity of the individual (as have I) And you accuse us of being facists?

I don’t know what else to say. You have ignored my attempts at referring you to actual Objectivist communities or writing, you have ignored my attempts to resolve this peacefully on your user page, you ignore or erase any evidence I present, and you have tried to vandalize my comments instead of replying to them.

I appeal to saner minds.

--GreedyCapitalist 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia once ran an Ayn Rand study group? Does that make him a fascist and cult member too?

Jimbo doesn't even seem like a real Randist to me, let alone a fascist (he's kind of altruist for a Randist). I haven't seen him imposing his views onto the articles, so I can at least say that from my experience he seems like one of those guys who went through "the Ayn Rand phase" (as its come to be called; I'm surprised there's very little about this in the articles) then rejoined the rest of society afterwards.

Oh, and please don't get me started on the hell that was The Fountainhead again. Let's just say that I have dealt with Rand's work already and still didn't like it.

And ya, I looked at your forum, and that was also unconvincing. The thread about why Randism still hasn't won further proved that all Randists resort to ad hominem to "prove" their points (with quotes along the lines of "we haven't won because everyone else is stupid").

And I did respond to your posts on my user page; I just did it here in the article talk pages. I also posted to your talk page a few times, but you deleted my comments.

And thanks for calling me insane. I love being given more proof that Randists are heavily reliant on logical fallacies. -- LGagnon 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the opposite of a "Randroid" --a Randophobe? I'll coin the term. Randophobia: 1. a. An intense fear, hatred, or distrust of Objectivists, which may include a belief that they are a grave danger to society that one must remain vigilant against (often includes attacking Objectivists as "Randroids"). b. The tendency to fear, hate, hold a personal grudge against, distrust, ridicule, or attack as a "Randroid" anyone that seems they may be in the slightest agreement with any part of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. c. The paranoid suspicion that an individual who supports laissez-faire capitalism is an Objectivist simply because of this support. 2. Intense antipathy toward Objectivism without sufficient knowledge of the philosophy to justify such a bias. 3. The belief in the existence of a "cult" that worships Ayn Rand or agrees with every statement she has uttered without empirical evidence of the cult's existence, or the belief that an individual is a member of this supposed cult without conclusive evidence. 3. General paranoia in regard to Objectivism or Objectivists. Also Randophobe: One who engages in or experiences Randophobia. RJII 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize this adds nothing to the conversation, and is what is normally called a troll on web forums. Seriously, all you are doing now is throwing around personal attacks. Maybe you should read up on Wikipedia's policy against this. -- LGagnon 14:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. I'm just coining and defining a term. Calling people "Randroids" is a personal attack --something you engage in all the time. RJII 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a personal attack; you use the same complaints you made against me before and simply left my name out to make it look innocent. Either way, it does nothing to help build the article; it's fancruft at best, trolling at worst.

And no, I don't use Randroid "all the time"; that was one instance where I was trying to come up with a different term for those here who vandalize the articles. I tried "Randist vandals", but that also caused complaints from the non-vandal Randists. I don't know what kind of PC term you want me to use to refer to you and the other vandals ("Vandals who happen to be in favor of Rand's ideology"?), but it doesn't seem like your collective is ever satisfied with any attempt I make to distinguish those vandalizing the article from other Randists. I've told you guys to stop thinking of a complaint agianst one of you as being against all of you, but none of you seem to get it. Instead, you take everything personally and make false complaints of personal attacks when I say something bad about Randism but not any of you (which, by Wikipedia's guidelines, is not a personal attack). -- LGagnon 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you also go around calling people "vandals" simply for editing the article. You need to stop your personal attacks and falsehoods. RJII 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I call you a vandal for making edits that shouldn't have been made. You delete and alter things that don't fit your POV. You change things that have been cited. There are other Randists here who actually add to the article by contributing info with sources cited, and I don't call them vandals. You, on the other hand, simply whitewash the article in favor of Rand. There's a big difference between your vandalism and real editing. -- LGagnon 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. I'm been adding sources to this article. You're the one that's been deleting sourced information. This is the kind of stuff anyone who tries to work on this article has to deal with. It's not the Objectivists that are the problem but those who start throwing accusations around of Randroidism or vandalism to anyone that disagrees with them --Objectivist or not. In fact, a problem is that there are not enough Objectivists working on this article. I'd like to understand Objectivism better but they don't seem to be working much on explaining of her philosophy in the article. I'd like to see more Objectivists working on the article. RJII 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, you change the section's title to something that doesn't reflect the sources. The sources call Randism a cult, but you change it to say that they call the members a cult. You give no source, only your opinion. And you have no proof that I vandalized the article, so cut the libel.

And there are more Randists editing this article than non-Randists; that's why there's so many bias problems here. We don't need more Randists editors; we need more unbiased editors. -- LGagnon 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title to reflect what the source said. It said that a cult had developed around Objectivism. It didn't say Objectivism itself was a cult. The PEOPLE would be the cult --not the philosophy. For example, the source said: "How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is the antithesis of reason and individualism?" RJII 16:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one source. The section has multiple sources, some of which call Randism a cult. Changing it based on one source is POV. -- LGagnon 17:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the only source there at the time. I haven't looked at anything in that section since. RJII 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But the other sources were up on the Ayn Rand article. You've seen them there, so you should have known better. -- LGagnon 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. I've never read the Ayn Rand article. I've read the intro, but that's about it. I remember I noted the Nietzsche influence and changed a couple words in the intro for grammar purposes, but I think that's been the extent of my involvement in that article. I'm not much interested in Ayn Rand the person. I'm just trying to figure out the philosophy. When I'm able to, then I'll be comfortable critiquing it if I see any significant problems with it. (And all these stupid attacks from you against other editors as "Randroids" just serves to interefere with the editing the article to present a clear explication of her philosophy.) RJII 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, a quick scan through the talk page shows you had more involvement in the Rand article than you claim. And if you're not an adherant, then why are you so unwilling to read the criticisms of it? I pointed you towards a philosophic criticism of Randism, and you flat out refused to read it. Don't tell me you don't want to read criticism before your done with it; that's a bit too pro-Rand to be non-adherant. If you're unbiased about it, you'd look into both sides at the same time. When something looks questionable on one side, check the other side's response to it. This is the kind of thing you'll find in Wikipedia's articles, which makes it truly objective, unlike Rand's writing.

And please stop plurualizing "Randroid attacks". I used the term only once, and only because I keep hearing complaints from Randists who don't know the difference between you and themselves. Randists use the term Randroid too when they are pointing out the extremists in their ranks, so what I said is really not an attack but merely your own group's terminology. -- LGagnon 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You pointed me to a self-published criticism of Objectivism. It's not a credible source, according to Wikipedia policy. It can't be cited on Wikipedia. RJII 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people self publish, and I'm sure we've used them for sources on other articles already. That doesn't mean they aren't credible. And besides, I'm talking about you right now, not the article; you, if you want to show yourself as an unbiased non-Randist, should be open to criticisms of Rand, including such a well thought out philosophic criticism from someone who has studied philosophy. -- LGagnon 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:V. And, I never said that i was "unbiased." Of course I'm biased. I'm just saying I'm not an Objectivist. Given the small amount of study I have engaged in, I can see that I agree with some things in Rand's philosophy. Apparently, in your mind, anyone who shows any interest or agreement with any of her points is a "Randroid" and your sworn enemy. RJII 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just those who vandalize articles to make them more favorable for her. Oh, and Rand fans who can't give a real argument and resort to logical fallacies (which you and several Randists here have been all too willing to prove to be rampant amongst Randists). -- LGagnon 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there are both Randians and anti-Randians who have gone a little nuts about their beliefs. There really was a personality cult around Rand, complete with her own "orthodox church" and its schisms, heretics, and purges, and some people were and are fanatical about Rand and Objectivism, for which the fervent denial of the existence of cultism and fanaticism in the Objectivist camp is merely itself a symptom. On the other hand, it's also true that some of Rand's critics resort to personal attacks and straw-man arguments, motivated by an ideological dislike of what Rand stood for, especially laissez-faire capitalism. Rand's philosophy has its good and bad points, and hopefully some of the people who "have gone through a Rand phase" (in which category I count myself) emerge from it keeping the good parts while leaving behind the bad. *Dan T.* 15:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it happen both ways, when it comes to going through a Rand phase. Some people use Randism as an antidote against traditional religion, then shrug it off and are in great shape. For them, Rand was a ladder they climbed, then threw away. Other people get into Randism and later say they're no longer involved, but their views never moved very far away at all, leaving them as fellow travelers and worse off on the whole. Al 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel for Objectivists that are accused of being a member of a cult. Just because one is an Objectivist it doesn't make him a member of a cult. The argument that's made is that Objectivism is a cult, therefore all Objectivists are cultists. It's a circular --the conclusion is in the premise. Having a philosophy doesn't make one a cultist. There may be SOME individuals who think Rand is infallible and that everything she said was correct. but I think they're rare --especially today. I think the idea that there are hoards of "Randroids" out there who have absolute devotion to every word of Ayn Rand is basically an urban myth. RJII 16:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So, like, there's this article.

