Talk:American Library Association/Archive 2

Banned Books Week

SafeLibraries, please include cites to reputable sources when you are including things in the controversy section. Your addition about Banned Books Week, which happened to fall on Banned Books Week was not NPOV and did not cite sources that would generally indicate a widespread trend towards the stated controversy. If this is a widespread thing, please include information to that effect. If not, please don't take one citation an include it as if it indicates a trend. I am aware of no such controversy. Jessamyn (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Jessamyn, I think you are mistaken on this one. The history says "(please include a more NPOV decription of the BBW controversy and cite reputable sources.)" First, I couldn't have been more NPOV if I tried. Actually, I wrote it with skepticism, like from the ALA's point of view. Here is what I said that you removed:

Even its Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read, has been criticize for being "a fraud"[1] and for hiding "library-initiated censorship."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46476]

So I wrote it from the ALA's POV, I guess. Even saying it "celebrates the freedom to read" when in reality it's my POV that it does not. Further, given that no books are actually banned in reality, and given the articles so state from reputable sources, it's my POV that my POV may actually be fact. Be that as it may, I injected none of my own personal POV into the sentence. Compare that sentence with what appears on my web site:

The ALA pushes inappropriate material on children in public libraries and public schools nationwide by, among other means, ... 10) foisting the "Banned Books Week" fraud nationwide because no books are ever banned, and librarians themselves use the "selection" process to censor out books they disfavor. See Critics Say ALA's Banned Books Week is 'a Fraud'; A Little Investigating Suggests the Observance is Named More For Effect Than Truth, by Focus on the Family, 25 September 2006, and Banned Books Week: Smoke Screen of Hypocrisy, by Linda Harvey, 23 September 2005....

Now that's clear POV if there ever was any.

Next, if you thought there was POV, why not correct it instead of merely, well, banning it ;) (Banned Wiki Week?)

As to the timing, naturally the issue is in the news now and so I posted it. You are not suggesting a new rule that applies only to me that "be bold" when making edits only applies to times convenient for the ALA, are you? Of course not. So the timing should not be an issue.

As far as the sources, well I provided two, not one as you state, just to be sure people could see there is a problem here. Your personally not being aware of the problem is quite understandable given your position in the ALA. And the sources I gave are major. One is from Focus on the Family and the other is WorldNetDaily, but again, you're being in the ALA means it's understandable you give little weight to these particular major organizations. Both organizations get more web traffic than the ALA's own site, and one gets orders of magnitude greater visits.

I also, for the first time in this wiki, included a link to the BBW site itself. That clearly benefits the ALA.

All in all, my addition meets and exceeds your concerns. Further, in this case I have explained things in response to your concerns quite enough to justify my returning the BBW info back to the controversy section now without waiting for your approval because, as I said, I think you are clearly mistaken regarding your concerns about this particular edit. I think you may agree -- I really do -- I've always known you to be reasonable. --SafeLibraries 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And I found another article, and I just starting looking:

Estes: Responsibility Trumps Banned Books Week

By Vicki Estes

The Capital-Journal

Welcome to Banned Books Week, a week in which all of us should understand the important difference between "censorship" and "parental guidance."

Oh, and include in that the difference between "banned" and "questioned" or "challenged" books.

Since 1982, according to the American Library Association, "Banned Books Week has celebrated the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular." The ALA goes on to say, "We need to ensure the availability of unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them."

I agree.

However, as a parent of a minor child, I have the final say in what she will be reading, watching and doing until she is 18. I believe that, as parents, it is our responsibility to monitor what our children are exposed to. This isn't censorship. It is called being a caring, responsible parent.

The majority of books on the Banned Books Week list haven't been banned, but rather have been challenged. They are shelved in libraries and bookstores and included in school curricula across the nation. Virtually every book that is published can be purchased or checked out in the United States.

So perhaps the real controversy this week should be the event's name. Instead of Banned Books Week, the ALA should consider "Challenged Books Week," or "Questionable Books Week," or "Books Parents Prefer Kids Not Read until It's Appropriate for Them Week."

You see, all of us mature and grow at our own pace.

What might be good for Suzie may be too frightening for little Freddie. Call me simple, but I think parents should decide when a child is ready to move from Teletubbies to Sesame Street. A parent questioning the use of a particular book in school curriculum is a parent practicing responsible parenting and using the First Amendment to do so.

Of the 6,364 book challenges between 1990 and 2000, 71 percent were books used in school curricula or available in school libraries, and parents brought a whopping 60 percent of those challenges. Hey, parents are paying attention! But just because they are, don't label them as censors or book-banners.

Unfortunately, some of these challenges are the result of our politically correct culture in which we sanitize anything possibly offensive from our history even if it can be the basis for learning an important lesson.

Books such as "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," "The Color Purple" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" have been questioned by parents because of what they believe are racist ideals or adult themes not appropriate for children. I may not agree, but I wouldn't label the parents book-banners.

More appropriate would be "responsible parents," but that title won't help sell more books during Banned Book Week.

Vicki Estes is a Topeka freelance writer. Her column appears on Wednesday and Saturday. She can be reached at vaestes@sbcglobal.net

OH THIS IS GREAT! EVEN THE ALA ACKNOWLEDGES THE CONTROVERSY!!!!!

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.

That's from ALA’s Action Guide.

So, even using the ALA as a "reputable" source, BBW is clearly controversial. (Hmmm. That link does not contain that actual text. But I got the info from here: http://www.librarian.net/tag/censorship) --SafeLibraries 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The "controversy" ALA mentions (the difference between banning and challenging, and why it's called Banned Books Week instead of Challenged Books Week) is not the same one you refer to in your edit. Links to Family.org and Worldnetdaily are not reputable and/or objective news sources. If you want to include this so-called controversy, it's your responsibility to make your addition to the entry encyclopedic with authoritative sources, it is not my responsibility to rewrite your edits to make them accurate. This is how Wikipedia works. You are welcome to be bold, that's also part of it. However, there are established guidelines for using and citing sources and I would argue that you are implying that there is a controversy over Banned Books Week that does not exist. This was what you were asked to not do previously when editing this article. Jessamyn (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Jessamyn. In compliance with your comments here, I added the following that has to do with the yearly controversy the ALA itself admits, and with the comments of a respectable ALA Councilor willing to state the unspoken that the problem really isn't banned books, rather it's age-inappropriate books. (For those reading this, that courageous ALA Councilor willing to expose the ALA's real thoughts is Jessamyn herself! -- I always said you were honest, Jessamyn.)

Here is what I added:

Also, Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read, has been criticized for "why the week is called 'Banned Books Week' instead of 'Challenged Books Week,' since the majority of the books featured during the week are not banned...."[2] Even a prominent ALA Counsilor questions "the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much — the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children."[3]

Thanks, Jessamyn, for the guidance. --SafeLibraries 18:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add this. The whole paragraph from the ALA says "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."

