Talk:Atlas Shrugged/Archive 2

Dialogue oddity
LaszloWalrus edited this out as biased and unsupported -
 * A peculiar convention of the book is that on occasion a character launches into a long philosophical lecture or exposition, often in situations such as cocktail parties or informal social gatherings where people are more likely to engage in gossip or light small talk, and all other characters invariably listen patiently and attentively.

Actually I don't find that to be biased at all, and it certainly is true. Why remove it? -- User:SmartGuy


 * Laszlo is amongst the several biased editors who alters articles related to objectivism to make objectivism look better. Revert it without worry, for he's not good at giving justifications for his pro-objectivism bias. -- LGagnon 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, LGagnon no personal attacks. Second of all, in the entire book there is only one scene it which this statement is at all applicable; Francisco d'Anconia's money speech roughly fits that description. Once is not "several times"; inasmuch as the statement had an obvious bias and was unsourced, the onus of proof was on you to demonstrate that it belonged. LaszloWalrus 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for going a bit far on that, but the fact still remains that you've made suspect edits. As for the section in question, "on occasion" does not mean "several times"; I don't know where you got that from. Second of all, what about the giant John Galt speech everyone's always talking about? That's at least two such uber-speeches. -- LGagnon 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm an Objectivist; I broadcast that on my user page so people know where I'm coming from. The John Galt speech is in a venue when one would expect people to listen to a speech. It's a radio address, and many people are tuned in to hear a report on the world crisis. As far as being amongst the "several biased editors," I really don't see the justification of that statement. My edits have almost always been with the consensus, as evident from my edits regarding Rand's views on homosexuality, to the people who have influenced her, etc. Likewise, when presented with facts, I've stopped editing in cases where I was wrong, i.e. the literary influence from Nietzsche. I've edited out hagiographic biographies of Objectivists (even ones I agree with that were biased); for evidence, see the history and talk page for the Tara Smith article. LaszloWalrus 03:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to go over various incidents, but you have deleted things without talking about them first. Notably, you deleted the info comparing Objectivism to Scientology in the Ayn Rand article, which had a source cited. We did eventually agree to put it back in, but you were still quick to remove it without consensus. As for Galt's speech, it still counts as a long speech that many people listened to (I guess we could call it philosophic, though I personally don't consider objectivism to be a real philosophy). -- LGagnon 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I remember at least one other such speech - the bum's conversation with Dagny on the train, when he tells her about the collectivist compensation plan led to the destruction of the motor company where both he and Galt once worked. Didn't Ragnar Danneksjold also launch into a speech that lasted several pages when he first encountered Rearden?  I also seem to recall another lengthy dialogue by Francisco d'Anconia that took place at Rearden's mills, though I am not 100% certain of this one.


 * For the record, I enjoyed this book, am not an objectivitst, and agreed with some parts of Rand's philosiphy but not others. This article could definitely use a Criticsm section, preferably one that deals with specific critiques of the book and not of Objectivism itself. SmartGuy 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I've been asking for, and exactly why I put the POV tag in the article. -- LGagnon 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've started a small criticism section; I'll add more when I have time. LaszloWalrus 23:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated the (positive) review of Atlas Shrugged that argues that the book is a sequel to Lord of the Rings. I think all reviews, positive or negative, should come from reputable sources, not just some guy with modem. LaszloWalrus 08:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not in Objectivist nature to ask before he/she does something. If one thinks he is right then no one else can convince him otherwise--let reality be the final judge, as Rand would say. And reality says that a criticism section would be unnecessary because the book is perfect. --Friar xion 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not in Objectivist nature to ask before he does something if he believes that he is right and others are wrong, because Objectivists value the reasonable judgement of their own minds first and foremost. However, if another mind should come along and demonstrate reasonably why the Objectivist in question is incorrect, the Objectivist, being devoted to reason by definition, should concede their error of judgement. Objectivism does not require that a person be perfect or to hold themselves as perfect. It only requires that a person have enough confidence in their own mind to not allow themselves to be swayed by some nebulous general opinion. Hard, logical arguments, however, should be given just consideration. Sadly though, most arguments are of the former variety. --Topplepot 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One man's nebulous general opinion is another man's logical argument. Randists decide the difference the same way as other people: based on what suits their pre-decided views, not on anything objective. For instance, their anti-environmental views run contrary to their own want for self-presevation (if the earth gets destroyed, so are they), but they deny the use of environmentalism despite all logical arguments for it because otherwise the free market would look bad (as regulation is the only way to stop environmental destruction). -- LGagnon 04:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

An Objectivist (at least an intelligent one) would not deny the uses of environmentalism. Rand most likely ignored such arguments herself because of ignorance. The damage being done to the environment was not as well-documented and evidenced in the early 1950s as it is now. However, there is a difference between living in such a way as to preserve our environment to preserve our self-interests and living in such a way that glorifies our environment over ourselves. Rand would have agreed with the former, not with the latter. Furthermore, there is a difference between a nebulous public opinion and a rational argument. For example, the argument that started all of this is somewhat nebulous. "...on occasion," is nebulous and is worded in such a way as to overemphasize the usage of such speeches. There is, in truth, only one such speech and that is the one made by d'Anconia during the wedding reception. And in this circumstance, the partygoers react with incredulity and anger, much the reaction we would have expected them to have. As mentioned before, the speech made by Galt was a radio broadcast and an actual, pre-scheduled speech. Thus, people would naturally expect a monologue with more depth than bridge-club gossip. With regards to the hobo on the train, Dagny is intensely interested in exactly what he has to say, and would have been likely to throw him off the train had he started a "cocktail party" dialogue. This is not to say that the original statement should have been thrown out entirely. It should simply have been modified, perhaps by acknowledging that Atlas Shrugged is not the same type of fiction written by Tom Clancy or Michael Crighton. It is a highly philosophical book, and so dialogue is meant to convey a philosophical message while propelling the action, as opposed to simply driving a plot forward. Therefore, readers should expect dialogue that is a bit more weighty than the average modern novel. Perhaps it is a telling sign that, while our ancestors expected such depth in their leisure-reading, we become flustered when presented with anything more than the dialogue expected at "cocktail parties." --Topplepot 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The ARI, the biggest of the Randist organizations, is strictly anti-environmentalism. They have the wrong notion that the tree-hugging, earth-worshipping enviro-hippie stereotype is the norm, when the average environmentalist is in it to preserve human life (which of course includes their own), not the earth. Because of ARI nurtures a stereotype, a considerably large amount of Randists willingly back illogic and myth instead of the truth. The fact that you actually brought the stereotype into this shows that this ignorance is a problem in Randism. Again, Randists are willing to go along with what feels right instead of what is right, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
 * As for the problem with philosophy in AS, books can be philosophical without having characters launch into massive speeches. Rand, unfortunately, was not a very good fiction writer, and didn't understand the art of implying her ideas, which makes for good, realistic fiction. If you are a good writer, you can drive a plot forward and insert your ideas at the same time; a lot of good fiction does this. It is a mark of a bad fiction writer when one has to go out of their way to get a point across by having the entirety of her thesis blabbed by a character instead of gradually implied throughout the novel.
 * Take this from someone who has studied literature: Rand's dialogue is worse than any "cocktail party" dialogue. Truth to be told, if Rand was a good writer she would have been able to use simpler, natural dialogue to get across a complex message. Instead, she is actually more like Crichton than any truly talented writer. She uses the same "follow my words exactly; do not interpret" attitude that he has in his books. She avoids truly artistic interpretation in favor of strict literalism. None of this makes her anything better than your average airport novelist. -- LGagnon 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

