<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>RL0919</edit_user>
<edit_time>Monday, February 14, 2011 8:14:42 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Life and work */ culling minor events and excess detail</edit_comment>
<edit_text>A heavy smoker, Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974. Although she had long opposed government assistance programs, she eventually accepted Social Security and Medicare payments for herself<strong><strike>, under the assumed name of &amp;quot;Ann O'Connor&amp;quot;,</strike></strong> and her husband did as well.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; A July 1998 interview with Ewa Joan Pryor, a New York state social worker, conducted in 1998 by the Ayn Rand Institute, revealed that Pryor assisted the two with filing claims for government assistance.&lt;ref name=&quot;McConnell&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Several more of her closest associates parted company with her,&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; and during the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. She had also planned to write another novel, but did not get far in her notes.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982 at her home in New York City,&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; and was interred in the Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Rand's funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan. A six-foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; In her will, Rand named Leonard Peikoff the heir to her estate.</edit_text>
<turn_user>46.59.161.140<turn_user>
<turn_time>Monday, February 14, 2011 11:40:38 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Trimming</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>The article had inflated to over 102K of wikitext, corresponding to almost 7000 words of main body prose. While I appreciate comprehensiveness as much as the next geek, at some point we have to consider readability. I've trimmed it to just under 95K (about 6400 words). Based on numerous past discussions of the article's length, I assume the consensus would support this and probably even further trimming. There seemed to be a bit of cruft and peacocking, so I focused on that first, but I'm curious whether anyone has any particular thoughts on what else might belong on the chopping block. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC) While you suggest trimming, I suggest that the article isn't nowhere near comprehensive. It focusses mainly on the reception within the US (and to some degree the UK). While it claims that Rand's works continue to be widely read, the fact is that outside this sphere, there are countries where her books are out of print for lack of demand for a reprint. On a global scope, Rand simply doesn't happen and objectivism has pretty much been bulldozed by other developments in the theory of knowledge. The article gives far more importance to her ideas than is due. If you trim, trim out some of the claqueurism and replace them with the healthy yawn that a large part of the planet has for her, considering her a second rate author with delusions of grandeur not quite unlike L. Ron Hubbard.... --46.59.161.140 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Hard to take you seriously, Mister Anonymous One-Poster. Hubbard has an article as well. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Both Rand and Hubbard meet the standards of WP:Notability regardless of 46.59.161.140's opinion or the opinion of "a large part of the planet" or anyone else. A large part of the planet once held the opinion that the earth is flat as well. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Hard to take such a comment seriously. What part of "article isn't nowhere near comprehensive" did you fail to understand? The only one talking about notability is you. Better luck at your next reading comprehension test... ~~----84.46.18.60 (talk) Stop sniping at each other, both of you; WP:CIVIL still applies here. Doctor, don't disparage someone just because they use an IP. Anon, if you have material from reliable sources that you feel should be added, please suggest it under another section title, but also keep in mind WP:NPOV. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Aaaaand the trolls never returned. I don't see why the article should say that Rand is irrelevant, had delusions of grandeur or whatever. I can't think of any way that wouldn't violate NPOV, and I don't see why the article needs to list a bunch of reasons for why the article shouldn't exist. Notability has already been demonstrated. If that's not what 46.59.161.140 and 84.46.18.60 are getting at then I would appreciate it if someone would explain further. Perhaps my reading comprehension needs work, but I'm doing the best I can here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>While you suggest trimming, I suggest that the article isn't nowhere near comprehensive. It focusses mainly on the reception within the US (and to some degree the UK). While it claims that Rand's works continue to be widely read, the fact is that outside this sphere, there are countries where her books are out of print for lack of demand for a reprint. On a global scope, Rand simply doesn't happen and objectivism has pretty much been bulldozed by other developments in the theory of knowledge. The article gives far more importance to her ideas than is due. If you trim, trim out some of the claqueurism and replace them with the healthy yawn that a large part of the planet has for her, considering her a second rate author with delusions of grandeur not quite unlike L. Ron Hubbard.... --46.59.161.140 (</turn_text>