Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Ayn Rand was a fanatical smoker

I think that the article should mention her smoking habits that lead up to her cancer. It's done in other articles such as Freuds's, so I don't see why it shouldn't be done here. [Please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Like this: ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces.]

I agree. Since so much of her philosophy deals with morality and self-preservation, her excessive smoking is relevant. Incidentally, she was aware of the apparent contradiction her smoking presented, and she mentioned something about it a time or two. Tragic romance 06:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

She actually quit smoking when it was proved to be dangerous. From peikoff.com:

Q: If Ayn Rand were still alive, would she smoke?

A: No. As a matter of fact, she stopped smoking in 1975. When the Surgeon General in the 50s claimed that smoking was dangerous, he offered nothing to defend this view but statistical correlations. Ayn Rand, of course, dismissed any alleged “science” hawked by Floyd Ferris, nor did she accept statistics as a means of establishing cause and effect. Statistics, she held, may offer a lead to further inquiry but, by themselves, they are an expression of ignorance, not a form of knowledge. For a long period of time, as an example, there was a high statistical correlation between the number of semicolons on the front page of The New York Times and the number of deaths among widows in a certain part of India.

In due course, when scientists had studied the question, she and all of us came to grasp the mechanism by which smoking produces its effects—and we stopped. Doesn’t this prove, you might ask, that she was wrong to mistrust the government? My answer: even pathological liars sometimes tell the truth. Should you therefore heed their advice?

Lex aver 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Peikoff is hardly proof that Rand stopped smoking - it is hard to believe that she suddenly stopped smoking - and its irrelvant since she died 5 or 7 years later. (Unsigned)

Her views on smoking are nothing but trivia and distract from the relevant details of her life and work. 207.16.63.201 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Charles, 1/14/2008

The Harold Bloom mention

I'm editing it out. It currently reads: "Literary critic Harold Bloom found Rand's fiction to have enough significance to include her in a critical anthology he edited, American Women Fiction Writers, 1900-1960, Vol. Three, (Chelsea House, 1998)." The purpose of this passage is clearly to make it appear as though Harold Bloom (an eminent literary critic) approves of Rand's work and even esteems it. For all I know, he may, but his inclusion of Rand in a volume of an obscure, comprehensive anthology, whose scope is so narrow that Rand could hardly have been left out of it, is not proof that Bloom gives Rand any kind of credit. A better indication of his opinion of her is that she is not included in his book The Western Canon. This book contains a comprehensive list of the works (beginning with Gilgamesh) Bloom feels are a part of the Western literary canon. It is divided into four eras, and in each era it is separated by nations. It is, as I said, a comprehensive list, containing hundreds of authors and thousands of works. The most well-represented country/era in the entire list is modern America - yet Rand is nowhere to be found on the list.

Protagonist with flaws.

In the literary criticism section there are a few examples of protagonists which are, contrary to assumed conceptions, flawed. This is the excerpt:

"Further, defenders of Rand's novels have noted that many of her heroes are far from flawless, and that not all are wealthy. They note that Rearden, the Wet Nurse, and Fred Kinnan suffer due to either moral flaws or errors in reasoning [4]; further, they point out that not all of the villains in Rand's novels are weak and pathetic: Ellsworth Toohey is portrayed as a masterful communicator, critic, and manipulator, while Robert Stadler is a brilliant scientist."

I think that Eddie Willers should be added into this evidence; however, he isn't included in the source from which the other examples are. It'd be possible to list him separately from the others, with the citation being a specific quote from Atlas Shrugged. The quote is in a dialog between Francisco d'Anconia and, IIRC, Hank Rearden. Francisco states that Eddie does not have the ability or competence to achieve what others have, but he has no sense of entitlement, and tries his hardest to adhere to similar Objectivist principles as Francisco and Rearden.

In essence this dialog portrays Eddie as a flawed being, with no implied inferiority to the speakers.

I'm having a bit of trouble locating the quote, could anyone help?

It's when Francisco shows up at Reardon's office right after Dannager deserts: (in reference to Reardon Metal) "Did you want to see it used by men who could not equal the power of your mind, but would equal your moral integrity- men such as Eddie Willers- who could never invent your Metal, but who would do their best, work as hard as you did, live by their own effort, and- riding on your rail- give a moment's silent thanks to the man who gave them more than they could give him" pg419 in the signet paperback. And yes that's all one sentance. Russian prose... I'd add Reardon's conversation with his foreman when the foreman desserts: "They've been telling us for years that it's you against me. Mr. Reardon. But it isn't. It's Orren Boyle and Fred Kinnman against you and me." pg513 Actually most of the portrayals of regular blue-collar shmoes are fairly positive. From the engineers at Taggart to the truck driver in Galt's Gulch. Query 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Influenced

I think the "Influenced" section is getting too long. I think we should limit it to literary and philosophical figures. If there are no objections, I will do so. LaszloWalrus 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is getting to long, but I would keep anyone that is a major player - like Alan Greenspan. Steve 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to discuss the criteria for inclusion, and also what is "too long". Why should Clavell, Gotthelf, Greenspan, and Cline be included but not Ditko, Thomas, Thatcher, and Nolte Smith? I think my list supports the "broadly influential" claim made in the introduction, and draws attention to the importance of Rand's influence in a way that the article otherwise fails to do. — DAGwyn 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea where the "too long" starts, but I'm for including any recognizable name (and leaving off names where people would say, "who is that?" The other criteria we need is about what "influenced" means and the source (where is that?) Steve 07:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My main source was the issue of The New Intellectual with Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie on the cover. A few of them (e.g. Thatcher) date back much farther and would take some research to find citable sources. One criterion I applied was that there already be (for independent reasons) a Wikipedia article. I was tempted to create an article for Erika Holzer (whose book "An Eye for an Eye" was made into a major motion picture starring Sally Field & Kiefer Sutherland), but haven't yet done so.

Note: Since then I created the Erika Holzer article. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As to what "influenced" means, I had to consider that when selecting from the considerably longer list found in that journal. I left out any case where the only influence was along the lines "I really enjoyed the book"; if in an interview someone said "it changed my life" then I definitely counted it as a significant influence. I left Sharon Stone out because, although she had been actively pursuing the role of Dagny Taggart in an Atlas Shrugged movie (which it now appears Jolie actually has), it seems to have been more a case of liking a strong female lead than of adopting the philosophy; I understand she more recently turned to Scientology.. — DAGwyn 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Influenced by

A user just reverted the addition of Spinoza to the influenced by section, citing "what is the evidence that spinoza influenced rand?". I believe the citation would be the "Russian Radical", but it's been too long since I read that to be 90% sure. Here's a link to the author's site that touches on the subject: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/randt2.htm. He says

After 1923, the Marxist, Borichevsky, taught the course in logic--but his expertise was limited to Spinoza, Epicurus and materialism. Given that Rand took this course early in her academic career, probably in the fall of 1921, it seems certain that she studied with Vvedensky.11 It is of some interest that this was not the only course on logic that Rand ever took.

So, it can be probably be referenced as such, but the above link is only a loose connection. --Otheus 01:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall Sciabarra arguing that Spinozo influenced Rand. I'll take a look though. The quote you provided claims that one of Rand's teachers was an expert in Spinoza, not that Rand was influenced by Spinoza. Endlessmike 888 01:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I missed a passage, Sciabarra makes no argument that Rand was influenced by Spinoza. He argues that they were similar in some respects, and that Rand on occassion praised Spinoza, but that is different from "was influenced BY Spinoza." Endlessmike 888 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The above citation seems to say that some other professor, not even the one Rand probably studied under, specialized in Spinoza. At any rate, if Spinoza was an influence he was certainly a minor one. — DAGwyn 20:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be worth mentioning that Rand is influenced by and accused of plagiarizing the works of Max Stirner. 74.138.89.115 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Who accused her of plagiarism? Who thinks she was influenced by him? Endlessmike 888 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never heard that before, and Rand isn't even mentioned in the Max Stirner article. What is your source for that claim? — DAGwyn 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Henryk Sienkiewicz: Rand mentions his Quo Vadis as the great (and paradigmatic) Romantic novel four times: in "The Art of Fiction" on pp. 16 and 146, and in "The Romantic Manifesto" on pp. 107 and 115. The most recent mention of Sienkiewicz's influence in the refereed literature is Keefner, Kurt: $ and α : Atlas Shrugged and Quo Vadis, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies vol. 7 no. 2 (Spring 2006) pp. 421-27. As an aside, Sienkiewicz's influence is much more obvious if one has read the entirety of his works. For example, in Atlas, Dagny's early relationship with Francisco is a rather hilarious sendup on Stas and Nel in W Pustyni i w Puszczy. And the name, Dagny, was first invented by Sienkiewicz's intimate Dagny Juel Przybyszewska, nee Dagmar Juell, as a Polish-style diminutive of her original first name (see http://niniwa2.cba.pl/21.htm ). So I'm putting him back in. AdamReed 07:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. — DAGwyn 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted the addition of Kant - I mean come on - Rand is obsessed with Kant and his philosophy - I reverted it. Rand was influenced by negativity towrds Kant, hence she was influenced by Kant, simple as that!

