Talk:The Passion of Ayn Rand

Book vs life
Since this article is new (having finally been separated from the film version), I wanted to raise a general concern about its content. Since the book is a biography of Ayn Rand, I think we all need to be careful to make sure that this article is about the book, and not about Rand's life. This article should be mostly about this history of the book and people's reactions to it. A brief summary of the book's contents would be fine, but I would expect the details of Rand's history to be in the "Ayn Rand" article. I think this will be a tough distinction for editors to make in some cases, so I wanted to bring it up early in the article's development so we can start off on the right foot. --RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919 about distinguishing Ayn Rand's life from this particular book about her life. I hope to expand (and to encourage others to expand) the coverage of responses to The Passion of Ayn Rand, both positive and negative. In my view, it is appropriate to mention James Valliant's book as (one) negative response to Barbara Branden's book, and as part of the ongoing discussion to which her book has given rise.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV page
This page appears to be a mostly-unsourced, POV attack on the book. Its only reception is basically negative of the book from Ayn Rand followers, with absolutely no sourced material from WP:RS mainstream secondary sources such as literary book reviews. There are multiple unclear statements and unsourced assertions made (e.g. "some...", "others...", etc.) Cirt (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

When I came upon it, after being started by another editor or editors, this article contained zero citations, as you noted. My plan was to add literary book reviews and other material that is positive about the book, as well as (briefly) quoting the book itself about its author's point of view. I put a couple of negative citations up first because I had been doing research on them and had them ready to hand. Is there some expectation that an article of this sort be (close to) finished, or not appear at all? Is there also an expectation that the book's reception by followers of Ayn Rand not be mentioned?RLCampbell (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't take Cirt's comments (and the associated tags on the article) as a criticism of your contributions as such or a communication of any global expectations about the order in which articles should develop. It's just a concern that one particular editor has about the current state of the article (which I agree is still somewhat incomplete and unbalanced at the moment). It's no different than the "unreferenced" tag that was originally placed on the article. The tag reflected a legitimate concern when it was placed, but once references were added, it was appropriate to remove the tag. Similarly, once additional material is added reflecting the book's reception by various sources, that should address the concerns about verifiability and neutrality.
 * Here are a few readily accessible reviews for anyone who might want to use them for the article (print reviews now available online for free):, , . And a few slightly less-accessible ones (print reviews now online for a fee): , , , , . I haven't vetted them all, but I think these are probably all reliable sources and should provide a range of opinions about the book. --RL0919 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RL, thanks for the pointers. I have begun to work in these and some other reviews of the book. -RLCampbell (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, Cirt. I'm confident, without lapsing into crystal-ball-ism, that the article will undergo many further changes. But its structure should now be apparent, as well as its general treatment of positive and negative responses to Barbara Branden's book. Are you satisfied with the NPOV-ness of the article as it now stands, or do you still assess it as a "mostly-unsourced, POV attack on the book"?-RLCampbell (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt can reapply the tag if he disagrees, but I'm comfortable that the article no longer matches that description, so I'm removing the tag. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is missing a summary of the book itself. Many of the sources in the "criticism" section appear to be questionable as far as WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Cirt, you're welcome to provide a summary. Can you provide specifics about non-reliability?-RLCampbell (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Book infobox
I'm a little limited for time this week, but I wanted to add quickly the book's infobox and make a few other edits. My understanding is that the first publication and its corresponding data are placed in the infobox. Amazon.com seems to only provide the softcover publication details. I can probably check Worldcat tonight for the hardcover details: publication date, original book cover, etc. J Readings (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the details are available at Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism, so I transferred them from there. I had to grab my copy for the number of pages. The dust jacket is long gone, but if memory serves the cover art for the paperback is essentially identical to the original. --RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can verify that the cover art for the hardback and for the paperback are identical.  I did this by looking at my own copy of hardback, so it might be construed as original research :) ... -RLCampbell (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded the image here, but for some reason, it isn't working. Could someone please take a look at both pages and advise us on what's wrong? Thanks, J Readings (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not working either. Here's the URL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Passion_of_Ayn_Rand.jpg J Readings (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I got the picture to show on the page, but it's, er, on the large side. If you upload a smaller image with the same file name, the problem should take care of itself.-RLCampbell (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a smaller version. It's still not perfect (there's some unnecessary extra border on the top and right of the image), but it is at least an appropriate size. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good now, even without further Photoshopping.-RLCampbell (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. J Readings (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Handling of Valliant book
I shan't quibble with J Readings' taking the weed whacker to this part of the article; however, I do think it's appropriate to mention that Ayn Rand's previously unpublished diary entries are incorporated into the Valliant book, and where they can be found in it. I consider it reasonable to anticipate that citations of Valliant's book will tend to fall into two categories—those that point to the diary entries while ignoring the author's commentary, and those that point to Valliant's commentary. They have so far... -RLCampbell (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After further trimming by TallNapoleon, Valliant's book now gets two sentences. Can we stay with those? -RLCampbell (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he picked the right two sentences to keep. The proportion of diary entries as part of Valliant's book does not seem relevant to the subject of this article, but his evaluation of the book as "false" is. So I'm going to edit a little more. I don't think anyone is looking for an edit war on the subject, but sometimes it takes a few passes to reach a reasonable agreement. Such is the nature of open-source editing. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the proportion of diary entries pertains to the hybrid nature of the Valliant book. Valliant actually declares The Passion of Ayn Rand to be  both full of arbitrary assertions and full of false assertions—yet in Peikoff's version of Objectivist epistemology, an assertion can't be simultaneously false and arbitrary.  Still, the claim that (some of?) the assertions are false does differentiate Valliant's criticisms from Schwartz's or Peikoff's. -RLCampbell (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it's been edited already. I want to add a brief statement about what information was available to Barbara Branden in the early 1980s, versus what is available to other Rand biographers today.  Maybe the incorporation of the diaries into Valliant's book will turn out to matter in that context? Will revisit later. -RLCampbell (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not wedded to the sentences that I kept--I just don't want this to become "The Article that PARC Ate". TallNapoleon (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two important points to remember: First, this particular article is about The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden. The "hybrid nature" of Valliant's book isn't really germane since his book isn't the subject of the article. The other issue is original research. To the extent that Valliant is a secondary source about Branden's book, then it is relevant to mention his views (within the limits of WP:UNDUE). But if we start talking about what material was available to Branden in 1986 vs. Valliant in 2005, then we're not using him as a source, but rather making him a subject of analysis. Now since this would be in comparison to the article's subject, it might be relevant. But the analysis would need to come from an already-published reliable source. If no one else has already made the comparison, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first place it is made. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it comes to that, Valliant says in PARC that he had access to the diaries, and that Barbara Branden didn't. But I don't want PARC to eat any articles, either... -RLCampbell (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Re this phrase, ''. . . book-length negative review, aiming to discredit. . . here is a small suggestion: it would be more neutral and less judgemental of the author's motives, to rephrase as something like . . . book-length analysis, critical of,. . .'' Gyrae (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that this book falls into a weird area of WP:SPS. The author isn't known for anything beyond this book, which frankly seems to me to be part of the strange ARI self-publishing world. Technically this one was done by Durban House but if you look into it it is clearly a vanity publisher. On its own, this should be enough to toss out this reference. HOWEVER, the book has some never seen diary entries of Rand's, which makes it interesting enough to include. On the other hand, does that justify it being included here? This article is not about Rand or the Brandens in as much as it is about the book PARC. IFF the diary entries are directly or closely used to the critique (as in they say stuff that factually disputes PARC) then it's justifiable to use it here, but otherwise...I dunno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.229 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Long-Term Impact
I'm a bit concerned that this section falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Two full-dress biographies of Rand have publication dates in October 2009. Jennifer Burns was allowed into the Ayn Rand Archives; Anne C. Heller was not, but she has done a ton of interviews.  Reviews of Heller's book have already started to appear.  No vaporware here.  And both books are going to deal with Barbara Branden's, one way or another.  Also, I'm still trying to figure out where "original research" leaves off.  By a really strict definition, my summary of what Valliant was trying to do (the three inconsistencies) is OR, because Valliant didn't describe what he was doing in exactly those terms.--RLCampbell (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a less frivolous instance of presumptive OR. The now accepted hypothesis about the origins of Ayn Rand's pen name is that it came from the look of parts of her real name, as written in cursive Cyrillic.  As Britting notes, the (Russian-language) correspondence between Rand and various family members makes it clear that she picked the pen name before leaving the Soviet Union.  So why does Barbara Branden's biography give a story about the origins of the name that has turned out to be apocryphal?  And why does it say that Rand never told her family back home what her pen name was?  Well, does Barbara Branden read or speak Russian?  I asked her, a couple of years ago, and her answer was no.  The Estate works with at least two researchers who are fluent in Russian (Dina  Schein and Shoshana Milgram).  So on what issues will folks from the Estate definitely be better informed than Barbara Branden?  On anything that Rand wrote, or that was written to her, in Russian.  Has anyone said this in a hard-copy publication yet?  Not to my knowledge.  Should it therefore not be brought up in a Wikipedia article, even when it helps to explain discrepancies between biographical accounts?-RLCampbell (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the answer is, no, it should not be brought up in a Wikipedia article if it has not already been said in a reliable source. These don't have to be hardcopy, but if it is your original observation that has never been mentioned elsewhere (which is what is sounds like since you mention speaking to Branden directly), then you should not be putting it in a Wikipedia article. WP is an encyclopedia, and as such it is supposed to summarize what is already known from other sources, not reveal new information. Similarly, speculation about the future is only acceptable if it is a summary of speculations made in already-published sources. Our own speculations, however well-informed they may be, don't belong in an encyclopedia. --RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this whole subsection should be deleted for the reasons already outlined by TallNapoleon and RL0919. Can we please remove it? J Readings (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Britting book has already been published. Is it OK to mention it?  Note that I have not put any language in the article about Barbara Branden's not knowing Russian—nor do I intend to unless some published source says something about it.  How about cutting the "Long-term Impact" header but retaining the contrast between the Branden biography and the Britting biography?-RLCampbell (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cut the section header, the reference to Rand's diaries as incorporated into PARC, the comment about future biographies. -RLCampbell (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Foreign language translations, reactions, etc.
Incidentally, if the book was translated into foreign languages and received press coverage abroad, that would be relevant to this article. Would anyone happen to know? I haven't checked Factiva, LexisNexis or Worldcat yet. J Readings (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick peek at Worldcat shows no editions in languages other than English. The original hardback is in a lot of libraries, mostly in the English-speaking world, plus a sprinkling in Continental Europe.  It would be interesting to see if there were reviews in some non-English-speaking countries where books in English are often reviewed (e.g., the Netherlands). -RLCampbell (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Original SYN
RL0919 recently cut a paragraph comparing Branden's biography with Britting's. I can see how there might be arguments for making the cut on grounds of relevance (the article is about Branden's biography, not Britting's) or cogency (Britting's treatment doesn't really supersede Branden's in any regard—or if it does, why should anyone care?). The stated rationale, however, was in terms of WP:OR and WP:SYN. I'm not questioning anyone's intent to enforce those rules as written, but I do have to ask what it means to follow them as written. An editor who wished to scrupulously avoid OR might purposely refrain from reading the book that the article is about, confining his or her reading to reviews of the book, other books or articles that have commented on it, and so on. That way, the editor's net-out would remain uncontaminated by his or her interpretation of the actual book. Except the problem is recursive: the netting out of the claims made in these sources, and the organization and presentation thereof, could still be guilty of the SYN of OR. To remain SYNless, must we insist that articles draw only on published sources that have already netted out the claims in the secondary sources, organized them into a coherent framework, and so on? That would imply, however, that entire articles would have to reproduced from already published sources. Which, I fear, would render Wikipedia largely superfluous... -RLCampbell (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Big-picture questions about policy are probably best debated at the talk page for the policy itself, but for what it is worth: The point is not that editors can't read primary sources or interpret material in order to restate it in new words. The major principle involved is verifiability. A reader who was previously unfamiliar with the subject should be able to verify a claim made in an article by reading (or listening or viewing, as appropriate) the cited source for it. So, take, for example, the claim that "The Passion of Ayn Rand had no direct competition until the first authorized biography appeared in 2004." Is that claim verifiable by reading Britting's book? No, a great deal of additional knowledge would be required to reach that conclusion. How about "On a few issues, the older biography was clearly superseded;" can that be verified by reading Britting's book? Nope, because as the material explicitly said, he never even mentions the "older biography." A reader would have to perform an independent comparison of the sources and apply a considered judgment that the later source was more accurate, in order to reach this conclusion. So both of these claims go beyond the cited sources to establish new conclusions, which is how they run afoul of the policy. --RL0919 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that a SYNless life is either necessary or possible. It strikes me that any Wikipedia article on a subject not previously covered in another encyclopedic compilation (has there been another encyclopedia article about this particular book?) can't help being guilty of at least one SYN.