There's this article on Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and then there's all this chatter on the Talk page that's nasty and entirely irrelevant to what's going on in the article.

Let's cut the fighting and stick to constructive efforts towards making the article better, shall we? Al 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There can be no progress here until everyone acknowledges that Objectivists are human beings, whose opinions ought to be tolerated and equitably represented on Wikipedia, if not respected. It is not something to be “grown out of” as dozens of Objectivist philosophy professors (see list above), and [10,000] successful adults have proven.

User:LGagnon is an outspoken socialist whose views advocate the kind of socialist slavery and totalitarianism my family barely survived and escaped from, and environmentalism represents a religion aimed at destroying industrial civilization – leading to the death of billions.

But I don’t go around calling people fascists and cult members, vandalizing the environmentalist, Fair trade, Noam Chomsky pages, and abusing Wikipedia articles to insult their ideas. I edit the topics I understand and have spent years studying, not ones I am ignorant of, other than knowing I disagree with them.

My philosophy is not a disease, a cult, or a mental disorder – it is my chosen guide to living my life, and I am immensely proud of it – and I respect the right of others to their own ideas, however wrong and misguided I may believe them to be.

However if some persist in treating Wikipedia as their own personal forum, I will edit their ideologies articles in the exact same way they do mine.

--GreedyCapitalist 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you take my claim that Randism is fascist as a personal attack on you (which, by Wikipedia policy, it's not; you just took it too personally), yet you make a blatant personal attack on me. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you actually violated Wikipedia policy. I never called you a fascist; I actually said you're not one. Yet you go and call me a enslaver and totalitarian. Nice one there; just be glad that Wikipedia's admins don't do jack-all about Randists who break the rules.

And thanks for painting a false reality of what's happening. I never vandalized the article, called Randism a disease or mental disorder, or even told you that you have no right to your ideas. I have called Randism a cult, but I never called your ideas and opinions a cult.

You need to learn to distance yourself from the subject matter. You insulted environmentalism and fair trade, both of which I believe in, yet I did not falsely claim that you made a personal attack against me, because you simply commented on concepts I just happen to believe in. I did the same with Randism, and thus you have no reason to falsely accuse me of personal attacks against you just for commenting on the article's subject matter.

And that goes for all you Randists: quit the collectivism and start thinking of yourself as you, not Randism. A negative comment about Randism is not about you, no matter how you'd like to spin it. If you take offense to it, that's tough. There's things on Wikipedia that offend me too, but unlike you I don't whine about how criticism sections of articles offend me and thus must not even be talked about. -- LGagnon 05:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is INDIVIDUALISM. Individualism is the OPPOSITE of fascism. Fascism requires the individual to sacrifice his self-interest for the state's interest. Individualism, including its Objectivist form, advocates that individuals should be free to pursue their own self-interest and sacrifice nothing to the state. Anyone who equates Objectivism with fascism has no clue what either ideology is about. RJII 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism is just another form of collectivism disguised as individualism. Randism requires the individual to sacrifice his mind, logic, and emotions for the cult's interest. Individualism, including forms found in altruism, humanism, and left-wing politics, advocates that individuals should be free to pursue both their self-interests and care about their fellow human beings (which do not conflict with one another).

You ever heard of the concept of the individual who thinks he's an individual because he joined a new form of conformity? This happens with teenagers a lot, who eventually grow out of that phase when they realize that they've conformed yet again. This is why we have the phrase "the Ayn Rand phase"; because Randism is exactly that. -- LGagnon 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say in Objectivism that one must "sacrifice his mind, logic, and emotions" for a cult? RJII 19:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For one, Rand excommunicated people who disagreed with her; if you decide to have no choice but to agree, then you have sacrificed your mind. Second of all, Randists have no counterarguments but logical fallacies (ad hominem being particularly popular with them); thus, they sacrifice logic. Lastly, Randists are not allowed to take concern for their fellow man; any form of help is "self-sacrifice", even if it pains you to see others suffer. Thus, emotions are sacrificed to be able to not participate in "self-scarifice". -- LGagnon 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing the actions of a person (Ayn Rand), with the philosophy of Objectivism. Nowhere in Objectivism does it say one should sacrifice oneself for anything. And, Objectivism is not opposed to people helping others. Objectivism is opposed to the ethical doctrine of altruism --the ehtical doctrine that says people have a moral obligation to help others. The reason Rand opposed that is because it can be used as the moral basis for an authoritarian system --like fascism. If there is no moral obligation to help others, then doing so is left to the free decision of the individual. RJII 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism, like many cults, has unspoken rules as Branden pointed out. You don't have to actually mention them for them to be enforced. And given that Randism is built around the opinions of Rand, her methods control how the ideology was formed. Thus, excommunication is part of Randism, as it was practiced at least in the early days.

And how can helping others be allowed if you are supposed to never self-sacrifice? If you spend money to feed children (who I'm convinced are Rand's Waterloo; child care is definitely self-sacrifice, yet absolutely needed for the survival of the human race beyond a single generation), you're sacrificing your hard earned money for the sake of others. And you'll do this out of ethical need, as nobody short of a psychopath can feel ethically confident about starving their children.

And I'd like to point out a further lack of logic in Randism: slippery slope. Altruism is bad because it'll lead to fascism? There's no way you can prove that. Fascism has always came about because of self-centerness, be it Hitler's personal hate for Jews or Stalin's greedy warping of communism into fascism (not that I support communism, but Stalinism isn't the real thing; it's just trading humans for pigs). -- LGagnon 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nazism was quite altruistic. The Germans were taught to sacrifice themselves for the good of the German nation. Nazism was built upon altruism, as was Stalin's Communism. A.T.

Not really. Altruism does not exist in a state where one kills his fellow man for others' (as well as his own) sakes. And even if you were right, this is still a slippery slope argument. -- LGagnon 22:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I always just assumed people had and took care of their kids out of self-interest. Having kids makes them happy. Also, they need someone to look after them when they're old. RJII 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kids don't always make people happy. Haven't you heard people complain about their bratty kids? But whether their kids bother them or not, they still feel an ethical duty to ensure their safety. And this doesn't go for just their kids; people are protective of other people's kids too. This is why we have the welfare system: because someone else's kids could starve without government help (and don't say everyone on welfare is too lazy to get a job; kids can't work for a living). The fact of the matter is, humans feel ethically obligated to all children, and we are perfectly fine with "self-sacrificing" to help them survive. -- LGagnon 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that people feed their kids beause they think it's an ethical obligation. I think they do it simply because they want to. It makes them sad to see their child go hungry. RJII 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think claims of fascism really belong; it seems to me to be just a smear term, (i.e. Bush is a fascist; Kerry is a commie). LaszloWalrus 07:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet it has been said by her opponents. Common accusations are supposed to be documented, true or not. -- LGagnon 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What opponent of hers has accused Objectivism as being fascist? Any scholar who claimed that would be making a total fool of themselves. RJII 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism does NOT reject altruism based on some kind of slippery slope. LaszloWalrus 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. RJII just said it does. Even Atlas Shrugged shows the world going to hell from a slippery slope. Face it, Randism is not build on logic. It's built on Rand's political biases and her illogical attempts to justify them. Time and time again, whether it's Rand or her followers, Randists use logical fallacies to justify anything they do, because they haven't studied either philosophy or it's sister art of rhetoric, and thus they don't even know how logic works. If they had studied either one, they'd understand that they aren't actually practicing a legit philosophy. -- LGagnon 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what Rand is talking about when she talks of "altruism" even though I explained it to you. "Altruism" has two meanings. One is non-self-interested helping of others. The other is an ethical doctrine that holds that an individual has an ethical OBLIGATION to help others (something you wouldn't be familiar with if you haven't studied philosophy of ethics). The latter is what she's talking about, as this article indicates: "For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others." Note this is talking about the DOCTRINE of altruism --not the ACT. RJII 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But if society falls apart from the use of altruism (ala Atlas), isn't that saying that the act of altruism is bad? If it destroys society, then she is showing the act in a bad light. So how can you say she is only opposed to the doctrine when she has used her writing to oppose the act?

