Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 9

message: One thing that is not mentioned in the article is why Rand and her _______ (fill in whatever you like: sect, or philosophy, or whatever) are the subject of so much disagreement and controversy among so many? Just look at this discussion page for proof. I mean, in a certain sense she at least had the power to create something that has us here disagreeing about her. Relative to what she achieved while alive, compared to other famous (or infamous) people, I find a bit surprising the amount of passion she can still stir both from the pro and from the anti camps. Shouldn't we mention this in the article? Anagnorisis 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be interesting to mention, but it would count as original research if all we have to back it up is this talk page. Outside sources are what counts in adding content. -- LGagnon 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But of course! I am not suggesting to use this page as support for mentioning that in the article. I am only using it to try better conveying here what my point was. I think this page is just representative of the strong passions or convictions that Rand generates in both directions (supporters and opponents). Now, digressing a bit, if something is obvious and nobody disputes it, do we need an outside source? I mean, there is no source in the day article to support the statement that a day is 24 hours long. Anagnorisis 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why so much controversy is not mentioned in the article?

message: If this page ever gets opened up again for editing, a sentence we need to address is the following, from the section where Rand's dislike of Kant is discussed.  " It is not in fact clear that Kant would have disagreed with such a weak formulation of realism."  I think this is a rather weak representation of Kant's philosophy versus Rand's.  If we are to be "balanced," given the savage nature of Rand's attack on Kant (calling him a monster, etc) it would be more NPOV to make it clear that Kant isn't exactly what Rand claims (or rather, thinks) that he is.
I have my own opinions as to why Rand is so anti-Kant (to me its pretty clear that she came to his philosophy through the German idealists, who Kant wasn't overly fond of, she hadn't read the primary sources, and she conflated the german term "kritik" with the english term "criticize)but my opinions as to the source of Rand's anti-Kantian bias are irrelevant.  The fact of the matter is that Rand, in her works, misquotes and misargues Kant in a dreadful way, and that needs to be drawn out more.  There's a lot of talk around here about citations, so here are some:
 
From Rand's "Philosophy: who needs it?"-
"I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant."
The problem with Rand's attack here on Kant is not that it lacks subtlety or misinterprets the philospher's meaning (as her attacks on Hume do), but that, it is simply untrue, or false at the root of it.  I hate to use such an inflammatory word, but Rand here is lying.  Kant never did, and never would, make the statements or express the toughts that Rand attributes to him.  KAnt is, despite Rand's claims that he is anti-rational, to a great degree the father of modern rational inquiry.  
Kant is a tough read.  I know because I spent a great deal of time at University reading him, and he is perhaps, in terms of grammatical construction and whatnot, the most torturous and truly German of philosophers.  Nevertheless, it does not excuse Rand from her duty of reading Kant before she criticizes him.  It is very clear, from even a cursory examination of the Critique of Pure Reason, that Kant is not anti-rational.  This is from the first paragraph of the work.
"Time was, when [Human Reason] was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour."
Additionally, the word "critique" in the title does not mean "attack", but rather, the critical application of reason to the esamination of reason itself.
The most egregious of Rand's misquotations is the claim that Kant would say "I can't prove it, but I feel [italics added] that it's true. (cited from above work by Rand).  Compare this to what Kant actually says in The Critique of Pure Reason:
"As regards certitude , I have fully convinced myself that, in this sphere of thought, opinion is perfectly inadmissible, and that everything which bears the least semblance of an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions. "
It doesn't get any clearer than this.  And I think this must be brought out within the text of the main article.   Rand's "Kant is a monster" contrasted witht he article's "Kant might not agree with Rand" is horribly weak.P97dav45 12:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that Rand and Kant use the same definition of reason? They don't, by the way.  A single quote is entirely insufficient to prove contradiction.  Kant uses words in a very explicitly defined fashion, and these are in many cases different definitions than those that Rand uses.  That matters when comparing them.  Kant's work as a whole and Rand's work as a whole do require expert analysis before one can draw conclusions about contradictions in this regard.  Philosophy is more complicated than a series of quotes. Huadpe 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rand on Kant

