Talk:Objectivism and homosexuality

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

List of POV statements in the new version of the article.

(Some gay and lesbian people) Vague.
(at the expense of government power) No Source
(Rand was clearly uncomfortable with homosexuality) POV
(and what her philosophy could mean for gay rights.) Sources?
(She did not seem to have put much thought into considering homosexuality) Pure POV
(did not seem to want to apply her philosophy's celebration of freedom and individuality to the early gay rights movement) "seem?" Means its not known.
(Two years after the Stonewall Rebellion,) Pointless.
(she supported the right of gays to serve openly in the military but not their right to work openly for businesses.) Pure POV
( Some suggest that Rand's negativity towards homosexuality may well have stemmed from her beliefs in strong, BDSM-tinged sex-roles) Sources??
(To many, this polarized view of men as sexually dominant over women did not seem to have left much room for homosexuality.) POV
(Rand's former "intellectual heir" and extra-marital lover) Pointless to the article unless you simply want to bash Rand.
(However, Harry Binswanger, of the Ayn Rand Institute, has an unconfirmable but more positive posthumous spin on Rand's views.) Unforgivable POV and in my opinion blatant smearing.
((emphasis added).) By who and for what reason?
(There is, however, no independent support for Binswanger's suggestions that Rand's homophobia mellowed somewhat with age.) There is no independent support needed. Unless you have proof he was lying.
(contemporary Objectivists continue to support the mixed bag that is the libertarian stance on gay rights.) POV and smearing.

All of this needs to be rewritten. Billyjoekoepsel 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for you to stalk me here and pester me with endless complaints that turn out to be invalid. I guess the wait is over. I'm going to spend no more time on this as it deserves.

Note that you have already violated the requirement to assume good faith and to be nice, so I'm responding for the record and not for you.

1) That's original text that I restored from Walrus vandalism. The article now includes a quote from Arthur Silber, which makes this a summary of cited text.

2) Again, original text rescued from his vandalism. Sourced by link to Objectivist philosophy, and not at all controversial. You're nitpicking.

3) Rand's discomfort with homosexuality is adequately supported by the quotes by and about her. She called it disgusting; enough said.

4) Yet again, rescued original text, adequately supported by the quotes in the rest of the article.

5) Rescued original text, still. The Binswanger quote supports this nicely.

6) That was a politeness. Better to understate than overstate.

7) Stonewall sets the context. She wrote the anti-left book and talked about the immorality of homosexuality just as the gay revolution ignited. In short, both factual and relevant.

8) Simple fact, and supported reference to libertarian perspective and her own quote. Also supported by link to Rand bio FAQ. There is no doubt about this.

9) Supported by references to the Moskovitz article, as well as by the quotes of her own words. Uncontroversial.

10) Yes, it's POV, but not mine.

11) Establishes his credentials, showing what makes him uniquely qualified to speak of Rand's views on sex. Moreover, entirely factual and supported by link to FAQ and to the Nat Branden article.

12) Once again, simple truth, and well supported. If you have a refutation, offer it.

13) By me, for clarity. It's a long, windy quote, and the key word is easy to miss. All he's saying is that Rand admitted that homosexuality isn't NECESSARILY immoral.

14) I don't need proof that he's lying, as I never accused him of lying. I simply pointed out the fact that he stands alone in this claim, with no verification available. Let people decide for themselves.

15) Fully supported by the quote that follows and by the libertarian perspectives article.

In short, you're just wasting my time. I welcome valid and constructive criticism, but you have offered none. Alienus 02:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is possibly the most biased article on Wikipedia. I fixed some of the most blatantly biased passages, but it still needs a lot of work. As an aside, I would avoid using the term "libertarian" in conjunction with Rand's views. Also, homophobia is completely POV. It's more neutral to say something like "objection to homosexuality." Also, this article is almost pure conjecture. In addition, I second Billyjoekoepsel's objections. This reads like a Pravda discussion of capitalism. LaszloWalrus 02:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your injection of 100% unadulterated POV has been rejected. Alienus 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can explain and justify your changes in advance, I will revert them. Care for another 3RR ban? Alienus 04:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billyjoekoepsel, your comments when reverting my edits were uncivil. Moreover, they constituted removal of cited material without justification, which is a form of vandalism. In addition, messages on your Talk pages reveal that you and LaszloWalrus are gaming the system by trying to trick me in a 3RR violation. All of these justify a block. Alienus 04:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaszloWalrus, you have repeatedly removed cited material without justification. This is a form of vandalism. Alienus 04:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the Alienus revert. If you touch this page or any page to incorporate your Bias I will report you so fast you will see it red shift. Billyjoekoepsel 04:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of an edit war are not productive. To quote 3RR policy:

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

In other words, you do not have the right to revert at will, nor does reverting text constitute a productive means of improving articles. If you have a legitimate, specific basis for deleting and altering this text, explain it here. Failure to do so must be understood as an admission that your edits are not made in good faith.

I'd also like to point out that both of you reveal on your user pages that you are highly partisan is all matters involving Objectivism and LaszloWalrus has a history of edit-warring, which is why Ayn Rand has been Protected for days. On top of that, you were brought in here from outside for the sole purpose of participating in an edit war. In other words, you are not someone who has put time and effort into this article, just a scab brought in to stack the vote and intimidate by force of numbers. Alienus 05:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest edit warier on Wikipadia is you. You have no right to spout this garbage when you are edit warring on half a dozen pages as we speak. Your edits are wrong and will be reverted. End of story. Billyjoekoepsel 05:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're wrong, then it's your job to explain what's wrong with them. A general declaration is insufficient. Moreover, the commonality among all the deleted sections is that they offended you because they don't follow the ARI party line. In other words, your sole complaint is that the article is NPOV and therefore violates your POV. This is not sufficient.

Your first attempt at changing this article was to list 15 easily-refuted complaints. I guess you've learned your lesson now: when you're specific, you get refuted, therefore be vague. As much as I'd like to presume good faith on your part, I can no longer do so. Alienus 05:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bait is all you got. Not facts. Not even POV. All you have is egging people on and starting trouble and I am over it big time. Billyjoekoepsel 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists largely of cited quotes from relevant people. If there's POV, it's that of the people quoted. Moreover, it's not as if all the quoted people have a consistent POV. In short, if you have any specific, supportable complaints, this is the place to make them. However, I don't think you do. Alienus 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, LaszloWalrus just deleted another sentence, despite refusing to come here and Talk about it. In fact, the sentence had been challenged by his friend, Billyjoekoepsel, and I responded. Lazslo is apparently ignoring this response and simply deleting whatever he feels uncomfortable with. If it doesn't fit his hagiography of Rand, he'll remove it. Alienus 07:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Billyjoekoepsel has further censored the article while pointedly refusing to come to Talk and explain his changes. This is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia rules and tantamount to vandalism. If it were a mere content dispute, he be disputating it right here. Instead, he's doing an end run around peer review. Alienus 07:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the censoring continues. This time, Billy removed a clause that explains who this Nat Branden fellow is and why he would know anything about Rand's views on sex. It's entirely relevant that he was her former "intellectual heir" and extra-marital lover, as these two roles make him uniquely qualified to speak on these matters. Alienus 07:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of playing the edit war game, I went ahead and starting improving the article. In some cases, it did involve reverting text, but mostly I fixed some errors and added more quotes. I've been doing some serious scholarly research. Of course, Lazslo just waltzed in and reverted the whole thing, while refusing to come to Talk and explain what possible bias there might be. If he had changed a line or two, he might have some point, but blanket reverts of his sort are pretty much worthless. When I continue editing this article, I will have to ignore his changes, as they are unsupported by conversation. Alienus 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to continue chronicling to the ongoing edit war here. After I removed "party line" as a compromise, my work got overwritten by 64.167.172.163, a user who has a handful of edits, all of them involving either this article or Ayn Rand, where he's been trying to suppress the fact that Rand opposed LGBT rights. If he's not an outright sock puppet, he's a one-note Randist who has shown no interest in helping Wikipedia, nor in following its rules. I'm tempted to have checkuser run against them to see who they really are, but it seems fairly pointless.

Anyhow, after that salvo helped Laszlo avoid one more revert to his 3-a-day limit, Laszlo vandalized the article by removing any reference to the Stonewall rebellion. Interestingly, this topic was brought up earlier by Billy and soundly rebutted by me. Laszlo has made no attempt to refute my argument or otherwise engage me on the specific details of the article. In fact, he hasn't spoken here in a while. Instead, he's content to just make changes, in direct contradiction to wikirules. Do I expect an admin to do anything about it? Do pigs fly? Alienus 17:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration request

War dispatches

Do you think that you and I might work together on this article?

When I say that I probably have available every word Ayn Rand ever wrote, then perhaps Bjk and Laz will back off for a bit, and confine themselves to short messages here on this page.
When I say that my intended use for the Randiana is to help you with references, should you need it, then perhaps you will find me worth working with (he alliterated).

I'm a retired old fossil, with lots of time and patience. Perhaps I can explain exactly why some of the wording in the article seems to be contrary, not to Objectivism, but to the standards of Wikipedia, all without arousing any antagonism (he alliterates again! :-). At least in some ways we are kindred souls: that was a nice catch on that misplaced possessive. If you can figure out why I object to the phrase, "party line", then we can probably work together. If you reconsider and remove it, I'm sure we can. The article needs a lot of work.--TJ 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, anyone who's willing to use the Talk page is better than the reverting walrus and his buddy. And if you can get these people to join us on the Talk page, all the better. I'm not against constructive criticism and compromise, but I'm really not interested in yet another edit war with this guy.

My main concern is that both of these people are card-carrying Objectivists. In fact, they no longer carry the card, they had it tatooed on their foreheads. Anything short of a proper hagiography of Rand is instantly reverted.