Now that tells me the controversy is "yearly" and that it is significant enough for the ALA to have to state publicly its stance on the issue. On this ALA page, a cite to the ALA itself cannot be said to be "not reputable." And the ALA's saying it gets asked the same question year after year, and publicly responding to the question, necessary means that, at the very least in the eyes of the ALA, the controversy exists and it is notable. Further, there is no other page on which that the comment would belong. I hope you will leave it up this time instead of, well, banning it. The very topic you complain "we don't talk much about," well I hope you won't take the exact action you are complaining others take. Would that not be ironic? --SafeLibraries 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with SafeLibraries latest addition

Okay, SL, I've reverted you. Here are some of the problems your latest addition:

• You say "Banned Books Week has been criticized for "why the week is called 'Banned Books Week' instead of 'Challenged Books Week,'". This was unsupported by citation. The ALA link you give to cite it does not mention any critcism over the issue, it merely says it's a frequently asked question. You're manufacturing a controversy. Just because it's an oft-asked question doesn't mean it's a criticism-- the ALA is probably often asked their mailing address-- that doesn't mean their real esate choices are highly controversial.
• Your quote of the "ALA Councilor" is wrong for just so many reasons. You went to a fellow Wikipedia editor you have an edit war with, find her blog, use her own quote to imply she actually agrees with your position, when clearly she is not trying to support your position with her words. Your action combined with your tone might be indicative of harassment or wikistalking, but let's assume for the moment that such an interpretation would just be unfounded pessimism. Even still-- you're clearly misrepresenting Jessamyn's position, unless, of course, she actually is trying to criticize Banned Books Week. Furthermore, I don't know exactly what her ties to the ALA is, but so far, I haven't seen any reason her views would be any less Original Research than yours-- a blog is not a reliable source, it's just one person's opinion. Unless she's much higher up in the ALA than I realize, all the OR problems we've talked about with your opinions would apply to hers.
• You're still writing persuasively rather than informatively.
• You're still using Wikipedia as a soapbox.
• Essentially, there is only one controversy here, and we've already mentioned it. The ALA opposes content filtration/censorship/whatevr in libraries and supports "a person's right to use a library regardless of age". Many people oppose this, and criticize the ALA for this stance. We've got it on the record that this debate exists, but Wikipedia is not a battle ground in that debate. Obviously, when reliable secondary sources (e.g. major media) start covering this, then it's a different story-- for the time being, mentioning the existence of the debate probably suffices.

Please, please stop waging this campaign on Wikipedia. --Alecmconroy 19:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments above that you are not informed enough of the facts to make the arguments you have, although you admit your lask of knowledge. And factually, you are as far from the truth as one can be and still have a polite conversation. Further, you are threading little tiny needles so tightly as to be rather silly. That controversy has been a controversy for a very long time and continues to be. Even the ALA admits it, and I linked to them. For example, here another recent article I have not yet mentioned:

Is it Freedom to Read or the Usual Mischief for Banned Books Week?, 9/26/2006, by Arlene Sawicki. My previous edits were taken down by Jessamyn and you implicitly use that to help say no controversy exists. Jessamyn is a prominent member of the ALA Council and ALA Councilors in and of themselves are the policy makers for the ALA, so she is rather significant, even if she also writes on this talk page. Your comments about my investigating her to use information against her is just plain wrong. Rather, I did a simple Google search on "Banned Books Week" controversy and she popped up. I even cited to librarian.net BEFORE I recalled she was the writer of librarian.net. Because of how wrong you are and how you have mischaracterized my actions and how you have threaded the needle to silliness in a POV fashion and because you think anything I add to any page ever is POV soapbpx and anything added by ALA members on ALA pages is gospel, I am reverting your revert. Further, I am willing to take this one all the way to Wiki leadership, who ever than may be, because you are just plain wrong, and while you accuse me of stalking Jessamyn, it's you, actually, who goes to page after page I edit and reverts things to your POV liking, then writes long messages about how awful you think I am or my edits are. So if you want to challenge me on this officially, do so. You are so wrong, at least in this case, that I am 100% sure that unbiased people given the unbiased truth making an unbiased decision will note that my change to this page in no way represents anything you have said about me. You have helped me in the past. I look forward to this chance to help you. --SafeLibraries 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your most recent edit. I am no longer a Councilor of ALA, my term expired and I did not run again. I think you are mistaken as to the role of Councilors in any case, but citing my blog, which is just a personal website, does not in any way count as an appropriate source if you are trying to claim that a controversy exists. I'm critical of Banned Books Week but not for the reasons you mention, and my criticism does not in any way imply a larger controversy. If we need to take this to arbitration, that's fine. I feel that you are using wikipedia as a soapbox, manufacturing a controversy in order to say something bad about ALA, and editing in what appears to be bad faith. Please cite reliable sources if you want to add something to the controversy section of this article. Jessamyn (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(Alecmconroy - thanks for restoring - I got confused for a second.)

Jessamyn, the arbitration was another's idea. Now, as to bad faith, that's plain wrong -- now that you tell me you are no longer an ALA councilor, your blog does indeed carry less weight. I would not have used it but for my justifiable belief you were an ALA Councilor. So now I have to resupport things. I'll be back. And with regard to blogs in general, ALA president Burger has a blog -- I would say hers is authoritative. It was reasonable for me to assume ALA Councilor blogs were similarly authoritative, depending on the subject matter and presentation. --SafeLibraries 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

Also, Banned Books Week, which celebrates the freedom to read, raises yearly questions for "why the week is called 'Banned Books Week' instead of 'Challenged Books Week,' since the majority of the books featured during the week are not banned...."[3] --SafeLibraries 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we're back to square one. This is not a controversy, this is a difference of opinion on what Banned Books Week is called. This wikipedia entry is about the American Library Association, not Banned Books Week. BBW is one of many many projects of the American Library Association and the semantic nuance of the naming of one project does not seem appropriate as an addition to a short encyclopedia entry about a national organization. If you'd like to add that sort of information to a page about Banned Books Week, then I think it would be appropriate, but the name of this annual event is not central to the identity of ALA enough so that it could 1) be called a controversy surrounding the organization and 2) merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please read what Alecmconroy wrote above, this is a one-line entry in their FAQ, not a controversial stance the organization is taking. Jessamyn (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are joking, right? BBW is a 25 year old creation of the ALA, does not have its own page, is a creation of the ALA's, is in almost every single newspaper nationwide because of ALA efforts to get it into those newspapers, is the subject of significant controversy, and you're going to minimize BBW? You are joking, right? Who else pushes BBW? Not even the other members of the BBW consortium push it. Just the ALA, and now Google (Google only lists great works of literature-not the rape and father-daughter-granddaughter orgy inappropriate sex books the ALA recommends for children of all ages). BBW is a pillar in its Freedom To Read push by the de facto leader of the ALA, Judith Krug. You then say it's not controversial, AFTER claiming that all the controversy is either, a) not from reputable sources or b) not controversial if it is from the ALA. Really. I think this does need to go to arbitration. Your banning of BBW from the ALA page is a serious matter, particularly where you hover over this page like you have a personal interest in it, and, oh yeah, you are a former Councilor in this organization, so I guess you do. Gosh forbid anyone should come along and take facts provided by the ALA and add a single sentence to the ALA's wiki page without first threading the ALA censorship needle that is the very problem with the ALA in the first place and the role the ALA arrogates to itself. Nonencyclopedic? The ALA says it gets questioned on BBW year after year and that's not worthy of a single encyclopedic sentence including a link to the ALA source? This needs arbitration. Set it up. If it includes only people like you, then I instantly lose. But if it is actually fair, I stand a good chance of winning, the arbitration, that is. In reality, based on your comments that I should not be adding this during BBW itself, the arbitration will be dragged out long enough so BBW will be over, and no matter the outcome of the arbitration, you have won by keeping this off the ALA page during BBW. Congratulations on your great victory. --SafeLibraries 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is not that BBW wasn't created by ALA and almost entirely promoted by them, just that BBW is a very small part of all the things that ALA does. So, one small semantic nuance of one small thing ALA does doesn't seem to me to be relevant to include in a short encyclopedic entry. This information would be better included on a page about BBW itself. As Alecmconroy said above, your attempts to get this information on the ALA page during Banned Books Week seems again to indicate intent to persuade rather than intent to inform, which should be the point of Wikipedia articles. Jessamyn (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Safe, if you want to ask the Arbitration Committee to examine this situation, the instructions for how to do so are available at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Secondly, the questions about the "banned books" name is a criticism of Banned Books Week, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a criticism of the ALA. --Alecmconroy 23:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alecmconroy, but I'm not going to start the arbitration. Second, criticism of BBW and the ALA are one and the same since BBW and the ALA are one and the same. No one splits off Janet Reno or Alberto Gonzales from their respective adminstrations -- they are one and the same. Besides, the ALA benefits from the BBW name by using scare tactics, essentially, into misleading people about the truth. It is misleading to said books are being banned. It is misleading to say censorship keeps books out of public schools. not only is it misleading, it totally and completely ignores, among other things, US Supreme Court cases such as Bd of Educ v. Pico that help books having certain ides can't be removed from public schools BUT "pervasively vulgar" books could be, and the parties so stipulated. But the ALA's use of "banned" and "censorship" scares people into thinking no material should ever be kept from children. If the truth were told, the truth Jessamyn said in her blog is what puts the shush in librarians (hush hush, mush mush) (actually, that's a little poetic license, since her site says Putting the Rarin' in Librarian, but she does say its kept low key), then parents and governments would freely keep certain books from children until it was age appropriate for them to see the books. As it stands now, the ALA is the major player in keeping the public in the dark, and BBW is one of the ALA's major tools to carry out this agenda. You see, Jessamyn is right -- the issue is not the banning of books, rather the issue is inappropriateness of books and other materials for children. And guess what, although this is my opinion, my soapbox as you always say, it also happens to the the law! The US Supreme Court thinks inappropriate material should be kept from children (US v. ALA). That happens to be my opinion, and you use that being my opinion to skewer me about a soapbox, but it also happens to be the law of the land. The ALA is using BBW to misinform people about the law of the land so that people will willingly follow ALA directives instead of US Supreme Court directives, using a propaganda techniqu called "conversion" where they mislead people enough that the people now start acting like little ALA automatons totally unaware of the truth of the matter. So this issue about BBW is not a little "nuance" and belongs directly on this ALA page.

Jessamyn: Very small part? Why do national newspapers and local newspaper scarry stories about BBW? There must be thousands of stories on BBW, each year, year after year. BBW is NOT minor. Then you call it a "sematic nuance." You are wearing ALA-colored glasses. And there is no BBW page. But I'll say this--if there were no controversy, then BBW need not be included in the controversy section of the wiki page. But the reality is, though you do not see it with ALA-colored glasses, the ALA gets asked yearly about the misleading name; the ALA is aware of this; the ALA goes out of its way to minimize the controversy (and this I learned from you, besides being obvious); the controversy has spilled out into the media; my cursory searches have produced 4 separate articles on the controversy(ies); you have used ALA-colored glasses to discount again and again any controversy raised by anyone; the material is encyclopedic so long as it is kept to a reasonable amount, like the single sentence I have recently proposed; I have provided detailed responses to your concerns and have even changed the wording several times, all to comply with your ALA-colored wishes, but the only thing that will satisfy you is the total and complete exclusion of even a single sentence on the BBW controversy from this web page. Here's the great and vaunted ALA, that arrogates to itself the role of the nation's censorship police to ensure no one keeps sexually inappropriate books from children despite law after law and case after case, who's representatives, and that's what you are, go out of their way to ensure the public remains unaware of the controversy over BBW being used to further the goals of the ALA to ensure children maintain access to sexually inappropriate information. Here's you following along with ALA-colored glasses doing what you can to keep the ALA wall of shame held hide. You have claimed no controversy exists. You have called the ALA's acknowledgment of the contraversy a "semantic nuance." You have denigrated the sources I raised proving the controversy. You asked that I should add this material to a page that does not exist. Despite my changing to meet your demands again and again, you will accept nothing less then the total exclusion of the BBW controversy for the controversy section of the ALA wiki page. Hey, let me say something positive. You have not taken, so far as I am aware, any personal attacks against me, and we have been able to discuss the issues only without casting aspersions. So to that extent, I appreciate this communication with you. But overall, my communication with you is frustrating, in this case, because you will accept nothing less than the total exclusion of the information. Total exclusion. Excused by being "nuanced," non controversial because the controversy does not appear often in the main stream media, by my supposed attempt to add this during BBW although I only did so when an article was just published that caused me to realize that I should see if a controversy exists and indeed it does, except not to you. The ALA has effectively filtered out of your mind the willingness to have an open mind to see the controversy nationwide or at least to publicly acknowledge it. Your wishing it away does not mean it doesn't exist. Your ALA connections and your past statements make you totally unreliable as a measure of whether the BBW week controversy has risen to a level where it is worth a single sentence with a cite to an ALA source, no less, to the ontroversy section of the ALA wiki page that would not have been there in the first place but for my own efforts to take this page from a former puff piece for the ALA into one reflecting more of reality and one being more encyclopedic. Therefore, I will add that sentence back into the page -- it seems I'm the only one here not wearing ALA-colored glasses. --SafeLibraries 01:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found some information on one of the sources of one of the articles you knocked out of the box from the get go claiming the source is not worthy, thus no such controversy exists. And that would be Focus on the Family. Now Jessamyn and Alecmconroy have said FOTF is not reputable. Well, actually, they are. According to sources more reputable than you, FOTF is not only reputable, but a leading source in this arena. "I will name the groups most often involved in censorship controversies in public schools. There are six predominant parties to the controversy: the American Library Association (ALA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Family Friendly Libraries, Focus on the Family [FOTF], the Council on Interracial Books for Children (CIBC), and the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC)." http://www.stedwards.edu/newc/sanchez/acaps4360/docs/KimStewart_final_paper.doc Didn't take too long to find this. Bet I can find more. Do I have to find more for you or will you admit the FOTF article is wiki worthy? --SafeLibraries 05:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

MSM Evidence BBW is Controversial

I have already presented 4 articles showing BBW is controversial. But they were shot down, including by ALA members, in the claim they were not main stream media [MSM] sources. And I have provided evidence from the ALA's own web site, but that was shot down, again by an ALA member, because the ALA is not authoritative and the controversy supposedly went to a different issue.

Therefore, I provide here a few examples of the BBW controversy in the "main stream media." Here are the links and some text in case the links expire soon:

'Banned' Books a Model of Orwellian 'Newspeak', by Bill Cripe, Morning Sentinel (Maine), 4 Oct 2006.

George Orwell would be proud the way folks have erroneously redefined the word "banned" when referring to the American Library Association's annual festival of horse pucky called Banned Books Week. Welcome to the dialect of Orwellian "newspeak."

With fringe groups such as the People for the American Way sponsoring it, it is merely an attempt at intimidating responsible parents into silence.

Consider this: When the mother of an 11-year-old questioned the appropriateness of her child's teacher reading a very graphic story about the gang rape of a neighborhood girl, the mom followed the school's protocol for addressing the issue. The school board subsequently voted to move the book from the elementary school library to the more age-appropriate high school library. As a result, the mother made the ALA's official list of "censors" and the ALA scores another "banned" book.

So the truth is, that anytime a parent complains, or a book even gets moved from one reading list to a more age-appropriate list or is even relocated to a different area of the same library -- it gets tallied as another "banned book." (Which just happens to be very good for fund raising as well.)

The truth about "Banned Books Week" is that not a single book in the United States has been banned except perhaps one. But you won't hear the American Library Association complaining; in fact they whole-heartedly endorse the ban. But then the book is the Bible and that's another story.

Display of Banned Books Removed at Harrisonburg High School; Superintendent Encourages Reading Because of Content, Not Controversy, by Jeff Mellott, The Daily News-Record (Virginia), 4 Oct 2006.

A display at Harrisonburg High School of books that have, at some point in history, either been banned or challenged was ordered removed last month by Harrisonburg Schools Superintendent Donald Ford.