message: The page says "courses" offered by ARI are accredited. This is not what the source says. The source says one course is accredited. Huge difference methinks. Agent Cooper 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add a citation for accredited courses at the OAC, but I'm not sure how. There are currently two OAC courses offered for credit through Chapman University's distance learning program. The citation is from Impact, the newsletter of the Ayn Rand Institute (Volume 12, Number 12, December 2006). The courses are an introductory philosophy course and an introductory writing course. Endlessmike 888 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error On Page 

message: In what is currently footnote 86 in section 7.2, the template  is called with parameter "coauthor", which should be "coauthors". Sciabarra's name doesn't show up until this is corrected. --LA2 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor technicality 

message: I find it endlessly funny that, when I go to see what the page of long-debated Ayn Rand looks like, I find three huge warnings when I get to the page: "this is biased" "this is wrong" and "this page is locked untill a dispute can be settled." Fitting, no? I think she's smiling...155.45.81.25 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humorous 

message: Big ol' dangling modifier here:
A broadly influential figure in post-WWII America, her work attracted both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciations.
The opening sentence of the third paragraph reads: 
"The express goal ..."
:That is grammatically sound English. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical Errors 

message: There doesn't seem to be any real attempt to fix any specific problems with this page right now.  Further, I honestly don't see that this page is so terrible that it needs to be under protection.  Unless somebody who is opposed to the content of the current version wants to make some specific argument the page should be unprotected and the neutrality and contradiction tags should be removed--at least temporarily.
This page isn't really much worse than most of the other philosophically focused articles on the Wiki.  24.17.165.124 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I still haven't heard a good explaination for why we keep on removing Alan Greenspan, Anton LaVey, Terry Goodkind, and Steve Ditko from the Influenced list. It seems very biased to remove LaVey, as this has been proven before to have been removed because of disgust amongst Randists at his beliefs. The others I'm not sure why they were removed, but no good explaination has been given yet. -- LGagnon 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the edit summary, the reason was to keep the list confined to philosophers. This is reasonable, but it is perhaps an artificial distinction in the case of, e.g., Alan Greenspan who is an intellectual who writes about and acts in areas that would be affected by his own personal philosophy, but, for example, the guitarist who was in the list long ago certainly did not belong. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why drop it? Is LaVey any less of a philosopher than Rand? Is Rand any more of a philosopher than LaVey? And why philosophers only? That seems to push the idea that Rand is only a philosopher, and that she is definitely one beyond dispute. -- LGagnon 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then have writers she influenced too, but influenced as writer. Just because some later author happens to agree with the philosophy does not mean it is prominent in their work or that her writing style is found to influence his work. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll find that some of those writers (Ditko in particular) used her ideas quite a bit in their work. -- LGagnon 12:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I say put LaVey back in. Who care's if he is the head of the Church of Satan? As an Objectivist I expect people to make up their own minds, so if he says he was influenced by Rand, let people judge for themselves. The others should go back in as well.Ethan a dawe 16:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The usual bias

message: Can we get consensus about whether the template should mention non-philosopher influences? Lazlo seems to think it shouldn't. However, it isn't at all clear to me why it shouldn't. What matters is who her ideas influenced and who she inspired not whether or not they are technically philosophers. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that any public intellectual of significance should qualify, but if this list is limited to professional philosophers, shouldn't we add a separate list of literary influences and influencees?--Pheidias 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: He is a significant figure and notable historically but I don't think his writing is taken seriously by many prominent thinkers. Which would not keep him off a general list of "influenced", but might keep him off a list of accepted philosophers.--Pheidias 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Rand is taken seriously either (one of the reasons for my opposition to her being considered a serious philosopher). He's no less than she is. -- LGagnon 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The titles and authors of results on Google Books and Scholar would suggest otherwise; what evidence of this do you have? —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopher template- whom do we include? 