An Objectivist ideal does not necessarily equal a political organization. While Ayn Rand started the Objectivist movement, she was by no means the ideal Objectivist. From what I have read of her interviews, she often appears to be a vain woman who often falls to the temptation of mistaking her personal preferences for logical arguments. Such an error is likely to carry over into any organization that is more concerned with political rather than philosophical purposes, or for the advancement of Ayn Rand rather then the ideas she championed. For example, the ARI itself is guilty of shading the truth. The biography portion of the organization's site devoted to Ayn Rand mentions only the shiny, happy parts of her life, conveniently ignoring her affair. Furthermore, as you say, the environmental problem is a problem in Randism. Randism being, I assume, the philosophical devotion to Ayn Rand. This would be by necessity separate from Objectivism because Objectivism champions the individual's ability to judge things for themselves without relying too much on the judgement of others. I'm certain Ayn Rand would have liked to hold herself up as the paragon of right reason, but such is not and was never the case. With regards to the quality of Ayn Rand's writing style, that is up to the opinion of the reader. I myself appreciate her straitforward style. I find authors such as Emerson who write in mystical language and then accuse others of stupidity when their words are misunderstood to be overly-arrogant and foolish. An author's decision to hide their meaning in metaphor or to state it simply does not determine their worth as an author; it is a part of their writing style and, usually, a good clue as to the nature of the message the author wishes to convey. There are positives and negatives to each approach to writing and the author must weigh these when determining how best to communicate their message. --Topplepot 06:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But ARI comes to its conclusions through that very ideal. They assume that they are right without checking what experts think, and then, when they are told they are wrong, become arrogant and deny the possibility that they could be wrong. This has been the situation with almost every Randist I've ever met. In truth, the Randists follow Rand's lead and put their personal feelings above logic and reason because some of their ideas conflict with it (as stated before, a fully free market and good environmental safety can not coexist). It's not just an organizational problem; it's an ideological problem as well.
 * And again, you are using an extreme example in a case that doesn't need one. I don't expect a good writer to write like a member of the "dead-white-male" canon; very few good writers these days ever write like that. What is expected is that the author isn't going to give away the entirety of the theme in a single, ridiculously massive speech. If she has to do that to get her point across, then what was the purpose of writing fiction in the first place? She could have just wrote a non-fiction book instead. If she can't get a point across without explicitly stating it, then she doesn't understand how good fiction works. And no, she doesn't need "mystical" elements (despite the common implication of Randian speech, not everything that is non-Randian is mystical); again, very few good writers jump to those to get a point across. Good fiction writing is about elegant use of the language to convey complex messages through fiction without having to ever explicitly state what you are trying to say. Fiction is art, not just another venue for blatant rhetoric; if Rand wanted nothing but to get a blunt point across, leaving no room for the audience to think for themselves, she could have sticked to non-fiction. It would have spared her the embarassment of being a champion of talented individuals who happens to be untalented in her own chosen field. -- LGagnon 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with you that many Randists are probably arrogant and narrow-minded. I am merely arguing that a proper Objectivist would not be tied to the personal ideas of Ayn Rand in the same way a proper Randist would be. Thus, an Objectivist, not to be confused with a Randist, may not be as steadfastly anti-environmentlism as a Randist. Regarding "good art" and "good fiction," would you mind providing for me an all-inclusive definition of "art" so that we may accurately judge "good art" from "bad art." Until we have that, I don't think we'll be able to come to an agreement as to whether or not Ayn Rand is a "good author." --Topplepot 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Galt's motor?
This section describes the motor as responsible for "jamming all radio receivers on Earth, and completely destroying the contents of Galt's booby-trapped laboratory..." I do not remember anything that Rand wrote which specifically attributed the radio blackout and destruction of Galt's lab equipment to any function of the motor. I don't remember any other functions of Galt's motor being described other than harnessing and producing energy. It seems more likely that the destruction of the lab equipment and the jamming of all radio signals were the product of some other device(s?) made by Galt. It has been about a year since I read it though, so someone tell me if I'm wrong. AscendedAnathema 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're correct, no specifics are given but it never gives the impression that the motor did any of those things. The motor is an inlet/source of energy, not an outlet. Perhaps the devices needed to do any of those tasks could be rudimentary given a basically unlimited amount of power, it still was not directly the motor. Vicarious 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The interference of Thompson's speech on the World Crisis is described "...like radio waves, but of a frequency never produced before ... waves (that) seem to come from a transmitter that makes anything known to us look like a child's toy ..."


 * The composition of the 'interference' is unimportant to the passage in the novel. It simply sets up Thompson's 'meltdown' as he curses and threatens his engineers with dismissal and adjudication for sabotage and treason due to their inability to overcome the interference.


 * As the moment arrives for Thompson's speech on the World Crisis to begin he crys out, "Isn't there anybody around to obey an order? Isn't there a brain left in the country?"


 * "Ladies and gentleman," Galt's monologue begins over the radio receiver. "Mr. Thompson will not speak to you tonight.  His time is up.  You were to hear a report on the world crisis.  That is what you are going to hear."


 * A rather dramatic if not semi-cheesy lead-in to Galt's speech (in a 1950's way). My first wiki post.  Be kind!  ;-)

