Talk:Objectivism/Archive 8

No academic source for "philosophy"

We need more academic sources in this article. The only way we can ever get through the debate over whether or not Randism is a philosophy is to get some academic sources. And note the plural; given that this is a controversial idea, we should have multiple sources for both sides of the debate. It is possible that we may need an entire section for this. -- LGagnon 01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "fact" tag as I suspected that someone would use it as an excuse to give only one source. The "totallydisputed" tag is more accurate for what we need done. -- LGagnon 01:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the edit your reverted, I gave two references, not one, of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There are now four references, which include an example in a philosophical journal and in a major newspaper. There were, for a moment, eight, but that was excessive having eight footnotes about it when truly, one reliable reference should be sufficient. I have placed the four removed ones below.

• Hitchens, Christopher. "AYN-Randed: You got a problem with objectivists?". The American Spectator 34, no. 7 (2001): 27–28. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library.
• Sturm, Douglas. Review of "The Role of Religion in History." The Review of Politics 62, no.1 (2000): 131–134. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Library.
• The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., s.v. "Rand, Ayn".
• Weil, Martin. "Ayn Rand Dies, Author Of 'The Fountainhead'". The Washington Post, March 7, 1982, B6. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers.

—Centrx→talk • 02:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also ninety-six books found on Google Books that contain the exact phrase "philosophy of Objectivism". One of them is by Michael Shermer. —Centrx→talk • 07:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked specifically for academic sources. And since calling it a philosophy is disputed by academics, we should actually write in the article about the dispute, not just cite a bunch of sources that happen to go along with Rand's opinion. You did not cite a single academic other than one known to be biased in favor of Rand. You seem to be avoiding writing for the enemy, which only makes your edits seem suspicious. We need some truly neutral academics sources in there, not just the one the Randists agree with. -- LGagnon 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem I have noticed with you is that you only want academic sources that agree with your opinion and anything that goes against your opinion you call "non-academic". It's so disgusting and a violation of NPOV. The Fading Light 14:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. Academic sources are sources published by academia. Only one source from academia has been given so far, and it's from the only known academic who backs Randism. That's blatant POV, with no attempt to show a wide range of academic opinions. I'm ok with that source being there, but to be truly neutral we need to represent academia's opinion realistically. That is why I've put a tag on the article stating that the accuracy is questionable; because while we may have a source, it is representative of the minority opinion, not the vast majority of academia. -- LGagnon 15:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "academia", and why is the Encyclopedia Britannica—controlled, written, and edited by academics—not part of it? Why also not two philosophical and political journals, and two other encyclopedias? These are all academic sources (and there are numerous others that I did not bother to cite). Why is Michael Shermer credible as a source for the cult accusations, yet suddenly he is not credible as a source for calling Objectivism a philosophy? It seems, actually, that you are trying to push a blatant POV. Where are the reliable sources that state that Objectivism is not a philosophy? —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my ignorance; I'm new to this and in the odd position of defending a philosophy/cult that I'm not really a follower of. But I've read so much on this page that I feel invested in it somehow.

My question is about NPOV. Is the primary criterion for determining that an article is NPOV whether or not it represents how the majority regards a subject? Shouldn't "neutral" mean just that? Value-neutral, non-solipsistic, not based on majority or minority opinion? Why is it so difficult to just say that "the majority of academics reject Objectivism as a philosophy and many people refer to it as a cult of personality surrounding the figure of Ayn Rand"? Why not present all points of view? Saying "it's definitively a cult" in the article has a negative connotation and would be erroneous because you're just expressing another POV. But denying entirely the POV that Objectivism seems to have cultlike aspects is equally biased.

What is the issue with calling Objectivism a "philosophy" anyway? Just because a majority of academics would hesitate to call it "philosophy"? Here's what I would ask. Does it walk like a duck? Does it look like a duck? Does it quack like one?

Objectivism is a unique idea that organizes itself based on the principles of philosophy listed here. I would ask before we simply write Objectivism off as a Randist cult: what other than majority opinion of academia (which, it has been admitted, has a documented historical bias against Objectivism) disqualifies it from being categorized as a philosophy?--The Central Scrutinizer 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources in the article state that the ideas of Objectivism constitute a cult, whether it be called a philosophy, a "philosophical system", belief system, or religion. They all refer to the "Rand cult" or cultish behavior by certain groups, like her close followers in the 1960s. This article is about the set of ideas, and before four weeks ago, there was nothing in it about Ayn Rand followers or cults or anything like that, and the article was titled "Objectivist philosophy". —Centrx→talk • 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is stupid. Why do you seriously need four sources to classify something that isn't necessarily defined? Is it not a matter of opinion (Oh, I forgot, Objectivists do not believe in opinion, only fact). I think some of you guys would convince yourself that rulers begin with the part that says "12" when you measure your privates in order to "define it as big." What useless nonsense. Objectivism is a philosophy. Objectivism is a philosophy for the non-philosophical. Now please, there is nothing less-aesthetically or more annoying than seeing a bunch of pseudo-thinkers fumble with semantics and try to define themselves as philosophers. Whoever argues that Objectivism isn't a philosophy obviously has their head somewhere it shouldn't be. Even religion has philosophy, and Objectivism is basically a religion (with the concepts of god replaced with truth and satan with stolen concept) except with less followers - a cult. Shermer was right. You guys disgust me.

How dare a woman attempt philosophy, hey? Disgusting. RJII 08:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What?

Try some Simone de Beauvoir.

Academic sources calling Objectivism a philosophy: Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism (Chris Matthew Sciabarra); Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Chris Matthew Sciabarra); Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics (Tara Smith); Capitalism (George Reisman); The Capitalist Manifesto (Andrew Bernstein); The Abolition of Antitrust (Gary Hull); Socratic Puzzles (Robert Nozick); Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (Chris Matthew Sciabarra, ed.); The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Doug Den Uyl); Viable Values (Tara Smith); Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Tara Smith); The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (Tara Smith); Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living (Robert Mayhew); Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem (Robert Mayhew); Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind (Mimi Gladstein). I'll find more if these aren't satisfactory. LaszloWalrus 12:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys are convincing me to think Objectivism isn't actually a philosophy. I did not know it was that important of a qyestion until I seen it weighted like such on here. Here's an idea, instead of wasting time on this, go fix the primacy of consciousness portion of the wiki. It was Ayn Rand's philosophy, so of course all the people that follow (cult) with no apparent reasoning (other than mindless tautalogy), are following a philosophy (which is, again, just a person's personal views deified and worshipped by a cult who more likely cannot think for themselves). Now you may understand my perspective (if you believe perspective exists!): Objectivism is a philosophy for the non-philosophical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.77.182 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's really no doubt that Objectivism should be called a philosophy. It just so happens that there is one person, perhaps two, trying to push a fringe belief. —Centrx→talk • 20:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Academia is not the fringe, no matter how many times the Randists claim it is. -- LGagnon 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Several academic sources have been provided that call Objectivism a philosophy. Not a single academic or any other reliable source has been provided that says Objectivism is not a philosophy. —Centrx→talk • 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because you're avoiding writing for the enemy. You've selectively researched to get only those sources that fit your POV. -- LGagnon 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched for — objectivism AND rand AND philosophy — all of the results I clicked described Objectivism as a philosophy (when they could have stated "Objectivim is not a philosophy"). I also replaced philosophy with "beliefs", "belief system", and "religion". This yielded some articles but, for example, a couple of them alternated "Objectivist belief system" with "philosophy of Objectivism". It also yielded common, loose, everyday uses of "Rand's beliefs" which could be interchanged with "Rand's thoughts", etc. These articles also referred to it as a philosophy. Because I was not going to review every single search result, I also searched for — objectivism AND "not a philosophy" — and — objectivism AND "not philosophical" —, neither of which gave any results.

You are asserting there exist academic sources asserting Objectivism is not a philosophy. If you do not know of any sources, why do you assert they exist? —Centrx→talk • 07:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on a failed internet search. Please try a university library next time. -- LGagnon 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This was not a Google search or anything similar (though Google searches failed to find anything to attest to your position either), this was on ProQuest Direct which contains about 7100 journals and magazines, which would be the result of a library search of journals. You have yet to provide any source that asserts Objectivism is not a cult. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not many academic people have time to write about something they don't consider to be a philosophy. You guys are being completely unprofessional. You need to recognize people's views, no matter how stupid they are (I guess I should say, no matter how stupid you believe they are). There is such a thing as "crappy philosophy." Deal with it. If the question is "what is objectivism classified as?" Then realize that they do have a process (a crappy one), and they do have foundations (no matter how faith-based they are). Some of you are sourcing random references, where the question of philosophy doesn't matter (but of course, you're out to prove a point, stupid Objectivists), and some of you are arguing that something isn't a philosophy when you should be criticizing that philosophy and cleaning up the ridiculous bias/redundancy of the wiki. 71.142.77.182 06:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's warrant for an RFC or arbitration or something? RJII 20:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

One person? Perhaps two? 71.142.77.182 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the request for more academic sources, I have inserted the relevant citations on Kant and Nozick that were missing; I am also available if further expert help or refereeing of contentious issues is desired. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I'm not sure I had the style format correct, but you can check the footnotes under the academic responses section to see if it's OK. If people prefer one of the newer translations of Kant, let me know--it's easy enough to alter. Regarding the expert/referee issue, I am, though anonymous (which I'd be happy to explain in e-mail), a professor of philosophy and more than passingly familiar with both this literature and the sociological issues concerning the Objectivist movement. The difficulty is that there is some truth to both views--Objectivism is "outsider" thought, but it is working hard to become mainstream, and if it succeeds, it would not be the first such case in the history of philosophy. Thus I think that "getting" that in the article is important for achieving the desired neutrality. I think that the article thus far is quite good, and just needs some rough edges polished. I have some thoughts about certain phrases that I'm not sure I would leave as is also.--Agent Cooper 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for filling in those requested citations and clarifying some of the finer points. As for the role of Objectivism in academia, this is covered in more detail in a child article, Responses to Objectivism. (I should warn you, though, that there is some controversy over whether that article should exist separately from this one, and there is currently an attempt to merge it back where it came from.)

Anyhow, I'm all for accuracy and neutrality, so your efforts are appreciated. Al 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult status

I restored the Cults category because there are a number of citations showing that it has been accused by notable people of being a cult. The truth of these accusations is immaterial, so I'm really not interested in hearing about that topic. Al 02:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting what strict standards the anti-Objectivists have in regards to calling Objectvism a philosophy, and what loose standards they have in labeling it a cult. Anyone else notice this? Crazynas 03:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy is an academic concept; thus, there should be academic proof that it is one. It would be a huge embarassment for Wikipedia if we misled the public into thinking Rand was an academically accepted philosopher, as it would show the weakness of Wikipedia's ability to use reputable sources (not that it doesn't fail at that often enough).

Cults are not an area of academia; you can't get a degree in cults. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here. -- LGagnon 04:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, cults are studied be sociology and psycology. Just because there isn't a specific field for your cat dosn't mean it isn't academic. Now Michael Shermer (although an academic) is not an expert in sociology or psycology whereas Tara Smith a professor of philosophy at U Tex seems qualified (under your standards) to call Ayn Rand a philosopher or not. Crazynas 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism isn't about Rand. I'd consider Randism as a candidate for cult, but isn't Objectivism a position, not a person. You guy's should drop the whole Ayn Rand centricism, there are other Objectivists, Peikoff, Branden. It is a category of philosophy, a school of thought, just with considerably less thought.

