Talk:Anthem (novella)

message: I know this is somewhat original research, but the book Jennifer Aniston's character "Rachel" is reading is not "Anthem" by Ayn Rand, but "Anthem: an American Road Story" by Shainee Gabel and Kristin Hahn.  I'll link to a a picture of the cover below.  By viewing the episodes in question in Season 4 of Friends, one should be able to easily see that the cover of the book Rachel is reading matches the cover to the Gabel/Hahn book: http://www.amazon.com/Anthem-Shainee-Gabel/dp/0380974193
While I know this is original research on my part, it is likewise original research to assume that the "Anthem" that Rachel is reading is Ayn Rand's without any confirmation from an official source.  Based on this, and the existence of a separate, verifiable, non-Rand "Anthem" whose cover matches what's in the show, I'm going to remove the reference to "Friends" from this article.  If there's a problem with that, we can discuss it here. Dexeron (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jennifer Aniston on ''Friends'' reading ''Anthem'' 

message: On Boing-Boing, Owen noted:
Here’s the formula for [Anthem]:
# Take an obvious thing that everyone understands and that’s integral to human culture. (In Anthem, this is individuality.)
# Posit a distant future where everyone has forgotten it.
# Have your main character rediscover or reinvent it.
It’s a novella opposing an idea that no one has suggested and that could not happen.
I have nothing to add to Owen’s observation.  Mr JM  15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an archive link to the comment in question. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User comments on blogs are not reliable sources for article content, and this Talk page is not a forum for general discussion about the subject. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Precisely right, which is why I posted the link. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''Anthem'' Formula

message: Nobody supports "Big Brother" or Darth Vader either, nor does anyone (except possibly Ayn Rand, depending on how you look at it) advocate the philosophy of Ebenezer Scrooge. Anthem is a warning about where ideas could go, not where they are now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Message

message: I removed the following passage from the article.
A google search for "James D. Bowls" gives you this article, a mirror, and three other links that aren't an author. A search for "The Impact of Radical Political and Social Ideologies on Twentieth Century Popular Culture" gives you this article and two mirrors. A google books search finds this article. This "book" doesn't appear to actually exist. 108.94.155.69 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like a good catch on your part. The passage was added in January 2014 by an IP editor, and has not been changed significantly since then. Le Guin's story was published in 1974, so it is conceivable that the reference is some obscure book that was published before online listings and isn't found in Google Books or other online sources, but without any publishing details that is impossible to confirm. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible false reference 

message: The article currently claims that it was  and that the 
If the article is correct that this work was first published in the UK then its UK copyright term would be pma. + 70, until 2053. Being a non-US work still in copyright in the country of first publication on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for the UK) its US copyright would have been restored and run for 95 years after publication, until 2034.
The claim of expired copyright is thus dubious on its face (so I've tagged it as needing citation). It's been in the article for over a decade in various forms (some of which acknowledge this issue), but never been cited that I've been able to find.
Can anybody shed any light on this claim?
 Revision history suggests you've been watching over this article for most its life. You wouldn't happen to have a handle on its copyright status, or know offhand the right places to go digging for a source discussing it (Ralston 2005? Somewhere in JARS?)? Rand isn't my area so I wouldn't know where to go looking for any special circumstances that might affect the general determination. --Xover (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a lot of edits to the article, but this particular claim predates me. I suspect it is erroneous in claiming that the 1938 UK edition in particular is in the public domain. The 1946 edition, first published in the US, is a significant rewrite from the original and bears a separate copyright notice that does not mention the previous edition. The 1946 edition is what has been widely republished as a public domain text. Rand and her estate have not been shy about claiming their intellectual property rights, and this correspondence from the estate's literary agent admits that the 1946 text (which is what Project Gutenberg published) is public domain in the US, but not elsewhere. So I believe the 1946 edition is public domain in the US, but the 1938 edition probably is not. However, finding a reliable secondary source that discusses the copyright status is a different matter. It is not discussed in Ralston 2005, nor to my recollection in any other book about Rand or her works. Internet searching is tough because of the numerous useless hits for copies of the text itself and non-reliable repetitions of WP claim. --RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I knew there were nuances here I had missed. Thank you!Given the complexity of the issue and the lack of any RS addressing it directly, my suggestion would be to simply remove it from the article per both WP:V and WP:UNDUE. But I feel that's a call best made by regulars on the article that are familiar with the topic.Incidentally, and with no particular relevance to this article, but I believe both Rand's estate and Gutenberg may be in error regarding the 1946 edition: the changed material in the 1946 edition would be covered by a separate copyright that has lapsed, but as a derivative work of the 1938 edition the 1946 edition would be independently covered by that copyright. But, as mentioned, that's not really relevant here; I was just looking up the details due to a copyright issue regarding it over on Wikisource. --Xover (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright