Talk:Banned Books Week

Adding cleanup tag

This page needs cleanup. The cleanup rules say, "Editors are STRONGLY encouraged to try and perform clean-up themselves before posting articles to this list. Help in cleaning articles on this list is also greatly appreciated." However, it might be less controversial if I do not make the actual changes since some who watch this page may feel I would add POV. So I'll leave it to others to do the bulk of the work.

But look at the page. It clearly needs cleanup.

It needs balance too, but that's another story. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

please feel free to indicate on this page what you think needs clean-up. The page looks fine as far as I am concerned. Jessamyn (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to stay out of it. Generally, the page would undergo massive copy editing if it were to be published. The problem has nothing to do with the subject matter, only with the mechanics of writing. Grammar, style, links, accuracy, a whole pile of things I saw wrong with this article.

How about this. I'll go and make some changes. They will be examples of the kinds of problems, and I see one editor already fixed something. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I've made a few changes by way of example. I'll still try to stay out of this.

But the writing is wishy-washy too. "So 'Banned Books Week' is a more useful title in their overall aims." What? Overall aims? That was not even discussed. Who is making that decision? It is not a very encyclopedic phrase. I think there is a policy on weasel words.

And a separate section for the names of the sponsors? Wimpy to me.

There are so many other problems. It definitely needs further cleaning up.

Perhaps Strunk and White's Elements of Style and Elements of Grammar are banned books. That might explain why the page looks like a middle school assignment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding NPOV tag

Some recent clean up attempts have been made. Great. More clean up is needed.

But if we can set aside the extremely poor wording of this article for a moment, the article looks like it was written by a member or admirer of the American Library Association. I'm about to list examples. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. "Banned Books Week is an awareness campaign, sponsored annually by the American Library Association (ALA)" - I think it is sponsored by a number of organizations, although the ALA is the major on carrying the torch.
2. "Offering Banned Books Week kits, the ALA sells posters, buttons, and bookmarks to celebrate the event." - the ALA's selling things in the second paragraph? Hello?
3. "First Amendment rights are valuable to the ALA, and the organization dedicates itself to promoting intellectual freedom, viewing it as an undeniable right that should be guaranteed to all citizens." Wonderful, even if it is POV. But in the first paragraph of Banned Books Week page?
4. "Challenging and banning books both threaten readers’ abilities to access materials" - this should be on the examples page for same POV, OR (original research), and unverifiability. There is no reference proving people are "threatened."
5. "A book banning occurs when these controversial materials are actually removed from a library or curriculum, thereby restricting access to other readers." Excuse me? The US Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Pico does not support this POV statement. The case appears nowhere on this page yet it is directly relevant.
6. "Robert Doyle, author of “Books Challenged or Banned in 2006-2007,” believes that challenges are just as dangerous as bannings themselves." - Really? WHo cares? The guy actually flat out lies to ensure statewide filtering legislation is defeated in Illinois, and actually coordinates a possibly illegal action to deprive citizens across Illinois of taxpayer services by getting local libraries to restrict or cut off access to the Internet, and yet he is here on the Banned Books Week page so important as to actually be named in the article. POV anyone?
7. "attempts to censor can lead to voluntary restriction of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy" - again, "attempts to censor" is a POV issue that ignores Pico and has little or nothing to do with reality.
8. "However, the best way to ensure access to materials is to report any challenges at the American Library Website at www.ala.org." - This looks like an advertisement for the ALA.
9. The references are all ALA or pro ALA.

Those are just some of the problems with POV, reliability, verifiability, and on and on. I am not saying the ALA is bad for this wiki page being written this way. I am saying this wiki page clearly violates numerous wiki policies, most especially NPOV, and it needs serious reworking to make it even passable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LAEC, your personal website linked in your profile (and your username) is specifically anti-ALA. You seem, to me, to have a conflict of interest regarding this article and the issue of whether or not it is neutral. The ALA is a 65,000 member organization. There is no issue with someone who is an ALA member making edits to this page in and of itself, but NPOV is important. That said, editorializing on the talk page is not really the way to move forward with clean up to this page and your remarks about Robert Doyle don't really have a place here. His book is an important book on the subject and your personal opinion of his actions are not relevant to this Wikipedia article. Jessamyn (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jessamyn. You really have to stop following me around and announcing that everything I say is biased.

Everything I said here is legitimate. Everything. Everything I said here is based on wiki policy. Everything. I even specified "I am not saying the ALA is bad for this wiki page being written this way." For all I know at this time, the ALA and its members have nothing to do with the page. So it really is getting tiresome that you follow me around and make statements based on your own biases against me instead of actually considering what I said. This wiki page stinks as it is. You know it, I know you know it. It's just plain poor writing -- looks like a middle school homework assignment. I am perfectly within my wiki rights to raise the issues the issues I have.

Further, I gave numerous examples, just to avoid the appearance of my being merely nit picky or the like. Certainly the majority of the issues I raised or legitimate and even compelling.

Notice carefully I have not made any edits precisely because of my stance regarding the ALA. I am leaving it to others to make the changes they see fit within the guidance of wiki policy. Yet here you are telling people I'm biased and can't be trusted. Who cares? This is a Talk page. I haven't changed the wiki page significantly.

Thank you for announcing to the world, yet again, that I am "anti-ALA" -- I am not and I am a member of the ALA. I am against the policies of the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom and its propaganda efforts. Are you suggesting I'm not allowed to oppose the OIF? Can we finish announcing my bias wherever you follow me and get back to following wikipedia policy and treat each other with the required respect due under wikipedia rules? I think you need to reference this guidance: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick Looking forward to working with you, as soon as you come around and join the wiki community like most everyone else.

Oh, the stuff about Robert Doyle belongs here because he is not a reliable source since he lies to make his points (and I can show it -- it is a matter of public record, not my personal opinion as you claim), and he was mentioned by name in the body of the wiki page as if he were some great source for information on BBW. He is not precisely because of his statements in the public record. Hence my including that as one point in a series. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not following you around, please do not say that I am. This page is on my watchlist. I do not want to get involved in another debate about this with you. Jessamyn (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New information from the Library Journal on this topic: "Censors" Are So Scary, by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 6 Oct. 2008. It and its sources confirm exactly what I have been saying, and more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cleanup and POV

I'm new to this - contributing to Wikipedia - and will admit to this being my first discussion post. I felt compelled to get involved here because I came to Wikipedia for information on Banned Books Week and, instead, got a treatise on banned/challenged books. I don't believe that the information on this page is appropriate for an entry titled "Banned Books Week" - there's no information about the history of the event, when the event takes place, who the sponors are, etc.

