Talk:American Library Association/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

I have archived Talk so we can concentrate on moving forward with the current state of the article.--Jackbirdsong 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Risqué vs Explicit

The word "risqué" appeared in the main page. I changed its spelling to add the accent. Now history shows it was changed to "explicit." Here is the sentence for context:

In 1999, radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger campaigned publicly against the ALA's intellectual freedom policy, specifically in regard to the ALA's refusal to remove a link on its web site to an explicit sex-education site for teens.[9]

It appears Dr. Laura's problem was not with the "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" aspect of the web site, rather with the "verging on impropriety or indecency" aspect, as described in the article. It further appears the ALA's calling it "explicit" is an attempt to minimize the risqué nature of the material about which Dr. Laura is complaining in the first place. Therefore, I say the accurate, non-POV word to describe Dr. Laura's "campaign" is "risqué," not "explicit." I politely disagree that risqué is less vague than explicit; I do believe it is less accurate in this context and its removal changes the whole tone of the argument from one of indecency or impropriety to one of openness, and since everyone is in favor of being open, casting Dr. Laura's claim as one of openness is a subtle way to inject POV into the article. (Let's be clear I am not saying that was the intent in anyone's mind -- on the contrary there was an excellent intent to find a "less vague" word.) Anyone mind if it gets changed back to "risqué"? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Explicit is fine and is more widely understood and appropriate in this context. I would suggest leaving it as is. Jessamyn (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Jessamym. Let's also get input from non-ALA members too. And you know what? It's possible risqué is indeed a word not as well understood as explicit is, and is likely the reason it was changed out in the first place. But it's not better to use an incorrect word just because it's better understood. Look, the ALA says children should have access to inappropriate material to "become thinking adults and [an] informed electorate." So I find it ironic that this page should need to be dumbed down by choosing an inaccurate word just because it's better understood. The better solution might be to choose a better understood word that means what risqué means, with the key being the "verging on impropriety or indecency" meaning of risqué, not the "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" meaning of explicit. But I see no good synonyms. Perhaps it might be better to use a phrase, therefore, such as "suggestive of sexual impropriety" or "verging on impropriety." Openness, explicitness, is just not the problem. It is not true explicitness was the problem. There has to be something better. JackBirdSong has been doing well improving the article--perhaps he could think of something. You know, risqué might not be misunderstood in the first place, as we all think. Here, for example, is a BBC News article entitled "Curtains Up on Risqué US Statues" in a rather well known incident that had photographers diving to the floor to get this very shot. First sentence: "A pair of risqué Art Deco statues at the US Justice Department have been quietly put back on show, three years after a mysterious cover-up." In sum, I'm for restoring risqué, and if not, for using an appropriate phrase, but explicit is just plain wrong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Risqué sounds kind of odd to me, overtones of "inappropriately eroticized" or something, a risqué novel, and a risqué joke. It's not something that comes to mind when I think of an open and frank sex-ed site. I'd go with explicit -- the "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" hits the nail on the head--Alecmconroy 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, you prove my point. Dr. Laura's whole point, the whole thing is that children learning about fisting and bestiality and how to heighten the effects of an orgasm by cutting off one's oxygen supply are "inappropriately eroticized." Indeed is it ever appropriate to teach children how to orgasm while cutting off the air supply? Did you know children die from this occasionally? Is it not inappropriate? What "sounds kind of odd to [you]" is POV, the article and the facts are what they are, not what we want them to be. Cutting off the air supply to improve an orgasm not "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality," rather it is "inappropriately eroticized" because people end up dead from doing it. An analogy would be to describe using a razor blade to slice open one's wrists so as to heighten sexual pleasure, but just be sure not to slice too much. It is clear to me you do not understand what the issue in the wiki page was about. The issue is about Dr. Laura's very public complaints about the ALA recommending a web site for children that teaches children inappropriate sexual behaviors such as cutting off one's air supply for a better orgasm that occasionally results in the death of children. That's the issue. Not the open, frank discussion of sex. That's not the issue. Claiming Dr. Laura is against the open, frank discussion of sex is blatantly false. What's she against, as illustrated in the article cited and others on the topic is the inappropriateness of the material being presented to children. I realize this is unbelievable, but it's what she's talking about, she here's an example an inappropriate sexual information for children, especially where librarians in the ALA are recommending this for children to read - her whole point - the whole reason this became a news story in the first place:

Dear Alice: what is auto-erotic asphyxiation? Dear Reader: autoerotic asphyxiation (AEA) is the term used to describe the practice of cutting off the blood supply to the brain through self-applied suffocation methods while masturbating to orgasm. The interference of blood supply to the brain brought on by AEA can induce cerebral anoxia, a deficiency of oxygen in the brain. It is thought that the lack of blood flow and oxygen can intensify sensations, producing sensations of giddiness, lightheadedness, or exhilaration that can heighten the orgasmic experience. It's also possible that the helplessness and self-endangerment inherent in the techniques enhance the person's sexual gratification. Of course, this same self-endangerment that may provide a thrill to the person carrying out AEA also weakens one's self-control and judgment, which can easily result in accidental death. Exactly how many people engage in AEA is unknown, and the practice almost always remains a secret until a person dies accidentally. It's estimated that between 500 and 1000 deaths occur annually in the United States from this dangerous type of masturbation. While it is thought to be practiced more often by adolescent or young adult guys, a small number of women die from AEA every year. If a person does not die from cerebral anoxia, brain or tissue damage could possibly occur, depending on how long the brain and body are deprived of oxygen. A person also risks lacerating, cutting or bruising the neck, trachea, and esophagus, depending on the suffocation or strangulation technique used. These immediate threats to the brain and body, including death and brain damage, make auto-erotic asphyxiation one of the riskiest of all sexual behaviors.-- Alice