The display, which Ford ordered removed Sept. 27, was part of the American Library Association’s annual Banned Books Week, the last week of September.

Ford said he was concerned the school division would encourage students to read banned books because they are on a controversial list and not because of their content.

....

The high school library display, Ford said, seemed to entice students into reading the books because they are on a list.

"We are not going to send a message to kids encouraging them to read ‘banned’ books. Our message should be to read books, a wide variety of books.

"But I don’t think we should tease kids into reading a book by trying to say, ‘there might be something juicy or controversial in this book. Therefore, it would be a good one for you to sneak home and read."’

That is not the message, Ford said, that he believed librarians were trying to send with the display.

"I don’t believe there’s a significant difference in what they wanted to accomplish, and what I want to accomplish in terms of our libraries and reading," he said.

So here are 2 main stream media articles, and I may post more as I find them. --SafeLibraries 12:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Safe-- we've got two issues going on here. The behavioral issue-- namely your continuing crusade about inserting ALA criticism into Wikipedia wherever possible, and then the content issue-- "Should there be more criticism on this page?". We can continue to discuss the behavior issue at the User Conduct RFC. Meanwhile, I'll try very sincerely here to discuss the content issue, keeping it as separating as much as possible from the issues surroung who is bringing up that content issue.

The sources you have are useful, but they're far from evidence that a major controversy exists. The first news article you cite is, if I'm not mistaken, just a letter to the editor. It doesn't look like it has undergone any peer review, it makes false claims (in fact, The Bible _IS_ included in BBW, as your second article mentions). If I'm wrong, and the author is actually a staff writer, then it might be a different story, but as it is, I think it's roughly on par with a blog post.

The second source is certainly the most helpful we've seen so far, but I wish the article were more comprehensive about what happened. The display was removed, but the superintendent went on record as explicity NOT criticizing the libraries.

"That is not the message, Ford said, that he believed librarians were trying to send with the display." "I don’t believe there’s a significant difference in what they wanted to accomplish, and what I want to accomplish in terms of our libraries and reading," he said.

So, this leaves us wondering what exactly got the display removed. Was it something about the display itself, something about the books featured in the display, or just that the superintendent felt that an educational display space should be used to promote books based on education content rather than just controversy. In any case, I don't see how we can list this as a criticism of the ALA, since the Superintedent goes out of his way to shield them from any criticism.

It sounds to me like the superintendent is criticism something about one specific display, which is only a small part of his Library's Banned Books Week promotion, which is only a small part of his school library, which is only a small part of the ALA. I don't see anything in this article that is critical of BBW as a whole, and I certainly don't see anything that is critical of the ALA.

I think the ultimate solution of this is to create an article on Banned Books Week. That article could certainly talk about the "challenged-vs-banned distinction", and it could include a pro forma line expressing dissent about BBW in general.

--Alecmconroy 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess what. I agree with you. And you can see that the evidence I am presenting is fair evidence, not solely that which supports my views. Of course I could see the ALA was not being criticized there, but BBW was, and in a new/novel way to what we've seen so far. I'll find more articles soon, I'm sure. Like in today's Chicago Tribune, page 3, is a story about Harry Potter trying to be removed from a class or something. But BBW was not mentioned. I'll keep looking. --SafeLibraries 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy

This article contains multiple points of POV problems, not just the one about BBW. It needs serious review by NPOV persons who are knowledgable of the issues without advocating for the ALA or being informed only by the propaganda of the ALA. I will be more specific soon. --SafeLibraries 14:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

SL, if you have problems with the article, please add the NPOV check banner after you are prepared to outline them. The template page specifically says "explain your reasons on the talk page of the suspect article" which you have not done. There is a process here to everything, including content disputes. Please follow procedures, it will help everyone follow what is going on more effectively. Jessamyn (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Safelibraries.org, you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox and I am asking you to stop. Rlitwin 14:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about the content issues first. Safe-- we just did a NPOV rfc not long ago, and there was a strong consensus that there wasn't a problem, and in fact, we've added a whole new paragraph to address criticism of ALA since that consensus was reached. I don't think anything has changed since that. I would be open to rewording the current paragraph to emphasize that the ALA is criticized for its opposition to all types of content filtering-- books as well as websites, but I'm not inclined to start including a laundry list of every possible complaint every possible blogger could add. Right now, within the mainstream sphere of public discourse, this controversy does not yet really exist, and we can't give undue weight to something that exists solely in a few isolated spots of the blogosphere. I sincerely think that we're sort of being generous to have even the full paragraph that we currently devote to the non-controversy, but erring on the side of inclusiveness is a good thing. It may be giving them undue weight, but I guess I tend to say every good article should have at least a few sentences very briefly summarizing opposing viewpoints.

One solution to this particular problem with the banned books week is that someone (ideally at least a one someone without a history of blatant soapboxing) probably should write an article on Banned Books Week. The subject is clearly notable, and I'm surprised there isn't already an article on it. And the distinction between successfully-banned books and attempted-banned books (challenged) could certainly be mentioned there.

Now, as to the behavior issues-- I think Safe may have gotten to the point that it would be appropriate to do a User Conduct RFC. Looking over his history, practically all his edits are still promotions of his political organization and its viewpoints. We've spent quite a lot of words on trying to explain why this might not be appropriate, but I don't know that we can justify doing this indefinitely. I was particularly disturbed by the misquoting the private blog of another wikipedia editor involved in this dispute IN the actual text of the article. This inappropriate editing behavior doesn't make Safe a bad person or mean that he's not doing his good faith best to trying to improve the world, but it does mean that further discussion between us four isn't likely to result in any major behavior changes unless other voices are brought into the discussion, to further emphasize the inappropriateness of tendentious editing and the rules governing it. As we are editors on this article, someone who Safe is having a content dispute with, it's unlikely that he will take our word for the inappropriateness of his wikipedia-wide behavior. I'm kinda swamped today, but I'd suggest filing a user conduct RFC-- or if others are busy, I'll get around to it at some point.

--Alecmconroy 14:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I have my own issue with SafeLibraries on the Freedom of Speech and Freed of the Press pages. I tried reaching out to him in what I thought was a very nice way--explaining to him why I edit on WP and why I take issue with his sources and edits--but didn't receive a response. Instead, I just see he continues to edit inappropriately. I will join any discussion on this issue. I don't want to see SafeLibraries leave, I just want to see him effort to stop using WP to fuel his agenda. Dave--DavidShankBone 16:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Banning comments

It is always interesting to observe the self-appointed "Protectors of Freedom of Speech" trying to smash a small web site (Safe Libraries is it too small and insignificant, ain't it?) simply because they have the gall of contradicting the "toute-puissante" American Library Association. Amusing, but VERY revealing! 13:17, 29 September 2006 205.188.116.135 (Talk)

I take issue with that charecterization; what seems more evident is the level of frustration people with ideological agendas feel when they are unable to insert any accusation, unsubstantiated threat and NewsMax and WorldNetDaily-esque diatribe into an encyclopedia of community knowledge. Everything we do here is illegitimized when we aren't careful to not insert POV, and to use on sources that are reliable. One issue SL doesn't see is that the ALA is NOT the highest authority on itself. I don't even have one bit of concern about the ALA, although I can think of more worthy organizations to demonize in our slash-and-burn everything and everyone that disagrees with us culture that predominates in modern America. But is it really so hard to ask for a cite to the NYTimes, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, The New York Sun, the Economist, the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal, etc. to back up a claim? Or at we all supposed to rely on this notion there is a media cabal actively working to suppress news, news that would sell papers? After all, WorldNetDaily.com right now has a lead story on a shadow government being formed between Canada, Mexico and the US. Even though I personally like the sound of that, I don't see how anyone can turn to that website to back up assertions. Where is the raging controversy here? Why is it so hard to provide mainstream coverage of it? Is it because the newspapers and medica are puppets of that powerful librarian organization known as the ALA? I just find this such a waste of time, especially when this is settled policy (settled GOOD policy). I'll tell you what, in an effort at magnanimity I'll use my free Lexis-Nexis account this weekend to explore this raging controversy in the world of librarians, books and censorship. If I can't come up with a viable source that way (as opposed to, say, a 2 second Google News search which appears to be beyond the efforts of those inserting this questionable material), then I don't see how your comment is anything but a complaint because several people have wanted to see some kind of verification. --DavidShankBone 19:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To censor or not to censor...

