Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Is Objectivism a Cult? 2 Weasel Words? 3 Power difference fetishism 4 Sexual discrimination 5 Vandalism 6 Russian?! 7 Cult section 8 Was Ayn Rand Jewish? 9 When/how did she learn English? 10 Final word on the cult issue. 11 Randism 12 Cult leader 13 Consensus on influences and influenced lists. 14 Randist side getting their way 15 More pro-Rand POV 16 plot spoiler 17 Fair use of stamp image? 18 Cult leader accussation 19 Removal of NPOV tag 20 Cult leaders redux

Is Objectivism a Cult?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weasel Words?

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

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

Power difference fetishism

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

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

Sexual discrimination

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you go:[1] -- LGagnon 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russian?!

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

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

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

They're an ethnicity, typically linked by a religion. Rand rejected both. Al 12:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

When she identified herself as Russian?--£ 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

She lived in Russia. That's good enough. -- LGagnon 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not good enough at all. Most of finns, estonians, latvians, lithuanians, poles lived in Russia too. Are they russians?!?--Munn 12:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult section

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

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

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

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

Objectivism is not an "organization." RJII 16:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither is Christianity. There are, after all, multiple organizations in the Christian movement, which are in various ways allies and enemies. The situation for Objectivism is quite parallel, with the ARI takin the role of the RCC. Al 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The ARI is not Objectivism. RJII 16:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nor is the RCC Christianity. However, each is the eldest, most orthodox church of their religion. Al 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism isn't a religion. RJII 16:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? Al 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Positive. "[Ayn Rand was a] Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." (Encyclopedia Britannica) RJII 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between lacking a thing and being its mirror image. Al 19:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that source says it's a "philosophy" --not a religion. RJII 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet that source is disputed all over the place. A quick google even turned up a book dedicated to this topic: Albert Ellis "Is Objectivism A Religion?" L. Stuart, 1968.

Likewise, a cult is a religion and there are many cult allegations. I rest my case. Al 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism isn't a religion. RJII 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the force of your argument overwhelms me. How can references and logic compete with your "rational" repetition of an unsupported assertion? I concede!!! Al 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It is supported: "[Ayn Rand was a] Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism" (Encyclopedia Britannica) RJII 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that when something is put forth for support but then rebutted, it no longer qualifies. Please think it through. Al 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to think about. The credible source says it's a philosophy, not a religion. Try adding Objectivism to list of religions and see how far you get. RJII 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that if we used your "one source outmatches all" belief in writing articles we'd never write a NPOV article? Britannica is flawed; that's something Wikipedia has pointed out over and over again. That doesn't mean it's not a credible source, but it does mean that it is not the only source worth considering. We must instead use multiple sources to make the article NPOV. And as we do so, some sources will argue against what Britannica claims, and you will not be able to hold it up as the ultimate source of knowledge. In other words, pointing at one source over and over again is not going to prove anything. -- LGagnon 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

One credible mainstream source is good enough to warrant inclusion of that source's opinion. And, that's not the only source that refers to it as a philosophy. RJII

One credible mainstream source is good enough to warrant inclusion of that source's opinion, but it's not the last word, particularly in more controversial matters. Al 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be unwise (and contrary to the rules) to ignore all the sources that call it a religion or cult. Al 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

One widely referenced mainstream credible source is good enough. RJII 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Picking and choosing sources is fun, but is not how an honest inquiry into truth works. For that matter, calling something a philosophy does not exclude it from the category of religion. Al 19:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know how Wikipedia works. What your personal opinion is, is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say. RJII 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: sources, not source. If the Britanica were perfect, we could just shut Wikipedia down and redirect there. Al 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's just one of thousands of sources that refer to Objectivism as a philosophy. You may be able to find a few whackos who refer to it as a "religion," but the consensus of sources certainly indiciate that it's a philosophy. Again, if you're convinced it's a religion, try adding it to list of religions and see how far you get. RJII 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus. Mainstream academic philosophy rejects it. Sources which are concidered legit for Wikipedia's use say it is not a philosophy but a cult. To pick and choose which sources to trust is to make the article POV, and thus go against the rules of Wikipedia.

Again, the Randist agenda is put above making a NPOV article. We're not calling ID science just because ID supporters call it that, nor because they can provide sources saying it is one. Likewise, if the vast majority of academic philosophers reject Randism, then we have a good reason to not refer to Randism as a philosophy, even if you can provide sources saying it is. And that is because one source does not override all others. It is because we will build a NPOV article whether the Randists like it or not. -- LGagnon 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is a conensus. The consensus of sources refer to it as a philosophy --not a religion. RJII 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is not a consensus; it's just one source. -- LGagnon 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's one very significant source that generally represents the mainstream. RJII 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone rejects a particular body of philosophical thought, it doesn't mean they they don't think it's a philosophy. And it doesn't mean they think it is a religion. RJII 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Who said it's a religion? It's a cult, which is a different thing. And ya, most academics don't consider it a philosophy; that's why they don't teach it. There are academics who reject Marxism but still teach it anyways, after all. -- LGagnon 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alenius said it was a religion. That's what this is about. RJII 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's rather unconvincing to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a whacko. Uncivil, too. As for its status, it's a social movement and pseudoreligion. As Gag points out, its status as a legitimate philosophy in academic circles is questionable. Al 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the editors as "whackos" but the sources. Sure you may be able to find someone so far outside of the mainstream that says Objectivism isn't a philosophy, but the consensus of mainstream sources refer to it as a philosophy. Saying it's a religion rather than a philosophy is an extreme minority viewpoint, only held by a very few fringe individuals. RJII 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Randists are outside the mainstream themselves. The mainstream of academia (not a fringe group, despite what Rand says) says it's not a philosophy. And according to the intro for Cult, Randism technically belongs in Category:Cults. Who's up for adding it? -- LGagnon 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream of academia certainly does not say it's not a philosophy. RJII 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't we have this mentioned in one of the articles? Oh, and you could use stronger arguments to back those claims. There's no proof like no proof. -- LGagnon 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have something for you to read LGagnon, it's a Direct Quote from Ayn Rand herself! (you can read it at Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (at the end of the "Is Objectivism 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." I think this contradicts the accusation of Objectivism being a cult, right from the horses mouth no less! The Fading Light 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I believe the cult leader? Honestly, that's a worse source than RJII's. Of course she's going to say it's not a cult; even L Ron Hubbard denied cultism. Rand is hardly the messiah you think she is; hearing her words will not mystify me into believing in her. As I've said, we have outside sources claiming it's a cult, so we can not simply push the articles towards the Randist POV. -- LGagnon 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, would you please stop your anti-randist angry Jihad? It seems you like to pose as a Massachusetts (pseudo)liberal (in which case I suspect it's your own anti-capitalist POV that drives you to such heights of zealotry) even claiming to be "supportive of the ACLU", and yet I've seen few wikipedians as authoritarian and arrogant. For truth's sake, cut off your ultradogmatic, fanatic anti-randism and get a life, man. Reality isn't black and white and Ayn Rand, though not without fault, is not the devil. You may not share her ideas (and even I don't, to a great extent), but trying to impose your views in such an authoritarian and overbearing way, without a minimal respect for other people's beliefs and with such contempt for consensus (e.g. decrying anyone who disagrees with you as a Randie-tainted POVist), that's way too much. It's high time for anti-randists to stop bullying Left-wing POV into this article - this is, by far, the worst problem here, not any purported "randoids".Justice III 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You could have tried to prove that Randists actually use logic in their arguments, but you didn't. Instead, you've made personal attacks against me. Keep it up; the admins will love it.

