Talk:John Galt

Spam link from limera1n
Removed: "The phrase appears in the source code of limera1n, a Jailbreak for a variety of current Apple devices.". Like the Ron Paul line, it's a stretch and borders linkspam, if isn't already.--Ghaib (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul
The "Who is Ron Paul?" association is a stretch. Anyone's biography could logically be titled "Who is ?" 71.205.161.123 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given Ron Paul's political ideology, the reference by his own campaign staff may hardly be a coincidence, but a [citation needed] is certainly called for. I altered the article to reflect that. There was already a citation there, but it 404'd so I removed it. Kethinov (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I propose expedient deletion
not very many other character's in books get their own articles. Only when they are part of the texts of a cult such as the objectivist movement do such things happen it seems. I propose deletion of this until more notable literature gets the same honor. But of course this is all in the name of efficiency. 198.166.35.176 (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is John Galt?
Who is John Galt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.75.30.939 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * John Galt is the man who found the fountain of youth, but discovered he couldn't bring it to the world. Instead he brought the world to it.--64.222.40.28 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect needed
The phrase "Who is John Galt" almost certainly deserves its own article. But in the meantime, it should lead to this article instead of the Atlas Shrugged article as it does now.EmilyWolff (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed?
Question: Why is this, a page based on a fictional character, the main link for John Galt, as opposed to the page based on an actual human being? An actual person of literary and historical importance should take precidence over a fictional character. Having a link to the Atlas Shrugged reference seems more appropriate than having the Atlas shrugged reference link to the ACTUAL person. The fact that the actual John Galt isn't given preference over a fictional one strikes me as ironic. Shouldn't the actual John Galt occupy the main John Galt page? That, or a disambiguation page should be added. "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." See Disambiguation. Ollie Garkey (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no inherent precedence given to real people over fictional characters in naming articles. What matters is whether one of them is the "primary topic," which is "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other topics" to which the same name might apply. Looking at the suggestions made for researching the matter, here is how the fictional character compares to the real person:
 * Article page views: [character] = over 48,000; real person = less than 1,000
 * Pages linked to (using the "What links here") tool: character = 49; real person = 50
 * Google hits: there's no easy way to get a count that distinguishes, but skimming the first 100 hits for a search "John Galt" suggests the fictional character dominates.
 * The overall result seems to favor the fictional character as the primary topic for this name. They are close in the number of internal wikilinks, but the searching and viewing results are overwhelmingly for the character. --RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It still bothers me that a fictional character is seen, at least in terms of organization, as more important than an actual person. If popularity is the measure for Wikipedia's standard for importance when it comes to thses issues, then I withdraw my objection. Ollie Garkey (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to Atlas Shrugged
Sorry, discussion took place at Template:Objectivism_and_Ayn_Rand_Cross_Talk. I'll fill in some more here when I have time. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
I don't support the redirect, and frankly, the objectivism project doesn't own the article. We've taken a relatively reasonable, relatively well sourced article and turned it into a plot-heavy sub-section. I'm not going to continue to edit war over the redirect, but I'll get some outside input if the article isn't restored. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the redirect (and I'm not a member of the project); the full version of the article contains a plot summary (no better that the paragraph in List of characters in Atlas Shrugged), a lot of cruft about popular culture, and the paragraph on Henry Galt. Only the last is worth keeping, and it would probably be better behind the redirect anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, we've been doing so much work on the cross-talk page that we all completely forgot to post here. Proton, could you give your reasoning as to why this shouldn't be merged into List of characters in Atlas Shrugged? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the last change that redirected the article. I'm open to either redirecting or not, but if there is a dispute I favor leaving the more detailed article in place until it has been talked through. There is quite a bit of material in the article that isn't reflected in List of characters in Atlas Shrugged, and I don't agree that the differences are all "cruft." If we're going to merge, then at least some of the additional details should be brought into the larger article. If it is too much for the list article (which is already 64K), then the fork article should stay. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. What is not in List of characters in Atlas Shrugged and worth keeping (feel free to cut and paste)?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The list section is a little short, giving too much weight to the possible origin content. If we pursue a re-direct, we should see the merge results first. --Karbinski (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this is a "relatively reasonable, relatively well sourced article". With up to 62,000 hits in a month it seems that it must have some value. (It gets very roughly a quarter to a third of the hits on Atlas Shrugged and 30-60 times the hits on John Galt (novelist).) The proposal at Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk for a "full (or close-to full) merge of John Galt into List_of_characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged#John_Galt" may also be reasonable, but I'm not sure what the actual benefit would be, other than to free up the name for use of the article about the novelist. What would be the value added? Station1 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is (manifestly) a cruft magnet. In List of characters in Atlas Shrugged, there is at least an incentive to stay on topic, and not throw in every passing mention of Galt that hits the web. It would also leave this page free to solve the disambiguation problem. I should still like to see actual examples of things worth salvaging other than the plot summary and Henry Galt, both of which are in the list.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the popular culture section trivia should no doubt go, but this article might be useful specifically because of the character's or phrase's use in popular culture (or subculture). "John Galt" as metaphor has grown to some extent beyond the pages of the book. Every article can be improved, but I think I would keep everything except some of the popular culture section. From that section I would keep items 5, 10, 11, and possibly 4, 7 and 13 if they were sourced. Station1 (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the entire popular culture section as an immediatist fix--it looked hideous, like so many of them do. However I am not opposed to having some kind of popular culture section dealing with some of the more sourceable and notable material (preferably renamed something like "Cultural Significance" so that it doesn't attract as much list-cruft), rewritten as prose. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've taken a stab at it. Feel free to improve/edit mercilessly. Station1 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused
A move -- John Galt (novelist) → John Galt -- has been proposed here. This was proposed apparently in reaction to John Galt changing to a redirect to, presumably this article. During the discussion of that proposed move, John Galt been changed to a dab page. I did a google test (results at the move discussion) and found that the character seems to be the primary topic - in any case the novelist most certainly is not. I'm confused as to why this article - about the character - would be at anything other than John Galt. As I read the article, that is the topic. What is the argument for making John Galt be a redirect to this article at John Galt (character) or anything else? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is that there are two disconnected discussions going on. People are talking about how to name the articles on this talk page, and a different set of people are talking about it on the talk page for the novelist's article. We need to bring the two discussions together. Otherwise we are likely to get different conclusions from each group, and editors will be stepping on one another as they implement their respective "consensus" decisions. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Combining discussions
As I note above, having discussions on multiple talk pages will create confusion. Since there is a notice on the requested moves page that points back to Talk:John Galt (novelist), I recommend that page as the appropriate location for a combined discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Other ways of going "John Galt"
Occurred to me while reading that there may be simpler, more obvious and easier ways to "go John Galt" than by organizing some kind of grand strike of the Producers, or back reducing the level of productivity in response to increasing tax burdens.

A more obvious option would be to simply factor oneself out of the "system" of declaring income and paying taxes, etc... If interpreted in this manner, the number of people (that are counted) that have actually done this would dramatically increase.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

Suggestion for Criticism Section
I am surprised there is no section on criticism of the character, or mention of his less-than-commendable qualities (there is no mention, for example, of his committal of either rape or arson). These oversights make the page seem of questionable neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.57.48 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am attempting to understand your statement. I take from it you say John Galt accepts rape and arson as in someway acceptable in or to attain the 'better word' he envisions. Am I understanding your point?

The article points out that John Galt is not a full character, that he is representative. It implies Ayn Rand intended him to be an everyman for the talented, skilled, or endowed individual: an ideal within her philosophical framework. The article suggests the character is within the framework of the Objectivist aspect of her Scientific-Objectivist philosophy. Wikkipedia defines Objectivism as Aynn Rand would, that reality exists independent of consciousness. Berkley solved the problem of reality by saying it would exist if there were no human beings because it would be experienced in the senses of or subjectivity by God. Rand solves the problem by saying reality exists because it exists.

In solving the problem of reality this way she ignores a fundamental aspect of Subjectivism. Subjectivism is epistomological holding we come to knowledge through our senses. For an epistomology Rand offers human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic. In doing so she restates the Subjectivist position regarding sense perception, concept formation, and logic within the framework of the scientific method.

Yet her character is not a scientist. He is an accumulator of wealth. He sees himself as more talented and put upon by others. He encourages his class to withdraw from government as a way to assert his individuality. Since he is not bound by his senses or by information he may receive through them, reality is what he believes it to be. Any attempt to provide information that is contrary to the reality he perceives is rejected because it does not come from someone as intellectual or talented as he. It might be the answer to "Who is John Galt?" is simply a selfish snob.