DSB, don’t get so worked up for so little. Inserting INFORMATION is one of the perks offered by Wiki. It seems some people didn’t like the kind of info being inserted, so, they just went ahead (in good fascist way) and censored it. And if you don’t have one bit of concern about the ALA, why go to such length to defend them?

Wikipedia has community norms and guidelines just like any other community information resource. SafeLibraries was given ample oppportunity to observe those guidelines, modify his entries, or find other people to come to the talk pages and assist him in his attempt to change the ALA pages in a direction that he felt was appropriate. If you'd like to be that person, feel free to sign your name and assist his cause. Jessamyn (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really not a matter of censorship. If there were no other websites on the internet-- if the only website was Wikipedia, then I wouldn't be able to justify the remove of ANY POV. But this is the beauty of the internet. Safe's views are just as accesable to the world as Wikipedias. Anyone can type in his site and instantly read his POV unfiltered.

Wikipedias only value lies in that it IS filtered and edited. That's what makes it different from just doing a google search. The whole point of why Wikipedia is different from the internet or a message board is that we DO try to enforce policies like Reliable Sources, NPOV, and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox".

Anon and Safe, I know it really may feel like it's as simple as "People don't like your info, so they're deleting it". That's a natural reaction, but if (and perhaps when) there are better sources on this issue, you will see how wrong you are. I know I for one routinely work very hard to include viewpoints that I vehemently disagree with, and I think Wikipedia as a whole does that too.

--Alecmconroy 00:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I have removed the prior "controversy" section from this article, and for a number of what I believe to be legitimate reasons. Firstly, it is referenced by secondary sources in the form of editorials/blogs and opinion pieces. If Laura Shlessinger disagrees with the ALA's stance, it does not make the ALA's stance "controversial", or even necessarily disagreeable, to anybody other than Shlessinger. As well, derogatory language and weasel words such as "twit" are unnacceptable, referenced or not. If there is such genuine controversy surrounding the ALA, then a more objective, proper source that is par with Wikipedia source guidelines would be acceptable, but then there is problem two: The "controversy" here seems to be more like a disagreement with the ALA's position on certain things by a select group than an outright "controversy". If that is the case, then it would be more like a "criticism" section, and that belongs elsewhere, either in an article of its own or at least not in this article, once again per Wiki standards. Thank you.--Jackbirdsong 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, thanks for explaining. I'll be looking into this soon. If I find anything then I'll put it here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask a question. Is it not true that where a section has been up for a while and where many editors worked on it for a long time that the section stays up until its being removed is discussed in talk? In other words, instead of removing it then discussing again why it should go up again, it should be left up and its removal discussed in talk. I think that is the corect wiki view. If so, please restore the controversy section until its revision or removal has been discussed here. And I'm sure the wholesale removal without comment as happened about 4 days ago is definitely not wiki policy correct ( Wikipedia:Editing_policy: With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page). So, as a show of good faith, please restore the section, per wiki policy, until people discuss its removal.

Let me tell you that, as I recall that section, it had little to none of what I personally would like to have seen in that section, and little if none of anything I personally added to that section. Things I added were removed by other editors for various reasons through which I learned quite a bit. That's why, for example, I'm asking that you restore the section in good faith while its changing is being discussed in talk per wikipedia policy. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See, the situation as I see it is that we should defer to the "most neutral" editors. Legit, we know you're about as far as possible from neutral. Jess and Rlitwin both looked down on the controversy section, but tended to recuse themselves from outright deleting it because of their ties to ALA. I also didn't see any particular need for a controversy section, but once I got involved in the whole conflict, I wanted to make double sure I didn't "over-discriminated" against the issue merely because you were using wikipedia as a soapbox.

So, everyone but you whose come to the article has tended to think the controversy wasn't notable, but we all recused ourselves from actually deleting it for various reasons of being EXTRA careful that we're being fair. But not if a new editor, completely unconnected to the dispute or any of hte participants, has come to the page on his own and thought the controversy merited deletion-- then I tend to think that's the way to go.

--Alecmconroy 02:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Legit - Firstly, I did explain my rationale for the removal of the section here on the talk page when I initially removed it - perhaps you missed it originally. Secondly, while I see your points above and empathize with them, it is clear Wiki policy to remove weasel words and derogatory language immediately, as it is unencyclopedic, and the removal of POV, editorial and/or blog ref'd material is acceptable as well. That basically describes the entire section, so it needs to be overhauled completely for it to be acceptable material for this site. You have every right to start a new article dedicated to criticisms of the ALA that adheres to proper policy, or you may wish to hunt down some primary, objective refs and try again here. You have every right to do so. Cheers. --Jackbirdsong 02:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For sake of discussion, here is the section in question:

The ALA holds policy positions on number of broadly controversial current issues. Occasionally, social conservatives have singled out the ALA specifically for criticism. The most public instance of this occurred in May of 1999. Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a widely syndicated radio personality, campaigned against the "Teen Hoopla" web site that the ALA had created for those aged 12-18, and that contained a link to an explicit sex education web site. She called the ALA "twits," and asked voters to stop approving the budgets for libraries. [4] Other groups have criticized the ALA for its stance on Children's Internet Protection Act or for its opposition to any form of content filtering within libraries.[5]

And the non-wiki links are to http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA158676.html which is the Library Journal, the official publication of the ALA, and http://www.afa.net/lif/schools.asp which is from the American Family Association. That's the section in question placed here for ease of discussion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Im glad you posted this - here we can be even more specific. 1)Schlessinger rants against the ALA. So what does this mean other than her own personal POV? If you would like to remove the derogatory language and mention that Schlessinger "campaigned against the ALA for having a link on its website to a sex-education site for teenagers", then fine: put it in the political stances category. This does not necessitate the creation of an entire, troll-attracting controversy section. Which brings us to 2)the mention of "other groups" in the remainder of the criticism. This is ref'd by an editorial/blog with a clear bias and motive (the AFA), and with zero specifics therein. You need to, once again, track down an article in a credible, objective primary source that mentions specific arguments and parties. --Jackbirdsong 04:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you are correct, you did explain the changes at the time. Sorry I missed it.

• Your first reason for the removal is "secondary sources in the form of editorials/blogs and opinion pieces." I disagree. The ALA's Library Journal is a primary source and it is not a blog, editorial, or opinion piece.
• Your second reason for the removal is "If Laura Shlessinger disagrees with the ALA's stance, it does not make the ALA's stance "controversial", or even necessarily disagreeable, to anybody other than Shlessinger." I agree, but her's is an example of numerous others with the same regard for the ALA. Further, the ALA responding to her criticism necessarily makes the issue controversial. The ALA has at times directly targeted various organizations such as Family Friendly Libraries. To say there is no controversy because Dr. Laura is irrelevant ignores the steady stream of controversy from numerous sources and ignores the ALA's efforts to stifle that controversy, said efforts being evidence in and of itself of controversy. It's simply silly on its face to say the ALA is not controversial.
• Your third argument is "derogatory language and weasel words such as "twit" are unnacceptable, referenced or not." I agree. That portion of the sentence should be excised.
• Your fourth argument is "The "controversy" here seems to be more like a disagreement with the ALA's position on certain things by a select group than an outright "controversy"." I disagree. Any controversy anywhere, any time, can be explained as a disagreement on certain things. Besides, can anyone argue that librarians who used to protect children deciding for themselves to allow children to access inappropriate material is not controversial? Are not children being raped and molested in public libraries nationwide as libraries defend the position that children should have access to inappropropriate material? Is it not controversial that the ALA continues to maintain this policy even where the US Supreme Court told it directly that it is "legitimate, and even compelling" (hence my name) to protect children from inappropriate material? Is the ALA not awarding oral sex books top awards for 12 year olds?