 * I wonder, more specifically, whether any generalization about reviews of a book is permitted, unless it is done explicitly by enumerative induction, and every instance of the class or subclass is presented in the article about the book, and at least a secondary source is cited to establish that these are, in fact, all of the instances... Or does a strict interpretation of  WP:OR and WP:V prompt the conclusion that the only permissible reference will be to a tertiary source that already states the generalization explicitly?
 * Whatever my personal view of these rules, however, I am not going to revert the work of senior editors who are making a good-faith effort to enforce them. I would like to ask, in this particular case, whether it is permissible to end the "Criticism" section of the article with a one-sentence statement that Britting's authorized biography cites Barbara Branden's interview tapes but not her book.  If the verdict is that it is not, I will not pursue the matter further.-RLCampbell (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a bare fact, that example should be verifiable, although there is more to a real-world sentence than just the bare facts it expresses. You should have your wikilawyer review any proposed text in detail before executing it. :-) Seriously, the goal is to create an encyclopedia that summarizes existing knowledge and belief in a form that is fair and verifiable. If you have an edit in mind that would further that goal, then my general suggestion is that you make the edit ... provided, of course, that you are comfortable with the fact that there will be others editing after you who may have different opinion of what you wrote. --RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Branden's former affiliation with Ayn Rand
I have a question regarding the lead sentence of the article. It currently reads: "The Passion of Ayn Rand is a biography of Ayn Rand, by Rand's former friend Barbara Branden."

Was Barbara Branden simply a "former friend" of Ayn Rand? Was she nothing more? For example, was she a former colleague? A business associate? A lecturer? Was she an employee of the Nathaniel Branden Institute? If so, in what capacity? Was she a published philosopher (beyond her originally co-authored biography of Rand years earlier)? What was her official occupation at the time -- housewife to Nathaniel Branden? I ask because it's a little strange to open this article by simply stating she was a "former friend". J Readings (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "At the time" is somewhat vague, since her relationship with Rand covers 18 years, and I'm not sure if you mean her occupation at the time she was associated with Rand, or at the time the biography was published. She was a student when she first met Rand, and she later became the managing editor of The Objectivist, as well as giving lectures and doing other work for NBI. At the time the bio was published, she was writing and speaking about Rand, but I'm not certain if that was her sole occupation or if she was also doing something else. Anyhow, a fuller description might be something like, "... by writer and lecturer Barbara Branden, a former friend and business associate of Rand." --RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead sentence now rewritten, as per RL0919's suggestion.-RLCampbell (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Omission of Barbara Branden from Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life
RL0919 has stricken the comment about Barbara Branden not being mentioned by name in Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, on the grounds that movies don't cite sources. But the source I actually cited was the coffee-table book that was released to accompany the movie. And the book has a two-page Introduction and a Special Thanks page that make clear what sources were used. Barbara Branden is also not mentioned in either of those places.-RLCampbell (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, the content should say that her book wasn't used as a source for the movie, not that she isn't mentioned in the movie. Whether the movie mentions her is distinct from the use of the book as a source. Only the latter is relevant to this article. The former would be relevant to the Barbara Branden article, but not this one. --RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, but would it be SYNful to suppose that the non-use of her book and the non-mention of her name are connected?-RLCampbell (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've now made distinct references to Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life in the Barbara Branden article and in the article about her book.-RLCampbell (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)