Talk:Ayn Rand Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old, unsectioned comments

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)

ARI Watch

Of course websites with critical opinions of something must stay. Please reread WP:NPOV - it clearly says that all views must be presented, including critical views. And there is no exception that anonymous criticism somehow doesn't count. Now if we already had links to ten different critical websites, it would be ok to select "more important" ones or something - but right now without ARI Watch link the article wouldn't say anything about criticism of ARI, and it wouldn't link to any criticism of ARI, and it would be totally one-sided.

And it's unreasonable to expect some famous names among the critics here, ARI is not that well-known, so it has less well-known critics. That doesn't make this article exmept from NPOV policy. Taw 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ARIWatch is run by ONE MAN named Marko something or other. It is not an organization, but more of a blog. Those don't count. LaszloWalrus 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do count. It's mostly the usefulness of information that matters, not whether the guy is called Marco or not, and ARI Watch website seems to contain the most detailed criticism of Ayn Rand Institute anywhere on the Internet, and it is well-sourced.

Anyway, I did select one other American think-tank at random: Cato Institute. What's there ? A real criticism section, and links to "private websites" criticizing it, like [1].

As you can see, linking to criticism on "private websites" too, is a well-established practice on Wikipedia. We've been doing it since as far back as I can remember (like, since 2001). You cannot simply claim they do not count.

And I think people definitely want Wikipedia to inform them about members of Ayn Rand Institute endorsing torture, genocide, and suspending civil liberties, if that's actually true (well, the sources are there, anybody denying their validity ?), no matter who pointed that out first.

If you think what I'm doing here is totally wrong and against established Wikipedia practice, please ask some other person for their opinion. I guess they'd be much more likely to agree with me than with you :-) Taw 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that the history of this page is a history of removing the link to ARIWatch. Also, copying all that text could well be a copywright violation. Also, blogs do not count as valid sources. LaszloWalrus 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If, as Humpty Dumpty might, you define a blog as a collection of someone’s essays, then sure, ARIwatch.com is a “blog.” But then so are zillions of other Wikipedia external links. The fact is ARIwatch.com, love it or hate it, is a collection of essays, some fairly long essays, essays on which obviously much time and effort has been spent. ARI Watch is no blog in the proper sense of the word.

LaszloWalrus might explain how a website by two or more people can be Wikipedia material, yet a website by one man cannot. I agree with Taw on this.

As for violating any copyright, this is a ridiculous accusation. All the quoting in ARI Watch is well within the limits of Fair Use. LaszloWalrus is groping here. – 26 August 2006

Hmm. I think the anon user might be another Alienus sock. LaszloWalrus 04:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know this Alienus, and in any case what difference to arithmetic would it make if this Alienus said 2 + 2 = 4 ?

{Editprotected}

Declined - I don't see a consensus or straw poll supporting this addition let alone a signature from the nominator. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add

• ARI Watch

to the External Links list. If Wikipedia truly aims for a NPOV then it won’t restrict itself to the POV of boosters of the Ayn Rand Institute. As Taw said: “WP:NPOV ... clearly says that all views must be presented, including critical views. And there is no exception that anonymous criticism somehow doesn’t count. ... right now without [the] ARI Watch link the article wouldn’t say anything about criticism of ARI, and it wouldn’t link to any criticism of ARI, and it would be totally one-sided. [The fact that the not well-known ARI has a not well-known critic] doesn’t make this article exempt from NPOV policy.”

I quote from Wikipedia's article on reliable sources: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Further, "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.

That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly." LaszloWalrus 16:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The complete article “Reliable Sources” from which LaszloWalrus quotes can be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Reliable_source . Possibly LaszloWalrus didn’t provide a link to it because, like the admonition that one should always be grammatical, it allows exceptions.

LaszloWalrus avoids the burden of consistently defining “personal website.” What kind of website is the Ayn Rand Institute’s about itself –- aynran.org -– now gracing External Links? Is it subject to independent fact-checking? It is not. Is it subject to peer review? It is not.

Is it self-published? It most assuredly is.

It might be objected to this that, since the Wikipeida article under discussion is about ARI, anything published by ARI, even if riddled with fallacies, is “primary source material” and therefore must be allowed. Very well! But if other External Links pointing out those fallacies are not allowed, the Widipedia article becomes just a mouthpiece for ARI.

ARI Watch may not be the ideal website for reviewing ARI but it does articulate what many students of Ayn Rand have been thinking.

What makes LaszloWalrus think ARI is above the criticism of ARI Watch? “ARI is a group, ARI Watch is just an individual” doesn’t cut it. What really matters, of course, is whether the ARI Watch website is relevant and useful. That is what LaszloWalrus should argue against, if he can.

Whether or not it is "relevant and useful" ARIWatch does NOT meet the criteria for website inclusion on Wikipedia. Period. LaszloWalrus 23:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course ARI Watch should appear as a critical link, there's clearly an attempt at censorship here. Greenman 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ARI Watch is rejected because it is a personal anonymous personal website. This article should include criticism. So find some from a real source. Endlessmike 888 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

You have an interesting perspective on reality :) ARI is clearly a leading source of criticism about the ARI. And this is from me, someone neutral and new to the topic, not you, endlessmike, someone who has an interest in ARI, and nothing else, it seems. But anyway, clearly some people feel certain things must not be mentioned, and I don't feel as fanatical about the topic as some, and am not going to get involved in an endless edit war - luckily Wikipedia readers interested in the ARI have the discussion page and Google to find ARI Watch, and can decide for themselves what they think of it. However, it's unfortunate and to the detriment of the article that its guardians have ensured readers have to go to the extra effort to reveal this information. Greenman 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Identifiable Critics of ARI

As one who objected to the anonymity of ARI Watch and the probable self-promotion of that site by one or more 'sock puppets', usually from the University of VA, I'm surprised to see no one taking up my suggestion to find "critics of ARI who can be cited by name." Here are some links, by no means exhaustive and not all of which I would consider to be 'encyclopedia grade', but all of which connect to the larger world by having names, institutions, or forms of dialogue associated with them. I think we could agree to include some of these:

(1) http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/ari-toc.html "The ARI-TOC Dispute"

(2) http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-3-Better_Things_Do.aspx "Better Things To Do" A summary of the 'Truth and Toleration' debate.

