Template:FAOL Archive 1: October 2002 to August 2004
Archive 2: August 2004 to June 2005
Archive 3: July 2005 to February 2006
Archive 4: February 2006 to March 2006
Archive 5: March 2006

I cut down this section, pasted this text here - IMO it is just a list of some pretty subjective opinions about which characters are strong/weak, etc. I think the point works better as a summary rather than an exhaustive list, but I may have been overzealous in cutting Kaisershatner 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :"Defenders of Rand point that the sympathetic characters Eddie Willers and Cherryl Taggart are neither especially gifted nor intelligent; Leo Kovalensky suffers enormously due to his inability to cope with the brutality and banality of communism; Andrei Taganov dies after realizing his philosophical errors; Dominique Francon is initially bitterly unhappy because she believes evil is powerful; Hank Rearden is torn by inner emotional conflict brought on by a philosophical contradiction; and Dagny Taggart thinks that she alone is capable of saving the world. Two of her main protagonists, Howard Roark and John Galt, did not begin life wealthy. Though Rand believed that, under capitalism, valuable contributions will routinely be rewarded by wealth, she certainly did not think that wealth made a person virtuous. In fact, she presents many vicious bureaucrats and waspish elitists who use statism to accumulate money and power. Moreover, Hank Rearden is exploited because of his social naïveté. As for the purportedly weak and pathetic villains, Rand's defenders point out that Ellsworth Toohey is represented as being a great strategist and communicator from an early age, and Dr. Robert Stadler is a brilliant scientist."[reply]

Anyone else think this is ready for WP:PR followed by a "real" run at WP:FA? Kaisershatner 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite.

• Somebody with a copy of The Passion of Ayn Rand has to make the requested citation (Shirmer lists some page numbers).
• The "cult" section is well-cited, but needs POV balance. Perhaps from the Peikoff essay on "closed" philosophy?

Have a big atta-boy for all your work on this article.--TJ 13:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; it has been fun so far to look into this stuff. I found the Branden citation in the Shermer ref. I added some quotations from the Peikoff essay, will keep looking to see if there's a more direct response to the charges of cultism. Are there other things before Peer Review? Kaisershatner 16:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting for Peer Review. I think we'd benefit from a broader range of commenters. Kaisershatner 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated the economic criticism of The Fountainhead for four reasons:

1) If it belongs at all, it belongs in the article on The Fountainhead, not in an article on general literary criticism of Rand.

2) Of all of the attacks on Rand's literary worth (of which one can find many), an economic criticism of The Fountainhead on the grounds that Roark is not sufficiently capitalistic is not one of the them.

3) It was highly misleading as written, claiming that he criticized the book on "objectivist grounds." Careful reading of the article indicates that its author is almost certainly a Christian, not an Objectivist.

4) Echoing the second reason, it just isn't a common critique, and is really a fringe viewpoint. I think quotations supporting more common, manistream critiques wouid be better. For example, many people argue that Rand's characters are not fully fleshed out, that they're archetypes, that they're unrealistic, that they're emotionless robots, etc. 24.94.5.94 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this before I re-placed the section in question, hence my comment in the edit summary that it was "unexplainably" removed. I have already remedied point 3 (he is indeed a Christian; I changed it to "pro-market"), but I don't think the remaining points have merit.

It is a somewhat common criticism among libertarians that in her novels, Rand failed to give much weight to the rights of the consumer where she felt broader issues were at stake: witness Roark's demolition of the building for which a client entered into a contract with him to build. This point belongs in this article because it happens in Atlas as well: witness the deaths of the train passengers, followed by the narrator's reassuring the reader that they (the passangers) had all committed grave crimes against reality.

That a figure as relatively notable as Skousen makes this point, in my view, prima facie proves its notability, and hence aptness for inclusion. The lack of other criticisms should be addressed by adding them, not by subtracting others. --zenohockey 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's out of place, as it stands. There's a section on general literary criticism of Rand, and then an entire section by Skousen discussing only The Fountainhead. If it belongs at all, it belong in the article on The Fountainhead, not here. 68.7.212.152 10:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come now. There's a lot more criticism than that of Ayn Rand. The criticism doesn't even touch on Rand's dogmatic dichotomy of collectivism and individualism as mutually exclusive concepts-- which is perhaps the most controversial aspect of her "philosophy". And although the criticisms of Objectivism by traditional minarchist Libertarians are alluded to, they are not explained. Not to mention the article repeats the myth of Ayn Rand's early hard-scrabble existence after the Bolsehvik Revolution. Could someone take the time to edit this who is not themselves an "Objectivist" or an Ayn Rand worshipper? In other words, someone who is not a teenager or pseudo-intellectual.

