![]() | This page 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 talk page. |
SafeLibraries, please include cites to reputable sources when you are including things in the controversy section. Your addition about Banned Books Week, which happened to fall on Banned Books Week was not NPOV and did not cite sources that would generally indicate a widespread trend towards the stated controversy. If this is a widespread thing, please include information to that effect. If not, please don't take one citation an include it as if it indicates a trend. I am aware of no such controversy. Jessamyn ( talk) 22:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Estes: Responsibility Trumps Banned Books Week
By Vicki Estes
The Capital-Journal
Welcome to Banned Books Week, a week in which all of us should understand the important difference between "censorship" and "parental guidance."
Oh, and include in that the difference between "banned" and "questioned" or "challenged" books.
Since 1982, according to the American Library Association, "Banned Books Week has celebrated the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular." The ALA goes on to say, "We need to ensure the availability of unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them."
I agree.
However, as a parent of a minor child, I have the final say in what she will be reading, watching and doing until she is 18. I believe that, as parents, it is our responsibility to monitor what our children are exposed to. This isn't censorship. It is called being a caring, responsible parent.
The majority of books on the Banned Books Week list haven't been banned, but rather have been challenged. They are shelved in libraries and bookstores and included in school curricula across the nation. Virtually every book that is published can be purchased or checked out in the United States.
So perhaps the real controversy this week should be the event's name. Instead of Banned Books Week, the ALA should consider "Challenged Books Week," or "Questionable Books Week," or "Books Parents Prefer Kids Not Read until It's Appropriate for Them Week."
You see, all of us mature and grow at our own pace.
What might be good for Suzie may be too frightening for little Freddie. Call me simple, but I think parents should decide when a child is ready to move from Teletubbies to Sesame Street. A parent questioning the use of a particular book in school curriculum is a parent practicing responsible parenting and using the First Amendment to do so.
Of the 6,364 book challenges between 1990 and 2000, 71 percent were books used in school curricula or available in school libraries, and parents brought a whopping 60 percent of those challenges. Hey, parents are paying attention! But just because they are, don't label them as censors or book-banners.
Unfortunately, some of these challenges are the result of our politically correct culture in which we sanitize anything possibly offensive from our history even if it can be the basis for learning an important lesson.
Books such as "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," "The Color Purple" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" have been questioned by parents because of what they believe are racist ideals or adult themes not appropriate for children. I may not agree, but I wouldn't label the parents book-banners.
More appropriate would be "responsible parents," but that title won't help sell more books during Banned Book Week.
Vicki Estes is a Topeka freelance writer. Her column appears on Wednesday and Saturday. She can be reached at vaestes@sbcglobal.net
That's from ALA’s Action Guide.
So, even using the ALA as a "reputable" source, BBW is clearly controversial. (Hmmm. That link does not contain that actual text. But I got the info from here: http://www.librarian.net/tag/censorship) -- SafeLibraries 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, SL, I've reverted you. Here are some of the problems your latest addition:
Please, please stop waging this campaign on Wikipedia. -- Alecmconroy 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it Freedom to Read or the Usual Mischief for Banned Books Week?, 9/26/2006, by Arlene Sawicki. My previous edits were taken down by Jessamyn and you implicitly use that to help say no controversy exists. Jessamyn is a prominent member of the ALA Council and ALA Councilors in and of themselves are the policy makers for the ALA, so she is rather significant, even if she also writes on this talk page. Your comments about my investigating her to use information against her is just plain wrong. Rather, I did a simple Google search on "Banned Books Week" controversy and she popped up. I even cited to librarian.net BEFORE I recalled she was the writer of librarian.net. Because of how wrong you are and how you have mischaracterized my actions and how you have threaded the needle to silliness in a POV fashion and because you think anything I add to any page ever is POV soapbpx and anything added by ALA members on ALA pages is gospel, I am reverting your revert. Further, I am willing to take this one all the way to Wiki leadership, who ever than may be, because you are just plain wrong, and while you accuse me of stalking Jessamyn, it's you, actually, who goes to page after page I edit and reverts things to your POV liking, then writes long messages about how awful you think I am or my edits are. So if you want to challenge me on this officially, do so. You are so wrong, at least in this case, that I am 100% sure that unbiased people given the unbiased truth making an unbiased decision will note that my change to this page in no way represents anything you have said about me. You have helped me in the past. I look forward to this chance to help you. -- SafeLibraries 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How about this:
Also, Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read, raises yearly questions for "why the week is called 'Banned Books Week' instead of 'Challenged Books Week,' since the majority of the books featured during the week are not banned...."[3] -- SafeLibraries 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Jessamyn: Very small part? Why do national newspapers and local newspaper scarry stories about BBW? There must be thousands of stories on BBW, each year, year after year. BBW is NOT minor. Then you call it a "sematic nuance." You are wearing ALA-colored glasses. And there is no BBW page. But I'll say this--if there were no controversy, then BBW need not be included in the controversy section of the wiki page. But the reality is, though you do not see it with ALA-colored glasses, the ALA gets asked yearly about the misleading name; the ALA is aware of this; the ALA goes out of its way to minimize the controversy (and this I learned from you, besides being obvious); the controversy has spilled out into the media; my cursory searches have produced 4 separate articles on the controversy(ies); you have used ALA-colored glasses to discount again and again any controversy raised by anyone; the material is encyclopedic so long as it is kept to a reasonable amount, like the single sentence I have recently proposed; I have provided detailed responses to your concerns and have even changed the wording several times, all to comply with your ALA-colored wishes, but the only thing that will satisfy you is the total and complete exclusion of even a single sentence on the BBW controversy from this web page. Here's the great and vaunted ALA, that arrogates to itself the role of the nation's censorship police to ensure no one keeps sexually inappropriate books from children despite law after law and case after case, who's representatives, and that's what you are, go out of their way to ensure the public remains unaware of the controversy over BBW being used to further the goals of the ALA to ensure children maintain access to sexually inappropriate information. Here's you following along with ALA-colored glasses doing what you can to keep the ALA wall of shame held hide. You have claimed no controversy exists. You have called the ALA's acknowledgment of the contraversy a "semantic nuance." You have denigrated the sources I raised proving the controversy. You asked that I should add this material to a page that does not exist. Despite my changing to meet your demands again and again, you will accept nothing less then the total exclusion of the BBW controversy for the controversy section of the ALA wiki page. Hey, let me say something positive. You have not taken, so far as I am aware, any personal attacks against me, and we have been able to discuss the issues only without casting aspersions. So to that extent, I appreciate this communication with you. But overall, my communication with you is frustrating, in this case, because you will accept nothing less than the total exclusion of the information. Total exclusion. Excused by being "nuanced," non controversial because the controversy does not appear often in the main stream media, by my supposed attempt to add this during BBW although I only did so when an article was just published that caused me to realize that I should see if a controversy exists and indeed it does, except not to you. The ALA has effectively filtered out of your mind the willingness to have an open mind to see the controversy nationwide or at least to publicly acknowledge it. Your wishing it away does not mean it doesn't exist. Your ALA connections and your past statements make you totally unreliable as a measure of whether the BBW week controversy has risen to a level where it is worth a single sentence with a cite to an ALA source, no less, to the ontroversy section of the ALA wiki page that would not have been there in the first place but for my own efforts to take this page from a former puff piece for the ALA into one reflecting more of reality and one being more encyclopedic. Therefore, I will add that sentence back into the page -- it seems I'm the only one here not wearing ALA-colored glasses. -- SafeLibraries 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have already presented 4 articles showing BBW is controversial. But they were shot down, including by ALA members, in the claim they were not main stream media [MSM] sources. And I have provided evidence from the ALA's own web site, but that was shot down, again by an ALA member, because the ALA is not authoritative and the controversy supposedly went to a different issue.
Therefore, I provide here a few examples of the BBW controversy in the "main stream media." Here are the links and some text in case the links expire soon:
'Banned' Books a Model of Orwellian 'Newspeak', by Bill Cripe, Morning Sentinel (Maine), 4 Oct 2006.
Display of Banned Books Removed at Harrisonburg High School; Superintendent Encourages Reading Because of Content, Not Controversy, by Jeff Mellott, The Daily News-Record (Virginia), 4 Oct 2006.