Please reconsider, and we still need input from people, including myself, who have been consistently on one side or another of matters relating to the ALA generally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that question is very clear in stating "These immediate threats to the brain and body, including death and brain damage, make auto-erotic asphyxiation one of the riskiest of all sexual behaviors." This is not eroticizing it or advocating it, this is explaining it. The whole purpose of that website is to explain things to teens and young adults in clear frank tones. The fact that some of the things explained are about risky sex is a positive feature of the site, not a negative. The ALA and its divisions recommend thousands of websites for children and adults every year. This site was recommended by their Young Adult Services division in 1999 if I recall correctly and linked from their website as one of literally tens of thousands outgoing links. Go Ask Alice has also been recommended in the past by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The NBC Nightly News, Good Morning America, CNBC, The Boston Globe, Architectural Digest, Men's Health and the Harvard Health Letter. The Dr. Laura attention was a dramatic bit of mainstream media coverage and possibly worthy of note, but it ultimately didn't go anywhere. The site is still linked from the ALA website and continues to provide good information on sexual health. [1] I will again restate my feeling that risque is inappropriate compared to explicit here. Jessamyn (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jessamyn, that's your POV again. I too read the text and thought exactly as you have. However, how you and I think is irrelevant. Yes, the site is clear about what can be done and the dangers, but that's not the issue. The issue is not whether the site is frank or not. The issue is Dr. Laura's claim as appears in the wiki article. Dr. Laura, according to the article cited and others not cited, is not making the frankness of the site an issue. What she is saying, and the very reason this came to national prominence, is that librarians serving that site up on a silver platter for children is inappropriate. That's the whole issue. Not the frankness, not the explicitness. Is was the risqué or bordering on inappropriateness of librarians using that site as a source of sexual info for children. And you argued it's one of tens of thousands of sites recommended. Perhaps when you look at the universe of all sites. But when you drill down to the sites relating to sexuality for children recommended to children, it was the leading site recommended by the ALA for children. The ALA even had a separate web page devoted solely to explaining why it would continue to recommend this very site to children despite the national controversy (don't have the URL off the top of my head). Indeed in my own library, the site was on a "Fun Sites for Kids and Teens" page. Now where do you think my local librarians got the idea to use that site? And when I pointed it out to them, they agreed it was inappropriate on a kid's page and promised to remove it. (They never did.) I know you understand exactly what I'm saying. Please explain why this ALA page should provide misinformation by implying Dr. Laura's complaints were about the frankness of the web site rather than the real issue, namely, the inappropriateness of librarians placing this web site within a click's distance of children. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, if you ask me, "explicit" even sounds worse than "risqué". I hear "risqué" and I think "slightly naughty, but mostly a lot of fun". I hear "explicit" and I think "graphic, potentially inappropriate for young". --Alecmconroy 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence as it's used in the article is speaking in Wikipedia voice, not paraphrasing Dr. Laura and as such should be using NPOV language. If you want to include a direct quote from her that says risqué, please go ahead. Otherwise, I will once again remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you are attempting to treat it like a soapbox, and you should seriously consider refraining from editing this article unless you can treat it encyclopedically and with NPOV. Jessamyn (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the arguments of Alecmconroy and Jessamyn are quite sensible. Unattributed "risqué" would really be POV. Grouse 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Finally someone new to weigh in. Good. Based on your comment, I'll go get evidence from source material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Source 1 http://lawlibrary.ucdavis.edu/lawlib/May99/0323.html: 1. LIBRARIANS ARE BAD, KIDS, GO ASK