Interesting fact: one guy making personal attacks against me is called RJII, and another is called Justice III. Do people normally number their sock puppets? Not that it's guaranteed that this guy is one, but if not we've got one hell of a coincidence going here. -- LGagnon 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First: as far as I've seen, it's you who has offended everyone here, if but indirectly, by deriding their beliefs as if they were all rubbish. Second: don't try to intimidate me. It just bolsters my argument against your bullying attitude. Third: I don't know "RJII", and never actually talked to him. Your conspiracy theories and paranoia, again, simply proves my point about your fanaticism.Justice III 23:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) P.S.: My name, by the way, is simply an ironical reference to Justice Sunday III (don't read papers that often, ah?). Just quit the witch-hunting.Justice III 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for further proving my point. Now please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and if you have time, check ad hominem to understand why I consider Randists to be illogical. Doing so will save me time on getting admins involved. -- LGagnon 23:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I for one am hoping that the admins get involved so that they can see the growing level of irrational hatred being exhibited by the Anti-Objectivist clique (which includes but is not limited to Alienus, Fig, and LGagnon). The Fading Light 00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FIY, according to this interview Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales still admires Ayn Rand - I'm sure other admins can be found who are at least tolerant of her ideas. --GreedyCapitalist 00:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Irrational" hatred? I shouldn't have to point out the bias in that one. But to get back on topic, admins aren't going to take action to remove people who just happen to hold anti-Rand views. This is Wikipedia, not Randipedia; we don't kick out editors just for holding certain views about the articles' subject matters. These articles should be edited by both followers and detractors of Rand, not by only one side.

And if you're going to claim I'm making personal attacks too, don't bother. The Randists have done so frequently, while I've tried to handle things without such incivility. You'll sooner get in trouble than I will, especially given all your personal attacks.

Oh, and funny comment you made there, GreedyCapitalist. Yes, they will be "tolerant". Very "tolerant". So "tolerant" they'll revert the whole article back to square one and reshape it for the glory of Rand, killing off any notion of NPOV. With such pro-Rand bias on Wikipedia, it's no wonder Wikipedia itself gets called a cult. -- LGagnon 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Firstly, I admit of being more forthright than desired, and perhaps should have worded it differently. Feel free to dissmiss the most pungent bits and retain just the critique, LGagnon. Secondly, and just for the record: I'm not an Objectivist, far from it. At any rate, your comment "I consider 'Randists' to be illogical" seems pretty much an ad hominem attack against true Objectivists, disguised by syntactic choice. That is the sort of thing that irked me so much about your attitude.Justice III 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My point with calling them illogical was to further point out the problem with all the personal attacks on this page. Not only do they violate policy, but they make the person using them rhetorically weaker due to the illogical nature of them. And given that almost every (if not every) Randist here used them (as well as every Randist I've met outside of Wikipedia), I have come to believe that they always resort to such things. Now, I'm willing to be disproven on this, but there's going to have to be some effort on the other editors' behalves for that to happen. -- LGagnon 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First, the section title could be "Of objectivism as a cult", which would not be misinterpreted. Without something else, "Objectivism as a cult" is easily misread and is stronger than meaning "Looking at objectivism from the perspective of it being a cult". Above, in the first comment of this section, there is even a typo, where it was supposed to read "Objectivism is a cult", as a negation, it instead reads "Objectivism as a cult".

Second, while there could be Objectivist groups that behave like a cult, it is false to state that the philosophy itself (or if you prefer, system of ideas) is a cult. Whereas a religion can be a system of faith, abstractly as ideas, the meaning of the word cult includes the application of the system, in acts of worship or devotion in rites and ceremonies. Unless a person who considers true the Objectivist system of ideas, must necessarily bow down to Ayn Rand and recite John Galt's speech every week (or something, this particular requirement would clearly never gain a cult many followers), Objectivism is not a cult. If Ayn Rand encouraged devotion and rituals about her, then information about that belongs in this article, but that does not mean that "Objectivism" is a cult, and if it is primarily other cultish individuals or groups who profess to adhere to Objectivism then information about that belongs in their respective articles. —Centrx→Talk 01:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But "Is Objectivism a cult?" also sounds bad for the Randists. It's kind of like those Fox News headlines that read "Is John Kerry a communist?" Calling the section "Objectivism as a cult" actually sounds nicer for the Randists.

No, a cult does not have to be religious. Read the Cult article, which says it doesn't have to be. And given that we have sources cited accusing Randism of being a cult, it stays in the article. -- LGagnon 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was recommending "Of Objectivism as a cult", not a question, and it doesn't matter what's "nicer".

Actually, the Cult article begins by defining a cult as a "group of people" devoted to certain practices and separates it from the "novel belief system" that they believe in. If it used the term in the way it is applied here to Objectivism, the article would state that a cult is a "novel belief system". The article then goes on to talk about "brainwashing" and "mind control", which again do not apply to the system of ideas, and then to its generalized use to refer to anything strange or non-mainstream and things like "cult of personality" , which if they apply to Objectivism apply just as well to anime and Magic cards, and just about any political figure. In the relevant uses, under "secular cult opposition", it describes it as any group that tends to "manipulate, exploit, and control", again, a group of people not simply ideas, and then in the sociology of religion it defines it as a religious group with novel beliefs and high tensions with the rest of society, and with this we don't even need to get into whether Objectivism is a religion or not, because nevertheless it must be a group of people.

I never asserted that a cult must be a "religion", though it is not clear what you mean by that. Regardless, "Objectivism" is not a cult, using the meanings given in the Cult article. —Centrx→Talk 02:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't have to call it a "novel belief system" for it to be one; that is pretty obvious on its own. Brainwashing and mind control are shown as examples of one technique (psychological and financial exploitation, which could be argued to happen in Randism), not as requirements for a cult. And no, a cult of personality would not apply to anime or Magic, because they have no personality; Randism, with Rand at the helm, does have one. And who says Randism doesn't "manipulate, exploit, and control", or doesn't have high tensions with the rest of society? Again, we've got sources cited that back these up. And yes, there's a group of people: the Randists. They may usually work separately (such as the ARI or another group), but they are often in a group, and they all work together towards the same goal of getting Randism treated as real philosophy. -- LGagnon 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not assert that Objectivism is not a "novel belief system", nor did I assert that as a reason why "Objectivism" is not a cult. Yes, brainwashing and mind control are examples of one technique; I mentioned it in order to be fairly complete as to the statements of the article, it is one of many criteria that "Objectivism" does not meet. I did not assert that anime or Magic were cults of personality, I asserted that groups centered around them could qualify as "strange" or "non-mainstream" under that meaning of "cult". The "political figure" separately relates to "cult of personality". Please be more careful in reading. "Randism" is a set of ideas; as Cult states, it is groups who "manipulate, exploit, and control". Whatever your philosophy, an idea either sits in a realm of its own or it is present only in the minds of people, who do something about it. The ideas do nothing.

