This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Following the above discussion, I went ahead and removed all the references to James Valliant and his book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics that I could find. This has raised objections ( [1] [2]) from editors Pelagius1 ( talk · contribs) and Brandonk2009 ( talk · contribs). I invite them here to discuss the issue, as they don't seem to have participated the previous discussions. Hopefully, we can come to an understanding. In the meantime, I'd ask that everybody refrain from reverting one way or another.

Pelagius1, Brandonk2009, welcome. The burden of argument is on you to show how Mr. Valliant's book meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Thanks,  Skomorokh  20:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the approach taken here before the arrival of Pelagius1 and Brandonk2009 is wrong. We don't question a source and purge it, we challenge content and see if it can be verified. That is where the burden of proof arises - with the citation provided to verify the content, the burden is met. No doubt there are some questions surrounding Valliant's book, but I think a case needs to be made as to why the source is unreliable before the need to defend it arises. -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That being said, I believe the case, whatever its strength or veracity, is found in a number of discussions: 1, 2, 3 -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Followed by these rebuttals (whatever their strength or veracity): 1 and 2 -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see using Valliant as a source for Rand's journals--I don't think his analysis is likely to be valid. If as Pelagius said the book caused fallout in the leadership of TOC (do you have some sources on that btw?) it might be appropriate to include in the articles on the Brandens. However it should not be used as a scholarly source, because frankly it isn't. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it has to be a scholarly source. It's a notable and reliable source. At least as notable and reliable as any sources are required to be on Wikipedia. And I agree with Karbinski that the burden of proof is on someone wishing to label a published book as a non-reliable source. - Lisa ( talk) 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a self-published source written by someone who is not a philosopher of any kind but a District Attorney (!) and an extreme partisan for Rand. There is little third-party information about it or its validity, and there's simply no evidence that the source, as a whole, should be considered reliable. TallNapoleon ( talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And the books by Nathaniel and Barbara Brandon are their own personal opinions as well. I'm okay removing Valliant's publication of Rand's journals provided that we also remove everything that's based on either The Passion of Ayn Rand or Judgement Day. For example, consider this:

Following Rand's expulsion of him from her circle, Branden accused Rand and her followers of "destructive moralism," something he reports having engaged in himself when he was associated with Rand, but which he now claims "subtly encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt."<ref name=branden/>

This is a personal statement by Branden, and not in any way a scholarly one. I fail to see why this should be included in the article, and the following not included:

Since the publication of Rand's private journal entries regarding Branden, it has been shown that Rand herself had been warning Branden against such "moralism," "repression," "self-alienation" and "guilt," in very similar language to that now used by Branden.

Yet the former isn't being questioned, while the latter is. That smacks of a double standard and POV. I can see including both and I can see excluding both. Neither one really pertains to Objectivism at all, and probably should not be included here. They more properly belong in the article on Ayn Rand herself. - Lisa ( talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a question of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a question of reliability as Wikipedia defines it. Simply asserting that the book is notable does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BK anymore than asserting its reliability meets the reliability requirements of WP:RS. Personally, I just want the verifiable evidence that the book can be used to support Valliant's opinion (briefly stated) for an article. Until now, we've had the opposite extreme: a single IP placing Valliant's book everywhere in every context for every Objectivist-related article. That's very suspicious in itself and invited investigation. But that aside, the real issues are reliability (first and foremost) and then notability (a secondary issue for the Objectivist movement itself). And, incidentally, I disagree with Lisa. If challenged, the burden of proof falls on those who assert that the book is reliable and notable, not those who question notability and reliability. J Readings ( talk) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First, biographical work doesn't require a PhD in Philosophy. Second, notability of sources isn't relevant - the most notable print media are tabloids. Third, if you make a contributing edit or restore content, provide a source that obstensibly verifies the contribution/restoration, you face no burden of proof for reliability of your source if I drop by the talk page and say: sorry your source fails WP:RS. I would have to substantiate any such claim. That being said, I've noted above there is a case made against the source and now a case in its defense. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First, Valliant's book is not a biographical work. I think you and I will agree on that point, so there is no point bringing up biographers and history PhDs. Valliant is not a biographer; he's a self-described "Objectivist" lawyer who wrote the book to support the movement as noted on the bookjacket. Second, regarding notability -- as I thought I made clear already (if not I apologize) -- that discussion related to creation of a Valliant page and the (now meshed in) discussion of Valliant as being "notable" (and therefore included as others argued above). I've read no evidence that Valliant meets the notability requirements for having his own page and none was every provided when asked. Third, perhaps most important because I agree we are talking about reliability right now, trying to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. If a source is questioned, the standard procedure is to provide verifiable evidence from reliable sources demonstrating its reliability as outlined in WP:RS. If Valliant's book is reliable as Wikipedia defines it, it should be easy to provide the citations. So far, I haven't read anything that matches those criteria. J Readings ( talk) 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just looked it up on Amazon, I'm going with biographical. If I use my personal web page as a source, no logical fallacy in making the case its not reliable. If I use a highly reputable, peer-reviewed science journal to source a science fact, no logical fallacy in making the case it is reliable. So, my point stands, if no case is made that a source is unreliable, then no case need be made to defend its reliability - even if challenged (an unsubstantiated challenge). Again, I'm not saying this challenge is unsubstantiated, only that those making the challenge are not free from any burden of evidence whatsoever and those defending it are not the only ones that need to make a case. In other words, there is no concensus here as of yet, and that the points of contention should be what is being discussed. -- Karbinski ( talk) 01:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Okay, let's start with your first discussion point. (We can discuss the others later if you are interested). Why do you think Valliant's book is biographical? To be sure, unlike Barbara Branden's autobiography, Sciabarra on his blog certainly didn't think Valliant's book was biographical. Sciabarra wrote: "To be clear: Valliant didn't write a biography of Rand or an intellectual history of Objectivism. He wrote a prosecutorial indictment that frequently exhibits a scorched-earth style, which tends to undermine any truly reasonable points he has raised about bias, contradictions, conflicting points of view, corroborating evidence, or insufficient sourcing in the works of the Brandens." [3] Having not been able to find any independent third-party sources reviewing Valliant's book on JSTOR, LexisNexis, Factiva, etc. I'm forced to rely on what Sciabarra says (unfortunately published on his blog and not very flattering concluding comments at that). J Readings ( talk) 02:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The book-jacket addresses itself to both "students" and "supporters," btw. Also, it is not agreement with any sources which seems to be the guideline standard, if I am reading it correctly. For example, Dr. Sciabarra is a notable scholar worthy of inclusion, but his thesis about Rand's work does not command even a plurality of support from scholars in the field who almost universally disagree with the idea of the "dialectical" Rand. Despite the widespread disagreement with Sciabarra's thesis among scholars, he is a "reliable source."

The very attention he has given Valliant's work is noteworthy precisely because Sciabarra is from the opposite camp within this movement. His review was hardly "dismissive" in that sense. Further, his invitation to Valliant to participate in 'Journal of Ayn Rand Studies' discussion of his book did not take place for substantive reasons relating to the book (the invitation appears to remain open), but, apparently, to internal "movement" political reasons. However, the very invitation from what would be considered a hostile source to him sufficiently indicates the seriousness of its treatment by scholars.

Moreover, the arguments made in the book have had an impact on scholars (as the links in the Movement article show.) By itself, this impact makes those arguments an important reference. Pelagius1 ( talk) 02:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be repetitive, but if there's no third party attestation to the veracity of Valliant's work, neither is there any for the works of the Brandens. There's nothing about the Brandens' works on Rand and Objectivism that is superior by Wikipedia definition to Valliant's. - Lisa ( talk) 02:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there were several reviews of Barabara Branden's book in reliable mainstream third-party sources and even a made-for-television movie. Again, I would have to ask where the equivalents are for the case of James Valliant's book. J Readings ( talk) 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews don't make the claims of the Brandens notable. Not even if they're in "reliable mainstream third-party sources". Here is a review of Valliant's book. Okay? The issue is that for many years, the Brandens' account was taken as uncontested truth, because there was no rebuttal out there. Because Rand was dead. Their claims took on a kind of "assumed truth" (I assumed it to be true as well, btw). In that context, Valliant's publication of what Rand had to say on the subject is nothing but balance. Unless you're claiming that he invented the journal entries, there's no rational cause for making his book taboo. Are you claiming that? - Lisa ( talk) 02:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa: Reviews don't make the claims of the Brandens notable. Please read WP:BK. You have to stop using the word "notable" because it doesn't support your case as far as the guidelines are concerned. I think you actually mean "reliable", right? In any case, Lewrockwell.com has already been tagged for its own notability issues as a web site with little to support the writing of its own page. But that aside, again I agree, the real issue is WP:RS. Is Durban Press a vanity publication? In contrast: Anchor Books, Barbara Branden's publisher, appears to be a subsidiary of the highly respected Random House Publishers. J Readings ( talk) 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that Barbara and Nathaniel Branden are both still alive, while Ayn Rand is deceased. Consequently, WP:BLP concerns about potentially self-published sources involving third-parties definitely apply in the case of the Brandens. Specifically: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Is Durban Publishing a vanity press? Some people seem to think so. Consequently, a conservative approach based on WP:CONSENSUS was reached to remove Valliant's book everywhere. J Readings ( talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here and here for strongly positive views of Valliant's book, and here for some impact. Pelagius1 ( talk) 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, are these websites "independent third-party reliable sources" as Wikipedia defines them in WP:RS or are they blogs and self-published partisan websites dedicated to specific subjects for the blogosphere? I'm asking. J Readings ( talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, there do not appear to be "independent" or neutral sources in the sense you seem to be requiring here. 'The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies' is a hostile source per the ARI scholars who will not participate in publishing there. That's why the JARS invite (still open) to one from the opposing camp -- Valliant -- is itself significant. Valliant did get a very positive Kirkus Review - as the jacket and Kirkus site indicate - and this is as "neutral", independent and 3rd Party as it comes. The "independence" of the positive reviews of Brandens themselves is less clear. Pelagius1 ( talk) 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The fact that it has been made into an award-winning film inherently makes The Passion of Ayn Rand notable. Furthermore the close affiliation of the Brandens with Rand for many years adds to its credibility. On the other hand no one seems to know anything about Valliant. His work is published by what appears to be a vanity press, few independent reviews exist, and what there are (e.g., Sciabarra) are not favorable. I simply don't see how this work meets reliability standards. Surely there have to be better sources available than this? TallNapoleon ( talk) 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication of the publisher's "vanity" status. Indeed, this publisher seems to avidly "believe" in the book, according to the jacket. Valliant created an award-winning television program, 'Ideas n Action', still being sold, that included an in-depth interview with philosopher and Rand-heir Leonard Peikoff, who knew Rand even longer than Ms. Branden did. Valliant's academic credentials are superior to either Branden. Moreover, as the links show, even some of Ms. Branden's staunchest defenders are sharply critical of the movie version, for what it's worth. Valliant was given access by Peikoff to previously unpublished original Rand materials, and Valliant is cited in the book 'Ayn Rand' by Jeff Britting the official Archivist at the Ayn Rand Institute. If you read the introduction, Valliant also interviewed Nathaniel Branden and introduced one of his lectures. According to the previous Wikipedia article on Valliant, he also practiced law before the California Supreme Court and got murder convictions, professional accomplishments of a kind not found with the Brandens. Pelagius1 ( talk) 05:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sciabarra from his "rejoinder" to Valliant's "reply": "Valliant asks if, in the light of having read his book, I now appreciate the extent of the distortion that I 'now appear to concede exists in those [Branden] books.' I state explicitly in the review that the Brandens' books are not the 'last word' on Rand biography. I have ~always~ believed that the Brandens' books were written from a particular point of view. And I certainly agree with Valliant's points that corroboration is important on some issues, especially where personal bias may have influenced the exposition. But, as I have written, in many instances, Valliant's good insights on the issue of corroboration are undermined by his own methodology." This was hardly scathing, but a criticism of his polemical style and a disagreement with conclusions. Nor can Sciabarra be considered "independent." His friendship with and gratitude to the Brandens -- the very subjects of Valliant's critique -- is discussed in the dialogue between Valliant and Sciabarra. Pelagius1 ( talk) 05:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick and to the point: type the name "Barbara Branden" into LexisNexis (among many other reliable databases) and one gets many reviews and discussions of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden specifically in such independent and reliable third party sources as The Washington Post, The New York Times and The San Diego Union-Tribune (to name a few). Repeat the process for "James Valliant" and one gets......nothing. Why is that? J Readings ( talk) 05:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That has a pretty obvious answer: B. Branden's book was a full biography of Ayn Rand. The first biography of Rand. It revealed Rand's affair with N. Branden for the first time, as well. Valliant's book is a book about other books, very much inside baseball, as it were. The linked-Sciabarra dialogue also indicates that Valliant was a long-time student of Rand-intimate Peikoff. Pelagius1 ( talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(another outdent)Pelagius, earlier you mentioned Jeff Walker's book--do you happen to know if that's cited on Wikipedia? We may want to scrutinize that for possible removal as well. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Objectivism Movement article has a whole subsection titled Walker. It's 3.2 there. I'd favor omitting that work altogether. Notice the critical reaction there. Valliant, un like Walker, has never been dubbed "merely annoying." Pelagius1 ( talk) 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I must add that praise for Valliant's book per the jacket includes that of author Robert W. Middlemiss, who is not an Objectivist or Rand supporter, fan or friend of any kind. Pelagius1 ( talk) 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's getting late here but I'll take a look at the Walker stuff soon. If one of our contributors with access to LexisNexis could take a look at it that would also be fantastic. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Subtle nudge in my direction, no doubt. (^_^) I quickly checked LexisNexis. Walker's book gets some attention in two separate articles in The Philadelphia Inquirer (e.g., "THE ENDURING APPEAL AND CONTROVERSY OF AYN RAND", May 23, 1999) and another article in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I haven't had the time to check JSTOR, Factiva or other recommended databases for research of reliable third-party sources. For the moment, even that small amount of attention appears more than what James Valliant got from our beloved fourth estate. J Readings ( talk) 07:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Walker did not get ~ positive ~ attention from a source like Kirkus, as Valliant did. And Walker spread sensational if dubious material -- e.g., Branden 's potential involvement in his second wife's death. That will get headlines, but not a serious plug from Kirkus. Nor has Walker had the impact on numerous intellectuals in the field, as Valliant has, causing former ARI critics to pubicly leave the rival institute. Even the Branden books themselves did not achieve such a shift. Nor did Walker get the respectful and serious attention from the "opposing camp" that Valliant got from Sciabarra. Pelagius1 ( talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Amazon.com, Jeff Walker's book apparently received several book reviews beyond the articles that LexisNexis didn't catch, but other databases did (and having read the Kirkus Review for Walker's book on Amazon.com, I'm wondering if you and I are reading the same review?) In contrast, Valliant's Amazon.com page provides one self-serving comment from the questionable publisher Durban House, no posted reviews from Kirkus (where did you find that?), and a small throw-away comment from the Autonomist (I take it this is a blog that dislikes Wikipedia or something? See here.) Interesting. J Readings ( talk) 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice that JSV cites a Robert Middlemiss as having being an independent voice in regard to the James Valliant book 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.' This is not so, as seen in the blurb from the back of the Valliant Book: "For the serious students and supporters of Ayn Rand . . . this is a vital work. It is nothing short of a reference tool to be studied, perhaps a Bible... and most certainly a loadstone of inspiration and guidance to them as they look at their lives and try to live them well." -Robert W. Middlemiss, Editor-in-Chief, Durban House Books. Yes, Durban House is the publisher of the book in question.

I also note the Wikipedia suggestions on conflict of interest ( COI). If it is unseemly and mostly wrong for the author of a book to promote said book by inserting mentions of his book in as many places as he can, then what do we say to the saga of [ Topic-banned user] -- who has been banned till November? I mention this because it has been demonstrated that Banned user 72.199.110.160 shares the same IP address as the author of the book, and was thus responsible for the vast majority of the mentions of the book that have been deleted.

'Further, what would it mean if we discovered that one of the participants in this thread is actually the author of the book?' It can be demonstrated that Banned user 72.199.110.160 is the leading contributor to this thread . . . Wsscherk ( talk) 08:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. There was a vague allegation on Wikipedia Review that 160 was Valliant. I've never seen any evidence that he is, except for a generic whois that shows 160 being around San Diego (where Valliant is). Considering SD is a city of hundreds of thousands of souls, and ten times as many people, that is not particularly significant. I have seen precisely zero evidence that Pelagius is 160, and still less that he is James Valliant. I have only seen your allegations, presented without any evidence whatsoever. Please, if you have evidence, show us--and take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise, you are engaging in personal attacks and biting a newcomer. TallNapoleon ( talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I know this? I have put together several lines of evidence:

• Emails from James Valliant to me with the identical IP address to IP 160
• Email from Valliant (today) to me in which he states (I paraphrase) that he is not topic-banned, since he just added a reference to the Objectivism(Ayn Rand) article (David Kelley).
• Reference to David Kelley book added to the page today, by Pelargius1.
• Acknowledgement by Pelargius1 that he had already edited Objectivist-related pages as an unlogged-in editor on user:Skmorokh(talk).
• The pattern of edits by IP 160 show many striking correspondences with Valliant, including repeated details added to his high school, extensive editing of pages such as university mentors and a deep level of familiarity with the book in question.
• Substantial interaction with Valliant in online discussions, thus a familiarity with his style/syntax/phrasings.

(that IP 160 did never join in talk as opposed to Pelargius: IP 160 is topic banned until November. It is in IP 160/Pelargius/Valliant's interest to use whatever means are available to have his materials included in the Objectivism pages)

I am a relative newcomer to Byzantiwikium, so I don't know what checkusered means. I will look it up, and I will also check the procedures for WP:ANI; thanks for the information. I don't think I should post the email headers here, nor the details of the emails to me. I thank you for the advice. I stand by my findings.

Having said that, I ask the question again . . . what if? What if the same person is IP 160 and Valliant, and Pelargius1?

Bear in mind I don't support the idea that all the references to Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics should be deleted from the articles here. Nor do I think the James Valliant article should be deleted, necessarily. I do want James to come clean and try to salvage some useful information. Wsscherk ( talk) 10:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done an in-depth critique of The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9421651/The-Passion-of-James-Valliants-Criticism

The book is not reliable as a critique of the Brandens' book, often misrepresenting them to the point of making them say the opposite of what they do in fact say. It does have the merit of printing Rand's diaries (although not all) concerning Branden. I am not aware of any print magazine or journal reviewing it, with the apparent exception of Kirkus.

-NEIL PARILLE

I do have a life, as someone said. This Talk Page is absolutely not an appropriate venue for the Branden(s)/Valliant debate. I'd ask all editors who wish to discuss that to take it elsewhere ( for example). The topic here is WP policy. There is compelling, if not conclusive, evidence that the Valliant book counts as self-published and is therefore not a reliable source and should "never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" ( [4] see WP:SPS). Given that the author has no standing as a researcher and writer, and the comments of qualified experts (Sciabarra: ""To be clear: Valliant didn't write a biography of Rand or an intellectual history of Objectivism. He wrote a prosecutorial indictment..."), the consensus was to remove the references. Newcomers to this discussion really need to reflect on WP policy on verifiability - the truth of Valliant's account is irrelevant to this discussion. I can pay to have a book published, and what the book says may be true - that would not make it a reliable source. KD Tries Again ( talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

When Valliant was first discussed, I looked into the nature of Dublin House, and there evidence that it functions both independantly and as a subsidy-press. Any claims that its self-published should address the nature of the publisher. -- Karbinski ( talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As you probably know, I published a number of links to independent (i.e. nothing to do with Rand or Valliant) claims that it is a vanity press. At the end of the day, short of seeing Valliant's contract with Durban (not Dublin) House, we won't know the truth here. But given BLP policy on reliable sources, together with the absence of any evidence that it's a scholarly source, I think we need to be cautious. KD Tries Again ( talk) 13:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I absolutely agree that the veracity of Valliant's material is not a proper subject for discussion here. The key question is whether the book qualifies as a reliable source based on Wikipedia standards. If Durban House published in on a regular commercial basis, then presumably it does. If Valliant paid them to publish it, then presumably it does not qualify as a reliable secondary source. (I think a good argument could be made that the passages from Rand's journal qualify as a primary source regardless. However, it would be hard to find any use of those that would not constitute original research.) If, as some have suggested, Pelagius1 is James Valliant, I think he should address this question clearly and openly. If Pelagius1 is not Valliant, then perhaps someone should contact Valliant and see if he will answer. The concern here is not a disparagement of his book or his arguments, but rather a matter of the specific standards that Wikipedia has for source material. (And by the way, there are a number of other offenses against the source guidelines in the Objectivism articles that also need to be addressed.) -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not Valliant, and I think the references should stay. The book is notable simply by virtue of being the first published instance of Rand's journals. I don't care if it was published normally or vanity published or inscribed on the back of an envelope. As to its reliability, I think it's beyond debate that the Ayn Rand Institute, which very zealously protects Rand and anything having to do with her literary legacy, would have had a hissy fit about the book if those hadn't actually been Rand's journal entries. And that's true despite the fact that the book defends Rand.

I recognize that this isn't a courtroom, but if the Brandens' testimony about Rand's state of mind is admissible, I honestly don't get why Rand's testimony about the Brandens' state of mind isn't. The fact that a movie was made of Barbara Branden's book means that the book and movie are notable, fine. But their claims about Rand are just that. Claims. Personal claims from people who acknowledge themselves that they had a major split with her. How are such claims reliable? And if they are, how are the things Rand has to say about the same situation any less reliable?

I've asked before and I'll ask again. Does anyone here question the fact that those are Rand's journal entries? Is anyone suggesting that Valliant forged them? If so, I'd like to see those claims made explicit, and I'd like to see some evidence, or at the very least some argumentation, in support of such claims. If not, then the journals are every bit as reliable and relevant to any discussion of the Brandens' personal claims about Rand and her movement as what the Brandens themselves wrote. And that'd be true even if we were talking about blog entries or Facebook postings.

I strongly suspect that the motivation of at least some of the people who want to remove this content from Wikipedia stems from a personal dislike of Objectivism. This whole thing smacks of a book burning, and it's the last thing I ever expected to see on Wikipedia. - Lisa ( talk) 14:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated before in these discussions, notability is not an issue for using a book as a source. (Notability is important if there is to be a freestanding Wikipedia article about the book, but that isn't what we are discussing right now.) Many books are obscure and known only to a few specialists, but are still completely appropriate for use as sources. So please, let's not go on any further about notability.

I agree that Rand's journal entries should be acceptable as a source, although I doubt much use could be made of them in most articles without raising issues of original research. But if there are cases where the journal entries are an appropriate source, I have no problem with the passages in Valliant's book being cited as primary source material from Rand.

That said, the vast majority of citations I have seen from Valliant's book have not been to the journal passages. They have been to Valliant's own material, using it as a secondary source for information about Rand's life or the claims made about her by third parties. For this use, the status of the book as a reliable secondary source is important. Self-published books are not typically considered reliable secondary sources because there is no significant editorial review of the content. I could self-publish a book saying that Ayn Rand had devil horns on her forehead. So if Durban House acted as a vanity press for Valliant, publishing his manuscript simply because he paid them to do so, then the book should not be cited as a secondary source (unless a relevant exception applies as described in the Wikipedia policy). On the other hand, if Durban House treated this as a commercial product, where an editor reviews the book and makes an independent decision that it ought to be published, then by default we would assume it is as reliable as any other commercially published book (for example, The Ayn Rand Cult or The Passion of Ayn Rand). This is why evidence regarding the nature of Durban House's publishing operation and any specifics that can been gathered about the publishing history of Valliant's book are so important. -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the diaries transcribed in Valliant's book, no one disputes that Rand made diaries. I am not aware, however, that anyone has been able to check Valliant's transcriptions with the originals. That Valliant often makes his sources say the opposite of what they say means that skepticism is in order about the care Valliant took. (This is in addition to the fact that concerns have often been raised over the years about the accuracy of material released by the ARI archives.) -- Neil Parille ( talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask editors again to bear in mind that the truth of the book and the accuracy of the journal transcriptions is irrelevant to this discussion. That's a topic for an objectivism website, perhaps? Lisa:please remember to assume good faith. Unreliable, and especially self-published sources, have been removed from Rand articles regardless of whether they are pro- or anti- (see here. As you were told above, this is not a discussion about notability. It is about reliable sources. Please take a look at the policies. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