(3) http://www.nattvakt.com/onlineenglish/tjsconflict.htm "Why I do not support the "official" Objectivist "movement"" by Per-Olof Samuelsson

(4) http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/index.html "FAQ - What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?" Many criticisms of ARI and its members.

(5) http://www.aristos.org/ar-cspan.htm "C-SPAN American Writers Program on Ayn Rand: a Sham Cedes Control to Doctrinaire Rand Institute" by Louis Torres & Michelle Marder Kamhi

(6) http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/RandVsPeikoff.html "Rand Versus Peikoff" by Robert J. Bidinotto -- with links to other essays on related themes.

(7) http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/fem/Femreviews/ferc.htm "Chris Matthew Sciabarra Responds to R. Mayhew" Critique of ARI orthodoxy.

(8) http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/04/04-19-96tdc/04-19-96d07-002.htm "Objectivists' hidden agenda a Klan mentality" by Rebecca Stambanis. Impassioned criticism of ARI speaker Gary Hull

I could also come up with defenses of ARI, its associates and positions, but in the spirit of the list above, I would like the defenders of ARI Watch to make suggestions for that list, just to reflect that NPOV ideal towards which we all assuredly strive. Blanchette 04:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two links are internecine attacks from The Objectivist Center, whose position on the “War on Terrorism” – WOT – differs not a jot from that of ARI.

The third link was written in 2000 and of course doesn’t address WOT at all.

The fourth was written even before that, and of course there’s nothing on WOT.

The fifth is contemporary criticism, not of ARI, but of C-SPAN. It’s interesting, however again, it does not address WOT.

The sixth and seventh: nothing whatever on WOT.

The eighth dates from 1996. Guess what, you won’t be surprised by anything about WOT.

That concludes this irrelevant list.

You can dig up some Internet articles that do criticize ARI for it’s position on the "War on Terrorism" -- the most important issue of our time. There are some by Chris Matthew Sciabarra, for example. But let’s face it guys, ARIwatch.com is the 500 pound gorrilla in this regard. It is the identifiable critic of ARI.

-oOo-

Intellectual Heir?

I know this is a big debate and this is probably not the place for it, but should we call Peikoff Rand's intellectual heir, especially in an article that is not directly about him? I don't think he is even refered to as such on his own page. Should we delete it?Atripodi 07:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it could go either way, but I lean towards keeping it. People not familiar with Peikoff probably could use some background information on him in this article, so they don't have to read through the Peikoff article, but either way is fine with me. LaszloWalrus 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "intellectual heir" should be removed. It doesn't appear in Dr Peikoff's own page and I'm not aware of the basis for the use of this title in relation to him. If anyone can point me to where it is stated as accurate I'd be happy to change my mind. As it is, it is an undocumented addition. This has been a big debate between ARI/TOC/et al debates. We can easily sort this out if someone who thinks it should be kept can provide the source. I'll delete it now and summarize this in the edit. If a source is found we can add it back in.Ethan a dawe 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The only place I know of Peikoff refering to himself with the title is in the Peikoff In His Own Words DVD. Acording to him, she called him her intellectual heir privately. Does that count as a source? Since it is his testimony I'm not sure. Other than that I'm only aware of other people calling him her intellectual heir, not him refering to himself that way. Endlessmike 888 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be some indication of who he is beyond her legal heir. Such an heir could simply be a family member. Something like "her legal heir and student of 30 years." "Intellectual heir" is contentious (though I've never understood why), but the fact remains that she made him her legal heir at least partially because she thought he understood her philosophy better than anyone else. Endlessmike 888 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Those who find "Intellectual heir" to be contentious within Objectivist circles argue that the philosophy allows for no rational way to "inherit" and intellect. Chuffable (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I know this is an old issue, but I was just reading about it. Basically, Rand used "intellectual heir" in those exact words when talking about Nathaniel Branden, I think in a book dedication, but nobody (other than, conveniently, Peikoff himself) has ever heard her use those words to refer to Peikoff. He's her legal heir and in some ways more than that, but he's really not accepted as her intellectual heir. I also ran into some arguments about whether Rand would have even wanted the ARI to exist, but that's out of scope. ThAtSo 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall clearly that Rand did designate Peikoff as her "legal and intellectual heir". I also recall feeling sad that there wasn't anybody else left to so designate.. Anyway, the current wording seems okay. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's kill the Muslims

I see that this article is semi-protected. I think that the following edit should be made. There should be a section on the Institute's views on Islam. The reference to a "free speech campaign" is a euphemism. There should also be discussion of this article: [2] in which it is reported that Institute head Yaron Brook "said Islamic totalitarian states pose a severe threat to the security of the United States and other Western nations and suggested that a way to defeat these regimes is to kill up to hundreds of thousands of their supporters."

ARI Watch

Has ARIWatch been covered in the major media? That is to say, is there any reason to think they are notable outside of self-promotion? We don't view personal blogs and websites as proper sources for attribution unless there's some external reason to do so. What is the external reason in the case of ARIWatch? Until that justification is given, I think it has to stay out. Nandesuka 14:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They are notable in that they present the other side of ari and thus allow people to make informed decision, without their presence on the ari page, we have only a pov article. If there are two sides of one story, and you contrive reasons for excluding one, then are you really telling the whole story? I personally had never heard of ariwatch until i saw it in the context of this article. I don't think that the article represents ari without it. --Buridan 17:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The place to present the other view is in the text of the article, not as an external link. —Centrx?talk • 18:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

why? the link does the work.--Buridan 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not google. Nandesuka 19:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka asked  “... is there any reason to think they (ARIwatch.com) are notable outside of self-promotion?”  For what it’s worth, Andrew Sullivan, a Times Magazine author, recently linked to it in his blog:  http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/10/ayn_rand_on_tor.html .  I think ARIwatch belongs somewhere in the article or the links list. Should the subject be protected and shielded from other points of view?