George Saunders & Russell Kirk
Yes, their opinions are worth adding. Kirk is considered the father of modern conservativism; Saunders is an award winning writer and former objectivist. Those are good reasons to have their opinions in this article, and makes them credible for a topic related to their fields. -- LGagnon 18:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Credible Criticism?
What are the criteria for adding people who criticize a book? While acclaimed authors, and philosophers who have coherent literary or philosophical criticism may be relevant, including a relatively random blogger who more people think are "loony" than they think the book, who nonsensically compares the book to "Fascism", the classic epithet for the ignorant and in this case totally unfounded, gives credit to the incredible and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. - Centrx 18:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rand was a novelist who claimed to be a philosopher and talked a lot about politics. Thus, criticism from people who are knowledgable about literature, philosophy, and politics meet the criteria for credible critics for this article. The Daily Kos is not a bad source, as they are a very well known source for news on the internet.
 * I hope that answers your question; I'm not entirely sure what you are rambling about in that last sentence, as it is as unintelligible as an Ayn Rand book. -- LGagnon 19:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not contesting that, in a criticism section, criticisms from people who are knowledgeable literature and philosophy are relevant to a philosophical book. However, Alexander Rubio is not a recognized expert in such areas, and his comparison of the book to Fascism may, in fact, be positive evidence that he is not. Either his comparison to Fascism is just an abusive term to revile the book while not actually comparing it to Italian Fascism or authoritarian politics in general, in which case his is not a serious literary or philosophical criticism, or he actually thinks that the book is comparable to Fascism (rather than a few minor parts of Fascism), and is evidence that he either did not read the book or that he does not have even the most general knowledge of Fascism necessary to make an honest assertion about it. - Centrx 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rubio writes for The Daily Kos, which has gained credibility in recent years. A writer for a major news source is credible, and thus he is. And no, his opinion does not hurt his crediblity; that's your POV, which does not apply to editing the article.
 * You don't seem to understand how the NPOV rule works, nor do you seem to understand how to conduct academic writing. Don't mess around with the article if you aren't going to employ these concepts. -- LGagnon 19:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Has The Daily Kos gained credibility in recent years or is it just more popular? By what criteria is Daily Kos a "major news source"? Most of the articles are specifically about campaign politics. If Daily Kos is a "major news source", NewsMax and Drudge Report have much greater claim to that title—they cover a broader range of topics and are much more "news"-oriented—but that does not mean that NewsMax articles are appropriate sources, or that NewsMax writers or Drudge's "scoops" are credible. -- Centrx 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to sourcing a wide range of creditable reviewers of this or any other work. And, since I am not an objectivist, I don't have a problem with even the most scathing criticisms of "Atlas Shrugged" (including reference to Rand's tendency to use characters for little more than extended exposition and philosophical objections against objectivism as put forth by the characters or content of the book. That said, I must agree completely with BOTH of the objections to the inclusion of the "Daily Kos" crticism in this instance.  If there were too few examples of criticism available to meet the basic needs of such an article, then perhaps a reliance upon a blogger's view might serve a purpose in filling the perceived void.  Otherwise, the growth in popularity of a blog is by no means the same thing as evidence of the relevance or validity of its content and there are better sources available.  In addition, the argument that the comparison between objectivism and fascism is unwarranted is NOT merely a POV issue, but, on an objective basis, a factually inaccurate comparison. At the most fundamental level, objectivism elevates the individual and embraces lassez faire capitalism. Fascism is a socialist system that elevates race and nation above the individual and, in practice, preserves only the illusion of capitalism (mostly in terminology) while dictating prices, production and wages. Condemn objectivism as much as you like - perhaps even heap as much scorn upon it as you would fascism - but a direct comparison is absurd on its face. -- Fletch1_Lives 05:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not an objectivist, yet your argument sounds exactly like one that an objectivist would make? I can't trust your claim of neutrality when you claim that fascism is socialism. Might I add, since this is your only contribution to Wikipedia, I think it's safe to assume you're a sock puppet for someone else. Again, the objectivists rely on trickery rather than facts. -- LGagnon 22:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes the comparison fits. Atlas Shrugged has the same theme as Mein Kampf: we'll reach utopia once we kill off everyone else. That is very obvious to a lot of people, and is a common criticism of AS. And even if it was factually innaccurate, it is someone else's view presented in a neutral manner; that is considered perfectly fine for an NPOV article. -- LGagnon 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That this happens to be but my first contribution to Wikipedia is completely irrelevant (as it happens, I've had offline e-mail conversations with the article author for another science fiction work (which is how my interest brought me here). I am not an objectivist and have argued elsewhere the virtues of charitable giving, for example.  Nothing in my objection to the citation of bloggers reflects in any way on my personal ideology or philosophy - I simply argued that, given that number of criticisms (both pro and con) that exist, sufficient material is available without relying upon bloggers as "credible critics" - which is, after all, the title of this thread.  At no time did I make reference to the TYPE of review that should appear - THAT would have been inappropraiate and an example of bias.  No, what I am is a practicing economist.  The factual description of fascism as a form of socialism is neither opinion or some new understanding, but something that has been documented for more than a half century.  There have been a number of explorations of the topic, most notably by Ludwig von Mises, whose "Socialism" is considered to be a seminal economic work on the subject.  I do not claim to be an expert on objectivism, though it is clear form the novel and even the criticism provided that it has, at its center, the supremacy of the individual and the embrace of lassez faire capitalism (if you object to that characterization, by all means say so).  It is, however, an established fact that, at its very heart, fascism (Naziism) elevated both race (Aryans - a misnomer) and the nation-state (the Reich) over the individual.  And it is also an established fact that under fascism (in both Germany and Italy) production was controlled by the state through quotas, control of purchasing power, confiscation and redistribution of the property of "undesirables", etc.  Likewise, the state established prices for many goods and, obviously, labor - particularly slave labor.  Unless I've somehow misstated the points of objectivism, then the two are diametrically opposed.  And if I recall the novel correctly, the Randian position does not involve "kill[ing] off everybody else" so much as not preventing "everybody else" killing each other off.  It is clear from your reply that one of us is absolutely dripping with bias - it just isn't me.  -- Fletch1_Lives 07:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's clear in retrospect that if anyone is showing a clear bias and has placed some personal stake in keeping this particular "criticism" it would be the contributor who began the "Ojectivist (sic) bias" section, attacked objectivists and libertarians and then quickly linked to the very piece under discussion. Note that *I* have made no changes to the article, but instead added what I believed were relevant points to the discussion.  -- Fletch1_Lives 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the fascists were opposed to socialism. Fascism (take a moment to read that one) was defined by Mussolini (the guy who created the idea) as being opposed to socialism. And while the Nazis claimed to be socialists, they did not really follow the tenants of socialism correctly, and thus were much more fascist than socialist.
 * Let's look at how Rand fits the 6 elements of fascism (corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism) according to its article:
 * Rand herself was very anti-socialist, going so far as to help McCarthy with his Red Scare. That's (1) extreme nationalism, (2) anti-communism, (3) anti-liberalism, and (4) totalitarianism.
 * Rand believed the businessman was the ubermench. That's very (5) pro-corporatism.
 * She pushed for a world controlled exclusively by her views (so much for individuality); again, more totalitarianism.
 * Rand admittedly wasn't that militaristic, but given her involvement in the Red Scare and her belief in killing off everyone else, there is some resemblance.
 * And the fact that she advocates passive genocide instead of active genocide does not change the fact that she advocates genocide. She is still saying "we'll reach utopia when the untermensch (everyone else) is killed off and the ubermensch is the only one left alive", which is exactly what Mein Kampf says. If that doesn't compare to nazism, I don't know what does. -- LGagnon 14:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And as far as bias goes, I don't think you know what this article was like before I got involved. Wikipedia has a long history of pro-Rand bias, and it wasn't until just a month ago that they finally began adding a decent amount of criticisms of her to her articles. Yes, I complain about bias a lot, but that's because it was - and still is - very noticable. The fact of the matter is that you've chosen to start editing in the middle of a very heated controversy, where objectivists are vandalizing Wikipedia in their favor. They've deleted well cited criticisms of Rand, changed sections to reflect a pro-Randian stance, and misrepresented info from sources they've cited. The Randists are playing very dirty, and I would not put sock puppetry beyond them. I'm sorry that I mistook you for one, but you jumped into a massive crossfire. -- LGagnon 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While possibly not the best term, by socialism it appears that Fletch1_Lives means "A theory or policy of social organization which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc." by the state (though not, as the OED definition continues, "by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all."). He is not referring to the specific histories of 19th- and 20th-century European socialism or to Soviet Communism. A common enemy does not mean that two ideologies are equivalent.
 * Regarding your "6 points": What do you mean by "helping McCarthy with his Red Scare"? If you mean testimony before HUAC, where in there is there evidence of the sort of nationalism and totalitarianism you are talking about?
 * The corporation Mussolini was talking about is not the same thing as the private corporations of businessmen that you are talking about, and the essential part of the corporatism of fascism is that they are combined as one, whereas the book clearly advocates that they be separate.
 * Advocating a view, and trying to convince others of its correctness, is nothing like planning to take over the world and subjugate the population to your management. Under your criteria for it, environmentalism and Christianity would fit this, as well as every other view that a person truly thinks is right.
 * Where in the book does it advocate that everyone else should be killed off? First, ignoring people while they kill themselves is absolutely nothing like actively shooting someone. Second, where in the book is even letting everyone die advocated? At the end, civilization is collapsing, but people are returning to a more old-fashioned life with less technology. There is no indication that they are just going to die. -- Centrx 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So it's ok if "socialism" is misused but "corporation" can't be? Funny standards we have here. And when has corporatism ever been separated from government? Have you ever looked into who really runs the USA? Political campaign funding and congressional lobbying are rarely done by individuals.
 * Rand's testimony showed a loyalty to McCarthy's extreme nationalism, as McCarthy believed that Russian spies were infiltrating the US. Whether or not she held those same beliefs, she was backing the person responsible for spreading them. And what's not totalitarian about McCarthyism? You're not even allowed to think differently by his rules (not surprisingly, Rand didn't seem to care for people who thought differently from her).
 * And no environmentalism & Xtianity don't compare. Those two have several variants of which tend to accept the existence of the other. Rand disliked any variant of her beliefs that called itself "Objectivism" because she believed there was only one right way to do it. Other beliefs systems tend to be a little more open than that.
 * If society collapses, it's not going to be a pretty sight. A lot of people would die, and it doesn't matter whether Rand claimed they would or not. Truth to be told, what she advocated would ruin life as we know it in the US for the lower 99%. Extreme poverty kills; I know a rich girl who's never been exposed to poverty wouldn't understand this, but that is what would happen. If she advocates the actions that would lead to it, and arguments have been made to point out the results, then she is pushing for the results. -- LGagnon 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "misuse" of "socialism" and "corporation"? The distinction between Mussolini's corporation and modern businesses is separate from my statement about integration with the government. The fact remains that Atlas Shrugged advocates the opposite of integration of the government with corporations, whether the kind with modern businessmen or Mussolini's kind of executive corporate unity, so in both points Atlas Shrugged is the opposite of fascism.
 * What is the evidence that Rand was "backing" McCarthy? I have read the transcript linked from the Ayn Rand article and find no indication of such backing. Her statements are her opinion of the particular film and its positive portrayal of Soviet Russia. She specifically states her opposition to totalitarian dictatorship and her support of individual rights and freedoms, hallmarks of liberalism.
 * Regarding environmentalism, you honestly assert that many, if not most, environmentalists advocate that, for example, the destruction of forests and emission of greenhouse gases ought to be slowed or diminished, everywhere? Regardless, this is not totalitarianism; it is not an authoritarian government that permits only one political party or viewpoint.
 * Regardless of what would actually happen in society collapsing, that does not mean that is what is advocated in Atlas Shrugged. Its prediction of consequences would be wrong, but that is not the same thing as actually advocating that everyone dies. It absolutely matters what is stated in the book; that's what this article is about and it is your particular point of view that the suggestion, in the sort of fantastical realm of this book, is equivalent to advocating letting "everyone die" is equivalent to "genocide". It nothing like killing all members of a certain race or religion, or shooting someone, and you dilute the actual meaning of these words. -- Centrx 21:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It was good of you to provide the six elements of fascism – they prove my point. Corporatism – Look up the term and you will find that it doesn’t have anything to do with corporations in the modern sense (or the sense that they appear in the novel). It’s “a political system [also Italian in origin]) in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups”. This is consistent with socialism in either Centrx’s context or yours.  Moreover, Rand does not say that the “businessman was the ubermensch” (a loaded term anyway) but rather exalted the productive self-sufficient individual. Totalitarianism - describes that condition where “the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.  This, again, is descriptive of every socialist system that has ever existed and is anathema to the Randian philosophy which elevates the individual above the state or any other collective.  A world ruled by such a philosophy cannot, by definition, be totalitarian. Nationalism – here, again, is a feature common to socialistic systems as they have appeared in the real world and is directly opposed by objectivist philosophy. That Rand opposed communist elements in the United States has far less to do with nationalism than with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Militarism – yes, there’s a trend here. This, again, is a characteristic common to socialistic regimes as it requires the concentration of state power to take place (which, again, is contrary to basic objectivism). At least you concede that “Rand herself wasn’t very militaristic” but, again, she didn’t believe in “killing off everyone else”. Quite the contrary, she NEVER advocates killing anyone. The notion that separating oneself from self-destructive elements and, thereby, not intervening when self-destruction is achieved is vastly different from initiating or even facilitating that destruction. I don’t embrace Rand’s stance here, but it in no way resembles what you have described. Anti-communism – this one you get completely wrong because you attempt to use “communism” and “socialism” interchangeably. Communism is merely a type of socialism (arguably the most extreme form) or, as Wikipedia puts it, “a branch of the broader socialist movement”. There is nothing inconsistent with opposition to a competing form of socialism. And finally anti-liberalism – In this context it does not mean liberalism in the modern sense but in the classical sense. That is, fascism is opposed to the “political tradition that holds liberty as the primary political value … a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas [and] a MARKET ECONOMY (emphasis mine) that supports private enterprise…” In other words, fascism opposes individualism and laissez faire economics in favor of state economic control (favoring socialism over objectivism). That the article is less biased due to your intervention may well be the case. If there were few criticisms before (as appears to be the case), your contribution appears to be genuine and perhaps substantial. I am not being critical of those points. I am merely arguing that the specific criticism under discussion, partly because of its pedigree (or lack thereof) and partly due to factual inaccuracy – as demonstrated – does not have sufficient probative value to appear in an objective article. Such an article should reflect neither an objectivist bias or an anti-objectiovist bias either. -- Fletch1_Lives 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, my use of the term socialism, was (and is) completely consistent with my description, Mises' analysis, political science usage and Wikipedia: "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines [of which communism is bt one] or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. As an economic system, SOCIALISM IS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH STATE OR COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, OR IT MAY BE INDIRECT... (emphasis in each case mine). -- Fletch1_Lives 19:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to reverted, separate criticism changes
As noted in the edit summary, the article from the Kirk quote is taken is not written by Kirk and has only one line about his criticism: "Other comments were not much friendlier: Russell Kirk, the conservative philosopher, groused that people read her novels "for the fornicating bits." This is not literary criticism, or anything warranting mention in an encyclopedia. It is a "grousing" not a reasoned claim, nor does it pretend to be. Further, it may also be taken out of context amongst a joke. There is no evidence to assert that Kirk actually thinks that people read the book only for the fornicating bits.

