Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 6

message: I cut down this section, pasted this text here - IMO it is just a list of some pretty subjective opinions about which characters are strong/weak, etc.  I think the point works better as a summary rather than an exhaustive list, but I may have been overzealous in cutting  Kaisershatner 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Literary" criticism

message: Someone wrote that Peikoff views refusal to engage in dialogue and complete adherence to all of Rand's views as integral to Objectivism. This is wrong at best and an attempted smear at worst. In the first place, Peikoff (and other ARI affiliates) often speak to non-Objectivist groups. Peikoff's objection to Kelley (in that context), whether right or wrong, was Kelley's speaking UNDER THE AUSPICES OF a libertarian group. Secondly, Peikoff does NOT view total agreement with Rand's views as integral to Objectivism. He (and many other prominent members of the "collective" openly disagreed with her views on music, and Peikoff disagrees with her views of homosexuality. I reworded the paragraph slightly, but it still needs work. 68.7.212.152 06:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I think you're referring to my additions in response to the "cult section is too POV" comments above; I was looking for balance.  I am not an expert in this and am reading much of the secondary material for the first time, so your corrections would be welcome.  Kaisershatner 13:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentations 

message: Some cleanup is probably appropriate here (I took a first shot).  A major question I have is do people think we should re-list the articles already referenced in the "Notes" section.  As it stands, of the articles listed at the end, most are already linked in the text, including Turner, Rothbard, Shermer, Sharlet, and McLemee.  That leaves "CSPAN", Wolf, Huben, and Hari.  Of these, the first isn't an article, and the last is of dubious value in this bio article.  I'm not looking to cut it because it is critical of Rand, but because it has to do with Objectivists more than Rand, and is probably better suited in that article if at all.  Rand died long before the tsunami.  Kaisershatner 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and articles list

message: 68.237.222.135 has written things like this: "This nonsensical incongruence of opinions is one of many such examples of Rand's insincerity." He has also written: "Her lassiez-faire philosophy crashed upon the rocks of rational thought when it became obvious what her true philosophy was; 'I can do whatever I want, but other people's actions have consequences.'" Finally, there was this great gem of insight and wisdom: "The Ayn Rand Institute's main goal is to spread Objectivism throughout academia, particularly in humanities departments; unfortunately it also works to expose high school and college students to Ayn Rand's depressing writings and selfish ideas." I think this constitutes vandalism. Is there a way to have 68.237.222.135 blocked? LaszloWalrus 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user's edits are clearly too strongly biased against Rand to fit within WP:POV.  Having said that, they're anonymous and haven't made any attempt to edit-war, so I think this is a dead issue. Alienus 02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  68.237.222.135 = Vandal? 

message: Stating in the heading that Objectivism is a cult is by no means neutral. We should indicate in the heading that it's a controversial position; after all, no Objectivist would claim Objectivism is a cult, and even among those opposed to Objectivism, those who would brand it a cult are in the minority. LaszloWalrus 19:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Didn't see your comment (heading didn't relate to the point). I have changed the heading to avoid this controversy, hopefully you will be happier with the more neutral POV. --Wilanthule 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over "Cult of Objectivism" title 

message: The "Ayn Rand cult" article was deleted, so now this article is set back. We're going to have to work to recover all the info that the "unbiased" editors deleted without even thinking about transfering it here. So much for Wikipedia being unbiased; it's unbiased until the facts make Objectivism look bad. And don't get me wrong; I'm a pretty loyal editor to this website, but I'm not about to pretend that it doesn't let a few special interests get away with whatever they want. Without safeguards against the tyranny of the majority, we're always going to have this problem. -- LGagnon 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same old bias