I'm going to take a look at the article right now and see how it is. Alienus 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still wear my dollar-sign tie-tack on occasions, but that is beside the point. Wp is not the place to throw either wreaths of flowers or rotten tomatoes; we can record (and cite) those actions by others.--TJ 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just looked and you haven't yet made any changes. Frankly, the first step is to undo the revert, but I'm not interested in playing a game of 3RR Chicken.

I certainly haven't made any changes; I'm trying to intervene in an edit war, not prolong it. My next step, apart from commenting below, will be to seek explicit agreement from my two potential friends, to accept me as a suitably moderating influence.--TJ 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, please be careful to avoid inserting your text into other people's text blocks on Talk. I realize you did indent and you were in no way trying to pass your words off as mine, but it does violate the rules and tends to piss people off when done repeatedly. This time, I just moved your insertion to the end of that text block.

With that out of the way, I just want to say that your dollar-bill tie does not automatically disqualify you from contributing usefully to a controversial article about Rand. What would disqualify you is if you mistook your personal POV for a neutral one. We all have biases and the first step to working past them is to acknowledge, even if only to ourselves, that these exist.

This is a serious problem for WP. Right now, I'm engaged in a grand social experiment on Jesus to discover whether dedicated Christians can actually be objective about the lack of evidence for a historical Jesus. So far, the answer is a clear no. It would likewise be interesting to see if people who consider themselves students of Objectivism can be objective about their teacher. Results so far have not been heartening. Having said that, I'm going to assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Frankly, I find this whole edit war silly. In editing the article, I've tried hard to apply my journalistic training by reporting the views of others while minimizing any editorializing on my own part. I'm sure I haven't always succeeded -- consider "party line" -- but I'm making a good faith effort here. Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case with Laszlo, Billy, or the nameless IP who vandalized the article today. None of them are even in here talking, which is one reason why I feel that their input is of little to no value. Moreover, most of their changes are not subtle POV removals but the amputation of well-cited and relelvant material.

The standard 3RR warning begins with "Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first", and it's clear that they've been reverting my edits while refusing to discuss their reasons. However, I don't expect any productive intervention by admins at this time. If anything, I fully expect to be threatened, blocked or otherwise harmed. It's unfortunate and unfair, but it's also the reality of the situation. Alienus 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real editing (finally!)

I'm not in love with the phrase "party line". If you can state your objection and it seems reasonable, I'm willing to find another phrase. Alienus 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent! It's a pleasure to start our work.

My objection is that the phrase is "loaded". It carries the pejorative connotations of its origin, as a derogatory reference to the CP of the USSR. It is also not literally true, since AR \& friends were never a political organization. In the context of a discussion of the Libertarian Party, and "the government can do no good", the phrase would be ironic, but probably acceptable. Here, I suggest, it isn't.

N.b.: I am trying to frame my suggestions in Wikipedian, NPOV-adhering fasion. Any time you think I am following 'the party line', just say "POV"; remembering that Objectivist and Wikipedian principles will coincide from time to time. And, I will be less verbose in future.--TJ 11:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any connotation involving the Communist Party, but that may just be an age difference. I would agree that "the government can do no good" is part of the Libertarian party line, but Rand is not a political party as such, so the term would not apply to her literally. It does apply to her figuratively, in that anyone can be said to have a party line. For example, I recently heard someone say, "You know that my party line on action movie starring women is to avoid them, but I'm intrigued by Ultraviolet". This person was clearly not speaking of any political party, as such.

In any case, the phrase is not hugely important and hardly worth fighting over. It's not like you're asking me to delete an entire quote in which Rand explains, in her own words, just how she feels about the topic of the article. That's why, before even talking about it here, I went ahead and removed "party line" from the article. Unfortunately, it has since been vandalized.

For the record, Jimbo, founder of Wikipedia, is in fact sympathetic towards Libertarianism, so I wouldn't be surprised if the two do coincide sometimes, for better or for worse. Programmers are, if anything, overrepresented on WP as compared to the general public, and there's also a correlation between that profession and support for libertarianism. Alienus 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have always considered it on the order of Orwell's duckspeak.

As for the rude editing (yes, it is close, at least, to vandalism), I will try some more to curtail it; no guarantees, sorry. Meanwhile, I think the only way we'll get anything done (notice the "we" when you're doing all the work! :-) is to edit one (or two) paragraphs at a time. I suspect that much of the objection is less to what is said, and more to how it's said. Some of the wording is explicitly deprecated in the MoS, as "weasel words" to be avoided.--TJ 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your text outside of my block again. Also, I got rid of your <br>. Generally, we try to avoid using HTML here when there's a wiki-native way to accomplish the same task.

It's not merely rude editing, it's outright vandalism. If any of these people were in here, discussing their objections, then I wouldn't call it vandalism. However, so long as they think they get to speak while keeping their fingers firmly in their ears, I have no tolerance for them.

And on that note of no tolerance, I came to this article when I noticed it being censored by LaszloWalrus, and spent a good deal of time and effort fixing it up. You can — and likely will — argue with some of the results, but it was all done in good faith and with an effort towards proper scholarship. There's very little material out there on Rand's views of homosexuality, and much of it consists of interpretations from the Objectivist peanut gallery rather than primary documents. I'm proud of what I've done, and while I'm willing to work to improve it further, I'm not willing to work from a vandalized version.

Therefore, the next time I make a change, likely in response to a discussion here, I will make that change to the last version I touched. Lazslo and that anonymous user can vandalize all they like (and VoA won't stop them), but I'm not going to let the vandalized versions remain and form the basis for future work. If this gets me mistakenly banned for 3RR violation, then so be it. It's not my goal, but it's a foreseeable consequence that I'm prepared to accept. Alienus 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beware: logical thinking is hazardous, to biases and other comforting nonsense. (This user is a native speaker of Assembly language).--TJ 20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for logical thinking and for rationality (as opposed to Reason). And as for assembler, don't forget how many dialects there are; knowing just one makes you monolingual. Alienus 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects: many, many (tekel,upharsin :-)--TJ 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More real editing (almost)

Is this a satisfactory way for us to communicate? (Adding a new 3rd-level section here?) If so, please reply within here, and I will blank and rename it to a real edit topic, and start talking. Otherwise, I'm open to suggestions.--TJ 00:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine; I'm not that picky. But do check out the text below, regarding Stonewall. Alienus 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa

I regret that I missed your words in the earlier section, re text-block insertion, and then I went and did it again. Please understand that I've had to do this kind of arranging with real cut & paste, with real scissors! This technology is so wonderful, that I think we should use it just as I was; but, as it offends you, I will be careful not to, at least here.
The problem arises with multiple thoughts in multiple paragraphs. My insertion methodology seemed like the best way to enable multiple threads. Oh, well. I'm sure there are more unwritten rules I need to learn.--TJ 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a written rule, though I'd have to dig to find the page it's on. I realize that interleaved text comes naturally to people who've dealt with threads of email and such, but that's just not the way it's done here, primarily because we're all sharing a single virtual whiteboard and we need to be able to tell at a glance precisely who wrote what.

Stonewall

Let's not get hung up on this. Instead, why don't you explain your objection to my mention of Stonewall? Before you answer, please scroll up to see the previous objection to it and my reply. Alienus 23:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look's pretty good to me right now. LaszloWalrus 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to what we call the "Talk page". This is where we come to discuss changes instead of just making them. Are there any changes that you'd like to discuss? 03:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know of the significance of Stonewall in the gay rights movement, but its placement in the article gives the impression that Ayn Rand was somehow responding to that event, which she was not. Also, citing some crackpot racist who quotes Ayn Rand (in an entirely different context, by the way) is a blatant attempt to associate her with racist/homophobic ideas. LaszloWalrus 05:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually suggest direct causation between Stonewall and Rand's comments. However, her book was a response to the feminist and sex lib movements, including gay rights, which she wrapped up together as the "New Left". Anyhow, the primary purpose of mentioning Stonewall is to put all of these events in context. It explains why people kept asking her about her stance on homosexuality at these public forums. For that matter, it also clears up some misconceptiosn I've heard, which seem to be based on the idea that Rand was writing all this before gay rights was even a movement. (As for the racist Australian, let's deal with that topic separately.) Alienus 05:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-building at last! (Welcome, LaszloWalrus!) We are all agreed that the Stonewall reference is relevant to the gay movement, but Laz and I object to the possible "response" implication. May I suggest, since the reference is relevant to historical context and the preceding sentence is all about that, that you (Al) merely move the ref there? (BTW, the whole ref was news to me.) You might even spell out (for dummies like me) how the increasing [militance? self-awareness? gay pride? help!] led to more questions, just as you did above. I'm thinking of something like, ". . .led to increased interest in Rand's stand on the issue." This would make a nice last sentence in a 'context' paragraph, as a lead-in to the Forum (new) paragraph. The idea is to place the ref firmly in a context of its own (influencing the gay movement), where it belongs (and it does belong), and explain its (possible) consequences.--TJ 11:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a new section for our pending discussion on that kook.--TJ 11:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The text currently reads:

As part of the liberalization of sexual attitudes, the gay rights movement became increasingly visible in the late 1960's and early 1970's. However, two years after the Stonewall Rebellion, Rand attacked the feminist and sexual liberation movement in her book, The New Left (1971). She called these movements "hideous" for what she saw as their use of government power to gain "special privileges". In some of the essays collected in this book (particularly in later editions), she touched on homosexuality. For example, she wrote that, "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." ("The Age of Envy" 1975)

How about this:

Initially, Rand showed little interest in the issues surrounding homosexuality and did not comment on them. However, as a part of the liberalization of sexual attitudes in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and particularly after the Stonewall Rebellion sparked the modern gay rights movement, homosexuality came to the forefront of public attention. [New paragraph here--TJ 05:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)]In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays which directly attacked the feminist and sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement.[No para here--TJ 05:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]

She called these movements "hideous" for their demand for what she called "special privileges" from the government. She also addressed homosexuality itself, writing that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." ("The Age of Envy" 1975)

Any better? Alienus 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. Just what I had in mind. I suggest you move up the paragraph break above, but that's only a pure English suggestion. I think it corresponds better to the idea flow. Feel free to accept/reject. If I have word changes, I propose to use ~~strikeout~~ / underline notation.

If Laz likes it, we're done on this one!--TJ 05:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're done on this one; I just inserted the above text, using your suggested paragraph break. As for Laz, he has made himself irrelevant. Just now, in between two constructive changes, he reverted the article without bothering to talk about it here. He has left the negotiating table and he's not even welcome to return. Anyhow, forget about him. You're Randist enough to represent the other side. Alienus 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I asked for the page to be protected before the edit war occurred, and then I asked again recently, so as to end the edit war. So, here we are, with a protected page. It's going to stay that way until we resolve our differences. Let's get cranking!

As it happens, the article got locked into Calton's reversion to my last edit, which gives us what I would consider a reasonable starting point. Most recently, TJ and Laszlo expressed unhappiness with the mention of Stonewall, while Calton and I consider it to be relevant in showing the context. Perhaps we could discuss this issue first, unless there's another one that someone considers more pressing. Alienus 03:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous section--TJ 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Australian

[Copied from earlier discussion.]--TJ 11:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a new section for our pending discussion on that kook.--TJ 11:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of replacing the first clause in that sentence, "While no philosopher can be held fully accountable for the views that they inspire in others," with something like, "Outside of the Objectivist movement,"? The idea is to avoid a brangle over a) accountability in general, and b) Rand's accountability in particular. There is still some potential attribution of responsibility in the rest of the text; I'm comfortable with it, but if Laz feels strongly enough about it, he and I can probably find a citation for a concluding sentence like, "Official Ojectivist spokespeople repudiate any connection with such nonsense." The flavorless last characterization is deliberate; I firmly believe that AR's own answer would have been that line from Kipling, which she quoted in a similar context: "If you can bear to hear the truths you've spoken / Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools".--TJ 19:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know if that guy is outside or inside the Objectivist movement; I just know that he was clearly inspired by Rand. I'm certainly not blaming Rand directly for this guy's views; she was nowhere near as anti-gay. However, it does seem relevant that Rand is quoted by some gay-bashers.

Likewise, I'm not sure we need to guess at what the ARI might say, since we've never suggested that the ARI endorses this sort of thing in the first place. If anything, the ARI today is more tolerant of homosexuality than Rand ever was (except perhaps when she was in a particularly good mood, as Binswanger said).

Maybe part of the answer is to find a third example to round out the samples of post-Randian reactions. What do you think? Alienus 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the racist Australian stuff should be deleted for two reasons: 1) He's not notable 2) His views are not at all representative. If we allow the views of anyone who happens to quote some philosopher or other in alleged support of his own views, then we could make any philosopher seem connected to anything. LaszloWalrus 21:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed some of your concerns above. As for notability, I'm not suggesting that we write an article dedicated entirely to him and his crazy rants, just quote him where he's relevant. Likewise, I don't think he's being presented as representative. For that role, we have Damian Moskovitz, who we quote at length and explicitly identify as an Objectivist, rather than just some nut who sees support for his beliefs in Rand's writings. Alienus 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye, LaszloWalrus.

At this point, I am no longer willing to deal with you. If you make any suggestion, it will be rejected. If you make any change, it will be reverted. If you make any disturbance, I will have you banned. Go where Billy went and stay there. Alienus 00:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to attack me personally, please do so on my user page.LaszloWalrus 00:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack, just a simple statement of fact. Goodbye. Alienus 01:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Alienus has decided just to revert my changes without discussion, I shall do the same in regards to his. There's no use arguing with someone to whom all argument is meaningless. LaszloWalrus 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

I've unprotected this article because it has become clear to me that the problem boils down to a difference of opinion between User:LaszloWalrus and User:Alienus that has spread from Ayn Rand to this article and Rodeo Drive. I'm warning both editors to discuss their problems civilly on talk pages, amd they will be blocked if they continue to disrupt Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

At this point, any change made by anyone without prior discussion in this Talk page will be considered vandalism and immediately reverted. I've been banned for 3RR before, however wrongly, and I don't really care if I have to be banned again just so long as it stops people from vandalizing this page. Alienus 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to mediate here, and it is working. I ask other editors to note that his is a controversial subject, and to please be careful about pouring gasoline on this fire. Several contributors' nerves are on edge, from this and other edit wars; please allow for that in other people (and maybe in yourself :-). We can always use more light, but not more heat.
Therefore I support Al's intent, if not his methods. I will personally pursue formal actions against uncivil editors, if my own more gentle persuasions fail. I am talking style, not substance: content we can always dispute, even vigorously, but we will do so in civil, Wikipedian fashion. There are many excuses—even some good ones—for feeling otherwise, but none for actually doing it. [Later expansion below--TJ 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
- The problem here is not vandalism. Vandals smash things for fun. Applied to edit wars, the term is inflamatory hyperbole.
- Nor is it trolling (more hyperbole). Trolls provoke arguments for fun.
- What we do have is POV-pushing, beyond the bounds of civility. This can become actionable; that would be regrettable.
- I share one of the POVs in question. I am a student of Objectivism (which was the proper usage in my day). All relevant POVs should be respected (not glorified, or even deferred to) in the editing process, and should be cited in the (NPOV) article itself; I am trying to see to that.--TJ 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those who are as disgusted as I am about edit wars may find w:No angry mastodons interesting and topical. Also, see the Talk page there, for how well (IMHO) a collaboration can go.--TJ 20:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody reverting non-vandalism changes, claiming that it is vandalism, will get into trouble. I promise that. Vandalism is not an edit you disagree with, and it is not an edit made without discussion on a talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, and thank you. I have amended my remarks accordingly.--TJ 11:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory text

This article seems mostly like it exists to prove a point (that gay people don't like Ayn Rand because she didn't bend over backwards to approve of their lifestyle? I don't know). The introduction claims that her political views were incompatible with those of the "mainstream gay movement". What are those "political views" that the movement has? How do Rand's fail to comply? It looks like, in the very next paragraph, she says right out that the government has no right to interfere with a consensual relationship between two people, which is more or less what one would expect from Objectivist philosophy. What Objectivism is opposed to (and the article points this out) is granting any group or individual special rights.

The question at hand seems to be whether to put either this article or Ayn Rand in Category:LGBT rights opposition. I am opposed to this categorization, certainly for the article on Rand herself, since her personal tastes have nothing to do with opposition to granting anyone political rights, and possibly for this article as well, because I'm not sure that it makes a good case for why Objectivism is such a huge threat to the political rights of the LGBT community. --Cantara 18:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantara, homosexuality is not in fact a lifestyle at all, but rather a sexual orientation. For comparison, consider that being a bachelor or being married but with a mistress are both lifestyles, yet both are heterosexual. In contrast, speaking of the "gay lifestyle" is about as meaningful as speaking of the "left-handed lifestyle". Like handedness, homosexuality is an orientation, a way people are and not merely a way they choose to live. People who are entirely celibate can nonetheless be gay; look at the RCC.

There used to be a time when left-handedness was equated with immorality (check out the etymology of "sinister", for example), but we're over that now. Now we see it as a natural and harmless variation that applies to a substantial minority of people of all types. I'd like to imagine that, one day, homosexuality will be seen as no more a moral issue than left-handedness. But that won't come so long as people are afraid to admit to their sexual orientation because they don't want to lose their jobs. 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome Cantara!

I have edited your Category link above, to do what I presume you meant to. Feel free to object.
I am copying your 2nd paragraph to a new section ("Category") for further discussion. The "new-section" methodology seems to be working in the consensus-building process. (Again, FFTO.)

Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand, which some gay and lesbian people have been interested in for its celebration of personal freedom and individuality at the expense of government power. However, Rand's personal views of homosexuality were unambiguously negative and her political views were incompatible with those of the mainstream gay rights movement.

IMHO, this article is a NPOV perspective on a definite POV. That's tricky to pull off. How about extending the last sentence, as

". . . movement., which advocates [?] X and Y."

assuming we can find two good examples (one involves private employment).--TJ 12:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not categorically opposed to clarifying her opposition here, but isn't that what the rest of the article does? I'm concerned that too much detail up front would make that detail redundant later on. I'm also concerned that any attempt to briefly summarize the fine points of her opposition would be so short as to distort what is a complicated issue.

Having said this, perhaps we could try something like:

"her political views were incompatible with the gay rights movement".

It's short and accurate. It explains in terms of the movement she opposes but doesn't try to break it down into a detailed list of what she does and doesn't support. It also doesn't make it sound as if she opposes all gay rights of all sorts all the time, which would be a misleading overstatement.

What do you think? Alienus 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC (glbt)

Was Rand a significant figure in opposing gay rights, or just another kook with an opinion?
Was her opinion, or those of her followers, important in a substantial way?
Were her statements on the subject meaningful, powerful, and influential, or merely a side note to her beliefs?

Ronabop 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, I've already replied to these questions on Ayn Rand. Because it's the same issue affecting both pages, perhaps it might be more convenient to have this particular discussion on one page. I'd suggest Ayn Rand, as it's more central and has more participants. It's also a practical choice in that an agreement to add that page to the category would automatically carry over here, but a rejection would not. Alienus 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Rand

Al, most excellent on the early sections! That (what you've said) is what I mean by NPOV, both language and editing. But:

"we ought to allow homosexuals to be discriminated against in the private sector"

Come on. "We" can do better than that. Maybe something along the lines of, "private employers have the right to discriminate on any basis, rational or otherwise; it's their business, in both senses."