So here are 2 main stream media articles, and I may post more as I find them. -- SafeLibraries 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This article contains multiple points of POV problems, not just the one about BBW. It needs serious review by NPOV persons who are knowledgable of the issues without advocating for the ALA or being informed only by the propaganda of the ALA. I will be more specific soon. -- SafeLibraries 14:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have my own issue with SafeLibraries on the Freedom of Speech and Freed of the Press pages. I tried reaching out to him in what I thought was a very nice way--explaining to him why I edit on WP and why I take issue with his sources and edits--but didn't receive a response. Instead, I just see he continues to edit inappropriately. I will join any discussion on this issue. I don't want to see SafeLibraries leave, I just want to see him effort to stop using WP to fuel his agenda. Dave-- DavidShankBone 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It is always interesting to observe the self-appointed "Protectors of Freedom of Speech" trying to smash a small web site (Safe Libraries is it too small and insignificant, ain't it?) simply because they have the gall of contradicting the "toute-puissante" American Library Association. Amusing, but VERY revealing! 13:17, 29 September 2006 205.188.116.135 (Talk)
DSB, don’t get so worked up for so little. Inserting INFORMATION is one of the perks offered by Wiki. It seems some people didn’t like the kind of info being inserted, so, they just went ahead (in good fascist way) and censored it. And if you don’t have one bit of concern about the ALA, why go to such length to defend them?
I have removed the prior "controversy" section from this article, and for a number of what I believe to be legitimate reasons. Firstly, it is referenced by secondary sources in the form of editorials/blogs and opinion pieces. If Laura Shlessinger disagrees with the ALA's stance, it does not make the ALA's stance "controversial", or even necessarily disagreeable, to anybody other than Shlessinger. As well, derogatory language and weasel words such as "twit" are unnacceptable, referenced or not. If there is such genuine controversy surrounding the ALA, then a more objective, proper source that is par with Wikipedia source guidelines would be acceptable, but then there is problem two: The "controversy" here seems to be more like a disagreement with the ALA's position on certain things by a select group than an outright "controversy". If that is the case, then it would be more like a "criticism" section, and that belongs elsewhere, either in an article of its own or at least not in this article, once again per Wiki standards. Thank you.-- Jackbirdsong 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
For sake of discussion, here is the section in question:
And the non-wiki links are to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA158676.html which is the Library Journal, the official publication of the ALA, and http://www.afa.net/lif/schools.asp which is from the American Family Association. That's the section in question placed here for ease of discussion. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you are correct, you did explain the changes at the time. Sorry I missed it.
Based on this I propose the following change:
Actually I'd like to see the controversies detailed instead of appearing as generalities of only the most notable controversies -- many controversies are missing, like the fake "Banned Books Week" or the opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act or the nonsupport of Cuban librarians where former ALA Michael Gorman got in a tiff with Andre Codrescu, etc. But so as to least change the work of others who wrote the section, the proposed change I am recommending is rather conservative and more in line with wiki policy than total removal. (PS - I wrote this before your last comment and got an editting conflict, but this still pretty much applies and even seems to agree somewhat with your comment I missed while editting.)-- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that I am constantly required to exactly follow Wiki standards and sometimes exceed them just so that I don't accidentally cross them, but the people who require me to do this have no such restrictions placed on them. For example, Jessamyn is an ALA member, even a former ALA Councilor, yet she favors removal of the ALA controversy section. Further, she raises the issue that the section should be removed "unless something can really be brought up that indicates that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group among more than a small selection of people." I have raised on this talk page, and even in the controversy itself before it was claimed the source was not good enough and meant something different than the actual words, that Jessamyn herself disclosed that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group, only to librarians, not the general public. She said, "It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much — the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all." [8] You see I don't understand why Jessamyn gets to recommend the removal of the section, even suggests that a controversy exists within the librarian community that's kept from the public's attention, but the section gets removed by Jackbirdsong without the need to follow the wiki policy, and Jackbirdsong says he "empathizes" with me. Then the thing that's kept from the public's attention is excluded from this page because it's supposedly not in the mainstream media, but Jessamyn suggests, if unwittingly, that it may be intentional that it's kept from the public's attention, and worse, Jessamyn is here to do her best to ensure everyone knows its not in the mainstream media so it should not be on this wiki page. Well, that was long winded and convoluted, but do you see what I'm saying? I think you do.