The purpose of the "influenced by" section of this and other articles is to identify people whose ideas or influence contributed to the ideas of the subject. Rand did not adopt any ideas from Kant, nor were her philosophical ideas formed as a reaction to Kant's, and indeed there are several critics who think her beliefs about Kant's ideas must have been obtained by hearsay rather than by studying his actual work. Rand generated negativity toward Kant, and even if she had been influenced by somebody else's preexisting negativity toward Kant, it would not be Kant who was the influence. — DAGwyn 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

charity

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"]

That about settles it. Endlessmike 888 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

charity in Rand's novels

From Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

"Late in the novel [Atlas Shrugged], when Cherryl apologizes to Dagny for her previous denunciation of her, Dagny is charitable (as evidenced through several of her words and actions that night) not simply because Cherryl is needy. Cherryl speaks first:

"That I happen to suffer, doesn't give me a claim on you." "No, it doesn't. But that you value all the things I value, does." "You mean... if you want to talk to me, it's not alms? Not just because you feel sorry for me?" "I feel terribly sorry for you, Cheryyl, and I'd like to help you - not because you suffer, but because you haven't deserved to suffer.""

Endlessmike 888 18:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a rational argument. No claim of "nearly always" is susceptible to disproof by single example. Moreover, your personal opinion carries no weight in comparison to a cited article from a reliable source. If you don't like what the article says, go find another source that says otherwise. I am reverting your mistaken deletion. FreddyTris 19:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment did not belong in that paragraph. That paragraph is listing only the major tenets of her belief system. Not the smaller applications of her principles. Steve 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my "personal opinion." It is the informed opinion of the world's most recognized expert on Rand's ethics, Tara Smith. Besides, the Reason article cites only TWO examples of negative instances of charity in Rand's fiction. Two instances from four novels does not constitute "nearly always." Endlessmike 888 00:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Smith is just a hack whose work is derivative of Rand's and very much muddled. She is an armchair philosopher who hid her Objectivism until after she had tenure, so I she is unworthy of respect. But if you want to add an appropriate quote from Smith on the subject, feel free. There's room on Wikipedia for mistaken opinions alongside the Truth. FreddyTris 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand where you are coming from. Though I consider your jugment of Smith unbelievably unjust, I don't need her to make my point. I can do so with primary sources. You are making a factual claim (how often charity is portrayed) which is wrong. In Atlas Shrugged, the character Ragnar retrieves money that was taken from the heros and returns it to them. He does so free of charge, i.e. he is an instance of charity. Thus, two times in Rand's novels charity is shown in bad light as Young tells us, and two times charity is shown in good light. Young's claim is FACTUALLY INCORRECT, and it's incorrectness is demonstrated from PRIMARY sources, i.e. the novels themselves. Endlessmike 888 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't like Smith, but I won't censor her. If you want to add Smith's wrong ideas, go ahead, but that's no excuse for censoring Young. I'm not particularly interested in your own ideas on the topic, since they're just irrelevant original research. With all due respect, you're simply unqualified to determine the Truth. FreddyTris 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Aside: "She is an armchair philosopher who hid her Objectivism until after she had tenure, so I she is unworthy of respect." This is facutally untrue, as a look at her CV will show. She published defending Rand's theories before receiving tenure. Endlessmike 888 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the sort of people who hate Ayn still have to admit to at least some of the things that she, objectively, got right. I love watching liberals try to knock her, then mutter under their breath that they have her to thank for freeing them from theism! So defending some aspects of Ayn's ideas doesn't earn Smith any badge of honor. Smith was afraid, perhaps rightly, that the academic liberals who run her school wouldn't give her tenure if she said outright that she was an Objectivist. FreddyTris 06:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I this mini-debate as I was sifting through the “recent changes” section. If I may interject (as a third party) it seems that the fact that some of Rand's critics characterized or read her fiction as having a negative attitude about charity is notable. The current article seems largely pro-Rand. (I myself am not a fan of Rand's philosophy, though I do find her fiction engaging.) At any rate, it seems to me a comment about Rand's critics (where the comment about Young was deleted) could be appropriate. Fixer1234 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Charity was simply not a major issue for Rand. The current article text: "Rand supported, in principle, the right to give charity but opposed the notion that it was a moral duty, and she did not consider it a major virtue. She opposed all charity and social programs by the government." seems appropriate. — DAGwyn 02:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"objectivism"

She uses the term "objectivism" in a different way than traditional uses. This is why she capitalizes the term; she uses it as a proper name. To say "Ayn Rand's version of objectivism" implies that she is working within some school of philosophy, and this is her version of the tradition. That is not the case; she is founding her own tradition. If someone can write something which points out that the term "objective" has been used in the history of philosophy in one way, and Rand is using the term in a unique way, and do it without confusing readers who might not be familiar with Rand or the history of philosophy, go for it. But simply saying "one form of" implies something false. Endlessmike 888 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You think David Kelley isn't an Objectivist? You really think he's the same kind as Leonard Peikoff, much less Ayn Rand? Think this through. FreddyTris 08:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

one problem with the convention of capitalization is that people new to or outside of the area of interest will not read the capitalization as meaningful. her Objectivism is one form of objectivism, and it is not appropriate to call that false, it just means that it is not the only version of objectivist theory in the world. to not admit that, is to putforth a falsehood.--Buridan 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No I agree that there have been previous "objective" theories before her. I'm saying that she means something different by "objective" than those. (1) In the intro, I'd write it as "best known for creating a philosophy she named "Objectivism." (2) In the section on her philosophy, something along the lines of "while there have been "objectivist" theories in the past, Rand's Objectivism should be distinguished from such theories as yadda yadda." I think that alerts the reader to the issue without confusion, and then sends them in the right direction so they can compare traditional objectivism with Rand's Objectivism. Endlessmike 888 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good wording to me, fair and neutral.--Buridan

Yeah, lower-case objectivism's just one small part of Ayn's Objectivism. We don't want people to think that anyone who admits morality is objective qualifies as an Objectivist! Oh, and Ethan, if you keep making changes without discussion or explanation, that is edit-warring. FreddyTris 16:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No I agree that there have been previous "objective" theories before her. I'm saying that she means something different by "objective" than those. (1) In the intro, I'd write it as "best known for creating a philosophy she named "Objectivism." (2) In the section on her philosophy, something along the lines of "while there have been "objectivist" theories in the past, Rand's Objectivism should be distinguished from such theories as yadda yadda." I think that alerts the reader to the issue without confusion, and then sends them in the right direction so they can compare traditional objectivism with Rand's Objectivism. Endlessmike 888 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When Rand was alive, upper-case-O Objectivism was clearly whatever she said it was (practically a trademark). There have since been variants that could reasonably also be called upper-case-O Objectivism. Lower-case-o objectivism is too broad to have much value when discussing Rand's beliefs. I think recent changes have clarified the connection (or lack thereof) sufficiently well that nobody is likely to be misled. — DAGwyn 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection discussion.

