Talk:Atlas Shrugged/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Cleanup

Ok there is a sly little trick being pulled here. While the length and content of the "Atlas Shrugged" page is just fine, there are these sneaky little links to "Characters of Atlas Shrugged", "Companies in Atlas Shrugged", and about 5 more such pages that really need to be subcategories of this one page. And as subcategories they would certainly make the page way too long. I propose that we delete EACH ONE of these pages and insert a brief summary of them all into this page.


216.8.14.120

Atlas Shrugged section of Wikipedia

I am developing the AtlasShrugged section of Wikipedia as a test to push the envelope of what is possible with a wiki. I hope to show that a wiki-based encyclopedia is not merely the same old encyclopedia with a different development and editing system, but a tool that allows types of content not easily integrated into conventional encyclopedias.

I chose AtlasShrugged for this project for a few reasons. I am familiar with it so can do a passable job in summarizing it. It is very large and complex, making it a good test of what is possible. Often people who are into AtlasShrugged are _really_ into it, so there are likely people who will contribute and who will be interested in the section. There is a movie coming out, so interest in AtlasShrugged might be expected to surge soon - it would be good for the project if we were able to sate that interest with a really cool AtlasShrugged section.

Then we ought to have a similar LordOfTheRings section, too! -- Larry Sanger

See also : AtlasShrugged

Should these pages be reorganized somehow now that we don't use subpages? It doesn't seem like a very efficient way of organizing the info... Tuf-Kat

Yes. They should. Most of them are emphatically short anyway. Koyaanis Qatsi

A consolidation of these numerous articles is in progress, beginning with the Character stubs. See Talk:Characters in Atlas Shrugged. I'm not rewriting anything, just changing the structure of the information that's there. I admire the tenacity of the author, and the quality of the work that's been done here, but the fragmentation of the information actually makes it very hard to do any sort of analysis on the book. Hopefully a more compact style will provide a better look. Comments welcome. Catherine 03:05 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I've begun compiling all the chapter bits into larger sections at Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged/Temp -- just the bare beginnings for now, and haven't altered any links yet. I'd like to discuss what to do with this, since the author never finished his work... see Atlas Shrugged/Structure to see how much would be left to synopse...! Catherine 19:32 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

Now at Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Chapters 1-5 and Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged, Chapters 6-10. Catherine 04:16 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

To me it sounds like Atlas Shrugged is a neo-liberal version on The Turner Diaries. // Liftarn

See Talk:Atlas Shrugged/Delete for discussion off the Synopsis pages.

For Your Consideration

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't feel confident enough yet to barge in and make changes willy-nilly in as extensive an article as the one for Atlas Shrugged. Even so, I'd like to point out some possible changes. There are three main points I would like to discuss.

First, from a strictly literary standpoint it should be noted that Atlas Shrugged has uncertain value. While I read the accompanying page on Ayn Rand and saw where this was addressed, I believe that a truly unbiased accounting of the work itself would have to prominently (under the subsection 'Philosophy and writing') include mention of the novel's many detractors. There is a large consensus in current literary theory that Atlas Shrugged is singularly lacking in nuance. Among today's important novelists and novel critics, it is widely acknowledged that one of a novel's main raison d'être is to raise questions, not answer them. While I understand that the value of Atlas Shrugged extends beyond the literary, it is a self-described novel, and as such, needs to be accurately placed in context with other major works.

Secondly, the novels philosophical underpinnings, mainly Objectivism, also need context. Like all novels, Atlas Shrugged has aged. We now have insights that just were unavailable at the time of the novel's publication. We are also forced to deal with issues that generations past could never of dreamt. Atlas Shrugged needs to be viewed in relationship to such issues as globalization, intellectual property rights, the open source movement, and the increasing dangers of monopolization by corporations with bankrolls the size of small countries. Understanding that Objectivism has its own page, a balanced accounting calls for these ideas to be at least minimally addressed here.

Thirdly, while sources were cited to back up the novel's ranking (second most influential, most influential...) there are undoubtedly many dissenting opinions and multiple sources to be offered in antithesis. Better to simply state that, "while it remains controversial, Atlas Shrugged is considered by many an influential novel."

This last point I find most important, as the inclusion of ranking gives the article a noticeable 'fan' bias. Better to offer as truly a balanced statement of fact as possible and let the reader (of the article and the novel) decide for themselves.

Atlas Shrugged falls into deeply divided waters with no clear answers as to the merits of its philosophy and writing. These remarks are in no way intended to enflame, but are instead offered in hopes that another aspect of this work can be brought into the discussion, thereby increasing the merits of the article.