Nicky Scarfo

If you think the article could be improved, feel free to improve it. However, be careful to avoid OR and POV. Alienus 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think you weren't logged in properly, because it's using your IP instead of your name and you're not signing correctly, either. Alienus 22:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Could someone take the time to edit this who is not themselves an "Objectivist" or an Ayn Rand worshipper? In other words, someone who is not a teenager or pseudo-intellectual." Hey, how about this instead - you avoid personal attacks and assume good faith, and then make a positive contribution to the article? Kaisershatner 15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dichotomy between individualism and collectivism is not the most controversial aspect of her philosophy. That dichotomy is pretty easy to make and defend. What has been the most problematic is her contention that she can derive it all from "A is A". Most academic philosophers agree that "A is A" does not get you very far unless supplmented with empirical data. It is probably best to think of Rand as a "way of life" philosopher ala Jesus or Buddha or Marx rather than someone who contributed to the western philosophical tradition. Her attempt at a moral defense of capitalism instead of the weak apologias being offered at the time is probably explains her popularity and is her most enduring contribution. Those who continue in her moral defense of capitalism tend to base it on modern evolutionary understanding of human nature and classical liberal criticism of restrictions on freedom, and empirical criticism of central planning rather than attempting something a priori from "A is A". She gave the defenders of liberty a much needed bit of spine with her stirring fiction, which still endures today. Her contributions to academic philosophy have been minimal although her influence and inspiration have been great.--Silverback 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Scarfo was looking for neutral contributors, but your Objectivist apologetics rule you out. Alienus 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was just looking for someone who was not an objectivist, a teenager or a pseudo-intellectual. I qualify on the first two, I'm not sure about the third, but I am not an existentialist and that is perhaps what he meant.--Silverback 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that Nick sees a strong pro-Rand bias among the editors here. If that is indeed what he means, then I have to agree. For the most part, the only people editing articles about Rand are those who are followers or at least fellow travelers. You appear to be the latter, if not the former. Alienus 19:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, I would edit the article if I thought I could avoid POV, but I think Objectivism is such a load that it would be hard for me to avoid my own bias. So I just thought I'd point out that this article needs some editing more critical of Rand so it can be a little less biased towards her, and hopefully someone will be up for the task. Oh, that and I'm basically lazy. I'd rather bitch about the article than invest the time in "fixing" it. --Nicky Scarfo 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am a moderately frequent editor of the philosophical sections (especially criticism). Was once a bit of a Randite, now am emotionally neutral. ----Wilanthule 07:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Ack! sorry not to have signed... my former username was BenGolub (in the histories) but I decided real names were bad form.[reply]

Noted. I've never been either a fan or enemy of Rand, for what it's worth. Alienus 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote that Peikoff views refusal to engage in dialogue and complete adherence to all of Rand's views as integral to Objectivism. This is wrong at best and an attempted smear at worst. In the first place, Peikoff (and other ARI affiliates) often speak to non-Objectivist groups. Peikoff's objection to Kelley (in that context), whether right or wrong, was Kelley's speaking UNDER THE AUSPICES OF a libertarian group. Secondly, Peikoff does NOT view total agreement with Rand's views as integral to Objectivism. He (and many other prominent members of the "collective" openly disagreed with her views on music, and Peikoff disagrees with her views of homosexuality. I reworded the paragraph slightly, but it still needs work. 68.7.212.152 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you're referring to my additions in response to the "cult section is too POV" comments above; I was looking for balance. I am not an expert in this and am reading much of the secondary material for the first time, so your corrections would be welcome. Kaisershatner 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good addition; it just needed some wording changes. 24.94.5.94 06:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some cleanup is probably appropriate here (I took a first shot). A major question I have is do people think we should re-list the articles already referenced in the "Notes" section. As it stands, of the articles listed at the end, most are already linked in the text, including Turner, Rothbard, Shermer, Sharlet, and McLemee. That leaves "CSPAN", Wolf, Huben, and Hari. Of these, the first isn't an article, and the last is of dubious value in this bio article. I'm not looking to cut it because it is critical of Rand, but because it has to do with Objectivists more than Rand, and is probably better suited in that article if at all. Rand died long before the tsunami. Kaisershatner 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• C-SPAN program "American Writers" featuring RealVideo discussions of Rand's writing.
• Wolf, Chris. FAQ - What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?
• Huben, Mike. Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand) Links to criticism of Rand.
• Criticisms of Objectivism — from the Objectivism Reference Center site
• Hari, Johann. "Don't give to tsunami victims - the message of the American right's philosopher-queen" — critical column from The London Independent
• Ayn Rand Centenary Tribute "Ayn Rand 100" including "Concerto of Deliverance," inspired by Rand's description of inspiring music.