As is reasonable, most of the sources state that there are groups of Rand followers who act like cults. This does not mean that "Objectivism" is a cult. They talk about the "Ayn Rand cult", "the Objectivist subculture...of Rand's sychophants", "the Objectivist movement". This does not mean that the set of ideas is a cult. —Centrx→Talk 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is a set of ideas too, but is also accused of being a cult. And yes, the ideas do something; that's what the psychological exploitation is about. Randism has been accused of being a cult since the early days. Even before the ARI it was accused of such. Thus, it doesn't need the groups to be accused of it. And there are still sources that specifically call Randism a cult; you're just ignoring the ones that do. -- LGagnon 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology, which as the article notes is often referred to simply as "Scientology", is accused of being a cult, but the ideas themselves cannot be (although there is an important distinction here in that the "Hidden Truths" of Scientology can only be seen by joining and being a part of the Church of Scientology, whereas the fundamental texts of Objectivism are available at the library, or can be ordered online. Still, the ideas are not a cult.).

The ARI is not necessary for having a cult. As some of the sources in the article are talking about, this cult can consist of people who knew Rand and joined her. Even saying "The Objectivist movement as a cult" would make more sense. The only source that states that "Objectivism" is a cult is from the non-notable M.R.M. Parrott from his writings, apparently published only online, though regardless produced by his own company. It should be taken out of the article anyway for these reasons. —Centrx→talk 06:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the choice is between Objectivism and the Objectivist movement. The movement started with Objectivism, but branched out into things which are, depending who you ask, not strictly regarded as Objectivism. We know that the original Objectivism was considered cultlike by a few notable people (Rothbard, for example), but I don't know off-hand whether the same has been said of Kelley's organization, for example. I think, on the whole, we're quite safe just going with something along the lines of "Objectivism has been viewed as a cult by X, Y and Z". Al 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does Rothbard say this? He repeatedly refers to the "Rand cult", and he mentioned one thing about "Objectivist Psychotherapy", but this is not the same thing as asserting that a mere set of ideas is a cult. "Rand followers as a cult" may be accurate (and it would actually make sense to include this in the Ayn Rand article), not "Objectivism as a cult". —Centrx→talk 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivists are the followers of Rand. Al 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

First, an Objectivist can very well be one who believes in Objectivism. This does not mean that they are part of the Ayn Rand fan club or have ever talked to any of the people in these Randian organizations.

Second, Objectivism are not followers of Rand, whatever the grammatical incongruity; Objectivism consists of ideas, not groups of people engaging in actions. —Centrx→talk 04:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's false. Objectivism is the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, so to follow Objectivism, you must follow Rand, in precisely the same way that a Kantian follows Kant. You don't have to be a member of the ARI or TAS or any other specific group, though, and I never said you did. Al 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So everyone who agrees with Kant is a cultist? What are you talking about? A person needs to join a group in order to be part of a cult. A person can read about Objectivism, agree with it, yet not be part of a cult. Even more absurd is this notion that an idea is a cult. What of this do you not understand? —Centrx→talk 04:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A cult is not about following a leader. See Cult for the definition. And what is the definition of "group"? Randists make up a singular group under a singular name (unless you count neo-Randists or people who have just came out of "the Ayn Rand phase", but they are not true Randists); how else would we be able to give them a name? -- LGagnon 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Randists", but "Objectivism"—being ideas rather than any collection of individuals—cannot be a cult. An "Objectivist", being a person who believes in Objectivism, is not ipso facto a cultist. If "Randists" were the people who personally knew Ayn Rand and joined her in some "Objectivist movement" in the 1950's and 60's, then the sources, to varying degrees and in varying particulars, say that they behaved like a cult, though I do not know if "Randists" would be the accurate term for that group. None of this implies the unique mutation of language and meaning inherent in saying that "Objectivism is a cult". None of this requires that an "Objectivist", a person who considers Objectivism true, be a cultist. —Centrx→talk 05:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can be a cult; Scientology is considered one, and it too is a collection of ideas. And the ideas are controlled by the people involved with them, who do, in fact, fit into a group. It may not be a singluar formal group, but it is a group nonetheless. And I'm not referring to only Rand's collective; I mean all Randists form a singular group to which we are capable of giving a name. -- LGagnon 15:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained why the Scientology ideology is not a cult, and why Scientology is usually shorthand for the Church of Scientology, which can be a cult, and why even then it is not analogous to Rand-related organizations. As for group, it is part of the meaning of cult and part of all that I have stated above that the group must be cohesive and have mutual relations. It is not merely a set of disconnected persons with a common ideological property. —Centrx→talk 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Was Ayn Rand Jewish?

Re "16:00, 14 June 2006 LGagnon (revert; not a Jew)"

Ethnically, yes, Rand was Jewish. She was born into a Russian Jewish family, although her parents were not particularly observant. As an adult, Rand did not practice Judaism as a religion, since she became an atheist at an early age. A number of Rand's close associates over the years, including Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, and Alan Greenspan, have also been ethnic, but non-religious, Jews. Many of the newest generation of Objectivists are also ethically Jewish - Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute is an Israeli immigrant.

--GreedyCapitalist 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But she was not a practicing Jew. Granted the whole Who is a Jew? question needs to be asked here, but Rand did not practice the religion nor did she even keep her Jewish name, so it seems more likely that she was not one at least in identity.

On an unrealted note, let's not use ARI and other Randists organizations as our only sources; that presents considerable bias in the article. -- LGagnon 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, just for the record then: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,615157,00.html

"Ayn Rand never looked the type of person to gather such devotion. A diminutive Russian Jew, she was born Alissa Rosenbaum.." --GreedyCapitalist 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That says nothing about her identity, only her background. Like I said, she didn't practice, and she "de-Semitized" her name. -- LGagnon 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read (both about Ayn Rand's "faith" and on Who is a Jew?) Miss Rand would be counted as an Ethnic Jew, but not a religious one. The Fading Light 01:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are actually two issues. One is whether there is any place in the article where we should mention that she is ethnically Jewish. The other is whether we should characterize her as such in the lead. I'd say yes and no, respectively. It's a fact so we shouldn't hide it, but it's misleading if placed up top. Al 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For once, I agree. --GreedyCapitalist 12:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the world is coming to an end.

Ok, since we've already removed the Jewishness reference from the lead, all that's left to do is mention it in the appropriate spot of her biographical area. Perhaps it might fit in near her name change. For example, "Like a number of her later associates in the Collective, Rand was ethnically Jewish but changed her name to something that happened to sound less Semitic". This is rough, but it's a draft. Al 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Only Rand and Branden changed their names, to my knowledge. LaszloWalrus 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

When/how did she learn English?

Great article. One thing lacking for me was a mention of how and when Rand learned English. The article mentions her studying French as a girl, but how would a 21-year-old Russian woman (well after the ease of learning a new language diminishes) be able to come to the U.S. and immediately try a career in screenwriting (not to mention write many books in flawless Enlgish) if she hadn't already had intense instruction in English? I'm sure she must have studied it in Russia. Can someone elaborate, even with a few words, in the article? Thanks. Moncrief 17:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick google turn this up:

After several stops in western European cities, Rand arrived in New York City in February 1926. From New York, she traveled on to Chicago, Illinois, where she spent the next six months living with relatives, learning English, and developing ideas for stories and movies. She had decided to become a screenwriter, and, having received an extension to her visa, she left for Hollywood, California. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm)

Hope that helps. Al 18:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd add this information to the article then. If it can mention here learning French as a child, why not make a mention of her learning English, the language in which she wrote her famous novels and essays? Moncrief 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone else think a note about learning English should be added to the article? It always struck me as amazing that Rand learned English so fluently so quickly. Is there evidence that her editors helped her a bit? I know a lot about language acquisition, and it's very difficult (though not impossible) to acquire language to the level she did if you start at age 20 or so. I don't say this to doubt her (obviously she was fluent in English), but rather that it's notable that she started learning so late (if she did; my hunch is she had instruction in Russia too) and learned it so fluently, and that deserves a mention of some kind. Moncrief 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to mention the The Early Ayn Rand, which shows dramatic improvement in her mastery of English from the first stories to the last. BTW, I know she had published a review of American movies in Russia (hence her interest in Hollywood) but I don’t know if they were dubbed/translated. --GreedyCapitalist 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some original research. When I lived in NYC, I was exposed to lots of Russian immigrants, and plenty spoke fluent (though not accentless) English despite being in their late teens or early twenties when they arrived. Typically, they have a basic conversational grasp of English in the first year. Some older immigrants were also quite fluent in English (though usually with worse accents) due to learning it in the FSR. I don't have a clue as to whether Rand was exposed to English to any extent when she was younger, but it's certainly not implausible.