And whether it's the doctrine or the act, she is still claiming that altruism leads to fascism, which is still a slippery slope. She has no way of proving that will happen, and there is proof to the contrary.

For instance, Being forced to pay taxes so that welfare children don't starve to death is not fascist. You are being forced to do something, but it will save the society from a proletariate revolution (a lesson that she should have learned from the Russian Revolution). It actually help you out as well, as it ensures safety and helps in keeping the economy from falling downward. Of course, we could argue that that to is done out of self-interest, but the vast majority of people (especially Randists) aren't educated enough to realize the "trickle-up" effect (for a lack of a better term) of a balanced economy. Instead, we are able to frame it ethically to convince others to work towards their own goals. With ethics in play, one is willing to do what improves life for everyone even if one does not understand exactly how the system works.

This altruism thus saves us from falling into fascism. By using economic balance to hold down attempts at violent revolution, we make the world safer for individuality. And by having ethics to guide the less educated towards helping others, we are able to avoid their use of a Galt's Gulch-style destruction of civilization through negligence (which would be way more realistic than what Rand perposed). -- LGagnon 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, because in the well-known Rand/Rothbard dispute I'm on the side of the latter but ... Gagnon, are you talling about "apposition" or "opposition"? It isn't just an issue of spelling, "apposite" is a real English word and a very different one from "opposite," which is what I suspect you mean above. --Christofurio 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, what she is against is the idea that people have a moral obligation to help others. She thinks it should be a free decision whether you want to send money to the starving in a third world country or to your next door neighboor. Now, you may think that it's in someone's else's best interest that you force them to help others, but of course you're imposing your will on that person. An individualist would ask: What makes you think your more qualified than the individual to himself to make that determination? An individualist, including an Objectivist, want to allow the individual to decide for himself what is in his best interest as long as he doesn't impose his will on anyone else. You, on the other hand, apparently, want the liberty to force others to do what you think is in their best interest. An individualist wants the liberty to live his life as he best sees fit --and allow you the same. You, on the other hand, want the liberty to make him live his life as YOU see fit --to make him spend his money on what YOU think is best for him. Can't we all just get along? RJII 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This still does not rebutt my claims that 1) she is arguing against the act of altruism in her writing (most notably in Atlas Shrugged), not the doctrine, 2) Randism is built on a slippery slope and is thus illogical, and 3) reality shows the opposite of her claims, as altruism prevents fascism. -- LGagnon 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you even know what an altruistic act would be. If you're engaging in "altruism" in order to prevent yourself from being the victim of fascism, then it wouldn't be altruism at all. It would be a self-interested act. Don't confuse benevolence, or helping others, with altruism. An altruistic act has no self-interest involved. A benevolent act can indeed be self-interested. RJII 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just misinformed, but Atlas Shrugged didn't show the harm resulting from altruism as such, but from the campaign against business. MrVoluntarist 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but what does it all have to do with the article we're editing? Let's focus, people. Al 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think LGagnon (among others) argues to a great degree. People, you have to remember WP:NOR find a source that satifies WP:V. Then put it in the article. Crazynas 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you make personal attacks. Crazynas you have to remember WP:NPA. -- LGagnon 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of me violating WP:NPA. Crazynas 00:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the comment above my last one. "I think LGagnon (among others) likes arguing" is a personal attack. -- LGagnon 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote WP:NPA "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." Crazynas 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, "likes arguing" runs afoul of "involving their personal character". Sorry, but this really does look like a personal attack. Al 01:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I fixed it. Crazynas 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't the target so I can't forgive you. Perhaps you should apologize directly to Gag so that he can. Al 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cult, POV?

I think that [[Category:Cult]] does not fit with the Objectivism article and is pure POV, let's look at a DIRECT QUOTE from Ayn Rand herself on the subject of Objectivism being a cult. "My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think -- to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction -- to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult." Do you know where I found this quote? THIS VERY ARTICLE!!! Category:Cult is simply a vicious and bias attack by the Anti-Objectivist click that is currently here. The Fading Light 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is already listed on List of cults and already has a section about numerous accusations of culthood. It would be POV to remove the category. Moreover, presence in a category is for the purpose of aiding navigation, not as an absolute statement of fact. Al 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The accusations of culthood only fit with one GROUP that is Objectivist (the ARI, which isn't even the first group to promote Objectivism, see the Nathanial Branden Institute), not the whole movement, I have met Objectivists that were not members of the David Kelly group that couldn't be called cult members by ANY stretch of the definition. It isn't fair to label an entire movement a Cult because of the actions of a minority. Otherwise we should label Christianity a Cult because of David Koresh or Islam a cult because of the Nation of Islam. The Fading Light 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the description of what a cult is in Cult. Randism (not just ARI, but all of it) fits this perfectly. Combine that with the cited accusations and we've got every reason to put it in that category. -- LGagnon 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that any religion could be considered a cult, as could many philosophies; especially if they define the totality of your world-view. Objectivism could easily be defined as a non-religious cult, but that doesn't mean that it equates with Scientology or the Branch Davidians. The world isn't black and white, as much as some cultists would like to believe. --Xinit 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what counts here is whether there are reliable sources we can cite that accuse it of cultism. Al 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the cites, you'll find that you're mistaken. The Objectivist movement, even before the ARI, was seen as cultish. It has fragmented into a few cults, with the ARI being the orthodoxy but by no means the only source of cultishness. Sorry, but the category belongs. Al 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult links -- Xinit 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Skeptic Magazine
• Globe and Mail
• Not citeable, but has some interesting points

GREAT! Now in the name of equality we should label Christianity, Islam, and all other groups a cult and since it is Alienus who is LOOKING for the excuse to label Objectivism a cult he should be the one to explain to everyone on all of the pages of various religious and philosophical groups why they need to accept the label of "Cult" since they are groups that have a point of view (and therefore they are cults). The Fading Light 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, apparently when we find a handful of critics who call Objectivism a cult, it's a cult; when Britannica, ad infinitum calls Objectivism a philosophy, that doesn't count. LaszloWalrus 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Christianity was a cult for about 400 years, no? --Xinit 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just found a list of sources calling Bush a fascist: [2], [3], [4] and another list calling Kerry a communist [5], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171176/posts], [6]; we should probably add the fascist and communist categories, respectively, because if I can find sources, it must be true. LaszloWalrus 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Did any of you read the Cult article? The definition given there fits Randism perfectly. Look, I'll even copy-and-paste the intro for those who aren't going to look no matter what:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.

Doesn't that sound like Randism to you? Randism is far outside the mainstream, having been rejected by academic philosophers as well as political factions on every side. And religious or not, it still fits the description (the rest of the article mentions non-religious cults).

And no, we aren't required to treat all religions equally. We're only required to add what has been cited, and Randism is cited as being accused of being a cult. We're not here to please the Randists; we're here to state the facts.

And Laszlo, Al already pointed out that the cateogry is for groups accused of being cults, which is the situation here. And as I've stated, Randism fits the description in the cult article. -- LGagnon 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"A cult is a cohesive group..."?? Objectivists are as far from cohesive as it gets! Michael Hardy 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ARI is cohesive. So are the Randists here, and in every other Randist group I've seen. -- LGagnon 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You list a bunch of "unreliable sources" for your tangential facism example... I listed professional publications with editorial policies. Not exactly the same idea. To be honest, mine was a quick search. If I hit an academic library I believe I could find scholarly publications that would also support the argument that Objectivism is labelled a cult by the mainstream. --Xinit 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey LGagnon I can copy/paste too! Here is what was mentioned at the END of the cult article, "My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think -- to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction -- to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult."- Ayn Rand This is a DIRECT quote. Kinda undercuts the idea that Objectivism was meant to be a cult huh? The Fading Light 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're still sticking to the idea that I'm going to be convinced just because your god said no? Rand is not the fountainhead of all knowledge; her opinion does not override all others. She is not omnipotent and omniscient, and thus her "no it's not" argument is meaningless. Yes, she, like all other cult leaders, denies accusations against her. That's to be expected. But it does not work as an argument. We don't label intelligent design as science because a proponent of it says "yes it is science! It definitely is!" And likewise we do not assume Randism is not a cult despite accusations just because the alleged cult leader says "it's not!" and gives no proof to back up her argument (kind of like what you are doing). -- LGagnon 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At last the bare truth is exposed for all to see, LGagnon hates Objectivism and everyone associated with it for no real logical reason. Do you want to know how I came to this stunning line of thought? Because I am not an Objectivist!!! I reject the idea that Ayn Rand was infallible, I reject the idea that Objectivism is perfect BUT what I don't do is assume that the whole thing is rotten just because I disagree with some of her viewpoints (like LGagnon clearly has). The reason I have used the Ayn Rand quote was to point out the fact that it was NOT HER INTENTION to create a cult out of her philosophy, the cult was created by the NBI and it's successor organization the ARI by exploiting the flaws in Objectivism (rather than correcting those flaws like they SHOULD of done), BUT the ARI is not the sole Objectivist group in existence, there are thousands of men and women who are Objectivists who do NOT associate with the ARI nor the Neo-Objectivists of David Kelly. They are pure individuals who have found the flaws in Objectivism and corrected them and live out their lives using Objectivism and Reason as their tools to understand reality, they are NOT cult members by any strech of the definition of the word and it is DISGUSING that a few hate filled Anti-Objectivists like LGagnon are trying to marginalize the good things about Objectivism by labeling it a cult so that people will dismiss it's support for Individualism and Capitalism as pure evil. The Fading Light 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, cut the personal attacks. Not only does it make you sound illogical, but it violates Wikipedia policy. And please don't shout; it's rude and unneeded.