Absolutely not, but we have a duty to not represent extreme minority points of view, because representing extreme minority points of view in the interests of "balance" is actually a form of original research. Did Sullivan discuss ARIWatch, or just put in a link? If he mentioned them in enough detail, that would be enough for me (something like "There are groups who disagree with the ARI's methods. Journalist Andrew Sullivan described one such group, ARIWatch, in his article on (date) where he said blah blah blah...") Nandesuka 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

External links are for websites that are directly important to the subject of the article. If there is any question about whether a link is relevant, it should not be included. The aynrand.org link belongs because it is the official website of the subject of the article. The Daily Bruin link should be deleted; Wikipedia is not a link directory of every news event or website about the subject. —Centrx→talk • 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that the latest attempt to educate the public about the current incarnation of the Ayn Rand Institute should be erased, but it came down so quickly it almost made my head swim. It didn't last two hours. Somebody obviously is spending a lot of time making sure that only pro-ARI propaganda is on display here, and no one becomes aware of the gold mine of critical information available at ARI Watch. Like they say in Nineteen Eighty Four, "Ignorance Is Strength". ElmoMotterson 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a feature called "watch list." Every time someone changes an article on your watch list, it tells you. Glad you are signing your posts now, Mark, even if you aren't using your real name.Endlessmike 888 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not, nor have I ever been Mark, the creator of the ARI Watch site. I ran across ARI Watch a while back and was very favorably impressed with the analysis and the scholarship. I thought it deserved a larger audience and naively believed that the Wikipedia page of the Ayn Rand Institute would be the logical place for people to become acquainted with this erudite ARI critic. Only after I had had my handiwork quickly erased did I sally over to the discussion page and discover the work of the thought police with respect to ARI Watch.

I love this standard for evaluating it: "Has ARIWatch been covered in the major media?"

That measure would keep out such valuable sites as Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com, and FBICoverup.com, I believe. The virtually monolithic corporate media are the biggest part of our information problem. Being able to transcend them is what makes the Internet and, potentially, Wikipedia so valuable. ElmoMotterson 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is published under a very permissive license. This means that you are free to copy everything in Wikipedia and do whatever you want with it. I therefore suggest that if you are unhappy with Wikipedia's editorial standards that you buy some equipment, copy all of our content (with our blessing!) and fork off your own encyclopedia which has less stringent editorial controls. Best of luck, Nandesuka 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am not, nor have I ever been Mark, the creator of the ARI Watch site." I don't believe you. Sucks that the thought police are out to get you, though. Good luck fighting the good fight. Endlessmike 888 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What evidence has Endlessmike for claiming that ElmoMotterson is Mark, the man behind ARI Watch? Apparently it’s merely that ElmoMotterson recommends the website. In other words, Endlessmike believes only one person on earth would recommend ARI Watch – it’s author.

Here Endlessmike’s contempt has gotten the better of his judgment. The premise of his argument is silly, and he could know this even without reading  Cheers for ARI Watch.

As it happens I am Mark, and thus in rather a good position to know that ElmoMotterson’s comments are not mine.

Of course anyone can again claim, with bull-headed glibness, that all this is an extended deception, and again evidence they will have none.

ElmoMotterson, thanks for the kind words. I’ve long since given up fighting the “Endlessmikes” on Wikipedia. They are indeed endless. I’m afraid it’s a question of numbers. Among those who really care about the subject, currently there are more of them than of us.

— Mark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.143.167.103 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

His writing style is similar to yours, he's as paranoid and obnoxious as you (thinking the link was removed because of "thought police," rather than the fact that it doesn't meet wikipedia guidelines), and he's been editing articles that are all in some way related to Israel and anti-Zionism. (I know from seeing you post elsewhere that you are into those topics as well). Thus I hypothesize you and he are one. (If I knew computers better I'd look to see if he is posting from UVA, like you usually do). Endlessmike 888 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I’d say his “writing style” is superior to mine. Ignoring the slur “obnoxious,” I don’t think a reference to thought police is paranoid, rather it’s commonly used hyperbole – you know, exaggeration to make a point. Fact is there are several  (you, LaszloWalrus, Nandesuka)  extremely pro-ARI people in Wikipedia-Land who assiduously monitor this article. I mean like a rash, and you brook no real criticism. I don’t follow how editing Israel/Zionism articles is relevant here. Anyone interested in ARI, pro or con, may well have an interest in Israel/Zionism – ARI’s website is riddled with references to Israel. Finally, you didn’t “hypothesize” who I am, you just flat out claimed I was ElmoMotterson.

— Mark

"Paranoid" is thinking that anyone who is opposed to inserting references to obscure, unknown, and otherwise unnotable organizations means one is "pro-ARI". I don't even particularly know much about ARI or care about their politics. I'm just opposed to nonnotable organizations trying to astroturf and promote their obscure causes on Wikipedia. Nandesuka 00:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course ARI Watch should appear as a critical link, there's clearly an attempt at censorship here. The consensus to me seems to be to include it, reading the above, and if there's doubt, then leave it in. Greenman 15:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I examined the ARI Watch Web site, and its articles I examined contain more polemic and distortion than the ARI propaganda they criticize. Evidently the ARI Watch writers are unaware that their own rantings are irrational, a failing that seems typical these days. I don't see how such a site merits respect. It would be useful if there were some well-reasoned criticism of ARI to point to; however, lacking that, and going by the presence of the Theroux link, I think an external link (only) for ARI Watch should be present also. — DAGwyn (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DAGwyn, ARI Watch has only one auther, "Mark Hunter" (may not be his real name) who edits anonymously from UVA. He used to link spam Rand-related articles. Since it is an unnotable anonymous personal website, it doesn't belong. There are plenty of articles critical of ARI from real sources if you think there needs to be more critical links. Endlessmike 888 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

If that is really the case, then I agree that the link shouldn't be there.

It is probably worth noting that the "NPOV" guidelines are intended to handle disputes over what the facts are, not to make the WP serve as a debating platform. The relevant facts are just what is said about ARI in the article, and I don't see that there is any serious dispute about ARI's history, programs, personnel, etc. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree re NPOV, but there are also standards about what types of sources are allowed. ARI Watch doesn't meet those standards. Like I said, there are plenty of crticism of ARI by sources that meet the standards. Endlessmike 888 03:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

ARI promoted the Iraq invasion

Someone keeps inserting the following misleading sentence:
“Though some Institute writers promoted the invasion of Iraq, the Institute opposes how the Iraq War is being handled.”
The fact is ARI strenuously agitated for the Iraq invasion. Just look in their archives, or visit  Relentless Propaganda  for a raft of statements of them doing so. It’s disingenuous to say only “some” did so when it was practically all. The truth is as follows:
“Most Institute writers, including the Institute’s director, promoted the invasion of Iraq, however they now oppose how the Iraq War is being handled.”
And citations for examples of them doing both these things is in order, not just the second. The person who keeps changing "practically all" to "some" evades the true history of ARI and seeks to deceive others as he deceives himself.