Note that we are talking tactics, rather than moral goals. There are many non-coersive ways to confront such irrationality.--TJ 13:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion is that it's too specific to be a good summary. We're not just talking about firing gays, but also about throwing them out of your store or refusing to let them rent an apartment from you. The issue isn't free associations -- nobody can force you to have gay friends, and nobody's going to sue you for not being their friend -- but economic harm. In this context, the non-governmental area of the economy is referred to as being the private sector.

So if you have an alternative that you feel is more neutral but still manages to be an accurate and comprehensive summary, we should consider it. However, I'm not going to debate on the issue of whether laws are "coercive". Alienus 18:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While still avoiding the issue of "coercive", I think that what you're asking for is that we distinguish between "we, as individuals and self-selected groups" and "we, the people, acting through our government". Check out the article. Alienus 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see your point, I think. Hokay, how about, "private businesspeople have the right to discriminate on any basis, rational or otherwise, in matters of employment, customers, and suppliers; it's their business, in both senses."--TJ 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not comprehensive. It's about participating in the economy and public life, as opposed to just owning a business.

If I decide that gays freak me out so I don't befriend them, that's my choice.
If I speak out against gays, that's still my choice and is covered under free speech.
If I suggest that gays should be beaten, then the 1st amendment may not suffice to protect me.
If I put up a huge banner in front of my house, declaring it to be a "FAG-FREE ZONE! HOMOS NOT WELCOME!", there may be zoning considerations.
If I rent out my basement, this sort of informal sole proprietorship is technically a business but not always thought of as such, yet my decision to rent to gays is in the private sector.
If my coop allows me to weigh in on whether to allow a homosexual to move in, I own shares in the business that owns the building, even though I don't consider myself to be in business.
If my condo allows me to weigh in on this, I don't own the business, but I do own property and I'm participating in a contract.
If I call my co-worker a fag, I'm not a business, but the business we both work for is liable if they allow me to continue to create a hostile environment.
If I own a business and I fire someone for being gay or refuse to serve a customer on that basis, I'm liable.
If I beat someone up because I think they're gay and with the stated purpose of making gays unwelcome in my neighborhood, I might face a stiffer sentence under hate crime laws.

In short, it's really not about business, as such. Really, it's about anything but the government, and that includes a variety of possibilities. 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very helpful! Your scoping of "private sector," while not unjustified, is a lot wider than I (and, I fear, many others) would think of when reading this. I propose to avoid the term; more like,

". . . oppose all legal restrictions on non-governmental discrimination, rational or otherwise."

I think the Objectivist position on use of force, where legislation is appropriate, is well enough known not to require repeating here; though probable opposition to "hate laws" (research required) might be relevant. Am I getting closer?--TJ 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The private sector is rather broadly defined, since it refers to "the area of the nation's economy under private rather than governmental control". Having said that, hate crimes don't quite fit the notion of the private sector because they're not economic, and zoning laws are also a questionable fit. I've changed the text now to read "to support the view that the government must to allow anyone other than itself to discriminate against homosexuals." How's that? Alienus 21:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. You're a much better writer than I. (I did have to remove a surplus "to".) Concur.--TJ 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)

I take your typo-correcting edit to mean that this issue is dead, too. If colored pencil-marks on your monitor are a problem, I recommend sticky notes and tabs.

By the way, I'm not sure if this interests you, but there are some echos of the conflict here appearing elsewhere. In particular, a person who may well be the chairman of Outright Libertarians has been removing the Category:LGBT rights opposition from Outright Libertarians and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights, variously aided and opposed by others. I've done my best to avoid edit wars and get the two main people into Talk negotations, but I've had only mixed results. It might be something for you to keep an eye on. Alienus 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

organization of "reactions"

The section on reactions was recently reorganized - just a reordering of the paragraphs as far as I can see. I was wondering exactly what the motivation for the change was, and whether the proper way to order these opinions is just chronologically, either by date of comment or date in relation to Rand's life (I believe that Branden's comment about her opinion "mellowing" is now last, in fact). The paragraphs might already be ordered this way, but since a different order+slightly different wording conveys a much different impression, maybe we should make a conscious decision. Cantara 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. So far as I can tell, no reason was given for the change, and it does not improve the article. I reverted it. Alienus 22:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know that it improved it, but I think it did change the tone. For one thing, the comments about Branden being Rand's lover were removed in the new edit. Binswanger's very positive comment was put first. In general, the new edit was much more positive - so we should consider which impression the article ought to give. Rather than do so subjectively, I suggest we pick one of the chronological ordering schemes I mentioned above. Cantara 22:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Paragraph

Just a wee suggestion: the intro paragraph isn't very good at all. It doesn't give a sufficient explanation for the article, and both sentences it consists of are pretty blatantly POV (although, they're amusuingly contrary). So yeah, I was pondering how to rewrite it and couldn't come up with an answer, not being familar enough with objectivism, or the issue at hand. Anyway, just a thought. -- Yossarian 09:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated attempts to move to "Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality"

LaszloWalrus has twice tried to move this article to a new name. Unfortunately, he has made no attempt to gain a consensus here for this change and has been reverted twice by me.

I have my reasons. Simply put, this article is about Objectivist, not Ayn Rand. It starts by speaking of Objectivism and has a section dedicated to views of Objectivists after Rand's death. Perhaps a full rewrite could turn this into an article solely about Rand, but why would we want to do this?

Anyhow, I urge LaszloWalrus to come here and discuss this issue, rather than move-war over it. Al 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the current title is that Rand (or other Objectivist) pyschological views are not part of the philosophy of Objectivism. LaszloWalrus 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, do not move this page until AFTER you get a consensus. Making a statement is not the same as gaining consensus. Rather, it is a first step in that direction.

In any case, I cannot agree with your argument. Objectivism is a complete philsophy, and ethics is a huge part of it, including sexual ethics. Likewise, Objectivism is Ayn Rand's personal philosophy. If she says something is immoral, then that's what Objectivism says. Or so it was until she died, which is why the article has a section for how her movement has changed its views somewhat ever since her death.

In conclusion, your reasons are mistaken and you have no consensus for your move. At this point, I feel I have no choice but to file an ANI. Al 06:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Ayn Rand says something is immoral that is NOT necessarily what Objectivism says. Read the faq on objectivism and homosexuality here [1]. LaszloWalrus 19:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed this issue already. Namely, she's not speaking on psychology but ethics, and ethics is a key part of Objectivism. If she says homosexuality is incompatible with the objectively true ethical system of her philosophy of Objectivism, then she speaks with the authority of the author of the philosophical school. As for that FAQ, I read it when I was researching some of the changes I've made to this article, and I don't see any part that's particularly relevant. It would be up to you to cite something specific.

Fundamentally, the article is not limited to Ayn Rand's views, so the title you suggest is inaccurate. The way I see it, we can either change the title back or rewrite the article, and the latter would wind up throwing out lots of important and relevant material in the attempt to fit the article into your desired box.

I'm tempted to once again revert your change, because it is a bad idea and has no consensus. After all, you have failed to address my points here in Talk and your unsupported personal conclusion does not suffice as sufficient reason for moving this article. However, I'm going to avoid an edit war by holding off until others chime in. Thank you for understanding. 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed an interesting question. Commie-pinko-bastard though I be, I tend to agree with LW here, in that homosexuality does not seem to be a particularly important/pervasive issue within the Objectivist movement, and the title should remain as is (Ayn Rand's views...etc.). I do agree with Al, however, in that Rand "speaks with the authority of the author of the philosophical school," and that, more often than not, her ethical views are found intrinsicly in Objectivism. Some Objectivists consider it an entirely closed system, after all. However, I think it is wrong to assume that this is true of all Objectvists.

This really is more about Rand's views. Much like western philosophy is a footnote to Plato, Objectivism is no doubt a footnote to Rand. But I don't get the sense that Rand's homophobia became part of the movement, nor did, in fact, any substantial view of homosexuality.

Yes, fundamentally this article isn't limited to Rand's views. However, the importance of this issue seems to stem almost exclusively from her views...I doubt anyone would care otherwise, considering the indifference Objectivism seems to hold for homosexuals (as they do for all things...I kid, I kid), aside from damage control for her views. Later Objectivists appear to have either little to say on the subject, don't care about the subject, or have outright rejected this as being moot to the philosophy proper, and that homosexuals can do whatever they like (if it feels good, as they say...). One might view this as something of an apology for Rand, and that, I think, argues strongly for the article to concern her views primarily (and titularly). The views of other Objectivists are certainly important, but more as commentary on her opinions...as contrasts. In the sense that they (apparently) mostly counter her view, they are important, IMO. As stand alone, they appear rather superfluous.

It could be argued to split the article and write a seperate one up on the views (conflicting and otherwise) of homosexuality in the movement at large, but there isn't enough material here to justify it (as of now). The current section (Post-Rand) is slim.

Anyway, that's my two cents. You need to reach a consensus, however, before you move forward. I recommend not making any page changes (no matter what you think it should be) until an agreement is reached. Hopefully I've contributed to finding an answer. --Yossarian

10:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please do something about the intro (see my comments above).