In short, according to my limited and second-hand experience, the speed at which Rand learned English was nothing special. And, to be frank, the popularity of her novels comes more from their content than the writing itself. She knew just how to pander to teens. Al 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Again like so many other places you make an assumption based on your system of personal view. Thankfully you are incorrect and Rand has more than been credited with being a profound author or merit, to all age groups. The fact the fortunately some younger people find the value and truth of life within the pages of her writing is further proof of the grasp of the Human condition. And to be frank, your opinion cannot be placed as fact, just conjecture on your part and to be blunt as well as frank, your postings are just that pandering to the few who are only here to provide negative content. Mystar 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, it looks like you're accusing of me of original research in a message that I start off with "Here's some original research". This speaks for itself, so I'll shut up now. Al 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

 Again.... seeing as how you seem to miss the point :) your "reasearch"..fine, but as I said you are attempting to push your conjecture as factual rather than empirically derived. Case in point, " And, to be frank, the popularity of her novels comes more from their content than the writing itself.  She knew just how to pander to teens". Simply a derisive conjecture, aimed at demeaning her abilities and style. You could more than easily have said, I feel that her works speak, or I felt her style was to pander to.... Rather than forcing people to take your commentary as if you have a source that is solid and irrefutable.

Just "my" opinion....Mystar

Successful authors combine a variety of skills to create text that readers like. A few are masters of the written word and can make a laundry list riveting. Many succeed on the basis of skillful characterization, dialogue, or plotting. Others enrich their work with insider knowledge, technical expertise or literary references.

And then there are to ones who start with an ideology and construct their stories with the primary purpose of proselytization. Both Goodkind and Rand are a fine example of this last strategy, which means that they do not rely so heavily on the things that make a good in general. So long as the readers are swallowing the ideology, they're not going to pay lots of attention to the vehicle anyhow.

Now, if you want to take insult at my literary criticism, I can't stop you, but you'd be guilty of assuming bad faith. Al 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a really, really naïve (though pretty common) mistake to believe that only opponents have an "ideology" that they spread to enthrall young minds into partaking of their evil plan to rule the world...wuhahaha. Lefties only see ideology in their right-wing opponents (those Bourbon fascists), conservatives think that only leftism is an "ideology", often referred to with contempt (look that lil' liberal hogwash!). Seldom will someone honestly describe their own worldview as an "ideology". Well, truth is, everyone has an ideology of their own, and it is even more obvious that it will be reflected on their writings. What's the problem here? If these writers eventually gain "adepts", it doesn't mean they are hitlerish cult leaders searching for spiritual slaves; it just means that several people have identified themselves with those books and/or characters. Again, I see no problem with that. In fact, using the same criteria you're using here, Nietzsche, Tolstoi, and even Sallinger should be dismissed as whacky Waco drinkers of the kool-aid... I don't consider Ayn Rand to be any literary genius, but she was no Dan Rather, either. Let's be fair. (Sure you haven't been mistaking her for Aleister Crowley all allong? Just asking. And yet, you see - that guy is on every category: possible, including "Pederastic poetry" but not on "Cult leaders"! ha! So much for our ideological criteria.) Justice III 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just finished reading a novel that was very well written and engaging, but had no apparent ideology. Books can be ideologogically neutral, or nearly so, while still being good books. In fact, they can often be better books this way because, on the one hand, the author is free to go where the characters want instead of twisting the plot to fit the message being sold and, on the other, the author has to make the book sink or swim on its own merits rather than riding the coattails of ideological agreement. However, Rand is not one such author: she writes with the primary goal of pushing her ideology and it shows. Her writing has routinely been criticized for its lack of literary merit, from cardboard characters to endless, self-idulgent monologues. Similar criticism dogs Goodkind, as his books follow very much in Rand's mold. Al 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

S'more fascinating OR briefing, thanks for that. Sounds pretty much like Sartre, though.Justice III 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Final word on the cult issue.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=prev&oldid=59308848 Al 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are sources saying that Objectivism is cult? A "cult of personality" around Ayn Rand is not the same thing as Objectivism being a cult. RJII 18:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Though Category:Cults contains things other than cults (though, see my comment there), Category:Cult leaders is a category of cult leaders and not just anything related to cults; inclusion there does not mean "Ayn Rand is a cult leader". —Centrx→talk 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is a separate issue from the dispute on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Even if that article were acceptable for Category:Cults, it is not then necessary for this article to be appropriate for Category:Cult leaders, though the problem would be more to do with ambiguous category usage in the former case. The appropriate place for this discussion is on this page here. —Centrx→talk 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism

There is some disagreement over whether Randism should redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Ayn Rand. Please come to the talk page and join us in resolving this matter. Thank you. Al 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult leader

Since, there is not a consensus that Ayn Rand is a "cult leader," it's POV to put it definitively her in the Category of "Cult leader" with the Category tag (Category:Cult leader). To be NPOV, it should be placed in the (Category:Alleged cult leaders). That she is a cult leader is certanly a minority view. RJII 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We've gone over this already. The category is there because she is alleged to be one. There is no "Alleged cult leaders" category; that was deleted before in a vote. -- LGagnon 01:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That didn't stop RJII from recreating it. Don't worry, I took care of it already. Al 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on influences and influenced lists.

There've been some recent additions to these two lists, which I'm not sure we have any consensus for. Some of the influenced do not appear to be philosophers and some of the influences, while plausible, are not currently supported by citations. Rather than revert outright, I'm asking that people familiar with these matters weigh in on the validity of these insertions. Al 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Apply WP:LIST and require cited sources. BTW Google search lends support to including Frank Miller as influenced by Ayn Rand, but all appear to allude to this influence without citing a reference, interview, or actual quote by Miller. -- User:Robocoder (talk | contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that Miller was influenced. The issue is whether he belongs in a list of philosophers. Al 18:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that the list should include above all great "thinkers" (philosophers, sociologists, economists), adding more "unusual" examples of important cultural personalities who have actually been influenced is not unprecedented in wikipedia. Some examples include: Schopenhauer-> Richard Wagner, Hermann Hesse, Thomas Mann Spinoza-> Einstein Kierkgaard-> John Updike, Franz Kafka and W.H.Auden Friedrich Schelling-> Hölderlin

200.213.43.30 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the people who have absolutely NOTHING to do with philosophy from the list. It's a philosopher template. LaszloWalrus 10:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No its not exclusivelly a philosopher template. Revert it and stop pushing POV --Courtland Nerval 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Randist side getting their way

