Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 5

message: I have removed the "Gay Rights Activists" category from Any Rand.  Believing homosexuality should be decriminalized does NOT equate being a supporter of Gay rights. 
"Rand's one explicit statement about homosexuality, however, came in 1971 after a public lecture in Boston. She made it clear that her philosophy of personal rights and limited government required that homosexuality be decriminalized, an enlightened view for the time, but then went on to say, “It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises .... Therefore I regard it as immoral ... And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It's disgusting.”"
Being even 20% for and 80% against stills puts her on the "opponent" side.
Plus, having "activist" and "opponent" on the same page is confusing and redundant.  Anyone who cares can easily find out what Rands's views were.  [atomicpuffball] 14 MAR 06
:I'm familiar with her views on homosexuality, and you're right that there was a substiantial proportion that can be seen as both negative and in opposition to the conventional gay rights movement.  However, she also supported gay marriage and, to the best of her understanding, full equality under the law.  This puts her in much the same position that non-Objectivist libertarians find themselves in; both supporting and opposing, but not being neutral.
:In this way, using both categories does make sense.  Moreover, it's the reasonable compromise that we've agreed to after much fighting over whether to remove one or both of these categories.  Therefore, I'm going to revert your change unless the consensus changes. Alienus 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Activist has clear connotations of deep moral commitment and outspoken promotion of a certain cause: Gloria Steinem is an activist for women's rights, Jesse Jackson is an activist for the rights of African-Americans to equal opportunity, etc.. Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war (or anti-Iraq war) acitivist. People who blow up abortions clinics are activists. Protestors, hunger-strikers, peopl who organize sit-ins, etc.. are "activists" who engage in extremely open, public activities to support a cause. Writers can also be activists, but it has to be a constant and throughgoing theme in their writing: Susan Sontag, for example. Ayn Rand was certainly a capitalist" acitivist, but I do thing it has been even close to demonstarted that she was a gay rights activist. Ask the question: How prominent a theme was it in her writings? How much was she willing to give for this cause? not much? Then it should be removed obviously. It's an insult to REAL activists. Also, the contradition is ridiculous: it doesnìt provide information. It confuses the hell out of people!!--Lacatosias 07:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal of Gay Rights Activism cat 