And I'd say that there are some pretty motivated Valliant and Rand haters out there. There is no nice way to say this: Mr. Parille is not an honest person, in my view. Mr. Scherk here seems to have discovered Wikipedia edit-button just to "support" Mr. Valliant here. But Mr. Valliant is asleep right now. I do live in the same house with him, but he'd rather I not do this at all. He is one my expert advisers and sometimes uses this account too. But never about himself. Wikipedia -- if you check the changes -- is the much better for it. I avidly and shamelessly promote him. As to the current controversy, he is investigating other means of redress. And you can't have it both ways: the claim was only that Middlemiss is not an Objectivist of any kind, which is true. And that his passionate support-comments undermine the claim of "self-publishing" which is also true. The comments from such a author who is NOT an Objectivist is meaningful. Straw men are not helpful here. Also, Kirkus described Walker's book, and concluded: "Walker's expo is a bit too shrill, repetitive, and even snide to rise persuasively above the people he describes but he does convey vividly the frightful mess that was Ayn Rand." However, it described Valliant as "skillful" and said that the book "deserves" a place on the growing shelf. No put down at all. So, I wonder if we did read the same reviews, as well. For myself, I hope Wikipedia doesn't lose Valliant's help from all of this. Pelagius1 ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are a new user - or at least, this is a new account - but please note that uncivil remarks about other editors have no place here. See here. This is a discussion about reliable sources. I would suggest to other editors that if the discussion is sidetracked by participants in objectivist websites to continue long-standing disagreements which have nothing to do with WP policy, we just take this to the reliable sources notice-board. Otherwise we could be in for a long, bumpy ride here. KD Tries Again ( talk) 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I tried to say my honest opinion in as civil a manner as possible, but I apologize to Wikipedia for any breach of etiquette. It is worth observing that all the "unlogged in edits" from this household, even from another computer, have now been ascribed to Pelagius!. Pelagius1 ( talk) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius1, if you live with Valliant, then perhaps you can help bring this discussion to a quicker resolution by passing on a request to him. For me at least, the key question is whether the book is self-published. If Valliant is willing to state, openly and under his own name, that an editor from Durban House reviewed his manuscript and made an editorial decision to commercially publish the book (meaning that Durban House put its own money into the publishing rather than asking Valliant to pay for it), then personally I would be willing to take his word for it. If he does not wish to post to Wikipedia, then he could do so on some other public forum (such as Solo Passion, where I know he does post). If the book was vanity-published, then it would be nice if he would say that instead. One way or another, that would largely settle the question of whether the book should be cited on Wikipedia as a secondary source, in my mind at least. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He has already publicly posted about this empty allegation, but I don't have the link handy. I was the agent for the book, so I happen to know, personally, that he got a standard (non-vanity) contract for the book. He paid nothing. This liberal (yes, liberal) house sincerely believed in the book. Pelagius1 ( talk) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal details about Valliant removed from the preceding comment by RL0919. It was not my intention to solicit that type of information. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether to revert the above, per WP policy on outing - another editor might choose to do so. In any case, I think you should not post further information about 72.199.110.160/Mr Valliant without his permission. KD Tries Again ( talk) 17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It was Mr. Scherk who tried to do the "outing." Again, my apology for any breach of rules. Pelagius1 ( talk) 17:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have gone well beyond that in posting personal and presumably private information, and if you continue I will escalate this to the Administrators Noticeboard for action. You really should stop. KD Tries Again ( talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I wish Mr. Valliant well, but agree with KD Tries Again and think that no further personal information, about anyone, should be posted - nor should anyone be agitated into posting such information. Lets own up to our wiki-expertise and keep things organized.

• This place here: discuss the reliability of Valliant's work as a reliable source (or not)
• Sock puppet notice board: discuss any and all concerns of sock-puppetry
• ANI (sp?) place: chat room for all things IP 160 above and beyond the sock puppet notice board

Lets remember there is also a notice board for discussing the reliability of sources. To be clear about the posting of personal info - KD is absolutely right, lets see no more of that. -- Karbinski ( talk) 17:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely did not wish to solicit any private information about Valliant. Since my request seems to have inspired the release of it, I have taken it upon myself to delete it as noted above. However, if Valliant has previously addressed the question of whether the book was vanity published in some public forum, then that link would still be helpful whenever it can be obtained. The publishing history of the book is what is relevant to whether that book meets the basic criteria for use in Wikipedia source citations. My take is that if it was commercially published, then it has as much claim to reliability as some of the other books about Rand, and can be used for citations when appropriate. (Looking back at the old citations, I think there were a few cases where it was cited when it was not appropriate, but those can be handled on a case-by-case basis.) -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It sure seemed that questions were being raised about the propriety of the edits here. Since all edits from this household have been swept into Pelagius!'s history, I must add that there was no effort or intent at "sock-puppetry." As for Valliant on Durban House, I got him up for this, so look here. It was easier than finding the old cite, lost as it is deep in the dense internet discussion of his book -- much denser than anything Walker inspired, btw. It was very much "commercially published," I can assure you. Pelagius1 ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This situation is starting to grow tedious for several reasons. First, Pelagius1 initiated this discussion. It's certainly welcome, but also circular. I think it's fairly obvious that (for the moment) James Valliant is not a notable figure within the Objectivist movement as Wikipedia defines notability. Therefore, for the moment, there is no need to reinstate a page on him (per WP:ACADEMIC or WP:N) nor a page on his book (per WP:BK) nor list him as a notable figure.

As for the issue of "reliability" as a source in separate articles (which I agree is a separate matter), WP:RS makes it clear that academic books from academic publishers take precedence over other forms of reliably sourced material such as articles published in mainstream newspapers. Durban House is not an academic publisher or university press. So that does not put it at the top of the list for reliable sources. In addition, no verifiable evidence has been produced that independent and reliable third-party sources have written about, cited, or even mentioned James S. Valliant in the mainstream press. To his credit, Pelagius1 acknowledges the point. This is not a good sign either if the purpose is to cite ideas or arguments Valliant had. Thus, one is forced to cite the book directly, with the understanding that it is a polemical work written by a self-described "Objectivist" for "students" and "supporters" of Ayn Rand. Consequently, one would need to attribute in-line citations to him and be careful the source cited can (and are) reliable for the claims made. Pretty straightforward, one would think.

But then the problems start to pop up. First, what is the status of Durban House? Its relationship to its authors and as a publisher is dubious at best raising concerns about reliability in the discussion of LIVING THIRD PARTIES (per WP:BLP). Now, after much lengthy discussion, Pelagius1 tells us that he is James Valliant's "book agent", that he lives with James Valliant (so they might have the same IP address), that he "avidly and shamelessly promotes" Valliant's work (all taken on faith, of course). I'm not sure what to say other than there is strong potential for a conflict of interest now. J Readings ( talk) 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

He or she. It is a mess, especially as

(1) evidence has been posted elsewhere on the internet by newcomers to this debate which purports to confirm the connection between IP 160 and Mr Valliant;

(2) this seems to be casually confirmed by Pelagius above, in attributing articles written by IP 160 to Mr Valliant; and

(3) Mr Valliant has been discussing content of these Talk Pages on his website rather than seeking consensus here.

The confusion of identities, the apparent multiple use of accounts, and the multiplicity of motives underlying today's discussions, makes me increasingly cautious about accepting anything we are being told. KD Tries Again ( talk) 20:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

If this book is to be censored, then so should the equally non-academic books of N. Branden and B. Branden, by the same standard, along with all of their opinions. Conflict of interest? With the demise of Durban House, and no substitute agreement to publish the book yet, there can be no "sales" effort or promotional effort being made here, as the entries themselves should also make clear. My own motivation in editing here has resulted from the recent surge in interest in Rand's work -- look at the dates. Had I sought to promote sales of any book, it would have happened way back in 2005 or 2006, when the book was being sold and the publisher was still in business, don't you think? He can't make dime right now on it. The Rand-related entries at Wikipedia were very poor quality, stated factual errors, and, in addition, failed to cite important new sources like Valliant's book. You will notice that I have added many, many other sources, as well. The citations for Rand-related articles have been radically improved with numerous sources, thanks to me. I have endeavored to be open and honest here, as I hope should be plain. This continued assault on personal motives is troubling. Mr. Valliant, as I have said, does not want me here. What am I to do?? Allow Wikipedia to revert to the ~ factual ~ mess I found it in? Pelagius1 ( talk) 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius1, we all realize that you're new to Wikipedia so please understand that we're trying our best to understand. If it's true that Durban House went out of business already, that would partially explain why I've never heard of this publisher and couldn't find any reliable information about them. With respect, it just adds to the dubious nature of the publisher. J Readings ( talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The business success or failure of the publisher does not seem relevant to reliability. The original argument about the publisher was that it was a vanity or subsidy press, which is very much an issue under the reliable sources policy. I read the linked post that Pelagisu1 provided. It is from Valliant and unambiguously states that he did not pay any money to have the book published. In the circumstances I don't think we are going to be able to get any better evidence on that aspect. You can take Valliant's word for it or not.

Assuming that the book was commercially published, then to me that eliminates the main argument for the blanket avoidance of it as a source. As much as I would love to have peer-reviewed academic sources for everything, I don't think that will provide adequate sourcing for articles about Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement. Currently other commercially published (rather than academic) materials are accepted as sources in articles about Rand and the Objectivist movement. For example, works such as B. Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand, N. Branden's My Years with Ayn Rand, Britting's Ayn Rand, and Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand were commercially published and are cited in articles. I would say this establishes a prima facie case for Valliant's book being acceptable as a source on those subjects. That does not mean it should be used without any caution or when better attested sources are available, but it does mitigate against the blanket removal of all citations of it.

I believe all of the above holds true regardless of the motives of Pelagius1 or the relationship between that user and Valliant. If there is concern over conflict of interest or sock puppetry, I think it should be separated from the question of the reliability of the book as a source. (And just to avoid any confusion, let me state that I also do not intend any of this as an argument in favor of sufficient notability to warrant separate articles on Valliant and/or the book.) Assuming the book meets the basic criteria for reliability, then it would be appropriate for third-party editors to cite it as appropriate. And that's all I'm concerned with at the moment. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Relying on a self-published blog posting by the author claiming that his book was the product of rigorous editorial review (assuming it was even James Valliant) falls under the category of self-serving in the WP:SPS guidelines. It's not persuasive. The fact the publisher already went out of business (assuming that's even true) would not lend to its reliability as a well-respected source of information. Why? Because if the publisher were worth anything, it would survive or be bought by another publishing house. The fact that I cannot find a single article about or partially concerning Durban House in the reliable third-party press only adds to the dubious nature of the publisher. J Readings ( talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, unlike Durban House, as I mentioned earlier, the Random House subsidiary appears to be a well-respected mainstream commercial publisher of non-fiction. So I think we would be comparing apples to oranges in the case of the other books (though I haven't looked at all of the publishers.) True, it's not as good as a university press for our purposes, but it's better than a fly-by-night publisher or (worse) a self-publication by heretofore minor authors receiving no attention from the mainstream media. J Readings ( talk) 20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The rules around use of self-published material relate to using it in articles, not for editors making judgments in talk-page discussions. If the verifiability guidelines were applied to talk pages, we wouldn't be able to make judgments based on our own posted discussion, which is absurd. Valliant is an attorney and presumably has some degree of reputation to maintain. So given that he has posted in a public forum with his name (and picture) attached to the explicit claim that he did not pay to have his book published, I am willing to take him at his word. (Note that the claims that Durban House sometimes acted as a vanity press were similarly based on discussion group postings.) Recursive efforts to try to verify the publisher's reliability or notability seem to go beyond any standard that could be consistently applied across Wikipedia. A book may have been published by a press that went out of business decades ago and cannot be traced in any readily available source today, but still be accepted as a source. For that matter, other books published by Durban House are used as sources in unrelated Wikipedia articles. Given that Valliant's book is non-academic and obviously partisan, it should not be at the top of anybody's source list, but I do not see grounds to rule out all use of it as a source. And I say this as someone who would be equally willing to rule the book out as a source if it were in fact self-published. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be making some headway on the reliability discussion. Regarding Durban House, your comment led me to check out some of these other articles and -- once again -- the subject matter does not appear to be notable in the cases I read. I placed a few tags for the experts of those pages to demonstrate notability of the subjects before prodding the articles. In any case, I agree with you that Valliant's book is not an academic or scholarly work based on the publisher and the author. I agree it was not published by a well-respected university press known for their rigorous editorial review and peer-review system. I agree with you that Valliant is obviously partisan. We part company on what to do about this situation. The old WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia argument doesn't help. It's quite possible the "other stuff" doesn't belong either if the publisher is of dubious value. J Readings ( talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For the objective observer, wouldn't it also matter why they went under for that to be the case? Given this title's dramatic impact on the Objectivist Movement, the notability of this author and his work is, forgive me, objectively manifest. Unless the Objectivist Movement itself is no longer worthy of attention... I would add that works critical of Rand have been published by academics by non-academic publishers, e.g., Rothbard's "Sociology." This, for example, is something Valliant challenges from eyewitness testimony. This makes Valliant's report, for example, important to include, if Rothbard's critique is to be included. If Rothbard knew Rand, Valliant also knew Rothbard. The same could be said of the Brandens. Valliant was attempting to comply with the request here. Pelagius1 ( talk) 20:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Except Rothbard was a person of some standing within libertarian circles, whereas Valliant, forgive me, is not. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that Valliant qualifies in any way as a reliable source. As such he should not be included. BTW, Pelagius, I would strongly urge you to read WP:COI. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion space is for the reliability of Valliant's book. Let me take a crack at listing what we have:

• 1 Durban House
  • 1a founded by writers who subsequently published their own manifests
  • 1b having enjoyed some commercial success, acted both as a independant-press (commercially publishing books) and as a subsidy-press
  • 1c is not an academic or university press
  • 1d is still in business, seemingly - check out one of the books on Amazon
  • 1e The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics was published commercially by Durban House
• 2 Quality
  • 2a draws upon Ayn Rand's journals
  • 2b had an impact upon the Objectivist movement
  • 2c pulls no punches as to its bias (the title is enough, I don't think I have to read it to verify this)

Lets add to this list and contest points in reference to this list - if I may be so bold -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, sorry to ask the obvious, but how do we know exactly that it had any real impact on the Objectivist movement as Wikipedia defines it? Does Tara Smith cite James Valliant? Are biographers citing the thoughts of James Valliant's book in theirs? I checked Google Scholar and JSTOR. James Valliant and his book are not significantly cited at all. I found one hit on Google Scholar. JSTOR produces absolutely nothing. If we turn to social scientific indexes and academic indexes in the humanities (often used to determine impact on Wikipedia), we get nothing. So, once again, where is the verifiable evidence from objective third-parties? J Readings ( talk) 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Impact on the movement seems to be more an issue of notability, which isn't really the concern as long as we are talking about using the book as a source (as opposed to the book having its own article). Whether Valliant's work is cited by other authors does go to the question of reliability, so I focused on that. I was able to find three citations of the book using Google Books:

• In an essay in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, edited by Edward W. Younkins
• In Champions of a Free Society, a book by Younkins
• In Capitalism at Work, a book by Robert L. Bradley, Jr.

Younkins is an academic who has written about Rand on multiple occasions, and both his books were published by academic presses. I'm not familiar with Bradley, but his work appears to be from a commercial press. (Edit: Looks like Bradley's book is the Google Scholar hit mentioned by J Readings above, so perhaps I'm wrong about the publisher being a commercial press? If it's an academic press, I can't really tell that from their website.)