As for the Saunders paragraph, it grossly misrepresents what he actually says in the referenced article. In this particular, if he were actually so foolish as to adhere to or believe in a philosophy, making him a "former Objectivist", and then to discount that philosophy based on a novel (didn't he read it before?) and because he thought the novel was poorly written, his statements would clearly not be any sort of reasonable criticism. This is not what he says in the interview linked as reference. Aside from that, the prose of the book is good, better than many books that have no mention of bad prose in their articles. - Centrx 19:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kirk's comment stays as he is an important political figure. It doesn't matter if he wrote the article or not; what matters is that there is a source for it. And please don't start this common objectivist "reason uber alles" crap; Wikipedia gives the facts, not what you think is reasonable or not. Don't try to argue that the facts don't exist because of your speculation (you have no proof that its a joke).
 * As for Saunders, I gave a fair representation of his words. Your changes, however, misrepresent his words. He said nothing of the protagonists.
 * And again, no one cares about your POV, because it won't - and should not - effect the article. Cut the biased editing and stick with the NPOV rule. -- LGagnon 19:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I looked at you quote there again and apperantly you didn't write it the right way, which made it look like your opinion, not a quote. For further reference, here's how you write a quote with a quote in it the right way:
 * "Other comments were not much friendlier: Russell Kirk, the conservative philosopher, groused that people read her novels 'for the fornicating bits.'"
 * Had you used single quotes where appropriate I wouldn't have mistaken it for POV. However, I would still like to note that other edits you have made are POV, and thus deserved to be reverted. -- LGagnon 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