71.53.195.160 (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)DWright


 * See WP:NOTFORUM. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Corporation
I notice that twice now has reverted editors (once me, once an IP) who have removed material related to legal proceedings against the "John Galt Corporation", a company whose only relation to this article is its name. I've removed this again and would love to hear some justification for why such information belongs in this article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that it does. However, it would belong in a separate article on the John Galt Corporation, if someone feels like making it. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The connection is obvious. They named their company after John Galt, and then did something quite newsworthy, killing a couple NYPD through corporate malfeasance. Whether or not they're a bunch of crooks, they're part of the public gestalt associated with Galt, and Wikipedia is full of articles pointing out "cultural impact" of fictional characters. If such a thing is acceptable [here] then it's acceptable here as well. What isn't acceptable is trying to whitewash it away just because this "John Galt Corporation" isn't the best advertisement for Objectivism. Goodwinsands (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that what the John Galt Corporation did has nothing to do with the character John Galt (at least nothing directly). It'd be entirely relevant in an article about them (which I believe should exist) but having it mentioned in the article about the character they were named for strikes me as coat-racking. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's like discussing the George Washington Bridge in an article about the person. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've now created a page on the John Galt Corporation. I'm not going to put it under the objectivism wikiproject, because besides its name it doesn't appear to have anything to do with objectivism. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nathaniel Brandon
Should he mentioned as a sort of prototype for John Galt? Bazuz (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Move!
John Galt the novelist is of far more interest to people outside the USA, and will be remembered long after America' collapsed. This John Galt is mainly of interest to Americans and very few others -MacRùsgail (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The statistics for the pages and for search terms don't support the idea that the novelist is of greater interest currently. But once America collapses you could request a reassessment of the situation. --RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ayn Rand is of little consequence outside the USA, and of a cliquey interest within it. This is an international encyclopedia.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The relevant concern is comparative -- AFAIK, the 19th-century Scottish novelist isn't exactly of great consequence anywhere. We can look at Wikipedia traffic stats for some comparisons. Annals of the Parish, the only novel of Galt's that anyone has bothered to create a Wikipedia article for, got 737 page views in the last 90 days. The traffic for the novelist's own article was just under 4500 in the same period. The lowest traffic for any of Rand's novels in the last 90 days (for We the Living) was over 10,000. The inconsequential Ayn Rand was viewed over 292,000 times. The traffic for this article (about the character) was over 92,000. The novel that birthed him (Atlas Shrugged) was over 196,000. The first two parts of the movie trilogy based on it (which fizzled at the box office) got 47,000 and 29,000 hits per page. The as yet unreleased Part III got almost 39,000. Basically, everything related to the character is vastly more visited than anything to do with the Scottish novelist. --RL0919 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "the 19th-century Scottish novelist isn't exactly of great consequence anywhere" - Obviously founding a Canadian town, being the biographer of Lord Byron and a major Scottish novelist is no great consequence when compared to a minor cult leader's hackwork. The only reason this novel is a bestseller is because the same folk keep buying dozens of copies of it!-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In terms of driving present-day interest, it appears that those things are not of great consequence. You seem to think that article naming is some sort of commentary on the quality or meaningfulness of the subject. It isn't. If his name was "Lindsay Lohan", he wouldn't be the primary subject for that name either. It does not matter whether Rand is a hack or a cult leader. What matters is, when someone looks for a Wikipedia article about "John Galt", what do we think they are most likely to be looking for. You might wish that more people were interested in the novelist Galt rather than the character Galt, but the empirical evidence runs the other way. --RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously nothing is of "driving interest" if it occurs outside the USA and in the real world, e.g. Scotland and Canada... In the long term though, it's more likely that John Galt the author and town founder will be remembered by someone somewhere, and his fictional namesake will be nothing but a character in an unfashionable and badly written novel.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And in the long term, when (if) that happens, then we can move the article. --RL0919 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Atlas Shrugged is "badly written" for a comic book but well-written given its goal, which was advocacy. MacRùsgail seems less interested in what the typical Wikipedia user wants when calling up "John Galt" (which is the only criterion in discussing a page-move) than in sneering that the novel's message is "unfashionable."  So is Hitler, but if someone goes to the article on Hitler, he wants to read about Hitler, not your neighbor Joe Hitler.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible that the reason this John Galt has more page views is because it is what comes up when you search John Galt? It therefore has the combined page-views of searching John Galt the Scot and John Galt the fictional character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.206.175 (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, but this article still gets more than 10 times the pageviews of the novelist even if we assume every reader who wanted the novelist landed here first.|John_Galt_(novelist) - Station1 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Still not a good answer. John Galt could (should) be the dab page, with this page being John Galt (Atlas Shrugged), etc. ELSchissel (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Five years later, this page still gets 6 times the combined page views of the current disambiguation page and all of the other pages listed on it. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Donald Luskin
I am deleting the word "controversial" regarding this author — the Wikipedian surely meant to write "discredited." The three footnotes note that (1) Luskin had a famously bad call regarding the economy's health at the end of the George W. Bush presidency; and (2) another economist unsurprisingly thinks Luskin is the Stupidest Man Ever. The links to Better Trades, and to Luskin's book, are dead.

This character-assassination is immaterial, as the only point in mentioning Luskin, in the section Cultural Significance, is that he wrote a book with John Galt deliberately in its title. The citation does not suggest that the book is wise or even Objectivist. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)