Note that no book-length biographies on Rand have been published since Valliant's book came out, so there is no pool from which to look for references in that context. Two are supposed to be coming out later this year. -- RL0919 ( talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post these. They're useful. The next step is to check what these authors say and who they are. Sometimes we get into the thorny issue of "false positives" -- similar words discussing a different subject. Or, conversely, since I agree we are talking about reliability, what these authors are saying about the subject. If it's fleeting or (worse) negative, reliability is not enhanced at all....again, Sciabarra comes to mind. J Readings ( talk) 22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Durban House does appear still to be issuing books. We honestly don't know what agreement the author had with the publisher; one hesitates over a self-serving blog post in normal circumstances, but with this blizzard of argument from someone purporting to be the author's housemate, and now claiming credit for "many" of the IP 160 edits, I am not inclined to believe anything today. I am not aware of any independent basis for 1a, b or e above. I'd add 2d - generally not noticed outside the Objectivist movement. We should probably add Sciabarra's conclusions too, as he seems to be about the only scholar who has reviewed it. KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Agreed. With out verifiable links or (at the very least) detailed citations, it's impossible to take on faith anything and everything that's being asserted. J Readings ( talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the independant evidence that 1e is false? -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We never had any evidence that it's false, only evidence that Durban House works as a subsidy press. You've seen the links. For me, it's just one part of this general weirdness about the whole thing. KD Tries Again ( talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I would remind folks that no one at this IP address lumped the history together, that was done against our will. I was upfront about previous posts at the time Pekagius1 logged in.

So, Rothbard cannot have an eyewitness against him -- on an issue of witnessed fact -- except another academic? That seems odd, indeed, and if the standards around here require this kind of censorship, they should be changed. Especially since there is no evidence for Rothbard's original claim. No, thanks, I'll take the respected public prosecutor's eyewitness testimony. Pelagius1 ( talk) 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"...that was done against our will..." It's impossible to tell who "our" refers to here. KD Tries Again ( talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To the extent that Valliant comments on things for which he is an "eyewitness," then he is acting as a primary source, not a secondary source. Then we're talking about a different set of criteria for evaluation. (Authors acting as primary sources in some portions of their writings and secondary sources in other portions is a common problem in material about Rand. Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand is a secondary source for about half the book, and a primary source for the other half.) In any case, this really gets more into Rothbard's reliability than Valliant's. The reliability of Rothbard's pamphlet may well be worth discussing, but it shouldn't be conflated into this discussion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Younkins - He has come up before; I can't locate the discussion right now, but will tomorrow. There's an issue, in turn, with Younkins - he's an academic, but with qualifications in accountancy. Nevertheless, he's written and lectured extensively on Rand and philosophy and is active in some or other Objectivist circles. In other words, not the kind of disinterested citation we're searching for. Robert L. Bradley I had never heard of, but his WP article is in desperate need of a NPOV tag. KD Tries Again ( talk) 01:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

If Sciabarra is used to qualify Valliant, then CMS's review in turn should be qualified by the fact that Sciabarra is a personal friend of the Brandens. Pelagius1 ( talk) 01:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius, this is about WP policy, not about who one chooses to believe or why. Sciabarra's qualifications as a scholar are solid. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

KD, I'm having trouble making sense of your comments about Younkins. If we start excluding scholars who "active in some or other Objectivist circles," then Sciabarra himself is also out, as is Tara Smith, Allan Gotthelf, etc. In other words, most scholars who would be likely to comment on a book in the narrow field of Ayn Rand biography. And those who have "written and lectured extensively on Rand and philosophy" are exactly the ones we should be seeking to help determine whether Valliant's book is considered reliable by experts in the subject. Both of the books mentioned were published by academic presses, and in one of them the citation is actually by a different scholar because Younkins was just the editor of an anthology. -- RL0919 ( talk) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One should compare Valliant's book with the other collections of Rand's material. Rand's Letters and Journal were published by Penguin, as was the material from her question and answers. The recently released Objectively Speaking (a collection of interviews) was published by Lexington, which I believe is a division of a major publisher. A couple of collections (Rand's Marginalia and some newspapers colums) were published by the ARI's in-house press. Considering that there is a solid market for Rand related material, why did Valliant have to go to an obscure press to publish Rand's diaries? Someone may have mentioned this, but contrary to what Pelagius1 implies, Valliant wasn't cited in Britting's Ayn Rand. He was mentioned in the acknowledgement section along with a couple dozen other people. (Britting's book came out in 2004, before Valliant's.) For the record, I don't think that all references to PARC should be deleted, but it is a source that should be used with great caution. In fact, with the exception of the diaries, it isn't much of a source at all since Valliant did not consult any of the over 100 interviews taken by the ARI. -- Neil Parille ( talk) 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Brian Doherty's 2007 Radicals for Capitalism contains an extensive discussion of Rand and her movement. This book briefly discusses PARC in an endnote on pages-- 678-79, saying that PARC arrived "late in the writing of this book . . . ."-- Neil Parille ( talk) 10:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I already checked JSTOR: no hits, no articles. I checked Google Scholar: one hit, not sure if it's a false positive. I then checked Google Books at someone else's request. I typed in "James S. Valliant" and got the following [5] Four books, one of them being Valliant's book under discussion here, so it's not relevant for issues of reliability. The other three are: Ayn Rand by Jeff Britting where he is only listed in the acknowledgments; The Garden of Evil by Chris Holmes which is fiction (not relevant for reliability issues), and finally The Man Who Fed the World by Leon F. Hesser. In this book, Valliant is not cited but simply listed somewhere for something. It's unclear, and I don't know what he's being listed for. I'm not sure what name RL0919 typed (see above discussion) to get the three he mentioned, but they don't seem to be listed on Google Books. J Readings ( talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, just a further comment (apologies). He and I might be looking at different citations from a different database. That's possible. J Readings ( talk) 00:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And you might want to widen the search parameters. Television interviews of Valliant about the book are no longer available online, but were at one time, e.g. Pelagius1 ( talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 21 May, 2009

I checked yesterday, actually. LexisNexis and Factiva would have picked up on the television transcripts if they were mainstream network reliable television broadcasters. If they were small-time local broadcasters, these databases would *usually* not carry them. For example, I have transcripts for MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN here (but not related to James Valliant). That said, there appear to be no verifiable (once again, that's important) evidence in the form of television transcripts. We all have to re-read WP:RS to see if television interviews count in this discussion (assuming any are even found). I doubt it. J Readings ( talk) 01:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the title of the book, not Valliant's name. The reliability of the book is what is at issue, not Valliant's own notability. Also, in many citation formats his name would be inverted, or the middle initial might be omitted. Now that I've had time to research further, here are additional details on each citation:

• Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged - The citation is specifically in an article by Robert L. Campbell, who is a professor of psychology at Clemson University. Valliant is cited in regard to Rand's attitudes towards Nathaniel Branden's mistress, and a passage from Rand's journals (as reproduced by Valliant) is quoted.
• Champions of a Free Society - Younkins includes Valliant's book in a bibliographical listing. Unfortunately I do not have this book myself and pages are missing in the online preview, so I can't tell for sure whether Younkins actually cites Valliant beyond this listing. If Valliant is not otherwise cited and only appears in the bibliographical listing, then it says nothing about reliability, because the list Younkins provides appears to be relatively comprehensive and includes other books that definitely would not qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia (e.g., Tom Porter's self-published fisking of Rand's book on epistemology).
• Capitalism at Work - Bradley's book includes an appendix discussing "Ayn Rand's personal shortcomings," and Valliant's book is discussed in this context. Bradley does not agree with Valliant's evaluation of the Brandens, but seems to take him seriously as a reporter of Rand's views on her relationship with Nathaniel Branden.

In regard to the books by Holmes and Hesser, these books were also published by Durban House. I believe what you are finding in the search is promotional copy for other books from the publisher. That's common enough, but obviously irrelevant to confirming reliability. -- RL0919 ( talk) 03:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance. Hmmm..... J Readings ( talk) 01:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I bought the book at Borders. Or possibly Barnes & Noble. Unlike Amazon.com, they don't tend to go in for vanity press offerings. You're basically using a rule that's meant to exclude crank theories, like fringe pseudo-science. This is a guy who wrote a book using journals written by Ayn Rand. In what conceivable universe can that possibly be considered "not prominent enough for mention"? - Lisa ( talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's where we have the guideline WP:FRINGE to help answer your question. J Readings ( talk) 03:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think my concern was using Younkins to support a point on Kant, when his qualification is in accountancy. This is different, I agree. I couldn't find any reference to Valliant in "Champions" - I now see why. The sole reference I could find in the Atlas Shrugged guide is hardly a knockout: "Quoted in Valliant...with Valliant's comments removed" - in other words, he's actually quoting Rand, but I was relying on the Google preview. That's all I could find in the Bradley cite also. Not to reject these two references out of hand, but it's quite a reach to suggest they amount to an acknowledgement of Valliant's scholarship. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The author of the article in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is Robert Campbell. Having reviewed some of Campbell's highly negative comments about Valliant's book in assorted online forums, I think it is safe to say that he does not endorse it as reliable. Since he cites the book for Rand's journal material, I assume his attitude is similar to Sciabarra's. (Sciabarra heavily criticized the book, but said the Rand journal material was "worth the price of admission.") Bradley, on the other hand, is not just quoting Rand via Valliant. He does discuss Valliant's own arguments, and although he criticizes Valliant, he does seem to accept him as a factual source. However, Bradley is not a Rand specialist; his expertise seems to be around energy policy.

