Talk:Atlas Shrugged/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Translation...

could someone please make some more articles on this book (in the other language sections like Japanese, Arabic, Portuguese, etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.157.166 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Popularity in intro

Hello, an anonymous editor added a sentence to the end of the introduction about the current sales rank of Atlas Shrugged on Amazon. While I think current sales rankings are interesting, I also think the sentence should be removed because it will be unmanageable as Amazon sales rankings are updated hourly. The coverage in The Economist is also more important than the sales rank of any given moment by itself. LovesMacs (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about current Amazon sales rank of Atlas Shrugged because it does change from hour to hour and would need continual updating to be current, for example #17 right now and not #14 as written in the article. Picking Amazon's US sales rank alone is also US-centric and Amazon-centric. LovesMacs (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert?

I don't know about you guys, but Atlas Shrugged is the best fiction novel I have read in my entire life. Based on the likelihood that many of you guys and girls might concur, should we place a "spoiler alert" in the beginning of the article? I mean, the first paragraph kinda gives it away. The John Galt part I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.223.28.94 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, Wikipedia articles do not contain spoiler warnings. See Wikipedia:Spoiler for more information. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged The Movie

Atlas Shrugged the movie is being film as a trilogy, as Rand as wrote the book in three parts. The Official Facebook page for Atlas Shrugged the movie: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Atlas-Shrugged-The-Movie/144777702200729?ref=ts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brideofrocknroll (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Over-focussed on the US

The parts dealing with the reception are in my eyes overly focussed on the US. While the book does have its admirers in the US, both the book and its author are virtually ignored e.g. in Europe. Focussing on the US reception thus suggests a larger importance of the book than is due. --84.46.23.44 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The focus is on both the positive and negative reception of the book and is therefore unbiased. Also, the novel had it's largest impact in the U.S.; therefore, the overwhelming majority of information on the novel's reception is from the U.S. Thus, there is no intentional focus on the reception of the book in the U.S., we are simply working with the information we have. If you have some information (with reference) that you would like to add to the section, then feel free to; constructive expansion of an article is always encouraged. But there is nothing wrong with the section as is, insofar as the references are concerned.--MechHead (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes by MechHead

This article needs help. Here I will be commenting on the changes I make.

• In the leading paragraph, I've expanded upon the purpose of the strike. The profit motive is an important aspect of the book, but the main purpose of the strike is to illustrate the importance of freedom and respect for individual rights.--MechHead (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the article summary, I've expanded upon the meaning of the novel's title.--MechHead (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'veundone a change that was made. Since the editor did not leave a reason why they made the change, I am left to assume. I'm assuming they felt the description was inaccurate or too specific. I agree with neither position. This is a direct quote from the novel, spoken by the character Wesley Mouch: "Freedom has been given a chance and has failed. Therefore, more stringent controls are necessary. Since men are unable and unwilling to solve their problems voluntarily, they must be forced to do it." (page 503, 35th Anniversary Edition)

From this quote, it is clear that the description in the article is both fair and accurate.--MechHead (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Psychological Criticism

It should be noted that Nathaniel Branden was more than just a former associate, but was a former lover and business partner who had had a very bitter break up - both romantically and financially - with Ayn Rand. He is thus biased, and this section should be removed. If any actual psychologist, from an accredited school, with no bias has an opinion of "Atlas Shrugged", that could be substituted. Otherwise, it should come down. Alexandria177 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the original poster on his discussion page, he had posted it back in May of 2006. I am going to wait until he's had opportunity to respond. Alexandria177 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. Branden is an essential figure in Objectivism and Objectivist-related writings, and trying to exclude his opinion here seems silly. If there is some published reliable source that disagrees with Branden's take on things, feel free to propose it. But we're not in the business of hagiography, and excluding a criticism from a reliable source because it's "biased" misses the meaning of the word "criticism". Nandesuka (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a "reliable" source should be something besides an ex-lover with a degree from a non-accredited university. If the title of the section was "Opinion of ex-lover", I would agree he's a reliable source. But the title is "Psychological Criticism". Would he be a reliable source as to Ayn Rand's physical health? No, for he is not a doctor. Nor then should he be regarded as a "reliable source" for a psychological critique of a book that he had no problem with until they ended their affair.

I believe adding a note as to his actual status would be appropriate, at the very least. Alexandria177 (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the section title. I've removed it.

I've also removed your addition. When I read the sources you cited, I didn't find them making the same critiques of Branden that your text did; rather, you used their facts to support your independent critique of Branden. While you might be right, or you might be wrong, that's neither here nor there. What is germane is that as a tertiary-sourced encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows no original research, and in particular synthesis of published material to advance a position is frowned upon. If you want to include the argument that Branden's critique of Atlas Shrugged is unfair because he's a jilted lover, then you need to find a reliable source that says that. You can't just imply it by finding a source that says "He was her lover".