Secondly, Rand said that you are not a Randist unless you follow her words exactly. Those who left the "Ayn Rand phase" and moved on may have a few views left over from the phase, but they are not Randists by Her concept of it if they have changed their views.

And again I'll repeat myself: Randism itself has been accused of being a cult. You can see this in the article itself. Thus, you are not justified in arguing for a singular POV in the article when we are supposed to represent multiple views. -- LGagnon 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And of course (once again) you ignore large parts of what I said, take the rest out of context, and completely fail to say much of anything beyond "I don't like Objectivists". The Fading Light 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? You know an argument only works when it contains proofs to back its claims. Your comment is all claims and no proofs; thus, you've essentially written a non-argument. -- LGagnon 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gagnon, your argument, if I may summarize it, is that the cult article is a good description of "Randism"; this article is essentially about Randism, and, therefore, it's valid to label it with the cults category. Is that about right? If that's even close, the problem with this argument is that the cult article (correctly) defines cult as "a cohesive group of people ...". But this article is about Objectivism the philosophy, not Objectivism the movement, much less, Objectivsm the cohesive group of people who .... In short, your argument has no application to this article. More on this at the bottom of this Talk page. --Serge 07:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's part of my argument, not the whole. You miss the fact that we have citations showing that critics consider Randism to be a cult. Also, Randism's (loaded) name is often used to refer to the cult in question. Thus, there is no reason to remove the category. -- LGagnon 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult cohension

ARI sticks together quite well. And all Randists I've known are cohesive. -- LGagnon 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That shows you haven't known many, or much. So ARI sticks together: why not say therefore that ARI is a cult, rather than that Objectivists, including those who oppose ARI, are a cult? If ARI is cohesive, that's very remote from saying Objectivists are cohesive. Michael Hardy 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because both ARI and the Randism ideology are accused of being cults. It's not just one, it's both. And they share very similar qualities. And can we keep discussions of articles on the articles' talk pages please? -- LGagnon 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So again: if cults are cohesive, how can something so non-cohesive be a cult? Michael Hardy 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's cohesive in beliefs. It follows the Word of Rand, and those who do are willing to work together despite differences (we've seen this here on Wikipedia). Thus, it's cohesive in actions too. -- LGagnon 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"...and those who do are willing to work together despite differences..."

No, they're not, obviously, since ARI refuses to have anything at all to do with the organization headed by David Kelley, and lots of followers of ARI refuse to have anything to do with those who appear to sympathize with David Kelley. And Barbara Branden considers herself an Objectivist while many in ARI accuse her of dishonesty. Accusing someone of dishonesty when she says she supports this philosophy is not a case of working together. Michael Hardy 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If I called Chomsky a cultist (which is supported here, by the way, [7]), every anarchist or socialist on Wikipedia would revert and I'd be called a vandal. Does this mean that Chomskyans are a sinister "cult"? LGagnon has used intentionally derogatory terms (like "Randist") and has shown a generally bad-faith attempt to smear anything having anything to do with Ayn Rand. By the way, I give to ARI and I've met other Objectivists once; so much for being cohesive. LaszloWalrus 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source is a blog; it's utterly useless for Wikipedia's purposes. So no, you can't edit Chomsky's article that way because you don't have legit proof.

And as I've explained before, "Randist" is a neutral term, not a derogatory term. "Objectivist" is closer to a derogatory term, as it is a loaded term that connotes that others are not objective. I use "Randist" as to not degrade those of us who are not Randists. And none of you Randists have suggested a proper non-loaded term to use, nor have you complained about me using "Randist" until someone else brought it up a short while ago in a personal attack against me. Thus, you're the one running a smear.

And I suggest you cut the personal attacks. I'm not going to stand for this much longer. -- LGagnon 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the term “Randian” or “Randist” insulting because I agree with a certain set of ideas, not a person. I have a number of important disagreements with Ayn Rand related to her views on psychology and politics (btw, how many “cult members” would say that?) but they are not part of her philosophical system. Ayn Rand herself refused to identify her own philosophy or her followers by any term stemming from her name for the same reasons. --GreedyCapitalist 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, insult: “a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.” When everyone being identified by a term finds it demeaning, and everyone using it uses it as an implied attack, I think that matches the definition.

The implied attack is that Objectivists are Rand-worshippers, when it fact the designation of “Objectivism” implies agreement with a philosophy, not a person, and certainly not religious observance of certain rituals.

--GreedyCapitalist 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By your standard, "Objectivism" is an insult because I feel offended by it. Thus, all of you who are calling yourselves "Objectivists" are insulting me. But I'm not pressing this further, because it's loaded language, not an insult. But if you change the standards as you are trying to, then you'll have to count your own comments as insults.

And no, not everyone finds it demeaning. Nobody has complained until now. One of those who complained (the first one to do so) said they didn't mean it that way. You're just trying to get me in trouble for a made-up reason.

And no, it is not implying that they are Rand worshippers, only Rand followers. Do you follow a large portion of her ideas? Then you are a Randist. You don't need to follow everything she syas for that to apply to you, only a lot. And the term has been used neutrally in several writings about her, without intent to insult.

Now if you force me to use the term "Objectivist", you are in fact forcing your opinion on to me. What you are doing is trying to censor my beliefs, which is not going to happen. And you know why? Because Wikipedia is not built to be inoffensive. Articles will feature multiple viewpoints, and editors will have several. You'll be offended by some, and that will be tough. Sorry, but NPOV will win over your censorship campaign. -- LGagnon 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An insult is an insult because it carries an implied attack, not because you find it offensive. I’ve already explained the implied attack behind your usage. Someone using it without the implied attack is not being insulting, they are just using a non-standard term.

If the terms are both neutral, why do you insist on using one and not the other, epecially if some, including the namesake of the term objected to it? And how is using the one less people find insulting "censorship", unless there is some idea (ie, the implied attack) that they are trying to "censor"? --GreedyCapitalist 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivist" is not neutral; I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. I said it's loaded language. And it is also an implied attack, as it implies that non-Randists are not objective (a loaded term always implies something). And I've never heard of an objection to "Randist" by Rand herself.

And I said you are trying to censor me. You are trying to make me express opinions I don't hold by forcing me to use a loaded term. Using the term "Objectivist" goes against my beliefs, which I will not violate for the sake of any PC police. -- LGagnon 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon a troll?

Has LGagnon done enough at this point to qualify as a troll? MrVoluntarist 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is only by a truly monumental effort to assume good faith that I am not citing you for personal attacks and general incivility. I am going to pretend that you really think LGagnon is a troll, and you are going to stop insulting them. Got it? Al 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, I don't "do" ultimatums, and I'm not a big fan of condescension. Your behavior here is at least as reprehensible, and you're ad admin. Discussing whether or not someone's action is trolling is not a violationg of "assume good faith" or "no personal attacks". It is a relevant matter. MrVoluntarist 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not the one making personal attacks. If anything, those who are making personal attacks are trolls. Nice one with the loaded question there, though. Both a non-argument and illogic spawned from ad hominem. This degrades no one's argument but your own. -- LGagnon 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The question was just for others who are observing you. But if you want reasons, how about your relentless campaign to overturn consensus and remove the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" from the article and label a movement as a "cult" despite the incohesion, your insistence on the neologism "Randist".... I could go on, but the point is, this isn't a personal attack. Whether or not you are trolling is of vital import for the proper management of Wikipedia. I'm soliciting the opinions of others here before bringing in admins to deal with you. Most of your behavior here is unacceptable. Not just the things listed above, but your labeling of others as "Randists" despite virtually all of them editing this as their first article on objectivism and thus probably not having a dog in this race. I've never seen such rabid devotion toward fighting someone's ideology. Almost like you're part of a cult. MrVoluntarist 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm overturning consensus? There's no consensus, and that's the problem; we've got a POV article pushing an opinion as a fact. By pointing this out, I'm not trolling; I'm helping to fix the POV problem here. -- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus, including the input from opponents of objectivism, for a long time until you and Al insisted on drastic changes, before discussing them. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not intermix your responses. It is an unacceptable practice according to the Wikirules. Some people will revert your entire entry and let you sort out your own mess.