The most positive comment I could find from an acknowledged Rand scholar was an online commentary by Fred Seddon (author of Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy). Seddon said he liked the book and recommended it to others. But at the same time his post about the book was mostly about things he took exception to, so his praise is somewhat tempered. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From the start I've been of the opinion the point of view for determining if a source is reliable or not depends on what its being called upon to verify. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so this book can't be used to make exceptional claims. However, for a claim that is supported by Ayn Rand's personal journals via this book, it seems it is suitably reliable. I think a blanket prohibition is wrong - as is an unqualified acceptance of its reliability. Its never correct not to include page numbers when citing an entire book (yet it happens all the time around here), but I think it needs to be said anyway - using this book requires specificity in the citation. -- Karbinski ( talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How about a straw poll? Reliable / Unreliable / Use with caution -- Karbinski ( talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Use with caution -- Karbinski ( talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I am inclined to agree with you in principle about using it as a source for Rand's journals. It looks like other people use it that way, and I haven't come across any suggestions that the selections are unreliable or tendentiously edited. My only reservation - I don't know if in practice that means we have to balance anything taken from her journals with some contradictory comment from Branden - but I guess we can take it a case at a time. I can support this narrow use (what has many editors' hackles up is finding the book cited everywhere by an editor who is at the very least a fan). As for a straw poll, I'd prefer to go to the reliable sources notice board. This talk page has attracted a number of new editors who have long records of debating this book across other websites, but zero record with Wikipedia (welcome, and all that, but I'd rather get a WP community view). KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Use with caution is my vote also. And I agree entirely with KD about the book being cited excessively before. I reviewed some of the old citations, and it was very misused in some cases. I found at least one citation where the cited pages had no bearing on the article content that it was cited for. In other cases it was cited against the material in the article! Those citations should not be restored even if the book is deemed 100% reliable. That said, there are some cases where it could be useful. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Use with caution is my vote also. Valliant does make an occasional good point and, while we haven't seen the originals of the journals, there is no reason to think that the originals are that different from the transcriptions.-- Neil Parille ( talk) 22:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (not that Wikipedia relies on voting). Originally, some weeks ago, I was in favor of Valliant's opinion being briefly cited in one or two Wikipedia articles (not everywhere and in every context!). Since then, we've been forced to scrutinize his background, his reception, etc., and I'm forced, based on the verifiable and independent third-party evidence (and mostly the lack thereof), to conclude that he is a case of a fringe author trying to inject himself on Wikipedia, either by himself, or his "book agent" and/or whoever IP 160 was. I wish it were otherwise. J Readings ( talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Simply not worth the trouble, and we need to be cutting material anyway, not adding more. TallNapoleon ( talk) 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE gives guidance on identifying them:

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3] Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.

As per user Lisa, WP:FRINGE just doesn't apply here. We could say what should be self-evident: Ayn Rand's personal journals are a mainstream source of info on Ayn Rand. -- Karbinski ( talk) 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the one or two Valliant advocates are now prepared to argue that James Valliant's book, his "novel re-interpretation of history," his arguments, his ideas, the use of the Rand journals and their interpretation to match his arguments -- not to mention the reception it received (or lack thereof) -- are all very much part of the mainstream? Let me raise a question: what is the mainstream of thinking on the Objectivist history and how does one verify that it's the mainstream? On the one hand, according to LexisNexis and other databases, we have literally dozens of articles by journalists and academics reviewing discussing, analyzing, reporting books like The Passion of Ayn Rand (which, incidentally, was by a mainstream publisher) that ultimately led to a movie by the same name. On the other hand, so far, we have The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, which was published by an obscure company (which Valliant's self-described "book agent" and housemate now tells us is allegedly out of business) and which received absolutely no mainstream attention from the independent press, no reviews in scholarly journals, no citations in university presses and (so far) three very brief mentions in commercial books (one or two of which were not really favorable). Last but not least, we have Prof. Sciabarra who (admittedly writing in a blog because he could not be bothered to publish a real review in a respected journal) informs us: "To be clear: Valliant didn't write a biography of Rand or an intellectual history of Objectivism. He wrote a prosecutorial indictment that frequently exhibits a scorched-earth style, which tends to undermine any truly reasonable points he has raised about bias, contradictions, conflicting points of view, corroborating evidence, or insufficient sourcing in the works of the Brandens." Is Valliant and his book part of the fringe of the Objectivist movement? Assuming that one could argue he should be included at all, Valliant and his book increasingly remind me of the research methods of David Irving -- another author who proudly unearthed original documents from the archives to let the documents "speak for themselves" in order to argue a certain novel re-interpretation of history and whose ultimate reception on the fringes of the profession today needs no reminding. Is PARC a fringe book? I think so. J Readings ( talk) 20:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now seriously. How am I supposed to assume good faith with this kind of thing? Comparing a book based on Rand's own journals to Holocaust revisionism? Sorry, J Readings, but your agenda is showing. - Lisa ( talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

David Irving also tried to show original documents (selectively) that the mainstream did not accept. That is the point. Forget about Holocaust revisionism, Lisa -- that's irrelevant. I never mentioned it. The point is unearthing original documents to argue novel interpretations about history that are not accepted in the mainstream. And as for agendas, I have yet to see you try to produce any constructive verifiable information in this discussion. So if you want to talk about agendas, let's talk about yours shall we? J Readings ( talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the existing citations: Two of the three books in question are academic in nature, not "commercial books." This is clear from the content and the publishers. Ashgate and Lexington are not "university presses" (because they are not affiliated with schools), but they are academic publishers. I'm not familiar with the publisher of the Bradley book, nor have I read it, so I can't be sure on that, although it does come up on a Google Scholar search.

As to whether Valliant is "fringe," I would say (purely from my own knowledge of the movement) that Valliant's sentiments towards the Brandens reflect what a lot of ARI-supportive Objectivists think about them. He published a lengthy essay online making many of the same points several years before the book came out, and after reading it, Leonard Peikoff decided to give him access to the ARI's private archives for use in researching the book. I believe this early, pre-book material is what Jeff Britting is acknowledging Valliant for in his bio of Rand. So Valliant does have support from important people within the Objectivist movement. However, these same people have a general policy of not talking about the Brandens any more than they have to, so the odds of them citing Valliant's book in their published literature is low. I'm not sure how much bearing this has on the book's reliability as a source, but that's my take, for what it's worth. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, RL0919. I respect your opinion in this discussion. Your contributions are actually useful and verifiable information. As for the issue of "fringe theories," without verifiable third-party sources corroborating much of this discussion about Valliant's stance in the Objectivist movement, I'm forced to make conclusions based on what I read from the reliable third-party sources. I happily acknowledge that two of the sources are more "academic" than "commercial", though I don't see how that changes very much. I'm willing to be persuaded that he is a respected mainstream author -- but the documents (or lack thereof) so far in scholarly journals, the mainstream press, books, and the notable example of Prof. Sciabarra's blog do not support him as being such. J Readings ( talk) 21:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The more I read here, the less I believe Valliant belongs. Even if he *is* part of one of the mainstream Objectivist movements, that doesn't mean that he gets a pass on WP:RS or WP:FRINGE. I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that PARC (or Valliant himself for that matter) qualify as reliable sources. The dinky, fly-by-night publisher, Sciabarra's dismissal, and the extreme paucity of independent sources citing or reviewing PARC are a very bad sign. Indeed, it appears as though PARC is a fringe source with virtually nothing written about it. The only possible use I could see would be for it would be for Rand's journals, but as a general rule we are discouraged from using primary sources anyway. I would invite Lisa and Pelagius to suggest a potential context in which PARC might be used, but I just don't see any. I would also like to remind everyone to assume good faith. TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this issue of "let's use Rand's journals" is also something that needs discussion, but let's face it: that's an entirely separate matter divorced from Valliant's work. I also respect KD and TallNapoleon's opinion, but if we get involved with lumping Valliant in with Rand's journals, one has to ask a few somber questions: (1) Why are we using these Rand journals? (2) Is it either original research or original synthesis to use them in a Wikipedia article? (3) If we are using them from quotes in Valliant's book, how do we know they reliably state the facts they purport to represent without publicly verifiable records to cross-check the journals? All of these issues lead to serious question marks about what the goal is in citing them in the first place. J Readings ( talk) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's dishonest to say you didn't mention Holocaust revisionism when you used David Irving as an example. Furthermore, it was a bad example on your part. Irving purports to use primary sources to dispute something which was eyewitnessed by a very large number of people. What he's done would be considered original research here. Valliant is using Rand's own journals as a source for what Rand said was going on at the time. There's no original research in that. Where he draws conclusions from that, he draws conclusions.