Getting specific, you say:

<blockquote> It is important to note that Nathaniel Branden's evaluation of "Atlas Shrugged" may be suspect. His masters degree was in education and his doctorate degree was from an unaccredited university, and his license was in Marriage Family and Child Counseling, not psychology. He was eventually licensed in psychology in New Jersey, for 30 days a year, after having been repeatedly denied by New York.<ref>Nathaniel Branden: The Godfather of Self-Esteem 143-160, [http://www.solopassion.com/node/5001]</ref></blockquote>

So your topic here is that Branden's evaluation of Atlas Shrugged may be suspect (also, "It is important to note?" Says who?) You cite the "Godfather" piece to support this, but that article says nothing about Branden's evaluation of Atlas Shrugged whatsoever. It does criticize his education, but you can't, according to Wikipedia policy, synthesize the argument "Branden dissed Atlas Shrugged, This author says Branden is an idiot, therefore anything Branden says about A.S. is suspect." The second section of your additions might or might not be OK, but there's not enough information there to say. If Barbara Branden indeed says in The Passion of Ayn Rand that Branden's criticisms only materialized after his break with Rand, then that might be a worthwhile addition. But without a real citation (which means a page number, a direct quote, and so on), it's hard to tell which part of that sentence is Barbara Branden speaking, and which is you. Barbara Branden's original research is welcome in our articles; yours (and mine) are not.

In summary, please avoid original research in your contributions. This isn't a personal slam against you; it's a core aspect of how the encyclopedia works. I encourage you to read the articles WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH carefully. Regards, Nandesuka (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I actually get all that, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain it. Also, the removal of the "Psychological Criticism" title does much to alleviate the difficulties I had with it anyway, so thank you.

I will see if I can find a specific and appropriate source referencing the changed attitude that Branden had toward the book. As to the professional qualifications part, that is moot now, thanks to you removing that one title. That was a good idea.

Alexandria177 (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Praise, influence and renewed popularity

1) Atlas Shrugged is certainly a cultural phenomenon: as such it has attracted its share of critics. A.S., Catcher in the Rye and other works have their merits, but they are also criticized for being somewhat adolescent in outlook. It would be proper if the wiki piece could reflect that perspective, although I'm not sure about the best way to do that. The point is not to push this POV, but merely report that it is there. Along those lines, I've inserted some material by the economist Krugman and the science fiction writer John Scalzi. Measure for Measure (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but maybe we could do better than Scalzi's rant? His criticism is both incoherent and overly personal, and he himself admits he never actually read much of the book. This and Krugman's snark tends to make critics look juvenile. 12.48.88.1 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Scalzi says that he re-reads the book every several years or so. "I enjoy Atlas Shrugged quite a bit, and will re-read it every couple of years when I feel in the mood. It has a propulsively potboilery pace so long as Ayn Rand’s not having one of her characters gout forth screeds in a sock-puppety fashion. Even when she does, ***after the first reading of the book***, you can go, “oh, yeah, screed,” and then just sort of skim forward and get to the parts with the train rides and motor boats and the rough sex and the collapse of civilization as Ayn Rand imagines it, which is all good clean fun." Asterisks added for emphasis. Cite on "not read salient portions of book"? Measure for Measure (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think 1-2 sentences of Scalzi's rant is ok: much more than that is probably excessive. Can we do better? Perhaps: I hope so. The fact is though, a lot of people have read this book and there is a consensus among some that Atlas Shrugged is somewhat juvenile. I picked Scalzi to make this point since he goes on in some depth. The quote by Krugman is relevant as it is an old joke, not original to him, and dating from at least the 1980s. Look: some people like the book, others don't. Scalzi happens to like it: he just thinks that Ayn Rand's plotting is contrived. Scalzi's take on the underlying psychopathy of AS reflects the early reception of the book by most of those critics who didn't happen to be friends with Ayn Rand. What makes Scalzi different is that he is simultaneously fond of the work. At any rate, wiki should try to accurately reflect both praise and critique of culturally significant fiction. I hope we can iterate to something between hagiography and hatchet job. Measure for Measure (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to "Scalzi's rant", one thing we can certainly avoid is edit warring. Scalzi is a notable author who writes in the same genre, and edit summaries like "Removed secondhand, abusive, trivial criticisms by notable author who admits he did not read salient portions of book" are borderline violations of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"The economist Brad DeLong enjoyed the review by science fiction writer John Scalzi.[64] While Scalzi believes Atlas Shrugged to be a workmanlike page-turner, he maintains that, "...the enduring popularity of Atlas Shrugged lies in the fact that it is nerd revenge porn -- if you're a nerd of an engineering-ish stripe who remembers all too well being slammed into your locker by a bunch of football dickheads... etc... etc... etc... Honestly, is this the type of childish, divisive comment, laced with vitriol for DeLong and Scalzi's designated enemies, that we need on Wikipedia? This is not a critical review of the book, but rather a ridicule of the reader of the book, particularly one who, god forbid, might enjoy or agree with the premise of the book. According to his own Wikipedia page, the 'economist' Brad DeLong is a former administrator who professes to surfing the net looking for disparaging remarks made about conservatism, from whoever. This he accomplished in 'liking' a post by the 'author' quoted, who is apparently a freelance writer with a comparable level of credibility. Let's not dumb down Wikipedia quite so soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomalmighty (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 February 2011

Yes, that was a bit too much credence being given to the blogging echo-chambers. There are plenty of published criticisms of this novel; no need to pad the article with blog quotes. --RL0919 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Praise, influence and renewed popularity: Unavailable French Translation

2) What's this about a french conspiracy to repress publication of Atlas Shrugged? Substantiation is to a link to a single blog paragraph, along with copious blog comments in french. Odd. At any rate The Fountainhead has been translated into French, so I find this claim to be somewhat suspect. And what does "Sabotage" mean anyway? It seems there was a 3 volume french translation, but it wasn't approved by Ms. Rand back in the day. Thoughts? Measure for Measure (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Maybe this discussion could be put in the foreign translation section. Measure for Measure (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The first and only one « official » French translation of Atlas Shrugged was undertaken circa 1958 by Jeheber, a small Swiss publishing house. The translator was a Frenchmen named Henry Daucy, who, oddly enough, is well known in France as German to French translator (?). The translation he did was badly done indeed, as even the parts and chapter’s titles seemed to come from a fancy of this translator (see “La Révolte d’Atlas” on Wikipedia France about it).

According to Alain Laurent, a French scholar known in France as the best knowledgeable person on the works of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Ayn Rand got into tamper when she had knowledge of the bad work done on the first two volumes of this French translation, and she ordered to stop at once the translation of the third and last volume which, as a result, was never printed. Then Jeheber Publishing went into bankruptcy, and the release of a new translation was yearly announced and systematically delayed until… today. Accordingly, the French translation of the Fountainhead is disappointing as it is badly done too. The two volumes of this unachieved set of 3 have become extremely rare today, and despite their poor interest, they sale as collectors in the surrounding of $600.

Several peoples wanted to translate and publish Atlas Shrugged in French for decades; but each and every of these attempts failed, each time for unknown reasons as no one ever willingly elaborated about it. As a result, the French translation of Atlas Shrugged, known in France under the title “La Révolte d’Atlas” had to become a “ghost book”, or a joke, exactly as the name “John Galt” is for everyone in the fictional story.

Notwithstanding, it is correct to say that French mainstream media regularly published articles about Atlas Shrugged and the thought of Ayn Rand, to say that this author and this book in particular are the spirit of unbridled capitalism French dislike: Evil to put it simply… But those French media became suddenly mute about it from October 2009 on, when a well done unauthorized translation of this book began to freely circulate on the Internet, coming from nowhere. All attempts to ask or to talk about it, even on French rightists and libertarian forums were dismissed. Posts and even whole threads about this subject were deleted: talking about this translation, done by Monique di Pieirro, is become a taboo of a sort since then. A few day after this unauthorized version was released, an American named Andrew Lessman, introducing himself as a philanthropist, made a sudden appearance on the Internet and claimed he owns the rights of the French translation of Atlas Shrugged since he bought it to the ARI. So, Lessman claimed he will sue anyone is attempting to publish anything about this unauthorized translation. In the meantime, a woman introducing as a French associate of Andrew Lessman made appearances here and there on the Internet in order to harshly criticize and condemn Monique di Pieirro translation - it became quickly obvious in the eyes of everyone in France that truly she did everything she could to deter French Ayan Rand fans from reading this version. Moreover, Lessman said he would manage to publish a French version of Atlas Shrugged in the early months of 2010. Then as this book failed to materialize, he appeared again to say that the book would be available in September 10 2010. However, Andrew Lessman deleted his Facebook page a few weeks ago and disappeared without saying anything about why French readers cannot buy this French version of Atlas Shrugged he loudly promised since late 2009…

As a result, the only complete French translation of Atlas Shrugged available at this time is the unauthorized one translated by Monique di Pieirro, which is freely circulating on the Internet as a 13.5MB .pdf file. The existence of this unauthorized translation, and any of its parts, is become a taboo in France: any attempt to talk about it on any French media is received with hostility or dismissed in most instances. Recently, the administrator of a French literary forum openly tagged Atlas Shrugged as an unwelcome “works of libertarian propaganda”, and all its members refused to say anything about it.

As a matter of fact, Atlas Shrugged is not an isolated case of French translation sabotage, actually. When “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”, the libertarian novel written by famous sci-fi author Robert A. Heinlein was translated in French by Jacques de Tersac in 1967, it was politically sanitized. Today’s popular TANSTAAFL (There is No Such a Thing As A Free Lunch), first coined by Robert Heinlein in this novel, was deliberately changed, in French, for “URGESAT” (Un Repas Gratuit Est Supérieur A Tout), which retranslates in English as “Nothing is better than a free meal”… The exact opposite, in other words! Thus it changed the meaning of the whole book; but contrary to Ayn Rand, Robert A. Heinlein didn’t complain or perhaps ignored it.

Now you know (almost) everything about this strange affair that lasted for 52 years. User:Romebrtmouchy (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating on the passage. Have you come across any information on the alleged informal ban? More generally, your explanations seem to wholly internet based, and not on any print publications: I'm not sure that your claims are verifiable. I'm still not entirely familiar with wikipedia though. I wonder whether poor translations constitute sabotage, shoddy performance or intrusive literary license. Still, an odd tale. Regards, Measure for Measure (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, my knowledge on ban, censorship and the like in France, specifically, is not solely Internet based. The example of Robert Heinlein novel, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”, goes beyond information collected on Internet as this book is translated and physically printed as I described it above – so it’s a physical fact few professionally concerned people in France are willing to elaborate about (the French page of Wikipedia on this last novel does, however, and I wasn't its author). Similarly, there is no official and complete French version of “Atlas Shrugged” and there has never been any to date. Again, these examples are facts – physically existing facts – no reputed professional or scholar in France is willing to publicly elaborate about, however.

“Blacklisted books” would be a more accurate and appropriate definition, actually, since it is not officially claimed, and I explain how if not why below.

As other example, this definition notoriously, but never officially, applied for years to the Stanley Kubrick film, “Clockwork Orange”. Until the late 90’s, in France, “Clockwork Orange” existed in VHS in English with Swedish subtitles only, and it was pretty hard to get this version anyways, since it was tagged “import”. Everyone interested in movies, in France, knew it was all about censorship, but, to the best of my knowledge, no media or prominent personality ever openly said this film was banned, even after it was finally released with French soundtrack and subtitles, circa 2000. For France would never admit it bans certain items pertaining to the realm of culture.

The same thing happened with “Forces Occultes”, an old Nazi anti-Masonic propaganda, made in 1942, which was publicly released no earlier than four years ago, all of a sudden and without further explanation (but some scenes in it were cut and remain publicly unknown as yet!).

As other example showing how far and bizarre it can be and go, the famous movie “The Ipcress Files”, which is in no way particularly offensive to anyone or anything today, was never broadcast on any French TV channels to date. And for some reasons I don’t know about, it is out of question for French to make and sale a French version of “The Ipcress Files”, even not an original version with subtitles in this particular case.

Still more bizarre, for I don’t know which other reason, no one in France is willing to publish the famous U.S. bestseller “The True Believer”, written by Eric Hoffer. Despite the interest of this book, a few copies only of a French translation of it (badly done) were printed.

These examples are not isolated cases; there are other similar and unexplainable examples of "book and movie blacklisting" which are in no way justified by cultural peculiarity rationally explainable (which would make an interesting subject for a Wikipedia page, if ever one is courageous enough to tackle it someday…). As I am an avid reader, both in French and in English, I happened to get interested into those oddities since some years already, and I went as far as to go looking for explanations (I worked in publishing industry, formerly): either professionally concerned people in this country ignored totally these books and movies existed, or those who knew them simply refused to talk about!

Back to the matter at hand, stricto sensu, anyone can order nearly any books in English language in French bookstores, but still a couple of years ago, when I tried with the title “Atlas Shrugged” or its ISBN number, the computer database of this store answered “this reference does not exist”, and that was all. Ironically, if I may say so, I’m just unable to find any publication on which any of the examples cited above would be clearly explained – though it may exist, possibly. But the reverse is true: my arguments above are verifiable as soon as one tries to disprove them. Famous literary agent Andrew Wylie made some allusion to this problem in a recent interview for a British literary magazine, but he failed to be specific enough. Sorry for this long answer. Regards, Robertmouchy (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings "orcs" quote

I've restored a reference to the source of the "The other, of course, involves orcs." quote referenced by Paul Krugman. He cited the blog Kung Fu Monkey, and everything else on the web points back to that as the source. I included a comment indicating the blog was the "apparent" source, and it was removed as "original research". Since Krugman and others cite that blog, it's not original research, and I have not included the "apparent" comment in my restored citation. I think it's good to have a cite back to the original source, rather than just a cite to Krugman (although that should be kept as well, since it's his use that makes it notable at all). GeoGreg (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You might think it is good, but it isn't standard Wikipedia policy. We cite reliable sources, a status for which the Kung Fu Monkey blog does not qualify. If Krugman quotes them, then we cite Krugman and people can follow the like from him to them. Linking directly to their site serves no function other than to advertise them. Also, the claim that this "oft-quoted" needs a reliable source, since Krugman doesn't say that. (There's also the question of whether this quote is a significant aspect of Atlas Shrugged criticism in the big scheme of things, but that's a subject for another day.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say that for a quote included in the body of the article, a citation to the source of the quote should be provided if possible. In every class I ever took on writing, a citation to a primary source is preferred over a secondary source. If it were a quote from a book, we would cite the book, not the work that quoted the book. As this is an "Internet meme", it seems appropriate that if the quote is included at all, a citation to the original source should be provided if it is known, and every cited use of this quote that I have found (including Krugman) references Kung Fu Monkey. At the very least, there should be a citation like "John Rogers as cited by Paul Krugman...". I agree that "oft-quoted" is a subjective phrase that could be removed, although it has definitely been making the rounds since the release of the movie. Perhaps it should be in an "Atlas Shrugged in Popular Culture" section, although those are often just lists of mentions in TV shows and such. GeoGreg (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying my remark: as outlined in WP:PRIMARY, if we are quoting a novel, we cite the novel, but we don't provide our own interpretation. Same goes for a joke, IMHO. I'm simply citing the source of the joke, not trying to interpret. Thus, not original research. The question of whether to include the joke depends on whether it is of cultural significance, but if it is included, it should be cited, as we would cite a joke by someone like Dennis Miller if it became popular.GeoGreg (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote is fully contained within Krugman's post, so if we cite that then we do not need to cite the source he got it from. And we don't directly quote non-reliable primary sources unless they are the subject of the article or the work of the subject. The only way this quote gets in at all is because Krugman's blog is published by the New York Times. A self-published blog doesn't cut it unless it is the subject writing about themselves or the author qualifies for the "established expert" exception, neither of which seems to apply to either Rogers or Krugman in this instance. --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy

"In an unpublished letter to the National Review, Leonard Peikoff wrote, "... Mr. Chambers is an ex-Communist. He has attacked Atlas Shrugged in the best tradition of the Communists - by lies, smears, and cowardly misrepresentations. Mr. Chambers may have changed a few of his political views; he has not changed the method of intellectual analysis and evaluation of the Party to which he belonged." National Review did not publish the letter."

Is this not redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.77.64 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

View of own position.

Cannot find anything in article as it stands about Rand's view of own position in society. Moocher? Not producing any goods. Taking money for ideas that encourage people to break own govs for fictional utopia. Seems high risk. Also anti-democratic (having few dictate shape of future via having means to do so). Almost advocating a sort of feudal demokratia. This para just to flesh out the question. Her view of own role by own measures and terminology would be interesting addition.

More information can be found in the works of Nathaniel Branden, about her and his position regarding objectivism. Maybe on his institute site online also. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Technology actually high end

I was reading this article, reminds me of Howard Hughes and his rare technology for the 50s, he lived from around 40s-present IIRC and was big in the high end nuclear technology and other forms of high end manufacturing (for the pre-computer era), and probably owned most of the 'fictional' technology mentioned in the article in a real form prior to the 90s, including his use of heat-seeking missiles in the 50s and other forms of "primitive" high end non-digital complex electronic systems. These systems included things such as video phones (with physical individual linkages due to large routing issues) and voice activated door locks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.245.165 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

One should realize that the premise on which the book is based -- that a new, better and more expensive metal for railroad tracks would revolutionize the entire rail industry -- is idiotic. It's merely a means to convey Rand's message. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Eric

I think that the real premise of the book, that creative people are indispensable and could possible go on strike without being immediately replaced by people younger and hungrier is much more questionable. I read this a a speculative fiction fan and suspension of disbelief is a part of that. But that level of naivety classifies it as a children's book for me. I think this article should be cross referenced with "All About Eve." so that reader's can get the mirror side of Mrs Rand's conjectures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.227.197 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sabotage of French version. Expansion?

Can anyone expand on the alleged translatory sabotage? What was done, by whom. Motive. Effect. Etc. I note Greenspan was keen on Rand. Hope explanation arrives before the attempt to simultaneously bankrupt all govs completes. Great article BTW. Nice to know details of how a Soviet managed to capture economic policy via Greenspan and have give selves enough rope...

The claims about the French translation were unsourced and should have been in the article in the first place, much less made more expansive. I've removed them accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Did von Mises imply that Ayn Rand defended elitism?

I think he did. An anonymous contributor replaced this characterization: The Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises admired the unapologetic elitism of Rand's work. In a private letter to Rand written a few months after the novel's publication, he declared,... "... You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you."

Emphasis added. 128.164.176.71 replaces that with "...admired the unapologetic glorification of businessmen." But von Mises wasn't praising businessmen: he stated explicitly that the masses were inferior. That's full throated elitism - perhaps defensible. Now I'm not sure whether this is the best interpretation of Rand. But it *is* what von Mises took away from the novel, without correction by the author. Finally, it's not clear who von Mises believed were superior: he could have had scientists and engineers in mind after all. Comments welcome. Perhaps it would be better to keep the original, but add citations suggesting that von Mises misinterpreted the work. Or not: Rand wouldn't be the first author with a misanthropic streak, if that's what it is. Measure for Measure (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Rewrite: "unapologetic elitism he saw in Rand's work." Made it a matter of perception. I hope that helps. Measure for Measure (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Bioshock

Is it worth mentioning that the most recent reference in popular culture is the 2007 video-game Bioshock? It explored many of the same themes and includes other references such as character names (Atlas, Andrew Ryan). http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/magazine/15-09/pl_games — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxStaffer (talk • contribs) 15:20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The BioShock franchise has released a total of 3 games by now, with aggregate sales of 9 million copies. These sales appear to be slightly above those for the book itself (8 million), secured over a shorter time span and without extensive give-aways by a well-healed nonprofit. The video games probably deserve their own (short) section. Measure for Measure (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing box office data on the film version

On the film's reception there is only this sentence: "The film met with a generally negative reception from professional critics - e.g., an aggregate rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 13% 'fresh' as of 4 June 2011 - but strong positive responses from audiences, e.g. a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 81% audience approval."