PPS: On second thought, it should be "Ayn Rand's views of homosexuality"...it flows better. Trust me. I'm a poet. ;)

One might make an equally strong case that Homosexuality and Scientology might be better named "L. Ron Hubbard and homosexuality." (This isn't the first time it's been useful to compare Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard, and it sure as hell won't be the last.) Most of that article is about Hubbard's own views and the fact that the Church of Scientology has said little on the subject publicly. Clearly, any attempt to explore either movement's attitude toward homosexuality must necessarily deal in large part with the homophobic views of their respective founders. Personally I don't see value in building artificial walls between the founders and their movements in either article—Homosexuality and Scientology should stay where it is, and this article should be renamed back to Objectivism and homosexuality. —phh (^t/_c) 23:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points. It almost seems as if Laszlo is trying to protect Objectivism from Rand's homophobia. Al 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it almost seems as if Alienus is trying to smear Objectivism. Pscychological views are NOT philosophical views. Only Rand's philosophical views qualify a Objectivism. Similarly, it is not un-Objectivist to dislike Godiva chocolates, even though they were Rand's favorite candy. This is not building "artificial waslls between the founders and their movements"; this is retaining the proper delineation between what is and what is not part of a philosophy. LaszloWalrus 00:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it almost seems like everyone is tired of Alienus and LaszloWalrus sniping at each other! Could that possibly be it? Seriously, when did you two get married?!

Before I address some important points, let me deal with some distracting ones: attacking each other is dumb. Plain and simple. Caring this much about a philosophical debate with a person you've (likely) never met in real life is foolish, whether or not you worship/loathe Ayn Rand/Objectivism. The concept of debate is intended to develop answers and new ideas, not reveal your petty hangups on a popular website. Here it is in a nutshell: I don't care who's right or wrong, nor does any serious encyclopediast. Put aside your intense hatred of each other or take a break for a while, because if you don't it'll just get worse. If you two really can't work together, but insist on continuing in this fashion, I'm not sure how this article can ever be improved. Neither of you are being productive by continuing this rubbish. I don't want this to come down to arbitration, but it may well, considering your past history with each other.

That being said...phh makes a good point. However, I think the comparison with Hubbard is unfair (even if Ayn Rand is a worse novelist). Scientology, it seems to me, is based on one man's insincere objective of making money. Objectivism, on the other hand, is one woman's sincere money driven way of reaching an Objective (that's not as facetious as it sounds). That is, Rand's views are intended as reasoned ideas; Hubbard's are a manipulation. I fundamentally disagree with most of Ayn Rand's views, but I wouldn't equate her with LRH.

While I agree there shouldn't be any artificial walls (and naming the article as such does hold that possibility), this debate comes down to semantic interpretation. As I said, Rand is to Objectivism as Western Philosophy is to Plato (my apologies to Alfred North Whitehead). It also comes down to whether one identifies Objectivism with Rand exclusively, or whether one identifies it with a broader base (I'd go with the former, but that's not the point). These are certainly not mutually exclusive topics, but I do feel they (perhaps) warrant two different articles. Assuming enough information can be put together for Objectivism and homosexuality. Perhaps not the greatest answer, but something of a compromise. An alternate method might to come up with a title that makes both sides happy. Something to the effect of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Homosexuality (or the like). I could definitely live with that. --Yossarian

08:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yossarian, my love for Laszlo is boundless, but let's not allow that to confuse the issue. The issue here is that, as written, the article is not about Ayn Rand, it's about Objectivism. The first sentence gives that away, as does the section dedicated to post-Randian Objectivists. Of course, because of Rand's primary role in Objectivism, any article on the latter is going to be largely about the former, and this is true here.

Your proposed article title is interesting, but its redundancy pretty much proves my point. Any article on Ayn would be a subset of an article on Objectivism, but no article on Objectivism can avoid being about Rand. Laszlo would like us to distinguish between Ayn's views and Objectivism, but this is a hopeless project. Ayn's views on any subject relevant to Objectivism automatically constitute canonical Objectivist views, and sexual ethics is clearly a part of Objectivism.

The truth is that Rand's views are interesting almost exclusively due to their impact on Objectivism (and Objectivists). In other words, even if we managed to cut this article down until it fit within its title, it would be a crappy article.

For all of these reasons, and all the other ones I've mentioned, it is factually wrong to entitle this article "Ayn Rand's views on (or of) homosexuality". It really is "Objectivism and homosexuality", and should be named so.

Now, let's pause briefly to discuss possible bias. It is a simple fact that Rand was hostile towards homosexuality but the ARI is trying very hard to pitch Objectivism at gays, so they have done their best to gloss over these details. Therefore, anyone with strong loyalty towards the ARI (hi, Laszlo!) might be tempted to assist. This may or may not be what's going on here, but regardless, such a result would be entirely contrary to WP:NPOV. Al 13:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, provide evidence that says that Rand's "views on 'any' subject relevant to Objectivism automatically constitute canonical Objectivist views." "Relevant to Objectivism" is a slippery term. All of Rand's views that are PART of Objectivism are canonical, but her views on psychology are not. There is also no evidence that ARI is trying to "gloss over" anything or to "pitch Objectivism at gays." Having a view on homosexuality either way is not necessarily pro- or anti-Objectivist. As I indicated before, you could, by the same reasoning that you're employing, have an article called "Objectivism and chocolate" and argue that it is against Objectivism not to like Godiva, which was Rand's favorite. LaszloWalrus 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything here that's new, so I'm going to charitably ignore it. Al 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the last paragraph of Al's previous (not the one preceding my text here) post: Certainly, but it's merely our duty to report that people (such as you and me) think that, rather than present it as a fact. There may be evidence for that, but Wikipedia is designed to present views, not endorse them. It must be balanced with the opposing view (the Ayn Rand Institute's...or, more generally, an Objectivist's). It's only biased if the opposing view presented is endorsed ("...the ARI is trying very hard to pitch Objectivism at gays"). The ARI might claim that they concentrate on bringing all people into the fold just as hard. But, I digress, as I don't know enough about that issue to argue with you about it. Now, it doesn't have to entirely conform to the title. That would be lame. Any good article on a philosopher's views can include his/her disciple's as well. It's not a closed system, if we act as neutral reporters.

In regards to LW's comment: At this point, Al's doing that isn't go to do much good. In fact, there's not much point, as there are probably some people who take those views in such a way. Yes, it is a slippery slope, but while the canonical, "separately" psychological views are indeed separate, this is an ideal. We shouldn't, in my opinion, treat Objectivist theory as if people don't have their own, personal interpretations. Whether that means it contradicts Ayn Rand's goals is beside the point. We can't defer to dogma (or what we might perceive as dogmatic). That being said, the number of people who take her psychological views as canon may well be negligible.

"The truth is that Rand's views are interesting almost exclusively due to their impact on Objectivism (and Objectivists)." Not necessarily. Nietzsche is interesting to people who do not consider themselves Nietzshean (e.g. Ayn Rand herself), and is certainly well studied by his opponents. However, Nietzsche’s philosophy was, in similar ways to Rand, a one man show (pardon the pronoun, but I doubt that Rand would "object" :). There would almost certainly be an article on "Nietzsche's views of homosexuality" rather than "The Nietzschean view of homosexuality"...we could, however, potentially have the latter. To be fair, Nietzsche is a slightly different case than Rand for, in an ironic way, Rand's philosophy was developed somewhat more "communally" (but only slightly). The point is, Ayn Rand's views largely make up Objectivism. If other Objectivists had made contributions, significantly, during the formation of the theory, then I'd go with Al. As it is, and as I said above, it seems (seems is a weasely word, but it's my disclaimer) to be mostly apologetics (but this is not a closed system, in the eyes of the masses, as I discuss below).

So the question boils down to this: Have Ayn Rand's views of homosexuality influenced Objectivism in the way she viewed it (if at all)? To me, the answer would be no (this is a subjective view, but I'll get to that). Now, I tend to agree with Al that, yes, Rand's views on homosexuality were ethical, but I synthesize with the Walrusian view by believing they were influenced by her psychology, which is separate from her philosophy in a theoretical sense. So does that make a philosophy? I tend to agree with LW on the Godiva principle, but it's not entirely right, and it's a little too subjective. Ayn Rand likes her Godiva chocolate, and we could say some Objectivists have taken this as canonical. Ayn Rand's psychological views, while, perhaps, at best not intended to be part of her philosophy, could be taken as such by some people. But if you're a true Objectivist, in the purely Randist sense, those psychological views are indeed separate.

So, again, I propose a compromise title or (as a last resort) separate articles if we cannot reach a consensus. While this is not the solution I believe is the best one, it would get things back on track. Al argues that this would be a redundancy. I do not believe so. This debate is very much a semantic one. Either way the direction of the article's content will not change much (again, it doesn't inherently become a closed system if we have Rand's name exclusively in the title). I also disagree that, as written, it's about Objectivism. As written, it's about Ayn Rand's views of gays and sex roles (the sex roles thing is in Objectivism, but here it's presented in terms of her personal view), which doesn't really make it about Objectivism. Yes, her views largely constitute it, but it's not a closed system when we talk about it(my first post: "it is wrong to assume that this is true of all Objectvists"). Also, the reactions are all to do with Rand's stated homophobia. And, again as I said above, the Post Rand section is surprisingly slim. Can Objectivism be treated separately from Rand? Somewhat. The inverse? Definitely.

I'm off track though. To get to the point: a semantic debate can be solved with the synthesis of both titles. It doesn't endorse either view (Ayn Rand vs. Objectivism) but it does show that they are neither mutually exclusive nor inclusive. They're separate, but together (Strom Thurmond anyone?), which presents both takes on the matter. If that's still not good enough, then try making two articles. That's the greater evil of the two compromises, but it's better than page change wars. Way better.

Another thing: Al, you're correct, it is somewhat distracting to discuss your conflict with LW here, but it is something we have to address. You're not helping anyone by ignoring him. You want LW to discuss things, then don't ignore him, even if you think he's rehashing an argument. Not only is it rude, it's utterly detrimental. He didn't say anything insulting in that particular post, and there's no reason to be uncivil. Don't act that way simply because you have a bad history with him. This is a debate. If you ignore him, then you're useless to the discussion. You can't come up with new ideas, and your old ones will stagnate if you don't defend them. Treating another person as if their opinions don't matter is, like, the last thing you want to do on Wikipedia (unless they're vandals...then we get the flame throwers out).

Can you (both of you) leave a message on my talk page about this (I mean the problem you're having with each other)? I'd like to talk to you together (or separately if that will help). My email is available, so if that's more to your liking, go for it. But I don't think this should be left alone to fester. It's harmful to the work here. --Yossarian

01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two of us want to restore its original name, and you support a name that's somewhere in the middle. Way I see it, the weight of editorial opinion is against the current name. Do you agree? Al 03:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the nature of this 'debate' (syn: Argument) thus far, the core of the prolem is simply that we can't decide whether Objectivism -- such as it is -- includes all things Rand, or whether it's a dynamic system that varies according to the thoughts of its followers, and more generally, can it be swayed by celebrity appeal. For instance, if Tom Cruise doesnt think that Brooke Shields ought to have antidepressants, then all Dianeticians must also concur with this, and failure to do so excludes them from that distinction on stricter levels. If Stalin combs his moustache from right to left, all communists must abide lest they NOT BE COMMUNISTS. In order to resolve this dispute in a way that everyone can sleep with, we simply have to determine where Ayn Rand the Objectivist founder ends and where Ayn Rand the Godiva-chocolate loving woman begins.

Oh, and an aside. Alienus, there is nothing charitable about disregarding a comment unless it harms the speaker, and even then, it's generally only applied to technical errors like a typo or a mathematical inconsistency, rather than a fully false premise. So, please, DO-NOT-RUIN-CHARITABILITY.

Please, I beg of you sir. It's all I have left. The word you are searching for may be 'recklessly' or perhaps the whole comment was to read "I didn't feel it constructive to regard your words in any practical, or in fact, even remotely civil manner, therefore I elected to forego perusal of your entry in favour of a witty retort, saving me time and keystrokes! Ha-ha!" Unless you read it. Then you didn't ignore it all, did you? ;)

Getting back on track, however, LaszloWalrus makes the valid point that Ms. Rand's views do not unconditionally coincide with the views of all Objectivists. This is due to a commonality we all (or so I presume) share, the fundamental human condition. People are different, some more than others. Objectivism is the creation of Rand, and therefore it will be very hard to set the two apart, and that is the kernel of contention. Yes, saying Ayn Rand's Views on Homosexuality could, potentially limit the scope of the article, but that's what footnotes are for. Conversely, Objectivism and Homosexuality leaves it in a state where any old Objectivist could waltz in and impose their thoughts on the Wikipediing public, and, technically, have a bloody sinew of a leg to stand on (that is, a catastrophically weak, but valid, argument).

In conclusion, Ayn Rand may have been a homophobe, but that really is a right owed to her in the spirit of her Objectivism -- the right to do and think whatever she so chooses, regardless of how kooky it may seem, rather than a component of Objectivism worth fighting -- much less flaming -- over. Sounds like a semantic issue rather than a technical, or even useful one. Only the most hardcore Objectivists will care if it says "Ayn Rand" or "Objectivist", and, frankly, even then the chances of genuine 'caring' are remote. If you must, make two articles. I quite like Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Homosexuality. I mean, if it includes both Ayn Rand's thoughts and the thoughts of Objectivists at large (no matter how indistinct they may be), then name the article for both. Everybody wins, right?

But here I am editorializing. Oceanhahn 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to Alienus's comment: well, I never said I unconditionally supported the compromise. If a consensus develops one way or the other, then we'll go with that (but I maintain the current name is the best, and if we can't agree to a compromise, I suppose my position stands, no?). JFO is quite correct. The distinction between Rand the philosopher and Rand the chocophiliac is definitely important. I think the editorial weight is now 3:2 (if you count my and Oceanhahn's votes as for compromise, then it's 2:2:1). But that's no consensus. It's five geeks taking a straw pole. I'd still like to know what LW says about the compromise idea (and we won't be ignoring him). --Yossarian

06:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it occured to me that since the status quo on this article's name has already been broken (multiple times, in fact), there really is no logical (that is, non-technical) reason to change the name, nor to leave it as is. You two (Alienus and LaszloWalrus) are just jousting; YOU EVEN SAID SO YOURSELVES.

Please forgive my senseless use of caps lock, but some things simply must be 'shouted'. Oceanhahn 07:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's discuss the guts.

Consider that atheism is a core part of Objectivism. If someone were to say that they were theists yet claim to be Objectivists, there would be a contradiction between their claims. In other words, Rand's atheism is not some personal view, it's a part of her philosophy of Objectivism.

On the other hand, liking chocolate is not a core part of Objectivism. It is quite possible to be a doctrinaire Objectivist without liking chocolate. In other words, Rand's love of chocolate is a personal view, not a part of her philosophy of Objectivism.

The issue of which name this article belongs under comes down to deciding whether homophobia is closer to atheism or chocolate-loving. Since Objectivism doesn't speak of which foods to prefer, it's not clear how chocolate-loving fits in. On the other hand, Objectivism is largely an ethical philosophy and sexual ethics constitute a significant part of it.

If Rand said she personally disliked homosexuality, we could say that this was a matter of personal taste and disregard it. Instead, she added that it was immoral and unhealthy. She did not believe in subjective or personal morality, so if she said it was immoral (and she did), then she was saying it was immoral for all. In this way, she made it a part of her Objectivist philosophy.

For these reasons, it is misleading to characterize this article as being about her beliefs as opposed to those of Objectivism. Al 17:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if her beliefs are analogous with the fundamentals of Objectivism, why should it matter? Or is it simply a matter of putting into words the difference between core premises ("ethics") and petty whims (chocolates)? Could that not be done in the article itself? Oceanhahn 21:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does distinguish between Rand's ethical beliefs and those of Objectivism. It concerns the views of Objectivism as a whole, so it starts with the beliefs of Objectivism's founder and ends with the beliefs of the followers who survived her. It is demonstrably not an article limited to Rand's beliefs, whether personal or as part of Objectivism. Therefore "Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality" is entirely misleading. Al 21:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a more analogous situation; in the 2004 election, Leonard Peikoff voted for John Kerry [2], whereas Harry Binswanger voted for George W. Bush [3]. One could make the argument (per Alienus's reasoning) that one of them is not an Objectivist due to a difference in "political ethics" that "constitute a significant part" of Objectivism. But they are both still Objectivists; they don't disagree philosophically, only on a concrete application of the philosophy. I think it's the same situation as with Ayn Rand's comments on homosexuality. They are not a fundamental part of the philosophy; rather they are a (mis)application of the philosophy. LaszloWalrus 21:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analogies work best when they're, you know, analagous. Both Piekoff and Binswanger gave tepid, lesser-of-evils endorsements. In contrast, Rand said outright that homosexuality is immoral, insane and disgusting. Try again. Al 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't their personal philosophies have played at least some part in who they voted for? I mean, these are applications based on their personal beliefs. A "lesser-of-two-evils" argument doesn't merely come about because you flip a coin. So if Rand dislikes homosexuality, which to me is a small subset of broader sexual interactions that are addressed through out her work, it could certainly be argued that it's an application of her views, rather than a tenet.

For example, she did say "I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit [homosexual behavior]. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it." She never said that we have a right to be altruists (one of the main reasons I dislike Rand's philosophy), and even went so far as to rant about in just about every book she ever wrote. I think that quote alone adds weight to the view that it's her personal taste, and only an application of her reasoning. If she'd had any concern for it, outside of homophobia, she would have argued more aggresiviely that it's wrong (female president anyone?). Now, it is true that Rand pretty much adopted the view that all sex should not to be interfered with by the government, though, so one can argue that. I had a point to go along with that statement, but I forgot while I was trying to feed the cat :). I figured I should throw it out there now, rather than have someone else do so later. Cheers, Yossarian

00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Just how is she supposed to dislike homosexuality and not think it's immoral? I, myself, would not engage in anal sex, as I don't find it arousing in the least. I find it icky. But that doesn't mean I dislike/hate gay men. It's homosexuality is perfectly natural (and in my example, it comes down to a sexual act). To dislike homosexuality enough to say so, tends to mean you think it's "unhealthy and/or immoral". So if she said "I dislike homosexuals" period, wouldn't we assume she did so on a moral level? You don't say that if you just think men kissing is icky. So do all casual, but firm, homophobics have that as part of their personal philosophy (how they decide to go about the world today) or is it just a personal view? (I'm really just playing devil's advocate on this one, but I want to see what it turns up.) --Y

Neither Peikoff nor Binswanger are Rand, nor even analagous to her. She created Objectivism in her own image, casting her reasons as Reason and raising her subjective views to the status of objectivity, her beliefs to facts. Objectivism was therefore an externalization of her personal beliefs, a part of her. In contrast, both of these ARI people are simply keeping her legacy alive and selfishly interpretting it to fit their needs. Moreover, while they're the guardians of orthodox Objectivism, the movement has split since her death, and there are other guardians, such as Kelley, with different views.

The key to understanding Rand's hostility towards homosexuality is that, even if it started as a personal matter, it became an integral part of her public philosophy. This was a necessary consequence of her strong, BDSM-tinged ideas about sexuality and sex roles, in which the man is sexually dominant. As is often the case with people who endorse specific roles, homosexuality doesn't fit in. If proper, moral sex is about a man sexually dominating a woman, what do you do with two men or two women? Who's on top? This is precisely the same problem that religious conservatives run into, with precisely the same result: homophobia.