message: the argument that i'm making in the lines is this, presenting rand as primarily a philosopher is disputed even on her own page in footnotes.  as best as we have been able to determine in the philosophy discussions, she is more widely recognized as a novelist or literary figure than as a philosopher.   to present her either primarily as a novelist or primarily as a philosopher is to present something that is not neutral, therefor to be neutral, we should choose a way of listing her professions that is neutral.  there are two that come to mind, one is alphabetical, and the other is by income.  her novels greatly outsell her philosophical works, and it is likely that her screenwriting/playwriting also earned more money, though we would need to do the research.  due to lack of research, alphabetical is the way left to be neutral.--Buridan 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: order of professions 

message: Why is costume manager in list of professions, where is a reference that she spent any significant time managing costumes?  Should all actors references also have waiter added?
:apparently she was one for several years, and there is evidence in the article itself.--Buridan 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes without saying that Ayn Rand would see disrespect in placing her "day job" work alongside her life's work.  And as she did not make any great contribution to the field of costume management and did not consider it a significant enough part of her life to discuss it at any length in print, nor to maintain any sort of involvement with costumerie later in life, I would say it does not belong.  We could make almost the same argument regarding the designation "actor" in her case.--Pheidias 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is there some sort of research that demonstrates this?  we have research showing she was both an actress and a costume manager. i'm also not sure why her wishes would be relevant.  the goal is verifiability, if it is verifiable, it is in.--Buridan 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: notability is not an infobox standard, notability is the article standard.--Buridan 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh good, I've got lots of stupid careers to add to so many people's wikipages. :-) Off I goEthan a daweEthan a DaweEthan a dawe 11:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If that is supposed to be what the "occupation" field is for, then the "occupation" field does not belong in the infobox at all, or it should be replaced with a "profession" field that only includes the occupations that either were the most major part of the person's life or the occupations for which the person is famous. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you would look at the usage guide at the Template page, you would see the occupation field was intended to denote "type of writer: novelist, short story writer, journalist, etc", which is less relevant for someone who is not strictly a writer, but your invention about "what goes into the occupation field" is similarly irrelevant. The question here is what goes in this article where. —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: costume manager

message: I have removed the Kant image and caption for two reasons: 1) The image link is dead. 2) The caption is horribly oversimplified and patently false. Rand did not consider Kant a "monster" merely because of advocacy of another "noumenal" dimension. Saying otherwise (especially without a citation) amounts to original research. LaszloWalrus 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of it for the same reasons I listed above: it is a dead link and the caption is horribly oversimplified. LaszloWalrus 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant image 

message: Folks, as a new wiki person I'm finsding the edit wars over Rand to be frustrating. Firstly, I'm an Objectivist, so I'd like to see her fairly represented. Secondly, as an Objectivist, I respect the inclusion of items regarding controversy with Rand and her ideas. Lets be reasonable and rational here, okay? Some of these edits rate as down-right pety, and I'm not going to name nmaes, as the attitudes seem bad on all sides. Can we get some agreement on what can be done to bring this article up to good quality, or should I just stop wasting my precious time? Ethan a dawe 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Futhermore, I recommend having this article protected from anonymous editing. I'm not sure how to go about this. I think that interested parties should debate the issues here rathern than chasing sock puppets and such about. Ethan a dawe 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Wars 

message: Since my above post on edit wars has been mostly ignored I feel something must be done. I've taken a long hard look at the edits here and decided that similar treatments should be focused on wider wiki entries. There are vast realms of people whose wiki bios lack crticism and stink of POV failings. I'm off. First targets will be Ralph Nader. Hell I voted for him once, so I know he's got some dirt. Then, Jello Biafra. Then Karl Marx. Then I'm going to tackles pages on Socialism. Then Karl Marx. Yeah, I've got a lot of work to do to keep the editing up to the standards seen here. Ta ta. ~~Ethan Dawe~~
:What, pray tell, does this have to do with anything here? -- LGagnon 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new way to look at things

message: The article currently paints a picture of her as rather distant from philosophy as an academic field.  While this was true of her personally (she rarely engaged with it), it's not my impression that it's true of the current state of things.  It's certainly true that many philosophers disagree with her views, and that many don't engage with her writing, but that's different than saying that few-to-none engage with her writing.  She's regularly covered in university philosophy classes, especially ones on ethics, and the American Philosophical Association (the main U.S. professional society for philosophers) has a sub-group, the Ayn Rand Society, specifically devoted to philosophical study of her works and influence. --65.182.51.67 06:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a difference of view and presentation between you thoughts above and the widely accepted view.  coverered in a few courses, having a relatively unpopulated subgroup, etc. does not contitute any notion of 'vibrancy' or 'closeness' to philosophy.  what you see above is a POV of someone that already like sees Rand as a figure in philosophy, that is a significantly minority view, I think.  To demonstrate it is a minority view, traditionally we look at citation analysis, which indicates the work that is being done in philosophy, and the relations amongst it.  --Buridan 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buridan, I disagree.  Seems to me if the American Philosophical Society recognizes her as worthy of study, as implied by the fact that they have a subgroup for study of her works, that's a pretty strong argument.  17,000 students annually compete in the Ayn Rand Institute's essay contest.  Last year members of the ARI were included in numerous panels on free speech in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons. A search of The Philosophers' Index (an abstracting database for scholarly journals in philosophy) gives 609 hits for Objectivism.  And Cambridge University recently instituted a Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism, which I think definitely brings her out of the "few to none" cstegory.  --Bookgrrl 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but also keep in mind that this is an article about rand, and not an article about who studies rand.  i do not know the nature or history of the apa subgroup, but that would need to be investigated before one can claim it has any meaning.  That students submit things to ARI has no indication of philosophic merit, it is a strong indication of sophomoric popularity.  Fellowships are sponsored by people with money, anyone can sponsor one, that someone has sponsored one in objectivism does not certify any merit.  what we need is a large population of noted philosophers interacting with her work, and that is not reflected in publication.   This though is still an article about rand, so it is better to stick to the facts of her life and things that have verifiable and incontravertible evidence.--Buridan 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Citation analysis" is certainly not something we should be doing, nor should we be doing censuses.  If someone has claimed that philosophy ignores her, then we should say so and cite that person as saying so.  In any case, I think the 2-paragraph section as it currently stands gives a fair summary of things. --65.182.51.67 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's difficult to categorise contributors to subjects whose work did not meet academic standards (this is someone who dismissed John Rawls on the basis of a book review without having read his work, and whose understanding of Kant is lamentable), but who through other means acheived popularity and notoriety. I think, as the article does, we can probably use the umbrella term 'philosopher' but then elsewhere stress the absence of academic legitimacy. --Nmcmurdo 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand and philosophy 

message: Who put her in the "Female Dark Lords" category as "Ann Rand"? That is blatant vandalism, and it needs to be corrected ASAP.
Treybien 1:47 8 November 2006 (UTC)
:It wasn't me...but that's pretty funny. It's not often you get amusing vandalism.
::Fixed. It required editing the redirect page for "ann Rand" It was added by an anonymous user. Surprise!Ethan a daweEthan DaweEthan a dawe 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism issue

message: Help!  Somebody changed "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" to redirect to "Objectivism", which is just a disambiguation page.  As a result, all the information in the former article seems to be inaccessible.  I don't know how to fix it… — DAGwyn 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now, though the history log indicates that the editor responsible Madhava 1947 did this earlier today and had already been reverted once. I'm going to try to communicate with Madhava 1947 and find out what's going on! --Matthew Humphreys 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Madhava is a new user, I don't think he meant any harm - seems to have been trying to move the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article to Objectivism. I've sought to explain the purpose of the disambig and requested that they discuss with other editors before making changes of that nature. --Matthew Humphreys 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  I confirm that it is now working..  DAGwyn 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with Objectivism article 

message: I am back with a link supporting my claim that Mencken and Sumner influenced Rand, not Freidrich (whom Mencken translated). The link is: http://hankphillips.com/freedom.htm
There are too many looter vandals crawling through this Wikipedia article to make it worth my while to keep re-editing, but I would appreciate some help including Mencken and Sumner under influencers and the thumbnail statement of what she taught: 
She believed:
*That man must choose his values and actions by reason; 
*That the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and 
*That no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force.
translator 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mencken and Sumner

message: I noticed that someone deleted Isabel Paterson from the list of Influences. I believe that Paterson was a huge influence on Ayn Rand...if anyone read God of the Machine you can see the obvious parallels between Paterson and Ayn Rand's Views. Not to mention Ayn Rand worked closely with Paterson when she was an immigrant...I refrained from re-adding Paterson's name to the list of influences so we can get this sorted out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VinceyB (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — either Paterson had some influence, or at least her ideas partly met with Rand's approval.  As I recall, they later parted ways, but that was common for Rand's associates.  There seems no harm in including Paterson in the list of influences. — DAGwyn 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paterson's Influence 

message: It seems to me to reflect bias in the following quote:
:She has sometimes been disparaged by academic philosophers for perceived lapses in quality and originality.  It has been suggested that Rand's practice of presenting her philosophy in fiction and non-fiction books aimed at a general audience rather than publications in peer-reviewed journals have encouraged this negative view.  Rand's defenders note that she is part of a long tradition of authors who wrote philosophically rich fiction — including Dante, John Milton, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Albert Camus, and that philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre presented their philosophies in both fictional and non-fictional forms.
That the sentences critiquing Ms. Rand require sources and yet the last, comparing her to the likes of Camus and Dostoeyvsky (!) requires none. ... aa:talk 09:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the criticism and the defense seem biased.  I have long noted that the main apparent motivation, admitted or not, behind much of the academic criticism of Rand's philosophy is that it deeply challenges the critic's personal beliefs.  Thus there is a natural defensive reaction, taking the form of trying to prevent the spread of the perceived threat, by discouraging others from looking into it seriously.  The (un)cited "perceived lapses in quality" are meaningless without an objective standard of "quality", which if it indeed existed and were exhibited would probably raise questions about the standard itself, and similarly "perceived lapses in originality" is a pointless criticism, if the standard is truth rather than publication in academic journals.  I suggest that both the criticism and the defense be removed from the article, which should simply present relevant facts clearly, not try to summarize irrelevant debates. — DAGwyn 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cites only where prudent 

message: Proper first name should be "Zinoviy" not "Zinovny"
Eabernstein 11:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand's father name in the article needs correction. 

message: In my view, it would be worth mentioning Karl Marx as an influence on her. Clearly, she was deeply opposed to his philosophy, but some of her own appears to be a response to it. --MacRusgail 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The list would become seemingly endless if we included philosophers with whom Rand disagreed. I think that only the ones who had a direct influence on the content of her thought should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.220.246.20 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that she disagreed with plenty, but surely Marx stands out, partly by virtue of her Russian origins, and also her constant attacks on collectivism, egalitarianism, communialism & communism etc. Marx talks about forces of history, Rand goes out of her way to talk of individuals of history - the polar opposite.--MacRusgail 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that Marx was an influence on her would be the wrong approach - it might imply that her ideas were just reactions to his writings and that's not the case.  And a person would not be able to find a source to back that kind of phrasing.  The way to most accurately express her ideas in this area would be to provide examples of her opposition to collectivism, egalitarianism, communialism & communism etc - directly (properly cited).  Or, another approach is to find any place where she named Marx directly and provide that as a sourced quote.  Steve 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Singling out Marx would be wrong, since Rand was not a student of Marx.  Certainly, her experience as a youth with living under Soviet communism had an influence on her.  So did lifelong living in Judeo-Christian cultures, but we wouldn't add Jesus Christ to the list of her influences. — DAGwyn 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx as influence? 

message: There is no debate among Objectivists as to whether or not the categorical imperative is compatible with Objectivism. Rand herself wrote an essay, "Causality versus Duty" which is a total condemnation of the categorical imperative. The only link given to back the claim up was a personal website. LaszloWalrus 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, such criticisms by non-Objectivists obfuscate Rand's ideas, whether intentionally or not, and reasonably should be omitted from the article.  Some criticisms that are often heard, or that are significant in other ways, merit mention (and possibly quick rejoinder).  The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to give verifiable information about a specific subject, not to serve as a forum for debate.  — DAGwyn 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorical Imperative 