Thanks... I think. Crazynas 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism = "Objectivism". They're the same thing, just that the latter is a loaded term and the former isn't. And no, it's not disconnected from Rand; Rand refused to let anyone call themselves a Randist unless they agreed to her every word about it. -- LGagnon 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, this isn't about what you are interested in hearing about. "These accusations is immaterial." What does that even mean? You mean the accusations don't exist? Well, sorry to ruin your objective reality, but they do. This wiki isn't about how bad Objectivism is. Any other school of thought has criticisms, most of them openly accept criticisms, since it is about learning, not teaching. You aren't here to twist reality, buddy. No matter how much it appears to be like a cult, the criticisms are for cult-like behavior. To define this as a cult is nonsense. Take it from a very enthusiastic anti-Objectivist 75.2.166.125 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous anti-Objectivist giving a weak argument. Sounds like a sock puppet to me. Can you Randists cut the sock puppetry and play fair? If you need sock puppets, personal attacks, and vandalism (on that note, thanks for attacking my user page, by the way) to get your point across, the n you're failing on your claims of honest truth, logic, and benevolence, respectively. -- LGagnon 04:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you, I am no Objectivist playing games with you. Grow up. You are ruining our position, that is my point. If you represent yourself as the same side as me, you might as well do something useful with your time here, like half of the bias in the article itself. Of course, what would you know of using time-effectively, instead of examining the weakness of my argument you'd rather pull an ad hominem, very effective, you sure found my weak argument all right. I'm anonymous because I don't have an account.75.2.166.125 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

For one, nothing's holding you back from creating an account. Second of all, there has been quite a bit of sock puppetry going on here, amongst other policy violations. Knowing how rabid the Randists have been about breaking the rules (since in many cases they've been allowed to get away with whatever they want), I can assure you that my accusation isn't without precedent. I'm not just here to argue a position; I'm here to stop all the rule breaking that's been allowed here. -- LGagnon 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are still skeptical, look at the history of the article, and find my first edit. I vandalized the project (I knew it would be reverted within two to three minutes).I think that is proof enough that I am no sock-puppet, I have quite powerful arguments against Objectivism, but those do not matter here, this isn't a philosophy board, but a wiki board (so all I show is me having fun). My philosophical position is actually a very Nietzsche-influenced existentialism. 75.2.166.125 05:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BITE WP:NPACrazynas 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to follow that guideline, but it's worth noting that some "newcomers" have bitten before I even said anything to them (again, note your friends who used forceful tactics to harass me on my user page). -- LGagnon 04:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Three solid citations for cult accusations sounds like a pretty strong primary argument to me. Al 03:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations by whom? Critics of objectivism? Critics/detractors of Ayn Rand? A category must represent 'wide consensus of reputable sources. Otherwise we should be placing George W. Bush in categories Dictators as there are citations that refer to him as such. Totally ridiculous. See Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you want citations by Ayn Rand, admitting to be a cult leader? Are there any cult leaders who admit to what they are? A category needs to be supported by reliable sources showing that notable people support the characterization. It is not required that it be proven true. Al 04:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. You cannot categorize a person on the basis on a couple of citations, in particular if these come from detractors, critics or opponents. That is a perverse application of WP:CITE. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And four solid citations for philosophy doesn't???Crazynas

Note that I actually listed 8 in the article and on the talk page, and there were many more to be had. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well indeed. LGagnon is trying to set an impossible standard to push his POV, just to let you know, it isn't going to work. Crazynas 04:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlike cult leadership, it is not uncommon for people to admit to being philosophers, or at least to make a claim in that direction. This shifts the burden a bit.

So the burden is on George W. Bush to prove that he's not a fascist dictator? Crazynas 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys should really take those out. I mean, there is nothing funnier than seeing a bunch of people try to justify their opinion and think excessive sources do the trick. I have actually put more thought into whether Objectivism is not a philosophy after seeing four sources than I have hearing anti-Objectivist arguments. Objectivism is a philosophy, no matter how stupid or pointless it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.166.125 (talk • contribs) 75.2.166.125 04:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: There have been listed here eight sources, six academic, stating Objectivism as a philosophy. There are many more which do the same. All of the sources used in the cult accusations section state Objectivism as a philosophy. No source stating that Objectivism is not a philosophy has been provided. —Centrx→talk • 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You do an internet search and find no sources against you and you consider that enough? Like I said, university libraries help a lot. -- LGagnon 04:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I state above, this is a search of academic journals on ProQuest Direct, equivalent to a search that would be made at a university library, not anything like a Google search. Since you have no reliable sources whatsoever that Objectivism is not a philosophy, it is logical to conclude that you are prejudicially assuming it is, or that your notion is based on something you overheard in the halls. —Centrx→talk • 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Drop my comments. Especially the one about getting rid of the Rand centricism. The Rand centricism is actually my reasoning for changing my position, I think this Objectivism is a cult. My reasoning? I just realized there is another page for Objectivism. This Objectivism is just a following of Rand. This should either be merged with Ayn Rand's wiki page, or should be classified as a cult. It is not a philosophy, but rather a historical account of a person. When historical accounts of people are found as ways to live (what is commonly referred to when one uses the words, "values," "philosophy," "religion," and smaller religion, "cult"), based on that person, then it is just a cult following. If you had a Scientology page that described Scientology, than you might consider it a religion, but if you have an entirely seperate page that was labelled "Scientology (L.Ron Hubbard)" and in which describes the beliefs of Scientologists in terms of Hubbard, it would be a cult. I will provide simple deduction here, since the Objectivists love deduction: 1. A necessary quality of philosophy can be categorized without the use of one person (by use, I mean, the philosophy is describable entirely on it's foundations). 2. The description of Objectivism here cannot be categorized without the use of Rand. 3. Rand is a person. Therefore: This article does not describe a philosophy. I would suggest, seriously, for the sake of you guys, the Objectivists, that you merge this article with the Objectivism (metaphysics) article, or the Ayn Rand article. I'm sorry to say it, but this entire page is unnecessary. If there are differing views in Objectivism, then chances are they are on a small scale, and can be included within the Objectivism (metaphysics) page. There is no reason to make this a person's legacy. --- Unless, of course, Rand isn't a person, and is a vampire (my theory would be correct but my argument would be devoid, Oh frustration!). Simple conclusion: Objectivism (metaphysics) = philosophy. Ayn Rand article = biographical/historical article. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) = unnecessary, and if considered a following of thought, is undoubtedly a cult. I don't believe I need sources, on account that this reasoning is based on a misrepresentation of Objectivism, one academics don't look at.75.2.166.125 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to address this directly, but I do want to comment on a related note. In reading this article, it sometimes seems as if Ayn Rand is being given credit for coming up with some rather well-known ideas that far predate her. For example, the notion of reality being objective did not owe its origins to her, yet the article makes it sound like a uniquely Randian idea. I realize that part of this comes from the fact that so many students of Objectivism have no general philosophical background, but that's not reason enough for this article to show such bias. Al 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, she didn't originate objective reality. What she did do was systamatize and create a coheseive system of thought. She borrowed from Aristotle, she borrowed from Adam Smith. But the way and the why she put it together is unique. Thus it is a philosophy. (I know this is OR, but it's a reply to Al and the IP. Crazynas 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, OR is allowed in Talk, so don't worry about it. Anyhow, it's fine for the article to say that she put together these various elements, perhaps even in a novel way. We do have to make sure we don't wind up making her sound like she invented the question mark. Al 05:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: WHY Is there an "Objectivist (Ayn Rand)" article and an "Objectivist (metaphysics)" article? 75.2.166.125 05:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The former is the primary article, while the latter is a fork. Al 05:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean Objectivist metaphysics, it is a fork of this article that expands on the metaphysics specifically. If you mean the Objectivism (metaphysics) redirect, it refers to a different concept in general philosophy. —Centrx→talk • 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not right. Sartrean Existentialism is a fork of extensional Existentialism. I don't see why Metaphysical Objectivism (which is basically, objectivism in general) should be an fork of Randist Objectivism, but the other way around. Any other philosophy is based on the concepts, Objectivism is the only "proclaimed philosophy" that is based on a person. No wonder you guys are called a cult, you are a philosophy of a person, not of concepts (you're concepts are not foundational, your author is). Unless everyone happens to coincidentally come to the same exact conclusions at random when accepting objective knowledge, this is a cult. In short, if Rand would have accepted different axioms as truths, you'd all have different opinions on the matter. That is a cult. The only reason why you don't realize it, is because your philosophy agrees with itself, the reason why everybody follows Rand is because Rand follows the truth, and since the truth is knowable, you can follow Rand, and be deemed following the truth, a cult following truth is called a philosophy. Realize, anyone who doesn't accept your foundations sees you as a cult, it is only people who agree with you that don't see it as a cult, but an enlightened journey to truthland. Edit: blatant ignorance between the difference between Rand's ideas and a sort of Platonic objectivism, ignore that part. I still think Randism is a cult, Objectivism is not, and Randist Objectivism is intensional to objectivism in general (the redirect version, that truth is achievable).75.2.166.125 06:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Jossi, when you made this change, did you actually intend to revert my grammar fix along with removing the cult category? Al 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Silence is compliance, so I made another change intended to fix the awkward English there. Hope you don't revert it out of hand again. Al 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging Responses to Objectivism

• Strong support. I didn't insert this tag, but it's overdue. This article should never have been extracted out in the first place, because it is a POV fork. Many people complained about this risk, but there weren't quite enough for an AfD. A merge-back is another chance for us to correct the error. Al 01:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is already more than 40kb, and most of the other sections have been forked. Why is this one any exception? Note also that "merge" was a viable option for those responding on the AfD, and that according to that AfD, Responses was forked according to a majority on the Talk page. Why do you think that proposing a merger with the very same weak justification you gave on the AfD would be helpful? Do you have any reason that would convince a person who thinks that Responses should be forked not based on POV? —Centrx→talk • 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read more carefully, you'll see that I didn't propose the merger, but I do agree with it. The problem is that this, unlike the others, is a POV fork, which is forbidden. Al 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article is too big, then we need a summary of Responses to Objectivism in here, with a link to that article, as per Wikipedia:Content forking ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is the reason this article was forked in the first place (it's not a POV for as Al continues to claim). Crazynas 17:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Response. This was your reason, not necessarily the reason that it got such strong support from Rand's fans. A number of people, including myself, expressed strong concerns that the fork would turn out ot be a way to isolate criticism of Rand for later destruction. Al 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me; this is going to be painfully long. I don't have any views as yet on the issue of combining or separating the cult issue into a separate entry. What I do think needs to be said is that the idea that Objectivism is either a philosophical system or it is a cult is a misunderstanding due to the various ways that the word "Objectivism" can be used. First, personally I do not find the concept of "cult" terribly useful for the same reasons that many do not find the term "terrorist" useful: one's man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, etc. There's a passage, I believe it is on Religioustolerance.org, which makes a similar remark. There are really four different, distinct issues here. First, the character of Rand's authorship. Rand wrote novels with philosophical and political content and essays, some polemical, some not; in many ways, her writing would not have been seen as unusual if these were 19th century *Russian* novels with Russian characters and Russian settings. Typically figures of that sort are classified as "literature" with their thought subsumed under that category. Whether such figures get discussed in academia tends to be a function of the extent to which literature professors and critics find the author to be of aesthetic merit. On the whole, that has not yet happened with Rand, and may never happen. That said, some literary figures who do not present the typical profile of the treatise or article-writing philosopher have come to be considered worthy of attention by philosophy professors for the content of their thought. The best examples are Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

Now I think that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were philosophers, and that the appearance of college courses about them, scholarly philosophical books about them, etc. did not *make* them philosophers. Certainly *being* a professor of philosophy oneself is no criterion, since by that standard almost none of the "great" philosophers would qualify. So the question of whether or not Rand is a philosopher can't in itself be decided by the extent to which she has received academic attention. It has to based on (1) whether she discusses topics that are recognizably philosophical, (2) offers arguments, and (3) says anything of interest (being correct can't be the criterion obviously). I think that anyone familiar with her texts who knows the history of philosophy has to admit that she offers arguments for positions on recognizably philosophical topics. I also think that it is quite possible to be "of interest" and thus part of the discussion without being all that *great*, for example, if the figure offers seductively plausible but invalid arguments that tempt people repeatedly. James Rachels tries to refute Rand's arguments for ethical egoism in his widely used textbook on ethics. Even if the refutation is completely successful, I think that automatically baptizes her, makes her a part of the conversation. On my view then, Rand is definitely a philosopher. The Routledge Encyclopedia article, thus, does not say that she is *not* a philosopher, merely that she is a *bad* philosopher (I have problems with the article, but that's neither here nor there). By contrast, L. Ron Hubbard is not, because while his writings may be full of ideas, they are not on philosophical topics, and he does not argue for them, well or badly, the way a philosopher would. This may be as dissatisfying as a judicial definition of obscenity, but for me at least non-philosophy is a matter of "I know it when I see it."