In any case, there was no consensus, just an ongoing conflict. Al 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Wrong. This is common practice. You are in clear abuse of your power by making such threats. If you plan to revert me, say so. Don't absolve your responsibility with "Someone might revert you... be a shame if that happened." I'll clarify who said what, but that's all. MrVoluntarist 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And "Randist" is not an insult. -- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Had you read my full comment and given it due diligence, you would see that I was not claiming "Randist" is an insult in itself. I was pointing out that jumping to the conclusion that someone is a proponent of Rand's views ("has a dog in the race") is inappropriate. Most people here are not Objectivists, but are merely trying to ensure neutrality. I'm not, RJII's not, and still others aren't. You're trying to promote this belief that anyone who disagrees with your views is a pro-Rand fanatic, and that is not acceptable. Please stop. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an "unloaded" version of the loaded term "Objectivist". It's a neutral term - the kind that is expected in Wikipedia discussions.-- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While it may not be insulting, while it may be neutral, it's not necessarily appropriate. It's a rarely-used neologism. It's no more loaded than many, many philosophical terms. For example, is "existentialist" loaded because it tries to make it look like opponents of existentialism oppose existence? Is "democratic" (in the sense of majoritarian) loaded becuase it implies its opponents oppose people (demos)? MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither existentialist, democratic nor Randist are insults. Move on. Al 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please properly indent your responses, and do me the courtesy of reading what I actually post. LGagnon was claiming that "objectivist" is loaded. It is not. It is no more loaded than "existentialist" or "democratic". MrVoluntarist 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And what cult am I in? The cult of academia? The cult of intellectualism? Only cults consider those to be cults. -- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're acting like what you say cannot reasonably be disputed, usually without providing reasons, and coming up with smears and broad labels for anyone who disagree with you. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make accusations, because I don't know what's going on in Gagnon's head, but it appears to me that Gagnon is just here to try to get a rise out of other editors (and to piss off so called "Randroids") and is not interested in facts, credible source, or consensus building, etc. But, I could be wrong so I'm trying to "assume good faith" as long as possible. But, it's wearing thin. RJII 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added more sources than you have. I've also tried to build consensus (I haven't removed references to Randism being a philosophy yet). And no, you are not assuming good faith; you never have. You just resort to personal attacks, as you are doing now. -- LGagnon 03:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And might I add, this whole section here is just an invitation for personal attacks. That's all that can come of it. And it has nothing to do with the article, which is what this talk page is meant to be used for. This discussion is over, and will see admin intervention if it continues. -- LGagnon 03:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to honor your comments with responses, MrV, given that you broke up my comments in a rather disrespectful way. Additionally, since this section is just a witch hunt, and a violation of Wikipedia policy, I shouldn't have to put up with it. We'll use this talk page to discuss the article's topic, not your hatred for me. This is the end of discussion on this section; if you continue further, I'll report you for personal attacks. -- LGagnon 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is from troll:

A troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.... Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a controversial opinion, or trolling."

I have banned dozens of trolls in the various forums I administer, but since I am threatened with being banned, I will keep my judgment to myself. However, my experience with them can be summed up as keep cool and do not feed the trolls! --GreedyCapitalist 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is from WP:NPA:

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

• Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll"

Thus, this whole section is a personal attack against me. Like I said, this discussion is over, and anyone who adds more flames to the fire will face disciplinary action. -- LGagnon 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• You'll be offended by some, and that will be tough. Sorry, but NPOV will win over your censorship campaign. -- LGagnon 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Like I said, this discussion is over, and anyone who adds more flames to the fire will face disciplinary action. -- LGagnon 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, we should all read Wikipedia:What is a troll --GreedyCapitalist 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thinnly-vieled personal attack. I've just reported you for this and the previous ones. -- LGagnon 02:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus and His Abuse of Administrative Powers

Several times User:Alienus has removed portions of my very civil response to LGagnon for no legitimate reason and has threatened to block me from editing wikipedia if I continue to pursuit my right to respond to LGagnon's hate speech against anyone who is interested in Objectivism (calling people "Randroids" and "Randists" is a BLATANT attempt to provoke people's tempers and start arguments). But since Alienus has threatened to use the powers of the Wikipedia administration against me for speaking my mind I'm not even sure if it is worth fighting the Anti-Objectivist clique if they hold an unequal share of power on the Wiki. The Fading Light 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is physically impossible for me to abuse administrative powers. Moreover, it is accepted practice to remove or refactor uncivil text to prevent snowballing. I'd say "Randroid" might be considered insulting if used just so, but "Randist" is neutral, though not preferred. Al 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop the personal attacks? They are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and they make you (and by extension, your side of the argument) look illogical (as personal attacks are a logical fallacy). If you have legit arguments to make, then you are free to make them. However, if you are going to make personal attacks, such as labelling everything I say as "hate speech", then don't bother. You'll only attract disiplinary actions onto yourself. -- LGagnon 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: hate speech does not apply to political views. It does, however, apply to religious ones. Are you suggesting Randism is a religion? -- LGagnon 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate speech relates to things like Race, Religion, and Political Viewpoints (which include Objectivism) and please stop using the terms "Randism", "Randian", and "Randroid" when speaking to me because I find them to be insulting. The Fading Light 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, no, arguing against a political view is not hate speech. If it was, we'd hear of more "hate speech" political websites being shut down than we do now. And the terms "Randist" and "Randian" are not insults; they are neutral terms. I find the term "Objectivist" to be insulting to me, but you don't hear me whining to you about that (though your other personal attacks are still not excused). Instead, I simply use non-loaded neutral terminology in my speech so that neither you nor I am insulted. -- LGagnon 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the word "the" insulting, so please stop using it. Oh, wait, it's not about what others actually find insulting, just what a reasonable person would be insulted by. The term Randian is quite neutral, though it's more an adjective than a noun. The noun form is Randist, though it's less common. Randroid can be an insult, depending on the context, but isn't clearly so. In short, you're going to need to grow a thicker skin. Al 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me put what you have just said into a different context Al, what if what you had just said was directed at a black person who was offended that you called him a "Nigger"? Understand where I am comming from? I have every right to request (politely) that people not use certain words when speaking to me (words like "Faggot" come to mind) and I have requested that when speaking to me about Objectivists that you do not use the terms "Randist" and "Randroid" because I find to be just as insulting as Faggot. The Fading Light 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between race and political affiliation; don't try to act like they are the same thing. Same goes for gays. People openly discuss political opinions all the time, trying to show the inferiority of another over the other. This is not hate speech; it's called normal political discourse. Thus, you can't claim that having a different political opinion makes someone a troll.

And you are insulting me by using "Objectivist". You might as we be calling yourself the Master Race, and then complain when I call you a German instead. I'm using neutral terminology; you are not. If you're offended by someone not using your preferred term, that's tough. I am not compromising my political beliefs just because you feel offended by the fact that I refuse to use loaded terminology. -- LGagnon 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivist" is NOT a loaded term because it is merely stating that this person accepts Ayn Rand's philosophy as their own, terms like "Randian" and "Randroid" are designed by the academic community to be insult words to be use against Objectivists because they don't agree with Objectivism and hate Ayn Rand. The Fading Light 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. The academic community does not create neutral terminology to insult, because the academic community exists to teach logically, not to create ad hominem non-arguments. In fact, they, unlike Randism, teach that ad hominem is wrong. Don't try to argue your point with an unfounded (and completely unsourced) conspiracy theory.

And yes, "Objectivism" is a loaded term. It suggests that non-Randism are not objective. It's the same as "pro-life", which suggests that people who are in favor of abortion rights are not in favor of life. There's no requirement for me to call Randists objective, especially since they often prove otherwise. Like I said, my beliefs will not be compromised for your sake. -- LGagnon 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to use hate speech I suppose that I can't stop you, but I also have the right to voice my opinions and viewpoints and I think I have made my opinion on your hate speech very clear.The Fading Light 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note: I'm finding a disturbing trend with you LGagnon, you have mistaken philosophy for a religion, instead of using proper terms for political viewpoints as opinion you are using religious terms like "belief", I have done my best to purge this word from my vocabulary but it seems that you are turning politics and philosophy into a personal system of... dare I say it? Religious belief. The Fading Light 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Atlas Society

Check out the new reference to The Altas Society. A branch of Kelley's sect, it focuses on Rand as author, not philosopher. Interesting. Al 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-13-1712-The_Atlas_Society_and_TheObjectivist_Center_names.aspx

"So our Trustees have decided to use The Atlas Society as our official name, which will help us promote our ideas to Rand readers as well as to the general public, while reserving The Objectivist Center name for our more academic and scholarly activities."