It seems to me that special rules apply not only to me, but also to this ALA page. For example, Jackbirdsong disclosed how the controversy section should be removed because if only a group objects, that necessarily means it's not really a controversy and not really encyclopedic. Yet on other pages, similar Controversy sections appear, and they similarly feature groups, but Jackbirdsong has not and I'll bet will not remove the section. Look for example at Focus on the Family, specifically a section called Controversy and criticism. Here's what that section says:
Now that first paragraph suffers from the exact same defects or nearly so that is claimed about the ALA Controversy section/paragraph under examination now. How is an editor such as me supposed to see controversy sections on hundreds of wiki pages but supposed to know that a similar controversy section on the ALA falls afoul of wiki policy and the ALA's watchfulness as represented by Jessamyn and Rlitwin, 2 of the 4 who brought action against me to force me to stop editting ALA material? Honestly, really, what's the difference here? A single group gets a whole paragraph with full quotes on Focus on the Family but a few summary sentences with merely links on the ALA page is anathema. Really, I am very confused that the material is allowed on certain pages but not allowed here. And let's be clear that I have no animus toward Jessamyn or anyone else here. I'm just another editor like them trying to do what's right, only it seems rules for me are unduly stricter than rules for others, and rules for the ALA page are unduly stricter than rules for other pages having controversy sections.
So I'd like to see some consistency here. Either the controversy section gets added to the ALA page like hundreds of other sites, or Jackbirdsong goes to Focus on the Family and many other sites and removes all controversy sections that deal with "groups." And I'm supposed to stop editting this page because of bias yet a member of the ALA who is necessarily biased is free to criticize me for having a bias. Obviously, I don't want Jessamyn to be banned despite her efforts to ban me, but it should definitely not happen to me either. Again, I'd like to see equal application of wiki policy to me and to wiki pages.
Alecmconroy is right. Someone other that the existing people, including myself, editting this page should step in and provide the wiki guidance necessary to allow an ALA controversy section or explain why hundreds or thousands of other pages can have them but not the ALA page where an ALA member/editor unwittingly admits the ALA keeps relevant controversies from the public.-- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Legit: the thing you're missing in your understanding of the case is that the court did NOT tell libraries they had to put in filters. Didn't happen. What did happen is the court ruled that the government can offer libraries money for putting in filters. The court ruled that was okay, and that's what's happening now-- libraries may get extra funding if they choose to put up filters. Some decide to take the deal, some decide not to. But ALL are following the law. Libraries that don't want the funding are not "skirting" the law in any way. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on whether libraries should take the deal, nor did it in any suggest that libraries should be FORCED to take the deal.
Now, if you want a law that requires libraries to install filters, all you have to do is convince two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states that this is a good idea, and it will happen. So far, they haven't decided that you're right and that it's a good idea, and instead, they (collectively) think it's a good idea to NOT require libraries be filtered. To my knowledge, no one's even suggested such a thing, aside from you.
So, why isn't the FBI conducting raids on the ALA? Because the ALA isn't doing anything wrong, legally speaking. If you read the Supreme Court decision and come away thinking that the ALA is breaking the law, you've read the decision wrong. They're not "skirting" the law, they haven't found a "loophole", they're not "cheating"-- they're doing exactly what the Supreme Court and the Congress want them to do-- expressing their opinion on whether libraries should filter or not, just like you're expressing your opinion on the subject. -- Alecmconroy 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay everybody, while I enjoy the intriguing discourse (not to mention the Floyd lyrics: from Meddle, I believe?) Wiki is not the place to debate politics or POV. So to get back on track, Legit: if you have a strong opinion as to the position of the ALA on certain issues, and feel that position leads to negative consequences for society, that is nothing more than your POV. If you find a proper source that argues for this same connection (other than the Schlessinger ref, which I have now mentioned a potential compromise on more than once), then it should be added to a new controversy section. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find proper refs , as the connection seems vague at best, though it is possible (this does not mean your POV is wrong, just that it is your POV). So again, I would like to ask you why we don't just put the only properly referenced info in the former controversy section (the Schlessinger thing minus the derogatory language) back into the article, but outside of a "controversy section". We don't need a whole frowned-upon "controversy section" for this one piece of info, we can put it in the main article, and in the meantime you can research for proper refs regarding any other info you would like to add in the future (you may want to read the Wikipedia source guidelines for further help on this). If you do find solid refs for controversy-related issues, then a section for them can always be created in the future, provided it is merited by a number of good sources.-- Jackbirdsong 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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 talk page. |
SafeLibraries, please include cites to reputable sources when you are including things in the controversy section. Your addition about Banned Books Week, which happened to fall on Banned Books Week was not NPOV and did not cite sources that would generally indicate a widespread trend towards the stated controversy. If this is a widespread thing, please include information to that effect. If not, please don't take one citation an include it as if it indicates a trend. I am aware of no such controversy. Jessamyn ( talk) 22:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Estes: Responsibility Trumps Banned Books Week
By Vicki Estes
The Capital-Journal
Welcome to Banned Books Week, a week in which all of us should understand the important difference between "censorship" and "parental guidance."
Oh, and include in that the difference between "banned" and "questioned" or "challenged" books.
Since 1982, according to the American Library Association, "Banned Books Week has celebrated the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular." The ALA goes on to say, "We need to ensure the availability of unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them."
I agree.
However, as a parent of a minor child, I have the final say in what she will be reading, watching and doing until she is 18. I believe that, as parents, it is our responsibility to monitor what our children are exposed to. This isn't censorship. It is called being a caring, responsible parent.
The majority of books on the Banned Books Week list haven't been banned, but rather have been challenged. They are shelved in libraries and bookstores and included in school curricula across the nation. Virtually every book that is published can be purchased or checked out in the United States.
So perhaps the real controversy this week should be the event's name. Instead of Banned Books Week, the ALA should consider "Challenged Books Week," or "Questionable Books Week," or "Books Parents Prefer Kids Not Read until It's Appropriate for Them Week."
You see, all of us mature and grow at our own pace.
What might be good for Suzie may be too frightening for little Freddie. Call me simple, but I think parents should decide when a child is ready to move from Teletubbies to Sesame Street. A parent questioning the use of a particular book in school curriculum is a parent practicing responsible parenting and using the First Amendment to do so.
Of the 6,364 book challenges between 1990 and 2000, 71 percent were books used in school curricula or available in school libraries, and parents brought a whopping 60 percent of those challenges. Hey, parents are paying attention! But just because they are, don't label them as censors or book-banners.
Unfortunately, some of these challenges are the result of our politically correct culture in which we sanitize anything possibly offensive from our history even if it can be the basis for learning an important lesson.
Books such as "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," "The Color Purple" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" have been questioned by parents because of what they believe are racist ideals or adult themes not appropriate for children. I may not agree, but I wouldn't label the parents book-banners.
More appropriate would be "responsible parents," but that title won't help sell more books during Banned Book Week.
Vicki Estes is a Topeka freelance writer. Her column appears on Wednesday and Saturday. She can be reached at vaestes@sbcglobal.net
That's from ALA’s Action Guide.
So, even using the ALA as a "reputable" source, BBW is clearly controversial. (Hmmm. That link does not contain that actual text. But I got the info from here: http://www.librarian.net/tag/censorship) -- SafeLibraries 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, SL, I've reverted you. Here are some of the problems your latest addition:
Please, please stop waging this campaign on Wikipedia. -- Alecmconroy 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it Freedom to Read or the Usual Mischief for Banned Books Week?, 9/26/2006, by Arlene Sawicki. My previous edits were taken down by Jessamyn and you implicitly use that to help say no controversy exists. Jessamyn is a prominent member of the ALA Council and ALA Councilors in and of themselves are the policy makers for the ALA, so she is rather significant, even if she also writes on this talk page. Your comments about my investigating her to use information against her is just plain wrong. Rather, I did a simple Google search on "Banned Books Week" controversy and she popped up. I even cited to librarian.net BEFORE I recalled she was the writer of librarian.net. Because of how wrong you are and how you have mischaracterized my actions and how you have threaded the needle to silliness in a POV fashion and because you think anything I add to any page ever is POV soapbpx and anything added by ALA members on ALA pages is gospel, I am reverting your revert. Further, I am willing to take this one all the way to Wiki leadership, who ever than may be, because you are just plain wrong, and while you accuse me of stalking Jessamyn, it's you, actually, who goes to page after page I edit and reverts things to your POV liking, then writes long messages about how awful you think I am or my edits are. So if you want to challenge me on this officially, do so. You are so wrong, at least in this case, that I am 100% sure that unbiased people given the unbiased truth making an unbiased decision will note that my change to this page in no way represents anything you have said about me. You have helped me in the past. I look forward to this chance to help you. -- SafeLibraries 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
How about this:
Also, Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read, raises yearly questions for "why the week is called 'Banned Books Week' instead of 'Challenged Books Week,' since the majority of the books featured during the week are not banned...."[3] -- SafeLibraries 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Jessamyn: Very small part? Why do national newspapers and local newspaper scarry stories about BBW? There must be thousands of stories on BBW, each year, year after year. BBW is NOT minor. Then you call it a "sematic nuance." You are wearing ALA-colored glasses. And there is no BBW page. But I'll say this--if there were no controversy, then BBW need not be included in the controversy section of the wiki page. But the reality is, though you do not see it with ALA-colored glasses, the ALA gets asked yearly about the misleading name; the ALA is aware of this; the ALA goes out of its way to minimize the controversy (and this I learned from you, besides being obvious); the controversy has spilled out into the media; my cursory searches have produced 4 separate articles on the controversy(ies); you have used ALA-colored glasses to discount again and again any controversy raised by anyone; the material is encyclopedic so long as it is kept to a reasonable amount, like the single sentence I have recently proposed; I have provided detailed responses to your concerns and have even changed the wording several times, all to comply with your ALA-colored wishes, but the only thing that will satisfy you is the total and complete exclusion of even a single sentence on the BBW controversy from this web page. Here's the great and vaunted ALA, that arrogates to itself the role of the nation's censorship police to ensure no one keeps sexually inappropriate books from children despite law after law and case after case, who's representatives, and that's what you are, go out of their way to ensure the public remains unaware of the controversy over BBW being used to further the goals of the ALA to ensure children maintain access to sexually inappropriate information. Here's you following along with ALA-colored glasses doing what you can to keep the ALA wall of shame held hide. You have claimed no controversy exists. You have called the ALA's acknowledgment of the contraversy a "semantic nuance." You have denigrated the sources I raised proving the controversy. You asked that I should add this material to a page that does not exist. Despite my changing to meet your demands again and again, you will accept nothing less then the total exclusion of the BBW controversy for the controversy section of the ALA wiki page. Hey, let me say something positive. You have not taken, so far as I am aware, any personal attacks against me, and we have been able to discuss the issues only without casting aspersions. So to that extent, I appreciate this communication with you. But overall, my communication with you is frustrating, in this case, because you will accept nothing less than the total exclusion of the information. Total exclusion. Excused by being "nuanced," non controversial because the controversy does not appear often in the main stream media, by my supposed attempt to add this during BBW although I only did so when an article was just published that caused me to realize that I should see if a controversy exists and indeed it does, except not to you. The ALA has effectively filtered out of your mind the willingness to have an open mind to see the controversy nationwide or at least to publicly acknowledge it. Your wishing it away does not mean it doesn't exist. Your ALA connections and your past statements make you totally unreliable as a measure of whether the BBW week controversy has risen to a level where it is worth a single sentence with a cite to an ALA source, no less, to the ontroversy section of the ALA wiki page that would not have been there in the first place but for my own efforts to take this page from a former puff piece for the ALA into one reflecting more of reality and one being more encyclopedic. Therefore, I will add that sentence back into the page -- it seems I'm the only one here not wearing ALA-colored glasses. -- SafeLibraries 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have already presented 4 articles showing BBW is controversial. But they were shot down, including by ALA members, in the claim they were not main stream media [MSM] sources. And I have provided evidence from the ALA's own web site, but that was shot down, again by an ALA member, because the ALA is not authoritative and the controversy supposedly went to a different issue.
Therefore, I provide here a few examples of the BBW controversy in the "main stream media." Here are the links and some text in case the links expire soon:
'Banned' Books a Model of Orwellian 'Newspeak', by Bill Cripe, Morning Sentinel (Maine), 4 Oct 2006.
Display of Banned Books Removed at Harrisonburg High School; Superintendent Encourages Reading Because of Content, Not Controversy, by Jeff Mellott, The Daily News-Record (Virginia), 4 Oct 2006.