That's a highly misleading way of putting it. The film was a box office flop, $4.6 million on a $20 million budget. 81% of those who saw it and posted their review on Rottentomatoes, gave it a positive response. That is not a "strong positive response from audiences". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnwwn (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The $20,000,000 figure is itself misleading. As mentioned in the WP article on the movie, that 20 million is inclusive of everything spent on the project over a period of 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.161 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I can't locate that citation. WP ?=? Washington Post? Measure for Measure (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this article so confused?

Why is this article so confused in its presentment? It is all over the place. Also, is the chaotic box with which it is presented, a product of limited exposure of the Wikipedian authors who crafted it? It is probably in dire need of a rewrite. Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Input wanted at Talk:List of Atlas Shrugged characters

I am looking for other editors' input on a question at Talk:List of Atlas Shrugged characters#Danneskjöld: Pirate or Privateer. Since that page gets relatively little traffic and no one has responded yet, I'm posting a pointer here. Please reply on that talk page. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Would someone please comment? The IP will not stop. --RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving a source about the author to the correct page.

A 10 word blog post is currently being used as a "reliable source" on the book. the rs, which is disputed in the section above, does not mention the book, rather the author. without objection, i suggest we remove the passage and recommend its supporters add it to the entry about the author. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As before (see above comments), the original text and cited reliable reference(s) seem appropriate to the present Atlas Shrugged article as currently presented in the article - thanks for your comments - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

literary critic, Paul Krugman?

of all the Atlas critique, is an economist the best source, perhaps would could find a literary critic instead? Krugman didnt even write the snipe, instead copied the "classic quote" from a blog posted 3 years ago, and is described in the wikipedia article as "oft-quoted" which is at best wp:OR as few quote unknown bloggers like John Rogers. Krugman does not seem to understand the book, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/john-galt-wants-price-support/, which is actually referring "interest rates" as the "price" that wants supporting. some may defend this as sarcasm, yet John Galt refereed to people using government to profit as looters, a point lost on Krugman. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So, she was a socialist who believed intellectuals should go on strike, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.16.98.30 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Darkstar1st - Thank you for your comments - my recent edit revert may be summarized in a more complete (orig trimmed for space) "edit summary" as follows:

"reverted edit deleting text/refs - the original edit seems well-cited (including NYT ref) by notable sources Paul Krugman and John Rogers (writer) - per WP:BRD, WP:CITE, WP:NOTABILITY & related."

I *entirely* agree w/ you - other well-cited and notable edits (including from worthy literary critics of course) seem appropriate (and welcome) for this Praise and Criticism section as well - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

great :). in the meantime, would you agree we can at least remove the Krugman part and attribute the Fantasy novel comparison to it's actual author, himself notable chiefly as a failure for winning the 2004 worst screenplay award? certainly criticism from such a source is ill-thought when so many other notable critics have opinions on this novel, i look forward to seeing your improvements to this section. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - as before, the Krugman edit and related (see below) seems well presented, well sourced and includes several substantial notables - the present edit seems worthy and appropriate for the Atlas Shrugged article - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Copied from current version (August 9, 2013):

Acclaim has not been unanimous. Nobel Prize-winning economist and liberal commentator Paul Krugman alluded to an oft-quoted quip< ref name="KFM-20090319">Rogers, John (March 19, 2009). "Ephemera 2009 (7)". Kung Fu Monkey. Archived from the original on May 12, 2011. Retrieved August 9, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)</ref> by John Rogers in his blog: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."< ref name="NYT-20100923">Krugman, Paul (September 23, 2010). "I'm Ellsworth Toohey!". The New York Times. Retrieved August 9, 2013.</ref>

Besides Paul Krugman, conservatives, such as William Buckley, Jr., strongly disapproved of Ayn Rand and her objectivist message.< ref name="Heritage-2010">Edwards, Ph.D., Lee (May 5, 2010). "First Principles Series Report #29 on Political Thought". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 8, 2013.</ref>< ref name="NationalReview-1957">Chambers, Whittaker (December 28, 1957). "Big Sister Is Watching You". National Review. Retrieved August 9, 2013.</ref> Russell Kirk called objectivism an “inverted religion”,< ref name="Heritage-2010" /> Frank Meyer accused Rand of “calculated cruelties” and her message, an “arid subhuman image of man”,< ref name="Heritage-2010" /> Garry Wills regarded Rand a “fanatic”< ref name="Heritage-2010" /> and Whittaker Chambers considered the story of Atlas Shrugged "preposterous, its characters crude caricatures, its message 'dictatorial'".< ref name="Heritage-2010" />< ref name="NationalReview-1957" />

glad you posted the text, i will run thru the current errors:

• oft-quoted quip, OR/Not in source given. John Rogers is virtually unknown, his quip is even more obscure.
• Acclaim has not been unanimous, Wikipedia:Attribution. the paragraph is referring to a quip is by John Rogers, not Krugman. Krugman has no comment about the novel, rather states the following about the author which would be a different article: best line I’ve ever heard about Ayn Rand’s influence.

linking the NYT/Krugman as the source of the quip/line is incorrect, the actual source is a 250 word blog post reviewing the films Better Off Ted , TV shows like Lost, services like Dropbox,

actors such as Wil Wheaton, games like Dungeons and Dragons, in the same paragraph as his notable, well-sourced, relevant literary opinion of Atlas Shrugged. actual source here:[1].

