Talk:Objectivism/Archive 7

There is no consensus

Category:Cults should be added back in. Laszlo keeps on deleting it claiming there's a consensus when we never came to any such consensus. Even Crazynas once admitted that there wasn't any. Laszlo's edits are blatantly dishonest and are borderline vandalism (if not actual vandalism). -- LGagnon 04:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's a credible source that says it's a cult? Note that there is a difference between saying that a "cult of personality" has developed around Ayn Rand and saying that Objectivism is a cult. Objectivism is just a philosophy. RJII 04:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple books cited, as well as online sources. In short, there is no question about whether there are reliable sources showiung that notable people have called Objectivism a cult. Therefore, any attempt at deleting the relevant categories will be reverted without further explanation. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any. I see something about "the Ayn Rand" cult. That's talking about a cult of personality around Rand, the person. And, I see another source cited that says the "philosophy [has] become the basis of a cult." That's not saying the philosophy itself is a cult. RJII 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because a couple of Kantphiles want Objectivism to be labeled a cult doesn't mean that it should. The Fading Light 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I never once mentioned Kant. The Randists, on the other hand, did mention Randism. Nice try at coming up with a term to "insult" me with, but it simply does not work. -- LGagnon 04:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And just because Randists want to use truthiness to write the article doesn't mean we should pretend facts aren't cited already. -- LGagnon 04:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even like Kant, but that's another matter. Oddly, both Kant and Rand are deontologists, while I'm a consequentialist. Anyhow, don't worry about the latest vandalism. We both know that there are a number of books in print on the topic of the Rand cult, so I'll wait a bit until I'm safe from 3RR violation, then restore all the deleted material with new citations. In the end, the vandals always lose. Al 05:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I think Rand said she opposed both deontology and consequentialism. I personally see her as closer to consequentialism --take that action, establish that political system, which leads to the best consequences for the self. But, supposedly, she's neither. She's an "Objectivist" which, according to Rand, is distinct from both deontological and consequentialist ethics. This is the kind of stuff we need explained in this article. I can't do it, because I haven't figured it out yet. We need some experts. RJII 06:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Altough I don't claim to be an expert when I get home (I'm on vaction now) I will work on expanding these area's from the various non-fiction I have access too. Crazynas 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm thinking about even contacting the Ayn Rand Institute to try to get some of them to work on the article. RJII 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok even I realize that is like asking the Church of Scientology to manage the wiki pages about Scientology, you just know that their work will be bias from the get-go. The Fading Light 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't let this go: Rand was most explicitly ant-deontology (and utilitarianism, for that matter). She was a virtue ethicist a la Aristotle. LaszloWalrus 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Denial of Reason - Cult of Personality

Technically, Objectivism ought to be dissociated from Ayn Rand... technically. Ayn herself explicitly intended for this to happen.

HOWEVER, her treatment of Objectivism was always as if it were her baby, and Objectivism itself contains tenets (regarding homosexuality [Ayn said it was immoral], gender tendency [Ayn liked strong men with closeted emotions, and women who, while also strong, long for a strong man they can fawn after], abortion [Ayn liked it] and others - social issues generally) that expose her desire for Objectivism to hold particular social values that are not based on reason, but on her personal viewpoints.

This exposes a form of cult of personality, where individual Objectivists uphold particular ideals, in denial of reason, merely because Ayn Rand wrote them into her books (not novels specifically). These objectivists hold values that are internally contradictory.

Ayn Rand also claimed that Objectivism can not be chopped and changed. Objectivism is a whole. Any mixed set of tenets, with some which agree with her position, and others disagreeing, can not be an Objectivism. Objectivism is a closed system.

I considered myself an Objectivist for a while until I realised that I had to swallow the whole Rand screed, and not just rely on the fundamentals of reason.

For example, Rand seems to have believed that abortion is a rational and morally correct thing to do. However, she also states that one's life, and the ownership of that life is the highest value. How can this be true? Human life is, after all, what we are referring to. But isn't a human foetus also a form of human life? A human life at a particular age - no less valid than as an infant, child, teenager, or any other stage up to being old and entirely dependant on the support of others to sustain life.

Certain Objectivists confronted with this tend to erect a strawman, attempting to refer to "Personness", commenting that a foetus is not a person. Nobody, however has been able to define "personness" in such a way that it does not also exclude groups such as the aged, infants, invalids, the comatose, or conjoined twins of any age from being considered as persons - which would of course render individuals from these groups eligible to be destroyed by their mothers at any time.

I don't know what personness is, but human life exists from conception to whole organism cellular-death - usually described these days as brain death by measuring electrical activity.

The human life that Rand referred to as being the highest value begins at conception. This is an undeniable biological fact. Ergo, that life belongs to itself - not to the mother. While it is the action of the mother that usually leads to the creation of that life, the mother does not own it, and it is not the mother's to dispose of. It is simply a biological fact that for the first few months of any human life it must reside within a womb.

Some may claim that this denies the mother's right to control her own body. However most frequently it is by her own actions that the mother becomes pregnant in the first place - abortion clinics are not populated entirely, or even substantially, by the victims of incest and/or rape, nor are they filled with women who would die without an abortion - they are populated largely by women who chose the acts that led to pregnancy.

These women do not lack the right to control their own body - they have that right and excercise it daily, including the day they concieved. What they lack is the capacity to do so. They lack the realisation of the supposed desire to control themselves according to their own values. There are plenty of women who have fulfilling sex lives for their whole reproductive life, and never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

This may seem harsh to some (not to me), but it is at worst no worse than the Objectivists who belive that women do not have the internal self-actualisation to control their own reproduction without having to destroy the same human life they claim to uphold as being of the highest, fundamental, value.

For this reason, and others, it is clear that Objectivism is a cult.

Octothorn 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR Crazynas 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was interested in what you had to say until you went on your anti-abortion tangent, a fetus is not a human being, it is a parasite dependant upon it's mother for nine months to live until it is born. The state should not be allowed to tell any woman what she can do with her own damm uterus. The Fading Light 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My comments are a whole, there is no tangent. The Objectivist position on abortion is in denial of reality, and is therefore in denial of reason - I refer to abortion only to highlight the absence of reason.

However much the Objectivist excuses are repeated... "it's not a human being" "It is a parasite" "a woman should control her uterus, not the state" these are at best excuses, not reasons. Strawmen. At worst they are a repugnant denial of reality and inexcusable disrespect for human life.

The definition of "human being" has certainly not been well established, so one can apply ad-hoc meaning to it. This is beside the point. There is a clear contradiction and I'll spell it out (emphasis for clarity):

1. Human life is created at conception. This is a biological fact.

2. Objectivism upholds human life as the highest value.

3. Ayn Rand was pro-abortion, which is merely terminology for favoring the destruction of a young human life - which is an initiation of destructive force against a human life so...

4. Objectivists are also pro-abortion.

This highlights an obvious contradiction for objectivists, and causes followers of this contradiction to be Rand-cultist against their better intentions. There are other reasons for saying so, since there are other irrational positions built into Objectivism, but this single issue stands out as being such an obvious break with reason that there can be no doubt that Objectivism is a cult due to the closed nature of the construct. Those who see the contradictions can not alter the closed philosophy of Objectivism - they must move on.

To clarify my previous logic, if a woman wants to maintain control over her uterus, then just why did she get herself pregnant? Exclusive of force, and having even a passing understanding of human reproduction - as is usually the case - it was the womans own actions and choices that led to the pregnancy. The foetus was put there by the woman, and the pregnancy involves the creation of a new human life.

I liken any complaint about control of a womb to control of anything else in life. If a person does something silly with their body, they have to take the consequences... but somehow if a woman creates a human life through being frivolous with her body, Objectivists want to help her evade that reality by contradicting their own philosophy and sanctioning the killing of a human life. - Octothorn 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The cult status of Objectivism is independent of its position on abortion. Al 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are missing the fact that Objectivism is supposed to be based on reason, yet it holds tenets that are based only on Ayn Rands opinion, and contradict reason. I used the abortion issue as an example, but I listed a few others. Clearly I don't think it is just about abortion - the abortion issue is just the one that shows the contradiction and irrationality of Objectivism most clearly. - Octothorn 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, this is the talk page for an encyclopedia article, not a chat forum, please check your opinions at the door along with your ego. The Fading Light 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk forum. The issues being discussed are relevent to the article. Check your own opinions and ego - your comment is unwarranted and off-topic. Check the first amendment of the US constitution while you are at it - not that you are capable of infringing my freedom of speech. Octothorn 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that Randism is a cult, I don't think the abortion issue is proof. We've got plenty of other pieces of proof already, such as the absolute adherance to the Word of Rand that you mentioned. -- LGagnon 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Objectivism itself contains tenets (regarding homosexuality [Ayn said it was immoral], gender tendency [Ayn liked strong men with closeted emotions, and women who, while also strong, long for a strong man they can fawn after], abortion [Ayn liked it] and others - social issues generally) that expose her desire for Objectivism to hold particular social values that are not based on reason, but on her personal viewpoints."

1) The above points you mention are not tenets of Objectivism. The tenets of Objectivism are its three axioms (Existence exists, Existence is identity, Consciousness exists) and that reason is man's only means of gaining knowledge.

2) Homosexuality - Here's Ayn Rand's full quote on homosexuality

Question (as repeated by the Ford Hall Forum moderator):

 "This question says she read somewhere that you
   consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is
   so, why?"

Ayn Rand's answer:

 "Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions,
   errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a
   psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality.
   Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe
   that the government has the right to prohibit it.  It
   is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life
   in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right,
   provided he is not forcing it on anyone.  And therefore
   the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is
   the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral,
   and more than that, if you want my really sincere
   opinion, it is disgusting."