I found the information below at the ALA website (including information on the other sponsors of the event) and believe this would be a more appropriate entry for Banned Book Week. Certainly, one could link to another entry called Banned Books and/or Challenged Books for more information about what those titles mean.

I don't know what the protocol is for making changes to the page itself and certainly wouldn't want to simply dis someones efforts. If the creator of this page would like to use the following, I think (as I said) that it's a better explanation for the event:

"Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year. Observed since 1982, the annual event reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted.

Banned Books Week (BBW) celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met. As the Intellectual Freedom Manual (ALA, 7th edition) states:

“Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate; and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of the work, and the viewpoints of both the author and receiver of information. Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to ideas is stifled.”

Each year, the American Library Association (ALA) is asked 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, but “merely” challenged. There are two reasons. One, ALA does not “own” the name Banned Books Week, but is just one of several cosponsors of BBW; therefore, ALA cannot change the name without all the cosponsors agreeing to a change. Two, none want to do so, primarily because a challenge is an attempt to ban or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A successful challenge would result in materials being banned or restricted.

Although they were the targets of attempted bannings, most of the books featured during BBW were not banned, thanks to the efforts of librarians to maintain them in their collections. (See also Censorship and Challenges and Notable First Amendment Cases.) Imagine how many more books might be challenged—and possibly banned or restricted—if librarians, teachers, and booksellers across the country did not use Banned Books Week each year to teach the importance of our First Amendment rights and the power of literature, and to draw attention to the danger that exists when restraints are imposed on the availability of information in a free society.

To assist in planning the weeklong celebration, each year a BBW kit is developed. This kit includes three posters, 100 bookmarks, a button and a Resource Guide, which contains suggested activities and ideas for a BBW celebration. Moreover, the Resource Guide contains an annotated list of challenged or banned books and is an excellent reference for conducting research on censorship. (Since 2001, the Resource Guide is published every three years. Between new editions, kits include one List of Books Challenged or Banned since the last BBW.)

Often challenges are motivated by a desire to protect children from “inappropriate” sexual content or “offensive” language. Although this is a commendable motivation, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, an interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (ALA's basic policy concerning access to information) states that, “Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents—and only parents—have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children—and only their children—to library resources.” Censorship by librarians of constitutionally protected speech, whether for protection or for any other reason, violates the First Amendment.

As Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in Texas v. Johnson, said most eloquently:

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

If we are to continue to protect our First Amendment, we would do well to keep in mind these words of Noam Chomsky:

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.”

Or these words of "Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (The One Un-American Act." Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 1953, p. 20):

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

For more information on Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read, please contact the American Library Association/Office for Intellectual Freedom at 1-800-545-2433, ext. 4220, or bbw@ala.org.

Banned Books Week Sponsors include:

American Booksellers Association American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Library Association American Society of Journalists and Authors Association of American Publishers National Association of College Stores Endorsed by the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress"

Alexinmadison (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well welcome, Alexinmadison. Looks like you have a great future career in Wikipedia. Keep it up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That was a very kind thing to say. - Alexinmadison (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

References

I'm fixing the references as best as I can. Please improve if possible. —Rossumcapek (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This article contains original research. These may also be examples of NPOV violations.

Examples:

• "Whether the books feature graphic language, strong violence, or explicit sexual content, people that challenge materials feel that others should not have access to them."
• "Most challengers are individuals or groups that feel readers should not have access to materials for their own benefit."
• "The most successful challengers are national conservative organizations, which use their large budgets to 'eclipse the First Amendment,' by challenging materials in libraries."
• "Because these groups network and share resources, some are successful in challenging books in libraries." The American Library Association also networks and shares resources. Seeing a problem with this is OR and/or NPOV.
• "Even when challenged books remain in schools and public libraries, the damage is already done, as attempts to censor can lead to voluntary restriction of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy." Censor? That's POV. If a book is legitimately removed, say under the Pico case, no censorship has occurred. Further, censorship as used here is the ALA's definition, not the real definition, so it is inherently POV.
• "However, the best way to ensure access to materials is to report any challenges at the American Library Website at www.ala.org." What, did a PR flak for the ALA write this article? This is wikipedia, not ala.org.
• "For help fighting a challenge, the ALA’s website also provides helpful information and links for advocates of free speech."
• "Offering Banned Books Week kits, the ALA sells posters, buttons, and bookmarks to celebrate the event." Apparently, this is ala.org, not wikipedia.
• "Challenging and banning books both threaten readers’ abilities to access materials...."
• "A book banning occurs when these controversial materials are actually removed from a library or curriculum, thereby restricting access to other readers." This is pure ALA policy right from its web site, though not word for word. Again, this has become ala.org, not wikipedia.

Don't these examples reek of OR, NPOV, and even sales pitches by the ALA? To be clear, I'm am not saying any member or employee of the ALA is responsible for the biased material appearing on wikipedia.

No one has done anything to give this article any balance whatsoever, so far as I can see, despite previous tags placed on this page almost half a year ago, at least. Somebody better do something soon or I'll take matters into my own hands and clean the "shameless propaganda" out of this article. Then I'm sure there will be major personal attacks headed my way since that is the usual course of a propagandist's action. No mention will be made of my near half year restraint on this article to try to make it wikiworthy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposing RS for controversy

I am suggesting an edit be done to this page. Will someone help?

I have edited this page from time to time. The article contains a few sentences on controversy that could be expanded a little with the right noteworthy, reliable source. The following article could be such a source: "US Libraries Hit Back Over Challenges to Kids Books," by Sara Hussein, Agence France-Presse [AFP], 6 September 2009.

I would like to edit this page accordingly to add the source. However, I am named in that article, and I specifically call into question the American Library Association's claims about "censorship" as promoted by Banned Books Week. Therefore, I thought it best that I not add the RS and whatever associated text that may improve the article given the above. But if no responses appear here after a week or so, I'll go add what I think would be best. So someone please make the edit or explain why it should not be used. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: I have reverted your edit, which served only to add your own personal views on Banned Book Week to this page. Your edit not only smacks of self-promotion, it reveals your animus to this event and your lack of a neutral viewpoint. It's also telling that you added the quote without any attibution that would reveal that you are the speaker.

