Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 4

message: I have deleted the statement claiming that Atlas Shrugged had a "central political theme" because Ayn Rand states explicitly that the novel's theme is not political, but metaphysical (see Ayn Rand Answers), mentioning that she progressed from a political theme in her first novel (We the Living), to a metaphysical theme in her last novel (Atlas Shrugged). LaszloWalrus 23:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas Shrugged's central theme was not political 

message: As it has gotten quiet around here as of late so maybe someone could Archive some of this page. It has reached 172 kilobytes. That's over 4 times larger that the Ayn Rand page itself.
00:50, 20 February 2006 Billyjoekoepsel 
:Moved much over to Archive 3. Poor Yorick 08:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This is much better. Billyjoekoepsel 10:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive please? 

message: This article has been protected for a ridiculously long time.  Looking at the arguments, it looks like it's a pointless bit of warring over a category.
To help to resolve the dispute, I propose that editors involved contemplate the following principle, adopted 6-2 by the arbitration committee in the Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) arbitration case:
* Nature of categories
** Categories are a guide to readers to assist them in finding information. They are not part of an article and need not reflect established fact. For example, Golan Heights can legitimately be included in both the categories Geography of Syria and Geography of Israel.
If we can accept categories in this light, I think we can agree that they're actually quite useful.  Editors can accept the presence of the disputed category on the understanding that it doesn't amount to a factual statement about Ayn Rand's opinions on sexual orientation (which could well, in any case, have matured over the course of her long life).
On that proposal, I now unprotect that article. --Tony Sidaway 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm amazed by the fact that, even though he refuses to explain himself here, Laszlo keeps controversially reverting the article.  I'm even more amazed that, in an attempt to be neutral, nobody's banned him yet.  What are you waiting for? Alienus 02:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to clarify my comment above. It was not, and should not be read as, a ruling on content.  I'm not God the Father, and I firmly deny being either Son or Holy Ghost.  I'm just another Wikipedia editor. I do not have an opinion on whether this particular category is appropriate for this particular article.  I simply observe that the Arbitration committee, as a matter of interpretation, has in a fairly recent case decided that the presence of an article in a category is not to be taken as a statement of fact about the subject of the article.  Their principles are not binding or definitive, but they tend to adopt principles that may sometimes be useful in resolving disputes.  I offer the principle in that light. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see "3 Categories" section.--TJ 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: *Was Rand a significant figure in opposing gay rights, or just another kook with an opinion?
*Was her opinion, or those of her followers, important in a substantial way?
*Were her statements on the subject meaningful, powerful, and influential, or merely a side note to her beliefs?
Ronabop 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there's no getting around the fact that only spoke of homosexuality in a LEGAL CONTEXT once, saying that laws against homosexuality should be repealed. As far as that statement goes, it is in suppport of gay rights. Any other argument involves conjecture based on what she wrote on other topics, and is POV. Similarly, the book against "liberalism" you refer to has NOTHING about gay rights. LaszloWalrus 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, Laszlo has added the LGBT Rights Activists category, alongside LGBT Rights Opposition.  I endorse this compromise solution.  If anyone objects to it, I would like to hear the grounds.  Otherwise, I'd be thrilled to move on to more interesting issues. Alienus 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see new "3 Catgories" section--TJ 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC (glbt) 

message: I have edited out the line that claims Peikoff said that Rand was the greatest philosopher ever. He says in Objectivism Through Induction (CD set 1, disc 11) that he too considers Aristotle, not Rand, to be the greastest philosopher. LaszloWalrus 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leonard Peikoff and Aristotle 

message: Isn't this article  about Ayn Rant, the famous philosophaster and nut-job?? Hey, that's it. New category: Philosophasters. Sums it all up in one word!!
--Lacatosias 17:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to judge the merit of your categorization.  However, if she's famous as a philosophaster, then I'm sure you could come up with some citations to support your edit, right? Alienus 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defintion: A pretender to philosophy. It's an analytic truth!! (unsigned)
I would say that it's a controversial claim that needs to be sourced and cited.  So, for example, if you can show me an essay from a professor of philosophy in which Rand is referred to as a philophaster, that may be worth including under criticisms.  Otherwise, regardless of the truth of the claim (analytic or otherwise), we can't include it here due to NPOV constraints.  Again, I'm making no personal judgement (read: original research) about how pretend her philosophy might be. Alienus 19:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The category was removed, and since you offer no citations, I have no basis upon which to object. Alienus 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The other category you removed is a trickier issue.  There are multiple mentions of "cult" in the article, referring to essays and even books that characterize Objectivism as a cult.  I'm sure you don't agree with them, but I'm not sure whether there isn't a sufficiently strong case to leave the category. Alienus 03:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look in those articles, I don't think you'll find mention of the world "cult", much less in the context of essays and books that speak of these people as cult leaders.  How do you account for this? Alienus 07:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a whole ot of text, yet you didn't answer my question. I  didn't ask about MLK or GWB or anyone else.  I asked why, given that the article has multiple references to essays and books that call Rand a cult leader, we should exclude her from that category.  All I see is tu quoque and special pleading, both of which are fallacies. Alienus 04:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rand??