"Practically all?" Your article cites four writers, one of which no longer works for ARI. If you want to maintain that "practically all" (or any equivalent) ARI writiers said this, the burden is on you to document it. So I've eliminated the "outspoken" and added the quantifer "some," changing the sentence to "Though some at the Institute supported the invasion of Iraq, it now opposes how the Iraq War is being handled." (This is the first time I've changed the sentence. I don't know who did in the past). Endlessmike 888 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

See below.

Wikipedia: Truths or Half-Truths?

Someone keeps inserting
“The Institute opposes how the Iraq War is being handled.”
as the sole statement about ARI and the Iraq War. It’s true, as far as it goes. What’s missing is that the ARI was outspoken in support of initiating that war. ARI repeatedly and stridently called for the invasion of Iran in op-eds, letters to the editor, press releases, talks, radio interviews. This history of ARI is important and deserves stating with citation just as much as the above fact, which by itself is but a half-truth.

The following is a mild statement of ARI’s full position:
“Though the Institute was outspoken in promoting the invasion of Iraq (see http: //ariwatch.com/RelentlessPropaganda.htm Relentless Propaganda), it now opposes how the Iraq War is being handled (see [http: //www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13587&news_iv_ctrl=1021 What We Owe Our Soldiers]).” (And that last citation is a whitewash: see this http: //ariwatch.com/WhatWeOweOurSoldiers.htm Review.) web links de-linkified by User:Nandesuka; this user seems to be trying to pump up google juice to this site. Nandesuka 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This does seem a bit dishonest. It could lead the reader to infer that the Institute is somehow dovish on the war, when in fact I have seen quotes from Institute representatives where they say that if Bush had been less concerned about civilian casualties, he could have terrified the insurrectionists into submission. This article should be objective and not a PR job. --Tsunami Butler 15:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's dishonest in context; we have quotations about the Institute's approach to the War on Terror in general just above the section about their views on the Iraq War. LaszloWalrus 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Every time someone adds anything that makes the article that is factually accurate but presents the actions of ari, negatively, even though they are often negative, you remove it. I am wondering why you are removing well documented material, which wikipedia value are you promoting in this case? --Buridan 12:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He had reliable sources in other articles, deleted that too. would a copy of the original video be sufficient to add this material to the article? it is clear, in this case, that the material in question is actually reliable, because, in fact it is true and happened. ari is just as reliable as any other source on this matter. --Buridan 14:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The burden to demonstrate that ARIWatch is a reliable source is pretty low, as discussed in other sections on this talk page. As of yet, no one has met that (very low) threshold. All it will take is someone in the mainstream media describing ARIWatch and their views on ARI. In any event, the addition of links to ARIWatch should come from an editor in good standing, and not from Alienus — or his sockpuppets — since he is a banned editor who is not welcome at Wikipedia. Nandesuka 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The original post in this section conflates two issues, namely what ARI says about the Iraq war as it is, and ARI's desired war against Totalitarian Islam. ARI had put out various op-eds supporting the war on Iraq, though the specific reasons often varied from writer to writer. For example, Tracinski supported it for reasons very similar to those given by President Bush, while Peikoff very reluctantly supported it on the grounds that going into Iraq was better than doing nothing. As it stands now, based on numerous essays published in The Objective Standard, the consensus is that the Iraq war was worse than doing nothing. The only hold out is Rob Tracinski, who has left ARI.

Articles concerning action against Iran are of a different kind. These types of articles address how various Objectivists think the war should be fought. For example, Peikoff advocated war on Iran only several weeks after Sept 11, 2001. He advocated being merciful to Afghanistan and instead concentrating on Iran.

As Mark of ARI watch would write this section, he fails to take into account the varying opinions on the war at ARI several years ago. He also underappreciates the rationale many Objectivists were giving at the time, namely that going into Iraq was better than doing nothing. And by neglecting this last point, he underappreciates why the opinion of most ARI writers (with Tracinski as the exception) have changed. Endlessmike 888 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ARI boosters twist and squirm to evade the fact that every writer at ARI wrote an essay advocating the Iraq War during Bush’s deceitful run-up to that war. Every one. “Most” would be generous to the ARI boosters, but let’s say “most” in case an ARI writer was in hospital or something and didn’t weigh in.

In short: ARI advocated the Iraq War. It yearned and hankered and ached for the Iraq War.

The question is: Why are ARI boosters in a state of denial and evasion about it? We give them twenty quotes selected from about fifty on hand and they say: “How do I know these quotes are reliable?”

Answer: You go to the ARI website and check them! But ARI boosters pretend they can’t do that. ARI Watch simply must be unreliable. Yes, that’s it. ARI Watch is unreliable. Now they can say “some” instead of “all” or “most” – and erase that horrid reference to all those horrid ARI quotes.

This is their attitude – Dear God, let this be my prayer: Make those horrid quotes disappear.

I agree with Tsunami Butler and Buridan.

So, in summary, you agree that ARIWatch isn't a reliable source, since it doesn't meet the standards set out in WP:RS? I'm just checkingNandesuka 01:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is neither a deduction from, nor a summary of, what I wrote.

Au contraire. I deduce it from the fact that you haven't yet provided any evidence that ARIWatch is viewed as a reliable source by anyone other than ARIWatch. It's a fairly direct deduction, at that. Nandesuka 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka’s standard of reliability is rather weak. It is enough, he/she claims, that “ARIWatch is viewed as a reliable source by anyone other than ARIWatch.” Anyone? Talk about social metaphysics!

There are two questions here.

1. The truth of using “practically all” (or to be generous “most”) instead of just “some.” This truth is independent of ARI Watch. And it is true, just read the ARI archives at ARI’s official website (aynrand.org).

2. The reliability of the one page of ARI Watch that lists many quotes from ARI op-eds, press releases, and letters to the editor promoting the invasion of Iraq. This page is reliable simply because the quotes are reliable. Nandesuka could easily confirm that any quote is reliable simply by going to the original ARI article referenced. These articles are all over the Internet, in particular at ARI’s official website (aynrand.org).

As Tsunami Butler pointed out, Nandesuka is being less than honest on this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alienus (talk • contribs).

I gently suggest that if you're unhappy with Wikipedia's content policies you either fork your own encyclopedia for find some other online resource that encourages original research, non-neutral points of view, and the use of unreliable sources, because this one does not.

