<article_title>Ayn_Rand</article_title>
<edit_user>Redthoreau</edit_user>
<edit_time>Friday, March 18, 2011 11:17:40 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>Undid revision 419541552 by [[Special:Contributions/Karbinski|Karbinski]] ([[User talk:Karbinski|talk]]) no TP consensus for unilateral removal</edit_comment>
<edit_text><strong>In the late 1920s, Rand worked on a number of writing projects, including movie scenarios, short stories, and a novel called ''The Little Street''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{harvnb|Rand|1997|pp=3, 20}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The hero of ''The Little Street'' named Danny Renahan, was described as having &amp;quot;the true, innate psychology of a Superman&amp;quot; and was to be based on an idealized portrait of the notorious child killer [[William Edward Hickman]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{harvnb|Rand|1997|pp=27, 38}}.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Although Rand referred to Hickman as a &amp;quot;monster&amp;quot; in her notes, she sought to dramatize the underlying causes of Hickman's pathology,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Harriman, David, ''Journals of Ayn Rand'', 1997, Dutton, pp.36-39.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; which she described as being that of &amp;quot;a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own ... A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{harvnb|Burns|2009|p=25}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; One biographer, comparing Rand's use of a criminal to that of [[Truman Capote]]'s ''[[In Cold Blood]]'', writes: &amp;quot;to Rand a Superman was one who cared nothing for the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of others.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{harvnb|Burns|2009|p=25, 301, n32}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Some Rand scholars have interpreted her notes for this book as evidence of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{harvnb|Rand|1997|pp=21}}; {{harvnb|Burns|2009|pp=24–25}};{{cite journal |title=A Renaissance in Rand Scholarship |last=Sciabarra |first=Chris Matthew |authorlink=Chris Matthew Sciabarra |journal=Reason Papers |volume=23 |month=Fall |year=1998 |pages=132–159 |url=http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rprev.htm}};{{cite journal |title=Ronald E. Merrill and the Discovery of Ayn Rand's Nietzschean Period |last=Reed |first=Adam |journal=[[The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies]] |volume=10 |month=Spring |year=2009 |pages=325–326 |issue=2}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Rand later abandoned the novel, and most of these other early projects were never produced or published during Rand's lifetime.

</strong>Rand's first literary success came with the sale of her screenplay Red Pawn to Universal Studios in 1932. Josef Von Sternberg considered it for Marlene Dietrich, but anti-Communist themes were unpopular at the time, and the project came to nothing.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; This was followed by the courtroom drama Night of January 16th, first produced in Hollywood in 1934 and then successfully reopened on Broadway in 1935. Each night the &quot;jury&quot; was selected from members of the audience, and one of the two different endings, depending on the jury's &quot;verdict&quot;, would then be performed.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; In 1941, Paramount Pictures produced a movie version of the play. Rand did not participate in the production and was highly critical of the result.&lt;ref&gt; cf. &lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Karbinski<turn_user>
<turn_time>Friday, March 18, 2011 11:36:52 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>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.  </turn_text>