I would like to get a feel for where interested parties stand before I make any changes. As such, I will wait a few days for people to respond and will temper my changes in light of any feedback.

--Michael D. Mullins

I'll add more input to this later. As for now, I'd like to point out that Ayn Rand was a supporter of intellectual property. Also, the philsophy behind it isn't 'mainly' Objectivism; it is Objectivism, only and completely.D prime 05:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it, how the quotation used to bolster the book's popularity (as second only to the Bible) doesn't appear in the web site cited? I hae tried to clean that up, along with a few other small changes. Anville 17:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
considering how many people loathe the book, i agree that the article should discuss that. if you're still interested, i would like to see more criticism mentioned in the article (sourced and all that). SaltyPig 15:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
All valid points. I agree that any statements that reflect bias or opinion should be modified or removed. Two glaring ironies here that I'd like to point out for the possible enjoyment of anyone who understands the tenets of objectivism. One, that Ayn Rand's life, philosophy and novels are being summarized by a community of writers. Don't get me wrong, I think wiKi is brilliant, I am a huge fan but the irony is amusing.

The second is from Mr. Mullins comment: "First, from a strictly literary standpoint it should be noted that Atlas Shrugged has uncertain value.... There is a large consensus in current literary theory.... Among today's important novelists and novel critics, it is widely acknowledged....". This entire paragraph could have been a direct extract from a Rand novel. I'll let you determine from which of Ayn's two distinct archetypes it may have come. :o)

Suggest 9 possible wiki links and 1 possible backlink for Atlas Shrugged.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Atlas_Shrugged article:

  • Can link private property: ...are free, and that achievement is most highly rewarded when private property is strictly observed. She advocated [[laissez-faire capital... (link to section)
  • Can link political system: ...observed. She advocated [[laissez-faire capitalism]] as the political system she believed to be the most consistent with these beliefs. ... (link to section)
  • Can link communism: ...olitical book, especially in its portrayal of socialism and communism as fundamentally flawed.... (link to section)
  • Can link moral code: ...y virtues, and in her worldview are central to a "rational" moral code. She disputes the notion of self-sacrifice as a virtue, and... (link to section)
  • Can link cultural significance: ...]]s; [[television]] is a novelty that has yet to assume any cultural significance, while [[radio]] broadcasts are prominent. Despite this, ma... (link to section)
  • Can link World Wars: ...te this, many of the same concepts discussed concerning the World Wars and weapons of war are addressed, as weapons of mass destru... (link to section)
  • Can link weapons of mass destruction: ...cerning the World Wars and weapons of war are addressed, as weapons of mass destruction in different forms exist in the book.... (link to section)
  • Can link Cliffs Notes: ...1145 * ''Atlas Shrugged (Cliffs Notes)'', Andrew Bernstein; Cliffs Notes; (June 5, 2000) ISBN 0764585568 ... (link to section)
  • Can link Nathaniel Branden: ...N 0805716386 * ''The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged'', Nathaniel Branden; The Objectivist Center; (July 1999) ISBN 1577240332 ... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Added all links suggested except "cultural significance" and "world wars". - Marcika 19:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Influence and Criticism

I believe that the "Influence and Criticism" section has problems.

First, it looks a lot like an article copied from somewhere else. I'm not accusing the author of doing that, but that's what it looks like - it certainly doesn't read as "Wikipedia-like".

Second, it is, IMO, POV - the author seems to go out of his/her way to criticize the book, Rand and objectivism. I realize it is introduced as "a summary, representative but not exhaustive, of reasons readers have reacted in this negative, critical fashion.", but afterwards it changes its tone from "people have said" to "it is". After reading that section, someone who hasn't read the book will have the idea that it's rubbish and childish - which may be Anville's opinion, but it's not appropriate here. Dehumanizer 10:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This borders on editorial. Let's get rid of it as quick as we can. If some one wants to come back, shorten it, make it non-biased, and re-do it, they're encouraged to. 69.192.139.156 03:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tone of article

I am slightly aghast at the nature of this article. I appologize that this might be redundant in terms of the preceeding comment, but this article does not tell you about the book, but rather why the book is wrong. I am a fan of Ayn Rand, but that not withstanding, I would be a bit purturbed even if the article on the Communist Manifesto read like this. Commentary on the views expressed in the book do not belong in the description of the book itself. A link to the page on Objectivism would make much more sense. I don't know if this was copied straight from a book review, as the poor understanding of the book's ideas, as well as the writer's cited sources seem to come from someone with very little grasp on philosophy, as well as economics. I do not mean to be insulting, but the writer, whomever it is, is not familier with Rand, nor with the topics mentioned. It would seem to come from someone who knows about those who write, and memorized a few good passages.

