Talk:David Kelley

First section
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)
 * That was horribly uncalled for.--Herb-Sewell (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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  Later he betrayed her and she rescinded that epithet.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)


 * No, Ayn Rand did call Peikoff that. See here. Michipedian (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

…which is another way of saying, healthy dialectic
Turned here after seeing David and Tom Kelley speaking at Google. As someone interested in Rand's ideas, yet frequently repelled by her person and cult, it was good to learn that an alternative school of thought exists. Debate is healthy, no matter how painful. Profhum (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Kelley. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181821/http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/phil/reason3/endorsements.htm to http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/phil/reason3/endorsements.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources, in-universe
This is very in-subculture, and the majority of the references are to Kelley's own works. Is there substantial third-party evidence of notability? Else this feels like a fandom.com page documenting arguments on a web forum - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)