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

message: A recent edit removed the uncontroversial fact that Rand endorsed BDSM in her work and is a minor celebrity in the BDSM community.  Unfortunately, this article did not have sufficient citations and quotes to justify the mention of the fact (largely due to a historical coincidence; the page was Protected during a crucial period).  I've moved some of the BDSM-related content from Objectivism and homosexuality into Ayn Rand to fix this.  Hopefully, it'll be enough to stand on its own without repeating too much of the fork that it references. Alienus 19:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a step in the right direction.  I had removed the one reference because it was one dominatrix's website that listed "The Fountainhead" in her suggested reading list.  If the refs you added back support her "minor celebrity" status in the BDSM community, then so be it.  A is A, right?  Kaisershatner 19:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There's a frequently-deleted line about how Rand and Branden were both born with different, more ethnic names, which they changed.  The line also contrasts this with Rand's statements about not giving in to societal pressures.  Since fans of Rand find this disturbing, they tend to erase this text a lot.  I'm one of the people who keeps restoring it, though.
Recently, it was deleted again, this time by 24.94.5.94, whose comment said "see talk".  Well, I'm here, but I don't see any hint that this stuff was discussed previously.  Perhaps 24 was planning to insert some text here and I'm just being hasty.
While I think I understand the motivation of people deleting this text, I don't understand their justification.  It is demonstrably true that Rand both said these things and changed her name.  Now, it may be that some change can be made to the text that preserves its valid content but makes it more neutral.  If so, I'd be happy to consider such proposals.  As it stands, though, I see no reason not to restore the text in its original form. Alienus 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been a while and I still don't see anything here.  I think it's reasonable to go ahead and revert, since no explanation has been given thus far.  If 24 comes back at some point and wants to remove that text again, I'd appreciate it if they discussed that change here in advance, just to avoid a lot of wear and tear on the main article. Alienus 01:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good christ!! (sorry for the pun) do not remove Rand from the category of prominent Atheists or atheist philosophers, activists (whatever). It is the ONLY thing I agree with her on and respect her for!! She was quite outspoken and courageous in maintaining this position despite the onslaught of conservative critics such as William F. Buckley and friends. She's an important member of the category.--Lacatosias 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If those things are not notable enough to be put into the article, they shouldn't be put as a category (I am talking about anti-vietnam war, and pro-choice). She may have criticised religion, but what did she actually do for it? This article is in about 40 categories - way too many. Also, wtf? Jewish? I thought she was an atheist?? How she was brought up as a Jew is irrelevant - she is certainly not part of Jewish American history. -- infinity0 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought "Jewish" was generally considered at least in part to be an ethnic category. At least, to me, to say that someone is Jewish does not imply any particular religious beliefs on their part. Cadr 11:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd have thought Russian was the ethnic category. Jewish used to mean one race, which shared the same religion, thousands of years ago, but you can't apply that today. -- infinity0 12:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm no. Russian is a nationality, whereas Jewishness has always been considered a partly ethnic notion. I agree it's difficult to come up with a coherent concept of race or ethnicity, but the fact is that many people who consider themselves Jewish do not believe in the Jewish religion. Cadr 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Russian is also an ethnic race. Is Ayn Rand is more ethnically Russian, or Jewish? -- infinity0 12:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, she can go in both categories. Cadr 12:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's spam. I don't think she considered herself Jewish, but American. Include her either in American, Russian or Jewish categories, but not all or two. -- infinity0 12:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not all? I don't think self-identification is a condition for categorisation on Wikipedia. And what's your basis for saying that she didn't consider herself Jewish? Did she ever deny being Jewish, or say that she considered the term inappropriate? Cadr 13:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: *20th century philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
*American novelists: Not an American. If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
*American philosophers: Not an American. If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
*American screenwriters: Not an American If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
*American women: Not an American. If someone wants to replace that with "Russian ...," go ahead.
*Aristotelian philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
*Atheist philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
*LGBT rights activists AND LGBT rights opposition: She was neither; saying "Gays are an abomination, but the Government doesn't care" doesn't make you either.
*Moral philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher
*Political philosophers: Writer, not a philosopher Preston 03:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your actions are premature.  For one thing, she was an American citizen, so she qualifies as an American whatever.  For another, while her credibility as a competent philospher is certainly questioned by the academic community, she was a philosopher of one sort or another.  Remember, even a bad plumber is still a plumber.  For these reasons, I am going to revert your entire edit and ask that you gather some consensus here before making such changes in the future.  This article has been edit-warred over and spent weeks Protected; we don't want to go back to that. 03:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your patience with this issue.  I understand how frustrating it may be. Alienus 17:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories (Not just the LGBT ones) 

message: The statement that the Ayn Rand Institute was named "Ayn Rand" "despite Ayn Rand's wishes that her name be kept separate from her ideas" is horribly misleading. Rand was against the use of her name only insofar as the naming of her philosophy went; for example, she strongly objected to calling Objectivism "Randism" or calling Objectivists "Randists"; but outside of these, I can't find a single source indicating that Rand objected to the use of her name in promoting her philosophy; indeed, she herself used her reputation (from The Fountainhead) to spread her ideas. 68.7.212.152 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember that the organization founded to promote her philosophy was named after Nat.  Only after his excommunication did the ARI form, right? Alienus 17:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I realize that a lot of the people who contribute to this article are fans of Rand's fiction, but this is supposed to be biographical, not hagiographical, and it's supposed to tell about her, not concatenate a series of overwritten essays about how wonderful her stories are.
I'm talking about the recent inflation of an already-large section summarizing The Fountainhead with the addition of copious flowery language and unalloyed praise.  People, the book has an article of its own; all that belongs here is a brief, accurate summary and a link where people can go to find out more.  The text I removed would probably be too biased even for the article on the book, and it's definitely out of place in this article about the author. Alienus 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purple Flowers for Ayn 

message: Ok, it seems clear that the academic philosophy community doesn't regard Rand very highly.  But the "Leiter report" cited doesn't prove this precisely (Brian Leiter's report ) - it lists the fields of study popular at lots of prominent philosophy departments, which isn't the same thing.  I'm not disputing the fact, just the use of this particular citation.  I think the JARS link I just added leads to some better evidence for this claim and I am pursuing it, but if I'm in error about the Leiter citation, please help me understand why.  Kaisershatner 14:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said "lots." RJII 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No leading research university