In any event, I am consistently reverting you on this point not because of the inappropriate way you have continued to spam Wikipedia with links to your pet organization, but simply because you are a banned user, and banned users are not permitted to edit here. Even if a banned users edits were good — which yours are not — they are unwelcome. Nandesuka 12:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV ?

ARI criticizes how the Administration is handling the Iraq War. We ought to include that fact. Likewise – because it’s true – we ought to include the fact that ARI was outspoken in promoting the invasion of Iraq.

Nandesuka censors the second fact whenever it’s brought forward. Why? Perhaps because this fact makes ARI look bad. Is leaving such things out his/her idea of a neutral point of view?

---

Here's a suggested re-writing of the section on the War on Terror, that I think makes clear the Institutes position on the War at different stages and the extent to which it has and has not changed its mind. I also think it's better organized than the existing section:

The Institute claims that America is at war with “Totalitarian Islam”. Since September of 2001 it has been calling for aggressive military action against Iran, which it considers the primary state sponsor of this movement.

In the build up to the Iraq war, it vigorously defended America’s right to invade Iraq unilaterally, and most of its writers supported the war, even while arguing that Iran was the more important target. From the beginning, the Institute has been critical of the Bush administration’s war policy, which it characterizes as “altruistic” because it places the goal of bringing democracy to the Iraqis above the goal of ensuring America’s safety. Most of its speakers now maintain that, given the way in which the war was conducted, it would have been better not to invade Iraq at all, and many favor withdrawal over a continuation of the present policy. 8

The Institute’s own views on how the war should be conducted are controversial. According to the UCLA Daily Bruin of October 17, 2006, Institute chairman Yaron Brook has called for the killing of hundreds of thousands of citizens of states that support Islamic terrorism to combat "Islamic totalitarianism," 9, and during an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor, he said that the United States should "turn Fallujah into dust." Institute fellow Onkar Ghate has written that: "In fact, victory with a minimum of one's own casualties sometimes requires a free nation to deliberately target the civilians of an aggressor nation in order to cripple its economic production and/or break its will. This is what the U.S. did in WWII when it dropped fire bombs on Dresden and Hamburg and atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These bombings were moral acts."10.

The Institute has taken other controversial positions with respect to the Islamic world. The Institute is generally supportive of Israel 11, and has started what it calls a Free Speech Campaign in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Any old mouse 12:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)AOM Dec 17

This is much better than the attempts to astroturf the ARIWatch link. However, you need to find a reliable source that describes the institute's positions as "controversial"; otherwise, it's original research. Regards, Nandesuka 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It's OK except that "most writers" needs a citation, such as the one Nandesuka keeps deleting. One footnote hardly constitutes "astroturf" as she claims. -- 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The citation to ARIWatch listed only four writers, one of which no longer works with the institute. ARI has 28 writers listed on their website. Four out of 28 does not constitute "most," even if ARIWatch is a reliable source. Endlessmike 888 23:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Considering that the following were written during the Neocon’s run-up to the Iraq invasion, they advocated that invasion:
“How America Abets Its Terrorist Foes” by Dianne Durante Feb. 15, 2001
“Crime or War?” by Dianne Durante, Sept. 17, 2001
“War, Nuclear Weapons and ‘Innocents’ ” by Onkar Ghate, Sept. 22, 2001
“The Lessons of War” by Robert Tracinski, Sept. 24, 2001
“Innocents in War?” by Onkar Ghate, Jan. 9, 2002
“Fading Shock and Fading Resolve” by Robert Tracinski Jan. 14, 2002
“The Powell Problem” by Robert Tracinski, Feb. 4, 2002
“The War on Terrorism and the War on Reality” by Robert Tracinski Feb. 18, 2002
“Death vs. Disapproval” by Robert Tracinski (PR), Feb. 20, 2002
“Who is George Bush?” by Robert Tracinski, Mar. 15, 2002
“Don’t Blame Our Intelligence Agencies” by Onkar Ghate, July 9, 2002
“The War on CEOs” by Robert Tracinski July 12, 2002
“Talk vs. Ideas” by Robert Tracinski, Aug. 14, 2002
“The Case for ‘Destabilization’ ” by Robert Tracinski, Sept. 10, 2002
“What Have We Lost?” by Robert Tracinski, Sept. 11, 2002
“The Betrayal of the Bush Doctrine” by Alex Epstein, Sept. 11, 2002
“The Failure of Bush’s Diplomacy” by Robert Tracinski (PR), Sept. 23, 2002
“The War on Art Historians” by Robert Tracinski Sept. 24, 2002
“Thinking It Alone” by Alex Epstein, Oct 8, 2002
“The Grand Illusion” by Robert Tracinski, Oct. 23, 2002
“The Epistemology of Preemption” by Alex Epstein, Nov. 2002
“The Justification for War” Peter Schwartz (PR), Dec. 2, 2002
“War and Morality” by Peter Schwartz, Dec. 2, 2002
“Peacenik Warmongers” by Alex Epstein, Dec. 9, 2002
“Peace On Earth – And Its Price” by Robert Tracinski, Dec. 25, 2002
“The Iraq Charade” by Robert Tracinski, Jan. 28, 2003
“Innocents in War” by Onkar Ghate Mar. 6, 2003
“They Hate Us, Too” by Peter Schwartz, Mar. 17, 2003
“Let’s Roll” by Scott McConnell (Letters to the Editor), Mar. 20, 2003

This is not a complete list, I stopped when I got tired. To these we ought to add the following. Though they do not directly advocate military action in Iraq, context is everything here:
“America Needs a Leader Like George Washington” by John Ridpath, Feb. 11, 2003
(see  ariwatch.com/GeorgeWashington.htm  for why this ought to be included).
“Honoring Virture” by Andrew Bernstein, May 22, 2002
(see  ariwatch.com/HonoringVirtue.htm  for why this ought to be included).

And though Harry Binswanger may not have advocated the Iraq invasion before it occurred (I’m not sure, he may have), he did support it afterwards. There are several articles, for example:
“The Big Lie: Intelligence Failure in Iraq” Harry Binswanger, Feb. 23, 2004

There are many other articles we could include in the afterwards category, but let it rest. So we have the following ARI writers during the Administration’s run-up to the war:
– Peter Schwartz
– Onkar Ghate
– Robert Tracinski
– Alex Epstein
– Andrew Bernstein
– John Ridpath
– Dianne Durante
– Scott McConnell
– and Harry Binswanger afterwards, at least.

