<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>RL0919</edit_user>
<edit_time>Monday, March 21, 2011 11:50:04 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>alternative approach to the Nietzsche material</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Rand acknowledged Aristotle as her greatest influence&lt;ref&gt;&quot;About the Author&quot; in &lt;/ref&gt; and found early inspiration in Friedrich Nietzsche,&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; although she rejected what she considered his anti-reason stance. Ronald E. Merrill and David Ramsay Steele have argued that there exists a difference between her early and later views on the subject of &quot;sacrificing&quot; others.&lt;ref name=&quot;Merrill&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt; Reprinted from Free Life: Journal of the Libertarian Alliance 5 (1).&lt;/ref&gt; For example, the first edition of We the Living contained language which has been interpreted as advocating ruthless elitism: &quot;What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;Merrill&quot;/&gt; Robert Mayhew cautions, “We should not conclude too quickly that these passages are strong evidence of an earlier Nietzschean phase in Ayn Rand’s development, because such language can be strictly metaphorical (even if the result of an early interest in Nietzsche)<strong><strike>”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Mayhew205&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mayhew, Robert (2004). </strike></strong><strong>.&quot;&lt;ref name=&quot;Mayhew205&quot;&gt;{{cite book |last=Mayhew |first=Robert |year=2004 |chapter=</strong>We the Living '36 and '59. In Robert Mayhew, Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, p. 205.&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>RL0919<turn_user>
<turn_time>Monday, March 21, 2011 11:50:40 AM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Removing Nietzschean influence</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>User:Karbinski has now made large disputed removals both http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=419544825 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=419542351 of well sourced material from reliable sources (her mainstream biographers) that make note of potential Nietzschean influences on Rand’s early writing. Karbinski claims through his own WP:OR that there is “no justification for inclusion” despite the hundreds of references which could be offered up to show that Rand’s work on her first unpublished novel The Little Street and her potentially unflattering usage of a romanticized psychological portrait of William Edward Hickman (along with her influence by Nietzsche) - is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. Since we are both sitting at 2RR without a resolution in sight, I figured I would provide a space here for Karbinski to provide his specific rationale for why both sizable passages (which have been worked on previously on the TP), should be unilaterally removed on his whim. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC) "Hundreds" of sources is an exaggeration, unless perhaps you are counting partisan blog posts (which we usually don't). But there are indeed reliable sources for this material. The question really isn't about sourcing; it is about proportion. With dozens of full-length books and multiple magazines devoted to discussing Rand and her works, there is far more material than will fit in an encyclopedia article of reasonable length. So what subjects are significant enough to include, and at what length? I would say that Nietzschean influence is a significant enough topic to warrant inclusion, and there is already a paragraph about it in the "Philosophy" section of the article, which Karbinski hasn't touched. The conflict is more about discussion of The Little Street and her unfulfilled plan to model the hero on Hickman. As I read the previous discussion, Karbinski and TallNapolen don't think the Hickman matter is important enough to include at all. Pelagius2/IP160 (presumed to be the same editor) seems to prefer that it be cut, but if it is there wants "additional context" to counter implications about Rand. Red definitely wants the material in, and likes the long version. My own take is that I think the article would be fine without mentioning this detail, but if it is to be included it should be discussed much more briefly than the current material. At the moment there is more material about this totally unpublished novel than there is about much more significant matters in Rand's life, and it goes into details such as the name of the unpublished character (who cares?) and multiple sentences of psychological assessment from one particular biographer. If the interpretation of this early work as bearing Nietzchean influence is the heart of what we want to address, then none of this additional detail is needed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC) That Rand was "influenced" by Nietzsche is not controversial. Rand herself discusses his influence in her "Introduction" to the 25th Anniversary edition of The Fountainhead in 1968. Part of the assumption here is that F.N. was a kind of pre-Nazi, which leading scholars (like Kaufman) have repeatedly shown is not the case, e.g., he was not antisemitic, and he opposed both the German nationalism and socialism of his time. Another seems to be that Rand had somehow