Based on this I propose the following change:

The ALA holds policy positions on number of broadly controversial current issues. Occasionally, social conservatives have singled out the ALA specifically for criticism. The most public instance of this occurred in May of 1999. Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a widely syndicated radio personality, campaigned against the "Teen Hoopla" web site that the ALA had created for those aged 12-18, and that contained a link to an explicit sex education web site. She called the ALA "twits," and asked voters to stop approving the budgets for libraries. [6] Other groups have criticized the ALA for its stance on Children's Internet Protection Act or for its opposition to any form of content filtering within libraries.[7]

Actually I'd like to see the controversies detailed instead of appearing as generalities of only the most notable controversies -- many controversies are missing, like the fake "Banned Books Week" or the opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act or the nonsupport of Cuban librarians where former ALA Michael Gorman got in a tiff with Andre Codrescu, etc. But so as to least change the work of others who wrote the section, the proposed change I am recommending is rather conservative and more in line with wiki policy than total removal. (PS - I wrote this before your last comment and got an editting conflict, but this still pretty much applies and even seems to agree somewhat with your comment I missed while editting.)--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like we are really getting anywhere here. Let me reiterate some points: The ref I was referring to as "secondary sources in the form of editorials/blogs and opinion pieces" is the American Family Association (AFA) one. When you use this source to talk about the position of "other groups", sidestepping the questionable nature of the source itself, what other groups is it referring to? What are their names? You need to find this out, and use a primary and objective source. This means no biased editorials or blogs. And once again, if you would like to include the Schlessinger info in the main article, outside of a troll-attracting and much frowned upon controversy section, then fine. Finally, to say: "The ALA holds policy positions on number of broadly controversial current issues. Occasionally, social conservatives have singled out the ALA specifically for criticism." is, to start, POV, because these "current issues" are not "controversial" to anyone other than the ALA's detractors. The second sentence is far too vague, and therefore misleading as well, unless you are going to cite more than one specific "social conservative" and their arguments (using an objective, primary source) as you necessarily should.--Jackbirdsong 09:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And just as a footnote here, lets try not to get too heated in our discussions. It is clear to me that you have put a lot of time and effort into this article's subject, and that can be both good and bad. You are didactic insofar as the criticisms and subjects, but may be well served, IMHO, to take a step back for awhile and catch your breath. Just a friendly suggestion, one editor to another. This does not mean give up.--Jackbirdsong 09:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I support removal of the controversy section unless something can really be brought up that indicates that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group among more than a small selection of people. I'm all for indicating that there are political stances the group takes, but I don't think to the average person, that ALA is thought of as a controversial group. Jessamyn (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that I am constantly required to exactly follow Wiki standards and sometimes exceed them just so that I don't accidentally cross them, but the people who require me to do this have no such restrictions placed on them. For example, Jessamyn is an ALA member, even a former ALA Councilor, yet she favors removal of the ALA controversy section. Further, she raises the issue that the section should be removed "unless something can really be brought up that indicates that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group among more than a small selection of people." I have raised on this talk page, and even in the controversy itself before it was claimed the source was not good enough and meant something different than the actual words, that Jessamyn herself disclosed that the ALA is thought of as a controversial group, only to librarians, not the general public. She said, "It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much — the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all."[8] You see I don't understand why Jessamyn gets to recommend the removal of the section, even suggests that a controversy exists within the librarian community that's kept from the public's attention, but the section gets removed by Jackbirdsong without the need to follow the wiki policy, and Jackbirdsong says he "empathizes" with me. Then the thing that's kept from the public's attention is excluded from this page because it's supposedly not in the mainstream media, but Jessamyn suggests, if unwittingly, that it may be intentional that it's kept from the public's attention, and worse, Jessamyn is here to do her best to ensure everyone knows its not in the mainstream media so it should not be on this wiki page. Well, that was long winded and convoluted, but do you see what I'm saying? I think you do.

It seems to me that special rules apply not only to me, but also to this ALA page. For example, Jackbirdsong disclosed how the controversy section should be removed because if only a group objects, that necessarily means it's not really a controversy and not really encyclopedic. Yet on other pages, similar Controversy sections appear, and they similarly feature groups, but Jackbirdsong has not and I'll bet will not remove the section. Look for example at Focus on the Family, specifically a section called Controversy and criticism. Here's what that section says:

On July 17, 2006 Soulforce, a gay rights group, "accused Focus on the Family founder James Dobson of manipulating research data to say gays and lesbians are not good parents."[9] Judith Stacey, a sociologist at New York University, said Focus on the Family "manipulated" her work "in an attempt to show gays and lesbians do not make good parents."[10] A Focus on the Family official denied the allegation.[11] Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes said "That misinformation has real tragic results. It makes living for families like ours much more difficult. We are rejected sometimes by loved ones, we are shunned by churches and we are discriminated against in every state in this country."[12]

On August 11, 2006 James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, publicly forgave Mel Gibson after Gibson made anti-Semitic remarks to police officers during a DUI traffic stop.[13] In a statement Dobson announced he supported "Mel Gibson and his film, The Passion of the Christ, saying Gibson's anti-Semitic remarks had nothing to do with "one of the finest films of this era." He explained further that "we certainly do not condone that racially insensitive outburst," but added, "Mel has apologized profusely for the incident and there the matter should rest." On the movie, "Our endorsement of it stands as originally stated. We did not believe it was anti-Semitic in 2004, and our views have not changed," Dobson said.

Now that first paragraph suffers from the exact same defects or nearly so that is claimed about the ALA Controversy section/paragraph under examination now. How is an editor such as me supposed to see controversy sections on hundreds of wiki pages but supposed to know that a similar controversy section on the ALA falls afoul of wiki policy and the ALA's watchfulness as represented by Jessamyn and Rlitwin, 2 of the 4 who brought action against me to force me to stop editting ALA material? Honestly, really, what's the difference here? A single group gets a whole paragraph with full quotes on Focus on the Family but a few summary sentences with merely links on the ALA page is anathema. Really, I am very confused that the material is allowed on certain pages but not allowed here. And let's be clear that I have no animus toward Jessamyn or anyone else here. I'm just another editor like them trying to do what's right, only it seems rules for me are unduly stricter than rules for others, and rules for the ALA page are unduly stricter than rules for other pages having controversy sections.

So I'd like to see some consistency here. Either the controversy section gets added to the ALA page like hundreds of other sites, or Jackbirdsong goes to Focus on the Family and many other sites and removes all controversy sections that deal with "groups." And I'm supposed to stop editting this page because of bias yet a member of the ALA who is necessarily biased is free to criticize me for having a bias. Obviously, I don't want Jessamyn to be banned despite her efforts to ban me, but it should definitely not happen to me either. Again, I'd like to see equal application of wiki policy to me and to wiki pages.

Alecmconroy is right. Someone other that the existing people, including myself, editting this page should step in and provide the wiki guidance necessary to allow an ALA controversy section or explain why hundreds or thousands of other pages can have them but not the ALA page where an ALA member/editor unwittingly admits the ALA keeps relevant controversies from the public.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have asked you to keep cool while we discuss this. This is not about me or jessamyn, but about the subject of this article, so lets not get personal. You argue for consistency; well here is the real consistency issue, in my opinion: A controversy and/or criticism section, while generally frowned upon for a number of reasons, is sometimes necessary. But the question is: when is it necessary? It is necessary when a number of notable individuals and/or organizations have taken issue with the article's subject and this has been documented in objective, primary, reliable sources. Despite the long discussion we have had, you still have not addressed the AFA ref. This is not an objective OR primary source, and is therefore not suitable in and of itself, without a more objective and verifiable source for the claims that are made. You have also not addressed the possibility I have laid forth for the rest of the info, re the Schlessinger situation: place it in the article outside of a controversy section. We do not need an entire specific controversy section for one woman's argument, and the info can just as easily be included elsewhere in the article. Please address these arguments and compromises and we can move forward. And if you feel as though you are having a hard time editing this page for some reason, editors with a clear and pronounced strong POV tend to have a harder time on this site than more neutral editors.--Jackbirdsong 21:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not heated just frustrated over the double standard, and the long explanation is just to try to explain the frustration. (In part I'm not heated because info won't stay up unless it's wiki worthy and that has to do with wiki policy, not individual editors.) I have not addressed the AFA issue because I don't know about it with regard to wiki policy. I have explained that I am not in love with the existing language of the section as I feel it is kind of wimpy and dismissive when there are actually more significant controversies that result in continued harm to children nationwide. Like the ALA's defiance of the US Supreme Court where the Court says, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree" but the ALA responds, "Despite the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), ... ALA policy is unchanged...." Jackbirdsong, honestly, is it not controversial that the US Supreme Court tells the ALA it's "legitimate, and even compelling" to protect children but the ALA tells the Court to take a hike? How often does anyone or any organization tell the US Supreme Court to get a life? I suppose thanks to your input I am working on an encyclopedic way to add this information to this page -- the ALA tells the Court to get lost, children continue to suffer, and no one lifts a finger to stop this. The ALA may be expert in spinning the media on this, but I'll find a crack in their propaganda wall that satisfies wikipedia standards. People like you and Jessamyn are only helping, the whole purpose of Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

LAEC your understanding of the Supreme Court decision is not in line with the actual actionable results of the CIPA case. Libraries who get e-rate money have to filter and libraries that don't, don't. That's the law according to CIPA. You have taken a very narrow view of that decision and it's informing the way you interpret the intentions and actions of the ALA. Unless you can find sources of the type that Jackbirdsong mentions, this is your own issue with the ALA and not a wide-ranging controversy worthy of an encyclopedic mention. Jessamyn (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Jessamyn: Rest assured I am doing everything in my power to expose "my own issue" in the mainstream media. I don't think the children raped and molested think it's "my own issue" that the person who attacked them first viewed the unfiltered computers that would have been filtered thanks to CIPA and the US Supreme Court but for the ALA's actions in advising the libraries how to skirt that particular law and the US Supreme Court decision. Like the eight year old girl left for dead in a Philadelphia public library. Thanks to "my own issue," her and her family are devastated and now require the public's assistance. What's "informing the way [I] interpret the intentions and actions of the ALA" is the trail of broken bodies and bent minds of children that the law intended to protect but the ALA found a way around. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Legit: the thing you're missing in your understanding of the case is that the court did NOT tell libraries they had to put in filters. Didn't happen. What did happen is the court ruled that the government can offer libraries money for putting in filters. The court ruled that was okay, and that's what's happening now-- libraries may get extra funding if they choose to put up filters. Some decide to take the deal, some decide not to. But ALL are following the law. Libraries that don't want the funding are not "skirting" the law in any way. The Supreme Court did not express an opinion on whether libraries should take the deal, nor did it in any suggest that libraries should be FORCED to take the deal.

Now, if you want a law that requires libraries to install filters, all you have to do is convince two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states that this is a good idea, and it will happen. So far, they haven't decided that you're right and that it's a good idea, and instead, they (collectively) think it's a good idea to NOT require libraries be filtered. To my knowledge, no one's even suggested such a thing, aside from you.

So, why isn't the FBI conducting raids on the ALA? Because the ALA isn't doing anything wrong, legally speaking. If you read the Supreme Court decision and come away thinking that the ALA is breaking the law, you've read the decision wrong. They're not "skirting" the law, they haven't found a "loophole", they're not "cheating"-- they're doing exactly what the Supreme Court and the Congress want them to do-- expressing their opinion on whether libraries should filter or not, just like you're expressing your opinion on the subject. --Alecmconroy 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, all this here, while seemingly on the topic of the ALA, is really about the issue of whether this page should carry a Controversy section and what that Controversy section should contain. So far others say it does not belong at all. Funny after its history but be that as it may. So far I'm saying the Controversy section, not written by me, was somewhat wimpy and dismissive. It needs more meat. I'm suggesting some meat here, and that's why we are discussing this now.

Second, you are 100% correct. The ALA's actions are 100% legal. But is it the right thing to do? Should the ALA trump the US Supreme Court and community standards? For example, is recommending oral sex books for 12 year olds the right thing to do? The ALA says yes and awards such books the highest honors to ensure the most children read them, but is this what communities really want, or are they just unaware because of the effectiveness of the ALA's propaganda wing called the Office For Intellectual Freedom? Is that what the US Supreme Court said, that it is legitimate and even compelling to ensure 12 years old have the constitutional right to read oral sex books?

There's the rub. There's the controversy to be added to this article. There's why there's a trail of broken bodies and messed up minds nationwide in public libraries as a result, in my opinion, of the ALA: the ALA has a policy that says, essentially, it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from age inappropriate material. The US Supreme Court says it is "legitimate, and even compelling" to keep age inappropriate material away from children. The ALA does not change its age discrimination policy accordingly, and gets as many libraries as possible to conform to that standard, that it's age discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from pornography. It's that very policy that is at the very heart of the modern day ALA. It is that very policy that stands in the way of protecting children from harm. It is the very policy that is 180 degrees opposite of what the US Supreme court said unamimously, 9-0. But you would never know this from the way the ALA propagandizes people.

And the controversy along these lines is not moot. It produces devastating results against children nationwide. Day after day after day this policy goes 100% against the spirit of the law and the wording of US v. ALA causing harm to children in public libraries nationwide.

Mind you, a related serious controversy that I am now raising is that librarians refuse to assist police when the librarians are finally forced to report the matter, and worse, librarians work to pass laws that make it illegal for librarians to assist the police! So, after the kids get molested, the librarians often either refuse to reveal information to the police, or the records will already have been destroyed by a library policy designed to circumvent (or skirt) the USA PATRIOT Act. Child victims get the double whammey from the ALA that has a policy that goes 100% against the US Supreme Court, then the policy that goes 100% against the will of the people by not providing the police with the information needed to catch the perp that it enabled in the first place.

Now we all know my opinion is irrelevant. We all know we need wikiworthy links to evidence the controversy. In the past it was suggested to me that I either find the links or work on creating them and getting the mainstream media to publish the stories. I'm working on both. But this explanation is here to establish what I would like to see in the Controversy section, if I can only find wikiworthy links. Mind you I have found numerous links, including one to Jessamyn's site, but each one had been shot down for one reason after another. Frankly it's easy to shoot down individual links, but the weight of the numerous links all together is not considered conveniently. Do you know someone even criticized my quote from the US v. ALA saying the Justice was biased? I guess I'm in good company! So I will just find mainer mainstream media links and more to prove a major controversy exists.

So I thank you all for challenging me here as it is sharpening my skills and my knowledge base, improving my work product, and allowing me to better inform the public about what is going on at the ALA, once a great institution, now the nation's chief enabler and protector of criminal activity against children in public libraries.

Of course, this is all my opinion.

This page needs a Controversy section with real meat. Here's the meat: 1) The ALA policy regarding "age" discrimination goes against the US Supreme Court and community standards, 2) as a result, children continue to be harmed nationwide as if CIPA, US v. ALA, and community standards never existed, and 3) criminals are protected when the ALA advises libraries not to assist police in capturing the criminals who hurt the children, and even assists in the passage of laws that enshrine that librarians are not to assist police unless forced to do so by court order. (I am aware that Judith Krug just said librarians should call the police but this is the first time I have heard that from her, and in the past she regretted that the police where called on a 9/11 terrorist.) Now that is a serious controversy. That is where I'm headed. That is where I suggest we all should be headed if we intend the ALA article to be accurate instead of beautiful. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 08:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I should avoid debating the actual issue, but I think you're misintepreting #1 and #2 of your points. The ALA policy is in NO way going against the US Supreme Court. CIPA is in force, the US won USvALA, and things are being run that way. If CIPA isn't the law you want, that's something to take up with your congressional representatives, ya know? Anyway, I encourage you to continue your campaign to create a dialogue about your beliefs. Conversely, I strongly encourage you to discontinue doing so on Wikipedia. The controversy probably won't merit inclusion until such time as it's notable enough that normal, non-activist editors add it in. --Alecmconroy 16:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, Alecmconroy. So I won't be raising it further; that was just what I thought was the real controversy.

Still to be explained is why the prior Controversy section was completely removed and deserves no mention on the ALA page. Now I suggested removing the quotes about "twits" but leaving the remainder up, although I made no statement as to the AFA (not ALA) citation. That controversy section still needs to be considered as in editted and returned to the ALA page. Without it the ALA wiki page has largely returned to the puff piece it was before I got involved in the first place. That's just wrong and not wiki worthy.

You know I trust you, Alecmconroy, to make the right decisions regarding wiki policy. Please consider correcting the Controversy section to satify Jackbirdsong's concerns about vulgarity, etc., then restoring the section to the ALA page. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I tend to side with Jack on this. I'm loathe to remove criticisms of an organization from an article, but there does come a point where we may be giving undue weight to the voices of an extreme minority. When we're at the point where a random, objective, unconnected person can come in, look at the article, and see that the controversy section doesn't belong-- I tend to think that the instincts of Rlit, Jess, and myself are correct, that maybe the controversy just isn't a controversy yet, when it comes to the ALA.

But, it's also worth noting that the basic position you're taking, namely that pornography is bad, especially for children, is covered extensively on Wikipedia in articles on pornography, censorship, and children. So, it's not that your basic point isn't being covered-- it's just that it's not a signifcant portion of the discourse when it comes to the ALA itself. For example, children also could be exposed to inappropriate books in a Barnes and Noble-- but while concerns about that might be appropriate on an article about children or pornography, it's not a significant notable part of the discourse about Barnes and Noble, and doesn't belong on their article.

--Alecmconroy 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but Barnes and Noble's goal is not the sexualization of children, whereas that is the sole purpose of adding "age" to the ALA's "Library Bill of Rights" and leaving it in despite US v. ALA that clearly indicates (though not explicitly) it should be removed. The ALA's actions in this regard belong on this page.

Lastly, as a final word on this topic as it seems to have drawn to a close, I say the following which is directed toward the ALA:

"You say the hill's too steep to climb.  Climb it.  You say you'd like to see me try.  Climb it.  You pick the place and I'll choose the time, and I'll climb that hill in my own way.  Just wait a while for the right day.  And as I rise above the treeline and the clouds I look down, hearing the sound of the things you said today." Pink Floyd/Meddle/Fearless.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Get back on track

Okay everybody, while I enjoy the intriguing discourse (not to mention the Floyd lyrics: from Meddle, I believe?) Wiki is not the place to debate politics or POV. So to get back on track, Legit: if you have a strong opinion as to the position of the ALA on certain issues, and feel that position leads to negative consequences for society, that is nothing more than your POV. If you find a proper source that argues for this same connection (other than the Schlessinger ref, which I have now mentioned a potential compromise on more than once), then it should be added to a new controversy section. But I think you'll be hard pressed to find proper refs , as the connection seems vague at best, though it is possible (this does not mean your POV is wrong, just that it is your POV). So again, I would like to ask you why we don't just put the only properly referenced info in the former controversy section (the Schlessinger thing minus the derogatory language) back into the article, but outside of a "controversy section". We don't need a whole frowned-upon "controversy section" for this one piece of info, we can put it in the main article, and in the meantime you can research for proper refs regarding any other info you would like to add in the future (you may want to read the Wikipedia source guidelines for further help on this). If you do find solid refs for controversy-related issues, then a section for them can always be created in the future, provided it is merited by a number of good sources.--Jackbirdsong 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jackbirdsong, I'm giving up on this for now. Here's an article that has a bunch of key ALA members who watch it like hawks. Sometimes it takes them as many as a few minutes to keep this page in line with ALA propaganda. That controversy section was a very long battle created after about a year of my involvement with taking this page from an ALA puff piece to a wikiworthy page. You come a long and chop it out. Result? Dead silence. Nothing. All's quiet on the propaganda front. Here's people who reverse changes in minutes and days go by, entire days, four, count 'em, and no one says peep. Nothing. So I finally revert and say something, and all this happens.

Well now I'm just giving up on this issue of the addition of a Controversy section. The ALA has won another battle in the propaganda war proving their strength in numbers and why they continue to train more propagandists. I'm just one person. They are thousands. They filed an action against me to try to shut me down, try to ban me -- the intellectual freedom people trying to ban me. They likely helped force me to change my wiki name as well, though I don't know for sure. They have taken other actions to shut me up and shut me down. They alert birds of a feather to my presence then swoop in as a group, much like vultures. But I'll keep after the ALA in other wiki and non-wiki arenas and someday enough children will be raped and molested in public libraries that the tide will start to turn against the ALA despite its propaganda wall, and I'll be helping to lead the way.

So you make the changes. I give up. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's basically every day in the news that some people are objecting to something and the ALA rides to the rescue to ensure the ALA reigns supreme, not the local community. Here's another example just from today: 6th-Grade Book Stirs Rethinking, by Lisa Kocian, Globe Staff, November 12, 2006.

Like most editors on this site, I have no idea what I my be getting myself into when I decide to edit a particular article. In this case, I saw a problem and attempted to right it. I have no major bias either way in regards to this particular dispute, but I do believe that the Wiki policies I am attempting to uphold here are important ones. So here is what I am going to do: 1)reinsert the Schlessinger info in the article outside of a controversy section, and phrase it in an NPOV way, and 2) mention that the ALA's policy is anti-censorship, using the ref you have just provided above. This ref objectively states that the local community is in support of the ALA's position as much as it is opposed to it, as parents and teachers seem to line up on both sides of the argument more or less equally. This is a good, objective source, and I'm not sure why you haven't hunted down more of these to use in a proper NPOV fashion.--Jackbirdsong 02:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If I knew you'ld do such a great job, I would have given up contributing long ago! So here's a special bonus only for you -- thanks! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, its rare to cross paths with an editor who has such a stong opinion on an article's subject, and simultaneously maintains such a good disposition. This is the way to go about arguing a position on this site, and compromises are almost always reached, in my experience, via this manner of discourse. I may not necessarily completely agree with your POV, but I do find it to be legitimate, and even compelling.--Jackbirdsong 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)