They have renamed the organization itself, with the Objectivist Center just being a sub-division. Should we rename all references, including the article on it? --GreedyCapitalist 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we agree again. You must be becoming an evil collectivist looter. :-) Al 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this not a personal attack on GreedyCapitalist ? If not, the I would like an explanation on how calling someone "an evil collectivist looter" is not a personal attack. Oleksandr 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the fact that I ended with a great big smiley. There's also the fact that, even without that hint, I was very obviously joking. The joke being that, by agreeing with a non-Objectivist, he's becoming just like them. Ha. Ha? I'm sorry if this painfully obvious bit of humor didn't strike you as funny, but I can't imagine how you can miss the fact that this is at least an attempt at humor. I chalk this up to language difficulties, not bad faith. Al 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like he was just joking with him. -- LGagnon 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment

FYI, I have added this page to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy --GreedyCapitalist 22:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fresh eyes couldn't hurt. --Xinit 22:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good thing, maybe it will keep the Anti-Objectivists from distorting the article and the issues involved more than they already have. The Fading Light 03:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, there is such a thing as operating on a policy that aims for neutrality, instead of favoring or disfavoring Objectivism. It works for me; maybe you should try it sometime. Al 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Too bad that you have proven yourself to NOT be neutral in your treatment of Objectivism as a philosophy and as a wikipedia article. The Fading Light 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to be personally neutral about something to edit neutrally. The history log shows that I've fixed POV problems to either direction, including outright anti-Rand vandalism. I can maintain my objectivity when editing, which is, ironically, something Objectivists seem to have trouble with. Al 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

Survey: Move Criticism section to its own article

I suggest moving the too large Criticism section to its own article. All the effort going into it is absurd, considering that it has little or nothing to do with the philosphical elements of Objectivism..it's just irrelevant back and forth arguing over whether it's a cult, etc. The explanation of Rand's philosophy in this article needs a lot of work. I think if we move the Criticism content over to its own article then people will spend more time on working on explaining the philosophy itself instead of bickering over all this trivial stuff. So, I ask for a vote to see whether other editors agree that it should be moved and replaced here with a small paragraph with a link to a Criticism article. RJII 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please just say "Agree" or "Disagree" with an optional short explanation. Any further attempts to disrupt this vote will be reported as vandalism. This is not an area for arguing back and forth. See argumentation area below.

Running tally: 6 Agree, 2 Disagree

• Agree RJII 15:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong disagree POV forks are a very bad idea. Al 15:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree There should be a paragraph or two, and a separate article. At the very least, cult accusations should be categorizied as criticism. --GreedyCapitalist 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong disagree You Randists will move all the info there where you can then start a debate about deleting it, and then have all the criticism on Wikipedia deleted. There is a very recent precedent for this. You did it before, you'll do it again. -- LGagnon 16:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Agree Let the Anti-Objectivists and other haters bicker away and spew their bile elsewhere and work to improve the main article here so that there is a more detailed explanation of Objectivism as a philosophy in the wiki. The Fading Light 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Your explanation for agreement proves my point entirely, as does the fact that only Randists are supporting this move. It is clearly a POV push. Al 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If this isn't proof that you Randists are making a push for POV, I don't know what is (although the deletion of the Criticism article's predecessor was worse). -- LGagnon 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is done. There's not a single NON-Randist who endorses this move, which proves it's POV. It's not going to happen. Al 16:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII, there won't be any consensus here other than false consensus created by Randists outnumbering non-Randists. That is not consensus; that's tyranny of the majority. You are not going to create this fork without consensus from both sides, which you are not even close to achieving. -- LGagnon 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. They survey has been going on only for an hour or so. Give it some time. RJII 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And since you like dictionary definitions: consensus -- An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. -- LGagnon 17:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what is meant by "consensus" on Wikipedia. A mere majority is not good enough, but if, say, 10 people Agree and 2 Disagree, that would be considered a consensus. RJII 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No it would not. The 2 people are those who are non-Randists, and the others are all biased pro-Rand editors. You're trying to get 10 wolves and 2 sheep to vote on what's for dinner. That is not real democracy; that is fascism, and you know it. While I don't mind you proving my claims right, I do have a problem with you using this article as an example of Randian fascism. -- LGagnon 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not worthy of response. RJII 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The actual quote is: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." + Bold text -  ::::::Let me remind you that threatening others with violence, calling them fascists, or criminals is against Wikipedia policy. Further attempts to threaten or bully users will result in a warning. --GreedyCapitalist 18:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I said Randism is fascist, not anyone here. And I made no threat of violence or bullying, nor did I call anyone a criminal. If you are going to make accusations against me, base them in reality. -- LGagnon 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bold text I agree. Since you won't respond, you concede that this POV fork will never happen. And I assure you, I will not allow it. Al 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Al,LGangon, but Wikipedia IS ruled by consensus. You can’t disenfranchise someone merely because you disagree with them. --GreedyCapitalist 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not consensus. This is tyranny. Consensus is when everyone agrees, not just one side. I have not disenfrachised anyone; you Randists have. -- LGagnon 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, if you think that consensus is when everyone agree's I'd advise you to go look at WP:RfA and WP:AfD where at the former 80% is consensus and in the latter a super majority (65%) can be consensus.

GreedyCapitalist, stop forcing people out of the conversation or I will report you for vandalism. -- LGagnon 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let him. At this point, this conversation is just empty words. There will be no POV fork, as it violates policy. Al 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Consensus:

At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus.

And:

Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate.

-- LGagnon 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Consenus: a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up actions

If the vote is in favor of the change, I will seek wider Wikipedia participation, file another RFC, request for mediation, or vandalism intervention, depending on the response of others to oppose the consensus decision. I have done my best to follow Wikipedia policies, and will continue to do so. --GreedyCapitalist 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a consensus. Not by your definition, not by the one at Wikipedia:Consensus. The vote is not in favor of change; we have opposition, bad faith (another thing WP:Consensus says is not consensus), and attempts at forcing the article towards POV. This can't come even close to consensus. -- LGagnon 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree: if the move is against a policy of Wikipedia, show me that policy. I've gone through through the list of policies, and didn't find such policy. Some claim here that only pro-objectivists support the move. How about the fact that only non-objectivists oppose it? Furthermore, Alienus and LGagnon do not have a neutral view on Objectivism, they can be seen insulting people by calling them Randists, fascist, etc. This is prime example of prejudice. Therefore, they do not have a neutral view on this issue. Thus, I support call for an expert on this issue. Oleksandr 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It means there cannot be a consensus. Al 18:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Funny that you know so much about us when you only just started editing Wikipedia. I smell a sock puppet. -- LGagnon 18:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree First I'd like to remind everyone here of WP:STRAW, and what exactally this poll means. Further I'd like to explain my reasoning behind avdvocating moving Criticism to start, some statastics the main article contains 6365 words, The introdcution contains 405 words. The section one (excluding 1.4.1) contains 2683 words or 42% of the article. Section two contains 2799 words, 3100 words when including (1.4.1). That's 48% of the article. Does anyone else find it odd? I do, and that seems to be reason enough to split the article. It's not a POV fork, as Alienus claims, it is an administrative one for article balance. Crazynas 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Balance"? You want to remove the only section critical of Randism, and you call this balance? This is obviously a POV push. Why don't you move some other section out? Why does it have to be the section critical of Randism? You Randists are being very selective of what stays and what goes. -- LGagnon 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Did I say remove it? I don't think I did. The purpose of the article is to present an informative, encyclopedic article on the philosophy of Objectivism as created by Ayn Rand. As such it seems to me that more of the article should be about the philosophy then the criticism to it. Further there is precedent, even within this article, Objectivist metaphysics Objectivist epistemology Objectivist ethics and Libertarianism and Objectivism are all articles that are summarized in there own respective articles, why is the criticism section unique in not getting it's own article, and as such domanating this main article? I'm not suggesting that we remove criticism from the article, I'm suggesting we create Criticism of Objectivism then summarize that article, an approprate length for balance in the main article. Further accusing me of a POV push implies lack of good faith on your part, since I have never pushed POV in this article (or anywhere else for that matter). Crazynas 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
      • And yet, I don't trust the Randists not to shout "bias" and have it deleted like the last time we tried this. -- LGagnon 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree The section is too long in comparision to the article. It should be given an article of its own as well as classified in the category of criticisms since that is what it is.Xyz90009 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil, as it discourages consensus. -- LGagnon 05:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason you have said this is because the vote didn't swing to your view of "I hate Ayn Rand". The Fading Light 11:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. You are only making your argument look very weak. -- LGagnon 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't include the counterpoint. Voting is not evil. Xyz90009 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After-comment

• Strong disagree Section should remain. Skyraider 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Expert help?