I would second the comments of Jessamyn and other commenters above: you have a specific beef with ALA and Banned Books Week, and so therefore have no business editing this page, especially given the POV demonstrated by your website, www.safelibraries.org. -- [User:Bibliolover|Bibliolover]] (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand your passion and love for Banned Books Week. So much so that your very first edits, all three of them, where made right here and right now on this very page. You then went on a personal attack--you are new to Wikipedia but you decided to personally attack. Okay, you are new, that's how things are. But please know we work cooperatively with each other here and on Wikipedia generally. People have even made comments here about how well we are getting along though we disagree on things. I hope you will consider contributing in that manner.

In the mean time, I will revert your removal of the sentence +ref. Adding material as I have done is acceptable where, among other things, it is done in an acceptable manner. This I have done. Indeed, that's the whole purpse of this Talk page subsection. I fully understand how someone new like you would find it surprising. I found things surprising too when I first started. But I assure you I have followed proper procedure.

Be that as it may, it is always good to have more editors here. Do not let my reversal of your first edit discourage you in the slightest. I hope you will stay here and continue to edit here and on Wikipedia generally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that some of your comments are factually incorrect. For example, you say, "It's also telling that you added the quote without any attibution that would reveal that you are the speaker." That is factually incorrect. Read my comment, the very one to which you responded. It says, among other things, "I would like to edit this page accordingly to add the source. However, I am named in that article, and I specifically call into question the American Library Association's claims about 'censorship' as promoted by Banned Books Week." So clearly I have advised everyone here that I was involved and that I oppose the ALA on its false censorship claims. As to not naming myself in the article, that's simply not the issue. The issue is opposition to BBW. The Sara Hussein AFP article is perfect for that generally, and specifically the quote I cited. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the edit. It is a fact that you operate a website and organization devoted to denigrating ALA and Banned Books Week and it is a fact that you promote a particular, non-neutral point of view on Banned Books Week. Those facts - not opinions, or a personal attack -- by themselves should disqualify you from editing this article. But your obfuscation that the article "appears to add useful information" appears to be a blind to add your own quote - your opinion and viewpoint -- to the article, not an attempt nto add good, factual information about Banned Books Week or banned books. And your failure to identify yourself as the souce of the quote in the Wikipedia article itself - few people read beyond to the discussion page - is a second attempt to obfuscate your intent here.

My understanding is that Wikipedia absolutely discourages editors from self-promotion and promotion of political viewpoints. If the article is so useful, then it should be added by a neutral editor. In fact, it appears to be a standard BBW article that rehashes the information already in the Wikipedia article. -- Bibliolover (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I have not been effective in properly guiding you. Given the nature of your comments, I will likely have to get others involved. Leave the material in the main page until there is consensus here for its removal. Your removing it a third time may be viewed negatively. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I need no guidance to recognize bias, self-promotion, and frankly, an attempt to exclude information that contradicts your viewpoint (why else would you exclude the link to the banned books map, or the citations that demonstrate that Banned Books Week draws attention to banned books as well as challenged books?) I have reverted your edit, since the default should be to exclude disputed, controversial material. If you revert again before other editors weigh in, I will apply an NPOV tag to the page and approach the appropriate noticeboards and ask for mediation.--Bibliolover (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia editor has already reverted the page while I was writing my explanation. Thanks to Stephan Schultz. --Bibliolover (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me say this, the source is certainly a reliable one and does support the assertion that "the event is not without controversy". However, specifically including that quote inside the article is unnecessary and I can see no reason for doing so aside from promoting yourself, LAEC. I do appreciate your disclosure of your conflict of interest and your patience in proposing the source over a week in advance before adding it, but using it for self-promotion isn't appropriate. -- Atama頭 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

Two external links are flawed. One is a link to what already exists in a footnote. The other is a subpage of an existing external link. Setting aside POV, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is to be written in an encyclopedic fashion. Duplicative links, whether by repetition or by subpages, are not encyclopedic. They just clutter the page.

Further, the map linked is seriously flawed for reasons substantially similarly to those detailed here. It is simply not encyclopedic to reprint as truth what is essentially the POV of some organization.

Lastly, the rapidity, frequency, and non wiki friendly fashion in which the links are being pushed by a single editor further evidence the POV nature of the links and the perseverative use of the links. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the removal of the map. WP:EL states, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." As LAEC pointed out, there were two external links to the same web site and the link directly to the map could be found on the first page. It's unnecessary to point the reader to specific areas of the web site we're already linking. Bibliolover said that "many Wiki entries contain multiple links to the same website", but firstly there may be extenuating circumstances on other articles that would justify doing so, and if not, the fact that mistakes are made in other articles shouldn't excuse making the same mistake here. -- Atama頭 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag - 2009

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, an acknowledged critic of Banned Books Week who maintains a website and an organization dedicated to denigrating Banned Books Week (see http://www.safelibraries.org), who also comments negatively about Banned Books Week in the mass media (see the article, US Libraries Hit Back Over Challenges to Kids Books at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMj2Fmuq6lqm4kdFfy5Vhp8-suQg), appears to be editing this article to push his point of view concerning Banned Books Week. This concern over his conflict of interest has been raised before (see earlier entries on this talk page.) His last batch of edits - eliminating links to resources that contradict his views, attempting to add his own quote to the article, and now creating notes containing cherry-picked quotes that are provided without context - seem to confirm this conflict of interest. I will file notices with the appropriate noticeboards to ask for assistance; in the meantime I will attempt to restore the information eliminated by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Bibliolover (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliolover, I am willing to listen to you. Understand that NPOV tags are used to point out what is NPOV and why. They are not used to make conclusory statements about editors themselves allegedly having some POV.

Please keep the following in mind:

If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. If the problem persists, consider filing a request for comment, get a third opinion, or if appropriate, file a report at fringe theories noticeboard. There are other options available to resolve such situations explained at dispute resolution.

Please update this section with exactly what is NPOV and exactly why, and please do so without addressing personal characteristics of editors. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Overweighting a brief article with citations to the same minority viewpoint that is already more than adequately reflected in the article, and eliminating links to useful, unique resources is not neutral, though I'm willing to have an admin correct me. (Notably, nearly half of the text of the article is taken up by materials addressing the controversy you yourself generate via your external website.) As I stated earlier, you appear to have a conflict of interest so great that I question whether you should edit this article. I have filed a request for assistance at the appropriate noticeboard. Bibliolover (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Help me and help the admin. What exactly do you believe to be the offending edits? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about one point, Bibliolover stated "I'm willing to have an admin correct me". Why are you only willing to be corrected by an administrator? That seems somewhat arbitrary (administrators have no more authority than other editors, they just have more tools) and seems to be saying that you're not willing to receive the input of others. I do know that you haven't been with the project long but at the same time I'd like to gently caution you that you have to be willing to compromise with other editors or you're going to have a rough time here. -- Atama頭 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps better to say that I am seeking the opinion of a neutral editor. Bibliolover (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we all just get along?

Bibliolover, it is Wiki policy to politely advise editors that they may be edit warring. I am hereby politely advising you that you are edit warring. Read more about the here: WP:3RR The polite advisory is intended to keep people cool and to promote their working cooperatively together. I have constantly asked you to take matters to the talk page. Your not having done so has resulted in this 3RR message.

IGNORE THIS PARAGRAPH - I SEE THE NPOV TALK SECTION WAS ADDED WHILE I WAS WRITING THIS: By the way, it is also Wiki policy that NPOV tags be explained in Talk. See WP:DRIVEBY. Since you have not done so, I am going to remove your NPOV tag. Please feel free to add it back, but it is being suggested that Wiki policy be followed and that you provide reasons for your NPOV tag in this Talk page if you decide to continue to pursue the NPOV tag.

There is so much that can be accomplished if everyone works together. The majority of your edits, other than the perseverative ones (all of them, not just the external links), have been valuable in the article. I am certain you might agree my edits have been valuable as well. There is no need to battle against me as you have. Please try to work more cooperatively with me and others. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You violated 3RR yourself. Both of you are guilty of edit-warring and could potentially be blocked if reported (you reverted 4 times in 24 hours, Bibliolover reverted 5 times). So I encourage both of you to not do that any longer. It does look like the edit war has cooled off for now however. -- Atama頭 19:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I try to keep count of such things. I believed I was reverting what was essentially vandalism, except it was by a newbie who gets extra latitude, as I noted. Further, the newbie repeated ignored direction in hostory notes to await consensus. SO i guess I was little more careless than usual. Sorry. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The accusation of vandalism, and the condescension displayed by trying to denigrate me as a impliedly stupid newbie, is uncivil. It also contradicts your earlier statements that my edits added to the article. While I regret any edit warring, you had no basis to claim consensus for your edits, which I still believe reflect a bias, as noted throughout this talk page. Bibliolover (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Muncy quote

The Muncy quote will be re-added and here's why:

1. The quote says:

"The problem of loose language aside, we can still ask whether books are banned in this country. The obvious answer is no, if banned means something like 'made dangerous or difficult for the average person to obtain.' .... The ALA grants on its Web site that 'most of the books featured during [Banned Books Week] were not banned.'"

1. The context in which it appears is the paragraph-leading sentence in the article that says, "The event is not without controversy."
2. That sentence includes 3 references, one of which is the Muncy article that contains the Muncy quote.
3. The quoted material saying that no books are banned in the USA and that the ALA itself admits this goes directly to the point that the "event is not without controversy."
4. The quote tag contained with the Cite news template is there precisely to be used to place relevant quotes into the reference. It is also there to aid in finding the article in the future should a link go stale. Specifically, the Cite News page says the use of the 'quote' attribute is for, "Relevant quotation. Adding a quotation can help locate online copies of the item using a text search, especially if the original link goes dead."
5. The Muncy quote is there for the exact reasons provided by the Cite News explanation.
6. The Muncy quote was removed by a newbie, the same newbie, for the following reasons:

• non-notable, cherry-picked quote neither explains or supports facts in article; its use appears to be spin
• rv cherry picked quote in note
• Eliminate cherry-picked quote to simplify link

1. The reasons the newbie removed the quote, because it was "non-notable," "cherry picked," and would "simplify [the] link," are not true. It is notable because it directly evidences the purpose for which it was quoted, namely, to show BBW is controversial. It is "cherry picked," but all quotes are cherry picked to find the best quote to support the purpose for which it was quoted, so being "cherry picked" is irrelevant. Lastly, simplifying the link by not using the 'quote' attribute essentially eliminates the need for the 'quote' attribute to be in the Cite News template. So since the attribute is there to be used, its use is appropriate and need not be "simplified."

For the reasons stated above, I am re-adding the Muncy quote. Further, I am asking the community for support if the newbie continues to remove the quote for the reasons raised above, or for other irrelevant reasons. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the the quote is appropriately used at the moment. It's attached as a footnote to a statement of fact ("is not without controversy"). But Muncy's article is obviously (and labeled as) an opinion piece. As such, it cannot be used to support a statement of fact - see WP:RS#News_organizations. It seems like you try to use this as a primary source, but in that case you perform original research. If you want this quote in, it has to go in explicitly as a notable view, not as purported support for statement that is at best weakly related. I don't know if Muncy's opinion is notable enough for this - I've never heard of him, but I live on the other side of a big pond. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Muncy is not the issue. The quote is in to support the statement, "The event is not without controversy." The Muncy quote supports that statement by showing the event is controversial. It is not there to prove anything else. It is not there to prove the ALA is wrong or anything else. It is only there to show "[t]he event is not without controversy." The article's being an opinion piece is irrelevant to the issue of the existence of controversy regarding the event. Indeed, it would be nearly impossible to evidence controversy if reliably sourced opinions, like this one from the Wall Street Journal, are discounted offhand. The "Doug Archer" guest blog post is opinion yet that one is a jumbo-sized quote directly in the article, not a footnote, and there are no complaints about that, so far. Yet the Muncy quote in a footnote is somehow troubling. For the above reasons, among others, the quote is properly applied. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. As you now use the quote, it suggests that the referenced article states that the event is "not without controversy". It does not, and if it would, it would be unusable as an opinion piece. As I understand it, you do not claim it supports that statement directly - rather, you offer it as an example of this controversy. Or do I misunderstand you? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that the article evidences the controversy. I think we can agree on that. If I understand what you are saying, you are saying the article has to explicitly state a controversy exists, and, if it does, it is unusable, so either way it is unusable. I would agree with you if our Wiki page used quotation marks such as "The event is 'not without controversy.'" But it does not. Further, although the article does not specifically mention a "controversy," it is clear to anyone that the article evidences the controversy.

You know what, the article not only evidences the controversy, but it also provides the reasons for the controversy in unusually clear detail, and in a reliable source, no less. It's perfect for those wishing to use Wikipedia as a launching point for researching and writing. BBW information can be found on thousands of sites. Well written and reliable sourced material that presents a different viewpoint is relatively rare. It would be ironic beyond all ironies to ban from the BBW article a quote from such a relatively rare and reliable source. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Muncy quote, drawn from an article clearly labeled as an opinion piece, does not do anything more than reiterate the point made in the Jessamyn West quote already included in the article. It fails to explain or elaborate on particular facts; the article's title makes clear its viewpoint; inclusion of the quote appears to be a way to shoehorn a particular minority viewpoint into the article that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion. It also does not appear to be well-sourced: the author cites to no references for the views expressed in the article other than the author's own opinions, and the author himself does not appear to have any particular notability. I am removing the quote (but not the reference, which supports the claim "the event is not without controversy."). Bibliolover (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliolover said, "The Muncy quote, drawn from an article clearly labeled as an opinion piece, does not do anything more than reiterate the point made in the Jessamyn West quote already included in the article." Not true. The West quote goes to book banning being different than keeping inappropriate material from children. The Muncy quote goes toward there being no banned books at all. So the two quotes evidence two different examples of controversy. They are not duplicative.

Bibliolover said, "It fails to explain or elaborate on particular facts; the article's title makes clear its viewpoint; inclusion of the quote appears to be a way to shoehorn a particular minority viewpoint into the article that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion." Not true. Author Ellen Hopkins, for example, thought the Muncy piece to be notable enough to respond in great detail to the issue Muncy raised. See On Censorship, Semantics, the Wall Street Journal and Oklahoma.

Bibliolover said, "It also does not appear to be well-sourced: the author cites to no references for the views expressed in the article other than the author's own opinions, and the author himself does not appear to have any particular notability." Irrelevant and not true. The point is controversy exists. He is describing the controversy. He does not need sources to do that. Further, it is clearly notable, especially now that author Ellen Hopkins has taken note and responded in On Censorship, Semantics, the Wall Street Journal and Oklahoma

Bibliolover said, "I am removing the quote (but not the reference, which supports the claim "the event is not without controversy.")." You may be starting your edit warring again, even after being warned, and not waiting for consensus here in this section. I will now restore the quote, and you will wait for consensus here. Leave the quote in until it is discussed here and people decide as a group whether it is in or out. That's what Stephan Schulz has done. That's what you must do too. You may be a newbie, but I think it is clear to you by now that you need to work with the community, not against it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate the West quote and the Muncy quote both evidence controversy but each evidences a different aspect, the former regarding inappropriate material for children being different from banning, and the latter regarding the lack of any banning in the first place. That is why I including the quote in the first place, precisely because it is different from the West quote. It's being different and not duplicative makes it worthy of inclusion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Schultz clearly does not believe the quote belongs in the article. Neither do I; this appears to be a consensus against inclusion.Bibliolover (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not the ebb and flow of argument as those arguments are being made. That would be silly. Consensus occurs when people are given a timely opportunity to get involved, to work cooperatively, and to come to a conclusion. Stephen Schultz and I are working cooperatively, but you are not, and no conclusion has ye been reached. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Wiki word on what constitutes consensus: WP:CONS --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided substantive reasons why the quote should not be included when you first included the edit; Stephen Schwartz echoed those objections. That consensus is against you is not a reason to claim non-consensus.--Bibliolover (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to get help. You are out of control. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am merely standing by my original edits. In addition, I have not engaged in namecalling or incivility as you have here and elsewhere. One might say that you are out of control.--Bibliolover (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Bibliolover for edit warring. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noted LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's own editwarring and uncivil comments at the same location.--Bibliolover (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. 49Kb of discussion over an article barely 560 words long. And coming on the first day of Banned Book Week, by coincidence I'm sure. And an edit war, no less. I'm pretty sure I've seen this type of behavior before. Regardless, all parties should be extra careful when making edits to a sensitive topic on an anniversary date. Zotdragon (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"49Kb of discussion over an article barely 560 words long." Unfortunately that's about normal, I've seen stubs with pages of archived arguments. "Regardless, all parties should be extra careful when making edits to a sensitive topic on an anniversary date." Agreed, often what will happen is a full protection on the article until the date is past and people lose interest in fighting over the article.

Getting back on topic, though, I think Stephan Schulz said it best. The opinion piece is being used as a primary source, where you are taking that opinion piece and concluding, by your own judgment, that there is controversy. However, per WP:PSTS using a primary source in such a manner is original research. We aren't allowed to do our own analysis, we are supposed to rely on the analysis made by reliable sources. A direct quote is okay as long as you have some secondary source doing the analysis for you. In other words, you need to dig up some other publication where someone is concluding that there is controversy based on Muncy's opinion (and possibly the opinion of others). Drawing such conclusions yourself is original research. -- Atama頭 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do these fit the bill?

1. On Censorship, Semantics, the Wall Street Journal and Oklahoma (discusses Muncy and me)
2. Even Banned Books Week Has its Detractors (Surprise?) (discusses Muncy)

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think not, see WP:RS as to what would count as a reliable source. Blogs generally aren't except in rare circumstances (a blog maintained by a major newspaper might qualify for example). Just to let you know, I did my own search for sources in hopes of finding someone making commentary that would suffice as a reliable secondary source but I only found blogs. -- Atama頭 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. The first blog, however, is the blog of an author who has been in the news in the past week, not only for her books being "banned," but also because the school backed out of a speaking engagement with her!!! Some parent complained and the school decided not to let her speak!!! So, she may have a blog, but as an author she must have some kind of authority, no? And if blogs are totally out, we are required to removed the Doug Archer guest blogger quote--I think a much better and shorter source for that could be found anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I did not use the Muncy quote to evidence the existence of a controversy. The West quote does that. Rather, the Muncy quote illustrates a different viewpoint of the controversy. West objects to protecting kids from inappropriate materials as being qualitatively different than bans, while Muncy says bans don't even happen in the first place. If I were writing a scholarly paper, I would want to show the different arguments for controversy, and I might use the footnotes to do that, just like legal cases do. I think the quote attribute in the ref tag that makes it appear as a footnote is appropriate for this very reason. Yes, Bibliolover has laid down an effective smokescreen to cast doubt on my edits, but this explanation for my edit shows at a minimum that I had a rational basis for including the quote. I hope you will agree, at least in part, and consider restoring the quote. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Three points here: First, LAEC argues that the Muncy quote is necessary to document a different viewpoint of the controversy. The primary focus of this article should be Banned Books Week, however - not a detailed accounting of a controversy for which there is small evidence and represents a minority opinion or viewpoint. There is plenty of RS factual material about BBW out there, and the article should be expanded to include it.

A footnote having a quote is not "a detailed accounting."

Then, "There is plenty of RS factual material about BBW out there, and the article should be expanded to include it." I see. Dump the "detailed accounting" that's really just a footnote Bibliolover is repeatedly removing without awaiting consensus, but add "plenty of RS factual material ... the article should be expanded to include it." Why not just call it Bibliopedia? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if one closely examines the controversy section, there isn't much in the way of reliable sourcing of a controversy - there's one reference to a 1997 story about a Family Friendly Libraries' counter event (which seems to have died out since the article was published in 1997), the references to the West and Archer blogs, a citation to a straight up news account about Banned Books Week which fails to mention anything about a controversy (but notably quotes LAEC's opinion about Banned Books Week) and the citation to the Muncy op-ed. A lot of opinions, but few facts or neutral accounts about a BBW controversy.

Second, LAEC notes that if blogs are not permitted, the Archer quote must go. If so, the same rule should apply to the West quote, which is itself from a blog (and it should be noted that West blog doesn't discuss any controversy at all; rather, the blog post expresses her opinion on the ALA's Banned Books Week website and other BBW efforts, and makes one observation in passing that LAEC has elevated into evidence of a controversy (LAEC added the West blog quote here noting that the West quote comes from a blog, but "it's allowable under these circumstances" - circumstances that are never specified, but one can speculate that it became allowable to cite a blog when other evidence of a controversy was scant on the ground.

Ms. West's blog at Librarian.net is not your average blog. See for yourself, right in the first sentence of this: Jessamyn West (librarian). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Third, it's not a smokescreen to point out LAEC's obvious COI in regards to Banned Books Week, or to validly dispute the addition of material that was pure opinion (and that would, by happenstance, advance LAEC's political views on Banned Books Week.) His personal attacks are uncivil, and I will so note when they happen. --Bibliolover (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC

It IS a smokescreen when I clearly exposed my own biases on this issue, as another editor has noted, and as I worked out with still another editor. You see, we work as a community here. Further, in your "dispute," you continued to malign me and edit disruptively. What you characterize as my "personal attacks" are merely wiki-related responses to your own attacks on me. And as another editor pointed out, while I exposed my COI, you have not, and you are continuing to drive your agenda even now, even after yet another polite warning to you.

I was so hoping Bibliolover would start working with the community instead of continuing to aim his fire at me. Can someone please take a stab at stopping this guy from attacking me and repeating what I have already exposed? Isn't it getting tiring? We are all having effective communication aimed at improving the article except one person. Bibliolover. Please, someone get him settled down. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

AEB and Dedent

As far as I'm concerned, there is potential for a representative "Reception" or "Reactions" section, comparable to how we do review sections for books or movies. I can imagine Muncy would fit in there. But the current use as a reference to a factual statement is simply wrong - as an editorial opinion (broken record here), Muncy cannot be used to support statements of fact. And he does not even make that claim - he is not reporting on, but being part of, the controversy. LaeC, you write "BBW information can be found on thousands of sites. Well written and reliable sourced material that presents a different viewpoint is relatively rare" - but that's not a good argument for including the quote, it's a hint that there is not much of a notable controversy. "Fair and balanced" is a typical fallacy - an article is fair and balanced, if all sides are represented not equally ("Some say the world is round, but some think it is flat"), but according to their due weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood, even agree somewhat. Still it gives me a very uncomfortable feeling that, if I understand you right, there is no BBW controversy because the MSM doesn't write about it. They didn't write about the Van Jones controversy until resignation forced it on them. Does that mean there was no Van Jones controversy that resulted in a resignation? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny! I just looked again at the Van Jones page. The first mention of a "controversy" links to a blog! It's even called "The Blog"! Granted, it's the Whitehouse blog. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:RS. "Blogs" are not forbidden per se. There are all kinds of blogs - e.g. blogs by major newspapers with editorial control (RS), blogs by published experts (generally RS for their speciality, per WP:SPS), and blogs by notable commentators (RS for opinion, per WP:SPS). What is not RS is the standard self-published blog by Joe Anonymous on the internet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) My gut feeling is that something like Banned Books Week has to be controversial, by its very nature. The trick is in showing it. This certainly suggests it, an article from The Guardian talking about the controversial nature of the books being supported. But I'm having trouble establishing that the event itself is controversial. Maybe the event just isn't publicized enough? I see over a hundred news hits on Gnews linking the event with the word "controversy" but haven't had a chance to browse through them all. -- Atama頭 18:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree West's Librarian.net blog is a reliable source for library-related matters? By the way, Ms. West disagrees with me on everything, but she has always been fair and honest, to my knowledge. Point is I add what I think is best for the article, not just what agrees with me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No I wouldn't agree that it's a reliable source, in general. Possibly for some things, because she is a "library consultant" and might be considered an expert on some matters (see her article). But in other matters, such as determining controversy about an event I would look for something from a journalist. At most you could quote one of her blogs to show the views of a "notable librarian". -- Atama頭 18:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps changes should be made accordingly.

After I first noted my COI here and waited for about 10 days, no activity occurred on this page, so I added things. Now, however, there is regular activity. Because of this, forgive me if I ask you, Stephan Schulz, or other contributors, even Bibliolover if he actually contributes, to make edits according to what is best. And I especially appreciate your efforts in researching the matter further. Thank you very much. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This may be a good reference. It's from the Library Journal. It's a blog on the LJ, and it's from the library world's top blogger, the Annoyed Librarian: http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/580000658/post/870049287.html?nid=4697 I haven't read it yet. I will right after posting this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that fair credit will be given for my good faith in making this comment, but the Annoyed Librarian blog appears to be less notable and less a reliable source than librarian.net, despite being published on the Library Journal website. The author is anonymous (no basis for judging his or her credentials or areas of expertise) and it appears to be a blog of pure opinion, rather than a compilation of factual reporting.--Bibliolover (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still a person's opinion on a blog. It's useless for anything but showing what a single person's opinion is. You can't use it as a wide reference regarding controversy. -- Atama頭 16:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ALA responds to Muncy

The ALA president's response to Muncy was published in the Wall Street Journal. The ALA responding to the Muncy controversy does more than anything to prove the existence of a controversy, and that Muncy it the temporary locus of that controversy, sure to move from place to place as the controversy grows in the MSM, though it is well established elsewhere. And it will grow.