At any rate, this article should be changed, or at least disputed. (I would be happy to do either, but this is my first time even responding to a site I love, so I will not presume to know how to do so.)

For those interested in the general ideas of Rand, I would point you to "For the New Intellectual" which is a small book with the article "Introduction to Objectivist Ethics" and the key passages from "Atlas Shrugged" "Anthem" and "The Fountainhead." It elucidates rather well the key ideas of Objectivism, to the contrary of what is stated in the article.


Bias in This Article

This "informational piece", and I use that term lightly, is highly baised. I would suggest either complete revampment, or deletion. As one who takes John Galt as an ideal to strive for, Iwould like to mark this article for review. Unfortunetly, I dont know how do that. Yes, I see the irony in this, but if someone could please report bias on this page, I would be very grateful .

One of the longest

a quick search on wikipedia - that great online encyclopedia - found the following List of longest novels which provides enough justification for a "one of the longest" phrase. Trödel|talk 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC

Style

What kind of sentence is this: "It was Rand's last work of fiction before going fully into philosophy, her tour de force, her most famous work, and most Objectivists hold it to be, objectively (as in factually) the greatest novel of all time". ??? Barbara Osgood 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The version of the article I'm looking at has "most Objectivists hold it to be the greatest novel of all time" which I still dispute. What is the source on this? --WayneMokane 08:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a source on the "most Objectivists hold it to be the greatest novel of all time" as it is a commonly held fact. Since Objectivists consider Atlas Shrugged to be their manifesto, this would be similar in looking for a source of "most Christians hold the Bible to be the greatest book of all time." --The Mean Dean 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Other Works Cited

I've removed the "Other Works Cited" section. I couldn't see an obvious relation of the references to Atlas Shrugged, except that they mostly had a similar viewpoint. That seemed like a violation of NPOV. --Brian Brondel 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Different printings of the book, typos, etc.

This article might be improved, by an truly knowledgable Atlasphile (which I'm not), by listing various hardcover and softcover printings over the years and what some of the differences were (covers, pagination, forwards, errors, etc.) For example, this 1996 discussion[1] suggests that some paperback editions were printed with errors which altered the meaning of sentences and speculates about whether or not this was intentional. --Ds13 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Selection of reviews

It's strange that for one of the best-selling and most often cited books of the last century, wikipedia editors can find only negative and strange reviews. It would be helpful if someone could add a section explaining the disconnect. Presumably something perverse explains the sales or the coverage. 69.17.21.242 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

While I didn't look at the revision on March 12th, on April 3rd, there are only two reviews, both positive. I added a link to a review by Whittaker Chambers, none too positive, published when the novel came out; I think even if one doesn't agree with Chambers, it's an important historical footnote to this article. If you're going to have reviews linked here at all, this is one worth having. 64.241.37.140 22:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would advise against using the Chambers review as he doesn't seem to have read the book. He consistently misspells important characters names for one thing. If the review is included, it shouldn't be a link, and it should be edited for spelling.

Wow

This article could do with a sec, clean purely-the-facts description of the book. Although the intro suggests it's great (I certainly was inclined to perhaps find a copy for a second), the section on the plot is filled with speculative issues, reflections of society, themes which the author might have intended, details which are contentuous. Really, the article should just have an easy structure:

  • Intro (Author, relevance and notability),
  • Plot (just the plot please!)
  • Themes of the book (Philosophy, Objectivism, etc).

It is impossible to discuss this book without emphasing the themes and philosphies that go with the plot. This is the Objectivist manifesto and is considered the best book of all time from libertarians, despite the fact she has given speeches condemning libertarians.

Obviously the author of this article knows a great deal about the book, and no doubt the book is notable enough to have a great article, but it should be structured much better.

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 12:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged

The article Things in Atlas Shrugged is currently up for deletion here. Also, several other items within the Category:Atlas Shrugged are also being scrutinized.

We could use some help with people knowledgable on the topic, especially as the articles could use a rewrite, and certain items might need to be included in this article.

Feel free to join the discussion!

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 10:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The AfD was closed no consensus on the grounds that the majority votes were divided between merge and delete and delete. This seems, however, a clear consensus that the article is unnecessary, although some items from it may belong here. I am putting in a redirect. Anything that needs to be salvaged can be found in the history. Septentrionalis 16:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Companies

I have condensed Companies in Atlas Shrugged, and am merging the result here. It looks like the result could become

  • the general observations of companies, as they now are.
  • another paragraph describing the companies
  • A paragraph summarizing the corporate manoeuverings, somewhat shorter than the present notes.
  • Possibly a table of companies, with the list of sections.