By "expert help", do you mean expert Randist or expert philosopher? I'd go with the latter, as the former will do nothing to help this situation. -- LGagnon 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The only expert help that could be of any help here would be a mediator... -- Xinit 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, given that it's a neutral mediator. Though we tried that, and unfortunately Wikipedia's admins are loath to help deal with serious situations that can't be resolved with a simple ban (funny how our cops reflect their real-life counterparts). -- LGagnon 17:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we need people who understand Objectivism to explicate the philosophy. I came here to try to learn about Objectivism but the article sucks. I had to learn some things myself by some quick reading of book excerpts to add it to the article. Nobody seems to be interested in improving the part of the article that is about the philosophy. I wish someone could explain Rand's ethics better, for example. Everyone is just bickering over the irrelevant "cult" nonsense, calling people "Randriods," etc. People are forgetting there is a main article because of all these disruptions. RJII 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We have plenty of biased pro-Rand editors already. What we need is academics to balance things out. And we need our admins to actually pay attention when we tell them that we need help.

And you are not going to find good philosophy from an non-philosopher. Rand has never had the credentials to practice it; she's like L Ron Hubbard practicing "psychiatry". And yet, the article continues to be biased in her favor, making the media's claim that Wikipedia is a load of hearsay actually seem to be true.

And no, the cult accusations are not irrelevant. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV, and if you don't like the fact that sources can be cited that make Randism look bad that's tough. You have no reason to undermine the work of those who actually respect the NPOV rule. -- LGagnon 17:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then also respect the rule of not insulting others. Just b/c Objectivism can be shown to have negative sides, doesn't mean that people who are related to Objectivism, can be called fascist and Randist. Wikipedia is about neutralism. Your behavior is not. Oleksandr 18:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone here a fascist; that was them taking my opinions on Randism too personally. And like I said, "Randism" is a neutral term; "Objectivism" is not. I am much more neutral than any of the Randists here, if only for the use of that term. -- LGagnon 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The need to have someone who can understand an argument is all that is needed for mediation. There are at least two distinct sides here, and both would appear to be stuck in their own arguments. First, my biases; I've tried to read Rand before and just didn't like the writing style. To be fair, I could barely deal with much pre-WWII American writers. I'm not pro-objectivism, but I remain skeptical of the subject; don't confuse skepticism with having chosen a side.

My take is this; there is a valid arguement for mentioning the cult aspects. It's a criticism of the movement in society, and it's worthy of mention in an article on the philosophy. If a subject attracts criticism; Islam, Hitler, Christianity, G.W. Bush, or whatever, that criticism has a potential place in the article.

I would ask that the Objectivist editors and the Non-Objectivist editors both be objective about this article. Wikipedia is not the place for fanboy writings or anti-fanboy rantings, and it's not the place to sell a subject as good or bad. WP is not about deciding; it's about presenting the objective state of something; 3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations [8].

Moving criticism into its own article only serves to isolate the criticism from the subject, unless the article is already too large; in which case the criticism article would absolutely need to be linked from the main one.

I would suggest that Mediation be brought up with the Mediation Cabal, and if either side is not happy with the mediator, you can easily request someone else; recruit a mediator in a similar way to how juries are chosen; either side can reject. -- Xinit 18:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I like what Xinit has suggested and I think it's time we put this to a vote.

Question: Should we request Mediation with the Mediation Cabal?

• Agree I feel that we should request Mediation due to the bias on BOTH sides of the issue. The Fading Light 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree For once we're voting on a neutral topic. Though I must warn you that a few Randists vandalized the last attempt to get the Mediation Cabal involved. And given that the admins often avoid involvement in large disputes (at least from my experience), there's a likelihood that this won't be successful. -- LGagnon 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree It's pointless. An RFM was tried recently, then refused. Moreover, there is no indication of good faith on the part of the Randists. None. Al 19:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Can't hurt to try again can it? Crazynas 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree My vote should be obvious, but here's the thing, Alienus; as things stand now, there isn't a shade of hope of reaching an agreement unless someone gets fed up and leaves. That doesn't make a stronger article. At least with outside eyes on the issue, there's a chance; even if it is a slim one. Can we at least agree on that? --Xinit 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Let's do it. RJII 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree Same reason as Xinit, only it is LGagnon. His reverts fouled up the last one, and he has declared above that he will not accept any decision anyway because any decision he disagrees with is "fascist".

I will happily change my vote if (a) Al and LG agree to unconditionally follow the mediator's decision (as will I). (b) we agree on neutral moderation issues prior to submission, and (c) the issues to be disputed are solely about the article(s) and not about me being a droid in a fascist cult, etc, etc --GreedyCapitalist 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You added new info that nobody else had agreed on. Your edit needed to be reverted because that was not what I or any other editor agreed to mediate on the basis of. What you did was sabotage.

And don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything I disagree with is fascist. Again, you have made a personal attack against me.

I'm willing to go along with an admin, but not unconditionally. I don't expect blind faith out of you, so don't expect it out of me.

And one last thing: are you an individual, or are you "Randism"? Because I said I think Randism is fascist, not you. You need to learn to tell the difference between yourself and your ideology. I've made no statement about you being a fascist, and have even said that you are not a fascist. You do, however, have a tendency towards censorship, misinformation, and ad hominem attacks, which is at least questionable. -- LGagnon 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agree I can't see AL thinking clearly any time soon. It's very hard to co-operate with someone who calls you facsist. Oleksandr 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least stop talking about how "the other guy" did or said this? You're going to all need to let go of the past to a degree in order to move this article forward. I can't help but see the irony of the non-objective approach to writing an article on something called Objectivism... --Xinit 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be an impartial mediator in this situation. I am a philosophy prof. and am more than familiar with the history and ongoing issues surrounding Rand and whether she presents a "philosophy" as such, or not. I count her novels as some of the more interesting and enjoyable I've ever read, and have read some of her other more-academic writings as well. I stumbled upon this issue as one needing an impartial "expert" and although I'm no Rand scholar, I understand/give appropriate weight to the controversy herein. I don't have time to sift through mountains of discussion, but it appears that there is a lot of name-calling. Can someone post a primer on my personal discussion page? Amicuspublilius 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that some Rand partisans may be turned off by my Catholicism. But do give me a chance first. I have no horse in the race other than getting editors off this page and onto something more productive! Amicuspublilius 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this will notify you in some way, since I'm new to wikipedia, but I have moved your comment down to the bottom of the page so that the people discussing this will see it. I think that your input would be greatly appreciated. I'll make a new section and start it with your comment. Crazywolf 00:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

By "expert help", do you mean expert Randist or expert philosopher? I'd go with the latter, as the former will do nothing to help this situation. -- LGagnon 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Nothing's more effective than inputting one's biases into the opening statement. Obviously someone who's an expert in Ayn Rand's philosophy would knwo nothing about philosophical terms in general. We obviously need some douche who's balanced and 'impartial' between Rand and say, someone like Plato. D prime 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation points

In the event mediation is requested, and a mediator that is agreeable to both sides is recruited, what are the sticking points? No names, no finger pointing; just the items that would need to be sorted out (feel free to edit this comment directly to add to the bullet list, just put your name at the end of any you add)

• Cult category
• Defining vandalism?
• Specific POV issues?
• Criticism in article

-- Xinit 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea,Xinit. "* Defining vandalism?" I would strike this out - I think we should limit mediation issues to article content to keep things as neutral as possible. "* Criticism in article" To be more specific, the issues are:

• Should the "cult" category be subsumed under the criticism section?
• Should the criticism section be placed in a separate article, with a paragraph or two in the Objectivism article?
• Once mediation is done, can the POV tags be removed?
• Should Objectivism or Ayn Rand be categorized as a cult and cult leader?

