Talk:RAND Corporation

Politics

Should someone mention that they're evil and conservative and run the world along with international zionist protocols of the ancient floppy disk? 'Coz that's sort of a "fun fact" about RAND... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.5.26 (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2004 (UTC)

Well, a discussion about their political lean should indeed be discussed. Kent Wang 06:46, 31 March 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is some stuff at Disinfopedia, which is GFDL as well. .. and in fact, I thought there was a link from here to there. :/ Guaka 13:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

LOL... people never cease to amaze. Just shows your ineptitude at research or even simple observation, first poster (wish I had gotten on here earlier!). If it weren't for RAND you wouldn't have quite a few of the tools and conveniences you likely utilize on a daily basis. In addition, their research fueled space exploration, mathematics, and the first theories and plans for the Web. That's just historically, (yes I know the involvement with Vietnam but tell me who else could have done a better job? Any research facility would have done as bad if not worse... but regardless what's interesting now: My mother works at RAND and in the last two years it seems they've swung dangerously to the Left in policies and practice, threatening their often highly regarded non-partisan and objective mission and attitude. 24.130.190.199 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of RAND's political leanings, is there any basis for things like Aegis Maelstrom's "Its mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Its core values are quality and objectivity."? Other than as corporate boilerplate? Bananafish 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a mocking quote in the intro? Wouldn't that be better served further down in the article? --71.112.173.51 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I created a new section "Opinion and culture" and moved the quote there.

--akds 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Should someone mention that they're evil and conservative...? Don't think this comment is particularly appropriate, Mr. 66.169.5.26. And I don't appreciate the use of the phrase "international Zionist," it smacks of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion...   –Gravinos (Politics is the stench that rises from human conflict...) 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rand involvement in authorship of HR1955 and SR1959 has now become a matter of public interest that merits discussion. Is this article the appropriate context, or is there another that would be more suitable? -John, an unregistered user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.209.70 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Per several of the suggestions to address RAND's political lean, I have restored a specific example of a noted scholar (Noam Chomsky)'s criticisms of RAND, including quotes from a RAND senior economist, all properly attributed. These were deleted by Larklight, with the comment "Nothing to do with RAND". I find this a bit hard to follow, unless ... Larklight, if you read this could you please clarify your relationship with RAND? Namesinger (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to confirm that I am not and never have been employed by RAND, have no links to RAND, and have never read anything they've written. Larklight (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We're really not even going to say it's 'conservative', out of sheer terror of the dreaded 'PoV'? Surely 'conservative' is innocent enough. I agree with Bananafish that the corporate twaddle is unacceptable: the entire section seems to be sourced almost exclusively from Rand's own bumf, and that won't do. Whetever next? The Bible article telling us it's the word of God based on a verse in the Bible?Sartoresartus (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does the name come from ?

Is there a reason why the project was named RAND? Does it stand for anything? (Random Article Naming Device, for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.11.165 (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

try reading the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.137.16 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the explanation is near the beginning of the article. RAND is an acronym, unlike the name MITRE corporation, which is a near-acronym but actually was selected because it looks and sounds appropriate in a very nice way: linking it to a cabinet-maker's or carpenter's mitre box - used for making fine, detailed work.98.67.161.223 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the explanation of the origin of the name "RAND" in the article is incorrect. It is often stated as Research ANd Development, as in this article. But the name actually was created to mean "Research and NO Development." See my comment above.PBCal (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

According to a footnote on page 4 of the book Soldiers of Reason by Alex Abella, the "No" was sometimes added by jokesters; it was not in the original or official name. See also http://www.rand.org/about/history.html. A conclusively reliable contradictory source is needed before considering stating otherwise in this Wikipedia article. RCraig09 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say anything about acronyms in the article? I cant find it. I guess the name is entirely coincidental with the famous random number book they published..(?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.183.252 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Although it is true that ctrl-f for "acro" finds zero results in the current version as of this writing, the first 5 words of the article are "RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development)". ;-) — ¾-10 23:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

Re: [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]]

Quote:

In 1968 Egon Neuberger predicted that "[t]he centrally planned economy eventually would meet its demise, because of its demonstrably growing ineffectiveness as a system for managing a modernizing economy in a rapidly changing world."20

20. Egon Neuberger, "The Legacies of Central Planning," RM 5530-PR, Rand, June 1968, quoted in Gertrude E. Schroeder, "Reflections on Economic Sovietology," Post-Soviet Affairs 11 (July–September 1995): 197–234.