First, do not label me with a philosophy to which I do not adhere. The fact is that there is no evidence for the blank statement "Kirk claimed that people only reader Rand's novels "for the fornicating bits."" I do not mean that he was making a joke that flatly contradicted his opinion of the books, but that he was not intending to make a serious literary criticism. The statement clearly evidences dislike of the novels, but that is not the same thing as flatly stating that he thinks people only read the books for the sex parts.

Regarding "Wikipedia gives the facts": Yes, but judgment is still necessary when editing the article because it is not possible to give every single fact in an article, and simply including a smattering of facts is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, which is the premise of Wikipedia. If the facts aren't organized, then the reader is jumping around all the time while reading, with the Fictional terminologies mentioned in the introduction, with the helium article starting off with "Helium flows through even capillaries of 10-7 to 10-8 m width it has no measurable viscosity..." rather than "Helium is a chemical element...". Especially important in a criticism section is having some balance. If everyone added their favorite quotes, aside from the section becoming so long as to be useless, anyone could skew the criticism to his heart's desire so that the section was filled with quotes from anarchist's complaining about the book advocating too much government intervention or people saying the book was too short. There must be some reason, for example, why you think a statement that people think the book is "dangerous" must go in the introduction, rather than amongst the criticisms. Please discuss this rather than trying to sit on the article and turning it into a revert war over even the most reasonable changes. - Centrx 19:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view - Centrx 20:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kirk's opinion was there because we currently lack a decent amount of criticisms from conservatives. This quote, at least for now, fits the purpose. And as I said before, he's a major conservative; his opinion carries a lot of weight. And while it's not a good criticism, it is a criticism nonetheless; sometimes the best criticism from one side is utterly weak (I'm sure you've seen this in some political debate before). Again, we're not here to judge, only to report.
 * And no, I'm not adding my favorite quotes. I've researched this heavily, and I've only added those quotes that came from undeniably reliable sources. I'd love to add more comparisons to Mein Kamphf (a very common criticism of this novel), but I'm having trouble finding sources that everyone can agree to using.
 * The statement about it being dangerous is in the intro to balance it. Before, it only said that Objectivists think it's the greatest book of all time, which made the intro quite POV. As the intro is supposed to summarize the subject, it should try to be as balanced as the rest of the article. -- LGagnon 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably good to remove the "greatest book of all time reference", which is clearly hyperbole and it is doubtful that substantial numbers agree with it; and replace it with something referencing Objectivist philosophy or that it's a "popular among Objectivists". Two wild viewpoints in the intro is not much better than one. - Centrx 02:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

infobox
I removed the infobox tag, if anyone want to add the cover artist for the 35th aniversery edition it's designed by Richard Hasselberger and illustrated by Nicholas Gaetano. Vicarious 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Outlandish Biasness
This article about Atlas Shrugged is preposterous. Full deletion is the only option available. Maybe the Prime Movers of wikipedia should just let the looters run wikipedia as they see fit. Then, they will squander all of it into such a biasness mentality. After it collapses on itself (after begging the prime movers to come back), then we can come back and fix it the way it should be. Actually I should not even take the time to respond to such garbage, however, I realize after living in the world how can one write such irreverent and irrelevant facts without any kind of grounds. Irrelevant, Irreverent, and the feelings probably stem from jealousy and/or Communistic tendencies because those people cannot live without help from others. The problem with Wikipedia is people from outside Galt's Gulch.

--Friar Xion 19:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV notice removed, reverted
I see that someone removed the POV notice but that someone else reverted it. It looks like we have a somewhat decent criticism section going, so I think we can remove the POV tag for now so long as people continue to work on the criticism section. I'll leave it be for now. I'd suggest that those who still find this article to be non-neutral start a list of specific improvements to be made. SmartGuy 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we still need to expand on the fascism/nazism critique. It's one common criticism heard from reviewers, so it may help to add more such reviews. I found a few myself, but one was removed. -- LGagnon 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would that not belong only in the Criticism section? If the setting, plot, concepts, etc. is neutral, and only the criticism is incomplete and unbalanced, then the notice belongs in that section. A person reading the straight description of the book should not be under the impression that it is biased if it is not. -- Centrx 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me; I originally put that notice in the article because there was no criticism section at the time. -- LGagnon 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please substantiate here the "commonality" of the criticism that Atlas Shrugged is similar to fascism/Naziism. In looking into this claim, I did a rather extensive search over several days into the type and frequency of reviews available (and even read all the one and two star reviews at Amazon to get an idea what criticisms were available).  I found quite the opposite.  In fact, beyond the Gline criticism that you had previously referenced, all I found were the occassional ad hominem attacks that reference everything someone doesn't like to fascism (just as some conservatives reference everything they don't like to communism/Stalinism).  Rand is actually on record opposing fascism: "Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal."


 * More disturbing from the point of view of neutrality, I must say that I have a serious problem with the direction that the criticism section has been going. If it is to be a comprehensive criticism section in the context of evaluation rather than here-are-objections-to-it (which would be consistent with the addition of favorable comments at the end), then, in order to be consistent with the NPOV policy, it must not give the reader a false impression.  As the policy states, it is not necessary that pros and cons be given equal space or an equal number of citations, but a criticism section that details several negative responses and (arguably, with the exception of the last entry which does not appear novel specific) a handful of positive references grouped together and given cursory treatment, it gives the (entirely false) impression that the general response to Atlas Shrugged is more negative than positive, when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.