This list includes most of the major ARI writers. The above were the top guns at ARI at the time. Also note that no other writer spoke out against the invasion. None. Silence is complicity here, after all they belong to the same organization.

Nandesuka could have done this research herself, why didn’t she? Nandesuka is evading the facts, trying to re-write the past.

The Ayn Rand Institute was gung-ho the Iraq invasion. Anyone claiming otherwise has a lot of explaining to do.

Mark, why don't you sign your posts? Use four (~) in a row to sign. Second, I just now read the first article, “How America Abets Its Terrorist Foes” by Dianne Durante Feb. 15, 2001, for which you did not provide a link. Did you neglect to provide links on purpose? This article does not advocate the Iraq war. Rather, it makes a general point that the US government not appease countries that threaten our national security. Iraq is listed, along with Lybia Sudan and Iran. She is making a general call for action against nations that support Islamic terrorists, not a call for war against Iraq. I'll look at the rest soon, but so far, #1 doesn't indicate that ARI was "gung-ho" for the war in Iraq. Rather, it indicates that ARI is against appeasment and decided to use Iraq as one among many examples. Anyhow, it is not being disputed that some at ARI were supportive of the war. What is being called into question is your characterization of their reasons for advocating the war. From what I can remember off the top of my head, every advocacy of the Iraq war was on the grounds of 'it's better than doing nothing.' If the rest of your unlinked "sources" are as piss poor as the first, you're the one who's gonna have some 'splainin to do. Endlessmike 888 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The second article is slightly more relevent, in that Durrante advocates ultimatums to a collection of countries, of which Iraq is but one. Though the question is on the war in Iraq, not the war on terror in general. Mark, since you're the one making the positive claim, why don't you provide links to articles that specifically call for war on Iraq so we can discuss them? Endlessmike 888 19:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, what did you do? Search ARI's webpage for "Iraq" and then list every hit? Take the third article. So gung-ho about the Iraq war is Onkar Ghate that in his article War, Nuclear Weapons and ‘Innocents' he says in the first paragraph, "Central among these is Iran, but the enemy includes Iraq, Syria, Sudan, the PLO and others," and then NEVER MENTIONS IRAQ AGAIN in the rest of the article. What gives? Endlessmike 888 19:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The articles are listed in order by date. ARI’s war advocacy builds to a climax. About the third article: Ghate explicitly calls for the destruction of Iraq. Sure, he says it once. Does that mean he didn’t say it? Read the rest of the articles on the list, they build up to “Let’s Roll.” -- Mark, 31 December 2006

I took one at random, Rob Tracinski's The War on CEOs. The first paragraph reads: "Just as the War on Terrorism dissipates into total inaction--the latest word is that we will not invade Iraq--our leaders have launched a new war to replace it: the War on CEOs." Tracinski then goes on discuss the governments actions towards various business men, never mentioning Iraq, or the any literal war, again. Also, a significant number of these are only open to evaluation if one has the relevent back issues of TIA. Given your track record of including any and every article that inclueds the word "Iraq," regardless of its relevence to this discussion, are we supposed to just take your word for it? I highly doubt that "The War on Art Historians" is about why we should invade Iraq. Another example: "Innocents in War" by Onkar Ghate does not advocate the Iraq war. Rather, it discusses the moral status of supposed innocent in an enemy country during war, using the Iraq war as an example. From what I've read so far (there are a lot on your list), the only two that explicitly advocate the Iraq war are "The Justification for War” Peter Schwartz (PR), Dec. 2, 2002, a press release, and “Let’s Roll” by Scott McConnell (Letters to the Editor), Mar. 20, 2003, a paragraph long letter. This bolsters my claim, which is that the current wording "Though some at the Institute supported the invasion of Iraq, it now opposes how the Iraq War is being handled " is accurate, and any suggestion that the institute was "gung-ho" for the war is a fantasy. Again, no one is denying that some at ARI were pro-Iraq war. So I'll reiterate my request. If your case is to rock solid, present us all and only the articles that have a theme explicitly advocating the war, with links. Endlessmike 888 17:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I see EndlessMike has a reply. Why read it? I’ve presented the evidence and I’m confident that a sincere reader will agree that ARI advocated invading Iraq. Whether ARI calls it warring on Iraq or destroying Iraq, they wanted it and said so many times. My case was amply made at  www.ariwatch.com/RelentlessPropaganda.htm .  ARI leaves many a sightless eye and dead brain in its wake of admirers.

So you are going to continue editing without participating in the discussion? You should read my comment, since I explicitly said that ARI promoted the war. That fact isn't what I am disputing. Endlessmike 888 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Isn't anonymous criticism inherently not sourced. Furthermore, I do not see how including every critic constitutes NPOV. Furthermore, there is clearly a double standard here. Objectivism is treated worse than Scientology for Christ's sake; Islam gets off very, very well. Indeed, when I tried to add, "Islam is a religion and political ideology" to the Islam article, I had my change immediately removed though Islam supports Sharia law and pushing for a law code is inherently a political act.

How can unequal treatment be inherently nuetral?

Context.

The following line was cut:

The Ayn Rand Institute is a successor to the Nathaniel Branden Institute and a competitor of The Atlas Society.

The edit commen by LaszloWalrus reads:

ARI is neither a successor to NBI nor a competitor with the Atlas Society

From what I've read, the NBI was formed by Branden to promulgate Objectivism. It ended shortly after Rand threw him out. After Rand died, however, Peikoff founded the ARI to continue to mission of the NBI. As far as I know, there was no official organization in between the NBI and ARI. When Kelley was thrown out of the ARI, he went off and founded what is now the AS. This makes the ARI the successor to the NBI while the AS is a competitor. If you disagree, I'd appreciate it if you explained why. ThAtSo 02:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you've made other edits without responding here, I can only guess that you don't want to discuss this, so I'm going to go ahead and restore the deleted text. If you disagree with my actions, please talk about it here. ThAtSo 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

NBI was disbanded in 1968. ARI was not founded until 1985. ARI and TOC do not consider themselves competitors. Neither believes that the other is Objectivist. LaszloWalrus 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, because you seem to be agreeing with me on every detail, except the conclusion. The following facts are uncontested:

1) The NBI, ARI and AS are all organizations whose purpose is to be the voice of Objectivism.

2) The ARI came after the close of the NBI, while the AS splintered off from the ARI.

3) Both the ARI and AS see themselves as the offical organization heading the Objectivist movement.

Now, from 1 and 2, it follows that the ARI is a successor to the NBI, since they share a purpose and there is no chronological overlap. From 1, 2 and 3, it follows that they are competitors, as each claims exclusive mandate over the definition of Objectivism. It is not logically possible to affirm these three premises while denying these two conclusions that follow from them. Therefore, what you'e said makes no sense and is just a whim of yours.

I'm going to give you some time to think this over. You can deny one of the premises, refute the validity of the arguments, or simply accept the conclusions. The choice is yours. ThAtSo 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone tells me that edit wars are bad and should be avoided, so I've intentionally not changed the article without first giving you a chance to read and reply to my explanation, so that we can come to a consensus here instead of flip-flopping the article. That's the idea, anyhow. Unfortunately, it's an idea that you don't seem to share. It's twice now that you've failed to reply here while still making other changes, which shows you're not being prompt. You've also made changes to the article without giving me a chance to reply, which shows you're not being patient or polite. At this point, I'm out of options, so I'm going to fix the article by restoring the text you mistakenly deleted. Please don't delete it again until you've addressed my argument and given me a chance to respond. Thank you. 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with premise 1 — either ARI is Objectivist or AS is. Both deny that the other is Objectivist. They promote different philosophies, and are therefore not "competitors." In any case, what exactly are they competing over? The only way to label them competitors is to construe competition so broadly that every political/cultural think tank is "competing" with every other one. I agree with premise 2. I disagree with premise 3 as Objectivism is not a movement. The fact that ARI came after NBI and that both promoted Objectivism shows that ARI is the successor to NBI? Why? They had largely different personnel, were founded by different people, and there was a gap of almost twenty years between one ending and the other beginning. Finally, stop with the personal attacks such as "just a whim of yours" please. LaszloWalrus 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I asked you to let me respond before reverting, but you haven't taken this wish into account. I'm more concerned that you assume bad faith and falsely accuse me of personal attacks, which is ironically a form of personal attack. If anything I've said is a personal attack, show me so I can acknowlwdge and apologize. Now that I've learned how to use the Contributions feature, I've discovered that you have a history of both personal attacks and edit warring, so I'm asking you politely not to repeat your errors. From what I've read, bans get worse over time. Let's put this bit of nastiness on your part behind us and focus on our job here, instead of bringing administrators in to discipline you.

Second, I'm sorry to say that, now that you've spelled it out, your thinking makes less sense to me, not more. Yes, both claim they're true Objectivists, which demonstrates that they compete for the role of the legitimate heir to Rand's legacy. These are not my original thoughts, or even words; Kelley entitled his book "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand". Both have strong claims, as the AS has Branden, her original intellectual heir, and the ARI has Peikoff, her replacement for him. Just as Piekoff replaced Branden, the ARI replaced the NBI as the official voice of Objectivism, making it the successor. In contrast, the AS came from a schism within the ARI, and was founded for the purpose of providing an alternative, making it a competitor. And, to anticipate a response, I ask you not to object to my calling it a schism because that's Piekoff's own term for it in "Fact and Value".

Third, Objectivism is both a movement and a philosophy; the movement's goal is to spread the philosophy. Like many movements, this one has splintered, and each group has its own views of the philosophy. It is this disagreement which led to the splintering and puts them at odds with each other today. Your edits would remove this valuable context and maybe even make it harder for people to understand that the ARI is not the only organization out there. There's even a third group, SOLO, that I know very little about.

For these reasons, none of your arguments are at all persuasive, and combined with your hostile attitude, I see no reason to agree to deleting this section. Since I also have no interest in becoming an edit-warring person, I am going to extend you the courtesy that you have refused to extend me, by not reverting until you have had a chance to respond. Better to let the wrong version remain than throw away civility. ThAtSo 22:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have not attacked you personally. You have attacked me in both this post and in your previous one. I will not report you for this, but stop it now please. As to the issue: ARI does not believe itself to be the "official version" of Objectivism. Objectivism is, in Ayn Rand's words, "not an organized movement." Even more to the point: please provide a source that says that ARI and TOC are competitors, and that ARI is the successor to NBI. Otherwise, it's just your opinion against mine. LaszloWalrus 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You just deleted the stuff you don't like, this time saying "please find a source FROM ARI or TOC, not some anonymous guy". Anyone who follows the link can see for themselves that it's not from "some anonymous guy", but rather a number of named, verified people, including some who have published articles and books about Objectivism and are notable enough to have their own biographical article on Wikipedia and who are associated with ARI, TOC and/or SOLO. Sadly, nothing about the edit comment has any truth to it. Rather than beat you over the head for your apparent bad faith, I'm just going to undelete the section. In the future, though, if you delete material using a demonstrably dishonest edit comment, I will report you for vandalism. I hope you understand that this isn't personal, but that you just have to follow the rules, not try to own the article. Wikipedia is not your blog. ThAtSo 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to me to be any point in labeling any organization a "successor" to NBI, since none of them have any continuity with NBI, nor even the same staff. Also, ARI and AS don't seem much like "competitors" to me, just variations on the same basic point of view. I think effort would be better spent in working on giving the article a more neutral POV than it now has; it comes across as overly critical, and not providing sufficient context. For example, sure the ARI supported going to war in Iraq, but their reasons are not cited. — DAGwyn 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A while back, I tried to explain the ARI to a classmate without putting it in the context of the NBI and TAS. The result is that she got a very confused view that I had to work to correct. I think the current text avoids the problems of using the words "successor" and "competitor", so it should be ok. Like you, I'd like to move on to more interesting ground. For example, I liked the change you made to clarify that the ARI isn't specifically pro-evolution. From what I've read, Rand herself was lukewarm about the topic. ThAtSo 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the major differences between ARI and NBI already pointed out, it is significant that ARI has a different PURPOSE than NBI. NBI was for profit. NBI attempted to organize an Objectivist community. NBI did not give grants or scholarships. If ARI is the successor to anything, it is the successor the "The Foundation for the New Intellectual," which sponsored research on Objectivism and seminars on Objectivist epistemology.

Also, if the ARI and TAS were in competition, we would expect them to... compete! ARI has not, to my knowledge, made any official comment about TAS since TAS was founded as IOS in 1991. ARI acts as if TAS does not exist. Endlessmike 888 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "LaszloWalrus" another account of yours? You seem to be writing about his change. Anyhow, Peikoff and Kelley have certainly acknowledged each other, and not in a friendly way. The previous version, which said "rival" instead of "competing", was pretty good. ThAtSo 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean I'm his sockpuppet. LaszloWalrus 06:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not LaszloWalrus. I think your edits are bad all on my own. Endlessmike 888 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're both thinking for yourselves, though I have to say that the juxtaposition of the last two comments is unintentionally funny. :) I had to look up sockpuppet to see if I was misunderstanding you and only wound up more confused until I found the link to Sockpuppet (Internet). I didn't know this was something illegal on Wikipedia so I'm sorry for any unintentional insult in my innocent question. I guess I have more to learn about how things work here. ThAtSo 03:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag because the article has been whitewashed by supporters of ARI. All criticism of ARI has been removed. I believe that the criticms of ARI that have been removed, whether by The Atlas Society or ARI Watch or some other organization should be reinstated, but I am not willing to do it without discussion because of the history of this article. Life, Liberty, Property 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ARI Watch is out because it is not a real source (it's just some unknown guy's website). What criticisms from TAS do you think should be included? Endlessmike 888 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked back at the history of the page and I didn't see any criticisms that were removed. I read through alot of the talk page and thought the page had been whitewashed. I have removed the NPOV tag. Life, Liberty, Property 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"Atheism being a tenet of Objectivism"

The articles statement that atheism is a tenet of objectivism might be misleading, in that atheism is a positive belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.

I don't believe that objectivist theory would claim that a supreme being does not exist, but rather that belief in a supreme being is incompatible with reason, and thus proscribes belief in a supreme being. Note that the negation then, still allows that one may be indifferent to the question (agnostic). In other words, to not believe in the existence of God is not the logical equivilant to the belief that God does not exist. I am quite sure actually, that Objectivism never addresses the question of a supreme being's existence, only belief in a supreme being.

Rand was definitely an atheist, not an agnostic. Her argument that faith is antithetical to reason was essentially that "faith" means holding some idea as true without, or even in the face of contrary, supporting evidence, whereas "reason" means logically valid inference based on evidentiary data. Thus, according to Rand, faith is inherently irrational, hence contrary to man's well-being. Further, substantial evidence has been accrued showing that a supreme being is not behind numerous phenomena that formerly were widely attributed to such a being, which has continually contradicted the supposed evidentiary "proofs" that such a being exists, without offsetting evidence weighing in the other direction. Therefore, in the full context of modern knowledge (Bayesian point of view), the rational thing to believe in this regard, if one has to make a decision, is that a supreme being does not exist. (I know that many philosophers have debated this issue and have offered differing opinions, which aren't appropriate to debate here.) If Rand had lived to see conclusive evidence for the existence of a supreme being, presumably (to be consistent) she would have changed her belief. However, I seem to recall her pointing out that a supreme being consistent with other known properties of the universe would be just another natural phenomenon, subject to scientific study just like any other force. And a supreme being without identity or definite properties, or inconsistent with other principles of the universe, could not exist, according to Objectivism's metaphysical axioms. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rand and Peikoff both frequently spoke explicitly against agnosticism. D prime (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that the "Bayesian" argument above is mine, and was not (to my knowledge) given explicitly by Rand. However, I think it is relevant to the distinction between agnostic and atheist. When forced to make a definite binary (yes/no) decision about something for which available evidence isn't conclusive, one rationally takes into account all available evidence and weights each piece of evidence as supporting one side or the other, to a degree depending on the amount and reliability of the evidence. This "weight of evidence" approach was pioneered by Alan Turing for secret cryptographic applications during World War II and later promoted publicly by I. J. Good; this was developed into "information statistics" by Solomon Kullback and others. The Bayesian approach to statistics takes into account conditional probability and is compatible with the weight-of-evidence approach. Note that this outlook is explicitly contextual, as is the Objectivist theory of knowledge. Technically, if one is agnostic but is nevertheless required to pronounce "yes" or "no", saying "yes" makes one a theist and saying "no" makes one an atheist. So if Rand was asked if God exists, yes or no, either she could refuse to answer or she could sum up her evaluation of the available evidence by saying "no", even if there was not sufficient evidence to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Rand would typically go on to explain her understanding of the relevant issues, particularly as regards to the epistemology involved and what she termed the "psycho-epistemology" (meaning one's characteristic method of functioning in connection with knowledge). This description applies in general to a large number of issues, not just theistic ones.— DAGwyn (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many small sections at the bottom

There are way too many sections at the bottom. The titles take up more space than the content. We need to integrate several of them. Anyone got any suggestions on how I do this before I act? D prime (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add new sections to the Talk page at the bottom, not the top. (I moved this one.)

Please explain what you think is wrong with the current organization, which seems fairly well organized and thus helpful. If you were to merge many of them together, it would take the reader much more work to find links he might want to pursue. It would be better to discuss proposed reorganization for a while on the Talk page, so that a consensus can be developed. — DAGwyn (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing alert

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That site is interesting, indeed! They're claiming that there are "anti-Rand editors" and "anti-Randian critics who routinely block all constructive changes". That is not an objective attitude but rather a conspiratory one. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ARC Subsection Added

There are portions of the Ayn Rand article that are being removed - part of a condensing of the article - things that happened after her death will have less detail. I did a copy-paste of the ARC info that was removed into what looked to be an appropriate area of this article. --Steve (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism Magazine?

Capitalism Magazine was deleted in August 2009 in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalism Magazine. This forum post seems to contain the deleted content. I makes reference to the Ayn Rand Institute and to someone named Mark Da Cunha. Would it be possible to redirect Capitalism Magazine here? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Although that website is supportive of the Ayn Rand Institute, I don't believe it is officially affiliated with it in any way. Without some firmer connection, I don't think that redirect would be appropriate. It might be OK to redirect Capitalism Magazine to Objectivist movement. --RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who the magazine is affiliated with, they definitely try to hide any connection, see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Capitalism Magazine. From the professional appearance they seem to have financial backers. Who are the capitalist funding the Objectivist movement? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Da Cunha is a web entrepreneur who operates several Objectivist-related websites that fund themselves through advertising. If there are any "financial backers" beyond advertisers, it is not public information. In any case, without some sourced information to connect the site with ARI, I can't see a basis for redirecting here. --RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1