DR. LAURA. Dr. Laura has evil in her sites and, once again, she's firing at will. The target? Librarians, or, more accurately, the American Library Association. The moralist of the airwaves has, in recent days, called the ALA's administration "twits," said the ALA had an "agenda" to expose kids to pornography and even accused the organization of booby-trapping the show's broadcast equipment. She also knows how to hit where it hurts: "Next time in your town, when the budget comes up for libraries, eliminate it until reasonable, decent persons are in charge," she told listeners. All this venom coming through the microphone is a result of a recommendation, on the ALA website for the Columbia University's Go Ask Alice website on ALA's Teen Hoopla guide for teenagers. The Teen Hoopla area is a resource for young adults (ages 12-18) that investigates topics of interest to teens. The current featured topic is safe driving, for example. However, both public and school libraries which have Go Ask Alice on their shelves, the young adult title to which the above site is related, should expect some challenges of the book." More as I find it. Is an agenda to expose kids to porn risqué or explicit? Is the target of Dr. Laura's comments the ALA or a web site? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I meant when I said that "risqué" would need to be attributed. Simply, I don't think it is appropriate to use the word risqué here without it being in quotes. For example, the ALA's refusal to remove a link on its web site to an explicit sex-education site for teens, which she called "risqué". To do this you would need to find a reliable source that quoted her calling the site "risqué." Grouse 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the sentence, "In 1999, radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger campaigned publicly against the ALA's intellectual freedom policy, specifically in regard to the ALA's refusal to remove a link on its web site to an explicit sex-education site for teens," explicit replaced risqué. The sentence is a summary of the controversy, not the exact words. Why does the exact word risqué need to be found in a reliable source for a summary sentence but the exact word explicit does not? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Because calling this web site risqué would be POV as it implies a moral judgment on the web site. Explicit does not. Please remember Wikipedia's official policy on WP:NPOV. Grouse 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, I'm not being argumentative or even POV. A web site that suggests essentially hanging oneself to get a better orgasm is risqué, not explicit. That's fact, not POV. And risqué may be too mild a word. It's not a moral judgment, it's all the dead kids left in the wake of this advice - a matter of life and death, not morality. If anyone thinks that describing such behavior as risqué is POV, if anyone thinks it's a moral judgment to suggest it's risqué to teach children to hang themselves to get better orgasms or for librarians to point children in that direction, then we all might as well pack up our bags, go home, hang ourselves, and have one last terrific orgasm better than ever before. And bring the kids. Proverbs 13:24 – Spare the noose, spoil the child. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The very arguments you are making for "risqué" in this most recent response indicates that a moral judgment is inherent in doing so. Grouse 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize everybody - I had made the original edit that resulted in all of this discussion, and having no idea it would be an issue, I took a break from this page for a while. So, first I would just like to remind everybody to please stay specific to the issue at hand - we should avoid debating politics here. That being said, the less summarized reasons for my change of "risqué" to "explicit" are as follows: "Risqué" is slightly POV in its usage here - whether the website is risqué or not is a matter of subjective opinion (what is indecent to you may not be to me). However, the site is certainly explicit in its material, and the term "explicit" is far more frequently used in regard to films, music, websites, etc. to indicate content (which is perhaps why it was used in the referenced article). This is a very minor issue, and I agree with Grouse that a quoted line using the term risqué would be acceptable. Otherwise, lets just move on. Cheers. --Jackbirdsong 11:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Laura Source

Another Dr. Laura source for future reference is "Dr. Laura's Theme," Wall Street Journal, 3 September 1999, p. W15. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

What about creating Category:ALA ?

What does everyone think about creating a category for the ALA? I know there is one for library associations but I would think the ALA would merit its own subcategory. KConWiki 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, well, if wiki policy allows it. But library associations is a general category whereas ALA is a specific one just for one entity. I would be surprised if wiki policy allowed such a thing. But I do see that a similar organization, the ACLU, has its own category. So maybe wiki policy does allow it. Let's see what others say. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and create one, and add it for some of the people, events, awards, etc. associated w/ALA. If anyone strongly objects, we can remove them. KConWiki 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one objects. I just added the cat to Barbara Gittings. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bona fide research or other lawful purpose

This Talk page section is for discussion per Citations Missing tag. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Citation(s) are missing for the following: "The use must still be "for bona fide research or other lawful purpose," only the adult may not be asked beforehand." In due course I will attempt to gather citations, or find wiki policy that says when the sun rises in East, you do not need a citation. So I'll be back with more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While you are tracking down the citation, please leave it off the ALA page. We've discussed this before. You are taking minute parts of the CIPA case and using them in a short encyclopedia article about the ALA where my feeling is that they don't belong. The details of CIPA are not germane to an article about the ALA. They are germane to an article about CIPA. The fact that the ALA is a litigant in the legal case doesn't mean that the details of one supreme court case need to be in this article. We can discuss it here. My feeling is that if you can't find anyone else who believes that this should be part of the article [and I was not the last person to revert only the most recent] that this bit be left off. Please feel free to state your position of why you feel that it needs to be there Jessamyn (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeow, I wrote a big response, then my computer cut out and lost it all! That was last night. I'll get back to this. Wikipedia allows for using the citations missing tag to handle this exact situation in question while leaving the material in; the tag notifies the public some material may need citations and invites others to participate. It is not policy compliant for you to decide your policy trumps Wikipedia policy and statements with which you disagree must not be posted, even where they are obvious from a casual reading of the case and just on general principles. Oh yes, you also claimed I should not be filling the ALA article with "details of one supreme court case" [US v. ALA], but you did not complain when the IP Address sock puppeteer who is even higher ranking in the ALA then you once where put some details in there in the first place. Now, merely in response to the partial truth provided by the ALA high ranking member, I added balance that is 1) from the case, 2) obvious, 3) confirmed in matters like in Rochester, NY [2], and encyclopedic. If the article says filters must be turned off without asking why, that is only the partial truth since turning off the filters does not obviate the rule in US v. ALA and in local communities that library computers are only for "bona fide research or other lawful purposes." It is obvious that public library computers may not be used for illegal purposes. I honestly do not understand why the ALA, as represented by you, the sock puppeteer, and others, go out of your ways, even against wiki policy, to keep such information out of the article, particularly where only the partial truth is presented and that partial truth goes against Wikipedia policy. I understand the ALA has full control over www.ala.org and the like but it does not have such power over en.wikipedia.org. Jessamyn, you and the sock puppeteer and various others loosely work together, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to ensure ALA pages say only what the ALA will allow, then you state "if you can't find anyone else who believes that this should be part of the article [and I was not the last person to revert only the most recent] that this bit be left off." It's as if the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is irrelevant if I can't find someone else to support me. No, it's not "as if," that is what you are saying. Leaving off that little "bit" leaves the matter out of balance -- true, but not the whole truth. I am not surprised the sock puppeteer would say that but I know you to be fairer in the past and still think you are. Perhaps you wish to restate your objections. Are you going to continue to revert all my edits until I satisfy your need to "find someone else"? Now I will return here and provide more specific reasons, as in actual citations, to prove the matter asserted, but I hope by that time you will reconsider your stance that leaving in the partial truth is preferred over providing the whole truth. This very issue is at the heart of the ALA and at the heart of what goes on in public libraries nationwide (USA) as a result of the ALA's guidance to public libraries. Therefore this issue must be done and must be done right. As evidenced in Rochester, NY, people are tired of registered sex offenders using CIPA-complaint public library computers illegally. Fortunately, Wikipedia policy will eventually trump ALA policy and this Wikipedia page will be truly encyclopedic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Since it is required by Jessamyn that I obtain support before Wiki policy will be followed on this page, and even while I am finding the specific citations, I ask people to consider getting involved here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I think if there is something as verifiable as a court case in this matter, then it should be really quite straightforward to sort out. I'll look into it in more depth. Any help will be great. Lingorama 15:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
LAEC, you say It is obvious that public library computers may not be used for illegal purposes. My argument is that your assessment of what is and is not illegal is incorrect, based on a misreading of the court case and is shading what you think is appropriate to put in this article. A link to your del.icio.us account does not add merit to your edits to Wikipedia. I do not represent the ALA. I am not a member. However I do understand how the organization works. I also know, after working on this article for several years, that you seem to have a particular slant that you would like this article to have for you to be happy with it. I disagree with that slant. I do not think it belongs in a short encyclopedic article about the ALA. I am wondering if there is anyone else who does believe that information belongs here and that is why this is on the talk page. Your claims about the ALA "sock puppeteer" belong somewhere else entirely unless they are verifiable. Jessamyn (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Just another outsider view: I think the legal issue can be fairly easily cleared up using a direct quote. Any sock issues are probably best handled on user talk pages, and of course can be followed up using user checks and so on. Regarding particular "slants". Judging by the article, it looks to me to be more of a matter of working with sensible criticism and making sure each view is represented to the best of its ability - and that includes possibly writing for the enemy. I think the main issue in that case is: [3] "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.". Lingorama 03:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessamyn, "A link to your del.icio.us account does not add merit to your edits to Wikipedia." Right. But that was not its purpose. The purpose was to explain the issue I was referencing. In no way do I think my delicious links are otherwise of any use to Wikipedia. The sock puppeteer puts in the shading; I try to counter it--that's not my shading, that's balance. You are right you do not represent the ALA, but you used to be an ALA Councilor, a rather prominent position within the ALA. Indeed because of your technical savvy, you are rather prominent within ALA circles, and even have your own wiki page! I'll never have that. And your connection to the ALA is right in the first sentence! Makes me wonder why you said, "I do not represent the ALA. I am not a member. However I do understand how the organization works." As to the sock puppeteer, this is the same person we have discussed in the past, and because of wiki policy not to reveal the identity of individuals, I will not do so here, neither is it relevant. Even putting aside the sock puppeteer status, the person has I think 1 or 2 edits under his/her belt as an IP address. Uh, it looks, Jessamyn, like Lingorama's comments about balance are relevant to our mutual concerns about getting opinions from others. I can't tell where he/she is leaning yet, but perhaps he/she is waiting to see what I can provide when I get a chance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

LAEC, did you ever find a citation for your edit? It looks like it would go well where you had it, if you can cite it. --profg 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry notice

I have blocked users Lingorama, Arlen Wilps, Spoctacle and Realbie some of whom edit here, as sockpuppets of a banned user.FT2 (Talk | email) 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ALA Divisions