Recently an unsigned addition to the article augmented the Legacy:Philosophy section with a comment by Rand about Robert Nozick. The insert was:

Rand was in turn critical of Nozick, saying in an appearance at the Ford Hall Forum "I don't like to read this author because I don't like bad eclectics — not in architecture, and certainly not in politics and philosophy — particularly when I'm one of the pieces butchered" (Ayn Rand Answers, 75). Further, Rand maintained that she arrived at her ethical conclusions through induction, not deduction.

There are four serious problems with this "reply". The first problem is that the vast majority of it is an ad hominem attack on Nozick. Rand's somewhat nonsensical accusation about "bad eclectics" is not a substantive reply to any criticism whatsoever. (Moreover, there is no elaboration on this remark in the source -- that's all there is, so she really doesn't offer anything beyond name-calling.)

The second problem is that this "reply" is taken out of context and is not even intended as a response to the essay of Nozick that is discussed in the article. I have since looked up the reference, and Rand is talking about Anarchy, State, and Utopia, in which the essay about the Randian argument does not appear. The fact that Rand criticized some other book of Nozick's doesn't bear on this section of this article, especially since her criticism is so brief and insubstantial.

The third issue is with the sentence, "Rand maintained that she arrived at her ethical conclusions through induction, not deduction." This is not supported by the citation given, nor any other document that I could find. At present, it's unverifiable. But the main problem is this: the assertion that she defends her moral system inductively is also just plain wrong. If you read any of Rand's nonfiction books about ethics (The Virtue of Selfishness, etc.) she always argues that the concept of life is "metaphysically prior" to the concept of value, and so value should aim to preserve one's own life. This argument is seriously problematic, but putting all this aside, it's not an inductive argument no matter how you twist it. Anything that invokes metaphysics is not empirical/inductive in nature. Nobody (and certainly not Rand) has ever given any account of how to extract universal moral imperatives from observations about the world.

The final, and perhaps most important issue, is one of balance. Nozick's article is an extremely scholarly 20-page work in which he charitably and respectfully analyzes and criticizes each main point of Rand's argument, in many places trying to do a lot of her work for her so as to see whether her argument could be salvaged. Rand's response, insofar as it exists, is a glib sentence attacking the author. Citing the latter as a legitimate reply to the former grossly misrepresents the true state of the philosophical debate on this issue, which is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.

I would be grateful for any comments and would be glad to discuss this further. --Wilanthule 17:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To boil your argument down to a sound byte, you're saying that Rand's response is unscholarly and underwhelming. Perhaps so. However, to hide her response on the basis of its low quality would have the side effect of making Rand look better. Any distortion of the facts that has the effect of making her look better or worse is at risk of violating WP:NPOV. Perhaps it would be better to let Rand speak for herself on this matter, no matter how well or how poorly she does. Alienus 17:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but I think the relevance points I made still apply. If we quote a reply, it should be a reply (even a terrible one) to the essay in question, and the essay in question wasn't even written when she made this reply. (Anarchy, State, and Utopia doesn't mention Rand at any length, as far as I know.) --Wilanthule 17:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair enough. It would be nice if someone could find any direct response she might have made, but until we have it, your version is reasonable. Alienus 17:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the response to Nozick is inappropriate for the article. However, Rand DID say that she arrived at her ideas through induction, not deduction. I'm not sure how to cite things in articles, but the source for this is Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism Through Induction," lecture 1. Also, Anarchy, State, and Utopia does have a few pages discussing Rand, and cites her books (primarily The Virtue of Selfishness and Atlas Shrugged) several times. LaszloWalrus 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peikoff's exposition of Rand's ideas doesn't count as Rand's reply. Also, the source you cite is a set of audio lectures. This is less good than a written document of some kind for reasons of verifiability. Since Peikoff claims that Rand herself used induction to arrive at her ideas and said so, there must be some record of Rand saying something like this. Do you think you can find it?