But it might be possible to make it much shorter. Septentrionalis 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work! The Minister of War (Peace) 09:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging-per results of Vfd

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things in Atlas Shrugged results.
The general consensus seems to be that all these Atlas Shrugged baby pages do not belong on Wikipedia. That is not to say their content is necessarily bad, but rather that they are too free-floating. Most of these pages had content that could be cetegorized three ways: literary analysis; excessive plot summary or lists of incidents and references; character information. I have gone through technologies, topics, and concepts in Atlas shrugged and merged Character info to the Characters in Atlas Shrugged page, which I think we should keep. I have merged analysis and the fictional technologies to this article. The rest of the references are best at home in the Wikibooks section (where they are now). If you do not agree with my edits, please correct them DO NOT REVERT because I also removed a lot of dead-links that went to pages redirecting readers to the wikibooks page. Avraham 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that most of Characters is encyclopedic. Septentrionalis 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

GFDL notice

This page once had numerous subpages, each covering one location, character, object, and so on; an early experiment in wikibooking. These appear to have been merged into several collective articles, of which some are now redirects, some are at Wikibooks:Atlas Shrugged, and some are in Category:Atlas Shrugged. Since the merger appears to have been dome before December 2003, the edit history of these subpages is probably lost; the more recent history can be found with the articles in the places cited. Septentrionalis 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ojectivist bias

Why is it that, in an article on such a highly criticized book, there's no criticism section and very very little criticism? And when that criticism is mentioned, it is done so in a biased manner. It's sickening how Wikipedia allows so much objectivist/libertarian bias to slip by "unnoticed". -- LGagnon 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And if you need an idea of what to add, here's a link to get you started: [2] -- LGagnon 17:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, if you think Objectivist and libertarian are interchangable, you don't know enough to be talking about Wikipedia's "bias" - Ayn Rand despised libertarianism. --Neverborn 04:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
They're not interchangable, but they are connected in a way (that's why we have an article about it). And the followers of two belief systems have created the most bias here at Wikipedia from what I've seen. Both seem to delete and/or alter anything that makes them look bad and then make weak claims that there was a good reason to do so.
Speaking of which, I think the person who keeps on deleting the part about Objectivism's connection to Scientology should try giving an explaination here instead of just deleting it over and over again. -- LGagnon 14:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What connection to Scientology? --Neverborn 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Check the quote I added from Jeff Walker's book, which is in the cult section. -- LGagnon 19:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me; that's in the cult section of Rand's article. -- LGagnon 12:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. I thought you meant something that would perturb me, such as a real connection between Rand and LRH, or an Objectivist/Scientologist collaboration. Not some parallels that can be easily drawn for almost any group. I'm quite unconvinced. --Neverborn 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
LGagnon, that link you gave us about the RAnd views is one of the worst pieces of trash written of all time. That reviewer obviously did not even read the book. The last line is atrocious, especially since Rand addresses 100% of those issues in HER FICTION alone.

I certainly think that a Criticism section would be highly appropriate, provided that it is properly documented. I did a quick web search and couldn't find anything more substantial than random blogger comments of "I hated this book..."

Someone want to take a crack at it? SmartGuy 13:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a lot of references in the "Ayn Rand cult" article before the usual biased editors had it deleted (and without transferring anything over to other articles). -- LGagnon 13:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Were these references to criticisms of Ayn Rand's philosophy in general, or Atlas Shrugged in particular? I think that a section outlining criticisms of this particular work would be more appropriate, but all I have found are general criticisms of Objectivism, and "Atlas Shrugged sucks" type comments. There are some criticisms of Rand in other Wiki articles, but I don't know that they are appropriate to this particular article since they don't deal directly with the work itself.
I actually did find a whole bunch of links here, if someone wants to write a criticism section:
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/atlas/index.html SmartGuy 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The link I gave near the beginning of this section compares Atlas Shrugged to Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries. I think that's worth mentioning.
As for the cult article, there was some info relating to Atlas Shrugged. Most was about Objectivism in general, but at least two parts mention the book specifically. -- LGagnon 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix-Durango

Does anyone else believe that the mention of the Phoenix-Durango line to be potentially misleading. It seems to be lumped in with the parasites which is not correct.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlas_Shrugged/Archive_1&oldid=1136536619"