 * In order to comply with the NPOV policy (and not give that false impression), it is not necessary to remove the negative criticisms (though my objection to the blog piece still stands and the validity of that objection has not been undermined as yet), but it IS necessary to give a more representative sample of positive criticisms (such as from von Mises and Bartlett to name just a couple whose pedigree is superior to the blogger, among others) and give them the same sort of expositional treatment as the far more thoroughly explained negative reviews.


 * It is entirely possible that the initial slant of this article was filled with pro-Objectivist bias. That does not excuse a movement beyond neutrality to an anti-Objectivist bias.  The criticism of the book should reflect the overall assessment - not one camp or the other.  -- Fletch1_Lives 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said we should make the article biased. My goal here, as with other Rand articles, is to neutralize it. Yes, the criticism section should have both positive and negative reviews. However, at the same time we have to be realistic: if there's more anti-Rand reviews than pro-Rand ones, then that's tough. Rand isn't very well liked in academic circles or literary circles, and unless you can prove otherwise by finding a substantial amount of positive reviews you shouldn't be surprised if the majority turn out to be negative. Either way, the article will reflect the truth, not opinion, and if the truth looks ugly for anyone they'll just have to accept it. -- LGagnon 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, you never said that we should make the article biased. The reason that the current criticism section violates the NPOV policy is that that is what you have clearly accomplished.  You make my point for me.  There is simply no way that an argument can be made that there are more anti-Rand views to choose from than pro-Rand ones.  Just how many citations do you want?  Even the most cursory of searches reveals FAR more positive reviews of the work than negative ones.  And a more extensive search (and I was actually looking for negative reviews for substantiation of the so-called "common" accusation of fascism) yielded a similarly greater (by a wide margin) prevlance of positive reviews than negative ones.  And I'm not talking just about reviews at Amazon (which show the same general mix - and you are certainly welcome to look), but collections of criticisms on the novel that include both positive and negative reviews and a much wider search as well.  A helpful link to many such reviews was provided by SmartGuy:


 * http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/rand/atlas/index.html


 * The Bartlett take is among the links. There is also the response to the novel by Nobel laureate Ludwig von Mises:


 * http://www.free-market.net/ayn-rand/von-mises-letter.html


 * Similar reviews can be found there, but it is Mises' stature that makes his commentary of note. The list is almost endless.  Founder of the women's studies program at the Universtity of Texas and noted Steinbeck and Hemingway scholar, Dr. Mimi Gladstein (who once said, "the message of Atlas Shrugged resonated with me, and it gave me the kind of spiritual and intellectual support that I needed to do what I did in the sixties and seventies, so that, as a married woman with three children, to pick up my children and go to college...") has written a book on Atlas Shrugged, it's themes and its importance entitled "Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind" - also available at Amazon.


 * Even Bryan Caplan has at least as sound a pedigree as most of the negative reviews mentioned:


 * http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/02/ayn_rand_the_ru.html


 * And, for that matter, I came across a book called "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" that purports to undermine the Branden's criticisms with analysis of their own work and excerpts from Rand's own journals. [I do not suggest citing this at this time as I have not read the book.  I only mention it as a potentially significant source that may well undermine the criticism given the most space in the current article.]  I was unfamiliar with either of these volumes until you gave me the incentive to actually look.


 * While finding collections of selected negative reviews also came to light (as I'm sure you'll enjoy the links herein)...


 * http://www.cix.co.uk/~morven/atlas.html


 * ...they were far fewer are farther between.


 * Meanwhile, beyond the gline comparison (and possibly even that one) the only comparisons to fascism I found were either obviously referential to Chambers or ad hominem comments without any critical analysis of any kind. I did find legitimate arguments undermining the "second most influential" attribution (based on a nonscientific survey of but a couple thousand readers) and frequent criticisms that it was overlong, could have used a diligent editor and had characters that were flat foils for competing viewpoints (all of which have some validity).  The point is, however, that your implication that my criticism is unfounded because there is so much more negative material available is absurd on its face. -- -- Fletch1_Lives 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You do know there's writing outside the internet, right? My argument doesn't fall flat on its face because you've only looked in one place. Granted, you've looked in a big place, but it's not the sum of all human knowledge. If it was, books, newspapers, & magazines (all which you've overlooked) wouldn't sell. I know we Wikipedians are loath to do non-internet research, but that will yield different results. -- LGagnon 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not apparently at major libraries in Maryland and Pennsylvania where I have now checked. Your response to my assertion that the criticism section was now skewed against the novel was that I had no substantiation.  Now that I have provided some, please explain why I should accept your word that such a search "will yield different results" and that you should not be held to the same standard.  Moreover, I just began looking into the subject.  If there are so many other literary examples of such criticism, why have you not so much as mentioned them previously?


 * Lastly, since you have argued that political writers views are particularly relevant, I would argue that, since the political philosophy relevant to the novel is primarily economic in nature, that the numerous reviews (mostly positive) from economic writers are at least a relevant as the negative samples (Huffington, et al). [BTW, I sincerely hope that you have never argued that comparing the writing style to Mein Kampf by Barbara Cartland is an example to support the claim that similarity to fascism is a common criticism.] -- Fletch1_Lives 10:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If "Rand isn't very well liked in academic circles or literary circles", why is most of the criticism now in the article from journalists making top 10 lists and passingly mentioning the book? (rather than making a critique directed at the book). We have:
 * Chambers critique, qualifying as "literary or academic", to which the counter-point is that he did not read it (not unreasonable with the wild assertions he makes).
 * Russell Kirk, certainly qualifying as "literary or academic", but this is merely an off-hand remark from a second-hand source, nothing like a coherent literary critique.
 * George Saunders, qualifying as "literary or academic", but this is from an interview, and it's one question.
 * Ariana Huffington, journalist (definitely not literary or academic), the article is not about the book, and the article doesn't criticize the book so much as it criticizes today's corrupt corporateers and how much they deviate from the ostensible values of the book (This has absolutely no business being here).
 * Kevin Drum, blogger and journalist, creating a top 10 list on the blog with off-hand remarks, and nothing like a literary critique.
 * Ian Williams, journalist, the article is more about Greenspan rather than the book
 * Nathaniel Branden, qualifying as literary or academic, critique mainly focused on one area of the philosophy

