Talk:The Ayn Rand Cult

Cult-related book category
User:‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is there any policy-based basis for removing this? MilesMoney (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's stated in the associated edit summary, which you've acknowledged reading and haven't disputed the accuracy of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was "inappropriate category; other books in the cat deal with the subject generally, not with purported examples, and other books on the particular topic are not in this category". I did not refute it because it doesn't support your edit. Even if it were the case that the other books in the category deal with the subject generally, the category is explicitly defined as "containing books on specific groups that have been called cults, as well as books relating to or describing cult methodologies and theories". As such, this book, which discusses a particular group that's been called a cult, fits into the category.
 * Now that I've pointed out your mistake, I'm sure you'll do the right thing and revert your edit. MilesMoney (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Key language in the category description was altered without discussion or consensus a few weeks ago, by a new user. The change did not reflect practice, and the usage it promoted violated WP:LABEL. The usage clearly is also problematic under BLP, since it implicitly labels those associated with groups as cult members based simply, as here, on the opinion of a single individual. Itr is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a means of attaching pejorative labels to those whose opinions one disagrees with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not convincing. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, the problem with Wolf's argument is that it's backwards. He keeps edit-warring to change the category so that it applies to cults, which means that any group mentioned in any of these books is being called a cult in WP's voice, quite likely violating WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The version before his edit-warring had been improved so that it only required that these groups be called cults. So, for example, Ayn Rand's Collective is being called a cult by this book, and that would mean it qualifies without WP making a commitment towards its actual culthood. MilesMoney (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm, User:Roccodrift: Why are you edit-warring over this? If you have any reasons for your changes, come here and discuss them. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to make this simpler. If you won't justify your edits here, I will revert them. MilesMoney (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So you want all these topics to be in that category:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.136.29 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already given my reason: it's an inappropriate category. Ridiculously inappropriate.  Preposterously inappropriate.  Clear enough?  (Probably not, but there it is.) Roccodrift (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inappropriate about it. What are you talking about? MilesMoney (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm rather stunned that you mention me, User:MilesMoney. StAnselm (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't imagine why. I don't see Rocco ever being able to come up with an answer to why the category is "inappropriate", and I know you already restored it once before he reverted you and then trouted you. How silly of you to do the right thing when Rocco was so eager to revert anything I support. Didn't you get the memo? MilesMoney (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The case to put this book in the category isn't any stronger than the case to include this one .  After all, they both have "cult" in the title, right?  Roccodrift (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The premise of your argument is that the use of the word "cult" is coincidenta. This premise is false. Even reading the lede of the article reveals that the author describes the Objectivist movement as a cult. He's certainly not the first person to use this term -- Rothbard did, for example -- but I believe it's the first book-length treatment. In any case, disagreeing with the author (or simply not understanding what the author is saying) is not any sort of argument. In fact, you no longer have an argument. MilesMoney (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)