A more crucial point: Nozick does not base his objections on the premise that Rand's argument is deductive. He has no preconceptions about it, and criticizes exactly what she wrote. When I said "deduce", I should have said "defend". A reply that Rand's reasoning is "inductive" is not relevant to Nozick's critique. In fact, if I remember the essay correctly, he does consider and answer the objection that values might be obtained from empirical observation.

Short version: I corrected my exposition of Nozick's argument to remove my original error, so the reply by Peikoff no longer seems relevant. I have left it pending your reply. Tell me what you think. --Wilanthule 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read Nozick in a while, so I don't remember exactly what his objection is. Here's a summary of Peikoff's lecture series, where he says that in Rand's own words she claims to reach ALL of her fundamental ideas through induction, not deduction. A page at the Kellyist Objectivist Center makes similar claims. Here are links to both relevant Ayn Rand Institute and the Objectivist Center pages. [1] and [2] LaszloWalrus 01:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but unless you can tell me how that relates to Nozick's argument, it seems the response is irrelevant anyway. What do you think? --Wilanthule 04:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If Nozick is criticizing Rand based on her alleged deduction of moral principles, then I think it should stand, as it implies that Nozick may have misread her (whether he actually did so or not is a different matter). If we make the critique more general, simply saying something like "Nozick disagreed with Rand's ethical arguments," then I don't think we have to mention induction.LaszloWalrus 06:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current critique doesn't mention deduction, so presumably you agree the response is not relevant. I will remove it, but I would welcome a sourced reply from Rand or one of her expositors responding more directly to Nozick's criticism. --Wilanthule 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Branden’s are not associates of Ayn Rand’s as specifically stated by her in "To Whom It May Concern" in The Objectivist (1968). Also, if you check her revised version of "The virtue of selfishness," and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" you will find that she states that Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with her. She clearly seperates herself from the Brandens.

An associate is someone you choose to associate yourself with. At one time she chose to associate herself with the Brandens but after realising their true character she disassociated herself with the Brandens and therefore they were no longer her associates. In a law firm, you and I are associates but when you fire me I am no longer your associate neither are you mine even if I want you to be.

Finally, the issue of tense. "Rand's associates" seems to refer to her associates up to the time before her death; or the present, should she still be alive. So, in her last days, who were her associates; those would have been people she saw on a regular basis and/or confided in. If you want to use it in the past tense, everyone she associated herself with at any point of her life, even if she disassociated later on, Alan Greenspan, Barry Goldwater, and Frank Lloyd Wright...etc should be included. In fact, there is a section for “influenced” where the Brandens can be mentioned. The only point of having an “associates” section is to boost interest for anyone listed under that category. Since the Brandens are not her associates anyone putting the Brandens in that category is only doing it to dishonestly boost interest in the Brandens; and this is done simply by allowing the Branden's name to be associated with Ayn Rand's name and reputation.

To include Barbara and Nathaniel Branden in “Rand’s Associates” is to misrepresent the reality of their relationship. Any one who is interested in Ayn Rand would be mislead by this category. The Brandens are not associates of Ayn Rand but were once associated with her. --darnoconrad 06:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand is no longer alive, and so she doesn't currently have any associates. All her associations are past. The section could, in principle, be retitled "Rand's Associates during her Lifetime", but this would be an awkward restatement of the blindingly obvious. Why we should restrict such a section to Rand's associates on the day of her death, I don't know. If you browse other biographical articles on Wikipedia, you will note that people are often listed as "associates" even if the relationship ended badly or the associate in question died before the subject of the article. Since this is widely accepted convention, I don't know why Objectivist politics should trump it.

In short, the fact that she publicly broke ties with some of her one-time associates (which is clearly and neutrally documented in the article) does not change the fact that they were, at one time, her associates. I would not object to including other former associates of Rand in this category, so if you'd like to add Greenspan, Goldwater, etc., I doubt anybody would object. Finally, if your thirst for accuracy (or overstating the obvious) is so strong, you may wish to retitle the section "Rand's Former Associates, Including Some Who Were Not Her Associates on the Day of Her Death", but this would probably meet with some opposition for other reasons.

Finally, your repetitive comments about the Brandens' "true character" casts doubt on the neutrality of your point of view on this issue. You would make your point stronger if you stuck to the facts.