Only the sources from Chambers and Branden are even about the book and, while they are the closest thing to anything like an academic or literary critique, the Chambers magazine article is still far from it, and Branden is mainly focused on its psychology, not a comprehensive literary critique. The others are, aside from not being academic or literary critiques, only tangentially related at all. Where are the legitimate critiques? If a criticism section doesn't reflect important and continuing strains of criticism, it would be better not to have it at all rather than hand-picking a few mostly irrelevant, non-encyclopedic remarks. If indeed there is serious literary criticism of the book, the purpose of properly mentioning it would be better served by simply stating it in the article. As it stands, only two of these sources warrant mention even in a summary, and the remainder do not belong in any encyclopedia at all. -- Centrx 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that this is a pretty political book, I think it makes sense for some political journalists' opinions (Huffington, et al) to appear here. Saunders, as a writer and former Randist, is quite notable; besides, most book reviews are written by people who write books anyways, so his opinion is just as good as a professional book reviewer's.
 * And ya, I know we need more literary and academic sources; I just said that in the comment above yours. But like I said, Wikipedians have a tendency to either not have such texts on hand or not have the willingness to go out looking for them. I'd like to note that I did try to some extent (although admittedly not as hard as I could have). -- LGagnon 04:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if Huffington were an especially credible "political journalist", the article there does not criticize the book at all. It would only belong in that section if the section were simply a list of all articles that mention Atlas Shrugged. Even under the lower standard by which you wish to include the other sources, the Huffington source does not belong.
 * As for Saunders, the complaint is not that he is not "notable", but that the source is merely an interview in which one, verging on two, questions have anything to do with Atlas Shrugged. Similarly, the other sources are weak not simply because the authors' as political journalists are not relevant, but because the sources used here are not relevant or are so weak as to not belong in an encyclopedia. These criticisms were added less than a month ago, for what reason should they remain? This is an article about the book, not about a scattered collection of opinions by other people. -- Centrx 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet they are important opinions. Some of the major criticisms of the book (for instance, it's not realistic) pop up in these articles. Granted, it'd be better to include reviews and academic sources, but if we start deleting a bunch of criticisms now we'll be back to the biased article we had before. We'll be missing major criticisms of it unless we make general statements about them, and those will get deleted either for having no source or out of the usual bias we see here. -- LGagnon 14:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How would an accurate description of the book for what it is, as a book with characters and as story, be biased? Is someone reading that the book overtly supports laissez-faire capitalism and discounts any God going to think that a Democrat or a Christian likes that? Where is the bias in the rest of the article? Is it really necessary to put disclaimers next to everything saying "BTW, laissez-faire capitalism means the weak people will die, have you no soul?" The reader should not be told what to think. They either believe the above statement, and it's a pat on the back, or they do not, and it looks biased and ridiculous.
 * You seem to adduce that there is some deficiency in their article that needs to be counter-acted by having a Criticism section. This is only a temporary, he-said-she-said, and clearly weak, stop-gap solution. If nothing better than a few salon.com columns which aren't even about the book and a handful of off-the-cuff statements can be found for criticism, there's not much point in having a section about it there. Any bias in the article can be corrected in the article. —Centrx→talk 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, any good article on a work of literature involves critical analysis. You don't just write an article on a work of literature and leave it to the reader to figure out the work on their own; if you do that, you might as well not be writing an article on it, and instead be writing a book summary. Take this from someone who studies literature: criticism matters, and without it an article on literature has no depth.
 * Of course, don't get me wrong, I don't consider Rand's work to be particularly deep (if you have to explain the theme of the novel as much as she does, you screwed up badly in writing it), but nonetheless there should be some attempt in the article to explore whatever depth there is in it. And given that depth is a matter of interpretation, we can't just regurjitate Galt's long-winded speech and call that an analysis.
 * So, of course, we'll need some outside sources' opinions on the book. Chances are, it's going to be a while before we get anything here, as Wikipedians tend to prefer internet sources over reading books, but for now it's better to have these sources we have than nothing at all. And as I've said before, yes, some of these opinions do matter. -- LGagnon 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only the Branden source qualifies as anything close to analysis. With the exception of the Chambers source, all of the other sources are not even about the book. Their authors really are just people, people who have no especial ability at literary analysis, giving their impressions. Providing them is misleading, without accurately beginning the section with a statement that this is just a list of superficial impressions by people who have no special credentials at literary analysis, culled from blog entries and online columns that are not actually about the book, but reference it from time to time. It would be like getting an impression of the Pyrrhic War or Achilles by people's usage of "Pyrrhic victory" or "Achilles' heel", and not the Classical historian's usage of it, but the reporter for the Times talking about Iraq. Substituting filler and calling it "Criticism" does not suffice for literary analysis. —Centrx→talk 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On this one, I've got to agree with LGannon inasmuch as a collection of reviews both pro and con is superior to none at all. I think we all agree that a comprehensive section referencing in depth analyses by universally recognized scholars would be the ideal, but the fact remains that we live in the real world and must rely on what is available.  Personally, I don't object to such references as now remain (although perhaps the Branden critique is disproportionately expanded upon for an encyclopedia reference).  What matters to me is that critiques be given comparable treatment regardless of whether they are pro or con and that the article not give an impression about the overall opinion of the novel that is at odds with the impression as can be determined by actual research.  I flatly dispute the assertion that, based on the nformation available (and not just online) that the response to the book has been more negative than positive.  I have found exactly the opposite.  Thus, while I would not object to roughly equal space and/or consideration of both positive and negative reviews (which at least gives the impression of neutrality), I object to the undue weight given to negative reviews that gives an impression contrary to reality and, consequently, in violation of the NPOV policy.  -- Fletch1_Lives 10:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Any random appraisal is not appropriate though. The Huffington one is the worst example, please read it. It is not relevant to the book. All of its commentary is about Enron executives, and all of her references to Rand are not about Atlas Shrugged but about her philosophy in general. At least with The Republic or Das Kapital, a criticism section could point to truly historically important political philosophers writing actual books that are actually about the book, rather than tangentially related to the author's general ideas. I don't think a criticism section should be a given, there exist hundreds of thousands of books, many of them fiction, and if they aren't commented on by anyone but a collection of mediocrities or a handful of relatively notable people in passing, there is no reason to force it in. —Centrx→Talk 00:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Huffington does mention AS, and even quotes it. And no, it's not just about Enron; this is a form of literary criticism, it just compares the book to a current event (trust me, I've actually done this for my own academic literary criticisms). It's showing the ideas of the writer in practice (or, in this case, not in practice). I don't know if you've done literary criticism before, but this is in fact pretty normal for one.
 * And literary criticism is essential for any book article that strives for featured status (if you can't find literary criticism for a book, it's probably not important enough to deserve to be on the main page). This is especially true for a very controversial book such as this one. -- LGagnon 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply mentioning the book or quoting it does not mean it is at all central to the article or her point. Not only does she instead compare Enron to Ayn Rand's philosophy rather than the book, but she could have made the same point by inserting instead something about libertarianism, or conservatism, or materialist American culture. Further, if she were actually conducting any sort of academic literary criticism, she would explain how the characters in the book are connected to the real-world actors; instead she explicitly states how they are not the same, how Enron executives are not implementing the writer's ideas. Also, I don't know what sort of literary criticism you do, but I suspect it is not two pages long written as a sensational newspaper column. —Centrx→Talk 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a newspaper column, which makes it different from academic work. And of course my work is longer (my recent paper on Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower, essentially the antithesis of Atlas Shrugged, was about 10 pages long). But writers have to write to fit the length of their medium, and Huffington's medium calls for something shorter. This is not her problem. You'd actually find something shorter for a professional review (again, something I'm familiar with).
 * And no, she doesn't talk about Rand alone. AS gets mentioned in there and compared enough for its purpose. And given that AS is just a soapbox for Rand's beliefs, she gets plenty about it in through talking about her.
 * And it's hardly sensational. This is what journalists call an Op/Ed. They're perfectly normal. -- LGagnon 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sexuality
I'm kind of intimidated to post in this raging debate, but:

"That our sexual desire is a response to the embodiment of our values in others is a radical and original theory."

