This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the philosophy of Objectivism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"The working title throughout her writing was The Strike. According to Barbara Branden, the change was made for dramatic reasons––Rand believed that titling the novel 'The Strike' would have revealed the mystery element of the novel prematurely."
She did this with all of her novels, giving them titles that would help remind her what the central theme was, but then changing the titles to something that would not be understood by the reader until after the novel had been read. This is explained in Anthem Centennial Edition with Introduction by Ayn Rand (ISBN-10: 0452286352 ISBN-13: 978-0452286351), at least.
The above sentence makes it appear it is a quality of the book, while it should emphasize it was really a quality of the author's style.
For example: Airtight became We The Living Ego became Anthem Second Hand Lives became The Fountainhead
Which is highly sensitive to 'blitz voting', which is also why non-professional reviews on Metacritic are rarely used, and even looking at that list 4 out of the top 10 are Rand books, and 3 out of the top 10 are Hubbard's, showing a very high Libertarian slant. It's not nearly as subject-varied as the professional list on that same page (which doesn't include the book in its top 100). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just tagged a few paragraphs for sourcing issues but could tag many more. For example, we say that John Galt expresses Rand's personal opinion but we don't seem to have any verification of that: he is just a character in a novel. Novelists create many characters, some traits of which may reflect the writer's own opinion while other traits may not; or none may be a reflection; or (in rare cases) all may be a reflection. We cannot interpret primary sources, such as the book itself, because that constitutes original research. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just tagged the entire "Theory of sex" section as OR. The rationale should be obvious. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Rand refers to and quotes from Galt's speech in her philosophical essays, confirming that his words reflected her views. There's not interpretation required, so no possibility of original research. MilesMoney (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We currently say "... the title of the libertarian magazine, Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets, is taken directly from John Galt ...". That is unsourced, although a quote from Galt is present. What concerns me more is that a look at Reason (magazine) and in particular at the image shown in the infobox there suggests that Free Minds, Free Markets is a strapline, not a title. The article title itself seems to bear that out, so perhaps this sentence needs to be tweaked as well as sourced? - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The text says that the movie turned a profit on home video, but this is not supported by the citation and I find it a dubious claim. If there isn't a WP:RS for it, it should be removed.KaturianKaturian 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Added information about the DVD and Blue Ray sales. As I suspected, the movie still lost money.KaturianKaturian 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)