This also explains why her objection to homosexuality was not limited to matters of taste. She didn't say (as some of her followers now do) that, even when homosexuality does not suit them, it's perfectly moral for those who feel otherwise. Instead, she said that it was immoral and a sign of mental unhealth.

Now, you may agree or disagree with her, but what should be clear now is that her opposition to homosexuality cannot be written off as a whim. Al 03:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not analogous to Rand in the sense that they share her status within the Objectivist movement, but they are Objectivists nonetheless. Again, I'd like to point out that philosophy (any philosophy) is never a closed system, regardless of what its founder may say (or even its disciples). Reinterpretation is not necessarily selfish. Once a philosophy is "on the market", it's fair game.

You say it's an "integral part of her public philosophy." Well, first, I don't agree that it's integral and you haven't really backed that claim up with any evidence. It's a blanket statement, and rather general. What does integral mean? Is everything she says about sex held together by a keystone of homophobia? Second, is Objectivism hers, and hers alone, to use, or is it something others can adopt? Well, it would seem so, since there is indeed an Objectivist movement. And, as I've been trying to say, it's open to interpretation (see Oceanhahn's comment: "human condition").

Basically, what I think you're saying is that even if one is an Objectivist who believes there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, or even if most Objectivists believed that (which has not been proven to be true, I might add), your philosophy is still, and always will be, homophobic? You say yourself that there are different branches of Objectivism, with varying beliefs and different guardians. So, then, if we were to label this article "Objectivism and Homosexuality", we would be labeling all those non-homophobe Objectivists as following a homophobic philosophy, no matter what they personally believe, and that they could never reconcile those two things, because the founder of their philosophy was a kook when it came to sex, and her views (all her views) are inexorably tied to it. To make the long story short, would this title endorse the label of Objectivism as a homophobic philosophy, unretrievable from Ayn Rand's cold, dead, gay bashing hands?

If that is indeed the interpretation from labeling the article as you propose, then we can't do so simply on the grounds that it violates the neutral point of view. We know Ayn Rand's views of homosexuality. We know those for sure (concretely on paper). But we can't say what Objectivism's is period, merely due to the fact that it has many branches. In short: if we equate it (Objectivism) with only Rand's views, then we endorse many Objectivist's and their view that it is a closed system. We also, in another way, endorse the opposition: "Ayn Rand = Homophobia :. Objectivism does too: you shouldn't be an Objectivist if you want gays to have rights." QED. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be an Objectivist, but it's not up to us to sell others on that. People can make their own decisions. Also: one does not endorse the view that Ayn Rand's homophobia is relagated to herself alone with this title. It merely suggests that she has these views. If it affects Objectivism in some way, then that can be discussed too (these articles are not closed systems).

My conclusion: The best answer is to maintain this article's title as is, and explore a second article concerning the view of modern Objectivism and its sects. They will of course be dialogical, but they maintain a distinction. The best compromise would be to rename the article with a synthesised title, or something similar (unless we have other ideas for what a compromise might be). I support the latter, but if that doesn't suite you, then let's start talking compromise, as we all seem pretty set on our positions. --Yossarian

05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make an effort to be clear when I write, but that effort is not always rewarded. With all due respect, your response does not show an accurate understanding of what I've written. I'm not complaining that you disagree, I'm saying that you simply do not understand what I wrote. I could go point-by-point, but I'm not convinced that I should. If you didn't understand anything I wrote the first time, why should a second time be an improvement? Frankly, I am bothered by your baseless accusations and refusal to assume good faith, so I'm writing you off. Al 06:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found something else that's relevant, in the book Ayn Rand Answers; she did not regard comments made during question and answer periods (which was when her comments about homosexuality were made) as being part of Objectivism. LaszloWalrus 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could be relevant. If you could provide a citation and a quote (or an electronic copy, or whatever), then I think we can work from there. Keep in mind, however, what I've been saying about closed systems. --Yossarian

08:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV flag

The current naming of the article is POV for all the reasons I've outlined above. Al 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you engage in a discussion, address some points, or perhaps think of a compromise, rather than simply applying the POV tag? You've got three people who think the current title is more appropriate, and I've given a good argument (I think) as to why it's not POV, nor have you addressed my points or Oceanhahn's statement about status quo (or even LaszloWalrus's, whom after you dismissed, told to "try harder"). Please, give this further discussion. I don't think it is POV, but I'm not going to remove the tag, as that will only incite more fighting. I suggest others do the same. I hope I'm not sounding confrontational, but this discussion still isn't getting any results. --Yossarian

07:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bye"?

Okay, just read what you replied to my last argument. Wow. You accuse me of bad faith...I've tried not to say anything inflamatory, or anything that could be interpreted as such. If something has been construed that way, I apologize. But I have never once accused you of anything (aside for an inability to work with LW). I do understand that my last post under the "name argument" section could have been read as confrontational, but I assure you I was not trying to say anything against you personally. I wasn't accusing you of trying to push that POV, I was merely trying to point out what I percieved as logical flaws in your argument, which is what we do in a debate. However, I do think I worded that, and the third paragraph as a whole, poorly. Noting that, nothing I have said was intended as an attack on you.

I'm trying very hard to hold my tongue right now, because I find the fact that you've "written [me] off" to be offensive, rude, and the very definition of not assuming good faith. I've tried hard to come up with a solution/compromise: you've then accused me of not understanding your argument and refused to clarify it for me. I'm perfectly willing to hear. I've tried hard to mediate the little war that seems to be going on between you and LaszloWalrus: you've neither addressed it nor shown any signs of discontinuing it (nor has he, to be fair, but he's not "writing [me] off" at the moment). I'm still willing to work with you both. I do not want to request an administrator to help with this page, but at this point I can see no further discussion being productive if you're going to refuse to work with people who are looking for a compromise. That being said, there's no reason we can't work past this and start fresh. --Yossarian 09:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for losing my patience with you. I'm going to try again to explain precisely why I disagree.

You wrote:

You say it's an "integral part of her public philosophy." Well, first, I don't agree that it's integral and you haven't really backed that claim up with any evidence. It's a blanket statement, and rather general.

If you had read more carefully, you would have noticed that I explained how homophobia is an integral part of her public philosophy by showing how it follows from her view of sex roles, which is likewise enshrined in her public philosophy (as well as her fiction). In contrast, if her beliefs about homosexuality were not deeply connected to other beliefs that are part of Objectivism, it could be argued that they are merely personal, and then the article should be about Rand's personal beliefs, without mention of Objectivism.

You also wrote:

Basically, what I think you're saying is that even if one is an Objectivist who believes there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, or even if most Objectivists believed that (which has not been proven to be true, I might add), your philosophy is still, and always will be, homophobic?

This could not be further from the truth! I'm not claiming that Objectivism is inherently homophobic, I'm saying that Rand, and her canonical version of Objectivism, are homophobic. This claim is well-supported by the evidence. I've also gone out of my way to make sure the article reflects the views of Objectivism as a whole, by including quotes from Objectivists who explicitly disagree with Rand on this issue. This is precisely why the title of the article should focus on Objectivism, not merely Rand.

You even wrote:

We also, in another way, endorse the opposition: "Ayn Rand = Homophobia :. Objectivism does too: you shouldn't be an Objectivist if you want gays to have rights."

No, we do not. If anything, we show how Objectivism has gone to great pains to distance itself from Rand's homophobia. That's why, once again, I included all the quotes by non-homophobic Objectivists. Did you actually read the article?

Finally, you concluded:

My conclusion: The best answer is to maintain this article's title as is, and explore a second article concerning the view of modern Objectivism and its sects.

This is completely wrong and based on premises I've demolished. The article is not about Ayn Rand's personal beliefs, so it should not have a title that claims such. It is very clearly about Objectivism and homosexuality, starting with Rand's homophobia and ending with the variety of post-Randian views among extant Objectivists and their fellow travelers. To come to this conclusion, you would have to misread the article and everything I've written in explanation.

Given this, I am at a loss as to how to continue or why I should even bother trying. You have not shown a good faith effort at understanding, nor have you assumed good faith in your interpretations of my statements. Instead, your characterizations are inaccurate and insulting, which is why I lost patience with you and walked away instead of losing my temper.

It's up to you to demonstrate some comprehension at this point and to assume good faith rigorously. Al 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting fresh

First, I'd like to address your last comment. I honestly believe I've assumed good faith (as it's defined), and that yours has never been in question (from me, at least...well, with the exception of your "...writing [me] off," which I took to be bad form...but, understandably, your action was taken in the heat of the moment, so it's not too big a deal). My only concern with you is the past history with LaszloWalrus, which has so far, IMO, been damaging. I know you've both assumed good faith with each other, so it's just a matter of tempering the conflict. As for my interpretations in general (mis- or not), I've had no doubt you are acting in what you believe are only the best interests of the project and the NPOV. I did admit that my comments could have been taken as confrontational/accusatory, but I believe (hope) I've explained my error sufficiently above (if I didn't, by all means, ask). I don't think I characterized you (if that's what you mean) in any sense personally: I did characterize the interpretations I felt one could take from your reasoning/the title/the frame you suggest for the article under the title. I am allowed to do that, even if I could be wrong. To be fair, I didn't go into it as deeply as I should have. Again, my apologies. I might add, however that it's also up to you to assume good faith, as it is with all Wikipedians, even in dealing with those who aren't assuming it. However, I'm not suggesting that you aren't now. By the way: I have read the article.

That being said, let's try to find a solution, rather than argue with each other about how pissed we were. ;-) If you still have a problem with me, personally, take it up on my talk page. Leave this page for discussion of the article.

Second, I'd just like to clarify and respond to some of your points:

I explained how homophobia is an integral part of her public philosophy by showing how it follows from her view of sex roles, which is likewise enshrined in her public philosophy (as well as her fiction). In contrast, if her beliefs about homosexuality were not deeply connected to other beliefs that are part of Objectivism, it could be argued that they are merely personal, and then the article should be about Rand's personal beliefs, without mention of Objectivism.

When I said evidence, I was more interested in a source on an article she wrote exclusively on homosexuality (more or less), or a statement from her saying that it (i.e. homophobia) was indeed an integral part of her sexual theory, rather than the interpretation and argument that her BDSM streak inherently precluded it (but that's a tad picky, and I didn't define "evidence"). I do get what you're saying, however, and I don't think I stated my critique properly. The way I see it, the concept of homosexuality as immoral stems from Rand's application of her sexual philosophy (or even her philosophy in general: e.g., her characterization of the gay rights movement: "She called them 'hideous' for their demand for what she considered 'special privileges' from the government."). To me, that doesn't necessarily make it part of her philosophy. It makes it the product of her own interpretations. Other Objectivists have their own interpretations of her work. Without the homophobia, Rand's sexual stance does not necessarily fall apart. If it did, it would indeed be integral. Afterall, some homosexuals do engage in more "masculine" gender roles. One interpretation might be that, although a woman's femininity is tied up in being dominated, this does not mean a man dominating a woman is integral to masculinity. There are many ways to have sex, and some of them can indeed be equal. As gay lovers are both, well, men, then they need not dominate the other. Some have even found male homosexual undertones in some of her fiction. Now, this is not at all a definitive argument, but is merely a point about the theory not falling apart because gay people might be allowed to have sex.

I suspect our views on this are more based in our personal philosophies rather than anything we could convince each other of factually. We always seem to have different interpretations. That's why I think a compromise is starting to look like the best solution. But that's a different story that I'll get to later.

As something of an aside: I disagree with you on the idea that an article, titled as is (or as you say, on Rand's personal beliefs), would constitute one "without mention of Objectivism." As you know, I've discussed closed systems quite heavily (incidentally, I'd like to hear you view of "closed systems" and my arguments about them...or, more specifically, "methodological/theoretical closure"). Wikipedia articles, like philosophy, are not closed systems, nor should they be. For example, if I wrote an article about Plato, would I exclude mention of his philosophy? No. While this is an extreme hypothetical, you see what I mean. If we were to write two articles, or choose a compromise title, my view is that the articles/sections would inherently be dialogical. This is not to say that you're proposing that they should be closed systems, but, IMO, I find that could be the result if we go with your solution.

I'm not claiming that Objectivism is inherently homophobic, I'm saying that Rand, and her canonical version of Objectivism, are homophobic. This claim is well-supported by the evidence. I've also gone out of my way to make sure the article reflects the views of Objectivism as a whole, by including quotes from Objectivists who explicitly disagree with Rand on this issue. This is precisely why the title of the article should focus on Objectivism, not merely Rand.

I think I explained that I wasn't trying to say you, personally, believed that. However, that section, and my third paragraph as a whole, can certainly be read that way, so you're quite right to point it out. I was trying to give an idea of what some interpretations and POVs (inadvertent) could be read into your proposed title, within the frame you feel it should be written. Just trying to reiterate what I said in the first paragraph.

Now: "Ayn Rand's canonical version of Objectivism." I don't think that's really something we can determine. Again, many Objectivists have their own views, even if some suggest there is nothing after Rand. The canonical version of Rand's Objectivism is no doubt in dispute even among the most ardent Objectivists, even among those aforementioned who end their views with Rand, yes? Furthermore, to accept, for example, the ARI's interpretation of Rand's canon would be endorsing its view that it's the only true successor to Rand. Same goes if we consider Ayn Rand's personal view of her work as the only measuring stick, which I find is indefinable in NPOV since it's invariably in dispute (in another way, once a philosophy is out there, it doesn't belong to its philosopher, but that's really more my metaphysical view than anything else). Succinctly, "Ayn Rand's canonical version of Objectivism" is in dispute from any side you care to shake a stick at and I don't think we can even have a neutral definition of it without choosing one of Objectivism's many branches' POV. Nor can we define our own, as it would invariably have to be our own definition, based on our interpretations of Objectivism.

Less generally, because the view that Rand's homophobia is an integral part of Objectivism is disputed, that alone prevents a definition of its place in her canon.

As for the views of Objectivism on a whole, why should they not appear in an article that pertains to Rand's view? Such an article, without them, would be rather spare, since commentary is important to any article such as this. For example, and to bring back Plato, if we had an article called "Plato's views of metaphysics", would we not include later Platonists' interpretations of/conflicts with his view? My closed system argument certainly applies.

Also: my reading of the article suggests that those who are mentioned, who have addressed this subject, fall into two categories: 1. Apologists for Rand. 2. Those that have applied Objectivist political philosophy to homosexuality, rather than taken an official view on it within the philosophy. To clarify: in my view, political philosophy applied to a subject is not canonical to a group's ideas, but rather an interpretation (a law vs. a judgement). For example, acceptance of homosexuals might be construed as a subset of the "government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" argument. A view within the philosophy would be one in which homophobia, or gay rights for that matter, became a key part of theory, without which a major tenant would be rendered invalid/differently. Anyway, I don't believe anyone mentioned falls under the latter category. Long story short: application vs. theory.

To the point: I don't think this really represents Objectivism as a whole if we take your view that Rand's views are inexorably part of her "canonical" philosophy. If we suggest that all Objectivists are attempting to apologise for Rand's views, then we are endorsing a view of Objectivism. If it did (within the framework you're suggesting we go with), then where are those, considered part of any Objectivist movement, who still concur with Rand on gays, as well as consider that a view within the philosophy. In fact, where are the ones that have applied theory to homosexuality and found it wanting? In short, I disagree with you that the article represents the views of Objectivism as a whole, not only because I disagree with your definition of Rand's Objectivism being homophobic, but also because there are no specific examples (yet) of current homophobic Objectivists, aside from suggesting there are some "notable" ones, and then going on to say that homosexuality has never meant exclusion from the ARI (which is sort of non-sequitous in context, but that's not important). In short, as you argue, I do not believe this article "reflects the views of Objectivism as a whole."

Furthermore: assuming we agree with the statement, "Objectivist organizations have generally had little to say about homosexuality or gay rights," then doesn't that suggest that this is really more a rejection of Rand's personal view, and that if it were integral, it would have lead to more development of the theory in the sexual field, with more of a split between homophobic branches and non-homophobic branches? Now, that's not to say I agree with that statement. It's general and not sourced. The whole Post Rand section has examples of the non-homophobes, but none of the homophobes, if they do indeed exist (which I assume they do). So I don't agree with the sentence as it is, and I can't really make my suggestion based on that sentence. However, I will make that suggestion based on what I've said above, at least tentatively. I do suspect that sentence is true, but there's no way we can base anything off it without a source, and it isn't up to Wikipedia to state as much so definitively, so the point is moot for now.

This is completely wrong and based on premises I've demolished. The article is not about Ayn Rand's personal beliefs, so it should not have a title that claims such.'

Well, I don't agree that anything's been "demolished", but that's subjective I suppose. The second sentence, I believe, with all respect to you, is based on a fallacy. It seems to suggest that an article concerning Rand's views cannot include discussion of/from other Objectivists. I quote: "...if her beliefs about homosexuality [are] not deeply connected to other beliefs that are part of Objectivism...[then the article] should be about Rand's personal beliefs, without mention of Objectivism." This is a rather sweeping statement (so if I've misinterpreted it, my apologies). I've argued above already why I don't think it does represent the Objectivist movement as a whole, and I've also pointed out the problem of a closed system numerous times (addressing the bolded clause in particular). I've also pointed out that I disagree (and argued) with the view that it's "deeply connected" in an integral way.

And for those reasons I believe the current title is the best one. To put it plainly: I believe that the current title represents the NPOV. Rand has demonstrated her homophobia, and that's quite clear. It's on paper. But whether or not this goes into her philosphical work is debatable, and will continue to be.

However...

I'm more than willing to work out a compromise with both parties, if they're willing. It's, in my view, not the greatest choice, but it will stand the test of NPOV. I don't believe it can come down to two articles, however, as I'm assuming you would argue that a second one is superfluous (if not though, then I think we can make some head way faster). My synthesised title is still on the table, though, and I really think that's the path of least resistance. Once the name is dealt with, work can come back from a standstill. We all know why our idea is the best one, and why the our opponent's is the wrong one. I just don't see this debate ending (without a compromise) unless a side either gives up or changes its mind, which I don't think is going to happen (well, the latter won't: the former happens too often...giving up wouldn't help anyway, as it would deny a voice out of frustration). If you have other suggestions for a compromise title, I'm all ears.

-- Yossarian 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Homosexuality". This is accurate, without either giving the impression that it's just about Rand or not at all about her. One article will do, thanks. Al 16:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'd just like to see what a couple of others say before we try and get the page move block lifted. I really think this is the best resolution we can hope for. Cheers. --Yossarian

17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would a straw poll suffice to demonstrate consensus? Al 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear some new voices (if we're just refering to the current editing collective), but I suppose that'll do if no one else objects. --Yossarian

01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Vote for whichever you support, and feel free to add comments:

A) Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality.

I'd prefer "Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality". LaszloWalrus 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B) Objectivism and homosexuality.

I prefer this one. Al 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C) Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Homosexuality.

I'll accept this one. Al 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For. Good compromise, and I don't think the other two can reach consensus. --Yossarian 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For. It covers all the bases. Oceanhahn 23:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept "Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and Homosexuality." LaszloWalrus 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For. This may be the ugliest article title I've ever voted for, but it's really not a bad compromise. —phh (^t/_c) 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a sudden change in the way the vote is going over the next day or so, should one of us move the page?--Yossarian

11:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]