Does anyone have the least bit of justification for changing the current version? FraisierB 02:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Multiple sock puppets are editing the article, making it very difficult to come to a consensus, or even begin a discussion. I didn't add the protection, but I think it is a good idea for now. Endlessmike 888 02:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The sock puppets have been blocked!Hopefully all can return to normal. Endlessmike 888 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Influence

"She was a broadly influential figure in post-WWII America"

Source this please. I think you could equally argue that her influence has been very narrow. Her ideas may have impressed a few schoolboys and greedheads, but I'm not sure that that's the same as being "broadly influential". In any case, find someone of substance saying it and it's okay to include. Grace Note 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is backed up by a recent citation, later in the article. Your characterization shows that you're not familiar enough with this matter to be editing it. — DAGwyn 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Her ideas may have impressed a few schoolboys and greedheads" nor does she care about being polite. Endlessmike 888 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a US President (Reagan) and a Federal Reserve chairman (Greenspan) who both cited her as an influence. I can imagine few positions more influential. Query 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also a British Prime Minister and numerous other prominent individuals (see the "Popular interest and influence" section of the article). It is true that Rand has had limited influence in academic circles, but the idea that that is all that matters is snobbish, to say the least. — DAGwyn 18:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"a few schoolboys and greedheads"  ?? Her books were on best seller lists, her name yields over two million hits on Google, and many people have seen their lives improve by implementing her philosophy. It may be true that she wasn't "broadly influential" in our culture, but her ideas have had more influence than on just "a few schoolboys." There is a more scholarly way to work on an encyclopedia. Tragic romance 07:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Andrewsandberg edits

Hi Andrew, I notice you removed the seciont under "collective" about her relationship with Branden. Why did you do this? Ethan a dawe 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of why, it definitely is valid encyclopedic material; I restored it. — DAGwyn 09:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree DAGwyn, Thanks!Ethan a dawe 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be worth considering whether to add a mention of the notorious "purges" wherein former associates were "excommunicated". By the time of her death, Rand didn't have many of them left; Peikoff was the best choice remaining to her for an "intellectual heir", which is sad, really. (I think the purges may be mentioned in another article, perhaps the one on the Objectivist movement.) — DAGwyn 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not mentioned anywhere, except in some of the deleted versions in History. They should be because it's impossible to understand the movement without understanding how people left it. 24.44.99.211 03:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I removed the unsourced economist material and dropped the "her work attracting both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciations." to tone down the lead a little. Thanks, --Tom 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But that information is one of the most essential facts to know about Ayn Rand. I restored it in a modified form (without reference). — DAGwyn 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have NO expertise about Rand so I will defer. The part about her being "the most influential woman in the world" needs a source for sure. Cheers! --Tom 13:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. For those who have followed the issue over the years, there is no doubt that Rand's ideas were both influential and controversial. You can get an idea of the influence in the "Popular interest and influence" section of the article. The controversy is also apparent in the cited criticism, but the article doesn't really convey the extremity of much of the reaction against her ideas, which was remarkable to behold. (Presumably it was due to many people's cherished beliefs being challenged.) — DAGwyn 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

grammatical error

in the introduction to the fiction section, there is a grammatical error: 'It has been suggested that Rand's practice ... have encouraged a negative view". Have should be "has" or "practice" should be made plural.

209.150.62.94 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Rose

Thanks; fixed. — DAGwyn 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rand-Branden Affair

Saying something is "factually incorrect" does not make it so, particularly when you don't say which parts you disagree with. Once you fully explain and support your reversion here, we can discuss your claims. Until then, let's leave it alone. ThAtSo 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: You are correct, but only technically so - ause you added 190 characters of tendentious language ("schisms" take place in religion, not interpersonal relations among secular people) without adding any facts, not even true ones. So now your tendentious edit has been undone, by me, for a valid reason: wikipedia requires NPOV, and that requires language without tendentious insinuations. AdamReed 07:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned three specific terms, so I've taken the liberty of rewriting the compromise version with the further compromise of toning down these phrases. I'm not saying these phrases don't belong, just offering an incremental step towards mutual agreement. Here goes:

After several years, Rand and Branden's close relationship expressed itself in the form of a romantic affair, despite the age difference. While both were already married, their spouses consented to a weekly assignation. This lasted until Branden broke off his arrangement with Rand to engage in an affair with actress Patrecia Scott. When Rand learned of this in 1968, she abruptly ended her relationship with both Brandens and refused to have any further dealings with the NBI, which led to the organization closing shop. She published a letter in The Objectivist announcing her repudiation of Branden for various general reasons, including dishonesty, but did not mention their affair or her role in their parting of ways. The two never reconciled, and Branden remained persona non grata to the mainline Objectivist movement. At this time, he is associated with The Atlas Society but continues to be unwelcome at the Ayn Rand Institute.

Now, if you think that any part of this is untrue or unfair, write your own version below. Or, better yet, write it in the article itself. ThAtSo 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good first draft, but I have issues with some of it. How about the following:

After several years, Rand and Branden's close relationship turned into a romantic affair. Although both were already married, their spouses consented to a weekly assignation. This lasted until Branden entered into an affair with actress Patrecia Scott, which he and Barbara Branden hid from Rand. When Rand learned of this in 1968, she abruptly ended her relationship with both Brandens and refused to have any further dealings with the NBI, which led to the organization closing. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for various general reasons, including dishonesty, but did not mention their affair. The two never reconciled, and Branden remained persona non grata to the mainline Objectivist movement.

I hope that will be acceptable to all concerned. — DAGwyn 14:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it.Ethan a dawe 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider it "acceptable" to add length without adding any relevant facts to the content. AdamReed 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like we're adding relevant facts to the content. but if you want to add a draft of your own, I'm sure it would help us trim down the excess. Reading the recent draft, I can see that it's certainly more polished than what I wrote while still keeping most of what's important. Still, here's what I see missing in it:

1) No hint about the age difference. Without this detail pointed out, the whole things makes a lot less sense and Rand comes off looking like a total nut, not just a woman spurned. It's not our job to connect dots with speculation, but it would be POV to hide relevant facts to make people look bad.

2) That both Brandens hid the Scott affair is relevant, but opens up issues that are glossed over, such as the status of his marriage at the time he started the affair. If I remember the timeline, the Brandens were already separated, but I could easily be wrong about this detail. Without good citations, I'm not sure what to do here. Any ideas?

3) While I like the fact that it correctly limits the scope of his pariah status to the mainline movement, this term is left undefined. There needs to be some hint that we're talking about the ARI.

So, given all this, here's another draft:

After several years, and despite Rand being 25 years older, her close relationship with Branden turned into a romantic affair. Although both were already married, their spouses consented to a weekly assignation. This lasted until Branden discontinued the sexual aspect and entered into an affair with actress Patrecia Scott, who was 10 years younger than him. The Brandens did not tell Rand about Scott, but when she found out in 1968, Rand abruptly ended her relationship with both Brandens and refused to have any further dealings with the NBI, which led to the organization quickly closing. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for various general reasons, including dishonesty, but did not mention their affair. The two never reconciled, and Branden remained persona non grata to the mainline Objectivist movement, particularly the group that would go on to form the ARI.

I hope this keeps all the improvements while addressing the concerns I raised. Maybe it needs another draft or two before it's ready to go into the article, but I'm pretty happy with it just like this. I'd love to see Adam add something more constructive than a thumbs-down. ThAtSo 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what Adam objected to, I took issue with this: "While both were already married, their spouses were persuaded to accept the situation, which lasted until Branden broke things off due largely to their age difference." This is a matter of dispute. The Brandens claim something along these lines in their books. However, Rand's contemporaneous journal notes paint a different picture. So I think it best to say something simple, rather than have the section balloon into a discussion of the points of contention. Endlessmike 888 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, so let me know if the draft I posted above answers your concerns. It doesn't state Branden's motives, just the relative ages of the women he had affairs with. I think that's a fair balance between putting everything on the table but not putting words into anyone's mouth. ThAtSo 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we're approaching convergence. My preference, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, is to stick to generally-agreed facts that shed significant light on the subject. (Also to keep it brief.) This article being a bio of Rand rather than a description of the Objectivist movement, we shouldn't try to cover all the loose ends concerning the latter; there are other articles that could and should do that. I'm not convinced the age difference was very relevant, but it is okay with me if it is mentioned in passing. Yes, the Brandens were separated at the time, but they were both involved with NBI and they did both hide the affair from Rand; it was that deception more than anything else that put Barbara also in the doghouse with Rand. I have just replaced the current article text with the following, which is based on the above draft: (DAGwyn 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

After several years, Rand's close relationship with the much younger Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the knowledge and consent of their spouses. This lasted until Branden entered into an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott. The Brandens did not tell Rand about Scott, and when she found out in 1968, Rand abruptly ended her relationship with both Brandens and refused to have any further dealings with the NBI, which led to the organization quickly closing. She published a letter in The Objectivist repudiating Branden for various general reasons, including dishonesty, but did not mention their affair. The two never reconciled, and Branden remained persona non grata to the mainline Objectivist movement, particularly the group that would go on to form the Ayn Rand Institute.

The above (DAGwyn) version is reasonably reasonable. Since the article is some 3 times the recommended length, it ought to be condensed, not expanded - but there is a lot of reader and contributor interest in L'Affaire. Perhaps there should be a subsidiary article on the "Rand-Branden Affair?" AdamReed 02:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think much more needs to be said than we have now.. — DAGwyn 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I'd prefer the exact number of years, since that's both more informative and allows us to avoid inserting our own value judgements, but this is ok. I think we have a fair compromise that improves on the older version, Adam's changes and my first suggestion. Thanks. ThAtSo 05:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I tracked down some more reliable sources, including Nathaniel Branden's Answer. Here are some quotes from parts that I got my facts from:

I had been separated since 1965

Several years ago, I found myself in an agonizing personal dilemma, which I saw no way to resolve. The solution I ultimately chose was wrong, because it involved resorting to a falsehood. It entailed, among other things, withholding from Miss Rand certain information about my personal life — specifically, my relationship with a young woman, with whom I was and am deeply in love.

