<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>Redthoreau</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, March 18, 2011 11:23:27 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>Undid revision 419542351 by [[Special:Contributions/Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]])  Seems to be a deliberate attempt to removal all references to potential Nietzschean influences, with no TP discussion of matter</edit_comment>
<edit_text><strong>Rand acknowledged [[Aristotle]] as her greatest influence&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;About the Author&amp;quot; in {{harvnb|Rand|1992|p=1171}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and found early inspiration in [[Friedrich Nietzsche]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{Harvnb|Sciabarra|1995|pp=100–106}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;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 &amp;quot;sacrificing&amp;quot; others.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Merrill&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite book |title=The Ideas of Ayn Rand |last=Merrill |first=Ronald E. |location=La Salle, Illinois |publisher=Open Court Publishing |year=1991 |isbn=0-8126-9157-1 |oclc=23254190 |pages=38–39}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal |first=David Ramsay |last=Steele |authorlink=David Ramsay Steele |title=Alice in Wonderland |journal=[[Liberty (1987)|Liberty]] |url=http://www.la-articles.org.uk/alice.htm |year=1988 |month=May |volume=1 |issue=5 |pages=35–43}} Reprinted from ''Free Life: Journal of the Libertarian Alliance'' '''5''' (1).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; For example, the first edition of ''We the Living'' contained language which has been interpreted as advocating ruthless elitism: &amp;quot;What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Merrill&amp;quot;/&amp;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)”&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Mayhew205&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Mayhew, Robert (2004). ''We the Living'' '36 and '59. In Robert Mayhew, ''Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living''. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, p. 205.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;

</strong>Rand remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend &quot;three A's&quot;—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.&lt;ref name=&quot;Sciabarra1995p12&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Among the philosophers Rand held in particular disdain was Immanuel Kant, whom she referred to as a &quot;monster&quot; and &quot;the most evil man in history&quot;.&lt;ref name=&quot;brief&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Rand was strongly opposed to the view that reason is unable to know reality &quot;as it is in itself&quot;, which she ascribed to Kant, and she considered her philosophy to be the &quot;exact opposite&quot; of Kant's on &quot;every fundamental issue&quot;.&lt;ref name=&quot;brief&quot;/&gt; Objectivist philosophers George Walsh&lt;ref name=&quot;Walsh&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; and Fred Seddon&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; both argue that Rand misinterpreted Kant. In particular, Walsh argues that both philosophers adhere to many of the same basic positions, and that Rand exaggerated her differences with Kant. Walsh says that for many critics, Rand's writing on Kant is &quot;ignorant and unworthy of discussion&quot;.&lt;ref name=&quot;Walsh&quot;/&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Karbinski<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, March 18, 2011 11:22:57 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Hickman mention, i.e. "monster"</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>The paragraph regarding Rand and the child-killer Hickman is grossly unfair to Rand who repeatedly (3x) refers to the killer as a "monster." This has been repeatedly excised from the Wikipedia article simply because she also said positive things about him. These do not negate the negatives, however, especially ones so negative as "monster of cruelty" and the like, as Rand originally used. To omit this context, her strong moral condemnation of Hickman is to distort even the positives in what Rand said about him. The cited sources themselves compare Rand's use of this journalism to Truman Capote's in 'In Cold Blood,' etc. To omit Rand's negative opinion can only result in biased presentation and a disgusting smearing of Rand. --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011 Rereading these notes, it is clear Rand's interest was in what ~caused~ Hickman to become such a "monster," for she calls his crimes "terrible," repeatedly, as well, and writes, for example, "the worst must be the cause that drove him to this." David Harriman, edit., 'Journals of Ayn Rand', pp.36-39 --Pelagius2 (talk) 15 Feb 2011 Pelagius, I think your additional context is fine, and tried to blend it into the text for flow. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Nicely done. Thank you.Pelagius2 (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I think the Hickman stuff should be removed entirely; it's too much minutiae for a general overview. Who's with me? TallNapoleon (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC) In my personal view the issue is notable enough for inclusion; although I believe the full context of the matter (as it is now) should be included. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with Tall Napoleon, thats three to one, get a consensus before adding it back --Karbinski (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Karbinski, Pelagius found my revision to be "nicely done", that would make it 2-2. But Wiki is not a WP:DEMOCRACY anyway. It seems you are unilaterally and deliberately trying to removal all notes of her potential Nietzschean influences, for some unstated reason and with no TP discussion. &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) The Redthoreau formula: Find a quote relating to AR that without a full context paints AR as amoral or immoral even by her own standards, identify an existing topic to weasel it in with, post the new POV content, deny that some narrow philosophical research or discussion is undue weight at the level of a person's biography and or overview of a philosophy. --Karbinski (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Karbinski, I would prefer to discuss the content and not the editor per WP:NPA, but since you want to go there and make the matter personal – I could just as easily offer up ... The Karbinski formula: Operate as a self-proclaimed Objectivist "advocate" (testing the limits of both WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY) while removing all potentially unflattering material about his self-professed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karbinski Ayn Rand. Now would you actually like to discuss your large removals of material cited with reliable sources, or just continue to impugn each others objectivity by offering up hypothetical theories on how we both supposedly operate? &amp;#FF3333Red#FCC200thoreau -- (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) As per my edit comment: No justification for inclusion - just compare opening clauses, this content DOES NOT GO WITH: frist literary succes / first novel / novella was published --Karbinski (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC) The Red formula in play: the quote: some cherry picked text from AR that suggests a positive appraisal of a child killer, the missing context: the entire story, which gives reason to the cherry picked text being written, the painted picture: AR is at least somewhat pro-this-child-killer, the existing topic: her early fiction!!, the weaseling: the cherry picked text is from early writings, the POV: just drum up a history of Red's contributions, the denial: that a philisophical study of one of her unpublished works, narrowly focused on early influences - not even on her explicit philosophy, deserves any mention whatsover when reporting things such as Anthem being published. --Karbinski (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Enough, both of you. If you want to snipe at each other, do it on your talk pages or over email. Otherwise, it's counterproductive. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I agree with Tall Napoleon, thats three to one, get a consensus before adding it back </turn_text>