You're right. Prior to Valliant's book, the majority of Objectivists took the Brandens' accounts as being beyond dispute. But that position, unlike the position that the Holocaust happened, was based on the personal accounts of a grand total of two people. Since their accounts were based on things that could not be confirmed or disputed by any other parties (since the only four parties involved were the Brandens, Rand, and her husband, and the latter two were dead by the time the Brandens made their accusations), you can point to reviews of their books or mentions of their books in scholarly sources all you like. It doesn't make their accounts any more reliable than a blog posting.

There is an inertia that exists in the case of a widely told story. You were the one who raised Irving, so I imagine you've heard of Julius Streicher's concept of the Big Lie. I'm not accusing the Brandens of lying. They told their stories from their points of view. But like a Big Lie, it being told without vocal opposition for a long time led to their accounts being accepted uncritically.

Now Valliant has produced the only other information in the entire world that says yea or nay to the claims of the Brandens. And that's Rand's written accounts of what she saw happening at the time the events were transpiring. And for some reason, you want to put the Brandens' accounts on a pedestal, like heliocentrism, and treat Rand's account as fringe information, like geocentrism. But you have yet to establish that either is the case. You keep claiming it, but that doesn't constitute an argument. You keep claiming that Valliant's book is fringe, but you haven't established that, either. It's a book that was published by a publisher and sold in major bookstore chains. No one has brought any evidence that the book was vanity published, so that's a red herring. It's a book that contains journal entries written by Ayn Rand, along with conclusions by the author.

You like analogies, so I'll give you one. For many years, the claims of Ramses II to have won the Battle of Kadesh were accepted, because no other information existed outside of Ramses II's own records. When Hittite inscriptions were found that disputed the Egyptian account, no one suggested that it be considered fringe just because the Egyptian claims had been known for longer. For all we know, Hattusilis lied, and Ramses II did win that battle. But it's the information available to us. Likewise, there are only three accounts in all the world that discuss the issues that lay behind the break between Rand and the Brandens. You want to argue that two of those accounts are "mainstream" by virtue of having been accepted in the absence of other accounts. Now that Rand's account has been published, it changes the facts. - Lisa ( talk) 22:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, there's no useful analogy to Valliant's work there. This discussion is about whether Valliant's book counts as a reliable source under WP policy (you may not like the policy, but this talk page isn't about changing it). A cursory glance at this week's discussion shows several editors with quite different views of Rand and Objectivism wrestling with that question, because there are a number of reasons - all listed above - to be hesitant about using it. If there is an analogy, it's between the Hittite inscriptions and Rand's own journals, reproduced by Valliant (are there any allegations that they're not accurately reproduced? I haven't seen any). Using a primary source, like Rand, raises different issues of course. We are just trying to figure this out, okay? I agree that we need to look at a concrete example of where using something from Valliant, unavailable elsewhere, would really enhance an article. KD Tries Agai n ( talk) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Excuse me, Lisa, but I didn't mention Holocaust Denial because I wasn't even thinking of it. Please stop attacking me and accusing me of dishonesty. It won't get you anywhere in this discussion. To clarify once again, I was talking about methodology and how claiming to use archival documents selectively sometimes gets you into trouble when you seek to overturn the mainstream view. I could have -- and perhaps should have -- used more examples of this type of phenomenon to underline my point about raw archival research without corroboration, but I didn't think it necessary. Also, I'm glad you personally loved Valliant's book. That's fine by me, but it has absolutely no relevance to this discussion or Wikipedia. We are talking about writing an article where the current state of "knowledge" is reinforced by what reliable and independent third-party sources have to say on the matter. I agree with RL0919 when he infers above that we got to this point because of Valliant or IP 160 or whoever decided unilaterally to inject Valliant's book everywhere across Wikipedia in all kinds of strange contexts purporting to establish pure "facts" (versus opinions) about living persons and Ayn Rand, etc. Had IP 160 not attempted this, I suspect that this situation would have gone unnoticed for quite a while. The scrutiny that this case has produced just reinforces the editorial wisdom in not attempting shameless self-promotion in Wikipedia articles. J Readings ( talk) 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, I think the problem here is that while we have Rand's diaries, whether the interpretation given of them by Valliant (and a comparison of that to the accounts of the Brandens) is a different issue. There is good reason to question his competency as an interpreter or historian of Rand's life. Likewise, is he competent to give a psychological interpretation of Nathaniel Branden, which he does for page after page?-- Neil Parille ( talk) 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think user Lisa's point is that an answer is needed to the question "What evidence do we have that Valliant's book is some kind of novel-revisionism?". From what I see there is Sciabarra's negative view and its noted he is a scholar. As well, I see his isn't the only view, there are two or three published by academic presses. As for Sciabarra's view, I don't see how his claim the book is "worth the price of admission" can be ignored. -- Karbinski ( talk) 23:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this countless times making this discussion circular. For those few who always sought to have Valliant's work on Wikipedia (you were one of them, I take it), apparently no evidence will suffice. For myself, I already presented my conclusion -- which was different from my original opinion -- drawn from the evidence (or lack thereof). Therefore, it's not worth constantly repeating it because user:Lisa, for example, apparently made up her mind before she even got here. That's okay by me, but in the immortal words of Prof. Sciabarra "I have a life." I can't speak for anyone else, but I should get back to it. J Readings ( talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What else is there in all this discussion in terms of references besides Sciabarra's view and the references user RL0919 reported? And what is to be made of Sciabarra's claim that the book is worth the price of admission? -- Karbinski ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"I have a life." A-friggin-men. As far as I am concerned, including Valliant simply is not worth the trouble. He's an extremely marginal source at best. The Branden's criticisms of Rand are notable in and of themselves, as they come from her former "seconds-in-command". Valliant's criticisms of the Brandens are not--they are about the Brandens. It is the same problem we have throughout the Objectivism articles, where no piece of criticism is ever allowed to stand on its own without some kind of response being interjected back in. It's like something out of Kafka, for God's sake. That said, if, as a compromise, removing Valliant also means removing some of the Brandens' criticisms, so be it. We need to trim anyway. TallNapoleon ( talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski, let's not be selective with Sciabarra - remember, ""To be clear: Valliant didn't write a biography of Rand or an intellectual history of Objectivism. He wrote a prosecutorial indictment that frequently exhibits a scorched-earth style, which tends to undermine any truly reasonable points he has raised about bias, contradictions, conflicting points of view, corroborating evidence, or insufficient sourcing in the works of the Brandens." And let's not be sidetracked by the discussion which has taken up years of interested parties' time on various Objectivist websites. I think we're developing a consensus. A very narrow possibility of using Rand's own comments, as quoted by Valliant, if there's a compelling reason to do so, sufficiently compelling to overcome reservations about using synthesis to advance an opinion or an agenda. I'd just like to see examples from the articles of where Rand-in-Valliant is essential, and we can discuss them case by case. Otherwise I think we can close this down, and let any dissenter take it to the appropriate noticeboard. KD Tries Again ( talk) 01:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Karbinksi: Sciabarra says that having Rand's journals is "worth the price of admission." -- Neil Parille ( talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the evidence here that the book was self-published? I'm not looking for statements that it wasn't or there is no evidence, I'm looking for editors who contend it was to show us some independant evidence. -- Karbinski ( talk) 15:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)