Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 7

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Weasel Words?

message: 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)
replies: text: Not my interpretation, just a cite. It stays. Al 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power difference fetishism 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sexual discrimination 

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

text: When she identified herself as Russian?--£ 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She lived in Russia. That's good enough. -- LGagnon 15:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Russian?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Final word on the cult issue. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Randism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus on influences and influenced lists. 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  That would be fine too -- thanks.  Logged in, signing my name now --Jscherer 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Crazynas 07:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot spoiler 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fair use of stamp image? 

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