Without cult accusations mentioned in this article, people get an excuse to remove the cult leaders category because they don't see any sources here. As I said, the POV pushing of all negative criticism out of the article is effecting it badly, and it is obvious in the attempts to delete the category. We need to restore the criticisms to this article to ensure that it won't be turned into a mere shrine to Rand by both those who are biased in her favor and those who simply don't see the sources in the article. -- LGagnon 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You and Alenius know perfectly well that there is no consensus of sources saying Rand is a "cult leader." Yet you insist on a "Cult" category tag over an "Alleged cult leader" category tag, which would be the NPOV thing to do. You insist on forcing your POV on the article with no consideration for the other side that does not agree that Rand is a cult leader. You need to give in to NPOV. RJII 15:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The cult leader category is made up of alleged cult leaders. Second of all, we have sources accusing her of being a cult leader; there were some here, but the POV push moved them to another article. You need to give in to the NPOV rule and let that info come back to this article. And with it back, we will have a justification for the category that you won't be able to deny. -- LGagnon 15:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because other articles are POV, this has to be as well? It's a major POV violation to brand something definitively with a "Cult" tag when there are sources that disagree. RJII 15:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a definitive tag. It points out that there are sources accusing her of being a cult leader.

And your new category was deleted before. By Wikipedia's rules, you are not supposed to recreate deleted categories. -- LGagnon 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No such rule. The only rule you need to be worrying about is NPOV. Don't put Ayn Rand in a "list of cult leaders" when there is not a consensus of sources indicating such. In the article text you can indicated that some sources consider her a cult leader because one can rebut that with sources that don't agree --the reader is made aware that there is not a consensus on the matter. But, that's not the case with the Category tag. It places her in a "List of cult leaders" with no way to indicate to the audience that there is not a consensus on the matter from sources. That's why it's a POV violation. Understand? Do you care about NPOV? RJII 16:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding a person to such controversial category, requires that it is updisputed by reliable sources and there is overwhelming consensus for such characterization. WP:NPOV and WP:V cannot be bypassed by means of including a person in a category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW nor VERIFIABILITY require it to be a totally undisputed majority consensus. They require multiple VERIFIABLE creditable sources. --Courtland Nerval 15:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More pro-Rand POV

GreedyCapitalist deleted a huge chunk of the article here with no explaination. I suggest reverting it immediately. -- LGagnon 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It was clearly an accident - why would I delete a section I created in the middle of a sentence? You need to stop and think before throwing accusations around. --GreedyCapitalist 17:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Apparently, this is a Google/MediaWiki bug: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643

Hey, a bug that causes accidnetal blanking. Sounds like you have reason to stop accusing me of blanking just because of one small accident that I admitted was one. -- LGagnon 23:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I read this article, based on a posting at WP:NPOV's talk page, and found it to be quite good, detailed, and well referenced. I fail to see the reason for the NPOV tag. Could one of the involved editors summarize the dispute? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If the issue is arround the "cult" allegations, such Jeff Walker, that has undertaken to defend the proposition that Objectivism is a cult, then I would argue that either a citation from Walker or others is added to substantiate this claim is needed, or to consider not to include this POV as a matter of undue weigth as per WP:NPOV. In addition, as a person cannot be the leader of a cult if the person is no longer alive, I would argue that adding such allegation would be correct only of during her lifetime she was characterized as such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We had citations. Then they were moved. Then they were moved again. They've been moved in a POV push a handful of times to get every criticism off the major articles and onto a small, out-of-the-way article where no one will read them. -- LGagnon 04:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Which article? If there is such article, then you can summarize the main points as per Wikipedia:Content forking. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of what's left of it is at Objectivist movement. Some of it has been deleted completely, and others are here and there in other articles related to her. -- LGagnon 04:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If a cult formed around Ayn Rand, that's very interesting and bears mentioning in an article about her and her life -- but I fail to see how that is a criticism. Cults happen because an individual is born with a tremendous amount of personal charisma, but this charismatic power is focussed within a small to medium size group of people. Compare to charismatic leaders like Hitler, JFK, Mao, Mohammed, Jesus, etc., whose power to influence and lead was strong enough to influence whole nations or even continents. Anyway, as these examples point out, a person's charisma has nothing to do with whether or not their ideas are right or wrong. --Jscherer 06:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that these cult-accusing sources are primarily referring to a cult of personality around Rand and a devoted, exclusive group of people considered strange. The issue is whether this constitutes reason to include Ayn Rand in a category that is about cult leaders—many of whom proclaimed themselves as the messiah—of religious, apocalyptic, and suicidal cults—many of which revolving around of aliens—which are nothing like the cult accusations in the Rand sources. Even the most "normal" of persons listed in Category:Cult leaders—that is, aside from the overwhelming majority which are involved in murders, suicides, or messiah claims—are still the heads of religious groups or seclude themselves with their followers in communes in the woods. L. Ron Hubbard, actually, is one of the least wierd of the lot. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems with that category. What about the very many important historical cult figures who are missing? For example, Sabbatai Zevi and Pythagoras. Instead, the category contains a lot of modern-day secular figures like Lyndon LaRouche, who just happen to have a lot of devoted followers. Cults are basically religious or mystical in nature. Sure, the word "cult" is frequently used to describe secular leaders as well, but this a loose usage of the word. Even crazies like David Koresh always have some mystical or religious part of their belief system. You can't confuse the fact of someone being charismatic with their being the leader of a cult. I know this seems to contradict what I said before -- but before I looked at that category page, I thought we were using the term loosely. --Jscherer 13:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. what about Mary Baker Eddy? Brigham Young? etc.

That category is a POV magnet and useless. I will place in in CfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

plot spoiler

With all the debate about Ayn Rand as a philosophical (rather than literary) figure, I think something has been overlooked -- namely, that the section on "Atlas Shrugged" contains a blatant plot spoiler. A good two-thirds of the book centers around the mysterious disappearance of wealthy industrialists who are the "motor" of the world. Dagny, the main character, is enganged in a frantic search for the "destroyer" who is taking away these people. There's a tremendous amount of suspense -- it reads almost like a mystery novel.

I recently picked up Atlas Shrugged, knowing next to nothing about Ayn Rand, and I got very caught up in the story. When I was halfway through the book, I came to this Wikipedia article to find out more about Ayn Rand herself, her philosophies, etc. Imagine my disappointment when the short paragraph on Atlas Shrugged gave away what was happening to all the industrialists! I would have expected that from the article on Atlas Shrugged itself (which contains a proper spoiler warning). However this article is about Ayn Rand, and I didn't expect the secret of the first 2/3rds of the book to be revealed here.

I'm going to change it now, but I'm adding this comment so the folks who are watching over this article know my rationale. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.19.219 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The new revision does not seem to convey the meaning as well, which is the purpose of the mention. Is it sufficient to, as the article does now, only make the point that the economy collapses with their disappearance, or should it still say something about the industrialists wilfully leaving society? If the latter is the case, would it be sufficient to say that they just "leave" or "disappear", without saying anything, on the one hand, about the mystery of it, and on the other hand, about going on the strike and the mountain hideaway? —Centrx→talk • 06:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We could just add spoiler warnings to the sections that deal with the books, so people that haven't read them skip them. Crazynas 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine too -- thanks. Logged in, signing my name now --Jscherer 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Crazynas 07:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use of stamp image?