--GreedyCapitalist 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we do something about all the sock puppet accounts being created? I've seen at least two here already that seem to be definite sock puppets, with the possibility of others. -- LGagnon 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gag, I'm on top of that. I filed a checkuser request to track down the sock puppet. Al 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you honestly think that there are sockpuppets in this talk page then you should report your suspicions to the Administrators of Wiki, otherwise keep your insinuations to yourself. The Fading Light 04:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a way of reporting it. -- LGagnon 04:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

FYI, if you wish to report vandalism, please do so at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. --GreedyCapitalist 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been looking forever for where to report vandalism... But on the other hand it HAS been a couple of days so there might not be much of a point... The Fading Light 18:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Alienus has been drawing lines through the survey question in order to end the survey right after it started. [9] [10] (See here for the visual: [11]) I'd say that's vandalism. RJII 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Although it seems like Alienus might be jumping the gun a little bit, most polls are up for at least five days, I don't think it exactally qualifies as vandalism. Crazynas 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, vandalism would be removing it, rather than marking it as obsolete. Given that everyone is voting according to party lines, there can be no genuine consensus on this matter. Al 19:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an Objectivist, so your claim is not true. RJII 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Evading reality goes against your principles. Al 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Have any of you ever read her work?

Objectivism is a philosophy not a cult movement. I understand that this is a point of view, but I believe that it is the correct one, and being an objectivist myself I leave you to interpret it how you will and do not care what you think. The very essence of objectivism would not allow any "Cult" forming from it and any signs of this happening would be a perversion of Mrs. Rand's basic ideals. There are many cults formed around many belief systems in the world, but do you not agree that most of those are so named because of a darkness or fear associated with the public's perception of the group (excluding the occasional religious fanatics). People fear objectivism who do not understand it's possibilities. In reading some of your commentaries on the preceding pages I have found every point of view but that of a true objectivist. I mean no negativity in these statements, only objective observation, of course. Jacob Spirit

Neutrality

User:OleksandrL From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Nick: Oleksandr

Name: Oleksandr Lozitskiy

Productivity Blog: http://urumble.blogspot.com Personal Project: http://ox.slug.louisville.edu/urumble2 Thinking Blog: http://olex-cerebration.blogspot.com Interests: programming computer games, books, tennis, DDR

Philosophy: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

I rest my case. Al 18:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So I guess someone with a different viewpoint than Alienus's can't post on Wikipedia huh? The Fading Light 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We already know that the Randists want to hide all the criticism on a child page. This is not a new data point. Al 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Randist and it's not about hiding anything for me. It's about getting all this disruption out of here so those who are concerned about improving what should be the meat of the article --the explication of the philosophy itself -- can do it in peace without childish accusals of being a "Randroid" or a "fascist." If there is a criticism of Objectivism article, then anyone who wishes can go there and bicker like little girls to their hearts content. I bet this article will see a great improvement over time. It should be a much better article than it is by now. I think what's holding it back is all this arguing over "cult" and "randroid" stuff. Besides, it's way to large in proportion to the size of the article. RJII 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. You are indeed a "student of Objectivism". Al 19:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn what it is all about, largely because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. Learning about Objectivism does not make one an Objectivist. One would have to understand it first, and then agree with it. So far, I have seen things I agree with, some things I don't understand, and some that I don't agree with. From what I have read so far, I haven't seen anything evil in it that people should be up in arms about. And, I've seen some things I like --such as her strong advocacy of individual liberty. From some of the attacks I've seen, you'd think Objectivism was a grave danger to civilization and Objectivists must be assaulted at every opportunity. But, I'm not seeing it any justification for such vitriol. RJII 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Objectivism

So, in the spirit of being bold, I created this article in line with the Objectivist ethics Objectivist epistemology et al. Now it's time to start cutting the section down to a more manageable summary. Crazynas 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good move. RJII 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And in the spirit of being bolder, I will revert any attempt to remove information from this article, based on the excuse that it's been moved to Responses to Objectivism. Al 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well just be sure not to be so bold as to violate 3RR. Crazynas 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

While the AFD on Responses to Objectivism is open, it would obviously be wrong to remove duplicate content from this article. If the POV fork somehow survives, then it would still be wrong, but not as obviously so. Al 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is over, we have to start working on balancing this article, and working on making the new article a good one. Crazynas 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is over, we're going to need to be very, very careful in how we break out the responses so as not to distort them to either direction. Likewise, there has been much concern about the fork becoming dominated by one POV, so I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen. Al 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon's constant accusations of Fascism

LGagnon, keeps saying that (to paraphrase) “Objectivism is a fascist ideology, but that doesn’t mean I am calling Objectivists fascists.” The ridiculousness of that slur aside, that’s kind of like saying “Nazism is a fascist ideology, but someone who wholeheartedly agrees with Hitler is not a Nazi, or, environmentalism is a religious movement, but just because you joined Greenpeace and free animals from laboratories, you’re not a religious environmentalist, or Christianity is a cult, but just because you have accepted Jesus Christ as the One True God and Your Personal Savior, you’re not a cult member.” He needs to either prove that we’re Nazi’s (which he has admitted he can’t) or be taken to task for his vicious and dishonest attacks, especially since so many Objectivists (including Ayn Rand and yours truly) are ethnically Jewish. (Now watch as he claims that my statement is an ad-hominem attack and ignores my argument:) --GreedyCapitalist 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I only talked about fascism when we were discussing accusations of it being such - which I cited sources for. The reason it was accused of fascism is because of the Final Solution-like ending of Atlas Shrugged. I did not randomly accuse Randists of being fascists, as you claim, but claimed, while talking about said criticisms, that I agree with them. Now, if we are going to talk about the subject matter of these articles, we will not all be unquestioning of Rand's ideas. I don't agree with them, and if you don't like it that's tough for you. You need to learn to distance yourself from the subject matter instead of having irrational emotional reactions to any negative commentary about the article's subject.

I'd like to point out that you are just making another personal attack section. You're getting reported for this one too. -- LGagnon 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything it might be a personal attack... Keep one thing in mind though; Fascism does not equal Nazism. Hitler was a fascist, but so were a number of Russian, Italian, South American, and Asian leaders. If you're going to call people on their words, at least get the meaning straight. This isn't helpful to the argument, so what purpose does bringing this up serve? -- Xinit 23:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Gag has bent over backwards to target Objectivism, not Objectivists. It is a NON-personal attack, an attack on a belief system, not a person. Moreover, he's been civil about it, and only brought it up in relevant venues. In short, you have nothing to complain about other than his accuracy. Al 23:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We're supposed to believe that? All one has to do is read all of his abusive statements above, such as calling other editors here "randroids" and accusing people here of worshipping Ayn Rand as a "god" to see that what you're saying is not true. I'm sorry, but you and Gagnon are on your own. RJII 02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Postponing large edits?

Can we agree to hold off on major structural redesign of the article; such as boldly moving information where it's never gone before, or reassigning categories, etc? In the interests of getting things accomplished, can we at least consider that Mediation Cabal thing before we just stir up more fecal matter? --Xinit 23:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories are not large edits, but POV forks are. Al 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; let's say the fallout from such edits have the potential to be large. Basically what I'm asking for is a cease-fire, an archiving of the current talk page, and some pre-mediation discussion on terms of argument. If both sides can agree to hold back editing now, we can talk about mediation without having to lock the page or similar...

Let's be adults about this; in fact, can everyone try to be more adult than 'those jerks on the other side'?

--Xinit 23:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a genuinely controversial edit because, on an objective and neutral basis, it's an open and shut case. There is absolutely no question whatsoever about the presence of multiple citations of reliable sources showing that notable people consider Objectivism to be a cult. Whether they're right is, in fact, irrelevant. Unfortunately, many Objectivists are reacting subjectively, with a knee-jerk refusal to accept that the category fits based on the cited evidence.

I think you can find sources saying that a "cult of personality" has formed around Rand, but I'm not sure about sources that say Objectivism is itself a cult. It's people that would be the cult --not the philosophy itself. RJII 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted self-published source

I deleted the stuff sourced from some professor named "Parrot." It's not a credible source, according to Wikipedia policy. It's self-published by Professor Parrot himself. WP:V says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." Rimric press is the publisher, which is Professor Parrott's own press. [12] RJII 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted it from the new Responses to Objectivism article. That article is up for a Vote for Deletion, by the way. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Responses to Objectivism RJII 03:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And so the deletions begin. Soon, every criticism will be gone, and the article will be back to being a pro-Rand shrine. So much for NPOV applying to all Wikipedia articles. -- LGagnon 03:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just find credible sources. And put them in over at Responses to Objectivism. And, what do you mean a pro-Rand shrine? This article is not supposed to be about Ayn Rand. It's about her philosophy called Objectivism. If you want to spend your time denigrating and ridiculing a woman that passed away a long time ago, go do that in the Ayn Rand article. RJII 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)