Category talk:Objectivists

Is this category for people who CLAIM to be Objectivists or for those who actually ARE Objectivists? If it's the latter, then all the Peikoffites and ARIans need to be removed. Kurt Weber 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an objectivist and don't claim to be an expert on them (the best I can do is having read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager). So, as a relatively objective outsider, I think that it's reasonable to include people who call themselves an Foobarist in [[Category:Foobarist]]. In the case of someone who clearly lies outside of the real of possibility I can see exclusion, e.g. if George Bush claimed to be a pacifist because the wars he fights will result in peace, but this should be an exception that is almost universally agreed upon. In the case of Objectivism, it seems that there are a number of sets of people who feel that they are carrying on the true legacy of Ayn Rand's work and that the others are not -- which is why I have characterized it as a sectarian dispute in another discussion. So, FWIW, I say leave them all in -- if Greenspan has a long history as an objectivist, but some who call themselves objectivists feel he has "left the fold", leave him in the category and explain in the article that it's disputed by some. That would inform me, as a casual reader, far more than simply removing him from the category. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Monroe Trout

I have explained in Monroe Trouts Talk page why I believe he is an Objectivist. Please see that talk page before deleting him from this Category again. ThanksTrade2tradewell 14:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

What happened to him? Was he not here before?