Talk:The Fountainhead

message: I haven't read this book but this part of the plot sounds very strange to me, I don't know.
"After Roark leaves the office with his copy of the contract the camera shows Wynand opening..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.228.225 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This was added just a couple of days ago and you are correct that it does not belong here. I've removed it. --RL0919 (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLOT, novel plot or film plot? 

message: I am wondering if there is a use for this series on the Patheos site of critical articles on the book. There are a lot of them but think a few can be placed in the criticisms section. Links included: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/series/the-fountainhead/ - MarvelAge91 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My reply here would be similar to the one I just left at Talk:Atlas Shrugged: blog posts are not typically reliable sources. Additionally, this is a featured article, which is expected to use high-quality reliable sources (see WP:FACR#1C). Even if the blog was determined to be a reliable source, it's not likely to be considered high quality for the subject when there are academic books and respected journalism sources available. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional critical source 

message: There has been a surge of editing around feminist criticisms of the novel, initiated by User:Rawbot69, who objects to mentioning the claim by some critics that a particular scene shows a positive view of rape. Specifically the concern articulated in this user's edit summaries is that criticism is "politically motivated", "potentially defamatory", and "might turn some people off". They first attempted (twice) to cut any mention of it from the lead. When I restored it, with a supporting citation (even though these are not usually required in the lead), they added a very blatantly non-neutral description of the criticisms as "vicious defamatory statements" (as the article's own commentary, not a summary of a viewpoint from reliable sources), bolstered with an interpretation of the critics' supposed motives. When another editor (User:ScientificWaffle) removed this commentary, Rawbot69 again removed all mention of the criticism from the lead, this time moving it to the body with the edit summary claim that there is no reason for it to be in "the novels' introduction" (presumably meaning the lead section of this article). As far as I can tell, all of these edits go directly against applicable Wikipedia guidelines: first by ignoring WP:NPOV when attempting to exile criticism from the article or rebut with explicit editorial commentary, then by ignoring the WP:LEAD requirement that the lead section summarize the major points covered in the main body of the article. Rawbot69's only other contribution was to add a verbatim copy of text from a study guide (much of which is a quotation from a different source, but the edit includes the exact introduction of the quotation from the study guide, proving that it was copied from there). Therefore, I have just reverted all of these changes back to the previous state of the article. In a good faith attempt to avoid an edit war, I am posting this explanation and would greatly appreciate input from other editors. --RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the things you are requesting citation for are explained and cited in the body text, you must not have searched very hard. I've added one citation specifically related to the two specific points you mention about conservatives and libertarians. Normally the lead section of an article has minimal citations because it recaps what is already discussed and cited in the rest of the article. This is also why the feminist criticisms should be mentioned in the lead, because they are prominently discussed in the main body. The text you want to purge does not "directly" call anything rape, but rather says that some critics are "accusing Rand of endorsing rape". If you want to suggest some neutral improvement to the wording of the text, that's one thing, but mention of a criticism cannot be exiled from the lead just because you disagree with it. Also, one of your other edits inserted plagiarism into the article by word-for-word copying material from A Study Guide for Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. I have removed that blatant policy violation again, and if reinserted I will request action by an uninvolved administrator. In the meantime, I have left the summary of the feminist criticisms down in the body where you moved it, in the hope that you will engage in rational discussion of the issue instead of edit warring. --RL0919 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminist criticisms 

message: Individuaism is driven as the motive force behind the novel and the main agent is the main character in the novel. 117.102.41.215 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy