<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>RL0919</edit_user>
<edit_time>Tuesday, February 15, 2011 4:45:49 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Early life */ in an article so long as to stretch readability, there are some minor details we can do without; also dropped unnecessary piping and duplicate wikilinks</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Rand was twelve at the time of the Russian revolution of 1917. Opposed to the [[Nicholas II of <strong><strike>Russia|Tsar]],</strike></strong><strong>1917]], during which</strong> Rand's sympathies were with Alexander Kerensky. Rand's family life was disrupted by the rise of the Bolshevik party under Vladimir Lenin. Her father's pharmacy was confiscated by the Bolsheviks, and the family fled to the Crimea, which was initially under the control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. She later recalled that while in high school she determined that she was an atheist and that she valued reason above any other human attribute. After graduating from high school in the Crimea she briefly held a job teaching Red Army soldiers to read. At sixteen, Rand returned with her family to Saint Petersburg, where they faced desperate conditions, on occasion, nearly starving.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</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>