It was a tortured, awkward, excruciatingly embarrassed attempt to make clear to her why I felt that an age distance between us of twenty-five years constituted an insuperable barrier, for me, to a romantic relationship.

Miss Rand suggests that her discovery of this falsehood was the final step in convincing her that it was necessary to repudiate me publicly. But the fact is that her decision was made when, approximately a month earlier, she learned only of my present feeling for the young woman, and before she learned of the past relationship or of any falsehood on my part. She decided, at that time, that a denunciation of me in The Objectivist was imperative.

I discussed my feeling for and relationship with the young woman, with Mrs. Branden, about two years ago (a year after Mrs. Branden and I had separated); I fully apprised her of the facts of the past relationship only this summer.

I also got took from Barbara Branden's Interview, particularly:

It was terribly painful to him. He and I were in a way in the same boat. I was not romantically in love with Nathan, but the affair was agonizingly painful to me. I had married him; I cared about him; there was a very powerful bond between us. I planned to spend the rest of my life with him. It was an absolute commitment in my mind.

Hope this saves you some footwork in verifying my sources. ThAtSo 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted over-the-top partisan claims, for which there is no evidence other than the obviously self-serving self-justifications of the protagonists - and against which there isplenty of evidence from AR's contemporaneous journal (see Valliant 2005.) It is partisan to present one side without the other, and the short compromise paragraph from the earlier discussion may be better than going into either side's claims. AdamReed 23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was on the NBI mailing list to whom Branden's reply was sent at the time. The basic facts aren't in dispute, just the "spin" one might put on them. I think the current text (as reverted by AdamReed) covers the generally agreed facts sufficiently, and that there is no need to try to fill in further details (which are arguable anyway) in this article. — DAGwyn 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should save most of the detail for other articles, such as Nathaniel Branden, which is where I got this from. My only worry is that we're cutting so much that what's left is confusing and misleading.

For instance, take this sentence that just got cut:

Branden subsequently separated from Barbara and ended his sexual relationship with Rand.

There's nothing here that's "over-the-top partisan"; these are uncontested facts. But without them, people would be led to the mistaken impression that Branden had three contemporaneous sexual relationships. This is spin by omission, and at least as bad as the regular type.

Actually those "facts" could well be contested, particularly the timing of the various "romantic" involvements. Better to give a relatively brief yet accurate overall impression of the affair/fiasco than to provide excessive and arguable detail. — DAGwyn 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The key fact, which is that NB had separated from BB years before PS entered the picture is not contested. ThAtSo 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As for removing mention of Barbara, I did it for two reasons. First, it didn't (and still doesn't) really fit in to the paragraph, which is all about Rand and Nathaniel. Second, it's one of those summaries that isn't totalyl wrong but also isnt't totally right. Multiple sources confirm that Rand remained on good terms with Barbara immediately after the expulsion of Nathaniel. The way it's written here, it sounds otherwise.

Rand explicitly repudiated both Brandens in her article. She may well have later reconciled with Barbara, but even if she did, that is outside the scope of the affair/fiasco. — DAGwyn 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to comment on it (and we didn't) but we do need to avoid treating a contested claim as truth. That's why it's best to just leave BB out of it, as I tried to. Keep it simple. ThAtSo 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

By accepting the claims of any source in a controversy, we risk injecting POV, but the same risk comes with ignoring a source. If an account is disputed, the best answer is to balance it by showing all sides, so that an objective third party can get at the truth. As it stands, we've removed so much that we've lost the gist of what was going on.

To the contrary, the gist of what went on is pretty evident from the wording we had, whereas the introduction of text on "counseling" etc. made it more confusing. I restored the text to pretty much the form we already had consensus on, with a few minor tweaks as suggested by the more recent editing. — DAGwyn 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see if I can come up with a compromise edit. ThAtSo 23:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now we know, thanks to "ThAtSo" (perhaps a.k.a. "Hellen?") what artful rhetoric can do to compromise the truth. "Their sexual relationship ended," positioned to lead the careless reader to imagine NB telling Rand that their sexual relationship was over. And that is a lie by indirection: He didn't tell her, but rather asked her for "counseling" on "sexual problems." Then, the Brandens "didn't tell her about Patrecia," implying that they were simply silent about it, presumably because now that NB had told Rand that their sexual ralationship was over, it wasn't any of Rand's business anyway. What a spin cycle! Is "Hellen" practicing for work in Washington? But in the real world, instead of the one so artfully painted by "ThAtSo," NB's request for "counseling" turned into a laborious scheme of deception that robbed Ayn Rand of her time, her intellectual energy, and eventually her composure for the better part of a year. Whether or not Ayn Rand was jealous of Patricia we can't know. But if Rand hated fraud a quarter as much as I do (and as its victim she must have hated it galaxies more) then her fury is conpletely explicable by that elaborate deception; whether any jealousy was added on top of it is irrelevant.

Face it, "Hellen:" your 320 bytes of obfuscation are undone by 80 bytes of uncompromised truth. Are you sure you still wish to play this game? AdamReed 05:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I found it! At first, your accusations were bafflingly bizarre. Helen?! But I managed to track down what you're talking about. Here's a quote of what you said on SOLO:

"NB has even done it in public, on Diana Hsieh's web site: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/08/unnecessary-evidence.html - and "Hellen's" "contributions" to Diana's web site not only came from NB's computer, but according to reliable stylographic software were written by Nathaniel Branden himself."