So here are 2 main stream media articles, and I may post more as I find them. -- SafeLibraries 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This article contains multiple points of POV problems, not just the one about BBW. It needs serious review by NPOV persons who are knowledgable of the issues without advocating for the ALA or being informed only by the propaganda of the ALA. I will be more specific soon. -- SafeLibraries 14:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I have my own issue with SafeLibraries on the Freedom of Speech and Freed of the Press pages. I tried reaching out to him in what I thought was a very nice way--explaining to him why I edit on WP and why I take issue with his sources and edits--but didn't receive a response. Instead, I just see he continues to edit inappropriately. I will join any discussion on this issue. I don't want to see SafeLibraries leave, I just want to see him effort to stop using WP to fuel his agenda. Dave-- DavidShankBone 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It is always interesting to observe the self-appointed "Protectors of Freedom of Speech" trying to smash a small web site (Safe Libraries is it too small and insignificant, ain't it?) simply because they have the gall of contradicting the "toute-puissante" American Library Association. Amusing, but VERY revealing! 13:17, 29 September 2006 205.188.116.135 (Talk)
DSB, don’t get so worked up for so little. Inserting INFORMATION is one of the perks offered by Wiki. It seems some people didn’t like the kind of info being inserted, so, they just went ahead (in good fascist way) and censored it. And if you don’t have one bit of concern about the ALA, why go to such length to defend them?
I have removed the prior "controversy" section from this article, and for a number of what I believe to be legitimate reasons. Firstly, it is referenced by secondary sources in the form of editorials/blogs and opinion pieces. If Laura Shlessinger disagrees with the ALA's stance, it does not make the ALA's stance "controversial", or even necessarily disagreeable, to anybody other than Shlessinger. As well, derogatory language and weasel words such as "twit" are unnacceptable, referenced or not. If there is such genuine controversy surrounding the ALA, then a more objective, proper source that is par with Wikipedia source guidelines would be acceptable, but then there is problem two: The "controversy" here seems to be more like a disagreement with the ALA's position on certain things by a select group than an outright "controversy". If that is the case, then it would be more like a "criticism" section, and that belongs elsewhere, either in an article of its own or at least not in this article, once again per Wiki standards. Thank you.-- Jackbirdsong 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
For sake of discussion, here is the section in question:
And the non-wiki links are to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA158676.html which is the Library Journal, the official publication of the ALA, and http://www.afa.net/lif/schools.asp which is from the American Family Association. That's the section in question placed here for ease of discussion. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you are correct, you did explain the changes at the time. Sorry I missed it.
Based on this I propose the following change:
Actually I'd like to see the controversies detailed instead of appearing as generalities of only the most notable controversies -- many controversies are missing, like the fake "Banned Books Week" or the opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act or the nonsupport of Cuban librarians where former ALA Michael Gorman got in a tiff with Andre Codrescu, etc. But so as to least change the work of others who wrote the section, the proposed change I am recommending is rather conservative and more in line with wiki policy than total removal. (PS - I wrote this before your last comment and got an editting conflict, but this still pretty much applies and even seems to agree somewhat with your comment I missed while editting.)-- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that I am constantly required to exactly follow Wiki standards and sometimes exceed them just so that I don't accidentally cross them, but the people who require me to do this have no such restrictions placed on them. For example, Jessamyn is an ALA member, even a former ALA Councilor, yet she favors removal of the ALA controversy section. Further, she raises the issue that the section should be removed "unless something can really be brought up that indicates that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group among more than a small selection of people." I have raised on this talk page, and even in the controversy itself before it was claimed the source was not good enough and meant something different than the actual words, that Jessamyn herself disclosed that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group, only to librarians, not the general public. She said, "It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much — the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all." [8] You see I don't understand why Jessamyn gets to recommend the removal of the section, even suggests that a controversy exists within the librarian community that's kept from the public's attention, but the section gets removed by Jackbirdsong without the need to follow the wiki policy, and Jackbirdsong says he "empathizes" with me. Then the thing that's kept from the public's attention is excluded from this page because it's supposedly not in the mainstream media, but Jessamyn suggests, if unwittingly, that it may be intentional that it's kept from the public's attention, and worse, Jessamyn is here to do her best to ensure everyone knows its not in the mainstream media so it should not be on this wiki page. Well, that was long winded and convoluted, but do you see what I'm saying? I think you do.