message: I take exception to my source citations being deleted as "vandalism."
That Ayn Rand's heroes are physically attractive is very commonly commented on and is valid (as is shown by being supported by two citations; examples could be multiplied).
The observation is in the context of criticism of her novels as literature. To observe that Rand's characters are physically attractive is just as legitimate as to observe that Dickens' plots often turn on impossibly unlikely coincidences. It is a valid and, dare I say reasonably objective observation. 
I included two references, one respectful (asserting that the physical beauty is supposed to be symbolic reflection of inward beauty) and one jocular. This, too, is neutral and reflects an actual range of opinion. 
Those disposed toward Rand either accept that Rand's heroes being paragons of physical attractiveness is plausible, or that it is acceptable in the context of a novel that is intended to be more than a realistic story, or a small but lovable flaw. 
Among those not so disposed, the perfection of her supermen and superwomen is indeed something of a joke, and my second citation reflects that. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I was wrong. Sorry for the deletion. I did not see that the quotes were in a footnote... I was reading the code and it didn't seem coherent, but now it all makes sense. Apologies. --Wilanthule 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Accepted. Thanks. And apologies for my huffy tone. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Her heroes are physically attractive 

message: There's been a move-war over the naming of the Objectivism and homosexuality article, with LaszloWalrus repeatedly renaming it to Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality.  I won't rehash the arguments here or otherwise prejudice interested parties.  Instead, I ask that you consult the Talk page and participate in forming a consensus. Al 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More eyes, please.  Al 04:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: moving homosexuality article. 

message: I have removed Anton LaVey (founder of Satanism) from the list of philosophers Rand has influenced; my problem with including him is the fact that he is not referred to as a philosopher, and the list is for philosophers. He's a (dubious) religious leader; if we include him, we might as well call the Rush drummer a philosopher. LaszloWalrus 00:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say he's a religious authority too, rather than a philosopher. Likewise, I wouldn't call Billy Graham a philosopher. But, I don't know enough about LaVey to say for sure. RJII 02:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Alienus, Anton LaVey was not a philosopher, nor, I'd submit, a sincere believer in what he propounded, but merely a faithful applier of P.T.Barnum's famous adage.Timothy Usher 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If I claim to have synthesized the insights of earlier philosophers into my golf technique, does that make me a philosopher?Timothy Usher 04:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My problem with LaVey is that the does not call himself a philosopher, and no one else calls him a philosopher. How about this compromise: if someone can find an academic source (preferably, but not necessarily online) callingn LaVey a philosopher, he stays? LaszloWalrus 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, that's an excellent quote.  I agree that it's odd for LaVey's article to mention Objectivism without this one doing more than dropping his name.  I'm going to see if I can add a one-liner, backed up by your quote.  The next step would be to expand it a bit. Al 16:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I seem to remember that Jimbo is an admirer of Rand, not LeVay.  I'm also reminded of the cliche about a religion being a cult with an army behind it.  Connect the dots. Al 04:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anton LaVey 

message: Sorry, but it's true, and you need to know this before you waste the FAC's judges time again. The objectivist bias on Wikipedia is too strong to ever meet the requirement of the article being non-controversial. Tons of NPOV info on criticisms of objectivism are constantly deleted, and have been deleted throughout the years I've been here. There's a few problems you'd have to get over for this article (or any objectivism-related article) to have a chance at being a FA:
*Stop the deletion of criticisms of objectivism that are in fact NPOV.
*Bring back all the usable info that was hastily deleted from the "Ayn Rand cult" article (yes, there was some there; even pro-deletion people admitted that), and any other legit info related to this deleted from other articles (what happened to the Rand-as-fascist criticisms?).
*Stop the biased pro-objectivism editors from vandalizing the articles (you know who you are).
None of this has happened as long as I've been at Wikipedia, and thus no objectivism-related article will ever be worthy of featured article status. -- LGagnon 04:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only agree. Al 04:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I say "never" because there's no effort to fix the problem. For all Wikipedia's claims of NPOV, I've never seen any serious attempt to fix the POV problems with the objectivism-related articles. They've always been POV, and if they continue to be such (which I wouldn't doubt), then none of them will ever be worthy of FA status. Theoretically, yes, they can become FAs. Theoretically, we can put an end to the pro-objectivism bias here at Wikipedia. In reality, the objectivists have too much power here, and are allowed to get away with destroying the "objectivity" of any article related to their cult. -- LGagnon 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly, allow me to say that I am not a subscriber of Rand's philosophy and have distanced myself from some of the core beliefs since becoming familiar with her works. However, considering your comments and the massive section on the "Objectivism = cult?" issue in the Ayn Rand article , I'm inclined to believe that the problem isn't so much pro-Objectivist POV in Objectivism-related articles as much as it is the pretentiousness of someone who believes in a Objectivist conspiracy on Wikipedia and blatantly refers to Objectivism as a cult while simultaneously airing POV accusations over Objectivists who "have too much power here" while blindly ignoring the nature of his own comments. If there ever was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is indeed it.AscendedAnathema 05:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do know that personal attacks are a fallacy, right? You've essentially made no real argument with the above comment. And yes, I do call them a cult, but only on the talk page; in the articles, I source other people's claims of cult activity (which is the proper NPOV way of doing so). Is it wrong for an anti-objectivist to edit an article when objectivists are altering it to fit their POV? No, in fact we need both sides editing here to ensure that bias will not be in the article from either side. And it's not a conspiracy; it's just a lack of work to stop a biased "collective" from screwing things up. Call me a "looter"/"wog" for pointing that out if you want. :) -- LGagnon 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. However, not everyone here does. Objectivists delete information whether there's a source or not; they don't care how well backed up something is, they just care that it doesn't offend them. They're anti-intellectuals, and they've demonstrated that here by deleted sourced info on more than one occasion. -- LGagnon 01:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really. From a rhetorical viewpoint, this is not a personal attack. I have backed up my claim that they have behaved anti-intellectually by mentioning that they delete things without justification (the deletion of the Ayn Rand cult's sourced info comes to mind). I am merely pointing out what has happened here; I am not making claims of hypocrisy, nor am I trying to divert the other person from the subject at hand. Thus, this is not a personal attack. -- LGagnon 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This can never be a featured article

message: :"In Objectivist epistemology reason is the highest virtue and reason and logic can be used to understand objective reality. This is diametrically opposed to Kant's analytic-synthetic dichotomy, as Kant believed that metaphysics cannot talk about what exists ("things-in themselves") since it is unknowable, but rather must focus on what is experienced and how it is experienced. In Rand's view, Kant's dichotomy severed rationality and reason from the real world"
I feel like this is misreading Kant, particularly the point of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Maybe the original author confused this with the phenomenal/noumenal distinction? That seems to be the case, but I want to get some feedback before that is changed. (It is Kant after all, so I may be the one misreading him.)  --169.233.3.16 03:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about this being an inaccurate view of Kant, but keep in mind that Rand has often been considered to have an inaccurate view of Kant.  In other words, this may accurately reflect Rand's beliefs about Kant. Al 14:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the right answer, then, is to qualify the text so that it's clearly about Rand's view, not about what Kant actually said. Al 01:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like an true explanation of Kant to me. Kant thought all we could have knowledge of is our experience of an object, rather than the object itself. RJII 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that you agree with Rand on the matter of Kant.  However, Kant is not known for clarity of writing, so it's not uncommon for people to disagree on interpretation. Al 17:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I understand it, Kant was more concerned to show that (say) our intuitions about the nature of time don't tell us anything about time, but only about the way in which we perceive time. He was not so concerned about whether we could have knowledge of (say) actual chairs as opposed to perceptions of chairs, since that doesn't bear on so many important metaphysical questions. On the question of whether or not the chair you're sitting on exists, I expect Kant had roughly the common sense view: yes, it exists, but of course it is impossible to refute completely standard skepticism about the senses. Anyway, I agree with Al that the interpretation should be labelled as Rand's, since the interpretation of Kant is a pretty controversial area. Cadr 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  So in essence Kant's philosophy is the art of Not-Thinking and how no one is responsible for their actions since thinking happens at a level that is cut off from logic and reason. No wonder Ayn Rand called Kant a monster. The Fading Light 00:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kant's philosophy is the art of Not-Thinking and how no one is responsible for their actions": well, i have some doubts about that...:)--Greece666 01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant 

message: I'm looking for people with knowlege of Objectivisim to contribute to the Objectivist Wiki  This project is just getting off the ground, and needs lots of love :). Crazynas 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivist wiki 

message: Laszlo, you have yet to give a source proving that "many" oppose the cult accusations. You've only sourced Rand and one Objectivist, thus making it "some". If you want to change "some" to "Objectivists", then that is OK, but "many" is too weasely. -- LGagnon 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some, not many