Plato in the Symposium thinks love (read: sex) is based on an evaluation of someone else; love is what you feel towards someone who meets certain criteria based on your values. Is this substantially different from Rand's view? Even if it is substantially different, isn't it similar enough that Rand can't really be considered radical on this? -- 70.38.5.59


 * Seems similar enough to me. A common criticism of Rand was that she had no original ideas; this seems like further proof. -- LGagnon 20:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that leads to an interesting question, are any of the ideas and thoughts that we have original? Is anyone capable of coming up with an idea that is purely original that isn't tied to something that was already thought of by someone else? The Fading Light 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On a related Note the first poster in this topic is absolutely right: the idea attributed to Rand is Platonic and from the symposium. Rand was admittedly well versed in the greeks, though outside of Aristotles logic she thought rather lowly of them.  IN the symposium the word used for "Love" is Eros, or erotic sexual love.  Rands idea is not Similar to that given in symposium, but rather exactly the same; Rand did not invent the idea, and as far as I am aware (which is a little limited) never claimed it as an original idea.  The sentence in question should be deleted, and possibly a mention made that the sexual ideas come directly from Symposium, as that they are a rather important part of the book. Courtland Nerval


 * Be bold. Go ahead and make the changes yourself, and others will add to your edits if needed.  Also, please sign with ~ .  Al  19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold. I edited the section on Sexual theory just enough to correct the attribution of the theory and included a link to Plato's Symposium. If I did something wrong in the formating please let me know. --Courtland Nerval 16:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You did fine. Thanks for improving the article.  Al  16:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand I believe did not get her ideas from Plato's Symposium; to the extent she was influenced by others on the topic, the influence was almost completely, if not completely, Aristotle's ideas on the nature of friendship, the alter-ego, and love. Leonard Peikoff discusses the basis of her ideas on the matter in "Objectivism Through Induction." LaszloWalrus 10:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It didn't say she got her ideas from it. It says that her ideas were not original because they appeared their first. I'm reverting your deletion because, like with all other deletions you make, it was done through selective misreading. -- LGagnon 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You can "Believe" she didn't get her idea form Plato's Symposium all you want: She did. Read the damn text. Read some criticism and interpretation of it, "rand's" theory or sex is practically plagarism, we were far more kind to her than that in the article though. Rand without doubt read symposium when she was studying classical philosophy in college (considering that Symposium is Plato's Second greatest work); the ideas expressed in Symposium are of a Romantic style that is exactly in sync with Rand. Peikoff can say she got her ideas from elsewhere but he is full of shit. Either he was covering for her, or she lied to him about where "her" ideas came from and he was just to middling or dishonest to catch it. Regardless of if she had read Symposium before or not (which she had) or whether it was conscious or not, the idea not generally, but SPECIFICALLY originated, as in was ORIGINALLY PUT FORWARD BY, Plato in Symposium. Sorry bud, but you can't give Rand credit for what she didn't invent. Thanks for the revert LGagnon, I didn't even see the vandalism. --Courtland Nerval 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all I have read the Symposium (as well as criticism and interpretation of it). The fact that Plato said something similar to Rand does NOT mean that Rand got her ideas from Plato. If we were to trace EVERY philosopher's roots, ninety-five percent of them would have "plagiarized" Plato in SOME regard. Have you read Rand? I think not. LaszloWalrus 11:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've eliminated the Symposium stuff again; give a citation for Rand getting the concept from Plato, and it can stay. Plato's conception of sexual desire and love and Rand's are fundamentally different. The inclusion of the Symposium in the article amounts to original research. I would also like a citation for Peikoff being "full of shit" about Rand's ideas, inasmuch as she explicitly acknowledges where she got many of her ideas. LaszloWalrus 11:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your elimination of the Symposium link again amounts to vandalism of the article. Whether Rand acknowledged the origin of the idea or not does not mean it didn't come from there. Regardless of the fact, the Symposium cite didn't claim that she ripped it off from Plato, but that it Originated with Plato (which it did, by over 2400 years). This is not only factually correct but does not require citation; just look at Symposium (I don't think you have read it). For your information I HAVE read Rand, rather extensively, including (surprise surprise) Atlas Shrugged. Rand's theory of sexuality is the SAME theory of sex that Socrates puts forth in Plato's Symposium. Provide a link that proves beyond all arguement that the idea was a totally original randian idea or the link goes back. Plato's theory of Sex and sexual attraction in Symposium is not at question. What he argued is not in question. Whether or not Rand stole the idea from Plato isn't really in question. But regardless of that fact, the Symposium cite simply pointed out that Plato beat her to print on that idea by 2400 odd years. The link goes back in period. Stop vandalising the article.--Courtland Nerval 13:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the Syposium link. This is because it does not claim that Rand got her Idea from Symposium (which she did) but mearly asserts that the GENERAL idea was first printed there; it also points out how radical it was for the time she wrote it (credit where it is due). The substance of your objection has been addressed Laszlo: namely that Rand "Stole" or "got" her idea from Plato. As written a reader could draw the conclusion that Rand was unaware of plato all together, and that he just happened to have written down the same idea she came to on her own. The idea however is not stricly original in that it was written and printed 24000 years before Rand was born. The cite must stay in for clarity. The article DOES NOT claim that She GOT the idea from Symposium, just that it was there first. Rand's theory of Sex is a common source of criticism and literary critique, thus the link needs to stay (if nothing else Plato lends her credence). Stop inserting POV into article, it amounts to vandalism.--Courtland Nerval 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The current version looks fine. Rand made a big deal about how important Aristotle is, so I'm not sure if we can credibly say that she was entirely ignorant of Plato.  Keep in mind that many of the ideas Rand synthesized into her personal philosophy are considered to have been extant for some time before.  In fact, she is sometimes accused of taking credit for unoriginal ideas, and for getting them wrong on top of that.  Of course, we can't ever state any such thing without direct attribution, but it's worth noting here.  Al  17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is all I did. I know that she got the idea from Plato, I know because I have rather intensely studied Symposium and am quite familiar with Atlas shrugged. I do not have a web link to this however, so rather than claim that Rand GOT her idea from Plato, we can objectively point out that the idea was first written in Symposium. This all started of course because someone attributed the idea to her as "whole original and radical" which it wasn't. Even if Plato's idea was only "very similar" her theory would still not be wholey original.--Courtland Nerval 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, which is why it's such a reasonable compromise. Contrary to rumors, Ayn Rand did not invent either the question mark or the dollar sign. Al  18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)