The cult issue is entirely separate. This is a sociological question. It is perfectly possible for there to be a bona fide philosopher, even an important one, whose readers set about to function in a cult-like fashion. For that matter, the philosopher may even encourage this. We should not be afraid to call a spade a spade here, but I also think that it is a misunderstanding to make too much of this. Consider Nietzsche again. In the early twentieth century, no *serious* person took Nietzsche seriously, but he was widely read as a "fun" literary figure. In England, some of his early fans treated his writings as if they were sacred texts, and constituted a kind of Nietzsche movement, not just with the goal of studying Nietzsche but of furthering a "Nietzsche agenda" in the wider world, whatever that might mean exactly ( recently came across a webpage on Nietzsche that even at this late date had just that sort of character to it, so it would appear that in the 21st century, Nietzsche scholars and Nietzsche cultists can occupy the same planet at the same time). I have long noticed that the Objectivist movement in many respects resembled these folks. But this itself carries a lesson: not only does the character of these folks have little to do with the value or character of the thing that they are championing, but the very championing, for all the dismay it may inspire, may very well have an important function in keeping a figure in view long enough for more serious and higher quality consideration to begin--it's like the difference between romance and marriage. As I've looked back at the history of philosophy since, I've noticed that a surprising number of major figures generated a kind of cultish following in the first generation or two, until they become respectable. Once academia "captures" the figure, the movement that sustained the reputation of the figure fades away and is forgotten. In this connection, I think that useful things could be said not only about Nietzsche, but others like Leo Strauss, Wittgenstein and many others. Again, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Or to be more precise, today's not yet successful terrorist is tomorrow's successful founding father. Is psychoanalysis a religion, a branch of science or an episode in intellectual history? To what extent can such a question be settled by noting that some people say it is any of those things?

Where things become snarled and difficult is that followers often produce texts of their own, usually in imitation of the figure (though usually not as good). Followers are prone to describe this stuff as "scholarship," whereas others will tend to see it as "movement literature." But during a transitional phase, it may be hard to tell the two apart. For me, Leonard Peikoff's book "Objectivism" is clearly "movement litertaure." But what about David Kelley's "The Logical Structure of Objectivism"--viewed one way, it looks like movement literature, viewed another way, like scholarship. I suspect that this is typical of the life cycle of literature on a topic that moves from "cult" like status to respectability; again, I see a parallel in the Nietzsche literature: sophistication increases, volatility decreases, but both gradually and over time. Interestingly, both Peikoff and Kelley have PhD's and have taught at colleges, but ended up running private movement organizations. But there seems a trend from the very movement-esque to less so to respectable, if you will, from the Ayn Rand Institute to The Objectivist Center to the Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association and the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. The temporal sequence and what it means is illustrated by the fact that ARI people seem to be not very happy with the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and vice versa; TOC is somewhere in between.

What I would urge on those who work on this and related articles is to keep clear on the diffierences between (1) author, (2) thought, (3) movement, (4) reputation, (5) merit. I do not think that "cult" is a legitimate neutral descriptive term for anything; "movement" is better. But of course, factual accuracy requires that one note that a movement is in fact described by some as a cult and why. But let's keep our own value judgments to one side. Personally, I can't stand movements, but that's just me. Then again, on some days, I can't stand academia either! Perhaps others can decide in light of this whether the articles should be joined or separated. Objectivism-the-system-of-thought and Objectivism-the-movement are clearly not the same thing; nor can they be fully distinguished, since arguably the former creates and is a part of the latter, the latter propagates the former, etc. But the former can be discussed separately too, should one so choose.

Last point: I don't know if anyone was still wedded to the use of "Randism" as an expression, but I think it should be avoided for no other reason than that it is so very rare (check the comparative number of google hits between this and "Objectivism"). I have almost never heard it used. I *have* heard "Randian" used frequently (for ideas and people), and, much more rarely, Randianism. But Randism, Randist and Randite are rare to the point of sounding weird.--Agent Cooper 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intelligent commentary.

I agree that "cult" is not a politically neutral term. In fact, one humorous definition states that a cult is a religion without an army. However, even though the cult accusation has a political flavoring, that doesn't make it contentless.

You pointed out that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Indeed. I would define a terrorist as a hostile freedom fighter and a freedom fighter as a friendly terrorist, where "hostile" and "friendly" refer to their alligiance, not demeanor. Having said that, whether you call someone a terrorist or freedom fighter, you still convey the fact that they use unconventional military force against their political enemies.

In the same way, whether you endorse an organization as an all-embracing way of life or deride it as a cult, you are saying that this is not some mere club that people join, but rather a huge, life-changing commitment they make. To join a cult-like movement, you have to drink the Kool-Aid, whether metaphorically or literally. In fact, the defining characteristic of alleged cults is how much they ask of you in return for membership.

A typical church might require that you to sit through a dull weekly sermon, perhaps volunteer for the raffle and fill the collection plate to pay the minister's modest salary. A cult would move you to its compound in the woods, change your name, take all your wordly goods and have you work on their soy bean farm or sell their flowers in the airport. Granted, it's a matter of degree, with some organizations sitting in an ambiguous position.

The most important thing a cult-like movement requires you to sacrifice for the cause is your autonomy, often putting you under strict authoritarian control and showing no tolerance for healthy disagreement. In other words, there is a right way and a wrong way, and if you deviate from former, it's the highway for you.

Given all this, I can see how some aspects of the Objectivist movement might be seen as cult-like, and how this description compactly carries useful information that is otherwise not easily conveyed. For this reason, I disagree with you about the usefullness of the cult label. Sure, Objectivists don't shave their heads and move to Jonestown, but there are some pretty creepy aspects that should not be overlooked. Al 01:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-withstanding the fascinating insights expressed above (and I say that without sarcasm), I would remind editors that out job here is to report what reliable sources have to say on the subject, and neither our assessment of these reports, or what we believe or think about it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, please elucidate me on the creepy aspects inherent in the philosophy of Objectivism (not the movement). I'd like to point out that philosophically, Objectivism holds sacrafice to be the worst vice in ethics I quote Atlas Shrugged:

I hold by my life and love to never live for the sake of another man, nor allow another to live for mine

Agent Cooper Randist is a degroatory term to refer to the students (mainly new ones) that worship Rand. This is not a part of the philosophy and most of these students grow out of it sooner rather then later. The proper term is Objectivism (with a capital O) to denote the philosphy developed by Ayn Rand. objectivism (with a little o) refers to the idea of an objective reality independent of our conciousness. I agree that cult in addition to not being approprate to an ideology (go read cult if you're confused) is decidedly negative in conotation, and requires consensus among netural sources (not just critics of Objectivism) before being applied. Not to state that the comments by critics should be discounted in Objectivist Movement (the proper place for this discussion anyhow) but the catagory should be applied with care. Crazynas 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "Randist" is derogatory, just less preferred. For genuine derogation, try "Randroid". The problem is that the preferred adjective, "Randian", makes for a terrible noun, while "Randist" works well for both the noun and adjective roles. Moreover, "Randist" fits well with labeling her philosophy/movement as "Randism". Very consistent and clear.

Of course, it doesn't go over well with those who are thus labeled. Rand explicitly chose "Objectivism" and rejected any label that included her name. Likewise, followers of Rand generally prefer to be called "students of Objectivism", which makes them sound academic as opposed to sycophantic or cultish. Then again, "Trekkies" have historically insisted on being called "Trekkers", and look where that's gotten them.

As the Trekkies show us, there are limits to the extent that we can honor any individual's or group's naming requests, particularly when the selected names seem biased. For example, if Randists are "Objectivists", doesn't that make the rest of us subjectivists in comparison?

Now, to breifly and incompletely answer your question about the creepy aspects inherent in Objectivism:

1. According to Rand, Objectivism is strictly defined so as to explicitly exclude all variations or innovations, forming a closed system. As a result, compromise has been ruled out (the ARI does not cooperate with Libertarians), and there's been a history of excommunications and succession battles over the one true version of Objectivism.
2. Objectivism claims that knowledge entails certainty, so we can be certain even about morality and aesthetics. This means that disagreement (even on controversial ethical questions or matters of taste) constitutes willful evasion of reality and is itself immoral, as shown by Rand's declarations.
3. Self-sacrifice in the name of one's family is considered immoral, thus encouraging loyalty to the group above family or former friends. This is shown by the practice of limiting association to other Objectivists, such as Branden having an Objectivist for an accountant, or the case of the gay Objectivist who went to an Objectivist psychiatrist and was given conversion therapy (as per Rand's homophobia).
4. The literature of Objectivism offers a brand of millenialism in which the good people will be spirited away to the utopia of Galt's Gulch while the rest of us will be left behind to rot. This black-and-white distinction between the pure and the impure (looters, etc.) sets up the conditions for ostracism and a double standard for honesty (such as Rand's deception regarding the reasons for Branden's excommunication).

I could go on, and you could debate this endlessly, but I believe I've made my point. Al 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To reply to your points:

1. The first part of that is true, however the relevance of the politics of ARI TOC etc. etc. do not apply to the philosophy aspect, they certainly apply to the movement aspect, but that's not what this article is about.
2. Again, that's true objective ethics political theory and aesthetics are centeral principles to Objectivism. However, the specific application of politics is left to the philosophy of law, and the specific application of aesthetic questions is left to art. Disagreement is not immoral, Rand never claimed that humans were perfect and so argument about specific applications of ethics, politics and indeed epistomology are perfectally allowed. The willful evasion of reality comes when presented with a rational logical argument, the other party continues to argue based of feeling not logic and reality.
3. Self-sacrifice is immoral. period. In the name of the group, the country, the proletariat, the family or any other individual. However that does not exclude the possibility that in one's hiarcharcy of values the prospect of living without someone is worse then one's own death, however in that case it is not sacrifice because one is doing what is in one's own rational self-interest. I consider myself an Objectivist however I have yet to meet anyone who is also an Objectivist (in real life). Again, you're confusing certain movements in the 1960's and 70's with the philosophy (which has no restrictions on association).
4. I think you're confusing fact with fiction. Atlas Shrugged is a novel there is no movement (that I know of) to spirit away the men and women of ability to a secret location (pretty much impossible with spy satellites). Again, Rand's deception has nothing to do with the philosophy (of metaphysics, epistomolgy, ethics, politics and aesthetics).

The prefered noun is Objectivist everywhere but Wikipedia (mainly due to LGagnon). Crazynas ^t 20:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1) The closd-system mandate helps make Objectivism such a perfect incubator for cultism. The actual history confirms this.

2) Infallibilism combined with a naive form of ethical realism likewise increases the cultishness. Once again, history confirms this.

3) Rand rejects the idea that we have obligations to our family or country just because of what they are. This frees her followers to put her ideology above these things, as history has shown.

4) The Bible includes millenialism, in which the good people are literally spirited away and the bad are left behind. Does that mean that there are Christian groups planning to implement this separation of wheat and chaff? Clearly, this cannot be a requirement.

5) The problem with "Objectivist" is that it sounds just like "objectivist", and the world is full of the latter. Al 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before but perhaps statistics will help: the question of cultishness and the question of nomenclature should be kept separate. Google reveals the following scores. The score for Objectivism and Objectivist may be on the high side, since I can think of no way to run a search that will eliminate non-Randian uses, but that said google hits as clue to proper (dominant) usage:

Objectivism (minus poetry, poets): 1,200,000 [probably some non-Randian philosophical usage gets through] Objectivist (minus poetry, poets): 1,060,000 [probably some non-Randian philosophical usage gets through] Randian: 134,000 Randroid: 19,800 Randite (minus mineral): 691 [still high, some mineralogical hits] Randism: 673 Randist (minus gsl): 526 [still high, some computer science hits] Randianism: 457 Randianist: 7

I conclude that as a matter of *usage* that "Objectivism," "Objectivist," "Randian" and "Randroid" are acceptable; the others are idiosyncratic/neologistic. As for how they are used, the former appear to be for the self-identifying, the third appears to be neutral, and the last is derogatory. I see no need for these below 1000 hits expressions, since one can just as easily say "Randian Movement" "Ayn Rand Movement" or "Ayn Rand Cult."--Agent Cooper 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'd asked me about it before you went off to Google this, I would have told you not to bother. Google is good for a lot of things, but it's not much good for determining the frequency of words that are often spoken but more rarely written down. Consider that, in casual conversation, I would generally say "Randist", but I formalize it to "Objectivist" when I write. Because "Objectivist"'s capitalization is visible on paper, it is less problematic in that medium than when spoken. Al 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe. But on Usenet, not exactly the bastion of formality, the same pattern occurs: less than 500 for "Randist" and over 120,000 for "Objectivist." The first time I ever heard the expression was here. --Agent Cooper 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's as much formality as clarity. Verbally, "Objectivist" remains ambiguous, hence the tendency towards "Randist". On screen or paper, however informally, the ambiguity is gone. Al 02:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I still beg to differ: "Randist" is an overwhelmingly used as an expression in computer science. Alone, you get 14,600 hits; if you delete "GSL" the number drops to a little over 500, some of which are still computer science uses. You can't *use* "Randist" to disambiguate; you'll have to disambiguate "Randist" itself. Anyone else want to weigh in here?--Agent Cooper 20:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in online searches, you'll turn up a lot of mentions of a program called randist, which generates random disttributions. In conversation, the computer term is much less common and entirely limited to a distinct context, so there's no confusion. The term is not preferred, and some even ascribe negative connotations (in that it emphasizes Rand at the expense of her ideology), but it is quite legitimate. Consider: http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/randism.html Al 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For the philosophy, "Randian" or "Randian philosophy" is much more appropriate, along the lines of "Kantian" and "Lockean", rather than implying the sort of formation used for "racist", etc. That source, http://www.objectivethought.com/objectivism/randism.html , states Randism as referring to the "cult-like worship" of Ayn Rand as "inerrant", not the philosophy. —Centrx→talk • 20:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the standard written adjective is definitely "Randian". However, I don't think "Randist" is akin to "racist", any more than "Objectivist" is. Rather, in all three cases, the "ist" comes from "ism".

As I mentioned, some ascribe negative connotations to Randist because it substitutes "Rand" for "Objectiv(e)", which may be seen as emphasizing the person over the ideology. However, there are also uses that appear to be entirely neutral, particularly in the case of verbal as opposed to written examples.

In any case, even if we were to decide that Randism always means Randian cultism, it would still deserve at least a redirect. Al 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The stuff you removed was indeed cruft. Al 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations for comparison

This edit is suspect...

Many characteristics of Objectivism are criticized as being cult-like. Additionally, comparisons have been made between it and both Scientology and LaVeyan Satanism, which have also been alleged to be cults.

....for the following reasons:

1. James Lewis makes a passing mention, citing LaVey
2. Walker is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and not named in this one
3. If there are many, then we need to find sources that descibre these many, not just a few.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is not suspect.

1) Anton LaVey has said, in as many words, that his Satanism is just Rand's Objectivism turned into a religion. The comparison, then, was made by the founder of Satanism, which would be a highly notable source.

2) There are a number of independent notable sources that consider Objectivism to be a cult. Each points out characteristics that are cult-like, and these lists do not overlap entirely. Therefore, there are indeed many characteristics that are criticized as cult-like. If you'd like, we can list a few more here.

3) If Walker needs to be mentioned again, that's fine.

In short, this edit is entirely acceptible, with perhaps some need for clearer citations. Any attempt to remove it will constitute censorship and will be treated as such. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to "thank" me in each post of yours. Add the citations, attribute them and then these will stay. No problems. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Unless there are any specific objections I will proceed with merging in a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging what? —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See the merger notices. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So you are going to do both merges? Both were added both today and yesterday, so don't merge them too soon. What are the reasons for merging? —Centrx→talk • 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jossi's edit

Jossie, Objectivism has in fact been compared with both Satanism and Scientology. LaVey himself admitted that Satanism is a religion he made out of Objecticism, and the Walker book makes the Scientology comparison. In short, your edit comment conflicts with the facts. Is there some reason we shouldn't revert your edit as an error? Al 05:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. "Has been compared" requires we specify by whom it was compared and in which terms. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, we do specify. We quote LaVey and attribute the quote to him, showing that he himself compares his alleged cult to Objectivism, admitting that the latter is the source of the former. As for Scientology, we mention Walker. What part is unclear to you? Al 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in addition, "describes that his" is not grammatical. Al 05:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will correct. as per citation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As per citation: "Despite the fact that LaVey described his religion as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" (cited in Ellis, p. 180), only a handful of respondents were more than passingly familiar with Rand."

I don't see how this addresses the fact that Objectivism has been compared to Satanism and Scientology. You still haven't restored that text, and I'm not sure why. Al 05:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Has been compared" is not an NPOV sentence. You need to say by whom and in which context. That is what I have edited, using the citations provided, the one by Walker and the one by LaVey. Feel free to improve the wording in so you wish, but please avoid editorializing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In isolation, it might not be neutral because of the lack of attribution. In a paragraph that contains attribution, it is perfectly neutral. Ignoring context distorts meaning, and is therefore an error. I will take your suggestion and repair the text. Al 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I did not know much about Ayn Rand and Objectivism before I was asked to take a look based on a comment made on the WP:NPOV talk page. Now, when I read "It has also been compared with other organizations that have been considered cults" I find that to be misleading, as the sources provided for that assertion is only one, the one made by Walker, Rand's main critic as it pertains to the comparison with "cult", LaVey's comment is LaVey's POV. So saying "It has been compared" without saying by whom, is not acceptable as per NPOV.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your interpretation of WP:NPOV, and the sole effect of your change has been to lower the quality of the article by making it harder to understand. This is not a positive contribution. Al 16:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree although it looks like it's an easy rewrite. See WP:AWW. I'd suggest something like: According to LaVey (add other names here) Objectivism is a cult. Antonrojo 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are a few issues here. First, the cult accusations against Satanism and Scientology are largely out of scope for this article, which is why there are currently no citations for them. Perhaps this is a problem. If so, we can solve it by borrowing a few cites from the articles for these beliefs. Second, the fact that these two beliefs have been considered cults is mentioned for context, to explain why comparisons between them and Objectivism are relevant to the issue of Objectivism perhaps being a cult. In this way, the removed sentence is intended as an explanatory bridge rather than empty weaseling. Third, LaVey's quote ties Satanism to Objectivism strongly, but does not address the issue of whether one or both are cults. Based on this, what would you suggest? Al 17:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL. The comparisons between this and a cult need to be attributed, otherwise it is original research. What I mean is that unless there is a reliable source that we can cite in which such comparison is made, we cannot include that "bridge" text. Currently, the only citation is from Walker, and that is what the text reads. Lavey does not compare it with a cult, as his POV is that Satanism is a religion, as per the cite provided. In summary: we do not engage in original research, we only report what reputable/reliable sources say about this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, although it would be more valuable if it addressed my points instead of simply repeating your earlier claims. I think I'll wait for Antonrojo's input now. Al 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably get a chance to give this the attention this deserves in 5 to 6 hours. Antonrojo 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the root of the question is how 'cult' is defined. Since this is wikipedia I guess that Cult is the relevant source

"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.

In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons."

I think a lot of the debate about whether a group is 'really' a cult can be avoided by simply renaming the category to 'Alleged Cults' (where these 'cult allegations' follow the rules of wikipedia evidence, consensus and the like). I made a proposal to that effect at Category_talk:Cults and here and comments are welcome.

As to whether Objectivism (or Randism) qualify according to these standards...I think that that would require building consensus around whether the authors making the allegations are worthy of note and relatively unbiased (e.g. I'd think a respected academic with a formal definition of 'cult' would qualify and members of other 'potential cults' are suspect). As written the 'Cult Section' does avoid WP:WEASEL in my opinion. Antonrojo 01:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As it turns out, this is not a solution. There was an Alleged Cult category but it was deleted, and that's a good thing. All categories are alleged. The highest criterion for inclusion is not truth but verifiability. The existence of verifiable cult accusations by notable proponents is sufficient basis to include an organization or movement in the cult category, regardless of whether it's true. That's because we're not equipped to determine truth on Wikipedia, and it's not our job to. Rather, we report what's already been said. Al 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What about when there are sources that assert that a thing is not a cult, and more reliable sources at that? We can't have a category "Not cults", so by your same reasoning we would have to take off the Cult category? —Centrx→talk • 02:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

More reliable how? Rothbard called Rand a cult leader but Rand denied it. Is Rand more reliable on the matter of whether she's a cult leader, or is Rothbard? I don't see how we can judge this or why we should even try. Just note the allegations and move on. Al 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking specifically about this article. —Centrx→talk • 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus is correct on one count: that in WP we report what has been said by reliable soures, and that is why cult allegations are included in this article. What is being discussed, here and elsewere, is not this, but the inclusion of a person on a category "cult leader" as a subterfuge to bypass the policy of WP:NPOV as it pertains to undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Claims of "subterfuge" are a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You would do well to refactor your accusations before you get blocked for them. Al 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a better term would be 'miscatagorization'. I think the main problem with labeling an organization a cult is that the allegation is difficult to disprove unless a particular academic definition of the term is used or well defined principles for inclusion developed via consensus. For example, the list List of groups referred to as cults is a step in the right direction because they codify the definition somewhat. Without this sort of definition, the list risks become a 'kitchen sink category' and I agree that as a rule that allegations that an organization is a cult do not a cult make.

In part because the term 'cult' is more perjorative than descriptive in common usage the label 'cult leader' is difficult to disprove (compare with a category like 'leaders of religious organizations'). Webster's dictionary is little help either: the most applicable definition is 'a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious' which is classic WP:AWW material and in practice a group becomes 'not a cult' when it becomes big enough or old enough or the organization's PR efforts succeed. Antonrojo 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive removal

I just reverted a massive removal of text that's critical of Objectivism. Such changes are too major to be done without advance notice and discussion. Al 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave you notice, over a week ago, you nominated my notice to AfD, it passed, I am carring out the consensus made here and at AfD. Crazynas 18:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AGF, I'm not going to revert you until you respond. Crazynas 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a merge request pending, though you removed that, too. Also, you did not specify where the text will be found, nor link to it. Al 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you'd get my reference to AfD Responses to Objectivism is I think what you're looking for. On question, do you happen to read edit summaries, cause they really do explain things. Crazynas 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. When text is moved to a fork, a link to the new location is left behind, along with a summary of the moved material. Al 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is found in section "Responses to Objectivist philosophy", which is also present in his revision [1]. —Centrx→talk • 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to move stuff out, we still need to leave behind a stub that summarizes the content and points to where the main body of it is found. Al 20:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that everything I removed was criticism of Ayn Rand, NOT critiscism of the philosophy. Since this section was copied from the Ayn Rand article it's not supprising that a lot of it isn't appliciable. I'd also like to point out that the top of the section has a notice:

Main article: Responses to Objectivism

Crazynas 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much room for distinction. For example, if Rand misunderstood Kant then Objectivism's rejection of (Rand's conception of) Kantian ethics is in error. More so than in most cases, the philosophy and philosopher are linked.

I did notice the "Main article" link but I'm not sure that all of the text being removed is in that article, nor am I satisifed that a single link of this sort is appropriate. For example, we may need to have a summary paragraph for each major section, linking separately. Al 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But you do agree the the responses need to be limited to the philosophy, and the philosopher (Rand) on her philosophical views. So that for example the academic responses to Rand (not the philosophy). Part of the problem, I think is that since this section was copied from Ayn Rand it's focusing on her, not the philosophy, I think some of the sources and information can be used both ways, but it needs to be reworded to discuss the philosophy, not the philosopher. Crazynas 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't, actually. As I said above, there's not much room for distinction, so it would be best to err on the side of inclusion, so as to avoid POV. Al 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:TPA is of an appropriate length this article is going to be long, because they're so much to it, but since this is the largest section by far, it needs trimming down (remember my reason for forking it in the first place). Crazynas ^t 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See above regarding how to fork properly, leaving summaries behind. Al 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What I removed did not belong in an article about the philosophy of Objectivism (although it certainly applies to Ayn Rand, and Objectivist Movement) therefore, I felt no need to leave summaries as what is discussed in those sections dosn't apply. Crazynas ^t 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. First, you say that the purpose of breaking out all this content is to keep the main article small. But instead of neutrally moving it to the fork, you're filtering stuff out on the basis of your own whims. You need to pick a story and stick to it, or reverts will dog you all the way. Al 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How can one (anyone) change an article without making judgements on what they think should and shouldn't???? When I edit this article, I include everything that has to do with philosophy weather positive or negative, as long as it's sourced. The first sentence of the article:

Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand that encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Criticism of Ayn Rand’s reading of the history of philosophy is not a discussion about the philosophy, it's a discussion about Ayn Rand, and ergo does not belong in the article. Ayn Rand's views on academa are not relevant to the discussion of her philosophy. Even the cult accusations don't belong in this article because that is again, about the movement of Objectivism (in the 60's and 70's)(not the philosophy) and Ayn Rand. Removing irelevant information from this article will have the side effect of making the article smaller, summarizing the responses will make it balanced and will over all help make the WP:TPA. Crazynas ^t 23:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If Ayn Rand's views are not relevant to the substance of objectivism, then why is Ayn Rand's designation of Leonard Peikoff as her intellectual heir relevant to the factual statement that there are competing interpretations? I would find this less objectionable if someone would contribute some text about the content of the interpretations. As it is, there is a POV problem here, since the point of the edit is to make sure that one of the three interpretations is displayed as the "authorized" one. But it seems to me that that is also inconsistent with opposition to the cult label, etc. There is no controversy over the claim that the best source of information about Objectivism is Rand's texts, and her interpretations of other philosophers is relevant. If a philosopher says in their professional capacity "I am not a Kantian," the best source of information about what their positive view is is to see what they think "I am a Kantian" would mean so we know what they are denying. If we're talking about a church, of course, then competing claims to the papacy are relevant to a description of the church. Which is it?--Agent Cooper 02:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Weaseling

Consider these two versions:

1) This recent academic interest is due in part to the actions of the Ayn Rand Institute, which has spent more than $5M on educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs.

2) This recent academic interest may be due in part to the actions of the Ayn Rand Institute, which has spent more than $5M on educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs.

(In both case, emphasis was added to show the difference.)

The former already says "in part", admitting that only some of the interest is due to the cash being thrown in this direction. The latter weasels with original research, implicitly denying that spending $5M has any effect at all. For this reason, I suggest that we return to the former version. Does anyone disagree? Al 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I do. Unless you have a citation from a reliable source that asserts that, we can only same "may be". Even better, would be to remove that sentence all together, or re-write it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is required at all times. Al 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Exaclty. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Common sense dictates that $5M is going to have some effect, however small. The burden is then shifted to the opposing view. Al 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The money does not appear to be going toward university programs. I don't see how investing in high school programs in the last few years would certainly cause some 50-year old professor to all of a sudden become interested in it. Saying "is" means that there is more than an assumption, and all we have here is a "common sense" assumption—not a direct inference. —Centrx→talk • 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The article says the money is going to "educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs". Giving scholarships to Objectivists and supporting Objectivist clubs is necessarily going to increase interest among the students, as well as the perception of legitimacy. So, yes, it's common sense that it's responsible for some of the academic interest. Al 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not an issue of common sense, but of original research. Unless there is a reliable source that describes the effect of that sum of money, any assertion other than "may be", is nothing but speculation. The whole sentence needs to go as it seems to be an un attributed opinion. I would leave it at "educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs", and let the reader reach their own conclusions ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some unoriginal research for you: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=support_freebooks_pr Al 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this does not fit Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Even so, it does not assert that the donations are propelling academic interest beyond high school. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The ARI is not a reliable source!? Huh? As for college, I could swear they admitted their students solely from among the ranks of high school graduates. You seem to be doing original anti-research, obfuscating this matter with notions whose origin I cannot fanthom. Al 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Excelent find. The you can add this: "The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has offered free copies of Anthem and The Fountainhead to teachers all across North America," and avoid making conclusions on behalf of readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the literary interests of high school students do impact on course offerings in colleges, high school itself counts as academic. Therefore, this reference directly supports the notion that renewed academic interest has been influenced by the infusion of money from the ARI. As a result, I've kept the original sentence and followed it up with your recommended one (slightly changed to avoid repetition). Thanks. Al 23:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is your conclusion. Unless there is a reliable source that reports that influence, we need to stick to stating the facts. Let the reader connect the dots. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is required at all times. Al 02:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why I edited that passage to include only facts and not speculation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any strong views here, but my legalistic mind (I have a JD as well as a PhD) is a little leery of "is...in part" because that is asserting a known positive causal claim, and in lawland, that, in conjunction with other factors, imputes liability. "You are the cause, in part, of my cancer: therefore you must give me dollars proportional to the part you played." I think it is too strong a claim even if qualified by "in part" and even if we allow for the role of "common sense" (i.e., where there's smoke there's fire inference) and leave open how big the part is. Compare: "Homosexuality may be in part due to mental illness," (OK, some have said as much and who knows, it's possible) and "Homosexuality *is* in part due to mental illness" where the latter is backed by "well it stands to reason that *some* role must be played by mental illness, right?" Bleah. The fact is that by what I take Wiki standards to be, we have no idea what effect the money has. Obviously the reason why this is an issue being flagged at all is that one camp wants to say "Oism is respectable: academic interest is on the rise" (which, personally, I can tell you is far from true) and the other wants to say "Oism is not respectable, and the academic interest can be explained away as the product of inducement" (which personally I can tell you is also far from true). Speaking as an academic myself, if this is at all useful, my impression is (1) Oism is still scarcely respectable at all (which leave open the question of whether it should be), (2) ARI and others throw money around to no effect, and (3) the marginal increase in respectability [that is, the legitimacy of talking about it at all] is largely due to (a) Tara Smith's stealth tenure at UT [concealing her interest in Oism until tenure and then springing it on them afterwards] and (b) the influence of Chris Sciabarra's revisionist history comparing Rand to Marxism in his book for Penn State Press and his editing of the nonpartisan Journal for Ayn Rand Studies, both of which are reviled by ARI. All the other figures that I'm aware of may be important from the perspective of the history of the Objectivist movement, but quite marginal within academia (though George Reisman is a funny case that raises interesting questions though--like Smith he has a certain stature, but it's a funny kind, theat gets us into the conflicting interests and agendas of economics departments versus biz schools). Did ARI give Tara Smith any kind of support before making tenure? That may be but if you want to go there, we need *facts*; my impression is that the way this sort of thing works has more to do with emotional encouragement than with financial inducement (which takes us back to the "cult" issue). What do I know about money? Nothing exhaustive, but I do know of one case second-hand where Objectivist money (not ARI but a private donor) was thrown at a very high ranked philosophy department to create a pro-Objectivist endowed chair. They smiled, cashed the check, and used it for whatever they wanted--he got his name on the chair, but it didn't become an Objectivist chair--in short, they screwed him out of his money. So a word to the wise: anyone who hopes to influence academia by throwing money and opinions at it--well good luck to you, you'll need it. Unless you want the page to contain discussions of *this* sort, I think that the only sensible phrase here is "may be... in part" since the underlying sense of the phrase is speculation to the effect that whatever interest there is has been induced. That's speculation, and should be flagged as such. "May be" does that. But I'm also inclined that this needs to be rewritten completely, on reflection. It doesn't really capture the facts as I understand them--Agent Cooper 17:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of your comments, I'll put aside this argument over "may in part", and agree that a larger rewrite is in order so as make it accurate. In any case, I'd also like to pick up on a thread you dropped. The impression I got from my sources is that Smith was not entirely forthright about her Randism until after it was too late to do anything about it. However, Wikipedia works on verifiability, not impressions, so I'm wondering if you might have some citations that would allow us to make Smith's article a bit more complete. Al 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could help you there (well, actually, I don't--to quote Bill Cosby, "parents don't like justice; parents like quiet"), but I don't think that this claim has ever been made publicly. I was told it by a quasi-Objectivist at a top school who got it through contacts at the Ayn Rand Society/APA. I *seem* to recall that the issue in the conversation was about her first book and making sure it didn't actually get published until after she was tenured, but I may be misremembering, and in any event relying upon his accuracy. If she had published her CV online as most academics do, it would be easy to cite to it for the claim that her work did not discuss Rand until after [insert date], the year she received tenure [insert date], and then people would draw the [as it turns out, correct] inference on their own and make of it what they like. But I don't know of any online resources which get you to this result. I should say that I am of two minds about this. One cannot argue that she did not receive tenure on the merits, since whatever non-Objectivist work she did had to meet their criteria, and it's not clear to me that *liking* something but not talking about it is a fair criterion for denying someone tenure if the other criteria are met (compare, say, someone at a Catholic university who, say, really likes reading Foucault but publishes on Aquinas--should they be denied tenure if their Aquinas work is decent? What have they done wrong?). To be honest with you, the thing that really puzzles me is the Cambridge book on Rand. Now I have *some* understanding of this: the top academic presses will publish anything by anyone if they are by some objective-ish criterion reputable (rank and ranking of department), and being an associate professor at UT qualifies. I'm a little bit surprised, however, that the editor at CUP didn't quash the proposal from the getgo based on subject matter (can't speak to quality, having not read it). Once the thing was considered an acceptable topic, however, the next threshold is that it pass peer-referee experts. Here the odds really favored her, compared to, say, a journal article, because: how many experts on Objectivism are there, and what are the odds that someone would be a expert and not *want* to see a sympathetic text published? I'm not saying the process was rigged, just that it would be statistically favorable, unless they chose to use experts who weren't *specific* experts, which I'm guessing they didn't do. I've never worked for CUP, but usually the number of referees is three, sometimes less, and the author may suggest people. But getting back to your question: though I have never met Smith, I think that the "forthrightness" involved is more akin to gay closeting. People do not run around saying "BTW, I have and enjoy sex with the opposite sex" because it is presumed; closeted people simply do nothing to rebut the presumption, knowing that the presumption when applied in their own case will mislead. Usually when people behave this way, it is because they think, perhaps rightly, that they will be *misjudged* if they are perfectly clear about who they are or what their interests are. From the standpoint of an interest in understanding how the whole Objectivism in academia thing works, however, I would characterize her career as somewhat, um, *planned*, and not just by her. But I honestly don't see any way that anyone could prove that. It would take a journalist sniffing around, writing and publishing something which in turn would get cited. And I'm not sure at the end of the day that the trajectory and what went into it would turn out to be that different from more mainstream successful careers: it's not what you know, but who you know, being at the right place at the right time, etc. etc.--Agent Cooper 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