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that, because you think my edits were too nice to NB, I must be NB. Wow, I can only wonder if your dazzling expertise in Objectivist Epistemology is what led you to that conclusion, or if you got it by channeling the spirit of Ayn Rand through a harmonica that she once played. Frankly, I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted, so I'm going to stick with confused. Please feel very free to analyze my contributions with "reliable stylographic software", a Ouija board or whatever makes you happy, until you're thoroughly convinced that I'm not NB. For the record, I am not, and have never been, Nathaniel Branden. My name is Franklin and I'm a student. If you're ever out east, let me know and I'll introduce you to my gun-toting, Libertarian parents, who'll be thrilled to meet and greet you. ThAtSo 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo writes: "Adam deleted this and said he was moving it, but I guess he forgot. I'll help." Thanks, but but I really did move it to the relevant article, as I wrote. See Objectivism (Ayn Rand). This article is already way too long, and stuff needs to be moved to the other articles where it belongs. And by the way, ThAtSo, stylometric software is based on objective measurement and is quite reliable. Quite unlike the Christianist sexual morality you seem to be pushing here. Are you a Libertarian like your parents, or what? AdamReed 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, try to keep personalities out of this. The goal should be to ensure a high-quality, accurate, NPOV article that presents important information and omits trivia. — DAGwyn 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Where you (mis)placed it, you hid the title and most of the point. As I said in my edit comment, you nerfed it. As for me, I'm an atheist and don't follow Chrisitan ethics except where they're right by some coincidence. I'm not Nathaniel Branden, but yes, I am Libertarian, and also an Objectivist. ThAtSo 00:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not see a reason to repeat what I wrote before: deleting Rand's motive for the charge of dishonesty, which she documented in her contemporaneous notes (in Valliant 2005) amounts to perpetrating the falsehood that this charge was arbitrary or mendacious. I don't see how slandering Rand in this encyclopedia can be justified, least of all on collectivist grounds of "concensus. AdamReed 00:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I never opposed mentioning the notes, but it's not as if the issue is resolved. Once again, your own words show this, as people on SOLO hurl nasty-grams back and forth on PAR vs. PARC. The mistake you're making is in thinking that your beliefs are necessarily going to be accepted as true by others. The bigger mistake is in reverting instead of editing. Roll back your massive changes, which have already been rejected by two people, and instead make some reasonable, incremental ones to the last version I checked in. ThAtSo 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It goes beyond preposterous to claim that it is legitimate to delete a documented fact without prior discussion, on no basis other than a collectivist-subjectivist claim of "consensus." And it goes galaxies beyond legitimate to delete Rand's documented (in her own contemporaneous notes) motive and reason for the charge of dishonesty against the Brandens, while leaving the charge itself, to create the lie that her charge was mendacious or arbitrary. Since you two broke protocol yourselves by making this preposterous deletion, and perpetrating a slander against Rand in the process, without prior discussion here, it is hardly unreasonable for me to revert your deletions. The fact that Rand had what she considered a reasonable motive for her charge of dishonesty against the Brandens, and the identity of that motive as documented in her own contemporaneous notes, is a fact of reality that cannot be nullified by anyone's majority opinion. One would expect people who call themselves Objectivists, honestly or not, to be cognizant of this. In putting this fact in the article, I took care not to remove any previously documented contributions. I expect you to do the same. AdamReed 03:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all available accounts of this matter are partisan, so the best we can do is to identify the likely common basis behind them all. The edition of the paragraph that I have just checked in is as non-partisan and factual as I was able to make it. Certainly it does not attempt to slander Rand in any way. The basis for the dishonesty charge should be quite apparent to the general reader. I even added a note about the Brandens' separation (which according to Barbara was occurring independently of the affairs), although I don't think it is needed. The "counseling" business just raises many additional questions without materially affecting the gist of the affair/fiasco. The only relevant aspect of that is that Branden hid his affair with Scott, which I have now further emphasized in the article. — DAGwyn 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some copyedits to your version, which didn't add or substract anything controversial. They were just attempts to make the paragraph flow a bit better. I started with your version instead of Reed's because it was more concise and less tendentious. As much as the truth of the matter is objective, there's just not enough reliable evidence for us to take sides, at least not within the confines of this article. As someone pointed out to me, the measure here is verifiability, not truth. For example, I'm entirely convinced that there is no God, but I don't go to God and add "No such entity exists" to the lead paragraph. People who do that sort of think are rightfully called vandals. ThAtSo 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I support Adam's latest revision. I think his reasoning on the issue is correct, so I don't have anything to add to the discussion at this point other than my support. Endlessmike 888 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing another fine example of independent thinking that only coincidentally leads to total agreement. Now I know why Ayn called them "The Collective". :) ThAtSo 03:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're totally right. Only mindlessness could ever possibly cause two people to agree on something. And heaven forbid those two people are against you! :) Endlessmike 888 03:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of a "funny" thing that happened just last month. I was (falsely!) accused of cheating on a test because I gave the same answer as another student; we both paraphrased Rand. Since we're members of the same club, this wasn't a coincidence, but it also wasn't cheating! The good news is that I was able to prove my answer was the result of independent thinking because, later in the essay, I showed my work by explaining how I arrived at my conclusion. If this had been a short-answer or, worse, fill-in-the-blank question, I'd probably be in big trouble now. I hope you see how this applies here. ThAtSo 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't apply here at all. Consensus is important for articles, and helps to determine article content. Since I have edited this article in the past and continue to care about its content, I wanted to state my opinion that I agreed with Adam in the hope that it would facilitate a consensus. From what I have seen, it is common for editors to simply state their agreements with each other. Accusing other people of group think is frowned upon. It is a personal attack, your attempt to gloss it over with smiley faces not withstanding. Endlessmike 888 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have to spell this out for you, because you keep misunderstanding. If my essay had paraphrased Rand but never explained why she said so, then I'd have deserved a poor grade, even aside from the plagiariasm charge. The express point of sharing that anecdote was to highlight the fact that you have a habit of stating a conclusion without giving us some idea of how you arrived at it. This is ultimately counterproductive because we can only care what you think to the extent that you can support it by evidence and logic. When you hide your (hopefully) rational and objective basis, you're only selling yourself short by making your conclusion deeply unconvincing, leaving us to scratch our heads, wondering why you said what you said.

The problem isn't with my honest attempt to point out your lack of stated basis to encourage you to be more candid; the problem is that you never stated a basis. The solution isn't to attack me; the solution is to go back and support your conclusion so that people have a reason to take it seriously. The word "ditto", no matter how often repeated, does not convince anyone but a collectivist.

I think I've been as clear as I can be, but if you still want to take insult, you're only doing so despite the evidence, so I take no responsibility for it. ThAtSo 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest undiscussed remomval of a documented fact from the article. As I discussed before, this revision would create a counterfactual spin that the Branden's merely witheld information that was no longer any of Rand's business, and falsifies her actual, documented motive for the charge of dishonesty on the part of the brandens. And it removes the reference to the relevant primary material, something that is not legitimate in editing an encyclopedia article. I doubt that you can justify it, but in any case please don't do it without discussion. It would help if any proposed deletions were first posted here, to provide for adequate discussion on merits.AdamReed 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are millions of documented facts that aren't in this article. We have to use our best judgement about which ones absolutely have to be included if we're going to avoid confusing and misleading readers. Your version is, to be entirely frank, bloated with irrelevant and tendentious trivia. It is bad writing, bad reporting, and entirely unacceptable for something that aspires to becoming an encyclopedia.

On the one hand, you do try to offer arguments for your view. On the other, we've heard these arguments before and they weren't any more convincing the last few times. I don't see why you imagine that repeating refuted arguments is going to persuade rational people. I'm reminded of the quote, attributed to Einstein, that insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". I urge you to offer a sane response, by which I mean something different than a rehash. ThAtSo 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Every time you revert, your version winds up getting thrown out. There's a pattern here and the way to break it is to change the consensus here. The alternative is edit-warring, which will get you kicked off for a few days or weeks. Is that really what you want? ThAtSo 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: If you claims of "we" refer refer to your claims of "concensus, than they are as counterfactual as your edits. Among those who contribute verifiable material, with ref to primary and scholarly sources, it is 2:1 against your position. The fact that you have heard something before can only be made irrelevant by a congent counterargument. And cogency cannot be be asserted without adequate time for discussion PRIOR to your deletions. AdamReed 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I support democracy, I'm not sure that taking a head count in this sort of environment tells us much. What makes democracy work is that everyone participates: this is just a small, non-random sampling which is statistically insignificant. I've even seen an rule page that says voting is bad.

Not that voting would help you. DAGwyn and I, for all our differences, have a compromise version that we're both comfortable with. You don't like it, for reasons that have already been dismissed, and Endlessmike doesn't like it, for reasons he's chosen not to share, which renders his opinion irrelevant. No matter how you slice it, there is no consensus for what you want, so I'm going to revert again. I'm going to have to look up that rule about how many times I get to do this before the administration gets angry; maybe you should do the same before you get punished. ThAtSo 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to ThAtSo's claims of scholarly concensus (which I know is bad epistemology, but this is the customary way out of an edit war here) I am requesting a vote of scholarly contributors on whether the reference to the primary source for Rand's motive should or should not be deleted. Please vote against or for deletion only if you have contributed content verifiable with primary or scholarly sources to the Wikipedia. AdamReed 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I vote against deletion. I'll be traveling for a week, so id ThAtSo again deletes the primary source before the conclusion of this vote and full discussion of results, it's his BAD. AdamReed 18:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo, you are the one who should be concerned. You have been continuously deleting cited material from a primary source which is relevant to the topic. Doing so is vandalism. The version you replace it with, on the other hand, cites NO sources. The version you have written implies that Rand broke with Branden because he was having an affair. This is not the case, as the cited material Adam provided makes clear. Acording to Rand herself (i.e. Adam's citation), she broke with Branden because he had deceived her into years of fake counseling. Endlessmike 888 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think NB told AR that he had sexual problems? You don't have to be NB (like I am, according to Reed) to figure this out. All you have to do is know the facts, including what he admitted to in writing, and exercise basic logic. He was in a sexual relationship with AR, where he had a weekly commitment to a sexual assignation. He was 38; mature but not old. She was 62 and barely a dozen years away from the grave. As much as he admired her and perhaps even loved her, he did not want to have sex with her. We know because he said so, in as many words.

So, as he admits, he was dishonest. Instead of telling her that she's too old to be sexy, he claims sexual problems that prevent him from (ick) having sex with her. In the meantime, with his marriage gone, he found a cute 28 year old who he was, his words admit, very much in love with.

It wasn't honest, and I doubt it was moral, but it was merciful and therefore understandable, perhaps even forgivable. He lied to Rand to spare her feelings, for as long as he could. No doubt she resented his deception, but I can't imagine how we could conclude with any confidence that jealousy had no bearing on this. She said she felt he was leading her on, and he was. Whether it was for the sake of the NBI, of the Movement or her feelings, he was obviously reluctant to just dump her.