I recommend restoring the Muncy quote, then adding the ALA response and an appropriate quote from that as well.

10/01/09

Librarians Work to Protect Free Access to Information

"In "Finding Censorship Where There Is None" (Taste, Sept. 25), Mitchell Muncy says that the American Library Association (ALA) is overreacting to attempts by "law-abiding parents" to ban books in their local libraries. I think it's more accurate to suggest...

At this point, I can only think of POV reasons to keep this and the Muncy quote out of this article. Now given I am mildly involved and people are actively editing here, I'll leave this to others to add. If needed, I'll provide suggested text to add.

By the way, look at another letter in the WSJ link. It says, "I created the map that was the focus of Mr. Muncy's anger. I have no affiliation with the ALA and took my marching orders from no manifesto, real or imagined." That proves the "censorship map" was not created by the ALA. The map page says, "This map is drawn from cases documented by ALA and the Kids' Right to Read Project, a collaboration of the National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. Details are available in ALA's 'Books Banned and Challenged 2007-2008,' and 'Books Banned and Challenged 2008-2009,' and the 'Kids' Right to Read Project Report.'" The site makes no mention of the true authorship of the map, and everyone likely thinks it's drafted by the ALA or the other party, not someone with "no affiliation with the ALA." True authorship should have been revealed, no? Really, this is bordering on fraud or plagiarism.

And, by the way, look at this ALA sample letter to the editor and direction to place it in "local newspapers." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mildly involved" is an understatement, LAEC - you've promoted Muncy's piece and other anti-BBW opinion pieces on your own blog.

In any case, as others have pointed out, none of these op-eds, letters to the editor, and blog posts are neutral, reliable sources documenting a controversy - rather, each item represents one individual's opinion, even when it is in response to Muncy's article. Indeed, the WSJ clearly labels all of them as "opinion." And if I'm not mistaken, collecting them in the article to support your claim that controversy exists represents original research. --Bibliolover (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The ALA president responded to Muncy, not me. There's no OR here. There's a controversy, and the ALA responded directly as a result of that controversy, with its president, with specifically what is the nature of that controversy, in the same paper as the Muncy quote, within days. This is an ALA controversy to the ALA president acting on behalf of the ALA. The president. Of the ALA. Speaking for the ALA. And the controversy is Banned Books Week, a creation of the ALA.

I have nothing to do with the ALA responding to Muncy in the WSJ. Neither does my blog. There is no OR involved here. Just pick up the Wall Street Journal and read Muncy then read the ALA response--its all about Banned Books Week. No OR is involved. Whether I claim a controversy exists is irrelevant as obviously the ALA found Muncy to be controversial, and the ALA is the creator of Banned Books Week.

This is a controversy, evidenced by the ALA's own statements made by its own elected president, in the WSJ, in response to Muncy. How anybody could not see Muncy and the ALA's response about Banned Books Week as not worthy of the Wiki page on Banned Books Week is beyond me, except if that person has a POV, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You say that the controversy is evidenced by a letter to the editor responding to an op-ed, even though neither item uses the word "controversy," or discusses the existence of a controversy. WP:OR warns in the WP:SYN section, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."

To repeat: neither Muncy's op-ed nor Alire's letter, written as the president of the ALA, are factual or neutral reporting; nor do they discuss the existence of a controversy. They're both statements of each writer's opinion concerning Banned Books Week. The WSJ labels both items as "opinion," not fact, and has segregated and distinguished these opinion pieces from its factual reporting. Some other RS is needed to support the claim of controversy. --Bibliolover (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is obvious. The lack of the word "controversy" does not mean no controversy exists. Do all the other controversy sections on all other Wiki pages require the use of the word "controversy" to prove there is a controversy? This reliance on the word "controversy" to prove the existence of a controversy is silly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not even suggesting we "reach conclusion C," as Bibliolover says. I am merely suggesting, given the obvious controversy, placing exact quotes in the Wiki page, into footnotes, no less. No conclusion is being reached. The controversy is obvious, and the quotes in footnotes illustrate key points. This is normal, everyday writing. Use varied sources, cite sources, add quotes, use footnotes, use quotes in footnotes, etc. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that these opinion pieces don't use the word "controversy;" neither opinion piece discusses the existence of a controversy whatsoever. Whether considered alone or together, neither is a reliable source for the existence of a controversy. Moreover, the Muncy quote in particular is not evidence of a controversy. It is merely a statement of one man's opinion. --Bibliolover (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bibliolover is correct here. We're not supposed to draw conclusions, that is original research and more specifically synthesis. Saying that it is "obvious" isn't a valid argument. If it's obvious then what you do is say that so-and-so has this opinion, and so-and-so has this opinion, and you can let the reader draw their own conclusions about whether or not there is an "obvious" controversy. Despite your protests to the contrary, you really are suggesting that we "reach conclusion C" because it's an obvious conclusion. Frankly I don't see how the controversy is obvious, but maybe that's because I'm not personally involved in the controversy. -- Atama頭 15:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The ALA made it (Muncy) a controversy by responding as it has. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion. But you can't insert that info solely based on your own opinion. -- Atama頭 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy - 1 : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute; 2 : quarrel, strife"

That's not my opinion—that's the actual definition of controversy. The ALA response to the Muncy article is essentially "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute."