For all these reasons, I am reverting the article to its previous state. --Wilanthule 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I agree with your reasoning, and support your conclusion. This looks like yet another case of ARI orthodoxy at the cost of neutrality. Alienus 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an associate is someone you choose, Ayn Rand specifically chose not to associate herself with the Brandens and therefore they were no longer her associates; and this would apply to Barry Goldwater as well (that’s why I wouldn’t add him either). I pointed out adding all the other people to show why it would be ridiculous and lose meaning; and that’s why her housekeeper, doctor, etc... should not be added. You may think that it is relevant to add the Brandens because they helped to develop her philosophy. There is no evidence of this and it’s quite unlikely; Ayn Rand points out in her works that what she has written are her thoughts alone. Why should Leonard Peikoff be under the associates section? Because he was her associate by choice. Our dispute has to deal with a different interpretation of “associate,” in order to resolve it we will have to agree on its meaning; that means finding the correct meaning. If you insist on keeping the section and keeping and adding anyone she was once associated with then I propose adding dates beside each person’s name to indicate time of association. I think that it will be an appropriate addition because it will add clarity, be less misleading, and be more useful to the readers.

Nathaniel Branden 1950-1968

Barbara Branden 1950-1968

Leonard Peikoff 19-- - end (I don’t know when they started their relationship)

The fact remains that Ayn Rand, later on in their relationship, discovered the Brandens "true character." Had she known it when she met them she would not have continued to see them. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. The Brandens did lie about themselves and mislead Ayn Rand. Therefore, during the time Ayn Rand did associate herself with the Brandens she did not know their true character (because they were lying to her and Ayn Rand did not know it.) Had they said that they were liars from the start of their relationship then she would have known their true character from the start; knowing this she most probably would not have chosen to engage in a relationship with them (but that’s just my guess). --darnoconrad 22:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting sequence of counterfactuals, but the fact remains that, for a time, they were associates. That is all that Wikipedia documents. (Note also, that neither Rand nor anybody else gets to decide ex post who is a "real" associate. The fact that the relationship was, according to you and other people, a mistake does not imply that it did not exist.) Save the catechism about the vileness of the Brandens for the Rand church. --Wilanthule 23:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat netural on this. I don't think that we should eliminate the Brandens from the associate list. Though Ayn Rand clearly did break ties with them, they were associates at one point. I don't have a problem listing associates by year however, though I don't think it's a major issue. By the way, Leonard Peikoff was associated with Rand from 1951 to 1982 (her death). LaszloWalrus 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and if the Brandens had been swallowed whole by giant iguanas in 1967, then they'd avoid Darnoconrad's criteria for exclusion. Isn't "What if?" fun! We can all play. Uh, or... we could just stick to what reliable sources say and leave the Brandens on the list. Alienus 23:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus and Wilanthule; you are both still avoiding the issue and instead trying to start some kind of personal war. The issue is that we cannot agree on what the term "associate" refers to: past, present, everyone she came into contact with, only those with whom she spoke about her philosophy with, chosen or not. If you want to solve the issue you will have to make it clear why what you are suggesting is right and I am wrong.