Of course, in writing this article, we don't and shouldn't claim to know what was on his mind or hers. We should state the verifiable facts and let people draw their own conclusions. When people state their motivations, we should report their statements neutrally. We should not paraphrase a biased account by an apologist for Rand as if it's fact. The version that you and Reed support is libelous. ThAtSo 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You've clearly paid little to no attention to what is being said in this discussion. No one is paraphrasing Valliant. His book contains Rand own notes on the matter. This is what is being referenced. If you'd actually read those notes, you'd know that, for instance, Rand repeatedly urged Branden to have an affair with a younger woman to help with his problems. You aren't even aware of the basic facts of the matter, yet you want to erase cited material and then accuse Adam and I of editing in bad faith. You're little barbs about other editors engaging in group think, and your pointless and random reference to other web forums on Adam's talk page suggest that you are not editing in good faith. Endlessmike 888 21:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the old game of he-said/she-said. NB says that Rand saw that he was friendly with PS and ordered him NOT to get any closer to her. Why should we favor AR's side over NB's? Let me answer that for you: if we want to be neutral, we aren't allowed to show favor.

As for Reed, he made a wild accusation (which, as far as I can tell, he never apologized for or even took back) that led me to search the Internet using Google to find out what it meant. What I found is that Reed is active on SOLO and other Objectivist and neo-Objectivist forums, which makes him a public figure. In those forums, he's used to writing whatever he likes, no matter how nasty or biased, and now that he's here, he's doing the same thing. What's acceptable behavior in a forum for wannabe Objectivist pundits is considered uncivil here and is even against the rules.

And thanks for answering for Reed and giving us all another fine example of how you think for yourself and mind your own business. You should know that I care about the merits of an argument, not how many people gang up on me at once. The whole world could disagree with me and it wouldn't matter to me one bit so long as the evidence was on my side. Repeating someone else's argument, or just rubber-stamping their conclusion, is not going to influence me. ThAtSo 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: I apologize for mistaking you for one of Nathaniel Branden's subpersonalities (he's spoken about them in public, so this is not libel.) And no, I'm not on SOLO now (I left even before Diana Hsieh did.) I see your recent mention of the "counseling" as a sign of progress. I will be back, and the vote will be over, by June 14 (this is probably my last message before I leave for my MIT class reunion.) You may wish to spend the time working on a verifiable (with primary and scholarly references) version of the paragraph. If the scholarly contributor vote is against removal of the primary reference for Rand's motive (which is what I expect from the 2:0 vote so far) then any acceptable revision will need to contain the span of the "counseling" and the primary reference. And no unverifiable content, especially innuendos. And please post your draft to Talk first, and wait for the resulting discussion to reach a reasoned conclusion.

Alternately, you may consider starting work on a detailed article about the split. I would eventually contribute to it too, since I was there (albeit too young to have been a real "member" of the "Collective") and I have a pile of contemporaneous and scholarly references that I consider relevant (no, no "original research".) AdamReed 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's actually funny. See, you're defining "scholarly contributor" so as to exclude everyone who disagrees with you. Besides being a tranparent ploy, it doens't matter because this comes down to consensus, not votes. This isn't a pseudo-democracy, it's a pseudo-bureaucracy. And, ultimately, even consensus doesn't overrule the requirement to be neutral and avoid libel, so your little political power-play is a non-starter. Your version is libelous so it's doomed. ThAtSo 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A separate article would be fine; that would be an appropriate place to present the varying details. I don't know why you decided to come along and revise the previously agreed consensus version of this text, but accusing others of applying "spin" appears to be a case of psychological displacement. I for one have no agenda other than to present the matter in a concise, readable form that captures the essential facts. I don't think anybody without preconceptions reading the version that ThAtSo and I have been polishing would read into it the "spin" that you seem to attribute to it. As to "deleting a primary source", actually it was you who added the unnecessary text attached to that source, and removal of the useless and (to the general reader) confusing text entails removal of the associated reference. It would of course be appropriate in an article specifically about this incident. — DAGwyn 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DAGwyn: Though I don't think you intend this, the version you have posted reflects the account as presented by the Brandens, and only as presented by the Brandens. According to the Brandens, the split occured because NB was having an affair. According to Rand, the split occured because NB claimed sexual impotence and requested conseling for his problem, when in fact the impotence and conseling was a farce. To simply state that Rand and NB had an affair, and broke after Branden cheated, is to neglect Rand's own stated reasons for the break. You're unknowingly placing the Branden account as neutral fact, when the entire thing is disputed by Rand herself. If the Brandens are legitimate sources of info on the affair, so is Rand. Endlessmike 888 02:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're viewing it through a preconception and/or in the context of extra information, not putting yourself in the position of a reader with no a priori knowledge about the topic. I think the latter would infer from the full content of my most recent edition that the dishonesty was the proximal cause of the breakup. — DAGwyn 18:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a valid point. However, Rand's own testimony contradicts almost everything the Brandens have said on the topic. There needs to be some mention of the delicacy of this, with a mention of Rand's notes. I'll get back to you when I think of a way to phrase it. Endlessmike 888 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of repetition of refuted arguments. The two explanations are not mutually exclusive. NB faked impotence to explain why he wouldn't have sex with this old woman who he found unattractive. When she found out the truth, she was angry that he lied and also angry about being rejected. Pretty simple, really. ThAtSo 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You should probably get ahold of Rand's notes, since you haven't a clue what you are talking about. What evidence do you have that she was angry about being rejected? She urged him to have an affair, so why be angry when he takes her advice? Etc. This is primary source information that contradicts the entry, yet you do not want it included. Why? Endlessmike 888 04:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rand was apparently not jealous of Branden having sex with Barbara, nor with some clinically useful woman. It does not follow from this that Rand was fine with Branden rejecting her on the basis that she is old and not attractive anymore. In short, even if the evidence is as you say, the conclusion you draw does not follow. Another error you've made is the claim that I want to exclude cited material. You probably got this error by copying it from Reed, since he made this mistake first. However, if you look for yourself and think for yourself, you'll see that my requirement is that the article be neutral, which means we don't take Rand's views as factual, the way Reed did. I'm sure if you think about this, you'll eventually understand. Try harder. ThAtSo 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"It does not follow from this that Rand was fine with Branden rejecting her on the basis that she is old and not attractive anymore." Really? Than why did Rand repeatedly insist that she was too old for him? Also, please look at the Wikipedia Policy on personal attacks. Endlessmike 888 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There's already some more in Nathaniel Branden, but if you think it deserves an article of its own, you might be right. If you really wanted to be ambitious, you could try for a more comprehensive article covering all the various schisms and excommunications over the years. ThAtSo 00:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that we can avoid another edit war by addressing the remaining concerns consecutively, rather than all at once. To begin:

The removal of the explicit reference to the fake "counseling" exposed two implicatures in the phrase "but did not mention their affair." The use of "but" carries the implicature "but she should have mentioned it," which is against NPOV. The phrase "did not mention" carries the implicature that she just failed to mention it in this specific letter, while in fact she never disclosed it at all, there or ever. Is there any objection to "never disclosing their affair?" AdamReed 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "but concealed his affair"? It wasn't that he just didn't mention it, he actively lied, just as he lied about his sexual problem to avoid intimacy with Rand. ThAtSo 04:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Responding to ThAtSo: That's true about Branden - and was removed against my objections. Are you saying that you would not object to putting information about Branden's actual behavior back into the article? I don't read your comment as an objection to changing the quoted phrase in the current version, "but did not mention their affair," which is about Rand and not about Branden, to "never disclosing their affair." AdamReed 06:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It already says "The Brandens hid the affair from Rand", which is essential to understanding the charge of deception. I have no objection to saying that Rand "never disclosed their affair". By the way, there is no implication that she "should" have. "But" means essentially "and (in contrast)"; in fact the absence of any mention of that essential fact left nearly all of NBI's students puzzled about what had actually happened. — DAGwyn 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Next item: I'd like to add the ref for the letter in the Objectivist, and correct the quote: Rand never uses "other reasons," her wording is "irrational behavior." Any objections? AdamReed 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. — DAGwyn 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Affair" (connotes illicit) or "romantic relationship?"