• POV, a disparaging quip/line from a blog about martial arts and monkeys is not WP material. i seriously doubt this would be considered a RS on any topic in WP and suspect the material was originally added only to malign the book without offering any useful critique of the work. when so many notable errors exist within Atlas Shrugged, how could one possibly offer this tripe in exchange? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion - the Paul Krugman edit above, referring to several WP:NOTABLES (ie, Paul Krugman and John Rogers) in a WP:RELIABLESOURCE (ie, New York Times), seems *entirely* ok - additionally, the edit may help balance the Praise and Criticism section of the Atlas Shrugged article - which, at the moment, seems to be slanted more toward Praise than not(?) (Wikipedia strives to be WP:NEUTRAL - and not a WP:SOAPBOX) (to better balance this section, other edits, critical of the novel including those from worthy literary sources, are welcome of course) - several related points:

• Paul Krugman refers to the John Rogers quote *because* this quote represents Krugman's view of the novel ("best line I've ever heard about Ayn Rand's influence," according to Krugman) - this seems *entirely* ok - and appropriately attributed to me.
• the "oft quoted quip" phrase seems ok and justified - several casual internet searches gave the following:

Google Web Search of the *entire* quote (in quotations) gave 2,880,000 results?

Google Web Search of "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged." gave 626,000 results?

Google Book Search of "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged." gave 202 results?

Google Scholar Search of "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged." gave 15 results?

Google Web Search of "atlas shrugged orcs lord of the rings" gave 136,000 results?

Google Book Search of "atlas shrugged orcs lord of the rings" gave 480 results?

Google Scholar Search of "atlas shrugged orcs lord of the rings" gave 32 results?

in any regards - thanks again for your opinion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Google searches are original research. If there is not a reliable source describing this as being frequently quoted, the claim should be removed. Also, since the claim has been in this article for some time, it should be a source that pre-dates its addition here, to avoid WP:CIRCULAR. --RL0919 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done - @RL0919 - Yes, I understand and *entirely* agree - decided to adj the phrase - from "an oft quoted quip" to "a quip" instead - maybe better? - thanks for the comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

this quote represents Krugman's view of the novel WP:syn, the quote is referring to Ayn Rand's influence, not Atlas Shrugged. WP:QUESTIONABLE The main problem here is it would be hard to consider this a serious critique of the work, rather a joke at the book's expense in a short blog post about a myriad of unrelated topics. what is most confusing is why a direct quote is not directly attributed to it's original source , a short self-published biased online blog WP:sps, neither fact checked nor controlled by an editor. WP:RS. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. please correct the source of the quote you re-added, or revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Krugman specifically mentions the book, not the author. While the quote is humorous, much like Chambers' review, it is nonetheless representative of how serious observers view the book. TFD (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you have it exactly backwards, Krugman mentions the author, not the book, The best line I’ve ever heard about Ayn Rand’s influence. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged is a book purporting to make economic claims, which Paul Krugman is certainly qualified to evaluate. I agree though that a literary take would be a good inclusion. A few years ago I tried to incorporate the thoughts of science fiction author John Scalzi, who liked the work but with the caveat that you can basically make any claim with fiction. I was not successful. The challenge was that Scalzi used vulgar language in his blog for the purposes of humor: when I quoted him in the wiki piece it was jarring. It's probably worth another try. Scalzi makes some economic claims in his piece, so I'll link to him via Professor Bradford DeLong's endorsement: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/10/malevolent-intelligent-cups-of-yoghurt-menace-humanity.html The point is not whether Atlas Shrugged is good, bad, silly or serious: rather it is to present a range of common reactions to this culturally significant work. Measure for Measure (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

good points all, the problem is Krugman does not mention the book, rather the author. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the Randex website presents numerous Paul Krugman quotations/references mentioning the "Atlas Shrugged" book (and related) and consistent with the Paul Krugman example presented in the "Atlas Shrugged" article - see => < ref name="Rx-PaulKrugman">Staff (March 16, 2013). "Randex - The latest news and commentary on Ayn Rand and Objectivism". Randex.org. Retrieved September 24, 2013.</ref> - in any case - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

doesn't help the source in question which mentions the author, not the book, perhaps you could replace it with one that mentions the book? Krugman doesn't appear to have understood the book very well by this comment, "By the way, who built the roads in Galt’s Gulch?". the property, including the existing roads were purchased by Midas Mulligan. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, and as before (see above), the Paul Krugman edit is well-sourced, includes notables, and is *entirely* ok for the "Atlas Shrugged" article as presented - nonetheless, Thank you for your comment - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