This is statement about psychology not philosophy and thus cannot be taken as a part of Objectivism. Secondly, these remarks were made during a question-answer period which cannot be held to the same standard as written comments.

Sure, but nevertheless, to Objectivists it became part of the Objectivist creed, and they cultishly follow those remarks. Octothorn 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

3) Gender tendency - Can you justify those statements you made? Even if Ayn Rand like such characteristics in people (I don't know if she did), how does that make it a part of Objectivism?

Probably not, but I find that her opinions about this come clear through her writings, and are picked up and followed by many Objectivists in a cultish way. This would not be a problem in an open philosophy, but Objectivism is a closed pholosophy. - Octothorn 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

4)Abortion - Ayn Rand did provide reason's for her views on abortion. She made a few comments about Roe vs. Wade in her essay "Censorship:Local and Express" and made comments on abortion elsewhere as well.

Yes, and Ayn seems to consider having an abortion as no more of a philosophical conundrum than having an appendix removed. This, however, does not reflect biological, emotional or social reality. Ayn feeds her opinion on abortion into a pholosophy ostensibly based on reason - and when people swallow this poisonous closed package of contradictions "Rand says" style they become cultists. - Octothorn 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"This exposes a form of cult of personality, where individual Objectivists uphold particular ideals, in denial of reason, merely because Ayn Rand wrote them into her books (not novels specifically). These objectivists hold values that are internally contradictory."

You make accusations without proof (how do you know individual Objectivist hold ideals in denial of reason?) and then you accuse Objectivism of being a cult? Xyz90009 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How can I know? Are you serious? Look around. I already highlighted the abortion issue and you have drawn more attention to others. - Octothorn 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are ignoring LG is that Ayn Rand said this during the 70's! When most psychologist STILL thought that Homosexuality was a disease that could be treated. Also (before you bring it up) it is true that Miss Rand's view of homosexuality never changed during her life, but this is where I find myself in disagreement with Ayn Rand (hence, why I consider myself to be more of a Libertarian). But you time and time again have brought up all of the bad points of Objectivism without noting it's good points, Individualism, Support for pure Reason rather than Faith, support for the idea that living life is a good thing, and that you should strive to achieve the very best that you can in this life. Do these good points sound bad to you? The Fading Light 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it is the need to refine philosophical position that drives us both. There are many good things in the Objectivist construct, but where it is internally contradictory of it's own base values it is dangerous, and has become cultish due to the closed nature of the pholosophy since it is unable to weed out the Rand-contradictions, which - incidentally, is precisely where I started (see my first sentence). Anyhow, Libertarians are political, not philosophical, so so it seems to me that there is a whole middle bit that doesn't get addressed by Libertarians, but that's off-topic. - Octothorn 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do support many of the good ideas you point out. My problem is that Rand goes about them in very flawed, pro-right-wing ways that I disagree with. And her absolutist methods of instilling those concepts are very cult-like. To go about individualism through an absolutist belief system is to give up on individualism and become a mere shadow of another. It holds the same idea of individualism as all the teenagers who claim they're individuals because they're just like their "non-conformist" friends (which is exactly why so many people grow out of "the Ayn Rand phase"). Thus, I can't really take her views on what individualism is seriously.

And given that Randism was not meant to be changed by anyone other than Rand, the homophobic beliefs are in fact part of it, unless you stray from the original ideology into a newer form. And because this is based on pseudoscience, Randism itself could be said to be pseudoscience. -- LGagnon 19:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide supporting data for claims that her ways are flawed, pro-right-wing, and pseudoscience? Oleksandr 00:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The pseudoscience can be explained through a simple logical syllogism: 1) Randism says that homosexuality is a mental disorder 2) homosexuality as a mental disorder is now considered pseudoscience 3) thus, Randism incorporates pseudoscience.

Randism is also very similar to libertarianism, which is a right-wing ideology. People from both ideologies tend to support the Republicans, as they are the major party with the most similarities to Randism.

As for flaws, we've gone over this several times. It's an incomplete philosophy at best, a cult at worst (I favor the latter interpretation). -- LGagnon 01:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The pseudoscience can be explained through a simple logical syllogism: 1) Randism says that homosexuality is a mental disorder 2) homosexuality as a mental disorder is now considered pseudoscience 3) thus, Randism incorporates pseudoscience."

1) Following that logic would mean that because Newton's gravity operates with infinite speed which has been disproved, it would become pseudoscience. Why don't you put Newton's theory in the category of pseudoscience. Honestly, she made just ONE comment on homosexuality in a QUESTION-ANSWER session in an era when homosexuality was still considered a disease. Why are you divorcing the context of her knowledge from her statements?

2) I don't know what you mean by Randism. This is an article about Objectivism. Have you seen any gay-bashing in the article?

3) "Randism is also very similar to libertarianism, which is a right-wing ideology."

Just because Objectivism (presuming you mean Objectivism by Randism) in politics is in some points similar to Libertarianism doesn't mean it is practically the same as Libertarianism. Objectivism is a rational philosophy. Libertarianism is a faith based ideology. Even Rand hated libertarians. Do you mean to say that you know more about Ayn Rand's philosophy than Ayn Rand herself without providing any reason? You haven't said that Objectivism = Libertarianism explicity but that is what you are implying.

4) "People from both ideologies tend to support the Republicans, as they are the major party with the most similarities to Randism."

Republicans are in fundamental premises and philosophy completely opposite of Objectivism. As for support for the Republican party among Objectivists, many prominent Objectivists like Dr. Peikoff (Ayn Rand's intellectual heir) voted for Kerry.

5) As for your last point, it is you who is acting as if you belong to a cult. The cult of Rand-haters since you are making assertions without supporting them with reason.Xyz90009 03:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Xyz90009, I think that you are right but not correct and let me explain why I think this: You are right in saying that LGagnon has taken this quote out of the context of the times in which it was said (a similar case can be said of David Hume who said many things that in today’s world would have him branded a racist). But LGagnon none the less did present a reasonable case up above and if you were not aware of the story behind the quote, you would of assume that Ayn Rand was a supporter of pseudoscience. The Fading Light 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the comments he made in this section (in referring to reasonable case) or comments he made elsewhere on this page (I have been unable to read the whole discussion)?

Out of context, without knowledge of her philosophy, without any knowledge of her, this quote alone can be taken as if Ayn Rand was a supporter of pseudoscience. But just because it can be interpreted as such does not make it so. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has to document facts, not interpretations. Given the context of her knowledge, Ayn Rand was not a pseudoscientist. To claim so, regardless of context is either ignorance or dishonesty. It is not a logically and factually valid accusation. Xyz90009 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say she supported pseudoscience in general; I said she supported one concept of pseudoscience. Granted, it was a popularly held belief of her day, yet it was not without opposition. Her fellow contemporary writer, James Baldwin, was an avid gay rights writer, who she likely would have known of. And yet, for all her claims of rationality and logic, she never saw the rational and logical fact that homosexuality is not a mental illness despite seeing the beginnings of the gay rights movement in her time. She may not have been an advocate of pseudoscience, but she did hold to a belief that is pseudoscience, and it, like all her beliefs, was incorporated into her ideology (and of course, she didn't consider anyone a Randist if they didn't agree with her every word). -- LGagnon 05:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

1) Psychology was not her profession. Philosophy was. Her one statement of homosexuality does not qualify to be a part of Objectivism because it is a statement on psychology. Newton was an avid alchemist. Does that lessen the greatness and importance of his theories? Does that make his alchemist experiments and theories a part of his theory of gravity?

2) Ayn Rand never said you have to agree with her on homosexuality, art, etc. to be an Objectivist. You just had to agree with her philosophy.

3) Just because you think Ayn Rand would have known about James Baldwin does not mean that she did know. One can't form an opinion based on an unsupported belief.

4) It is NOW that homosexuality is not a mental illness seems like a rational and logical fact. It was not so in the 70s.

5) I don't know what you mean by "Randist". You are implying as if Ayn Rand knighted people with the title "Randist". She called herself and the ones who AGREED with her philosophy, OBJECTIVISTS.

This discussion is going nowhere. This is an article about Objectivism, not whether Objectivism or Ayn Rand were accused of being cultists or not. If accusations of being cultists have to be discussed about, they can be discussed in their own article with a paragraph or two in this article under the category "Criticisms of Objectivism". As for putting Objectivism under the category of cults. Cults are faith based ideologies. Either prove that Objectivism is a faith based ideology or please withdraw your demand that Objectivism should be placed in the category of cults. Please maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.Xyz90009 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about your definition of cults. You may not be aware that many of the world's countries have a faith-based legal structure. According to you there are whole countries that are cults.

In any case, the position of Objectivism as a closed philosophical structure means that there is a faith in that established structure, and furthermore I have found that there is a terrible amount of irrationality, fear and denial of inconsistencies and contradictions of Objectivism amongst Objectivists. This seems to indicate a faith-based philosophy.

Incidentally, The Mirriam-Webster dictionary has the following definition for Cult:

"great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); 
 especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually 
 small group of people characterized by such devotion"

Just from this I would say that Objectivism most certainly qualifies as a cult, though perhaps not in the terms it seems we are discussing here. - Octothorn 14:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a particular meaning of the word cult. It is a different meaning from that of strange or sinister beliefs or religious ceremonies. They are not in the same category. The OED quotations for this meaning apply books, persons, music, films, etc. A few examples: "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings..became a major publishing phenomenon when its late Sixties Ballantine paperback edition attained campus cult status.", "Eraserhead was a midnight cult movie, but Blue Velvet was the movie that made Lynch famous.", "There has been a small cult-following for [Nathanael] West."

Why is homosexuality being discussed? Rand's opinions on homosexuality are not a part of Objectivism. If anyone disagrees, then find a source that says they are. RJII 05:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the anti-Rand cult. They are saying that Ayn Rand's one statement on homosexuality proves that Randism (which has not been defined till now) is a cult, that it somehow shows that her philosophy is not rational and are suggesting that everyone who agrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy is a Randist and claiming that those so-called "Randists" are somehow smearing the anti-Randists.Xyz90009 05:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Randism" and "Objectivism" aren't necessarily the same thing. This article is about Objectivism. So, anything anyone alleges about "Randism" is irrelevant to Objectivism. RJII 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Well, what do you know. A quick search on Google discusses this very thing: "Randism is the set of ideas that were Rand's personal beliefs. (This includes, of course, some, but not all, of the precepts of Objectivism.)" [1] RJII 05:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC) So, I think anything Gagnon says about "Randism" is irrelevant to this article and should be ignored. This article is not about Randism. RJII 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Accepting this definition, Randism has got nothing to do with this article. This is an article on Objectivism. If LGagnon, Alienus and others who support them think that Randism is a valid and important enough topic to warrant a discussion, they are free to create another article. But they are claiming that "Randists" are vandalizing this article. Yet they have not provided a rational explanation. Such actions are only reducing the quality of Wikipedia. Claims should be supported by factual evidence. If they are claiming that Objectivism is a cult (i.e. a faith based ideology), they have to prove that it is a faith based ideology. If they think that Randism is a cult, then there is no need to vandalize the Objectivism article for doing that. It should get its own article. The problem is that LGagnon and others simply refuse to accept any argument and insist on spoiling this article by putting in claims of Randism (which has nothing to do with Objectivism) because of their personal beliefs.Xyz90009 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

About the cult thing, I think they're misreading the sources. Some sources say there is a "cult of personality" for Ayn Rand, but that is not the same thing as saying that Objectivism is a cult. RJII 06:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're using a Geocities page as a source? And you accuse me of using bad sources? Sorry, but that is self published original research that does not belong here.

And no, Randism and "Objectivism" are not separate ideologies. Randism = "Objectivism". "Randism" is the unloaded version of the loaded term "Objectivism" (which implies that others are not objective). I, unlike the Randists, am using a neutral term instead of an insulting loaded term. -- LGagnon 15:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are doing is using an insulting term (Randian) in place of a loaded term (Objectivist), perhaps you should think of a third term that is neither loaded or insulting. The Fading Light 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not using that as a source. I just thought it was interesting that someone wrote about it. My point is that you personally cannot define Objectivism. You're taking everything Rand has said and assuming that it's all part of Objectivism. For you, "Randism" is all the opinions and beliefs that Rand had. But, Objectivism is not all the beliefs Rand had. Homosexuality, for example, as nothing to do with Objectivism. So, when you talk about "Randism" you're not talking about "Objectivism." So, it doesn't make any sense for anyone here to discuss "Randism" with you. This article is about Objectivism. RJII 16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line on the cult tags.

The presence of cult tags does not mean that Objectivism is a cult, just that there have been citations of reliable sources showing that notable people have called it a cult. In fact, there are a few books which explicitly compare Objectivism to a cult, not to mention any number of essays and online articles. This, in and of itself, suffices to justify the inclusion of the tags.

The purpose of categories is to help people find things, not to rule conclusively. This means that, for the purpose of this decision, it doesn't matter whether Objectivism is in fact a cult. I know that there are people here who follow Objectivism and will deny its culthood to their dying breath, but these people are wasting their breath by addressing an irrelevant issue. All that matters is that Objectivism has plausibly been considered a cult, not whether it is one.

To everyone who tries to remove the category, let me say the following:

1) You are removing it because you don't like it, not because it's false. Falsehood is not sufficient basis; only lack of verifiability would suffice.

2) You are, no matter what your stated intent, engaging in censorship and whitewashing. This sort of behavior, paradoxically, makes Objectivism look more and more like a cult.

3) You are not going to win this by creating a local majority, not even with sock puppets. WP:NPA and WP:V are not negotiable and cannot be trumped by voting.

4) You are not going to succeed in removing it. The rules are far too clear on this matter, so ultimately, the categories will stay.

5) Any attempt to remove the tags without directly addressing the issues in this section will be reverted at will, for as long as is necessary, for as often as is necessary, constrained only by WP:3RR.

I hope this clarifies the issue substantially and heads off further unnecessary conflict on this issue. Al 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are these citations? If you can find any, it's kind of funny that you would put it in the Cult cateogory here when there is not a consensus on that, but then in the list of major philosophers article, you won't allow Ayn Rand in the list when there are sources for her being a major philosopher based on the fact that there's not a consensus on whether she is. In other words --double standard. RJII 18:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for adding more citations to the article. A few good ones to start with would be:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

This talks about a "Rand cult." That's not saying Objectivism is a cult. That's saying their is a cult of personality around Rand, the person. RJII 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812693906/

This source is also talking about a cult of personality. "Rand's leadership role, and the politics of her inner circle in terms of the cult dynamic." It's not saying Objectivism is a cult. RJII 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805070893/

This source is irrelevant. It's just random people on the internet reviewing a book. Not a credible source. RJII 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

This source says Objectivism is a "philosophy" --not a cult. It says "How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is the antithesis of reason and individualism?" It's not saying the philosophy itself is a cult. RJII 03:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_448.shtml

Link not working when I checked. RJII 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim091605.shtml

This source is talking about "The Rand cult." Again, this is about a cult of personality around Rand. It's not saying that the philosophy of Objectivism is a cult. RJII 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

This is not a source. It's just a list of articles. Which one do you claim says Objectivism is a cult? RJII 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/rand.html

Another source talking about a "cult of personality." It's not saying Objectivism is a cult. It says: It is quite timely in view of her recent Beatification and of the consequent revival of the Rand cult. Ayn Rand never quite had the popular attention accorded to Mother Theresa; she lived in an earlier time when the media cult of the personality was not quite so frenzied." RJII 03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/246117.htm

Another source talking about the "Cult of Ayn Rand." It's not saying Objectivism is a cult. RJII 03:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_03.23.00/columns/pink.html

Non-credible source. Just a posting on a website. Even if it were credible, it's talking about the "cult of Ayn Rand." RJII 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

With all those references it indicates rather strongly it's well known that, yep, there's a cult of personality around Rand. Of course, these cultists, these Randists, certainly would be an entirely separate group from people who consider themselves Objectivists, now wouldn't they?

Nope. A Randist is always an Objectivist, but, to be fair, an Objectivist is not always a Randist. I posit that the only difference between them is the second group have not looked at the philosophy deeply enough to either become a Randist or to drop out completely - which goes some way to explaining the rather common "Grown out of Objectivism" phenomenon. - Octothorn 18:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I guess you Randists are super-duper deep. I mean, does A=A make more sense to a Randist than it does an Objectivist? If Objectivism is a cult, than Randism definitely is, as you intensively defined Randism within Objectivism. Man, I just don't understand you people, what was so great about her? How does one conservative author become the idol for so many? What about her ruins the human facility to question the unknowable and our foundations. Objectivism is nothing but a faith in a collective logic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.77.182 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a start: there's a lot more out there. Al 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are they then? So far you haven't presented any sources claiming that Objectivism is a cult. RJII 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Only the Shermer article states anything along the lines of Objectivism being a cult, and that is still referring to the people surrounding Ayn Rand. Also, if Objectivism is a cult, why does the article begin by saying "Objectivism is a philosophical system" rather than "Objectivism is an organization of people"? Also, per your statement in Talk:Ayn Rand that the above is the "final word" on this issue: that is an unwarranted claim and not substantiated by your above comment. Also, a person whose beliefs directly oppose Objectivism can still disagree with this cult classification, and to say that disagreement is tantamount to testimony that they are part of some Objectivist cult with people they have never met before is, frankly, stupid.

Also, while Category:Cults is used generally (though this usage is contested) to apply to counter-cult groups, academic experts on cults, and topics related to cults in general, like indoctrination and brainwashing, the use for the subject of this article is to mean that "Objectivism is a cult", unless you mean that Objectivism is a counter-cult movement. Subjects in the same category still must have similar properties, and unless there is actual substantive reason to believe that Ayn Rand thought she was Jesus, that Nathaniel Branden and Alan Greenspan directly caused the death of two children and then both committed suicide along with several others, this classification does not fit. —Centrx→talk 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, RJII and Centrx seem to have some ad hoc criteria for culthood that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Coincidentally, these criteria set the bar very high.

I'm not interested in arguing on those subjective terms. What they or any other non-notable people think about this is entirely unimportant. All that matters is whether there are notable citations to the effect that this is a cult. There are, so what's the issue? I rest my case. Al 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First, the meaning of "cult" I am using can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary and in the Cult article. "Objectivism" does not fit this meaning; an idea is not a cult. Second, none of the sources asserts that "Objectivism" is a cult; they repeatedly refer to the "Ayn Rand Cult" and specific groups of Ayn Rand followers. —Centrx→talk 06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The article still calls it a "philosophic system" because, as I've stated before, I'm willing to talk about it first before changing it. I've already said that statement is innaccurate, pro-Rand, and anti-academic (and proof that these articles are slanted in Rand's favor).

Oh, and please don't make such specific requirements for a cult. We've got an article on what cults are, and it gives the requirements in a way that is not as strict as you claim they are. -- LGagnon 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Cults article, which I have already gone through point-by-point. Its meaning does not correspond to the meaning you wish to use here. I see no reason why "philosophic system" is not an accurate name and changing it would entail also over-turning the entire "Objectivist principles" section, which is clearly philosophic with its discussion of existence, consciousness, reason, analytic-synthetic distinction and a priori knowledge, ethics, political theory, and aesthetics. You may disagree with Objectivism, or you may consider it poorly formulated, but that does not mean it is not a philosophy or, as the article is already tempered, a philosophic system. —Centrx→talk 18:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on the subject, "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."

A cult is a group of people. Objectivists, therefore, can be seen as part of the cult of Objectivism, just as Scientologists can be seen as part fo the cult of Scientology. Frankly, the attempts to use very fine, seemingly arbitrary distinctions to avoid admitting that Objectivism can logically be a candidate for culthood strike me as implausible, if not insincere.

The bottom line is that we have a number of reliable sources that refer to Objectivists as cultists, with Objectivism as their cult and Ayn Rand as their (initial) cult leader. No amount of weaseling is ever going to change this. Al 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

An Objectivist is simply someone who believes Objectivism true. This is far from a "cohesive group of people"; an Objectivist may have never met another Objectivist; he may live as a hermit with only books. Further, Scientologists are part of a cult only insofar as they are part of the Church of Scientology; the set of ideas cannot be a cult. You are just confusing terminology. And, again, all of the sources refer to certain Objectivist groups as cultists, not Objectivism or all Objectivists. —Centrx→talk 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you do not have "a number of reliable sources" (unless you want to start the weaseling and say that "zero is a number"). You have her ideological opponents characterizing Objectivism as a cult. Wow, it's so rare for divergent ideologies to namecall each other. Why don't we put the "communism" category on the Kerry article, or the "fascism" category on the Bush article? You have no authorities on cults (i.e., the relevant reliable source in this case) labeling Objectivism as a cult. You have no governments issuing warnings about the "cult of Objectivism". Ergo, the cult label is not verifiable based on reliable sources.

Your minor points are wrong as well. Objectivist beliefs are not "far outside the mainstream". The philosophy taken as a whole, is unpopular, but but all significant beliefs within it are held by many people (who of course may not agree with the other beliefs). MrVoluntarist 17:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Like previous statements, your statement assumes that we need a very strict method of determining this. The majority of Rand's opponents think Randism is a cult. This is not the same as, say the fringe opponents of Kerry calling him a communist (as a bit of a disclaimer, I don't like Kerry, so don't take this as a pro-Kerry comment). Likewise, Rand's opponents are not just namecalling; they have presented proof to back their claims, instead of taking the Ann Coutler-style "you're a heathen commie and that's that" namecalling route.

And yes, they are far outside the mainstream. Just because they have a few ideas in common with the mainstream doesn't mean they are part of it. The KKK holds Christian values, but this does not make them mainstream. Likewise, Randists may hold some ideas in common with the mainstream, but they go about them in ways that disturb most people. Thus, they are not even close to mainstream. -- LGagnon 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you will consider any parsing of your post to be rude, I'll respond sequentially and you can figure out what goes to what. I don't assume we need a strict method, just that appropriate reliable sources are used. People biased against an ideology are not neutral sources to use. Reliable sources on "which groups are cults?" would be cult experts and cult watchdog groups, not people who want to debunk their opponents' beliefs. You have no sources for "most of Rand's opponents" think her Objectivism is a cult. You list several sources with no way of determining whether they are the majority. It is identical to opponents of Kerry calling him a communist. Many of his opponents (like libertarians) can trace the assumptions of his positions back to communism. That can be made as a serious argument and probably has. By your very own standard, that makes Kerry belong in the communism category. They are, of course, "presenting proof" to back their claims.

Objectivist beliefs are not far outside the mainstream. They do not have "a few" ideas in common; they have many. Atheism? Yep. Support for individual rights? Yep. Support for capitalism? Yep. Support for less regulation? Yep. Support for strong intervention in MidEast? Yep (in America). Support for Israel? Yep. Find one defining part of Objectivism that is fringe. In contrast, the KKK's defining feature is its bigotry-motviated support of white Protestants over non-white non-protestants -- that is fringe. MrVoluntarist 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Support for capitalism and opposition to the welfare state may have been fringe when Rand was writing. But, it's certainly mainstream today. i'm sure she had something to do with that. RJII 18:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that these people characterize Objectivism as a cult. That is precisely the requirement for the cult tag. I'm so glad we resolved this and can now move on to more interesting matters, such as Rand's rejection of monism. Al 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I conceded it for purposes of argument (i.e., even accepting you're right that that's what they say, they are not reliable on this matter because ...). Others are still contesting that they are saying what you claim they are. Try again.

Also the "cult" category should not be one for "anyone organization accused of being a cult"; it should be one for which reputable sources can be found. (A reputable source here would be a source that focues on cults.) If you want to make a category for every group accused of being a cult, you should make the category "alleged cults", but even then, only if you're planning to have "alleged communists" for Kerry and "alleged fascists for Bush". MrVoluntarist 18:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most if not all of the sources that talk about a "cult" are talking about a "cult of personality" around Ayn Rand --not Objectivism (such as all the alleged sources Alienius presented). But, I'm siding with Voluntarist that any opinions that the philosophy of Objectivism itself is a cult would be extremely fringe --way too fringe to brand it with a "Cult" label in this article. All mainstream sources refer to it as a "philosophy" --not a "cult." It think what's most important is that there is no way, even, to note (that I know of) that it's disputed whether it's a cult when you put a category label on it --it merely asserts it as the truth. So the "cult" category certainly cannot stand. MrVoluntarist makes an excellent point that only thing that could stand is a category of "alleged cults" (but again, I'm not sure there are enough (or any sources) that claim such a thing to even be notable. The sources Alenius presented are talking about a cult of personality around Rand --not Objectivism itself). RJII 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I read your commentary, and then I read the citations, but the two seem to have nothing to do with each other. Shermer's essay (http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml) says over and over again that Objectivism is a cult and Ayn Rand is its leader. Frankly, you seem to be substituting subjective interpretation tainted by wishful thinking for any sort of rational analysis. I say again: read even this one essay with clear eyes and all your arguments fall away. Al 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Al, no response to me? Is this because you have no response, or because you think it "doesn't deserve a response". I'm not going away. MrVoluntarist 20:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, Shermer's essay is the only source that even approaches calling Objectivism a cult, and it does so only in a simplified looseness of terminology; the subject of the essay is Ayn Rand and the people around her. He specifically separates the cult-like people from the philosophy in the concluding point with the heading "Criticism of the founder of a philosophy does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the philosophy." The Shermer essay is not a source that supports that characterization of the philosophy of Objectivism as a cult. —Centrx→talk 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a mass response, so it included you. Al 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It may have been intended for me (in non-recognition of the irrelevance thereof), but it certainly didn't address anything I brought up. It said nothing about my claims about what constitutes a reliable source on the matter of cults, and whose cult allegation suffices to warrant the category. You seemed to only be addressing RJII's claims about what the sources actually say. "It" doesn't "include me" until it responds to my points. Do you have something to say to my specific points that would be relevant to them? MrVoluntarist 21:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If anti-Rand sources are unreliable, then pro-Rand sources are also unreliable. Of course, I don't believe that, but by the logic of the Randists that's how it would work. By the way, I found a cult watchdog who does consider Randism specifically to be a cult. [2] -- LGagnon 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So you assert that the Enyclopedia Britannica and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are "pro-Rand sources"? —Centrx→talk 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"If anti-Rand sources are unreliable, then pro-Rand sources are also unreliable." Please pay attention if you would. No one said "anti-Rand sources are unreliable". If you read what I actually wrote and are acting in good faith, you would recall that the point I was making above was that a reliable source on "what groups are cults?" would be someone who studies cults or informs the world about dangerous cults, or perhaps a government warning about cults. It has nothing to do with "anti-Rand" or "pro-Rand". As for your latest link, what that actually alleges is that Rand still has a "cult following". That's not the same thing as being a cult! Lots of movies, authors, etc. have "cult followings" without being "cults". That website does not list Objectivism (or Objectivists, ARI, etc.) as cults to watch for. No cult watchdog group does. The idea is ridiculous. MrVoluntarist 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are making strict and unrealistic requirements. When does the government ever make cult warnings? Scientology is let off scott-free, and they raided government offices! Likewise, we don't have to have a cult watchdog group's approval. They can be just as questionable as any blog source, and are much less reliable than the sources already given.

And read that source again, this time not in a selective manner. The author does in fact say that it's a cult. -- LGagnon 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And here's another watchdog group saying it's a cult; it even refers to Randism as a "philosophy" rather than a philosophy (note the quotation marks): [3] -- LGagnon 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The German government (at least) as warned its citizens about Scientologists. But it doesn't matter if none have. If a government considers some group enough of a cult as to warn people about it, that could be a notable allegation of being a cult. And yes, you do need a reputable cult expert to call it a cult; otherwise, anyone and his dog could accuse anyone on any grounds of being a cult and we'd have to dignify it here. Just like we'd have to categorize Kerry as communist and Bush as fascist.

The article you linked doesn't call objectivism a cult. It points out similarities. Note the title: "The cult of Ayn Rand?" See the question mark? No conclusion is given. MrVoluntarist 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the FAQ for Cult News lists criteria for being a cult, which Objectivism clearly doesnt meet: [4] MrVoluntarist 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And you've simply ignored my second link. Funny that, as it's from the same site you just linked to. Thus, by your link's standards it is a cult, because they mention it in their website. -- LGagnon 01:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the cultnews.com link, that link refers the "Ayn Rand cult", and refers to Objectivism as a "philosophy", not a cult. Also, if you click on the main links in the header, this site is clearly associated with the same rickross.com site, though I do not know if it is a reliable source. —Centrx→talk 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to keep this in perspective. You've ignored 90% of everything I've ever said to you, and have referred to any attempt to make my posts easier to reply to (and for me to more easily reply to you) as "rude". I'm sorry that I missed your ultimate sentence and link, but let's not kid ourselves; it's forgiveable. It really, really is.

Now, from the fact that the Baltimore Sun opinion piece is stored on the website, it does not follow that it meets the site's standards for a cult. It doesn't even follow that "Rick Ross" endorses it. Nor did I ever endorse the validity of that site in determining cults; I just established (or attempted to) that it didn't say what you wanted. Now, could you kindly remind me why "Ray Jenkins" is a reputable authority on cults? MrVoluntarist 01:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does ARI store anti-Rand articles on their site? Of course Rick Ross endorses the article; why would he have it there sans disclaimer otherwise? And Jenkins is a Pultizer Prize winning journalist. Yes, I know you Randists see journalists the same way Scientologists see psychiatrists, but let's be realistic: he wouldn't have won such a prestigous award if he wasn't a trustworthy source. And again, you are being way too strict with the requirements; sorry, but truthiness is not a source, no matter how much you push it. Wikipedia has no rules saying we have to go with your overly strict standards, so you have no reason to continue pushing them futilly. -- LGagnon 01:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia quite clearly states that the source must not only be "reliable" in a general sense but also be reliable on that particular matter. Winning a Pulitzer prize does not make you "trustworthy" on quantum physics, or the spinning jenny, or condoms. The standard is higher, the more damaging/laudatory the label is. Yes, if you want to label some philosophy (fine, "ideology") as a "cult", you need a relevant authority on the matter. Not "Ray Jenkins". Not "Betty Boppy Boo's blog". A real, knowledgeable, unbiased authority on cults. Bring in an admin if you want. Then again, after repeatedly labeling me as somethign that I'm not, I think an admin is the last kind of person you want on this page! MrVoluntarist 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If we went by your standards, no periodical would ever be reliable. Only academic sources would be usable. And you know what that means: every single ARI and other Randist-made source would have to be removed (especially since they are alleged cults, which brings down their reliability in the general sense). But in that case it would be censorship, wouldn't it? And please note that this isn't a blog entry; the Baltimore Sun is a real periodical. -- LGagnon 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Baltimore Sun source does not even say that Objectivism is a cult; the article is mostly about Ayn Rand. There is still not a single reliable source that asserts what you claim about Objectivism being a cult; none of the sources in the article claim it. —Centrx→talk 02:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that not justify the cult leaders category then? -- LGagnon 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One might also note that the article comes with this disclaimer. ^iggy_talk 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. No sound arguments have been made for removing the category. All I hear is one form or another of "I don't believe it's a cult, therefore nobody else is allowed to". Al 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You haven't provided any sources saying it's a cult. You have just provided sources saying that there is a cult of personality around Ayn Rand. 2)If you can find any source, they represent a fringe minority viewpoint. Mainstream sources say no such thing; they refer to it as a "philosophy." Therefore, we can't assert that it is the case that Objectivism is a cult. 3)When you put the Cult category label on it, you're stating it as truth that Objectivism is a cult. Since there is no manner of indicating, on the Category label (like a "disputed" label or something), that it's not universally agreed by sources that Objectivism is a cult, we can't put that label there. As MrVoluntarist pointed out, the only kind of Category that could possibly stand would be something like "Category:Alleged Cults." But, still, you haven't even presented any sources for Objectivism being a cult, but rather for there being a cult of personality around Ayn Rand. So, even a Category like that couldn't stand. RJII 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing bores me more than the repetition of refuted arguments. Let me remind you that the cult category does not claim that Objectivism is in fact a cult, nor do we need to prove any such thing. We only need to show that it is believed to be a cult by notable sources. Please stop repeating yourself. Al 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1) You haven't provided any sources saying it's a cult. You have just provided sources saying that there is a cult of personality around Ayn Rand. 2)If you can find any source, they represent a fringe minority viewpoint. Mainstream sources say no such thing; they refer to it as a "philosophy." Therefore, we can't assert that it is the case that Objectivism is a cult. 3)When you put the Cult category label on it, you're stating it as truth that Objectivism is a cult. Since there is no manner of indicating, on the Category label (like a "disputed" label or something), that it's not universally agreed by sources that Objectivism is a cult, we can't put that label there. As MrVoluntarist pointed out, the only kind of Category that could possibly stand would be something like "Category:Alleged Cults." But, still, you haven't even presented any sources for Objectivism being a cult, but rather for there being a cult of personality around Ayn Rand. So, even a Category like that couldn't stand. RJII 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness is not a reliable source. Repitition does not win over educated people, only truth does.

And please read the articles again, this time in a non-selective manner. And don't throw your broad biased interpetations into this; there's no "cult of personality" mentioned in the vast majority of those articles. -- LGagnon 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That many people refer to "Objectivism" as being a cult is clear enough. Whether that's an accurate depicition is not for us to decide, as you have pointed out. But what you're missing is that the Objectivism that is seen as a cult by those who see it as a cult is not the Objectivism that is the topic of this article. This article is about a philosophy, not a movement or a group of people. A philosophy cannot be a cult, by definition. What people see as a cult, any cult, is a "cohesive group of people". Your argument is strong, but it's attached to the wrong article my friend. --Serge 06:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A religion is a religion, not a cult. That's why Scientology calls itself a relgion. Randism calls itself a philosophy because calling itself a cult is bad PR. Just because you can (wrongly) use an academic term does not mean that the cult you apply it to is not a cult. -- LGagnon 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are making too fine a distinction. The alleged cultists are followers of Ayn Rand and of her "philosophy": Objectivism. Moreover, the cultism is alleged not only for her inner circle but for "students of Objectivism" out in the world. In short, we cannot separate the cult from the philosophy. Al 06:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism

There is some disagreement over whether Randism should redirect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Ayn Rand. Please come to the talk page and join us in resolving this matter. Thank you. Al 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Objectivism (vote)

Also, a reminder that there vote on whether the Responses to Objectivism article should exist (to continue to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes"). RJII 18:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism a cult?

The question about whether Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand - the topic of this article) is a cult is illogical. How can Objectivism, a philosophy, be a cult? The first sentence in the cult article states, "a cult is a cohesive group of people..." The first sentence in the Objectivism article, states, "Objectivism is the philosophical system...". A philosophical system is not a group of people (cohesive or otherwise). Any reference (right or wrong) to "Objectivism" being a "cult", must, by definition, be a reference to the movement (and the "cohesive group of people" behind it) that is the topic of the Objectivist movement article, not to the philosophy covered by this article, for that would be nonsensical. I believe that is the source of the confusion here... it's semantics. If it helps to differentiate the two meanings, perhaps the Objectivist movement article should be renamed to something like Objectivism (the movement)?

In any case, I suggest the cults category reference/tag be removed from this article, and the discussion about whether it be associated with "Objectivism" at all be moved over to Talk:Objectivist movement. I'll go ahead and do it, unless someone objects, addressing the reasoning I just presented. Thanks. --Serge 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, especially in an article that has a NPOV tag on it. The very fact that the article calls it a philosophic system is under debate, so don't cite this as being true beyond question. -- LGagnon 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of that... I think this closes the issue. Crazynas 05:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I state it repeatedly above, here, and on Ayn Rand but it is like talking to a brick wall. —Centrx→talk 06:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Even the notion of a philosophy itself being a cult is nonsensical. However, if you're going to put a Category on the Objectivist movement page, then a new category like "Alleged cults" (per MrVoluntarist's suggestion) would be the NPOV thing to do. RJII 05:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No. There was a category with a similar name, and it was deleted. -- LGagnon 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about whether or what kind of tag should be placed on the Objectivist movement article belongs at Talk:Objectivist movement. Thanks. --Serge 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Objectivism is the name of the cult. Al 06:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Objectivism is also the name of a philosophy, which is the topic of this article. The topic of this article is not the movement surrounding the philosophy, whether or not that movement is a cult. There is a separate article on that, but, I agree, its name should also be Objectivism, disambiguated in some way, like Objectivism (movement) or Objectivism (cult), etc. But, again, the discussion about that should be on the Talk page for the movement, not here. This article is about the philosophy, which cannot be a movement or cult by definition. Does that make sense? --Serge 06:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That must be why this article was called Objectivism (philosophy) before Gagnon or Alenius changed it. Someone in the past must have had the same confusion as Alenius. RJII 06:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, no. This article is about Objectivsm, as per Ayn Rand as opposed to in some general sense. Even if I were to generously grant that Objectivism is a philosophy, this would in no way stop it from being known as a cult. You might as well say that the Unification Church is a church, hence it is a religion and not a cult; same error.

Frankly, I'm seeing a lot of tortured readings that try to avoid the obvious: Objectivism has been described by notable people as a cult. Whether these people are correct is immaterial to the matter at hand, yet there has been an overwhelming strong tendency for Objectivists and their fellow travelers to ignore this fundamental point.

Let me say it clearly: Even if we knew for an incontrovertible fact that Objectivism is NOT a cult, the cult tag would still belong. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't you understand there is a difference between a movement of PEOPLE and a philosophy? The philosophy itself can't be a cult. If anything is a cult, it would be the Objectivist movement (whatever that is). And, remember that you've provided zero source for the philosophy as being a cult. RJII 06:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's demonstrably wrong, as Objectivism is a philosophy, a movement AND a cult. Oh, and you're an Objectivist. Al 06:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the Objectivist movement. RJII 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Al... please, your oft-repeated, valid point that "Objectivism has been described by notable people as a cult" is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing in this section. I am not arguing that "Objectivism" is not a cult, or that no one refers to it as one, or anything like that. So pointing out that people do see "Objectivism" as a cult is missing the point.

We agree that the term "Objectivism" is used to refer to the general topic covered by Objectivism (philosophy), Ayn Rand's philosophy, the movement surrounding Rand's philosophy, and the group behind that movement as a cult. BUT, THIS ARTICLE is only about Rand's philosophy. This article is not about the general Objectivism (philosophy), nor is it about any movement or cult. It makes no sense to tag an article with a category that does not apply to the topic of the article just because the name of that article is a homonym for the topic to which the tag does apply. In this case the "Objectivism" topic of the article is the Objectivism philosophy of Ayn Rand, and the "Objectivism" topic to which the cult category tag applies is the Objectivism movement. Definitely related, but not the same thing. --Serge 07:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your Unification Church example: referring to Objectivism as a cult is actually more analogous to saying "The story in the Bible is a cult", when it is in fact a story from a book, or the tenets of a religion. A church is not a religion. A church is a group of people, with leaders and committees and worship, who meet in a building and follow a religion.

There has in fact not been a single reliable source that describes the philosophy of Objectivism as a cult. None of the sources in the article describes the philosophy of Objectivism as a cult.

Your repeated assertions that anyone who disagrees with you on this matter is an "Objectivist" or an Objectivist symphathizer are incredible. Any linguist or logician has reason to disagree with you on this matter, even if they were to agree that Objectivism is the foolish ravings of a soulless monster. —Centrx→talk 07:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny statement you made; I happen to have studied logic a lot, and I agree with him. The Randists, on the other hand, have had trouble with that (see their zillion personal attacks for reference). -- LGagnon 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The term Objectivism is a word with many meanings. One of those meanings is "the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand". That meaning is the topic of this article. Any references to any other meanings intended by the term Objectivism do not apply to this article. Some people use the term to refer to the movement promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Others use it to refer to what they perceive to be a cult promoting this philosophy. That's fine. But all those other uses are irrelevant to this article. This article is about the philosophy, period. --Serge 07:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Twisting language to meet your needs does not invalidate any sources. You are using subjective interpetations of the sources, which is all you Randists have given. Face it, we have sources that say it is a cult, and you can not invalidate them with Orwellian rhetoric. -- LGagnon 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In the end, I don't think a principled distinction can be made between recognizing the social movement that follows Objectivism being a cult and Objectivism itself being a cult. Rather, it looks like nit-picking in the service of removing the cult label from the main article and hiding it away in an infrequently visited child article. Please understand that I'm not suggesting that this is your conscious goal, only that an aversion to Objectivism being called a cult is what underlies and drives your semantic debate. Al 16:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What "underlies and drives" my arguments is irrelevant (as is what underlies and drives yours). What matters are the arguments themselves, and whether they represent an NPOV. However, you might be interested in knowing that I would support the renaming of the movement article to Objectivism (with an appropriate disambiguity tag, like (movement), and, if we could establish a clear and consistent policy about categorizing any movement a cult that is considered a cult by "some" (clarifying what constitutes "some" is what needs to be established in policy), I would support categorizing Objectivism (the movement) as a cult. If I had an "aversion" to Objectivism being called a cult, as you surmise, this would not be true. For example, I would support categorizing the Objectivism movement as a cult in Wikipedia as long as other articles covering movements that are considered by "some" to be cults, such as those promoting Mormonism, Catholicism, and just about any religion, are also categorized as cults. But this even more general policy discussion should probably be continued over at Category talk:Cults#Policy. --Serge 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your presumption to know mine or anyone else's "hidden" goals are baseless, or at best based on some persecution complex which one could with better reason divine as your hidden cause, which causes you to take any disagreement with you as ipso facto reason for the other to be a member of some sinister Objectivist conspiracy. However, this is irrelevant. What we have, to examine, is the explicit, and your arguments in favor of including this article in Category:Cults are without foundation, and every reason you cite is been spurious. Ultimately, you have not provided any reason why the article on the philosophy of Objectivism should be placed in Category:Cults. —Centrx→talk 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What underlies and drives your argument is entirely relevant if it predisposes you to one conclusion over another. Moreover, the foreseeable consequences of a decision must be taken into consideration as a part of deciding which way to go. What I see is that, of those who endorse Rand, there is support for a stance that would lead to making Rand look better. This is a possible source of partisan bias, so we have to be careful to recognize the risk of POV-based distortions and see if the argument makes sense on its own merits. So far, it does not appear to.

What particularly concerns me is that the argument is based on two false assumptions. The first is that being placed in the cult category means that the article is about a cult. This is incorrect; we don't have to first prove that Objectivism is a cult in order for it to fit the category. Rather, the category exists to help people find cult-related articles, and since Objectivism has been called a cult, it fits in the category. The second false assumption is that we should (or even can) distinguish between the various aspects of Objectivism: philosophy, leader, organization(s), cult. It's all Objectivism and any attempt to draw such lines relies on partisan decisions. For example, if a particular person endorses Objectivism in a cultish manner, do we include or exclude them in the category of Objectivists or Randists or Objectivism movement participants? There does not appear to be any principled basis for a decision, leaving behind only subjective, biased choices. Al 19:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How is a philosophy written down on paper the same as a group of people? —Centrx→talk 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a repetition of that second fallacy. Objectivism is not a piece of paper, it is the ideology, which some people consider to be a cult. You might as well argue that the Unification Church is not a cult because it's a philosophy written down on paper (Divine_Principle). This line of reasoning is inherently arbitrary, hence of no merit. Al 19:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said Objectivism was a piece of paper. Objectivism is an ideology. An ideology cannot be a cult. The Unification Church is a movement that follows an ideology. It is not an ideology, and the ideology it follows cannot be a cult. What of this do you not understand? —Centrx→talk 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is the constant edit-warring. It shows bas faith. Another is why you keep trying to avoid the simple fact that there are reliable sources showing notable people consider Objectivism a cult. You can split all the hairs you want, but that's just your own original research. You would need to show that the sources split those same hairs and in the same way. Likewise, the most recent insertion was OR based on taking Singer out of context. If Singer had spoken about Objectivism, then it would be relevant. Otherwise, we'd be trying to draw a conclusion that she might not support. Al 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not engaged in any edit warring. In fact, I have not removed the cult tag once from this article. I only came to this page because you referenced it on Talk:Ayn Rand as though you stating your unilateral decisions on this page was binding on that article, when an editor of that article would not know you had even made your decree. —Centrx→talk • 23:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, Centrix and Serge are right, this article is about the philosophy which definitionally cannot be a cult. I quote this article:

Michael Shermer argued that the Objectivist movement displayed many of the characteristics of religious cults

Some of Rand's critics have drawn parallels between the Objectivist movement and cults

see the problem? If as you claim, the purpose of having the cat is to guide people interested in cults here, then having the tag on the movement article will have the exact same effect, as well as not committing a logical fallicy Crazynas 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it's only a coincidence that it also serves to downplay the cult issue by moving it to a less central article. Al 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, you claim, above, "What underlies and drives your argument is entirely relevant if it predisposes you to one conclusion over another.". How so? My opinion itself is irrelevant here, as is yours. That's what NPOV means. We're all predisposed one way or the other, of course, but we must present and evaluate arguments from an NPOV perspective. That's what Wikipedia is about. If you think I am not (or anyone else is not) doing that, then point out what is POV in our arguments. All arguments should be evaluated for their content, not by who is making them. Conjecture about underlying motivations of those presenting and evaluating arguments is non-productive and contrary to the interests of Wikipedia. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that moving the cult issue to a "less central article" also serves to downplay the cult issue. So what? As long as the basis presented for moving it is NPOV, it's legit.

Our predispositions certainly motivate us to get involved here and not there, (I'm not editing basket weaving, are you?), but WP:NPOV dictates how we are involved, not why.

You also claim that the arguments are based on the assumption that "being placed in the cult category means that the article is about a cult." You also claim this assumption is false. Whether the assumption is true or false is irrelevant since the arguments made to not categorize this philosophy article, and to move the "cult accusations" article, are not based on this assumption. Therefore, the argument based on this is a straw man. This same argument also is based on the premise that "Objectivism has been called a cult", where, again, the philosophy/movement dichotomy is ignored. It's the Objectivism movement (that is not the topic of this article) that has been called a cult, not the philosophy (which is the topic of this article).

Finally, the argument claims that it is a false assumption "that we should (or even can) distinguish between the various aspects of Objectivism". That we can is obvious (see Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Objectivist movement). Whether we "should" is indeed a separate issue. You argue: "It's all Objectivism and any attempt to draw such lines relies on partisan decisions. ". Can we not differentiate between Christian teachings and Christian evangelism without relying on partisan decisions? Can we not differentiate between communist ideas and the movements to spread them? Why must we rely on partisan decisions to draw such lines? I don't. Why do you? Perhaps you are not sufficiently familiar with the philosophy of Objectivism to personally draw these lines, but, if so, that would simply indicate that you should not be making content edits on articles about Objectivism, not that such lines cannot be drawn. The example you give, "if a particular person endorses Objectivism in a cultish manner, do we include or exclude them in the category of Objectivists or Randists or Objectivism movement participants?", is nonsensical and irrelevant. You're talking about whether to categorize a particular person as an Objectivist, which is not relevant to the issue you raised: whether we can draw the line between a philosophy and a movement advocating that philosophy without relying on partisan decisions. Whether we can categorize some person as being an adherent of the philosophy and/or part of that movement has nothing to do with whether lines between philosophy and movement can be drawn, and how.

You also say, "[Objectivism] is the ideology, which some people consider to be a cult". An ideology cannot be a cult. A cult is a group of people who share an ideology. But sharing that ideology does not necessarily make one a member of that cult. In some cases it may, but no one, so far as I know, has shown that to be the case with Objectivism. --Serge 23:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Move "Cult accusations" to Objectivist movement

What do you say we move the "Cult accusations" section to Objectivist movement, since this article is about the philosophy of Objectivism --not the "cult of personality" around Ayn Rand or the "movement" which is what the cult claims are about.

Agree RJII 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Veto. Sorry, but WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Al 21:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed WP:NPOV is non negotiable, but that's not what's at stake here is it? Crazynas 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This is not a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV is not relevant to this point. NPOV is relevant to the issue of whether cult accusations about Objectivism are valid, etc. The issue here is broader and transcends Objectivism. The issue is: whether the topic of "cult accusations" belongs in any article about any philosophy when that article is not also about a movement or a "cohesive group of people". Since "cohesive group of people" is a necessary (though not independently sufficient) characteristic of a cult, cult accusations cannot apply to any article that is not about a "cohesive group of people". --Serge 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. These sources are not talking about the philosophy. Also, I was not aware that Alienus had "veto" power. —Centrx→talk • 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Second veto. From WP:NPOV: According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." -- LGagnon 23:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument to move the section is not based on NPOV being negotiable. Pointing out that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" is a red herring. --Serge 00:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is no red herring; this is the real problem. The Randists are trying to delete anything critical of Rand on all articles related to her. If they are unable to, they try to move the info to another, more easily deleted article where they can trick an admin into deleting it for them (as done the first time a separate article for criticisms of Rand was made). This is blatant abuse of the system to push a POV onto the articles; don't call it a red herring just because you aren't willing to see the ulterior motives behind this. -- LGagnon 01:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I see those ulterior motives! Of course they are trying to delete anything critical of Rand. Of course they try to move info to another article if that fails! I mean, duh! But surely you are not blaming fans for having such motivations? But, for the sake of Wikipedia, the only issue that we should allow to matter is whether there is NPOV justification for what is proposed, or not, regardless of what the deep-seated personal motivations may or may not be for each proposal. This is the essence of Wikipedia, is it not? It's about recognizing that we all have biases and non-neutral points of view. We're human. We have unique personal experiences and personal value systems. We're all different. So we all have different desires and motivations to act. I mean, what the heck is your motivation? Something is driving you to spend your personal time here trying to get a more balanced presentation of Rand and her views and movement. Whatever those reasons are... you know what? They don't matter, or shouldn't matter, at all to Wikipedia and your fellow editors. The only thing that should matter is whether the reasons that you and everyone else presents are NPOV. Period. So, far, neither you nor Al have addressed much less refuted the NPOV argument that this article is focused on Objectivism the philosophy, and, hence, any categorization or criticism of Objectivism the movement belong not here but in the article that addresses that topic. Now, regardless of your motivations to be here, do you have an NPOV response to this point, or not? --Serge 05:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, some of the people who disapprove of this categorization have nothing to do with Objectivism; their objections are not a part of any POV abuse and are unrelated to the particular tenets of Objectivism, yet such reasonable concerns are not even addressed. —Centrx→talk • 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, you can't solve everything with an extremely biased vote. Rushing the article with Randist votes is not consensus by any definition of the word outside of Orwellian language. -- LGagnon 23:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Then present an NPOV argument to not move it, or at least an NPOV rebuttal to the argument to move it, that is not based on a red herring or any other logical fallacy. --Serge 00:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing criticism to a minor article is a blatant violation of NPOV and will not be tolerated. Repetetion of refuted arguments will be ignored. Al 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Herring alert. Yes, moving criticism to a minor article for no reason other than to get it out of the main article is a blatant violation of NPOV. However, when that move has an NPOV justification, however contrived, it is not violation of NPOV at all. The issue should be to evaluate the justification - is it NPOV or not? Judging motivations, etc is in and of itself a violation of WP:NPOV. --Serge 05:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Can you point me to the policy that distingushes minor and major articles? Crazynas 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many policies that distinguish between main articles and various adjuncts and forks. For example, "Responses to Objectivism" is a fork of this article and therefore a minor article in comparison. Now, "Objectivist movement" isn't as obviously a fork, but it contains considerably less material and is essentially a footnote to this article, which makes it relatively minor. Al 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree per Serge, there are several, distinct groups of people (NBI, ARI, TOC) which may or may not be or exibit cult or cultlike qualites, but this isn't the place, this is about the philosophy, not the group. Crazynas 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult accusations section: going, going, ...

Due to the simplicity of the NPOV argument presented (however biased the motivations behind its presentation may be) to move this section to the Objectivist movement article:

The topic of this article, Objectivism (Ayn Rand), is Objectivism the philosophy. The 'Cult accusations section is about accusations targetting Objectivism the movement, which is not the topic of this article, but the topic of the article entitled (at least currently) Objectivist movement. Therefore, this section should be moved from this article to that one.

And because of the lack of any NPOV rebuttal to it (the only "rebuttal" presented has not even addressed this argument, but instead criticized the obviously biased motivations from whence it springs, which of course is an irrelevant red herring), I see no reason to not move this section immediately. However, in the interest of good relations, perhaps we should give it another day? --Serge 05:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How kind of you to declare victory unilaterially. I shall, just as unilaterally, revert any change you make against consensus.

There only justification offered for moving the cult category has been rebutted repeatedly, leaving nothing. Al 06:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only thing close to a rebuttal I've seen is a criticism of the biased motivations that obviously foster the desire to remove, or at least move, the section in question, not a rebuttal of the NPOV argument contrived to justify such a move. If the argument has actually been rebutted "repeatedly", perhaps you could identify one of the better ones? --Serge 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not contrived. —Centrx→talk • 06:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, the whole idea that the cult accusations apply only to the movement is original research. It's your own convenient interpretation, which some of us happen not to share. Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and Objectivist movement equally deserve the cult category. For that matter, Ayn Rand deserves the cult leader category. Al 06:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not OR, go read Cult In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people then please explain how a set of written and recorded works (the philosophy of Ayn Rand she called Obectivism) is a group of people? Crazynas 06:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research? Now the grasping for straws is bordering on pathetic. It is not original research to assert that cults are comprised of cohesive groups of people. That's a citation straight from cults which has been accepted as NPOV. It is not original research to contend that the topic of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is a philosophy, not a group of people, much less a cohesive one. That's a citation straight from Objectivism (Ayn Rand) that has also been accepted as NPOV. Judgements about whether categorizations or criticisms apply to the topic of a given article is not original research, but it's what countless Wikipedia editors do, and must do, every day. Our job is to evaluate whether a given argument, regardless of who presents it or why, about whether something applies to a given article is valid (including NPOV) or not, period. The idea that a philosophy, any philosophy, can be a "cult" is patently absurd. Is it "original research" to object to the article granite being categorized as a root vegetable? Of course not, because the idea that a type of rock could be a type of vegetable is patently absurd. Similarly, the idea that a philosophy could be categorized or criticized as a cult is also patently absurd. Making either claim is not original research by any stretch. Now, perhaps you happen to truly believe that philosophies can be cults. Well, that's your personal opinion, and it has no place in Wikipedia, since, I assure you, there is no more support for such a patently absurd idea than there is for granite being a root vegetable. --Serge 06:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is original research to claim that, even though the Objectivist movement has been considered a cult and even though Objectivism has been considered a cult, we should ignore the latter in favor of the former. This convenient interpretation just so happens to serve the needs of anyone who wishes to suppress mention of the cult accusations from the main article, which I consider suspicious. Al 13:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In "the latter" -- "Objectivism has been considered a cult" -- you are again conveniently blurring the distinction between Objectivism the movement and Objectivism the philosophy. It is unfortunate that the two articles are not named Objectivism (the philosophy) and Objectivism (the movement), but perhaps we can work together to fix that. In the mean time, the current particular naming of the articles is not the issue here. It's the content of each article. The topic of each article. And the topic of this one is the philosophy, which, since a philosophy is not a group of people, cannot be reasonably categorized as, or criticized for being, a cult, by definition.

And as far as this interpretation serving the needs of those wishing to suppress mention of cults here, that's like being suspicious of a lawyer who presents evidence in defense of a client. Good, be suspicious. But if you're the judge, or the jury, or even the opposing attorney, you need to evaluate the evidence for what it is, not the motivations of the advocate who presents it that you rightfully suspect to be biased. Claiming bias is a problem here is like claiming bias is a problem in a court of law. Focus on what is being said and whether the content is fair. Point out problems with the evidence and arguments that you see. That's the best known way for justice to be served, both here and in the courts. All this whining and wringing of hands about biased motivations is ridiculous and tiresome. Of course we're biased. We're humans... That doesn't mean we can't work out our differences in accordance with justice and WP:NPOV. Let's get on with it, shall we? --Serge 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We renamed this article from "Objectivism philosophy" to its current name because there is still a dispute going on over whether or not Randism is a philosophy. You are not going to override what we already decided upon as the most neutral title if you are just going to push a POV back into the article. -- LGagnon 00:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've done it, per this argument and my own. Let the edit warring and accusations of POV ensue. Crazynas 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The big problem here is that nobody has defined what a group of people is. A group doesn't have to be something you sign up for. Christians are a group, but they don't all hang out together (there are even some who don't take part in organized religion). And cohesiveness is also not strictly defined. The Randists here are very cohesive, but they aren't all part of the same specific group. -- LGagnon 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gagnon, you surprise me. Do you agree that a group of people, however defined, is at least comprised of, well, people? Do you agree that philosophies, ideas and ideologies are not comprised of people? Agreeing only to that, and to understand how that necessarily implies that a philosophy is not a group of people, no matter how defined, and is therefore not a cult (which is a group of people somehow defined) is all that is required to comprehend the argument about why the section should be moved. Not defining "what a group of people is" is not only not a big problem here, it's not a problem at all, since providing such a definition would in no way address, much less refute, the NPOV arguments presented here to remove the cults categorization and remove the cult criticisms from this article. --Serge 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Gag on this one. Objectivism as a whole has been called a cult. I reject your personal interpretation of this as being limited only to the movement. Therefore, the cult category belongs on both Objectivism articles, not just the minor one. Al 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying since "cars as a whole" have been called "means of transportation", and bolts are parts of cars, the bolt page should be categorized as a "means of transportation". The only real problem with this analogy is that cars and bolts do not happen to be homonyms like Objectivism (the philosophy - and topic of this article), Objectivism (the movement) and Objectivism (the whole - presumably the movement and the philosophy?) are. You know, if you want to argue that this article should be about Objectivism "the whole", not just the philosophy, then argue that. But making edits consistent with the article being about "the whole" (or some other part) when it's just about a part for which that edit is irrelevant is contrary to WP:NPOV. --Serge 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you actually read the Shermer article linked above, you'll see that he's not saying that Objectivism is a perfectly good philosophy that some weird little sub-group of has turned into a cult. Rather, he's saying that Objectivism was created by Rand with flaws that led to it becoming a cult. In other words, the ideas of the leader (Rand) were embodied in a philosophy (Objectivism, the philosophy) which allowed her to create a cult (Objectivism, the movement). Rand therefore fits in the cult leader catgegory, and Objectivism (the philosophy) is therefore as much a part of the cult category as Objectivism (the movement). Al 18:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Shermer does explain what it is about Objectivism (the philosophy) that is likely to have lead to the cult: "The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action." He contrasts this to science:

"There are no final absolutes in science, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific 'facts' are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but never final assent."

A fair and enlightening essay, to be sure (thanks for bringing it to our attention). But, Shermer also says, "While the cultic qualities of the group sabotaged the inner circle, there remained (and remains) a huge following of those who choose to ignore the indiscretions, infidelities, and moral inconsistencies of the founder, and focus instead on the positive aspects of the philosophy. There is much in it from which to choose, if you do not have to accept the whole package. " He is clearly referring to the original "inner circle" ("The Collective") as being the cult, not the "huge following of those who choose to ignore the indiscretions, etc.".

None of this amounts to any evidence that anyone has ever referred to the topic of this article, Objectivism the philosophy, as being a cult. If the fact that strict adherence to any philosophy developed by someone can lead to "cultishness", which is all that this essay establishes, justifies a "cults" tag on every such philosophy and ideology article we have, then we need to establish policy accordingly, and perhaps start with categorizing Early Christianity as a cult. But I am not aware of any such formal or informal policy in Wikipedia, and, as such, applying it only to Objectivism would be contrary to WP:NPOV. --Serge 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you were to categorize The Ayn Rand Collective article as a cult, I, for one, would not object. --Serge 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the problem with trying to make things too cut and dried. First, you say that Shermer calls the Collective a cult. Fair enough. Then you point out that Shermer admitted that many Objectivists never had anything to do with the cultish aspects. Still fair. But what about everyone in the middle? Consider those who read her books, attended NBI and ARI seminars, or even pledged cultish allegiance to Rand (as that one letter writer did), but who were never part of that inner circle. Are they all non-cultists?

Clearly, the cult line cannot be drawn at the boundaries of the Collective, nor extended to every last teenager who jerked off to the rape scenes in Rand's novels. Likewise, where does the philosophy end and the cult begin? Perhaps there is no clear line.

There may well be a gradual shift from definitely cultish to not at all cultish, without there ever being a specific point where one category begins and the other ends. By analogy, consider that there are short people and tall people, with many in between and no specific height that separates the two categories.

When a category is fuzzy, I tend towards inclusion instead of exclusion, which is why I support the cult category for this article. Al 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Al - You ask: "But what about everyone in the middle? ... Are they all non-cultists?". Most probably not. So what? That would be relevant here if this article was about them. But the article is not about them, so it isn't relevant. I agree the cult line cannot be drawn at the boundaries of the Collective - that some out of the Collective cannot be excluded. However, a line can be drawn between the philosophy and the followers of the philosophy. The fact that the line within the followers of the philosophy is difficult to ascertain is immaterial to the point that it can be drawn quite clearly around the philosophy itself, excluding all of it. There is nothing fuzzy about this. It is cut and dried. ALL cults are comprised of people. NO philosophy is comprised of people. Therefore, NO philosophy, including Objectivism this philosophy, is a cult. Period. --Serge 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that a line can be drawn between the philosophy and its followrs, but I must disagree. You make it sound as if cults are independent of the belief system that unites them, which is not the case. After all, what makes the Moonies a cult is their Moonie beliefs. Likewise, the Randist cultists are defined by their Randism.

I don't see how you can say, on the one hand, that Rand, her Collective and some undetermined number of hangers-on are cultists, while claiming that the philosophy itself is entirely non-cultish. As Shermer points out, the infallibilism of the philosophy, combined with its recent origin as the personal belief system of a single charismatic individual, are what brought the cult into existence.

Yes, you can draw a line, but not with any justification that survives inquiry. Therefore, you must remove the imaginary line in the sand and allow the category to apply to all relevant aspects of Objectivism, including the philosophy. Al 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by Objectivist movement? —Centrx→talk • 20:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not. Consider that the Unification Church is in the cults category, so Sun Myung Moon belongs in the cult leaders category. Interestingly, a number of vandals keep removing Ayn Rand from the cult leaders category, and now you guys are trying to remove this article from the cults category. Amazing how people who love Rand just won't allow her and her work to be classified "negatively", regardless of citations. Al 21:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You did not explain how your concern about the difficult to draw a line between those Objectivists who are cultists and those who aren't is not covered by Objectivist movement. --Serge 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Unification Church article being Category:Cults would actually indicate that Objectivist movement is the proper article for the category: The Unification Church is a "movement" not a religion or philosophy. —Centrx→talk • 00:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out the continuined effort by you fans of Rand to limit the mention of her cultism. Consider that, when the bulk of the cult section was moved out to Objectivist movement, nothing was left behind. I had to be the one to restore the section and link to the new location. This is a violation of forking policies and an indication that there is a genuine whitewashing attempt. I assume good faith but I refuse to conclude it when the evidence forces me to do otherwise. Likewise, your attempt to remove the category entirely from here is a part of that effort, and in the name of WP:NPOV, I veto it. Al 21:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Rand. This is not a fork, the section didn't belong here in the first place. NPOV is not at issue. You have no veto power. —Centrx→talk • 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Singer POV

The Singer paragraph assumes that the other sources all do the same thing. "Based on the the invocation of a few out of context similarities"? Nowhere is it proven that this is what all the accusations are based on. This is blatant POV, and an attempt to use Singer's writing out of context. -- LGagnon 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's classic original research. Singer apparently said nothing about Ojectivism, which means that the editor had to make the personal decision to apply Singer's words out of context. For all we know, Singer believes Objectivism is entirely cultish, which is why this amounts to quote-mining. I'll revert it when I get around to it. Al 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, for once somthing we agree on. Crazynas 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to mark this in your diary, since it doesn't appear likely to reoccur. Al 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Cult accusations

Please be civil and concise.

This dispute is about whether this article is the proper place for the section "Cult accusations" and for including it in Category:Cults.

• Argument for moving: A cult is by definition a group of people whereas a philosophy—the subject of this article—is a set of ideas. The accusing sources refer to a "cult of personality" around Ayn Rand specifically and to various cult-like organizations of people, but do not assert that the philosophy itself is a cult.

• Argument against moving: Sources that accuse Objectivism of being a cult do not exclude the underlying philosophy from those accusations. Moreover, moving the accusations to a relatively minor article may serve to create a POV fork that hides away criticisms.

See also the lengthy discussion above. If you would not like to read those pages upon pages, please ask questions here, concisely. —Centrx→talk • 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that apparently the cult accusations section is currently at Objectivist movement, but it may not be long before someone reverts it back here, and then someone else reverts it back there, etc. The following are the sources used there, and their specific usage in the article is readable in that section.

Relevant sources that are accessible online:

• Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. ""Books for Rand Studies."". Retrieved 2006-03-30.
• Rothbard, Murray. ""The sociology of the Ayn Rand cult."". Retrieved 2006-03-31.
• Shermer, Michael. ""The Unlikeliest Cult in History"". Retrieved 2006-03-30. Originally published in Skeptic vol. 2, no. 2, 1993, pp. 74-81.
• Lewis, James R. "Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile". Marburg Journal of Religion. June 2001.
• http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html

The following online-accessible sources are used in the article to counter the cult assertion:

• Peron, Jim. "Is Objectivism a Cult?". Objectivist Reference Center. Retrieved May 1, 2006.
• Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ. Objectivist Reference Center. Retrieved May 26, 2006.

The following are sources that are apparently not accessible online, the first countering the cult assertion, the second being the book reviewed in the Sciabarra source above, which supports the assertion:

• Leonard, Peikoff, "Recollections of Ayn Rand", Leonard Peikoff radio show. 1995-1999
• Walker, Jeff (1999). The Ayn Rand Cult. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0812693906

—Centrx→talk • 02:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)