Talk:Ayn Rand Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


ARI does denounce neoconservatism in general, nonetheless ARI and neoconservatives share much the same foreign policy regarding the Middle East, such as targeting Iran and generally supporting Israel, and much the same domestic policy regarding the War on Terror. Seven times to date ARI has sponsored a talk or panel discussion featuring the neoconservative Daniel Pipes. See Birds of a Feather. Various ARI writers have at one time or another promoted Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, Rudy Giuliani, Robert Spencer and David Horowitz. (Ibid.)

To write only that ARI denounces neoconservatism, and leave out ARI's considerable -- if partial -- support, is to lie by omission.

To the article I added a much shorter comment than the first paragraph above.
Alexus001 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have a single-purpose account that exists solely to promote the views of (and links to) a particular website, and that site is not a reliable source, you should expect your efforts to be occasionally thwarted. --RL0919 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The reliability of ARI Watch has been well-discussed in preceding sections of Talk.

According to the wiki on Single Purpose Accounts” they are accounts whose editing is more or less confined to a narrow area. The wiki goes on to say: “Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy.”  My niche is to correct the record regarding the Ayn Rand Institute. ARI is not perfect, it is not above criticism.

RL0919’s accusatory shoe might fit on the other foot. There appear to be people here, whether dedicated to it or not, who try to ensure that ARI looks good, regardless of facts.

Anyway, regarding neoconservatism and ARI, if ARI is going to denounce neoconservatism as a threat to America then it’s wiki-worthy that ARI at the same time repeatedly features a hardcore neoconservative like Daniel Pipes.
Alexus001 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Critical viewpoints about ARI would be appropriate additions to the article, provided they are properly attributed to reliable sources. If it isn't discussed in reliable sources, then it is not "wiki-worthy". It is easy enough to tell that ARI Watch does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for a reliable source, but if you disagree you are welcome to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard for a second opinion. --RL0919 (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

McCaskey's dismissal[edit]

The article lists John McCaskey as a member of the Board of Directors. Not only does this need to be updated to exclude him, but the story of what happened to lead to his dismissal, I think is a must to include (perhaps as its own subsection) Chuffable (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


I've skimmed some of the articles on The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights' website that are cited in this Wikipedia article and I've noticed that some of the conclusions and views the institute holds are anthropocentric, or at least repeatedly mention the importance of human rights and liberties over all things. For example, in this article, Mr. Schwartz writes that Earth Day is: " the occasion for recognizing the Earth as a value--not in and of itself, but only insofar as it is continually reshaped by man to serve his ends."

Have any newspapers, websites or other reputable third-party sources mentioned this (in my opinion) anthropocentric lean the Ayn Rand Institute has? I believe it sums up or serves as a common ground for many of their views and beliefs and should therefore be added in with sources.--Mauri96 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as worthy of mention as the opposite point of view in some other philosophy would be. Rand, like most classical philosophers, saw philosophy as a tool for helping *humans* understand their place in the universe. Trees don't have (or need) philosophy. — DAGwyn (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of the organization[edit]

Michipedian believes the formal name of the organization is "The Ayn Rand Institute: The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism," based on an e-mail they received from ARI as well as Guidestar. But their own website identifies the organization just as "The Ayn Rand Institute," not just on the content pages but also on the "Contact Us" page and the legal pages. What to do? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The website identifies the organization by its full name. See: Michipedian (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
There is also this: Michipedian (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
That website link isn't clear. But the tax return is. That settles it for me. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ayn Rand Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Funding sources? Who pays for it?[edit]

Who has paid for it, historically and currently? This is basic information. Follow the money. Benefac3 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe Carl Barney and Charles Koch are major contributors. Barney is the top donor, according to this < >. Michipedian (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)