message: I feel that Rand's inflence on LeVey and The Satanic Bible should be included in this article. Ayn Rand was a very significant influence on LeVey; to the extent that he plagarised her in the introduction to The Satanic Bible. For further details see 
J. R. Lewis "Legitimating New Religions", Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2003, ch 5, pp 112-115 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morandir (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that LeVey was strongly influenced by Rand; this is clear from his books. However, before we enter an edit war on this, (a) we should reach some sort of consensus about what persons belong in the "influenced" infobox, and (b) find a secondary source WP:V that agrees with this. You have mentioned the above source, but how does that relate to the topic? A quote would be most useful in helping reach consensus.  Until then, I'm removing LeVey from the infobox, since the others appear to be straight Objectivists (at some point), not just those who twisted her philosophy for their own gain. --Otheus 07:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear to me from reading Lancombz post above that his reason for wanting to include LeVey is entirely POV. LeVey may have been influenced by Rand's works, but, just as the neo-tech movement, his work is in complete oposition to Objectivism. Lancombz states that Steve's edit was to keep Rand looking perfect and to hide something. It's no refection on Rand that some person took her work and used it in some other way. It's no reflection on Objectivism either. A man who buys a hammer and uses it to kil someone is using the hammer in a way that was not intended. That doesn't make the hammer imperfect.Ethan a dawe 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Lancombz who is guilty of POV here.  The subtext of your statement is that you axiomatically consider Anton LaVey to be "bad," and therefore associating him with Rand is some kind of insult (although I'm not at all sure the insult would be greater to Rand than LaVey).  It's apparent that you're attempting to censor the Rand article in order to protect the reputation of Rand.  That's called hagiography, and it's not what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia.  A perfectly factual edit I made concerning Rand's total attention to personal freedoms rather than collective rights was reverted within hours by SteveWolfer with a similar sort of comment about protecting Rand's reputation.  The only people fanatical enough to constantly guard the article are the Randroids, so -- like Lancombz -- I suspect that working on this article will be a waste of time for me.  SmashTheState 11:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not attempting to protect Rand's reputation. I've argued that controversial content should be part of the various Objectivism articles. As far as your edit about collective rights, it was proper to revert it. Rand rejected the idea of collective rights, which was made clear in teh revert. As far as your other comments, I note that it's both you and Lancombz who are using foul language and insults in their posts here. I'm letting you know now that that is not appreciated.Ethan a dawe 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like your comments DAGwyn. All one need do is read the article on Objectivism and then read the article on LaVey's satanism to see that LaVey may have been influenced by Rand, but his satanism is NOT Objectivism with some ceremony as he stated. That is my only argument against his inclusion. I don't think Rand is a Saint as Lancombz implied with his "hagiography" comment and I am far from a Randroid. I AM an Objectivist.Ethan a dawe 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on Anton LeVey 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ref says that the Ayn Rand article links to the  template, but a search of the article found that it doesn't. Any idea why that might be? Just wondering; it's not very important. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ref}} template 

message: Why is this article longer than Aristotle? Vikien 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess it is because there is more controversy and higher levels of excitement (in the public and among editors) - also because she is more contemporary there is a great deal of information on her personal life. Steve 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still way too long.  I can't believe that such a minor if best-selling writer has been taken as seriously as this.  This article needs heavy cutting, particularly in the sections about Rand's so-called philosophy.  Lexo 14:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, you aren't biased are you? Is there such a thing as a minor best-selling author?Ethan a dawe 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Tom Clancy is a minor best-selling author, and so is Ayn Rand. Vikien 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: Consider adding this to the section on Political and Social views
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict
"Thus, in the name of justice and self-preservation, we hold that America should openly support Israel against our common enemies."
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)
Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?
AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil...
Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
IHTFP 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Moral Defense of Israel 

message: On that subject raised above, cultists are not allowed to debate or question their leader's ideas. Obviously, Rand's followers do just that, sometimes getting vehement. It is only the executor of her estate who treats Objectivism as if it is a closed system of "beliefs" that he must protect. The rest of us do what she told us to do, which is to use our own powers of reason. CurtisEdward 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cults