<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>72.199.110.160</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, February 26, 2011 4:43:52 AM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* The Fountainhead and political activism */ invitation more substantive and telling than &amp;quot;man&amp;quot; line, &amp;amp; part of Mises's reaction to her work, specifically</edit_comment>
<edit_text>During the 1940s, Rand became involved in political activism. Both she and her husband worked full time in volunteer positions for the 1940 Presidential campaign of Republican Wendell Willkie. This work led to Rand's first public speaking experiences, including fielding the sometimes hostile questions from New York City audiences who had just viewed pro-Willkie newsreels, an experience she greatly enjoyed.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; This activity also brought her into contact with other intellectuals sympathetic to free-market capitalism. She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt and his wife, and Hazlitt introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and both of them expressed admiration for her. Once von Mises referred to Rand as &quot;the most courageous man in America&quot;, a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said 'man' instead of <strong><strike>'woman'.</strike></strong><strong>&quot;woman.&quot;</strong>&lt;ref&gt;; ; &lt;/ref&gt; Following the publication of Atlas Shrugged, Mises invited Rand to participate in his economics seminar as his &quot;honored guest,&quot; which she did.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Rand also developed a friendship with libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Rand questioned the well-informed Paterson about American history and politics long into the night during their numerous meetings and gave Paterson ideas for her only nonfiction book, The God of the Machine.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>TallNapoleon<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, February 25, 2011 8:54:43 AM 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 think the Hickman stuff should be removed entirely; it's too much minutiae for a general overview. Who's with me? </turn_text>