On submission of a stub for Reference and User Services Association it was suggested that this article be merged with the main entry for American Library Association. However, there is a separate article for one of the divisions, Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), but that article has no such suggestion attached to it. What do the experts think? Describing all 12 or so divisions in one article could become a bit unwieldy, and since the acronyms and names do crop up separately, why not have separate articles for each division with links to the ALA main article? At the moment, the ALA main article just has external links to the websites of most of the ALA divisions, not descriptions. However, since these entries now are just short ones, they could be merged and have the external link along side them, using a redirect to the ALA main article from the separate article. Please give me your thoughts on how best to proceed, as we are not currently being consistent. Humaniorum (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm not a wiki expert. Seems to me the ALA is encyclopedic, and its various sub organizations may not be and should be included here instead of on separate pages. For example, people do talk about the ALA. I have never, ever heard anyone talk about the ALSC. Let me also say that it appears to me that some of the people who worked on the sub organization are members of those organizations or the ALA itself. That in it is not necessarily a problem, indeed it might mean someone in the know can add encyclopedic material, but it might cause one to see things as more important than they are, and it might mean those people are not wiki policy experts either. Those are my impressions, however I do not know if wiki policy supports or does not support merging the pages. Further, I have been critical of the ALA's OIF, another sub organization, so I'll recuse myself further from this issue. It's interesting though, thanks for bringing it up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The divisions of ALA are generally giant and could have pages all their own and I think this would be totally appropriate. People writing these articles need to make sure that the things they're writing about RUSA are encyclopedic as per Wikipedia guidelines. Basically the information should be general interest, include authoritative sourcing to mainstream media reports of their activities if they exist, and explain why someone who is not an ALA/library wonk would care about RUSA. If we fold division articles into the ALA article it gets really busy and messy really fast. But I think it's important to make sure the RUSA article, as written, is worth its own article not just potentially could be its own article. To your concern LAEC "it appears to me that some of the people who worked on the sub organization are members of those organizations or the ALA itself" This is really more of an issue with smaller organizations than giant umbrella membership organizations. So for example it wouldn't make sense (and would be against guidelines) for someone in a band to write the Wikipedia article about his or her band, it's not out of line for someone who is a member of the American Medical Association to contribute to an article about the AMA. In some cases with big organizations it doesn't make sense to make sure people have absolutely no connection to an organization as much as they need to be able to be clearly acting in good faith and writing the article with a neutral point of view. Jessamyn (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and, as I said, sometimes such edits by insiders are good as the insiders may be more knowledgeable, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If merging is eventually done, consider also merging Judith Fingeret Krug and Michael Gorman (librarian). These are two people are known primarily for their leadership of the ALA. The page for the former was created by the former's own office employees using language copied from the ALA's own page on the subject. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
LAEC, please do not do that here. If you have an objection to someone's use of Wikipedia, please say it outright or discuss it with them directly. Presume good faith. If a page needs improvement, please improve it. It's totally appropriate for officers of a noteworthy organization to merit their own articles if they have been shown to meet Wikipedia biography and notability guidelines which I believe these two people have. Jessamyn (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, Jessamyn. I only said "if," and it was only a suggestion for others as a possibility, not as something I favor. It was a valid suggestion, after all, given the original suggestion made to which I responded. But I will not be doing that myself if it ever does happen, and I'll likely not further comment on the matter except within the body of this Talk section as it continues. I get your point about separate notability, indeed even you have your own wiki page and your notability stems largely from your connection to the ALA as well. Don't worry; I won't merge your wiki page out of existence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ala logo.gif

Image:Ala logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alalogosmall.gif

Image:Alalogosmall.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Links removals, reintegrate into article?

From this version : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Library_Association&direction=prev&oldid=227054786 to this version (which is current, as I'm writing this): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Library_Association&oldid=227054786 most of the Ext. Links were removed per Wikipedia:External links I think these links could revisited and integrated into the text of the article, with descriptive talk on the Divisions and Round Tables JohnRussell (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Re: ALA Divisions: since the external links have been removed, it seems especially appropriate that separate articles be set up for each division that is notable enough and a short description in the ALA article (with referenced link) of all of the divisions. JohnRussell (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

JohnRussell (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This, however, presumes that the divisions are going to be notable enough. I don't think this is generally the case. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The edit to remove the links makes the article look much better. Anyone can go to the ALA site and get the links there. This is an encyclopedic article, not an ALA web page listing things of interest to members. The round tables and divisions are covered quite well already. I see no need to have all those links in there too. I must have been blind looking at them all this time and not doing anything. I recently added headings that make the page better. Now these link removals are icing on the cake. Congrats to whomever did it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a "Notable Divisions" section. Divisions with their own articles should be linked to from this article. JohnRussell (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better than that linkfarm, in my opinion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Glad to you like the reintegration into the article. JohnRussell (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Library_Association/Archive_3&oldid=1068426827"