I am not inserting it based solely on my opinion. It should be inserted because a) it has nothing to do with my opinion, and b) it is "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you're drawing conclusions by putting different facts together yourself which is what WP:SYNTH states we should not do. It doesn't matter if you use a dictionary in your reasoning, you're still inserting original research. You're actually doing the job of a journalist, piecing together different pieces of information to make a story. That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not understand your point. You are saying I am piecing things together and you can't do that. That I understand. What I do not understand is how Muncy says X so the ALA responds to Muncy saying X is considered my piecing things together. To me, they pieced themselves together, if you want to use that terminology. One is a response to the other. I haven't pieced anything from anywhere--it's right there in the WSJ. But obviously I am missing something. What am I missing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So then you're claiming that the Wall Street Journal has analyzed the situation and declared that it is controversial? It doesn't matter if to you they pieced themselves together. You are taking the response of one person to another and are declaring that it qualifies as controversy. All that you have that is backed up by reliable sources is that Muncy had an opinion, and the ALA responded to it. You can include that information because you have sources for it. The reader can look at that information and decide or not that there's controversy. But you can't claim controversy as fact yourself, because you're drawing that conclusion. You're saying that 1+1=2, and that it should be obvious. But if you have one source that says 1, and another that says 1, you can't complete the equation on your own. -- Atama頭 05:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient answer, but you have always been patient. Would you then say that the Muncy statement and the ALA response are notable in this particular Wiki page and can be included, so long as some editor does not synthesize that a controversy exists? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's funny, because I was just about to suggest that. :) What I was going to say was that you might want to put something in there saying that the event drew criticism from Muncy, with a response from ALA, and reference both with the links you provided. The reader can draw their own conclusions about whether or not that constitutes controversy. Giving both sides also helps keep the article balanced in terms of POV (which I hope Bibliolover would appreciate). I'm sure that you'll have to compromise on the way this is portrayed, but that's what happens when people of different opinions collaborate. -- Atama頭 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wording to add Muncy and Alire quotes

Given Atama's comment, would anyone wish to suggest what might be added? Again, I'm a little close to this particular issue and other editors are involved, hence I'm suggesting others break the ice. Thanks, Atama. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. I also restructured the article into subsections. Anyone who doesn't like the structure should feel free to rearrange or undo the structure, I only did it to make it easier to find info in the article. Also, LAEC in the process I did delete 2 sources you were using to support the "controversy" claim, and I did so without prejudice. I only removed them because they didn't seem to belong with the current text but I'm not opposed to restoring them if they are used to reference appropriate text.

The reception section was something I created based on the recommendation of Stephan Schulz above. It's a place to mention both negative and positive reactions to the event. I know that Bibliolover has been trying to combat a perceived negative POV to bring balance to the article, and certainly at the moment it seems to contain more controversy than praise, so if any well-sourced and notable positive information can be found it might be helpful. I'd also like to not see that section take over the article, and right now with the quotes it already seems to threaten to do so. I wonder if we might replace the quotes with appropriate paraphrases, or at least trim them down a little. -- Atama頭 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, FYI I left Muncy in as a redlink in the article because I think there's a chance for him to have an article, he does seem to have enough coverage to be considered notable. I don't have interest in tackling it myself but I left it there in case someone else did. -- Atama頭 20:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work! What with that great job, that long quote from Doug Archer sticks out like a sore thumb. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Map

Atama requested a discussion on this, here it is. The map is a reasonable resource, no matter that its data is sourced from the ALA, because it shows a distribution of challenged books. Linking to the map as a source does nothing to impugn or support whether these challenges were legitimate or not, nor does it suggest that these books were banned rather than challenged, which is what they were. Despite Muncy's opinion as expressed in the Wall Street Journal, the map simply does not suggest that books were banned in all cases shown on the map. In an article on 'Banned Book Week', which whether you agree with it or not is in support of the ALA's and others position on banned or challenged books, the distribution of challenges is of relevancy. If one wanted to start an "Anti-Banned Books Week" or a "Support of the Right to Challenge Books" week an article explaining such would likely reflect the viewpoint of that movement as an explanation of what it is about.

The map or a reasonable substitute should be put in as a support of the fact that book challenges are distributed the way they are. Like it or not there is a perception that book challenges are limited to certain parts of the country in the U.S., and the map is a good representation that this is simply not the case. Whether you agree that this perception is valid (it is) is immaterial to the fact that the book challenges tracked have the geographic distribution that they do and that this information has relevancy to the subject.

Whether the link for it is a blog or not is somewhat immaterial (that it is hypocritical for the world's largest online encyclopedia to decide that because something is in a blog that it is either not precise, "just opinion", or not peer reviewed is a whole separate matter as writing should stand on its own quality and not on its medium and to say otherwise is sniveling academism at its worst). If not the blog (and btw for many current subjects the "editor reviewed newspaper associated" blogs simply grab content from the blogs of subject matter experts) then find and link to another source with the same information.

That you would rather eliminate fact than take the time to find a replacement more to your liking, as well as that you would take time out to disparage what appears to be a well put together resource (the dreaded blog), speaks to your abilities as an administrator more than anything else. The fact that this article contains no relevant information on the controversies surrounding what is a controversial topic is equally vexing, and that your involvement has done nothing to advance the necessary inclusion of dissenting expert opinion (as any good encyclopedia would do) is indicative of your contribution to the suppression of knowledge.

I think I will rethink contributing to Wikipedia in general, as outside the information that was copied verbatim from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1912, education and precision seem to no longer be the project's goals, or are at least subordinate to the peevish rigid implementation of what were meant to be guidelines. Don't bother giving me links to Wikipedia posting guidelines that I've already read, they are guidelines and must never be used to smother relevant factual information. And besides, I won't be bothering with this article again.

If someone else feels strongly they can take up the cause, I will join the throng of educated citizens of the world who have been turned off in general by snarky unnecessarily combative invective, pompous pseudo-intellectualism, and the unwarranted undeserved elitism that have recently because characteristic of this project and simply walked away.

Go ahead and delete or reword this section's comments, as other administrators do, to silence any objection to their reasoning. I would expect no better than this Stalinesque tactic of smothering discontent with your actions shrouded in the convenient rhetoric of "keeping order and relevancy". 216.27.141.45 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to preach here. I'm sorry if you're bitter about Wikipedia, I was hoping to be able to have a discussion about this rather than fight. As you can see above there's a lot of discussion regarding this article, and what I consider to be positive collaboration even between people of different viewpoints, but obviously you don't want to participate. I'm willing to compromise, especially when someone wants to add information to the article, but when you tendentiously insert the same information and refuse to be civil it's pretty much impossible to do so.

Oh, and I'm not an administrator. Just a regular editor like everyone else here, or like you if you decided to register an account (which seems unlikely now based on your comments). -- Atama頭 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 216.27.141.45, Atama is a pretty level-headed, knowledgeable editor. (Actually, I have no idea if he or she is pretty or not, so maybe I should just say level-headed, but I really have no idea if ...  ;) ) Try relaxing a little. As to the map, it was produced by someone of which we know only his name and the town in which he lives. That is simply not encyclopedic any more than if you or I said whatever then added it to this article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)