Next item: According to the Wikipedia article on the word Affair, it carries the connotation of "a situation where two people are involved in an illicit sexual, romantic and/or passionate attachment." Since it was certainly not illicit in Rand's pespective, this connotation violates the NPOV requirement. It needs to be replaced by something without the connotation of "illicit," for example "romantic relationship" unless just "relationship" is adequately clear. AdamReed 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

As DAGwyn mentioned, Rand's sexual relationship with with Branden was illicit, not because they concealed it from their respective spouses, but because they kept it secret while it was still going on and even during the expulsion. I know Branden was more frank about it (maybe too frank) later, but I don't tremember anything about Rand ever admitting to it. For these reasons, calling it an affair is in no way misleading of biased. ThAtSo 00:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: Ayn Rand valued privacy, and from her perspective she simply kept private a matter that she considered the business of no one outside the participants and their spouses and lovers. With those who had business knowing, she was completely open and frank. Your perspective differs, which is precisely why we have the NPOV rule here on Wikipedia. AdamReed 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

I value privacy, too, but if I concealed a sexual relationship from everyone, they would be right to call it an affair after they found out about it. The issue here isn't Rand's perspective, but whether the term is accurate. Our goal is neutrality, not catering to Rand's peculiarities and whims. ThAtSo 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to "Rand's peculiarities and whims" is nothing more than a very loud proclamation of your anti-Rand partisanship. As Ayn Rand wrote, "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public" - and only a savage would find anything illicit in keeping private the details of one's sexual and romantic life. As for your assertion that the savage's perspective is merely "accurate," I am reminded of Johnson's observation that "the mark of the savage is to mistake the customs of his tribe for laws of nature." Or to mistake his own viewpoint for neutrality. AdamReed 01:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your personal perspective on privacy, but I don't see how it has any bearing on whether she had an affair. Rand might not have thought of it as one, and that's an interesting fact in it itself, but it was an affair and that's what an NPOV article should continue calling it. The fact that you agree with Rand is irrelevant; if anything, it makes it sound like you want to use a euphemism to hide the truth. ThAtSo 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: I find it interesting that in your last post you totally ignore the issue at hand: "affair" connotes "illicit," and the view that there was anything illicit in Rand's romantic life is a partisan viewpoint, which is exactly what the NPOV rule is designed to keep out of Wikipedia articles. That you consider her conduct "illicit" hardly makes it "the truth." It does say more about you, though, than a prudent partisan would wish to advertise. AdamReed 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Rand's belief that her secret sexual relationship with Branden somehow wasn't an affair is, if it's true at all, just Rand's belief. For us to take her word for it, or worse, take your word for her word, would be entirely POV. NPOV means we take the neutral view, which means we get to call it an affair. Why? Because everyone else does. Just google "ayn branden affair" and you get hits from Amazon, SOLOHQ and countless other sites, many of them quoting reliable sources. Neutrality means going with their view, not yours. It was an affair and we will call it that. ThAtSo 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, ThAtSo, neutrality does not mean accepting the bigotries of the local majority. Neutrality means keeping opinions, even majority opinions, out of Wikipedia articles - except when they are clearly identified as opinions, which is certainly not the case with the use of terminology that has bigoted connotations - and sticking to facts. And the facts do not need partisan terminology - our language is rich enough to do without partisan opinions in the guise of "majority speech." AdamReed 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Once again, I find myself at a loss as to how to respond. You're repeating yourself but haven't addressed my points, so the best I can do is shrug and point you at my previous messages. Nothing's changed; it's still an affair. ThAtSo 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: Of course you are at a loss: all you re doing is repeating your opinion, "it's still an affair," meaning "in my opinion it is illicit." But this is an encyclopedia article, and therefore it is limited to statements of fact, without statements of opinion. Look: if thirty years ago someone proposed to chage "Oscar Wilde was a faggot" to "Oscar Wilde was a homosexual," someone would have pointed out "he still was a faggot." The difference is that "faggot" by its connotations expresses an opinion as well as a fact, while "homosexual," though longer, and at the time less widely used, expresses the same fact without also stating an opinion. Similarly, "affair" states both a fact and an opinion; "romantic relationship," although longer and less widely used, states the fact without the opinion. And for that reason, only the latter wording is acceptable in an encyclopedia article. AdamReed 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

I'm going to spell this out for you. 1) An affair isn't necessarily illicit. 2) Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair that was, in fact, illicit. 3) Therefore, you have no point. ThAtSo 04:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: Your vehement assertion does not amount to an argument. The relevant Wikipedia article states that "affair" connotes "illicit." You have not presented a single fact in support of your opinion that the romantic relationship between Rand and Branden was illicit. You have only demonstrated partisanship enough to confuse your own opinion with fact. This is a reason to go ahead with the necessary NPOV edit, not an argument against it. AdamReed 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Please understand that if you make this change against consensus, I will be forced to revert it. I urge you to talk this out instead of edit-warring. ThAtSo 05:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: You do not have any concensus, just your own partisan opinion - and a revert link. You already carried out an edit war to cut out all mention of Branden's fraudulent - and by now acknowledged as such even by Nathaniel Branden himself - "counseling" for sexual problems. You are now threatening another one, to prevent replacement of your propagandistic spin language with a neutral statement of fact. I've tried talking, but so far I have heard nothing approaching an argument from your side, just statements of blind faith in your own partisan opinions. The only concensus version out there is the one in the Hebrew wikipedia, which passed muster as a Featured Article. This one never has - and blatantly partisan language and content, enforced by threat of edit wars, is a very likely reason. Could we just copy the relevant paragraph from that Featured Article, translate it and post it here? Or is your threat of going to an edit war really an invitation to arbitration? AdamReed 05:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

I took a look at affair, and it doesn't even begin to support your point. Instead, it talks about a different kinds of affairs, with a variety of connotations. It does confirm that, as I said, the relationship between Branden and Rand unambiguously qualifies as an affair and that calling it an affair does not necessarily have negative connotations. Of course, Wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source for itself, so I checked a few dictionaties, which confirmed my conclusion.

Telling someone you're going to revert what is effectively vandalism is not a threat; it's a reminder of how Wikipedia works. Let me also remind you that your description of what happened before is completely wrong. What happened is that you went against consensus and your edits wound up reverted until you finally gave up. Go look at the history and you'll see that this is the case. You'll also see your future if you try the same trick. ThAtSo 06:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To ThAtSo: I've demarked the dispute on the current question to assist in seeking a resolution. I'm willing to try Wikipedia:Third opinion and I hope that we can at least agree on a very short statement of the problem. Since you were first to threaten an edit war, would you be willing to draft a statement of the problem for discussion? AdamReed 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

You have an oddly distorted view of reality, as I did not threaten an edit war and corrected you when you implied this earlier. Your repeated error constitutes a violation of the policy that requires you to assume good faith. If you want to try this third opinion thing, I can't stop you. By most accounts, Wikipedia is full of broken mediation and arbitration options, which range from sometimes slightly useful to grand miscarriages of justice. I'm told that the venue you brought up is one of the least formal and therefore least likely to bring down insanity, so go for it. However, if you make your entry biased, this will be noticed and therefore backfire on you. ThAtSo 06:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole thread is based on an incorrect premise: that "affair" connotes "illicit". Merriam-Webster Online confirmed what I already thought: their only relevant definition for "affair" is "a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration". It is commonly used in the context of being conducted in addition to a preexisting marriage or other established relationship, which also fits this specific instance. I don't think the general reader is likely to be misled by the term, especially given that its first appearance is as "romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses". — DAGwyn 14:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this whole debate is silly. To me it comes down to the verifiability of your sources. And yes, while "affair" night not always connote that something illicit is going on, it seems that you both agree that this could be implied. Whether or not it actually is doesn't matter. If you can find a reliable source that explicitly states that their "affair" was indeed illicit, then cite it and add it in, as this would be proper NPOV. However, even if, as DAGwyn said, the general reader won't be offended by it, why does that change things? Someone could still be, and that could cause problems. In any event, if the word "affair" when it is used to describe an illicit relationship can be properly verified, then by all means use it. If it can't, its better to be safe then sorry, so just write "romantic relationship". After all, even if you have consensus, POV is still POV. Hope that helped some, Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it all comes down to reliable sources, and reliable sources routinely refer to to the sexual relationship between Rand and Branden as an affair -- in those terms -- because that's precisely what it was. For us to refuse to follow the lead of these reliable sources would itself be POV; we'd be putting our political correctness above verifiable truth. As DAGwyn said, this whole thing really should be a non-issue because affairs aren't necessarily illicit. Consider "An Affair to Remember", where the memorable affair was in no way illicit, or "America's love affair with baseball", which is as pure as mom, apple pie and flag-waving. There is no reason to imagine that calling it an affair would somehow slander this long-dead woman or in any way distort the facts.