Associates are chosen just as friends are. If we had a "Rand's Friends" category would you add the Brandens? I would not because, even though they were at one time her friends, she deliberately ended that friendship. “Ayn Rand’s Associates” is in the present tense and since she is not alive (and a corpse can have no associates) what should we assume? If it were 1982 before her death and this bio was being written who would be listed under her associates? What does “associates” mean in the present tense? These are some questions that must be answered to resolve the dispute. If I publicly repudiated, with a proper explanation of my reasons, a lifelong friend, who I encountered with once in a while, because I found out that he was a thief and a murderer and I died the next day; who would you list under my associates? Would you list the murdering ex-friend? I would not because I am dead… pause for laughs… Seriously, I would not because I place emphasis on choice, you on the other hand would. If I were wrongfully imprisoned for 20 years and found out a few years after my imprisonment that my cell mate was a convicted murderer and I chose not to interact with him for the rest of my sentence; would you consider him my associate? Remember there were a few years of friendship and I was in the same cell as him for 20 years because of the circumstance; there had to be some level of interaction. I would not; I think that associates are a matter of choice. Adding a category of “Chosen associates” would be redundant because I am saying that the term “associates” assumes choice. The Brandens along with Goldwater could be placed under “Rand’s former associates;” this category would assume the phrase “you might be interested to know that…” --darnoconrad 01:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no abstract truth about what "associates" means for people who have died. The broad consensus among editors of this article is that it includes long-term associates like the Brandens with whom Rand later had a falling out. You might not like this, but this is clearly a personal issue for you (since you have taken such a clear stance about the Brandens being bad characters) so it doesn't seem to me like your sole voice of dissent, which is probably not wholly neutral, should trump the consensus. Best, --Wilanthule 03:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I would be much more open to Darnoconrads argument if it didn't fit so well into the pattern of ARI hostility towards the Brandens. Because it does, I have trouble accepting it at face value in good faith. However, even if play dumb and ignore this link, the argument cannot stand on its own merits. It's hardly clear that a list of associates must exclude anyone who the subject of the biographical article later had a falling out with. A long-term association is more notable than whether it lasted to the death. 05:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to include the years. Although my personal view is that "associates" clearly implies professional associates and would include associates who were later disavowed, this may not be a universal view. However, even Rand would have to agree that from 19xx to 19xx the Brandens were her associates. There's no sense in denying reality, and one can't just disappear the Brandens from history like Stalin did with that guy in the picture. Especially ironic given Rand's view of objective reality. Kaisershatner 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... But their "true character" was deeply corrupted. Maybe that means they existed only in their own corrupted little minds. :-P --Wilanthule 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added George Reisman and Robert Hessen to the associates list. Reisman was one of Rand's friends and was affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute for a while. Hessen wrote an article in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal. Any objections? LaszloWalrus 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• <! --Ayn Rand Biography --> probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me. --Wilanthule 13:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has added similar requests to link to biographies hosted on the same site to about 50 different articles. Although I believe that these requests were made in good faith, adding the links to all of the articles would be spamming. In addition, the biographies tend to be not very insightful and/or minimally informative, and the webpages contain Google AdSense links.

A fuller explanation of my own opinion on these links can be found here, if anyone wishes to read it.

Hbackman 00:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.237.222.135 has written things like this: "This nonsensical incongruence of opinions is one of many such examples of Rand's insincerity." He has also written: "Her lassiez-faire philosophy crashed upon the rocks of rational thought when it became obvious what her true philosophy was; 'I can do whatever I want, but other people's actions have consequences.'" Finally, there was this great gem of insight and wisdom: "The Ayn Rand Institute's main goal is to spread Objectivism throughout academia, particularly in humanities departments; unfortunately it also works to expose high school and college students to Ayn Rand's depressing writings and selfish ideas." I think this constitutes vandalism. Is there a way to have 68.237.222.135 blocked? LaszloWalrus 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's edits are clearly too strongly biased against Rand to fit within WP:POV. Having said that, they're anonymous and haven't made any attempt to edit-war, so I think this is a dead issue. Alienus 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating in the heading that Objectivism is a cult is by no means neutral. We should indicate in the heading that it's a controversial position; after all, no Objectivist would claim Objectivism is a cult, and even among those opposed to Objectivism, those who would brand it a cult are in the minority. LaszloWalrus 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Didn't see your comment (heading didn't relate to the point). I have changed the heading to avoid this controversy, hopefully you will be happier with the more neutral POV. --Wilanthule 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now. Thanks. LaszloWalrus 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

firstly let me say i found this article informative and relatively objective. however, i think the closing section on the cult nature of objectivism is misleading, and serves as an inappropriate closing paragraph on an otherwise positive article. as someone readily familiar with objectivist philosophies, i find the label of cult to be wholly wrong, no more than other philosophical pioneers are cult leaders, or their adherents cult members. if nothing more, perhaps it should be included that no cult characteristics exist today. thank you. Dosterschill 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that would not adhere to NPOV. Serious writers like Shermer have suggested that Objectivism did and, in some ways, still does resemble a cult. We may disagree with that, but not mentioning the criticism would bias the article. Best, --Wilanthule 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objectivists here at Wikipedia have been making your argument over and over again, deleting anything critical of Randism in a manner not unlike Scientology's followers' actions. If anything, the fact that objectivists are so rabid about their cult only gives further reason for this section to be here.

On a side note, this article and the objectivism one are getting a bit big, so I'd like to propose a new article about the cult controversy, which would help to centralize the varying cult criticisms that appear across the articles relating to it.

Also, I think a few quotes from Jeff Walker's book (already in the references section, but not cited in the article) would help. Here's a link for some quotes from it: [3] -- LGagnon 02:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]