An offer of expert help

I was reading through the talk page and noticed that someone posted an offer of expert help yesterday way up in a discussion that ended almost two weeks ago and no one seemed to notice. So I left a message to that person and am copying their comment down here so we can discuss it. Crazywolf 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be an impartial mediator in this situation. I am a philosophy prof. and am more than familiar with the history and ongoing issues surrounding Rand and whether she presents a "philosophy" as such, or not. I count her novels as some of the more interesting and enjoyable I've ever read, and have read some of her other more-academic writings as well. I stumbled upon this issue as one needing an impartial "expert" and although I'm no Rand scholar, I understand/give appropriate weight to the controversy herein. I don't have time to sift through mountains of discussion, but it appears that there is a lot of name-calling. Can someone post a primer on my personal discussion page? Amicuspublilius 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that some Rand partisans may be turned off by my Catholicism. But do give me a chance first. I have no horse in the race other than getting editors off this page and onto something more productive! Amicuspublilius 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to seek his input on clarifying some of the philosophical issues. I am a young college student that decided to come here and see what the hell Neil Peart was writing his lyrics about, but the philosophical explanations seem rough and incomplete to me. The reasoning behind disregarding the is/ought question is very vague, for example. So is the reasoning behind evasion being immoral. Overall, I find the ethical and naive realism of Objectivism to conflict with my own philosophies, but surely this philosophy could be articulated better. Crazywolf 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

People tend to run into Rand in specific and libertarianism in general through pop culture avenues more than academic ones, so this isn't unusual. Libertarianism, in particular, is overrepresented in the field of science fiction.

As it happens, Rand has been criticized by academic philosophers, even sympathetic ones, precisely for her problems with Is/Ought and some of her attempts to remove the subjectivity from such subjective matters as asthetics.

I'm not the one to tell you whether the problems you have with Rand are due to the actual content of her ideology or your currently incomplete knowledge of it, however. That's something you'll need to figure out for yourself. I've come to my own conclusions. Al 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No desire to step on any toes here, but I have also offered to mediate or provide expert help. I should also clarify that my comments on the use of the term "Randist" should not be taken to mean that, having views of my own on various things, I would not be capable of impartiality as a mediator. If people decide they want to pursue this, feel free to email and I can discuss my qualifications and attitudes further. Like Amicuspublilius, I am also a professor of philosophy. Also, while it is clear that more than one expert can render expert help, I'm wondering if mediation might not be possible in the form of a small committee operating by consensus? Or would the normal course be that it be an individual?--Agent Cooper 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for each of us contributing in whatever capacity we're capable of. In this way, every person who is knowledgable about Rand-related matters -- but not particularly partisan -- can help act as a buffer.

I must warn you, though, that Rand is a polarizing topic. When I first corrected some typos on this article, I was fairly neutral towards Rand and my initial actions were, if anything, much more anti-ARI than anti-Rand. I have to admit that as I have learned more over time, I have come to like Rand less. And as I've been forced to deal with partisans such as the late but unlamented RJII, I've been pushed further into the corner opposing Rand's. This appears to be the way of things. Al 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm hip. I can be useful as long as you don't assume I'm a partisan, which I'm not. I think I have a pretty good balance here: I went through The Phase as a teenager (thirty years ago) so I have the first-hand familiarity. Then the normal detox experiences. Then academic training, exposure to the world of philosophy, the development of some competence in my area, the acquisistion of the kind of first-hand cynicism about how academic works, the kinds of political, cultural, class-based, etc. prejudices that inform it. I feel like I don't have a dog in this hunt, but that she gets a raw deal from academics because, well, there's a whole lot worse in academia that gets taken more seriously, and the difference between the way that she gets treated and the way others with varous dubious traits get treated has to do more with politics, both office and partisan, than anything else. This gives me a certain distance from the common academic condescension toward her. But I also know the "cult" phenomenon from close up and that doesn't do anything for me either. A plague on both houses! And that's why I feel I can be pretty neutral, and perhaps useful here. I favor more discussion by serious academics because I think this will defang the complaint that Objectivists have of being marginalized, and bring her down to a medium height instead of being on a pedestal by some and a pit by others. Anyway, ironically, my experience is almost the opposite of yours: knowing a lot about it and being disgusted with the negative psychosociological things, and then gradually becoming more tolerant as I found such many negative traits (though not quite the same ones) elsewhere... --Agent Cooper 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, I have begun to edit/clarify the sections dealing with the philosophy of the matter. Let me know if I get too caustic or too supportive at any point. Amicuspublilius 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Amic, can you help me out by flagging your contributions here? The article is so long now that it's difficult to find what's different. If there's an easy, mechanical way to see this, can more experienced Wikipedians explain to me how to do that?--Agent Cooper 01:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A.C., the easiest way to look at someone's contributions to a particular article is to go to the article page, select "history" from the menu bar at the top of the screen, look for the user's name on the list of edits (you may use your browser's "find on this page" function), then select the link to "contribs" to the right of that user's name. This takes you to a list of that user's contributions. Once again you can eyeball it or use your "find" function to locate that user's edits to the article you want to check. Select the "diff" link to the left of the article name and you will be shown the article as it was before and after the edit. You can get to this comparison page directly from the original "history" page as well by selecting the little circular 'radio button' next to the edit in which you are interested, also selecting the edit imediately below it, and finally selecting the "compare selected versions" button at the top or bottom of the column. By the way, thank you for your contributions to this article. Blanchette 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Cult accusations

This dispute is about whether this article should be included in Category:Cults.

If you wish, see also the lengthy discussion above. Please ask questions below, concisely. 05:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in the discussion

Note to involved editors: Let other editors comment freely, without challenging each and every one of them. We know the dispute, let's hear what they have to say. That is what an RfC is all about.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• My argument is that this violates WP:NPOV, as it makes a de facto and controvesial characterization on Objectivism based on a minority viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• The sources primarily refer to a cult of personality around Ayn Rand or specific groups of adherents to Objectivism, not that the philosophy of Objectivism is a cult. A cult is a group of people. This article is about a set of ideas. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a consistent pattern of pro-Rand and pro-cult editors doing everything they can to move cult allegations off the main page, then off into oblivion. Some, including Jossi, have edit-warred to keep the cult categories off these pages at all costs. It's gotten very ugly.

What has to be acknowledged is that there are some quite notable people, including Rothbard and Shermer, who have quite publicly and verifiably accused Objectivism of being a cult. There's a book by Walker entitled The Ayn Rand Cult, as well as a chapter dedicated to the topic in one of Shermer's books.

Given the controversial nature of such accusations, we cannot suppress them just because not everyone agrees. Suppressing a singificant minority view violates the due weight clause of WP:NPOV. Also, please remember that insertion in a category is intended to allow better navigation, not to make an absolute statement of fact. Al 05:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the cult categorization is appropriate. It's an inherently biased category, and a minority viewpoint. I've made this point elswhere but I think it bears repeating: by the same reasoning that Objectivism is a cult, then George W. Bush is a war criminal and John Kerry committed treason, since it's certainly possible to find many people who believe both of these things. LaszloWalrus 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

As I've said at Talk:Ayn Rand, I oppose the unilaterally naming of any group as a Cult, and particularly not a group that lacks a true societal consensus. I do think it's important that the cult accusation be allowed to exist somewhere, and that all the objectvism articles have link to the cult accusations. But we can't go so far as to actually proclaim its culthood to be a fact by putting it in the category. --Alecmconroy 06:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To directly address this, a category is not intended to be a statement of fact. Rather, it is an aid to navigation, so the bar has to be lowered accordingly. Al 07:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but if we're just trying to aid navigation, wouldn't a category entitled "Alleged Cults", "Cult Allegations" or some other topic do the job just as well, while not asserting any specific POVs as True?--Alecmconroy 07:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a belief system cannot, in and of itself, be a cult. However, a belief system can be more conducive to a cult forming than another, and objectivism was extremely conducive to the forming of the cult around Ayn Rand. Therefore, I believe that this article falls into a gray area, which is why the arguments over whether to put it in the cult category are so heated. And, while categories are primarily used for navigation, they also influence the reader's views, and could give them the mistaken impression that Objectivism is a religion rather than a philosophy(if a dogmatic one). The semantics also favor not putting it in the cult category.

Looking at all the arguments, I think that the best compromise is not put the cult category tag on the article, but explain explicitly that some important people believe Objectivism as a philosophy contributed to the creation of a cult. Crazywolf 07:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to elaborate on what I was talking about when I said that the categories could influence the readers in ways that aren't intended. By putting the cult tag on it, we are making sure that that is the first thing that a reader sees when they load this page. That puts the idea in their mind immediately that Objectivism is a cult, and then the rest of the article serves to adjust them away from that belief. However, this leaves the reader in a process of anchoring and adjustment, which many studies have shown causes a person to be biased towards their original anchor. So putting the cult tag would bias the reader towards thinking that Objectivism is a cult. Not putting the cult tag on the article would not do the opposite, though, as long as we mention the cult accusations early in the article. So the best option is to not put the cult tag on the article, but put a mention of it in the introduction and leave the section about cult allegations in the article. Crazywolf 18:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That is(?), the first thing seen by anyone navigating to the page through the category, which is the argued purpose of having the category at all. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't like using the expression "cult" to describe *anything*, since I think that it amounts to a way of saying "my religion is bigger, older and more acceptable than yours." (I used to drive ARI types crazy by saying that I had no problem with them, unlike some people, because I was a believer in religious tolerance!) But I do understand that the term exists and that it is used to characterize new religions with authoritarian, charismatic leaders, certain techniques of recruitment and control, etc. I don't feel completely comfortable even on this level with the attribution however, not because of the value judgment involved (that's fine--the features of the Objectivist movement being singled out by the usage are features I'm aware of and not particularly thrilled by--I know someone personally who "turned to the dark side" recently much to my dismay) but because I still don't think the sociological comparison quite works. This is pretty speculative, but my impression is that most Objectivists, even during their most fierce phase, essentially "do this to themselves" and that they don't have a whole lot of interaction with like-minded groups. They may read literature put out by ARI out of frustrated consumer demand, Rand being dead and unable to generate new product, but that's about it. By contrast, the stories about ostracism since Rand's death (essentially the non-Branden stories) all seem to pertain to people near the top, the inner circle around Peikoff. This conveys the impression that there is this army of people out there subject to coercive practices inducing comformity. It looks like this, but to me this is almost like saying that all the women who ever read Norman Mailer novels are subject to Mailerism coercion because he attacked one of his wives, also a woman. But I'm not sure where I want to go with this thought, because I can't think of a better tag than "cult" as inapposite as it seems to me. If I was informally explaining the movement's sociology to a friend, I'd probably say something like "you know how in the 60s there were these various countercultural scenes like LSD experimentation, black nationalism, antiwar activism, civil rights activism, etc.? Well, if those were what we might call "countercultural 'scenes' of the left" I'd call Objectivism a "countercultural 'scene' of the right." The point being that the phenomenon is, yes, odd, passionate, etc., but too diffuse and disorganized to be called a "cult." Would you describe LSD experimentation as "the Leary Cult"? Even if everyone who ever took LSD read one of his books? Even if, hypothetically, he was a demanding, charismatic person who frequently ostracized his close friends? If you drop acid, does your behavior now get policed by the agents of Learyism? In short, there's definitely *something* going on here, but it seems more like dysfunctional artist and close circle subject to abuse, coupled with wider circles of fandom. The problem with *that* characterization is that it is somewhat unusual to have "philosophy groupies"--and that is the feature that makes it look like a religion. I grant that, but I don't see the additional insularity and coercive mechanisms that I think of as part of the cult phenomenon. Then again, I may have too narrow a conception of what counts as a cult.

I think another part of what's bugging me is that one gets the impression that when people decide to not mess with ARI, if they interact with any other organization, it conveys the impression that they've moved from one group to another. But that doesn't tally with my experience. It seems to me that self-described Objectivists who have nothing to do with ARI don't really satisfy *any* of the criteria for being in a cult, even if there are groupings; there's no Pope of Protestantism. And I really wonder statistically just how important ARI is in the overall community. Of course they *say* they're important, but how do we know anyone is actually listening? This is a separate point--I get the impression that the features that make people want to call it a cult aren't really that important anymore. There may have been some truth to this in the early 60s, but I'm not sure that there's anything left to it but a Potemkin village based on the fact that ARI has access to royalty money, takes out newpaper ads, etc. Can there be a cult if no one listens to the ostensible leaders, if the only objects of coercive pressure is the coercive pressure the "leaders" apply to each other, while the fans largely ignore them?

Forgive the rambling and inconsistent nature of these comments. I don't know if they are helpful or not, but I thought the perspective of someone who knows something about these people without being one of them would be useful, since I get the impression that much of the debate previously has been between people who don't know the phenomena up close like Al, versus people who are biased in favor of it because they are the phenomenon. If it's a cult, I think it's a cult on death's door, and that means that the still meaningful numbers of self-described Objectivists would have to be characterized some other way...

In the end, I guess I go along with the tag, but with great reservations. It captures something but is terribly misleading. I just can't think of any *better* tag.--Agent Cooper 14:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Expert needed? (as said on front page)

I don't mean to seem like a show-off, but I believe I fit that mold (I'll sight my credentials if provoked.) What's needed? D prime 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We need someone to look at the sections on the beliefs and make sure that they are consistent with the actual philosophy of Objectivism. Also, we need someone to look at the criticsm section and make sure that what is stated in that sections actually represents what the academic world thinks. Crazywolf 01:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to have more balance of academic opinions. By balance, I do not mean we need equal amounts, but that we need the amount to reflect reality. If, for instance, most academics think Randism should not be taken seriously, then this should be represented in the article. -- LGagnon 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when does "balance" mean representing ANY viewpoint? Shouldn't the article merely state the facts? Someone's opinion on a fact is totally irrelevant. For instance, it is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun; whether any number of experts or churches agree or disagree matters not one whit. --65.45.207.50 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)MAC

The sticky situation is when we get into stating FACTS about OPINIONS. The question becomes what opinions are worthy to have facts stated about them, and just what the facts of those opinions are, and which ones should be stated. Pusher robot 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, D prime, do you mean you'll "cite" your credentials? --Christofurio 23:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone should be able to research courses on Objectivism at universities. I'm an Objectivist and I happen to think LGagnon is right that most philosphy departmentss don't take Objectivism seriously. It was something Rand recognized as well. She considered the vast majority of academics to be irrational. Of course, after reading all of the talk pages I think LGagnon is a strongly biased anti-objectivist. I say the comment can be allowed and qualified by Rand's views on this. Whether it's ignored by academics or not, doesn't reflect the accuracy of the philosophy as some would hope. Once upon a time, almost everyone beleived the world was flat, but it wasn't. Objectivists should be unafraid of such appeals to the supposed authority of academics. Ethan a dawe 13:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Ethan Dawe

What courses? Randism simply isn't taught at universities. The best reference to it you can find is "this is what philosophy isn't," occasionally mentioned by professors who need to help a few impressionable teens realize that they've been had. I'd also like to note that L Ron Hubbard considered psychiatrists to be evil, and creationists consider evolutionary biologists to be agents of the devil. "Irrational" is just Rand's version of this.

And please don't miseducate people on the old flat earth myth. Lots of educated people knew that the earth was round; it didn't take Colombus to prove it. There was scientific proof, and there were academic institutions that had the standards and scholarship to figure it out. Randism is lacking in scholarship, built on strawman arguments that defy logic and written by someone who lacked the talent to do a simple citation. Academia isn't going to accept the ideology of such a poorly educated individual any time soon, if ever. -- LGagnon 14:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon: Would you please site the arguemnts you are using to back up your quote here: Randism is lacking in scholarship, built on strawman arguments that defy logic and written by someone who lacked the talent to do a simple citation." Firstly Rand rejected the term Randism and called her philosophy Objectivism. So you're wrong on that point. In proof of that I'll cite her interview with Mike Wallace in 1959. I'd like to see you backing for the rest though. Reading your profile I can see where you anti-objectivist ideas come from. That's fine. You don' have to agree with Objectivism. If, however you are going to spend so much time editing the entries regarding Rand and Objectivism, you ought to be prepared to back up your position with logical, fact based arguments. Anyone can play the game of baseless name calling. So, kindly back your last stuff up with some substance. You'll note that I had no problem with the inclusion of the comment about academic philosophers, so obviously I'm open to reason and reality. How about you? Ethan a dawe 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Ethan Dawe

Where to start

I get the sense that all this will be settled by good outlining...

1. Objectivism
   1. A. R.'s Objectivism // strictly and only as A. R. saw it
   2. Criticism of A. R.'s Objectivism
2. A. R.'s contemporaries react to Objectivism
   1. Early Objectivism // generally not A. R.
   2. Criticism of early Objectivism
      1. Randism gets labeled as a cult
3. Current Objectivism
   1. Modern Objectivism
   2. Criticism of modern Objectivism
      1. Perception as a cult persists

...Well, something like that anyway. Then strictly placing the facts, quotes, and notable opinions in the appropriate section. The manner in that these topics and sub-topics are allowed to "slosh around" is the current problem. All the topics outlined above have things worthy of cataloging in Wikipedia. It is possible to state some else's POV using a NPOV. --Charles Gaudette 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The small lead section

I think that is is vital for the reader to be aware of the Peikoff/Kelley split right away. Without that knowledge, they have little hope of being able to follow and appreciate the rest of the fine points we ourselves seem to be having some difficulty sorting out. -- 75.24.110.126 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who would be tempted to quibble about the "the philosophy is split" vs. "the philosophy's impelementation is split": please do not waste our time. The philosophy is split. Just like any other -ism, Objectivism has changed over time. Not by much, but it has changed because our World has changed over time. I will avoid selecting any specific long-lived -ism, but we all know that these -ism's change in small ways over time as the World (or rather human civilization as a whole) changes over a period of, say, centuries. Let us all keep that in mind as we fight about the fine points of what Wikipedia's description of Objectivism should be. -- 75.24.110.126 21:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another benefit to having a tiny "lead" section with only statements that we all agree on and then a section called "Introduction" is that we have more people editing sections and few cases of peopel editing the entire article. There are few edit conflicts (I mean the technical kind when you go to hit the "save page" button) that way. No big deal. I am easy. -- 67.121.112.210 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to repeat my comment that the "aware of the Peikoff/Kelley split" passage is inappropriate for the article at least as it currently stands, as it pertains to the movement and not the substance, unless there is some discussion added which indicates what the substantive differences are. This could be an additional section between the broad substantive sections and the criticism sections. I tried to clarify the passage instead of deleting it. I now see that someone has further modified it for the sole purpose of propagandizing for the one branch of the movement over the other. I would like to hear some comments first, but I am strongly inclined to simply remove this paragraph, as it is essentially propaganda, is mislocated in the article, and if retained needs to be supplemented with some discussion of the substantive differences.--Agent Cooper 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What did Ayn Rand want?

If Ayn Rand were alive today, I cannot imagine anything more offensive to her worldview than the idea that we cannot define the Objectivism that she promulgated for Mankind without, even before we have finished the first sentence about it, making references to her ethnicity. Tell me, people: was she a babe? How would she have fared on that TV show American Idol? The color of her eyes and her bra size and whether she enjoys skiing, golfing and tennis do belong in this article (which they, thank God, are not). Neither does her ethnicity. It is well-documented in her biography. This is the Objectivism article. -- 75.24.108.134 02:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC) If she were alive today she would not like her philosophy nor her followers(terry goodkind)

Some small problems

First, I disagree with the change that says the philosophy has split into Peikoff and Kelley factions and puts this at the top of the article. First, without any indication anywhere in the article what the precise differences are between the philosophical commitments of these two groups are, this has the appearance of reporting a fact about the *movement* rather than the intellectual issues. Also this seems to me linguistically slopping: both groups claim that they are representing objectivism and that the other is mistaken. The current text suggests that there are now two philosophies, objectivism1 and objectivism2, and implicitly implies that each side would accept this characterization. That seems quite wrong to me. Each side thinks that it is correctly interpreting objectivism. So rather than saying that the philosophy has split, I think that this should read something like "there has been a split in the correct interpretation of some central tenets of objectivism." But if that is done, there *has* to be some statement as to what this disagreement is (which as I understand it has to do with moral accountability for holding opinions which can contribute to bad consequences primarily, and the issue of whether and in what sense objectivism is a closed system).

Second, citation needed issues. The statement about existentialism: this is a widely repeated anecdote, but I have found absolutely no confirmation of it. All I can find is a statement in OPAR to the effect that objectivism could have been called existentialism but... rather than Rand said that objectivism could have been called existentialism. Should we leave the citation needed open in hopes that someone will find something? Or should we change the language and go with the OPAR cite?

Also, the comment about Kant and self-sacrifice--this is very very tricky, and that's why no one has been able to produce a citation. First, a huge number of Continental philosophers in effect agree with Rand that Kant's view is motivated by masochism (if she is charitably read) (because this view is lifted from Nietzsche, who is enormously influential among Continental philosophers), so the claim that most philosophers disagree is an overgeneralization. Second, there's a significant body of literature in analytic circles that in effect agrees with this too (Bernard Williams, Phillipa Foot, the virtue ethics movement). But the very claim and counterclaim is so imprecise that it borders on meaningless. No one thinks that Kant didn't think that we should not act from self-interest. The controversial claim that Rand appears to make is that Kant claimed we should make self-sacrifice our goal (as opposed to accepting it as a side effect of some other goal, say, acting only on universalized maxims). The problem is that the controversial claim is never made by anyone except Rand (Nietzsche's claim is that this is his secret goal, not his express goal), but no analytic philosopher makes precisely this interpretive claim as far as I know either, and so it is false to say that most scholars deny this--it simply never comes up. It would be like saying "most scholars reject the claim that Kant believed that Elvis lives." This whole issue is confused and our text compounds it. The sentence has to be completely rewritten to capture these nuances.--Agent Cooper 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[A.C., I answered your question about "flagging" a user's contributions at the (current) end of the "An offer of expert help" section above. Blanchette 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)]

Thanks! Got it.--Agent Cooper 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In Objectivist movement#Factions where "Peikoff responded by claiming Kelley had violated the basic tenets of Objectivism and would therefore no longer be allowed to lecture under the auspices of the ARI or any of its affiliates." So you are right, these tenets and their differences deserve some examination. -- 75.23.155.82 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't have time to write this right now--was kinda hoping someone else would make a start.--Agent Cooper 12:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel/peacock words

Article says:

There are no Objectivist philosophers who hold a tenured position at one of the dozen or so leading American philosophy departments.

This sounds like weasel or peacock words, and very unprofessional ("or so"). Could someone put a hard number in instead of "dozen or so", and state who is ranking the philosophy departments? What does a philosophy department need to accomplish to be "leading"? Influence policy? Get citiations from other institutions? Get grants to study philosophy? MrVoluntarist 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: This absolutely has to go. There is a tenured objectivist at a number 14 ranked department; we get the "desired" result by defining "dozen or so" as 13.--Agent Cooper 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm now concerned about precision. There may be one or two more, and the basis of "ranking" would need to be made clear (I was relying on www.philosophicalgourmet.com). I'll work on this shortly. I think the only other possible candidate is James Lennox at Pittsburgh. There are a surprising number of academics interested, but my impression is that almost none of them are at "top" departments.--Agent Cooper 07:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, this isn't so much weasel words, but I don't understand the relevance:

The minority of academics that have taken the time to study her work typically conclude that many of the specific stances are demonstrably false rehashes of old errors,

Is this supposed to be different from say, Karl Marx's endorsement of the labor theory of value, or the God-knows how many demonstrably false statements of "true" philosophers in their less-known works? MrVoluntarist 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good bet that among economists, "the minority of [them] that have taken the time to study [his] work typically conclude that many of the specific stances are demonstrably false rehashes of old errors." Marx studies thrive in other disciplines. What is different in Rand's case is that there don't appear to be "other disciplines" yet which have picked her up and championed her. That's probably partly explained by taste (the lit crit crowd don't want to read her fiction, for the same reasons that Nabokov hated Dostoevski) and partly by political prejudices (how can you have an object of academic interest who was a friendly HUAC witness?). But I think that the research agenda of analytic philosophy makes her a near impossibility for the mainstream in much the same way that the research agenda of mathematical economics makes Marx impossible for the mainstream. She's not asking the right questions or using the right terminology and one scarcely knows where to begin with her. I'm not thrilled by the tone of the sentence, and will think if there is a better way of putting this, but I think it is factual at bottom--not that she necessarily deserves this (I'm going to try to be neutral here), but that she does receive it. I'm troubled by "demonstrably" and "errors" since my impression is that the errors are axiological realism (which has a healthy following), ethical egoism (which is at least a lively problem), natural rights (admittedly not a majority view among atheists) and minarchism (though Nozick defended it). I think that if someone were to take time to work through her with an analytic philosophy toolkit, the result would be that her positions are unclear and insufficiently argued for, not that they are demonstrably false--there are too many solid people with analogous, but more refined, differently argued for views. And even analytic philosophers can find something interesting in a "problematic" figure if they really really want to: witness the "analytic" literature on Nietzsche! But then we confront a kind of POV problem: are we reporting on the sociology of academia, in which case the claim is pretty accurate, or making a normative appeal to its expertise, in which case this strikes me too as problematic. Come to think of it I'm not even true that it's quite right as a sociological claim. The people who are dismissive don't in the main "take time to study her work"--rather, the reaction the sentence describes happens more in the context of dealings with undergraduate student Objectivists who are not well-equipped to present and defend their views, and that the professors generalize from this and see "Objectivism" as that sort of phenomenon. "Yeah, I've got another one in my class." My impression is that the academic minority who take time, etc. are if anything biased in her favor and are an insular group, but that too would be hard to document. BTW, for non-academics who read newspapers, there's another very very similar phenomenon in academia: Straussianism. Some swear by it and only talk to others similarly disposed, others think it hazy and pretentious, others think it a dangerous cult.--Agent Cooper 07:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this

"Academic philosophers generally consider Ayn Rand and Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention. There is only one Objectivist philosopher who holds a tenured position at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments. The minority of academics that have taken the time to study her work typically conclude that many of the specific stances are demonstrably false rehashes of old errors, and even where the belief system happens to endorse true conclusions, it does so on a fallacious basis. For example, Robert Nozick, a prominent libertarian philosopher, largely agreed with Rand on libertarian issues but did not find her argument for ethical naturalism persuasive."

There are several things wrong with it. Firstly, who determines what the "top fifteen leading American philosophy departments" are? I assume it's Leiter, and if so, then the article should say so. Secondly, many professors who do not hold tenured positions in a PHILOSOPHY department hold tenured positons in departments with great overlap in philosophy, like the teaching of sociology or ethics. Thirdly, of course only a "minority of academics" have studied her works; just as a "minority of academics" study most philosophers' works, with the possible exception of the giants of philosophy, sush as Plato and Aristotle. Fourthly, "demonstrably false rehashes of old errors" is biased, original research, and doesn't say much; pretty much every philosopher thinks that other philosophers' works are "demonstrably false rehashes of old errors." Also, Nozick and Rand did not agree on libertarian issues; Nozick was a libertarian, while Rand was not. Finally, it is true that Nozick did not find Rand's ethical arguments convincing, they are not naturalistic in the sense this paragraph implies; certainly, Nozick did not argue for a "supernatural" foundation for ethics. LaszloWalrus 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree (as you can see above) that there are several things wrong with it. I'd like to take a crack at redrafting it to make it better sourced and more neutral, rather than just eliminating it altogether. The reader needs to know the fact that Rand is not taken seriously by an awful lot of people; then one can go on to say if that is or is not unreasonable. For example, suppose that a user of wikipedia wanted to do a PhD in Objectivism, reads the article and assumes that there will be no obstacles--will we have done them a service by misrepresenting the situation? Also, some people want to rely on "expert opinion" and will want to know what it is. The purpose of the article is not to push people toward or away from Objectivism, but to bve informative. My strategy has been gradual refinement of things I found already up, not start from scratch. I don't have time to address your valid concerns right now, but will soon. Some of your comments sound right to me, others I'm not so sure about. Let me see what I can do. I can cite Leiter. This was meant to be more accurate than what went before, which was "non" in "a dozen or so" as you can see from my discussion above. I don't have any evidence for a large number of Objectivists in departments other than philosophy (I know of one, George Reisman, biz school Pepperdine). I agree that whole "minority...old errors" businesss needs to be changed as I've said above, though I think the sociological facts here are actually worse, not better, than the passage suggests. On politics, Nozick and Rand are far closer than your comment allows, and Rand's own use of the term libertarian to exclude herself is now nonstandard--in a perfectly straightforward sense, Rand was a libertarian even if she said she wasn't (by which she meant that she rejected anarcho-libertarianism, libertarianism without a philosophical foundation, libertarianism with a subjectivist philosophical foundation. But she was a libertarian--this is what the word means, regardless of how she used it). The term "ethical naturalism" is being used in a standard sense and I think the shoe fits Rand--this is a proper usage question. I thought it less misleading that "moral realism" (she is also a moral realist, but this term is even broader, and has other connotations--at issue is whether she regarded moral claims as true or false, and on the basis of what facts--someone who believes that moral claims are factual/true/etc. by virtue of facts about human nature is called an ethical naturalist and that fits her. Nothing in the passage as it stands implies that Nozick was a supernaturalist, which of course he isn't (at least in this connection, though you'd be surprised at some of the things he does say about religion in various places--but I wasn't trying to imply that). It would be helpful to call attention to problems and discuss first rather than trigger a large delete, large revert then discuss cycle.--Agent Cooper 04:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at improving the neutrality and citation problems of the responses from academia. Before we get into another revert war, I'd like some comments. I think the first sentence, which I've largely retained, is problematic, not because it isn't true, but because it is tremendously difficult to document--hence my use of a blog, albeit a blog by a sympathetic philosophy professor. The very fact that so many academics don't take her seriously is manifest by the paucity of references to her by academics, including references like "we don't take her seriously." This is the best I could come up with. I think that it is useful information that Objectivism is largely a non-academic phenomenon (for some this may be a plus!) but how do you prove that? I welcome suggestions. And to head off a possible objection before it arises, I think that non-academicness goes to content, not just sociology, in something like the same way that "Soren Kierkegaard was not a professor of philosophy" is somewhat informative about the content of his thought.--Agent Cooper 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the line that said: "Academic philosophers generally consider Ayn Rand and Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention" that was sourced from a BLOG of a college philosophy professor. Wikipedia policy (WP:Reliable_source says: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and BLOGS are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking." SourceChecker 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But the statement, despite using a bad source, is true. It is a very hard to prove statement, but it does reflect reality nonetheless. I am adding it back in. -- LGagnon 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. Either way, it's against the rules to have a statement in an article that can't be sourced. I'm going to be a citation request tag on the line, and if no one can come up with a reliable source then the line has to be deleted. A statement that can't be sourced is "original research," which is something we're not allowed to do here. SourceChecker 04:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

SourceChecker, much as I hate to include things with insufficient source or specificity (see the beginning of this thread!), it would seem that the blog falls under the exceptions. The author of the blog is writing under his real name, and he has been published. Further, since his bias (to the small extent it exists) would be in favor of Rand, he's not unfairly biased for purposes of showing negative aspects of her. Also, since the statement in the WP article is a negative, it's very difficult to find an academic source for or against. If someone's not taken seriously in academia, their work simply won't be discussed; that means someone won't say "We ignore Rand." They'll just say "..." The blog overview is imho the best we can get. MrVoluntarist 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I think that it is probably possible to find a statement that captures essentially the same sense somewhere in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, but it will take a lot of effort to dredge such a thing up. Agent Cooper 00:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)