It seems to me that special rules apply not only to me, but also to this ALA page. For example, Jackbirdsong disclosed how the controversy section should be removed because if only a group objects, that necessarily means it's not really a controversy and not really encyclopedic. Yet on other pages, similar Controversy sections appear, and they similarly feature groups, but Jackbirdsong has not and I'll bet will not remove the section. Look for example at Focus on the Family, specifically a section called Controversy and criticism. Here's what that section says:
Now that first paragraph suffers from the exact same defects or nearly so that is claimed about the ALA Controversy section/paragraph under examination now. How is an editor such as me supposed to see controversy sections on hundreds of wiki pages but supposed to know that a similar controversy section on the ALA falls afoul of wiki policy and the ALA's watchfulness as represented by Jessamyn and Rlitwin, 2 of the 4 who brought action against me to force me to stop editting ALA material? Honestly, really, what's the difference here? A single group gets a whole paragraph with full quotes on Focus on the Family but a few summary sentences with merely links on the ALA page is anathema. Really, I am very confused that the material is allowed on certain pages but not allowed here. And let's be clear that I have no animus toward Jessamyn or anyone else here. I'm just another editor like them trying to do what's right, only it seems rules for me are unduly stricter than rules for others, and rules for the ALA page are unduly stricter than rules for other pages having controversy sections.
So I'd like to see some consistency here. Either the controversy section gets added to the ALA page like hundreds of other sites, or Jackbirdsong goes to Focus on the Family and many other sites and removes all controversy sections that deal with "groups." And I'm supposed to stop editting this page because of bias yet a member of the ALA who is necessarily biased is free to criticize me for having a bias. Obviously, I don't want Jessamyn to be banned despite her efforts to ban me, but it should definitely not happen to me either. Again, I'd like to see equal application of wiki policy to me and to wiki pages.
Alecmconroy is right. Someone other that the existing people, including myself, editting this page should step in and provide the wiki guidance necessary to allow an ALA controversy section or explain why hundreds or thousands of other pages can have them but not the ALA page where an ALA member/editor unwittingly admits the ALA keeps relevant controversies from the public.-- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Legit: the thing you're missing in your understanding of the case is that the court did NOT tell libraries they had to put in filters. Didn't happen. What did happen is the court ruled that the government can offer libraries money for putting in filters. The court ruled that was okay, and that's what's happening now-- libraries may get extra funding if they choose to put up filters. Some decide to take the deal, some decide not to. But ALL are following the law. Libraries that don't want the funding are not "skirting" the law in any way. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on whether libraries should take the deal, nor did it in any suggest that libraries should be FORCED to take the deal.
Now, if you want a law that requires libraries to install filters, all you have to do is convince two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states that this is a good idea, and it will happen. So far, they haven't decided that you're right and that it's a good idea, and instead, they (collectively) think it's a good idea to NOT require libraries be filtered. To my knowledge, no one's even suggested such a thing, aside from you.
So, why isn't the FBI conducting raids on the ALA? Because the ALA isn't doing anything wrong, legally speaking. If you read the Supreme Court decision and come away thinking that the ALA is breaking the law, you've read the decision wrong. They're not "skirting" the law, they haven't found a "loophole", they're not "cheating"-- they're doing exactly what the Supreme Court and the Congress want them to do-- expressing their opinion on whether libraries should filter or not, just like you're expressing your opinion on the subject. -- Alecmconroy 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay everybody, while I enjoy the intriguing discourse (not to mention the Floyd lyrics: from Meddle, I believe?) Wiki is not the place to debate politics or POV. So to get back on track, Legit: if you have a strong opinion as to the position of the ALA on certain issues, and feel that position leads to negative consequences for society, that is nothing more than your POV. If you find a proper source that argues for this same connection (other than the Schlessinger ref, which I have now mentioned a potential compromise on more than once), then it should be added to a new controversy section. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find proper refs , as the connection seems vague at best, though it is possible (this does not mean your POV is wrong, just that it is your POV). So again, I would like to ask you why we don't just put the only properly referenced info in the former controversy section (the Schlessinger thing minus the derogatory language) back into the article, but outside of a "controversy section". We don't need a whole frowned-upon "controversy section" for this one piece of info, we can put it in the main article, and in the meantime you can research for proper refs regarding any other info you would like to add in the future (you may want to read the Wikipedia source guidelines for further help on this). If you do find solid refs for controversy-related issues, then a section for them can always be created in the future, provided it is merited by a number of good sources.-- Jackbirdsong 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)