hid this "influence," which the Fountainheads "Introduction" (and other sources) conclusively refutes. Another assumption appears to be that Rand somehow downplayed the influence. This, too, has been thoroughly refuted. Rand's earliest philosophical notes, written when she was still in her 20s, show that she has already rejected F.N.'s view of "instinct," determinism, "perspectivism" in epistemology and other ideas which characterize Nietzsche's own philosophy. (Journals of Ayn Rand, David Harriman, editor, Dutton, 1997, pp.66-74.) She fully rejects the idea that a history or "genealogy" of morals is required in philosophy, only a "logical" system. (pp.69-70) This last is significant because that is precisely what Rand herself reported: she had rejected his view of the nature and role of reason, which she held to be the most important premise of any system of thought. That Rand developed a "system" of ethics with a set of fixed normative virtues may itself be regarded as highly anti-Nietzschean, as well as Rand's endorsement of natural rights. Rand's discussion in those earliest notes of emotions as a form of "unrealized reason" even suggests that her mature view of human psychology was already emerging. In the context of the child-killer Hickman, Rand's notes (the only material that exists on this subject) show her repeatedly calling him a "monster" and his crimes "terrible." Saying that she somehow admired his actions, and that this reflects a "Nietzschean" influence, would be both a crude misunderstanding of Nietzsche and a gross injustice to Rand. That these notes do show a Nietzschean influence, however, is not controversial. Here is an character who sets himself apart from standard conceptions of "good and evil," a kind of misguided "individualist." As Rand's notes show, she read the major Nietzschean writers of her day, e.g. Mencken, Oretga y Gasset, Nock. But it would be wrong to impute to her any crude misunderstanding of F.N., particularly with Rand's disgust at Hickman's crimes from the start, or any attempt on her part to minimize what influence F.N. did exert on her. She advertised this impact, years before any controversy on this point, but she also seems to have correctly indicated its severe limits on her philosophical ideas. The influence appears to have been largely one of aesthetics and (in part) of F.N.'s critique of altruism (although even here, Rand went places F.N. did not, nor likely would have.) Therefore, the influence of F.N. is both important to mention and equally important not to exaggerate. So, I must agree with RL.-Pelagius2 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Indeed, that Rand is so critical ("monster, monster, monster") of a character she thinks IS so "Nietzschean" shows the highly qualified impact of F.N. even at this earliest stage of Rand's writing.-Pelagius2 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC) RL, (a) I don’t believe that “hundreds” is an exaggeration, considering the fact that in a basic google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;biw=1003&amp;bih=567&amp;q=Rand+%2B+William+Hickman&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=g-v1g-b2&amp;aql=&amp;oq=. Of note, I never said all of them would meet WP:RS), but as you note, many do – including all of the recent mainstream biographies. (b) To correct your assertion, I do not "favor the long version", in fact I am fine with a shorter summary of the matter being included. However, the lengthier explanation was added to be fairer to Rand, and to prevent the accusation that the anecdote was taken out of context by her critics. On a personal note, I am sympathetic to the potential of unfairly using quotes or issues out of context, and so I personally usually favor including more information in order to allow for a more nuanced and complete view of a potentially controversial matter. This obviously conflicts with those editors who favor brevity or favor a streamlined handling of a subject. In relation to this specific matter, I believe that completely removing any mention of the novel or the allusion to Hickman - would resemble a hagiographical omission of a notable and potentially controversial issue. However, nobody should want to see a "hatchet job" or unfair smear either, which is why I would only insist on using the views of Rand’s mainstream biographers that are already included in the article, and not the attacks from political blogs or her overt critics. Lastly, the evolution from Danny Renahan to John Galt later in her literary career, I believe displays the evolution of her ideas and philosophy – an issue that the author Robert Mayhew himself makes note of ---&gt; http://books.google.com/books?id=kSHdxgJ1UmQC&amp;pg=PA244&amp;lpg=PA244&amp;dq=Danny+Renahan&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=DCs7glAFj4&amp;sig=K4l_haPPHWvrpn2hQhwfznQMVW8&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=pHeFTfLQDtPAtgefiYnSBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=2&amp;ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&amp;q=Danny%20Renahan&amp;f=false. How that is ultimately dealt with I believe could be left to WP:Consensus, but I would be skeptical of completely omitting the issue altogether, which could resemble a small group of Randian admirers whitewashing the matter (which in reality and full context is not even that damning in my view), but an interesting window into Rand’s early Nietzschean philosophical thinking (i.e. the lone 'rebel' vs. the mob and the potential value of using force, as discussed in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical ---&gt; http://books.google.com/books?id=31xclri1vZkC&amp;pg=PA101&amp;dq=%E2%80%9CI+loathe+your+ideals.+I+admire+your+methods.+If+one+believes+one%E2%80%99s+right,+one+shouldn%E2%80%99t+wait+to+convince+millions+of+fools,+one+might+just+as+well+force+them.+Except+that+I+don%E2%80%99t+know,+however,+whether+I%E2%80%99d+include+blood+in+my+methods.%E2%80%9D&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=-GGFTbuSC821tweR1qGxBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=2&amp;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&amp;q=%E2%80%9CI%20loathe%20your%20ideals.%20I%20admire%20your%20methods.%20If%20one%20believes%20one%E2%80%99s%20right%2C%20one%20shouldn%E2%80%99t%20wait%20to%20convince%20millions%20of%20fools%2C%20one%20might%20just%20as%20well%20force%20them.%20Except%20that%20I%20don%E2%80%99t%20know%2C%20however%2C%20whether%20I%E2%80%99d%20include%20blood%20in%20my%20methods.%E2%80%9D&amp;f=false). &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I've http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&amp;curid=339&amp;diff=419818696&amp;oldid=419730581 a version that adds back some discussion of her early projects, but with less detail and more focus on how this relates to her view of Nietzsche. Hopefully it can become the basis of a compromise consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC) RL, I believe that your condensed addition is acceptable. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC) No, this is not acceptable at all. It is not even factually accurate. It is also grotesquely unfair to Rand, absent the inclusion of Rand's highly negative opinion of Hickman at the time. In those early notes Rand calls him a "monster" on three occasions. This is remarkable in notes to herself. She also repeatedly calls his crimes "terrible." She is disgusted with his crimes, and the text suggests otherwise. Rand also notes that she is trying to understand the causes of what she sees as his pathology, i.e., what "made him" become this way is "worst of all," she writes. As it reads now, Rand simply seeks to "idealize" a child killer(!), which she -- as a simple matter of fact -- did not. It is a gross injustice to Rand as it reads now. Moreover, as I have shown in the previous comments here, Rand's view of F.N. does not appear to have substantive changed, in terms of philosophical ideas, from this evidence. So, this aspect, too, is factually inaccurate. And, as I have already indicated, this is also a grossly unfair implication to F.N. himself. I must strongly disagree with RL now. This repeats the lowest grade internet smears out there and reduces Wikipedia to that level. It is pure defamation as it reads now, with all due respect to RL. -Pelagius2 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC) If Rand was so disgusted at the "monster, monster, monster" Hickman, who she says also has "the innate psychology of the Superman," then how Nietzschean can she have been even then? In any case, some hint of the repeated "monster" evaluation is required for simple accuracy. -Pelagius2 (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I removed the word "idealized" (which I believe you were reading using the wrong sense of the word, but I suppose that is a mistake that other readers could make as well) and expanded a bit on Rand's view of the case. Your opinions about how Nietzschean she was or wasn't are based on your interpretation of primary source material, so they are not really usable unless you have third-party reliable sources to offer. As of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&amp;curid=339&amp;diff=419863582&amp;oldid=419863443, the new version is about 500 characters shorter than the old one, so I'll leave it to Karbinski, TallNapolean and others who support the "omit entirely" viewpoint to say whether it is too much for them. --RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC) No, the original text was an "interpretation" that stands in opposition to certain basic facts. As to the word "idealized," this is the given definition: i·de·al·ize (-d-lz) v. i·de·al·ized, i·de·al·iz·ing, i·de·al·iz·es 1. To regard as ideal. 2. To make or envision as ideal. v.intr. 1. To render something as an ideal. 2. To conceive ideals or an ideal. What other sense is there? I could not find it. -Pelagius2 (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC) The text is still objectionable as it does not adequately convey Rand's extremely negative evaluation. It mentions "monster" only in the most qualified form Rand uses it and the term is repeated thrice in these private notes, as is the word "terrible." -Pelagius2 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I think most readers here realize that any version of the article that is not a pro-Rand apologetic will be objectionable to some, just as any version that is not an anti-Rand screed will be objectionable to others. The relevant issue is not whether it is "objectionable", but whether it summarizes the subject in a way that accurately reflects the perspectives of third-party reliable sources. I'm not going to argue about your original research or your personal opinions, since nothing about them requires a change in the article text. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) I reiterate: the purpose of the article is to provide a brief overview of Rand's philosophy. The Hickman matter and, for that matter, her early flirtations with Nietzsche, are simply not notable enough to deserve the attention they have received. I recommend removing the whole section. Perhaps one sentence noting that she was at one point influenced by Nietzsche would be worthwhile, but no more. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC) As I said earlier, I think the article would be fine without it, so if my (somewhat) shorter version appeals to no one but Red, then maybe that is the best result. Anyone else want to weigh in for or against having this material, in any particular version? --RL0919 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Tall, you state that "her early flirtations with Nietzsche are simply not notable", however author Chris Matthew Sciabarra has an entire 6 page discussion (pg 100-106) of her "Nietzchean phase" in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical ---&gt; http://books.google.com/books?id=31xclri1vZkC&amp;pg=PA103&amp;dq=A+Nietzschean+phase&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=VbOGTcCTIY2CtgfK4tnMBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=7&amp;ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&amp;q=A%20Nietzschean%20phase&amp;f=false, while Rand biographer Jennifer Burns discusses her "Nietzchean Phase" in Goddess of the Market, as seen ---&gt; http://books.google.com/books?id=z6e9X6JxHpMC&amp;pg=PA304&amp;dq=A+Nietzschean+phase&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=WbOGTdLnMsG3twfI95m5BA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=3&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&amp;q=A%20Nietzschean%20phase&amp;f=false. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)So? This is an encyclopedia article, not a booklength scholarly biography. As an encyclopedia article, its purpose is to quickly familiarize readers with the essential information about its subject. Early flirtations with Nietzsche do not qualify as essential information, given that she dumped him before her philosophy became particularly notable, and the Hickman affair certainly doesn't. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)While it may be unfair to Nietzsche, the connection does come up and some reference is needed. I think RL's shortened form, or some variation is OK. No need to go over the top, but it would be wrong to remove completely. --#801818PapyrusSnowded #708090BaskervilleTALK 09:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)But is the detail about Hickman necessary? TallNapoleon (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)In context I would have thought that was notable. Not sure why you would want to exclude it?--#801818PapyrusSnowded #708090BaskervilleTALK 10:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Since it could easily be lost in the ample text above, let me point out again that Nietzschean influence on Rand is also addressed in the Philosophy section. I just tried an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&amp;curid=339&amp;diff=419956582&amp;oldid=419940318 to incorporating the point about her notes for The Little Street that puts this material in that section. I omitted most of the details, including any mention of Hickman, but that could be incorporated if desired. --RL0919 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Article on The Little Street ?
I think a potential solution to the recurring Little Street/Hickman issue would be to have an article on Rand's unpublished novel The Little Street (novel). That way the entire novel, and her usage of Hickman in its full context could be discussed - and then merely linked to in this main article. Thoughts? With hundreds of potential high quality refs, I believe it meets WP:NOTABLE. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Sounds like a good idea. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Seems reasonable. That would also allow a bit of reduction in the emphasis on Rand in the Hickman article, which has a whiff of WP:Coatrack to it because of the percent of the article it takes up. There is also a precedent for an article on one of her unfinished works that met notability standards.--RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Having thought about it some more, I've changed my mind. I think the better place to address this would be in the existing article on the Journals of Ayn Rand. The Little Street does not exist as a novel, only as Rand's notes in her journals (unlike Red Pawn, which was fully written and sold as a screenplay, just never produced). So any commentary about it is effectively commentary on the journals, and we have an existing article on that subject that can easily accommodate some additional material. --RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Since it could easily be lost in the ample text above, let me point out again that Nietzschean influence on Rand is also addressed in the Philosophy section. I just tried an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayn_Rand&amp;curid=339&amp;diff=419956582&amp;oldid=419940318 to incorporating the point about her notes for The Little Street that puts this material in that section. I omitted most of the details, including any mention of Hickman, but that could be incorporated if desired. </turn_text>