<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>RL0919</edit_user>
<edit_time>Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:52:03 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Reception */ trimming review quotes and other details; streamline redundant references</edit_comment>
<edit_text>The first reviews Rand received were for her Broadway play<strong><strike>[[Night of January 16]]</strike></strong><strong>Night of January 16</strong>. Reviews of the production were largely positive, but Rand considered the positive reviews to be embarrassing because of significant changes made to her script by the producer.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Rand believed that her first novel, We the Living, as not being widely reviewed, but Michael S. Berliner says &quot;it was the most reviewed of any of her works,&quot; with approximately 125 different reviews being published in more than 200 publications. Overall these reviews were more positive than the reviews she received for her later work.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Her 1938 novella Anthem received little attention from reviewers, both for its first publication in England and for subsequent re-issues.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>RL0919<turn_user>
<turn_time>Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:45:51 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Removing Social Security benefits mention</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>The paragraph regarding Rand accepting Social Security Benefits in grossly unfair. Rand had long advised her admirers to take such benefits themselves. Rand had previously published her view that it is perfectly morally permissible to accept such benefits. In her article, "The Question of Scholarships," 'The Objectivist' June, 1966, reprinted in 'The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought,' L. Peikoff, edit., she wrote that since the government so badly impoverishes us, individually and collectively, it is perfectly appropriate to accept government research money or scholarships. She also wrote, "The same moral considerations apply to the issue of accepting of social security, unemployment insurance and other payments of that kind." She wrote that the payroll and other taxes taken from us make any other policy impossible, in any case. It is a gross misconception that Rand attacked recipients of welfare: the "moochers" in her novels are businessmen, labor leaders, etc., themselves seeking new or additional handouts in Washington, D.C., every time. Her heir, L. Peikoff has echoed Rand in saying that "welfare" recipients should be the "last" place cut in the budget, "not the first," in broadcast interviews. Not only is there no hypocrisy shown in Rand's unremarkable taking of such legally-entitled benefits, but this was no news headline, either. Rand's differences with her friend Isabel Paterson over this very issue were previously known and discussed by Pat's biographer, Cox. The breathlessness of the report is itself biased, as well. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011 It is also worth noting that in characters like Ragnar Danneskjold in 'Atlas Shruggged', Rand fully endorses the concept of "restitution" from a coercive, slave-state. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011 Please discuss this topic with me before reverting, if you can. There is no reason for this to be of interest. Rand publicly said it was kosher for her or anyone to take such benefits. Any other policy seems impossible to live, anyway, given payroll tax hit. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011 font-size: smaller;autosigned—Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC). Pelagius, hello and nice to meet you. As I stated in the edit description – sourced accompanying context on the situation is preferable to completely removing mention of it from the article. All full removal will do is guarantee that new editors will show up every few days or so and attempt to re-add the "look Rand took Social Security" material, which will then be reverted and cause edit wars. In situations such as this, inclusion with the full context (referenced to reliable sources) is the best route to go. For instance, you added some additional context on her usage of Hickman (that was fine), I would suggest you do the same for Rand’s use of government funds. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I have done as you advised, but the result is ridiculous. To include this at all is a distortion. And why not include the various reasons why Lincoln did not beat his wife...? etc. Sources of this criticism obviously were very unfamiliar with Rand's work. None of Rand's readers will be phased, but this will make Wikipedia look absurd. Pelagius2 (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Pelagius, I don’t think it is "ridiculous", and think your addition makes the article more informative - while addressing the issue nicely. Moreover, we can not assume that every reader of the article is "familiar" with Rand’s work – so tackling the matter (which has become a notable "criticism" for the "supposed hypocrisy") is appropriate. Leaving the matter out would only lead to frustration, as editors would continually attempt to add it in (believing that its omission was part of a concerted effort by Rand supporters to conceal the matter). I’m not sure what you find so "absurd" about including a mention of the issue with the surrounding context that you yourself believe is suitable. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Surely it's fine, even preferable, to include the mention of Social Security but accompanied with Rand's justification of taking it. Pelagius, I think the points you made above could be quite effectively added to the paragraph if adequately sourced. Rand's own writings would probably suffice for this.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)It is preferable to cut the whole business as too insignificant to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic overview of Rand's life. As I commented in an earlier discussion, the inclusion of material about Rand getting these payments is more recentism than anything else. It is based on obscure primary sources and a few recent web opinion pieces. Only one biography even mentions that she took Social Security, and that is a single sentence. There is zero scholarly discussion of it. For the moment it is circulating in blogs, so some mention of it is needed to help fend off poorly-written, POV-laden insertions. But just as we once had weekly attempts to add a paragraph about BioShock into the article, most likely this will eventually fade away and the material about it will be cut as pointless trivia. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Recentism??? The event in question is over 30 years old. I'm of the opinion that "recentism" is among the least plausible objections to the material. BigK HeX (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Yes, recentism. It is being included based on the short-term surge in blog discussions about it, driven mostly by a recent Huffington Post opinion piece plus amplification from our own inclusion of it. Before that there was no interest in inserting this minor factoid into any encyclopedia article about her. And it is just a minor factoid, with no more justification for being included in this article than two dozen other minor points about Rand that are not included. It is only the recent flurry of interest that has caused it to be here, and when that dies down, readers will scratch their heads in puzzlement that an encyclopedia article includes two full sentences explaining that an old woman took Social Security. --RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Leave it in, assuming we accept that the sources adequately verify that it happened. Apart from being an interesting indication of her take on the morality of taking one's own taxes back, it exposes the hypocrisy of some on the Left being so quick to condemn her for it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Scoring political points is exactly what a good encyclopedia article is not about. The article has seen dozens of these ginned-up controversies come and go. --RL0919 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with RL. This article is long enough as is without dealing with this kind of minutiae. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's a line-ball as far as I'm concerned. It certainly looks a little odd to include a detailed explanation of why Rand took social security, just like, oh, a few hundred million other Americans.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>It is preferable to cut the whole business as too insignificant to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic overview of Rand's life. As I commented in an earlier discussion, the inclusion of material about Rand getting these payments is more recentism than anything else. It is based on obscure primary sources and a few recent web opinion pieces. Only one biography even mentions that she took Social Security, and that is a single sentence. There is zero scholarly discussion of it. For the moment it is circulating in blogs, so some mention of it is needed to help fend off poorly-written, POV-laden insertions. But just as we once had weekly attempts to add a paragraph about BioShock into the article, most likely this will eventually fade away and the material about it will be cut as pointless trivia. </turn_text>