Talk:John Galt

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Novels: Sci-fi Start‑class Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Ron Paul

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

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)[reply]

Who is John Galt?

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

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)[reply]

Redirect needed

Resolved: discussion took place at Talk:John_Galt_(novelist)#To_the_question_of_MOVING_John_Galt_.28Atlas_Shrugged.29_to_John_Galt

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_links. Ollie Garkey (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please be specific. What is not in List of characters in Atlas Shrugged#John Galt and worth keeping (feel free to cut and paste)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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#John Galt 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree. I've taken a stab at it. Feel free to improve/edit mercilessly. Station1 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]