Talk:Ayn Rand Institute: Difference between revisions
added comment on vandalism |
added comment, end of first section |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
But by trying to prevent others from seeing [http://www.ariwatch.com ARIwatch.com] you only reveal your contempt for the Wikipedia user’s intellect. |
But by trying to prevent others from seeing [http://www.ariwatch.com ARIwatch.com] you only reveal your contempt for the Wikipedia user’s intellect. |
||
-oOo- |
|||
One has to wonder at the validity of Wikipedia when someone, or group, who does not reply to the above can repeatedly vandalize an article while getting their opponent labeled the vandal. |
|||
Revision as of 17:02, 13 August 2006
![]() | Objectivism Unassessed (inactive) | ||||||
|
I think we should eliminate the ARI Watch link because it's not very notable; if there must be a critique of the ARI, it should probably be one from the Objectivist Center website, since that is the far more important organization.
- Okay; the current link to TOC is fine. I may try to work some of the content from ARI Watch into the text, too. --zenohockey 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-oOo-
Not very notable"? One can note that ARIwatch.com is focused on the Ayn Rand Institute and its associated organizations. It addresses this Wikipedia subject perfectly.
I've no quarrel with including the Objectivist Center critique as well, and for the same reason.
Chris Matthew Sciabarra, who is, whatever you think of him, a notable person in Ayn Rand studies, gave two links (main and a page) to ARI Watch December 22, 2005. See
www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/2005_12.html#000935 "a useful compendium of quotes can be found here"
-oOo-
I still think we should eliminate ARI Watch, inasmuch as the positions it takes seem to be neither in line with ARI nor with TOC. It seems like irrelevant criticism from some fringe group.
-oOo-
Of course a critique of ARI is not going to be in line with it! Some reputable people, see above, think it's relevant criticism. It's literate and, if forceful, still urbane.
- I deleted the link to ARI Watch website, interesting as it may be: as far as I can tell it is totally anonymous and as such has no authority. Perhaps Jackem9 is one of the authors? In any case, is it too much to ask that ARI Watch authors sign their articles and perhaps add brief biographical notes that would indicate some reason to think these authors' opinions are worthy of note to any prospective reader — let alone worthy of note in an encyclopedia? It should not be hard to find links to critics of ARI who can be cited by name. Blanchette 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-oOo-
Come on! By that standard you wouldn't have referenced the Federalist Papers in the 1780's. It's difficult not to suspect that you deleted ARIwatch.com not because it is anonymous but because you disagree with it.
It contains many interesting Ayn Rand quotes not found elsewhere on the web, easily verified as authentic by going to the original books. It quotes ARI writers, which is also easily verified. And it contains analysis and comparisons which stand on their own merit. They don't depend on the author having or not having a Ph.D. or whatever.
I shall restore the link.
- The Federalist Papers were published in some of the leading newspapers of the day. This is a website set up by an anonymous person. One can find forceful, urbane things written by people without Ph.D.s by using Google.
- Having said that, it is certainly of note that ARI is widely seen as housing imperialist, bloodthirsty warmongers. This topic deserves more thorough treatment than a link to a random site. With all the time you people have spent inserting and removing the link, maybe you could have posted some excerpts from it—or, even better, from a more important, respected, recognized source. Just saying. --zenohockey 23:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-oOo-
Yes, the Federalists Papers were originally published as newspaper editorials. My point is that they were published anonymously, or to be precise, pseudonymously.
ARIwatch is not a “random site.” On the contrary, it’s focused on the very subject of this Wikipedia entry. It belongs here. And I shall restore it.
-oOo-
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing ARI watch, but that’s not what the vandal who keeps deleting the link to it is doing. He would prevent criticism, criticism of ARI. No openness and transparency for him, he wants ARI Watch to just disappear. Let’s not let him get away with it.
Dear vandal, why not create your own website, called say “ARIwatch Watch” and link to it. More power to you if you do that.
But by trying to prevent others from seeing ARIwatch.com you only reveal your contempt for the Wikipedia user’s intellect.
-oOo-
One has to wonder at the validity of Wikipedia when someone, or group, who does not reply to the above can repeatedly vandalize an article while getting their opponent labeled the vandal.
Libertarianism?
I think we should remove the "Libertarian" sidebar, inasmuch as the Ayn Rand Institute condemns libertarianism outright; Objectivism certainly was an influence on libertarianism, but I don't think the Institute is. LaszloWalrus 06:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
503(c)(3)
Am I the only one to be amused by the recently noted fact that the ARI is a non-profit organization? Alienus 00:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know, the irony is just thick in the air when people hear about this who know anything about Objectivism... The Fading Light 4:57, 8 April 2006
I'm not surprised by this. If I were to create an organization whose many principles include the idea that government is not to interfere with private affairs, I wouldn't want it to be taxed. Adam T.
- I'm told that an early sign of cultism is the loss of any sense of humor about the cult. Smile; your face won't crack. Al 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)