According to the blurb on the stamp fair use template, stamps shouldn't be used to illustrate articles on the subject of the stamp but rather to illustrate the stamp itself. Since this article really doesn't talk about the stamp itself, the stamp image should be removed. The alternative is to talk a little about the stamp (was it particularly controversial, for instance?) and then illustrating that with the stamp would appear much fairer as fair use. TheGrappler 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult leader accussation

This paragraph violates NPOV:

Rand has been accused by some of being a cult leader. Objectivism and the organizations that spawned from it have been accused of being cults themselves. Rand herself and many of her supporters have vehemently denied this accusation; the matter continues to be debated.

To remain in the article it needs (a) attribution of these statements (both pro and con); and (b) a citation from reliable source that describes that POV. Unless these are found and added, I will remove the paragraph in 48 hours. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the citations. We now need citations for the rebuttals by Rand and supporters. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Found those and added accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

We still have the sources, they've just been moved by Randists to the Objectivist movement article in an attempt to POV fork the article. -- LGagnon 23:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are way too many articles with duplicated content. I have placed some merge tags in these, accordingly. I would suggest the following:

1. Merge The Ayn Rand Collective into this article
2. Merge Objectivist movement into Objectivism (Ayn Rand) (or ther other way around, whatever is more convenient)
3. After the merger, summarize Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and add the summary to this article, with a link to the spinout article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

As there is progress being made, I am removing the NPOV tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult leaders redux

I restored the Cult leaders category, as there is no shortage of citations by notable people who have called her a cult leader. Is there any argument against this? Al 02:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as you should be well aware. See the most recent at the end of Talk:Ayn Rand#More pro-Rand POV, which was only 6 hours before you added this category. Note also that this category is proposed for deletion. —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose deletion of this category. Of course, if it does get deleted then this issue is moot. Al 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to oppose the deletion of that category, but the fact remains that we cannot characterize a person as being a cult leader based on a couple of citations by opponents/critics/detractors. That will be a case of undue weight, and totally inappropriate. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Tell me: precisely what would it take to characterize someone as a cult leader? What are the criteria? Al 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy... wide consensus of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Like the consensus on your leader, Prem Rawat? Al 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I will not give in to your provocation. Please remain on topic. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Al WP:NPA Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. Be careful. Crazynas 04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm dismissing or discrediting their views on the basis of their affiliation. Sorry if that was what it looked like. Al 04:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you had said that Jossi was a direct student of Ayn Rand, I wouldn't care becuase it would be relevant. The fact that Prem Rawat has nothing (that I know of) to do with Rand made it seem like a PA. Crazynas 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_26#Category:Cult_leaders ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To explain my thinking, I considered it relevant that an attack against a cult category was coming from someone who was a member of an organization that is considered a cult. Al 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on topic, using him as an example. Al 04:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it is my principle not to respond to provocation. I will let fellow editors comment as per in User_talk:Alienus#A_friendly_warning. Now, can we resume a civil conversation about how to improve this article? Let's remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a battleground. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose deletion of the category. The category does not claim that objectivism IS a cult or that Rand WAS a cult leader, simply that some reputable sources made that claim. We do not have to have "wide consensus of sources" to list that several reputable people have made the claim (that is disputed) that Objectivism is a cult. Going with such a stringent requirement to include someone on the list strikes me as non-sensical. --Courtland Nerval 16:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In an article you can present competing views, as we have done here in which the POV of certain authors is described in regards of an assessment of Objetivism and Rand as a cult. In a category you can't do that. As WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, it is either a category to be deleted, or as per current criteria, only those persons about which there is a wide consensus can be included. Otherwise you should add Jim Wales as a cult leader, as a reputable source has made the claim that Wikipedia is a cult [2]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

One accusation (it was more of a throw-away comment) in the BBC is not several, or even a couple of accusation from reputeable sources. As to the subject that started this: Ayn Rand and objectivism: There have been several noteable persons, both former objectivists, and outsiders who have leveled that claim. I personnally do not feel that Objectivism as a movement is a cult ANY LONGER (though it was rather cult like prior to her death), I do recognize however that it is VERY common criticism; it is of course challenged as well. To NOT inculde such information simply because it is challenged is ridiculous.--Courtland Nerval 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have mistunderstood the dispute. The "cult" criticism is included in the article and willremain there. What we are discussing is the validity of adding Ayn Rand to the Category "Cult leaders". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood at all. During Rand's life and after one of the most common criticisms against her and Objectivism was that it was at the very least Cult-Like. Is there a consensus saying that it was a cult when Rand was alive? NO, but you will find many more sources supporting that claim then you will supporting the claim that Objectivism is a cult now. Its not one of 2 people or a even a slew of whack-jobs, there are many reputeable sources form both inside and outside the movement that made that claim and lets be frank, Rand's behavior amidst her close associates did nothing to dispell those accusations. The fact is that the claim is disputed, but not so heavily as to make the accusation lack weight. --Courtland Nerval 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I'm not sure what it would take to get a consensus (a consensus of whom?!) but there is clearly a non-fringe opinion that she is a cult leader. There are a number of notable people who said it, and there are books and articles on the topic. It is NOT undue weight to categorize her this way. On the other hand, it's an UNREASONABLE DEMAND to ask for a "consensus". Al 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-fringe opinions can be descibed in the article alongsided all other POVs. Adding a person to such controverial categorization is in violation of WP:NPOV, as it "labels" a person without the benefit of other POVs which do not consider this person a cult leader. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are mistaken. A category is intended to be an aid to navigation, not a final ruling on an issue. The existence of a significant minority view suffices as due weight, as it indicates that the subject is often seen as being a member of that category. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? So having the label "child molester" or "cult leader" in a biographical article, is just a "navigational aid". I would respectfully disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion, after all. However, you are not entitled to your own facts, and the fact is that the stated purpose of categories is navigation and the presence of a significant minority view is sufficient for categorization. Thank you for understanding. Al 20:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Generic discussion on this subject started at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, take a look at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people. Crazynas 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion for or against Ayn Rand, but I am reading her book at the moment, so I'm trying to weigh in here with some common sense. Consulting dictionary.com, I see there are two very different senses for the word "cult":

Sense 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (or, the followers of such a religion or sect)

Senses 2 through 4 also have to do with religion. Senses 5 and 6 are probably more what people think of w/r/t Ayn Rand or Lyndon LaRouch:

5. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing (or the object of such devotion) 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

What I think is interesting about the Cult Leaders category is that the list contains about 90% "cult leaders" in sense 1. However, scattered throughout, there are a few "cult leaders" from senses 5 and 6. It seems to me that if you want to have a meaningful category of cult religious leaders, you should eliminate from the category people like Lyndon LaRouche -- it's confusing. From what I understand, Anton LaVey probably shouldn't be in there either, since his "church" was really just an ironic and tongue-in-cheek media stunt.

I mean, let's be honest -- some kid comes to wikipedia and says "Hey, I want to find a list of wacky cult leaders who poisoned their followers or said they were the messiah and murdered a bunch of people." They click around and find this list, and start gleefully reading about various wackos on that list. Then they click on Ayn Rand. Their reaction -- "who is this? Some kind of philosopher or writer or something? Whatever..." It's just not the same thing. --Jscherer 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree.Justice III 05:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism has been accused of being a cult as per the first definition, not merely the fifth or sixth. For that matter, I don't believe Wikipedia is the domain of kids who search for cult leaders. A more realistic scenarior is someone investigating the scope of organizations that have been considered cults. Excluding Objectivism here would deprive this hypothetical person. Finally, please understand that your original research is not sufficient basis for making these decisions. We have to operate on what is verifiable, and these cult claims against Objectivism are quite verifiable, regardless of what you might think. Thank you for understanding. Al 05:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is depriving anybody of anything. On the contrary. This article clearly provides sources that consider Objectivism a cult. We are not discussing that. We are discussing the labelling of a person with the very obvious pejorative of "cult leader" based on the POV of a couple of people. Same as attempting to add George W. Bush to Category:War criminals and Michael Jackson to Category:Sex offenders, on the basis that there are verifiable sources that label these two individuals as such. FYI, both these have been already tried, and of course reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are repeating an error I have already corrected. As per undue weight, a minority position supported by a number of notable people is sufficent. Some heckler calling Bush a war criminal does not carry enough weight. In contrast, there are books and articles by notable people who accuse Objectivism of culthood, so the requirements of NPOV are more than met. Please stop repeating errors, because I do not like repeating my corrections. Al 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Al, please take a look at [[3]], 1st part, and particularly at [[4]]. No one knows, some symptoms may be starting to become apparent... What you like or not or whatever dissenting edit you believe in good faith to be an error or not is (let's face it) immaterial, as you are just one more editor, and not, I trust, any sort of irascible Napoleon(Ugh! :P). Our job here is to write a fair and balanced article, that's all. Again, please read [[5]], have a laugh, relax, and then return to make the edits you think are necessary with a somewhat less self-righteous...hmmm... drive. ;)Justice III 07:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In other articles talk pages that I've worked on, people got in trouble for personal attacks for using the ownership and MPOV articles in unfounded accusatory manners. If I were you, I'd be careful of throwing those around lightly. -- LGagnon 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything worthy of specific comment here. Al 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The arguement being used By Jossi is a Non-sequeteur: we haven't added George w. Bush to War criminals or Michael Jackson to Sex offenders therfore we can't list Ayn Rand as a cult leader. This is a non-sequeteur because both of the above stated categories SPECIFICALLY LIST that all individuals on the list have been CONVICTED in some specific legal format of the crime listed. It is not illegal to be a cult leader. There are certainly several behaviors often times associated with cults and cult leaders that ARE illegal, but having a cult and leading it is not, technically speaking, illegal. Thus Alienus's arguement holds sway. Incidentally I didn't get the impression myself that Alienus was attempting to claim ownership of any article (that would be foolish), simply that he has a strong and well reasoned stance on the article that some people take exception too; he is not alone in his stance however. At the end of the day it is unargueable that: 1. There are Several BOOKS that have been written by both former objectivists as well as outsiders accusing it of being a cult. 2. There were many people during Ayn Rand's own lifetime that accused Rand, the collective, and objectivism being cult like (in senses 1, 5, & 6.) 3. ONe of the most common criticisms of objectivism is that it is a cult, or cultish. Even if this is a minority viewpoint it is a VERY significant minority, significant enough that the ARI and Peikoff (as well as Rand) saw fit to respond to such criticism. The category should stay, and judging by the vote so far probably will...--Courtland Nerval 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You cannot "vote" against WP:NPOV. The cult issue is described in the article, but the discussion is about categorization, as in "labelling" in which a minority viewpoint is presented de facto ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

? I never indicated that I was wished to "vote" against NPOV (that would be a NEUTRAL point of View). What I am voting AGAINST is lending UNDUE WEIGHT. If a credible accusation has been made by multiple, independant, creditable sources, even if it is disputed (though mostly it is disputed by those concerned), then we would be lending UNDUE WEIGHT by NOT including them on a list. As I pointed out before Jim Jones was not widely acknowledged to be a cult leader until AFTER the kool-aid incident; that doesn't mean he wasn't a cult leader, or that multiple creditable accusations had not been made (because they had), but there was no "Large Consensus". I never indicated I wished to "Vote Against" a Neutral Point of View and I am not sure exactly where you got that from.--Courtland Nerval 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite Jossi's repeated but unsupported objections, it does appear that there is a clear consensus for recognizing Rand to be in the Cult Leaders category. As you've pointed out, Nerval, we have adequate citations to the point where refusing to thus categorize her would be a violation of NPOV and therefore unacceptable. On this basis, I will be restoring the category here. Al 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My concerns about violation of WP:NPOV have been clearly described. The fact is, that regardless of your belief that my objections are "unsupported", there is no consensus (neither by sources provided, nor by editors) for such inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are, unfortunately, baseless. There are multiple reliable sources showing that notable people consider Objectivism to be a cult. Nothing you say can change this, so nothing you can say is relevant to this issue. Thank you for understanding. Al 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that my concerns are baseless, do not make them so. The fact that there are two or three sources that describe Objectivism as a "cult" is not disputed. The inclusion of a person in a category is, based on violation of WP:NPOV in which it is described that:

• The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.;
• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views ; and
• Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements

In adding a person to such category, you are (a) asserting a specific POV; (b) eliminating a comparison of views; and (c) giving undue weight to an obvious minority viewpoint.

Finally, I would kindly ask you to refrain from saying things like "nothing you can say is relevant", because that is a way for you to dismiss a well stated argument with nothing of substance. And also, please stop "thanking" me for "my understanding," when it is obvious that you don't believe I have any. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 12:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, nothing you add can take away the existence of a significant minority that considers Objectivism to be a cult, not even a selective reading of NPOV. The cure for biased selection, of course, is to point out what was omitted. The section goes on to define three types of views:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Before the residents of Jonestone drank the Kool-Aid, the idea that Jones was running a cult was a viewpoint held by a significant minority, with prominent people nameable. It was therefore sufficient to place the group in the cult category. We didn't have to wait until after the mass murder/suicide, when the view became even more popular and was held by the majority, to acknowledge what was already expounded by a significant number of people.

At this time, the belief that Objectivism is a cult is likewise at the level of a significant minority, as we can name a few prominant, notable people who assert it, as well as the books and articles that they assert this in. Therefore, failing to report their beliefs would be giving undue weight to those who do not regard Objectivism as a cult. This is the case even if the ARI never does get around to nuking Moscow.

Thank you for understanding. Al 14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not failing to report that Objectivism is considered by a few people to be a cult. Read the Ayn_Rand#Cult_accusations section. So you can stop bringing that argument again and again. What we are discussing is something very different: The subterfuge to attempt to bypass WP:NPOV by the use of a category, in which there is a de facto assertion of a minority viewpoint. And again, it will be really appreciated, if you stop "thanking me for my understanding", unless you mean it, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi. No one is trying to Bypass NPOV (well, at least I know I am not). You might try looking at the category in question. You will see This huge disclaimer right after the title ""The people listed in this category have been characterized as cult leaders by at least a significant minority, with several prominant and notable people sourced. (As per WP:NPOV)

[edit] Disclaimer This category may inappropriately label persons. See Wikipedia:categorization of people for advice on how to apply categorization to articles relating to people.""