message: Considering the fact that we've got a :Category:Critics of Scientology and that we have at least a handful of articles on people who are critical of Objectivism, how about we create a :Category:Critics of Objectivism? There's at least six with articles mentioned in this article and the Atlas Shrugged article, and I could think of a few more (Alan Moore considers Objectivism laughable) -- LGagnon 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I wouldn't oppose this, keep in mind that there are a number of Objectivism-related categories out there, so we'd have to coordinate them all. Al 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics of Objectivism

message: As per the debate at Talk:Objectivist philosophy, this article has a POV tag on it. It should stay until either Objectivism is proven to be a philosophy or we change the article to reflect the dismissal of it by academia. -- LGagnon 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such debate that I can see. RJII 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the bottom of this section. -- LGagnon 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was involved in that discussion. But, it's not a debate on whether Objectivism is a philosophy. It's a discussion, which I started, about the fact that there is no criticism of Objectivism in that article --just attacks on the people who happen to agree with Obectivism as being in a cult, etc. RJII 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's a debate over that. We're working on the first step to remedying this (changing the name of the "Objectivist philosophy" article) right now. When that step is done, we are definitely going to have to work on the pro-Rand bias of these articles that falsely claims that Objectivism is a philosophy without any real proof. -- LGagnon 17:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Prove that Kantianism is a philosophy. Of course Objectivism is a philosophy. Need a source? Here you go: "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic...Rand's philosophy underlay her fiction but found more direct expression in her nonfiction, including such works as For the New Intellectual (1961), The Virtue of Selfishness (1965), Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1967), and Philosophy: Who Needs It? (1982). She also promoted her objectivist philosophy in the journals The Objectivist (1962–71) and The Ayn Rand Letter (1971–76)." (Ayn Rand entry in Encyclopedia Britannica) Even this critic who attacks people who like Objectivism as cultists calls it a philosophy: "How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is the antithesis of reason and individualism?"  RJII 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Argue with the sources all you want, but you won't get anywhere. It says right there that Objectivism is a philosophy. RJII 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: McLemlee refers to it as a philosophy many times in that article. For example, "In 1958, Nathaniel Branden offered to present the quintessence of Rand's vision--the philosophy embodied in her novels--in a course of twenty public lectures titled "Basic Principles of Objectivism."   So, there's yet another source. RJII
The article has been moved to Objectivism (Ayn Rand). As for the word "philosophy"'s use, there is a technical term (works with academic credibility such as Cartesian, Marxist, & Nietzschian philosophy) and then there's the vernacular term (opinion on how things work). These two are as different as scientific theory and "wild guess" theory. Rand asserts herself to be a legit philosopher, thus she is trying to take on the 1st definition for her views. However, her work takes on only the vernacular definition. Thus, she is acting much like the intelligent design proponents who want their wild guess "theory" to be accepted as a scientific theory. Given this, it would be misleading to call her ideas a philosophy in the article as it misleads the reader into misunderstanding what the article is talking about. -- LGagnon 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever. Sources abound. Need another? . Whether you or I think she's a philosopher doesn't matter. Wikipedia has to reflect sourced information. RJII 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where? Show us one credible published source. RJII 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are countless books saying God is real. There are whole universities build on this concept. Should we tell all the objectivists that they have to accept the existence of God? No, because despite all the references claiming such, none of them have proven it. There are, however, philosophers and academics who have given very good arguments that Objectivism is a pseudophilosophy. Admittedly, this does not necessarily prove that it isn't a philosophy, as others claim it is, but then again the other side of the argument hasn't proven it either, and has done much less to prove their point. Thus, if we claim that it is a philosophy, we are simply backing only one side's argument instead of being NPOV. Whether or not we brand it a fact that it's a pseudophilosophy or not is not what's important; what is important is that we do not take up one side. By simply giving in to one side we unbalance the article instead of treating both sides fairly. Thus, we can not call it a philosophy or a pseudophilosophy outside of neutral claims of what others have called it. -- LGagnon 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your source that Objectivism is not a philosophy? And, even if you find out, it will be an extreme minority viewpoint. Everybody knows Objectivism is a philosophy. RJII 01:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should deal with it the same way postmodernism is dealt with; don't insert the POV of not calling it a philosophy. Call it a philosophy, then cite critics who question its validity. "Philosophy" does not mean true philosophy or academically respected philosophy or even coherent philosophy. LaszloWalrus 00:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still POV to call it philosophy. By calling it such, we are backing the objectivists' side. And yes, I know there's a vernacular definition of philosophy. But we don't call intelligent design a theory, despite being a theory in the vernacular "wild guess" definition. And that is because it confuses the reader into believing the wrong definition - which is exactly what you're trying to do. -- LGagnon 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And I've checked the postmodernism article. It doesn't call it a philosophy (except for in the name, which probably should be called "Postmodernism (philosophy)") but a movement. That sets an example for how we should do these articles. -- LGagnon 03:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Postmodernism, as an artistic and literary movement, is much broader than just a philosophy, and nearly all of the postmodernism article is about those art, architecture, literature, etc. It links to Postmodern philosophy, which is called a philosophy. -- Centrx 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If something as mainstream as Encyclopedia Britannica calls it a philosophy, then we're going to call it a philosophy. You and Gagnon have presented no sources to the contrary. RJII 01:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit lying, cut the truthiness, and read the link I gave you before. I cited a source and you've ignored it every time it comes up; you just don't want to acknowledge that it exists because it makes objectivism look bad. -- LGagnon 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And if you're in a really lazy/elitist/biased mood, please note that some info from the link is already cited in the article. -- LGagnon 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a credible source. It's self-published. Review our policy at WP:V: "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. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." Rimric press is the publisher, which is owned by Parrott himself.  So, you're going to have to do better than that. RJII 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And what underlies this reservation? Al 00:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudophilosophy

message: User:The+Invisible+Man has been vandalizing Rand-related articles with a pro-Rand stance. Be wary of his edits. -- LGagnon 04:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm on it.  I've reverted his vandalism and left a note on his talk page.  If necessary, I'll report him on WP:ANI. Al 04:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reoccuring vandal

message: I run the biggest (in terms of traffic and active users) Objectivist community on the internet.  I used to fight and jostle with other Objectivist websites for links in this article, but I’ve become convinced that Wikipedia is not a link directory, and other than the major Objectivist organizations (those with an actual office building and non-profit status) and intellectuals (those with an actual well-known published books) such links do not belong here because Wikipedia Is Not a Link Directory.  So, I don’t link my sites site here, and neither should anyone else. --GreedyCapitalist 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no, we're not wiping out all these links.  Sorry. Al 22:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an argument to offer?  I don't want to wipe any links out, I like the way it was for about a month prior to the new ones I removed.  If you want to keep these links, do you have a criteria to propose? --GreedyCapitalist 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not being consistent.  For one thing, the ARI sells things, too, yet we link to them.  In any case, it only says "normally avoid", and WP:EL is a style guide, not a rule.  So, once again, you have no legitimate reason. Al 05:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I've cut out Raimondo's criticism of Objectivism. He uses the word "cult" in a very narrow context. Ayn Rand died in 1982, over twenty years before the beginning of the Iraq War, and, it is wrong to say that support for the Iraq War is consistent among members of the Ayn Rand Institute; it's president, Yaron Brook, opposes the war , it's founder opposes the war (scroll down and listen to his statement on the 2004 election) , and so does ARI fellow John Lewis . LaszloWalrus 00:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a citation for Raimondo's claim and a citation for Yaron's claim. Yaron bitched about the US not killing more people and Raimondo responded by calling the ARI a death cult, as cited. I don't see the problem with what we have in the article. -- LGagnon 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think we should make a single "Criticisms of Objectivism" article, but I'm wary of doing so given that the Randists will attempt to have that (along with all the information in it) deleted to suit their bias (they've done it before and likely will do it again). Funny how they're willing to use collectivism when it suits themselves. -- LGagnon 15:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd support the creation of such an article, but the kinds of Objectivists your talking about are the Randroid breed that make everyone else even REMOTLY interested in Objectivism look like mindless robots. This is one of the reasons I consider myself to be a Libertarian-Objectivist, it allows me to stay connected to reality. The Fading Light 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you not read the article cited? And Raimondo insulted Randism itself, not just Yaron, so it stays. -- LGagnon 21:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq War