Talk:David Kelley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Due to recent editing clashes over whether or not David Kelley is indeed an Objectivist, I recommend starting a "Neo-Objectivist" category and removing him from the Objectivist category. Any thoughts?

You know, Kelley is much more of an Objectivist than, say, Binswanger or Peikoff or any of the other denizens of the Anti-Reason Institute. Kurt Weber 00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peikoff not an Objectivist?

It seems somewhat silly to say that Peikoff is not an Objectivst, inasmuch as Ayn Rand designated him her intellectual heir; since Kelley departs from Objectivism on several points, it seems more appropriate to start a "neo-Objectivist" category, and put him, and others associated with the Objectivist Center in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.122.84 (talk • contribs).

Ayn Rand did not call Leonard Peikoff her "intellectual heir". She once publically called Nathaniel Branden that. Later he betrayed her and she rescinded that epithet. Leonard Peikoff was her heir, i.e. in her will she left him her copyrights and manuscripts and everything else she may have owned. Michael Hardy 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schism

The fact is that there are two major branches of Objectivism and both claim to be genuine. Partisans from one side or the other have tried to make Wikipedia reflect their POV by removing the other faction from the Objectivism category, cutting out links and otherwise breaking the rules. Frankly, this is as embarassing as LDS partisans trying to pretend that no other factions exist. Let's cut the nonsense and remain neutral. Alienus 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

An appropriate resolution would be to simply state that Kelley identifies himself as an Objectivist, but that other members of the movement find this to be a point of contention in that he differs from Rand on such and such views. --Sycron 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If he says he's an Objectivist, we have to report this without judgement. If others deny this classification, we should report this, too. What we're not going to do is let the ARI decide who qualifies. It would be like saying that anyone who isn't Catholic (or Mormon, or AoG, or whatever) isn't Christian. Alienus 19:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)