1. I'll note that the quote itself contains the name "Atlas Shrugged", so technically Krugman does mention the book, albeit through someone else.
2. Moving to other issues, here's a citation for "Oft quoted" quip: Paul Krugman (again!): "As a widely quoted internet meme says, the unrealistic fantasy world portrayed in one of those books can warp a young man's character forever; the other book is about orcs." http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/dec/04/paul-krugman-asimov-economics (I see he softened the language for an English family newspaper!) Second citation, from a 2011 book by Gary Hayden: http://books.google.com/books?id=URA-BX0oIRwC&pg=PA25-IA3&dq=two+bookish++atlas+shrugged+and+lord+of+the+rings&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KUxCUon7MYfc2QX42YCwAQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=two%20bookish%20%20atlas%20shrugged%20and%20lord%20of%20the%20rings&f=false
3. So "oft quoted" is factual and cited by two third parties. But does it add to the article? I included it years back because I wanted to emphasize that Krugman was not the originator of the quote. Now the alleged John Rogers author has been tracked down and placed in article. So: what are the advantages and disadvantages of keeping those two words? Maybe a better wordsmith than myself could help out.
4. I'm pretty sure John Rogers wasn't the first to make that joke: older version date to the 1980s. But I have no citation for that and maybe I'm misremembering. I'm just mentioning this because there's a decent chance of a later edit on this topic.
5. Whew! Thanks for the feedback. Measure for Measure (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

i find it fitting that the best critic found for this book is noted only for his recognition as the worst in his field. (John Rogers won worst screenplay of 2004) I withdraw my opposition to including his opinion of the book. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

South Park citation

In the episode "Chickenlover", number 3 of season 2 of the South Park cartoon, the book is stated to be boring and to steal from readers the will to read books in general. This is the opinion of an almost an-alphabet police officer though, so maybe the authors of South Park intended this opinion to be stupid. Should we add a trivia or citations part for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.99.60 (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Being mentioned in a cartoon is not an important fact about the book, and trivia sections are generally a bad idea. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

agreed, i propose we remove the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point, we have a high-quality secondary source which confirms that this mention was notable. MilesMoney (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've just tagged a few paragraphs for sourcing issues but could tag many more. For example, we say that John Galt expresses Rand's personal opinion but we don't seem to have any verification of that: he is just a character in a novel. Novelists create many characters, some traits of which may reflect the writer's own opinion while other traits may not; or none may be a reflection; or (in rare cases) all may be a reflection. We cannot interpret primary sources, such as the book itself, because that constitutes original research. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just tagged the entire "Theory of sex" section as OR. The rationale should be obvious. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand refers to and quotes from Galt's speech in her philosophical essays, confirming that his words reflected her views. There's not interpretation required, so no possibility of original research. MilesMoney (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Reason magazine

We currently say "... the title of the libertarian magazine, Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets, is taken directly from John Galt ...". That is unsourced, although a quote from Galt is present. What concerns me more is that a look at Reason (magazine) and in particular at the image shown in the infobox there suggests that Free Minds, Free Markets is a strapline, not a title. The article title itself seems to bear that out, so perhaps this sentence needs to be tweaked as well as sourced? - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on http://cloudfront-assets.reason.com/assets/db/1350587890858.pdf, it's a strapline, albeit one that's used consistently and prominently. It's also found in it's self-description at http://reason.com/about. I don't believe there's any doubt that Rand is the source of the quote. MilesMoney (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Movie profitable?

The text says that the movie turned a profit on home video, but this is not supported by the citation and I find it a dubious claim. If there isn't a WP:RS for it, it should be removed.KaturianKaturian 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Added information about the DVD and Blue Ray sales. As I suspected, the movie still lost money.KaturianKaturian 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlas Shrugged. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://atlasshrugged.com/the-book/genesis-of-the-book/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"100 best novels of the 20th century" blurb should be removed [uncredible source].

The source being used is an Internet poll: http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

Which is highly sensitive to 'blitz voting', which is also why non-professional reviews on Metacritic are rarely used, and even looking at that list 4 out of the top 10 are Rand books, and 3 out of the top 10 are Hubbard's, showing a very high Libertarian slant. It's not nearly as subject-varied as the professional list on that same page (which doesn't include the book in its top 100). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.69.30 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Totally agree, some of the books on that list are laughable. The current one is a very minor and forgettable work of fiction. 51kwad (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC) 51kwad (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlas Shrugged. 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/20110504111058/http://essaycontest.aynrandnovels.com:80/AtlasShrugged.aspx? to http://essaycontest.aynrandnovels.com/AtlasShrugged.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The old subpages

What happened to them, they are mentioned in archive 1 Comment 1 (and a few other places), but there was no resolution there. Can someone update? I'm guessing they were deleted. They would be cool to look though them though. Endercase (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, most were deleted long ago. The only one that survives as an independent article is List of Atlas Shrugged characters. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)