Move over the list is composed of links to the pages of the individuals in question where the cult accusations are dealt with. That MORE that satisfys WP:NPOV and WP:V . By the way I take personal offense at referring to my efforts as: "The subterfuge to attempt to bypass WP:NPOV by the use of a category". I cannot speak for anyone else here, but there is no attempt to bypass WP:NPOV coming from me. It does strike me however that if we follow your rather stringent requirements we will have exactly 2 names on that list: Jim Jones and Charles Manson. WHat you are proposing would do nothing less than lend MASSIVE Undue Weight to the opinions of those who wish to avoid creditable Verifiable criticism. Please STOP accusing those who disagree with you of being dishonest and trying to bypass NPOV, I for one am finding it to be less than helpful.--Courtland Nerval 16:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this disclaimer found on each of the articles? Also, as far as I can tell, Ayn Rand is only one for whom this disclaimer applies. All of the others are much more widely considered cult leaders, have much more relevant sources to that effect. The disclaimer only applies to Ayn Rand. —Centrx→talk • 17:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. NO it doesn't only apply to Rand, that is the disclaimer that is already on the category page, which Rand has Just removed from. There are MANY MANY people who disagree with Rael being placed on the list as well as others. If we use Jossi's standards Yahweh Ben Yahweh and just about everyone else will have to come off except Jim Jones and Charles Manson.

2. It wouldn't matter if it DID only apply to Rand since the disclaimer is on the category page, and then the individual arguements pro and con are listed on each individuals page. This is about as NPOV as you can possibly get, and since the voting on the deletion page indicates a clear majority want to keep the article...

3. Rand needs to be put back on the list. --Courtland Nerval 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Court's right, of course. If we raise the bar arbitrarily high, we'll cut the list down to one or two people, thus making is useless. Let me repeat a point that has been ignored over and over again: membership on a list is not a de facto claim of truth. I'll give you a good example.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, Richard M. Nixon was never impeached. He would have been, but he stepped down before it could happen. In contrast, Bill Clinton was impeached, but this is equivalent to an indictment, not a conviction, so he remained President. These are fine points, and when someone is searching for impeached presidents, both of these people should show up, even though it's not technically accurate in Nixon's case. This is because the purpose of categories is to aid in searches and they explicitly do not make claims of truth.

Yes, we shouldn't include someone in a category that's unrelated to them, but if we have a well-cited minority viewpoint that favors inclusion, this must suffice. Al 18:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The category is clearly not going to be deleted if the vote is any indicator. I am still waiting to read a reasoned arguement that doesn't just consist of someone saying "thats not WP:NPOV or WP:V". I would really like them to show WHY they feel that is the case and go about proving it. It seems to me that those who oppose the list in general, and Ayn Rand being on it specifically, are Assuming BAD FAITH by everyone who disagrees with them. This may not be the case (and I am not making any accusations), but that is how it appears to me. I would really like to read a well reasoned and explanatory arguement against putting Rand on the list, that won't involve lending undue weight to Rand's Supporters.

Cult is not just a pejorative word: it has an objective definition that we can look at and compare to the groups in question. Objectivism, especially under Rand, seems to unargueably fit one of those categories to a tee, and argueably 3 of them. We have noteable, verifiable, creditable sources to back up that accusation. Now can you please tell us how excluding them is NOT lending undue weight? --Courtland Nerval 18:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer was added two days ago as a result of intensive focus on the category in these discussions. Applying these criteria would leave many persons. The first two articles in the category, actually, undeniably would belong in the category (cult suicide, self-proclaimed prophet and murderer). There are numerous more, I have looked through every article in that category, and only a minor few are questionable, and all but one of those minor few (LaRouche) are still proclaiming a religion. All but one of the Ayn Rand "cult" sources are not talking about the meaning of cult used in all of these articles, and in the cult article. —Centrx→talk • 20:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually, a patient person, but my patience for repetition of refuted claims is limited. I suggest that you go find the last time someone said this and was shown to be mistaken, because I don't want to bother doing your work for you. Al 23:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when it WAS added as that it is there now. Whoever it is that keeps removing Rand from the List without consensus PLEASE Stop It. As far as applying Jossi's criteria go: no, I do not believe that we would have such a long list. Being a cult leader is not illegal, nor is it a legal term. A person can be convicted of any number of crimes and not necessarily be a cult member or leader. Please look at the definition offered earlier in this thread for clarification:

"Sense 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (or, the followers of such a religion or sect)

Senses 2 through 4 also have to do with religion. Senses 5 and 6 are probably more what people think of w/r/t Ayn Rand or Lyndon LaRouch:

5. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing (or the object of such devotion) 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.""

5&6 fit objectivism under Ayn Rand like a glove. Hell they fit the ARI TODAY like a glove. and Objectivism as a whole can argueably fit into both of those categories. These are all valid, definable uses of the word cult. SImply because you do not want her on the list is not sufficient reason to exclude her. Now, please do me the favor of actually RESPONDING to my above objections, and actually giving a good reasoned arguement for exclusion that does not hinge on argueing WP:NPOV or WP:V without any backup or explanation. --Courtland Nerval 20:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. We are not taking about a mere characterization, but one with inmense negative connotations. As such, and as reponsible editors, we need to exercise caution. That is why despite the fact that the category will very likely not be deleted, I will still argue for a criteria for inclusion based on wide consensus of sources. Otherwise, people with a negative POV about a person, will push that POV to get their object of criticism listed on a category of "cult leaders", and associated with undesirable people that the term clearly implies, based on a minority viewpoint. Not an option, as it is in contradiction with WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think it's a cult. Our POVs do not matter because it's not our job to judge. Our job is to report, and we must report the fact that there are a number of notable sources that call it a cult. Anything else would violate WP:NPOV. This is actually a very simple matter. Al 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We are reporting that POV. See Ayn_Rand#Cult_accusations. We are discussing something enirely different: De facto character assassination based on a minority POV, by including a person on a list. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We are reporting everyone's POV, which makes us NPOV. We cannot demand a majority view for list inclusion, so a minority view will have to do. Al 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In a category, you are reporting only a minority POV. And that is my objection, as it violated WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, WP:NPOV requires use to report minority views. However, it requires that we not claim that they are majority views. If you look at the comment in the Cult leaders page, you'll see that this is precisely what we do. Al 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to join the very pertinent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight.2C_NPOV_and_categorization_of_people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I must turn down that invitation at this time. I can only focus on one policy discussion at a time. Al 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, then you may miss an update to the NPOV policy as it pertains to POV abuses such as these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can look, but I can't give it my full attention. Al 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Could those arguing against her inclusion Pretty Please address this point before we go any further: ""Uhm, WP:NPOV requires us to report minority views. However, it requires that we not claim that they are majority views. If you look at the comment in the Cult leaders page, you'll see that this is precisely what we do."" I just want to read a substantive, reasoned (preferably well reasoned) arguement on this point, because a failure to address it after this long, looks an aweful lot like dodging the issue at hand. --Courtland Nerval 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Categorisation, that reads:

"The key recommendation for addressing such POV/NPOV issues comes from Wikipedia:Categorization of people (while indeed, people articles appear to be the most sensitive to POV/NPOV categorisation disputes):

[for sensitive categories:] Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."

"So, as an example, there is no doubt a "significant minority" would consider Menachem Begin a state terrorist - while, however one turns it, this is not one of the 4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person, a "state terrorists" category will not be found at the bottom of the article of this person."

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I agree about Begin, but I'm not particularly interested in his case so I won't comment further on him. I would say that the view that she is a cult leader is a key characteristic. Very few people who call themselves philosophers are known for running what has been repeatedly called a cult. Al 21:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is a significant majority in this field that consider Ayn Rand a cult leader? If that is the case, then we surely need to have her in this category. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The type of cult that the sources in the article—I don't know if they constitute a serious majority—are not talking about the sort of cult as the cults of Category:Cult leaders. —Centrx→talk • 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)