From: Cahn, Anne H. (September, 1998). Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271017910. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) 3 Reviews

Signed:Travb 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar organisations in other countries

Are there similar organisations in other countries? I think it'd be an interesting addition to the article, if any exist.--Anchoress 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but nothing of comparable size or influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.136.22.107 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also similar to RAND, but in the United States, also, are the MITRE Corporation and the MIT Lincoln Laboratories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.161.223 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources of Funding

To make this entry consistent with similar entries on other non-profit entities, it would be helpful to add a section on the corporation's finances and sources of funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.120.44 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not just helpful, but essential! How can an article on an organization that generates analysis of current events not contain information on its funding! That's on the same scale as not noting the owner of a newspaper, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.65.171 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

RAND's 2010 Annual Report includes lists of its donors, clients, and grantors, and a financial statement approved by auditors of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. A. Rizzo (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

notable employees

We should spin that section off into its own article. Also, I was thinking that a template and/or category might be appropriate. Does anyone have any preferences. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. There has been no discussion, hence no consensus to move. I have no opinion—I am just wielding the admin's mop. ●DanMS • Talk 04:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

RAND → RAND Corporation — less ambiguous —Ewlyahoocom 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Achievements

I think achievements section needs an overhaul/reformulation at least this part looks rather questionable to me:

"The achievements of RAND stem from its development of systems analysis. Important contributions are claimed in space systems and the United States' space program, in computing and in artificial intelligence. RAND researchers developed many of the principles that were used to build the Internet. Numerous analytical techniques were invented at RAND, including dynamic programming, game theory, the Delphi method, linear programming, systems analysis, and exploratory modeling. RAND also pioneered the development and use of wargaming."

You cannot claim all the achievements of people (in particular university professors) who've been technical consultants to RAND at some point as achievement of RAND. For instance indicating that RAND (or its researchers) have invented game theory is rather ridiculous, game theory was around before RAND even existed.--Kmhkmh 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for linear programming, which was used in WW2. Smocking (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely quite a few unsupportable claims in this article. I wonder if there are some pro-RAND people out there trying to influence it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.0.181 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

can we trust it when

rand edits it's own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.127.20 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm.. Most organizations have members and former employees that edit the article. As long as affiliations are clear, and nothing untoward otherwise happens, this should not be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmanheim (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of what?

The following passage was included under criticism, but it reads more like criticism of the game theory than of this corporation. It is also unsourced. Therefore I moved it here:

Game theory was studied and promoted by the RAND Corporation as a way to model human behavior and 
influence government policy. As noted in The Trap, 
when RAND's analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they disobeyed the ground rules that 
they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents, choosing to co-operate every time. 
This did not, in the eyes of the analysts, discredit the theory, but instead proved that the 
secretaries were unfit subjects.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the source for this, but it is, actually, a criticism of the research methods used by the RAND Corporation in a particular study. To exclude data on the grounds that it does not fit your pre-conceived notions is an abuse of the scientific method. Robhogg (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned Comments...

What's with all the unsigned comments? Note to Commentators: sign your comments!   –Gravinos (To each their own*      _{*as long as they leave me alone.}) 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to research the Talk Page editing history to discover who wrote what and when, then tag the unsigned comments with an {{unsigned2}} tag. —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RAND is not the American Research and Development Corporation (AR&D)

A note that I will just put here for now since the American Research and Development Corporation (AR&D) does not yet have its own article as of this writing. RAND is not AR&D. AR&D was the first publicly owned venture capital firm. See Georges Doriot. The founding of AR&D is also mentioned in Flanders, Ralph E. (1961), Senator from Vermont, Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 188–189. — ¾-10 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism, continued

Larklight:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Larklight's assertion that a quote from a senior RAND economist, Thomas Wolf (cited by Noam Chomsky and properly attributed), has nothing to do with RAND is difficult to understand in constructive terms. I note also that Larklight's claim that Robhogg's edit (also critical of RAND)is unsourced is mistaken: while it may not be fully or properly sourced, it is attributed, and IMO at least marginally relevant. Namesinger (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to understand. Those sections never criticised RAND, only US f. policy. Larklight (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is of a senior RAND economist supporting a militaristic philosophy of U.S. foreign policy. It is unclear from the quote (and irrelevant) whether Wolf is proposing policy or defending existing policy. The point is that the statements being criticized were made by a RAND official, and thus the criticism is of RAND. If Larklight doesn't think Noam Chomsky's comments here qualify as criticism of RAND, perhaps Larklight could explain what would in Larklight's opinion qualify as criticism of RAND? Or if Larklight is in fact asserting that there is no real criticism of RAND, perhaps Larklight would be so kind as to say so outright. 208.251.94.251 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1) If Chompsky were to say 'RAND is evil' or 'RAND made x mistake and makes it often' or 'RAND was responsible for this false inteligense, leading to this' or even 'RAND are so secretive that no-one knows what they do so we can't hold them accountible', that would be criticism. Or if anyone else of note said it.

2)a However, the current two sections do not constitute criticism of RAND. 2)b Infact, they hardly even constitute criticism of US f. policy: While uit's implicit, it is never actually mentioned that the policies are bad.

3) Finally, just becuase one official says so, does not mean it is the official RAND POV. Infact, I doubt they have one. Please find a source that criticises RAND- not one that mentions RAND and then criticises someone else, or even criticises one official. Larklight (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By Larklight's logic, one could accuse RAND of directly sponsoring murder, treason and rape, but this would not qualify as criticism unless these were specified as "evil" or "mistakes". I maintain that any reasonable person would understand this quote from Chomsky as criticism of RAND in the person of a RAND official. I stand by the quote, believe it better represents the concensus of the community than does Larklight's deletion, and will continue to restore it until I or someone else finds a better example of criticism of RAND.

Larklight:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Namesinger (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I made three points. Now numbered for ease. [with 2) spilt into a and b] You're replied to 2b, but not the more important 1), 2)a or 3). Please don't continue to add it in until you have. Infact, you haven't actually really addressed 2)b- no-one advocates murder, rape etc. (I'll leave aside treason) as ends. However, clearly people do suggest (the contents of the comment) as means to an end. As such, please respond to 1), 2)a+b and 3) before you re-insert

And please don't use an obveously inapropreot vandalism warning. If you wish to template the regulars, I have a feeling you should start with level one. Larklight (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

An example of good criticism is that of Gregbard Larklight (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added another, but I'm sure there is more hard-hitting criticism published out there than these. These both are both quite apologetic to RAND. That book Prisoner's Dilemma has some interesting stories about RAND. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Security AT Rand

Because of the nature of research at RAND it has always had very good security. The one time that I went there with a former employee to meet with a current employee in the mid-1980s, the guard addressed the former employee by name, saying that he could not let him in. The guards were required to remember who each person who could enter was by site, and to address and greet them when entering or leaving! Saltysailor (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Missile gap

A programme on BBC Radio 3 (5 August 2008) alleged that the Rand Corporation was responsible for inventing the Missile gap and denying that it was false. Any firm evidence? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 22:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Rand?

Shouldn't this article be titled "Rand"? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), trademarks always use normal capitalization. Unless anyone can explain why it shouldn't be "Rand" I'm going to change it in a week. Robomanx (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A valid point. However, there is one other linguistic force at work here, which is the variation in schools of thought on how to capitalize acronyms. RAND is probably the way that most people are used to styling it. That doesn't mean that WP can't follow the school of thought that styles, e.g., NATO as Nato and AIDS as Aids. But although we know that we can, we would have to decide whether we should, given the fact of RAND's having been styled most prevalently in all caps over the years. The discussion of this topic at Acronym and initialism#Case is worth reading. Cheers, — ¾-10 19:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One other thing that I should say is that the U.S. defense community (or military-industrial complex, depending on your flavor of connotation) during the past half century (which is the culture that RAND came from and still largely serves) has usually used all-caps styling for acronyms and initialisms. However, this has been a meme, not a commandment from the heavens. I would lean toward using the prevalent style here at WP. But either side (RAND vs Rand, NATO vs Nato) can be argued effectively. — ¾-10 19:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some further digging. The Wikipedia article on NATO spells it NATO, not Nato. Likewise for CENTCOM, EUCOM, etc. And the title of the Alpo article is "Alpo" but the body of the article spells it "ALPO". I'm less confident in the style guide than I was. Robomanx (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy bullshit/buzzword overkill

What freak wrote that first paragraph? It reads like a sales pitch from RAND.You could win bullshit bingo in seconds, by reading this. Please change this to a human language. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.153.124 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You were right about the sales pitch. I redacted the POV. The problem was the POV more than any meaningless use of big words. Now that the POV is trimmed, what's left seems like an accurate statement. — ¾-10 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

History

I can't find ANY mention of Rand's heavy involvement with US strategic policy in the 1950s-1970s, which is REALLY REALLY disturbing because they basically defined nuclear policy for that era. Rand CAME UP WITH mutually assured destruction, and yet there is nary a mention here. History_of_nuclear_weapons. This makes me suspicious of corporate whitewashing. Can anyone resurrect this, because I can't find it in edit history? I have added a section on Rand History as pertains to nuclear weapons. Also, IP address 66.253.167.191 appears to have made a lot of NPOV white-washing edits to the page. Some of them are still present. Would someone like to revert? 24.211.249.237 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited your addition, and removed "Unfortunately, the Rand Institute has recently conducted a clandestine campaign to remove all mention of their involvement with Cold War nuclear policy from Wikipedia. This is highly unfortunate because Dr. Kahn's applications of game theory to nuclear war were highly original and set the course of history." That kind of editorialising and chat within articles isn't OK. Now, do you have a source for RAND's involvement in US nuclear strategy, and Kahn being the inspiration for Dr Strangelove? Fences&Windows 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Same guy -- I'll see if I can hunt down a citation or two for the nuclear policy, but I know parts of that are referenced in other pages dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear weapon design. I probably was over the line on the editorializing, but I didn't want the whole section to mysteriously disappear (along with much of the other info about Rand's history). It's kind of sad because they've removed history here (and in other places) that they should actually be proud of. Their development of MAD (debatably) prevented a nuclear exchange between 1960 and the fall of the Soviet Union. Their works on game theory are also pretty kick-ass as well -- have "The Compleat Strategyst" by Williams and McKinsey's "Introduction to the Theory of Games" on my shelf. Will try to flesh out history with more citations in info if I can find time. 24.211.254.154 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

bookreview

Soldier's of Reason http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/07/08/ColdWarCult/ Rumjal --rumjal 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

"RAND's greatest triumphs were the war in Iraq and the economic policies of the Bush administration. Now both are in ruins. But for the foreseeable future we will live with the consequences of RAND’s thinking, just as we have for the past 60 years."

(I would advise anyone who wants a more comprehensive and objective overview of RAND than that contained in the very strange WP article to read instead the Chalmers Johnson review of Soldiers of Reason, linked at the very end of the strange article.Noitseuq (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Bias

• Why does this article read like a public relations blurb for a cosmetics firm? We are talking about one of the leading progenitors of military activity (war) in the world (with side funding for seemingly "non-partisan" research)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed the most shockingly biased article I have EVER seen on Wikipedia, which I've used daily for years.

I was SO shocked I finally created a WP username in order to comment here.

IF WP stands for anything, it surely stands for as much objectivity as possible, a comprehensive view, and accountabilty to users.

This article - and especially its history - is a SCANDAL.

Perhaps the current form and the history of the article say an awful lot more about RAND than the actual PR content.

If that's unfair, then the article's management is a PR disaster - which may also say quite a lot about a closed organization's view of the world outside. Noitseuq (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've flagged it for cleanup, bias and lack of independent sources. I think most non-partisan contributors here will agree. As I said above, it simply won't do to have most of these claims sourced from Rand's own publicity material: that's worse than no source at all. We also cannot seriously pretend that this is a totally value-neutral organisation. I agree that this sort of thing is in the long run a PR disaster for the Rand staffers who seem to be monitoring this page. It makes you look like you've got something to hide. Have you? Sartoresartus (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening comment

According to the article, RAND is funded 'predominantly' by 4 of the 5 sources mentioned. I do not think this word means what you think it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.124.49 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

---

RAND → RAND Corporation — because a) this is how the organisation titles itself (go to their website http://www.rand.org/ and look at their logo), and b) it's commonly known as the "RAND Corporation" (see this google search, with 1.35 million ghits, and c) "RAND" is a highly ambiguous term (see Rand (disambiguation)), commonly used in this capitalised form to refer to random-number generation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have linked to this discussion from the related discussion on the eponymous category, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:RAND_Corporation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Move Methinks the current name was an overzealous interpretation of style guidelines which say to avoid "Ltd.," "GmBH," and so forth in article names. That's one thing when the organization is usually referred to without it, as with Samsung or Banco Santander, but another when it is intrinsic to the name as used in everyday references, as with the Hudson's Bay Company or the Olin Corporation.- choster (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as common name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Plenty of good reasons and no reason not to. — ¾-10 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation needed:

I believe that a citation is needed for the following section:

RAND is also the home to the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, one of the original graduate programs in public policy and the first to offer a Ph.D. ... The Pardee RAND School is the world's largest Ph.D.-granting program in policy analysis.

While I am not calling either section into doubt, it would be nice to see some reliable references for either claim. Sorry if this seems nitpicky, but with an article as controversial as this one, it is best to have all claims covered with sources. I will attempt to research citations for this purpose at a later time. --Ampersandestet (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RAND President James A. Thomson Stepping Down Fall 2011

James A. Thomson, who has served as president and CEO of the nonprofit RAND Corporation since 1989, will step down from his post in fall 2011. A search for his successor is in progress. I will enter the successor's name here when it is known. In the interest of transparency, I am a web editor for the RAND Corporation website. A. Rizzo (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. Rich will become the fifth president and CEO of the RAND Corporation on November 1, 2011. [http://www.rand.org/news/press/2011/10/04.html A. Rizzo (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

More comments on the meaning of the name

The name (and acronym) RAND originally meant Research And No Development. When the company was spun out of Douglas Aircraft Co., Donald Douglas (and the Air Force generals who worked with him) determined that the company would engage in pure research, without developing products from their activities.PBCal (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not put this on the Article?--Steven McIntire ALLEN 03:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

See my explanation under "Where does the name come from ?" RCraig09 (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairness

It is very fair of RAND to make publications on US military strategies available to anyone who wants to buy them. This prevents the US from becoming a hegemony. Thanks for the fairness, RAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.202 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Outrageously low quality

For an institution that was (and to a certain extent, still is) a veritable fountain of highest-quality research, this article is a disgrace. There are quite a few review papers/reports written in the 1960s and 1970s on RAND's early history. 46.138.66.128 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Uncited" notable paticipants

For some reason, one user has decided that since almost none of the 'notable participants' are 'sourced' or 'cited', it would be better to remove almost all of them. I've undid that, because obviously, if we're going to remove John von Neumann, Herman Kahn and Henry Kissinger from this list, we might as well delete the entire article. One could say there is no footnote after their names, but let's be fair here: one click to their respective articles will immediately make clear, for most of them at least, that they were notable, and that they were notable as RAND employees or consultants. Do we really demand some kind of footnote after each and every name, even if the best sourcing is provided by the sources in the respective articles on those people? To me, that seems putting form before content or function, and a big waste of time to boot. Now, if the general consensus is that this is absolutely compulsory, I may be willing to Google a bit to get a footnote after everyone's name. Otherwise I see no reason to delete most of the list, leaving marginally notable people on there just because they have a footnote - while at the same time removing loads of more relevant people (whose relevance can be easily ascertained - it's one mouse click away) because they don't have a footnote. Now, to be honest, I did not yet go through all the non-redlinked people on the list, but their status really is just as easy to check as for the 'sourced' ones. 89.98.48.31 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically WP cannot be used as a source on WP. If we are going to say something about a living person then we have to cite it per our WP:BLP policy. If it's that easy to demonstrate then your best bet is to simply source the statements otherwise they will likely be removed. Sædon^talk 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, that list is huge; I don't really think we even need a list of notable participants unless they were notable for being part of RAND. I recommend getting rid of it. Sædon^talk 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm with the RAND Corp. Speaking of notable participants, Ann McLaughlin Korologos is no longer chair of our board of trustees. The current chairman of the board is Paul Kaminski. Per the Wikipedia rule about organizations not changing their own pages, I won't edit it, but if somebody else is fixing up the page, would you mind making this change? Thanks! http://www.rand.org/about/organization/randtrustees.html Tmcnellie (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I will check to see if it hasn't been changed yet and if not I will do so. Thanks for following the spirit of WP, but for minor edits like that, which are uncontroversial and which can be easily sourced, please feel free to make those changes yourself. Sædon^talk 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what year Ann McLaughlin Korologos left her position and what year Paul Kaminski took over please? Sædon^talk 00:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to "If we are going to say something about a living person then we have to cite it per our WP:BLP policy."? 89.98.48.31 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm chiming in 11 years later. Having cites is a fundamental wikipedia policy, there is no excuse not to supply them. As-is, the list of people is now so long, with no details of what they did, that it is a useful collection of names. I believe the list should be deleted or reduced to a useful amount. Ashmoo (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

This reads as if it is written by someone from RAND's PR department, which I am sure given their history is very slick. It is simply a list of plaudits. Clear marketing and PR. There is no criticism, no registry of their shady political associations, no history of their fairly disturbing interventions in world history. Here is a good example of what i am talking about that is missing, from the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/mar/03/broadcasting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.25 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of this? It says what we already know, that RAND works in a scientific, deductive (albeit coldhearted) analysis of human systems. It criticizes the fact that RAND analyzes things in a cold, analytical manner, but this is what is done by both Classical Liberals and Scientific Socialists, or more broadly anyone who needs to quantify human existence for the sake of a study. You can't do math or science with religion or hugs, RAND has no interest in religious conservatism or grass-roots social democracy. Besides, their advice was implemented by people other than themselves, not directly by them. You wouldn't blame Voltaire, Jesus or Marx for other people violently implementing their ideas. What sort of ideology do you think the RAND corporation follows?98.193.43.114 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Reason as weapon or weapon as tool of reason. RAND scientists advocated limited nuclear war because the aftermath could be contained and it is possible to gain power. That's destructive reason. --KingOneBozz (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"This reads as if it is written by someone from RAND's PR department," = My thoughts exactly. It seems pretty transparent. 144.178.0.204 (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC) Darwin

Vietnam torture?

The company's role in the torture of enemy combatants in Vietnam, including the involvement of some of its employees under contract to the military, would seem to be significant. Fairly big deal one whistleblower Anthony Russo revealed what was happening. Also no mention of Daniel Ellsburg, the employee of RAND who leaked the Pentagon Papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.121.230 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism is missing

There is no criticism. Should be there PERIOD.--85.180.214.65 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Also there is nothing here about the Pentagon Papers (except connecting them with Ellsberg), the escalation of the Vietnam war & Rand's involvement in SE Asia, support for military juntas in general. Rand Corp's role in influencing the arms race, the spawning of the Hudson Institute... Introducing any of these topics each of which is germane to any historical look at the Rand Corporation would elicit some critical analysisWikikd (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC). Seems odd given the detail seen in, for example any wiki article related to Star Wars.

Blatant PR

This entry is a pile of worthless PR shit. It seems the vigilant editing by the RAND Corporation's in-house flunkeys can't be stopped, there are too many of them and they have more riding on it than we do, so I move to flag it for everything under the sun and protect the tags. Sartoresartus (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added an advert tag. The article reads like a promotional piece and cites RAND Corp publications. --Knowitahl (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Been a few months, and some good citations etc. have been added in that time. Not that I'm anyone with authority here, but I'm down to take this tag down in a week or two if no one else sees any serious defects. Eganist (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Still sounds like PR. For example, "Unlike many other programs, all Pardee RAND Graduate School students receive fellowships to cover their education costs. This allows them to dedicate their time to engage in research projects and provides them with on-the-job training." 199.184.228.12 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Request - Leadership

Hi - I am an employee at RAND and I'm requesting a few changes/additions to leaders in the infobox. The source has been updated here: https://www.rand.org/about/organization/leadership.html and the information is outdated on this page.

Proposed additions (beneath President and CEO - Michael D. Rich):

• Chief of Staff, Office of the President - Jennifer Gould
• Senior Vice President, Research and Analysis - Andrew R. Hoehn
• Vice President, External Affairs - Winfield A. Boerckel
• Vice President, Human Resources - Allison Elder
• Vice President and Chief Financial Officer - Mike Januzik
• Dean, Pardee RAND Graduate School; Vice President, Innovation - Susan L. Marquis
• Executive Director, Research Services and Operations - Eric Peltz
• Executive Director, Development - Naveena Ponnusamy
• Vice President, International - Charles P. Ries
• Vice President, Global Research Talent - Melissa Rowe
• Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary, and Ethics and Compliance Officer - Debra L. Schroeder

Thanks --Gp0405 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I updated this information. Gp0405 (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request - Add new office location

RAND opened a new office in the San Francisco Bay Area in April 2017. Here is the source: http://www.rand.org/about/locations.html. I'm an employee at RAND. Could someone make this change in the second paragraph? Gp0405 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I didn't hear from anyone, I added this information. Gp0405 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Tags

No explanation was given to resolve dispute to remove the tags. See talk page was not an explanation for restoring the tags and there is no ongoing dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Political criticism

RAND is often criticized as being right wing, exercising undue influence, etc etc. Shouldn't there be some reference to this criticism (even if it is mostly false)?Royalcourtier (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says so and then make the edit yourself.Wootwootmaster1776 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that says they are Right Wing, with proof, and then I'll eat my hat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.234.124 (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As a minimal start, I've added the section ==Controversy== (a normal section for Wikipedia articles about major enterrpises), along with a starting list of controversies involving the RAND Corporation -- some famously historic. Each supported by a major media ref cite or two, at least.

I urge other editors to expand upon this initial framework -- but to NOT use this as a section to recklessly bash (or glorify) RAND. Remember the fundamental Wikipedia moral guideline: WP:NPOV. Please use reputable, fairly neutral sources, as much as possible.

Please balance partisan (or liberal/conservative) sources with others of the opposing view, to validate a point. If you can't find that, please refrain from indulging in presenting a partisan viewpoint. Wikipedia is an encylopedia -- not a soapbox.

~ Penlite (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

EU funding

Why no mention of Rand's copious EU funding?!? Conflict of interest re it's recent anti Brexit propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.15 (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? Typically organizations like this, especially ones that have been around for as long as RAND, have a criticisms section. Is there a reason for this or is it just in need of an update? Timberst (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to the flag... ...I'm adding a new section ==Controversy==, in a minimal attempt to counter the advertising-like content of this article, about this historic, famously influential and controversial enterprise. I'll probably have to leave it to other editors to expand this section into something more informative and thorough. But it's a start.

CAUTION: This article has frequently been vandalized, even completely erased, by anonymous editors. I urge other Wikipedia editors to monitor this article for attempts to sanitize, politicize, vandalize, or delete content.

~ Penlite (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment of the problems with the article, for an article like this I think a Criticism section is a bad idea. I think it is better to just have a history section and include both positive, neutral and negative reactions to the corporations work in the text. This avoids having separate sections where pro and anti editors pop in and ride their hobby horse. The article as it stands is one of the worst on wikipedia. Hopefully we can make it at least an acceptable, neutral summary of the history of the topic. Your Controversy section is a good start, but needs to include details of what the controversy is. Ashmoo (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, the current criticism section feels like a fairly random sub-set of the issues RAND has worked on, I am sure there is controversy in all the listed policy areas RAND has worked in. It also does not contain any substantial reasons for disagreement with RANDs work. IsengrimProudmead (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversy related to AI policy reporting

User @Fredklaus2278 has repeatedly added a lot of text based on several news stories that reference RAND's work in the context of policymaking around artificial intelligence (AI). I have consolidated those additions since I believe they give undue weight to a single issue (per Wikipedia:UNDUE), considering RAND's 75-year history, its many controversies around different topics (perhaps most significantly relating to the Cold War and nuclear conflict), and its annual budget exceeding $400 million. Fredklaus2278's additions gave too much room to the AI controversy relative to the many other criticisms that the article currently references and they broke the established format of the existing controversies section. The article already mentions philanthropic funding sources in the introduction and it has a separate controversies section, so it's redundant to add a specific controversy to the introduction the way Fredklaus2278 did. Also, the existing controversies section groups related criticisms in a bullet point format, so adding several substantive paragraphs on only one particular controversy gives this undue weight. As such, I've removed the controversy that Fredklaus2278 had added to the introduction and have collapsed their added paragraphs in the controversy section into a new bullet point on AI policy that covers the recent news stories.

These edits are my best attempt at implementing Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I welcome more experienced editors to weigh in on this issue. @Fredklaus2278 Please engage productively with this thread and explain why you think your additions improve the article and don't give undue weight to one controversy relative to RAND's other controversies. Please don't simply re-add the same material. Thanks for your understanding and collaboration. —Jakesmith1 (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe @JakesSmith1 is the RAND Corporation and they are hiding controversies about their consulting firm. Fredklaus2278 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to this @Fredklaus2278. No, I don't work for the RAND Corporation and am in no way affiliated with them. I trust that you're acting with good intentions, but I think your edits to the article violate Wikipedia's content guidelines as I explained above. You haven't engaged with any of the substance of my arguments above to explain why you think your edits don't give undue weight to one specific issue considering RAND's long history and many other substantive controversies that aren't covered in more detail in the article. As a new Wikipedia editor, please be aware that simply citing secondary sources isn't sufficient for inclusion of lengthy text in an article. – Jakesmith1 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It sure seems like you are somehow affiliated with the RAND consulting firm. I request that Wikipedia editors investigate! I am posting different controversies from legitimate newspapers. There is no reason to conceal controversies for this consulting firm just because there are a lot of them! Fredklaus2278 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what consulting firm you're referring to. No one is paying me to make edits and, as mentioned above, I'm not affiliated in any way with RAND. I do agree with you that it would be helpful if other Wikipedia editors would weigh in and help resolve this conflict. It seems like we've reached an impasse and don't have an immediate way to resolve our disagreement simply by exchanging arguments. I still maintain that you haven't actually addressed the substance of my reasoning above for consolidating your edits; the sources you cite all seem reasonable to reference, but they all relate to the same issue (i.e. RAND's apparent work on AI policy funded by philanthropists), so in my opinion they don't deserve to be treated differently from all the other RAND controversies covered in the article. – respectfully, Jakesmith1 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I shall weigh in here. You two have created quite the little edit war. Impressive for a pair of month-old accounts.