What's truly strange is that, in Reed's mind, calling an affair an affair does somehow involve insulting Rand, and that's why he'd rather bend over backwards than speak plainly. It is his partisanship that is driving his resistance to the obvious, and it's just not good policy to cave in to such demands, because we've already seen the foot he'd take if given an inch: he'd prefer a version that's long-winded, partisan and just plain poorly written. I understand that it would be expedient to let Reed censor the article, but some things are a bit more important than that. ThAtSo 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Third opinion, "affair" may be reinstated when accompanied with a ref to a verifiable source for the allegation that a referenced romantic relationship was illicit. I will implement the dit suggested by Wikipedia:Third opinion. Any reversion to "affair" without the requisite documentation will be referred to the next level of appeal. AdamReed 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Glad we got another opinion, but there's clearly no consensus for censorship, so I've reverted those parts of your changes. Good catch on the language issues, though. ThAtSo 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, some of us are actually trying to add more content, find citations and otherwise improve the article. All you seem to care about is concealing the verified fact that they had an affair. You've been playing edit war games again and it's really pointless. Why not join us in adding scholarly content, not censorship? ThAtSo 03:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: As it hapens, I've added dozens of citations to primary and secondary sources to many Wikipedia articles. Just today, I've done more work on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article than your entire list of Wikipedia contributions. But frankly, I find your claim that the Wikipedia:Third opinion process constitutes censorship even less coherent than your previous claim that your POV was "the concensus," even when the lack of such concensus was quite evident from the context of your phillipics. This is a private forum, in which no one has even the capability to initiate force, much less government guns at his disposal. You may dislike the NPOV requirement, or the processes used to implement it, but your dislike cannot turn them into "censorship." As endlessmike88 noted previously, you have systematically extripated from the disputed paragraph every documented fact that is outside the pro-Branden narrative. Like you, I have a POV. Unlike you, I do not confuse my POV with neutrality or fact. I can live with the Wikipedia NPOV requirement. And I have made significant contributions to the refereed literature (do you even read The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies?) starting long before there even was a Wikipedia. If you are willing to start a process to get to NPOV by including the core of both the pro-Rand and the pro-Branden narratives - and I do have the references ready for both - then we can work together. But if you keep insisting that this particular schism, unlike all other schisms, had only one side - your side - then we will go up the arbitration ladder, perhaps all the way up to the owners of this forum. Even then, you are doing your side no favor by blinding one of your eyes. AdamReed 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Maybe I'm missing something in this sea of words. I see the part where you brag about how much you've done and even the part where you totally mischaracterize the issue. What I don't see is the part where you explain why we shouldn't call their affair an affair. Until I do, there's nothing for us to discuss. ThAtSo 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, ThAtSo. You write, "What I don't see is the part where you explain why we shouldn't call their affair an affair." How come the provider of the Wikipedia:Third opinion saw it, and also explained it to you? Both my explanation, and that of the Wikipedia:Third opinion, are right above what you wrote, earlier in this very section. Or are you trying to provoke a personal attack? AdamReed 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Arknascar44 was kind enough to provide an opinion, but you didn't understand it. The point was that, if we want to claim the affair was illicit, we need to cite that. If we did (and I don't particularly care to), we easily could, because there are reliable sources that do call their affair illicit. For example,Luke Ford called it an illicit affair (http://www.lukeford.net/archives/updates/070122.htm), as did Henry Emrich (in an article at http://solohq.solopassion.com/Articles/Emrich/Critics_of_Objectivism_I_was_Howard_Roark.shtml). However, we're not calling the affair illicit, even though it happened to be. We're just calling the affair an affair, which is done casually all over the place, such as in movie reviews (http://movies.toptenreviews.com/reviews/mr236199.htm). In fact, even the most staunch pro-ARI zealots, like Valliant, also do it: he uses the term in his little anti-Branden book, and online (such as at http://www.solopassion.com/node/2533?PHPSESSID=2de258257b29a7b759fbd8b990985bb8). There is no question that Rand and Branden had an affair and that it is routinely called an affair (sometimes even an illicit one).

So, as Ark concluded, if we can cite, we can say it. We can cite it, so we will say it, no matter what you personally desire. ThAtSo 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reed, you're straining my ability to assume good faith since your last edit was nothing short of vandalism. To claim that only Branden's partisans call their affair an affair is ridiculous and insulting. Like I said above (and you NEVER responded to, because you never do respond to logical points), you can Google "ayn branden affair" and see that it comes up all over the place, and is taken for granted as an accurate description of what married people do when they repeatedly have sex with someone they're not married to. For example, http://www.utne.com/issues/1999_93/short_takes/19-1.html calls it a "sexual affair", to make it clear that it's not merely an emotional one. I reverted your POV silliness and I'm about ready to report you for vandalism. ThAtSo 05:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: That is the argument you gave to [Wikipedia:Third opinion]], and you lost. But please, be my guest. I just stated a fact; you are perpetrating a smear by connotation, as was noted by the provider of the Wikipedia:Third opinion. AdamReed 05:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

I never had an argument with Arknascar44. In fact, I've clearly agreed with Ark all along. It appears that your ability to comprehend the situation and accuratetely summarize it is minimal. This may incidentally account for the fact that the online sites that rate your teaching performance do not give you high marks for your ability to explain the material (or, actually, for anything else other than your easy grading). I think you have a serious problem that, for the sake of your professional career, you need to work on. More deeply, it is my impression that you seem to start with your desired conclusion and ignore anything that gets in the way, which is hardly objective, or even rational. For these reasons, I think it is counterproductive for me to address you directly, as you will only take it personally (witness your above remark about provoking a personal attack). Instead, I will explain my actions to the Wikipedia community in general, not excluding you but also not particularly including you. In this way, others will understand why I am routinely forced to reverse your edits. ThAtSo 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo: I have better things to do than correct your reading assignments. On Wikipedia, "Verifiable" means by citing primary and scholarly sources, not just random garbage that happens to agree with your side. I also happen to have better things to do than legitimize the Branden Partisan Occupation Force on the territory of this article. I leave you to your playpen. AdamReed 07:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

To both editors: I have watched this page for a while, and, though I am honored you both hold my third opinion in some sort of standing, I feel it necessary to point out the fact that it has not seemed to help much. Firstly, it is quite apparent that you are both editing in good faith, but because you both also believe your revisions are more accurate than the others, you assume the other is simply out to get you. I commend both of you for your devotion in adding scholarly and verifiable information into the article, but you must remember to avoid personal attacks. Some of your comments could be taken as serious insults, and, not as an accusation or threat, merely as a friendly suggestion, you should probably either avoid each other and let things cool off for a while, or stay civil and apologize. In any event, I propose that, to satisfy both parties, you write something to the tune of "they had a romantic relationship with one another, which, according to some sources, could be deemed an illicit affair (insert source here)". Cheers, Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 18:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As another editor of the section under discussion, I object to your suggested wording. The word "affair" is not currently being used to connote anything illicit (although the affair may well have been illicit), and we do not wish to change the text to insert "illicit", because even if it were true it would be irrelevant and distracting. And if we drop the word "illicit" from your proposed wording, then it looks ridiculous, analogous to saying "he ate a potato, which according to some sources could be deemed a vegetable". — DAGwyn 13:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. They definitely had an affair, and while it might have been illicit, that's really beside the point. I'm fine with calling it an affair and leaving it at that. ThAtSo 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am doing my best to avoid him, so long as that doesn't mean letting good articles go bad. ThAtSo 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My hardcopy big old Webster's defines "affair" as "[from love affair] an amorous relationship or episode between two people not married to each other; an amour". "Illicit" is not part of the definition. By AdamReed's defintion, Virginia Woolf and Vita-Sackville West did not have an affair with each other, nor did Marlene Dietrich's husband and his long-standing mistress, nor did any other couple of lovers or of mere sexual partners who had sex with the consent of their marriage partners. Such a stance seems to violate common sense and common usage--not to mention Webster's definition. It seems based on an unwarranted view of Rand's exceptionalism and perhaps more basically on a naive view that no-one else before Rand had sex outside of marriage without their spouse's "consent."

Branden in criticisms?

The phrasing of the affair aside, and not to offend anyone who admires Rand or has been working on this article for a long time, but the criticisms section doesn't mention Branden's published claims about Rand's character, and particularly of importance: as it relates to objectivism. I haven't read the book(s) in question but this seems like a notable criticism of Rand and I was a little surprised not to find any information on it in the article. I think this is an important part of the story. These are statements by someone intimately involved with the movement and with her personally and I don't see how we can avoid mentioning them. The affair itself is actually kind of questionable to note in and of itself, that's just her personal life - what matters here is what the criticisms of Rand's personal ethics are, as relates to objectivism, and any break Branden's had with her philosophy. If there's going to be a criticism section at all, I think Branden's claims must be in it. Just my two cents, hope this doesn't spawn a huge debate. I would just like to see a full article here. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 12:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Including that would be fine, as long as something such as Jim Valiant's book is included as well, since it casts doubt on everything Branden has written about Rand. That would keep it balanced.Ethan a dawe 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethan, how would it be balanced to add Valiant's book - it sounds like you have a vested interest in trying to keep Branden's criticisms from having any sting.