A few notes in no particular order:

• Don't make accusations of malfeasance or Conflict of Interest unless evidence can be provided of such. Assume good faith WP:CIVIL. If legitimate concerns exist that another user has an undisclosed COI, advice and next-steps are at WP:COICOIN. These concerns should be elevated, not just slung around as insults in Talk.
• @Fredklaus2278 Writing things like "Your position makes no sense and you seem new to wikipedia." in an edit summary is a bit strong from a user who registered in March and has 27 edits. It is uncivil, but more importantly is not an appropriate Edit Summary since it does not describe the edit. Discussions of content belong here in Talk, not in the History logs.
• @Fredklaus2278 Per [1] and [2]. Please don't drop a whole new paragraph into the lead unless it is summarising content that is in the body of the article (MOS:LEAD). Lead follows body. Please bear in mind that the lead is not a news-style lead, and that wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (WP:SUSTAINED). We don't mention material in the lead just because it is new or current. Not being at the top of the article does not mean it is being "hidden" (although "burying the lead" is also something to watch out for, but it is a high bar for any one particular controversy to make it into the lead). For a good example, look at the Nestlé article. They are also a controversial firm but there isn't space to mention every bad thing they've done into the opening paragraphs, so it's simply mentioned that there are controversies to read about.
• @Jakesmith1 This edit was probably excessive. Whilst the topic does not require four paragraphs, the current criticisms section is arguably too short as it is. I appreciate you were following the extant style which is a fair thing to do. Feel free to be bold though - the contributions from Fredklaus2278 could have been summarised into a single paragraph per the current revision. To my mind the other topics of controversy could all stand to be expanded to a similar short paragraph for context. Consistency is important, but Wikipedia is a Work In Progress, and expansion of too-short sections have to start somewhere.

In terms of the major edits to Controversy, which has been the focus of this spat, JakeSmith1 was slightly overenthusiastic, but did not actually remove or "hide" references - simply consolidated them into a single line to match the other controversies. Now, I would argue that those could all stand to be fleshed out - a single paragraph in the style of the current AI line. Nonetheless, nothing there particularly indicates a COI. Hemmers (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, @Hemmers, and for proposing a compromise. I agree with your above summary and recommendations; apologies if I was being overzealous in trying to maintain consistency in the coverage of different controversies. Personally, I think your rewrite is a good compromise of @Fredklaus2278' and my position. Really appreciate your help! And sorry, @Fredklaus2278, for any ruffled feathers; it was by no means my intention to cause ill feelings but it seems like we had a genuine disagreement and no easy way to resolve it (which perhaps reflects both of our relative inexperience on Wikipedia). – Jakesmith1 (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Fredklaus2278 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Achievements and Controversies

It's generally considered bad practice to have a "controversies" section separated from from the rest of the article (see WP:CRIT). Previous discussion on this talk page indicates it was created to "balance" what one editor viewed as a sympathetic POV slant—this is the wrong solution. Separating "achievements" and "controversies" just invites forked POV pushing in each section, as can be seen in the current achievements section slanting towards reading like an advertisement, and the controversies section being padded with mild academic criticism that's clearly not a controversy.

I propose we merge the achievements and controversies sections into a single research section, that provides a balanced an integrated overview of each. This will solve the issue of the former section feeling promotional, the latter section being an unstructured list of random criticisms, and discourage further POV forking between each section. 0xchase (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree! I will add that I think this also makes sense since the current controversies section is mostly just a list of controversial topics and does not explain RAND's work. It is also a bit strange to describe some of its research both as an achievement and as a controversy.

In a way I took an early stab at this when I expanded and moved the gun violence section up to the achievement header, but in retrospect this looks strange because it is a generic description of their work, not an achievement. IsengrimProudmead (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay I started the merge -- but it still needs a lot of work. 0xchase (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)