Talk:Banned Books Week/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jeff Jacoby on book exclusion

Westbender removed the sentence about libraries and bookstores excluding titles and authors (as well as publishers) they dislike with the edit summary "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Yes, his argument is not proof, but the sentence is not worded as if this is fact. It says that "he argues that," attributing it as an opinion of Jacoby. Drrll (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is for facts, not increments suppositions if newspaper columnists. Adding this is prejudicial. Westbender (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia regularly features opinions of those reliably sourced, as does this article multiple times. WP:IRS talks about using opinions in articles:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

How is this prejudicial, other than you may not like this opinion being expressed?

Drrll (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

the concern is what makes his particular opinion worth reporting here? Westbender (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. May I suggest you allow the quote as that will prevent me from developing references to further prove and expand on what Jacoby has said. Basically, library selection is used as a means to censor library material, only do it in a politically acceptable way. So, for example, claiming ex-gay books don't meet library selection policies is a convenient way to keep out ex-gay books. Judith Krug herself has acknowledged this happens, only in a context she supports. I can get that quote from her. She's the heart of the ALA's BBW. She created it. She said libraries should not reject books from flimsy sources if those sources are the only sources for that kind of book. So put the Jacoby quote back in. "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Whatever, but Judith Krug comments are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. ". -- How do you know it is "representative", and not just a columnists's rant? Columns don't have the same fact-checking rigor as news articles. Westbender (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll try to get some RSs together on this now. It aligns almost exactly with Judith Krug's statement. I'll find it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Krug statement and ref below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC COI

Everyone, although it has been said here and there, I now want a clear section on my COI on this page. I already have it announced on my User Page.

I think some significant changes are needed on this page, but, given the COI, I will largely stick to Talk and allow others to see the value, if any, in my proposed edits.

Basically, in the context of so-called "banned books" (in reality no books have been banned in the USA since Fanny Hill about half a century ago, though plenty are challenged), the creator of banned books week [BBW] discussed how selection of books has been used to censor books. Setting aside all bias, I think a neutrally written section on that topic, or more specifically her view on that topic, would be appropriate on the BBW page since she is BBW's creator. Input from other ALA big wigs may be relevant as well, such as the Doug Archer quote already in the article.

This thought occurred to me not as a result of any WP:SOAPBOX, but as a result of the Jacoby quote currently under review by Westbender/Drrll/myself. So, despite my COI, or perhaps because of it, I may be aware of issues and RSs that people can work on in this Talk section to produce useful content for eventual inclusion on the main page. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection vs censorship proposal

BBW was created by Judith Krug of the American Library Association. On the subject of BBW, I believe it may be relevant to include some of her thinking on the issue. For example, here she is discussing how library selection is used to censor out material, how that is wrong, and how libraries should resist doing so:

• "On the Line for the First Amendment," by Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries, 27 May 2009 (July 1995 interview with Judith Krug).

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long "the community" that we served was the visible community.... And so, if we didn't see those people, then we didn't have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.


...


We never served the gay community. Now, we didn't serve the gay community because there weren't materials to serve them. You can't buy materials if they're not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren't wonderful, it's still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women's movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can't sit back and say, "Well, they're not the high-quality materials I'm used to buying." They're probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.

Let's see if I find anything else. But, basically because of my COI, I would like others to take what I supply and draft something accordingly. That's partly why I'm not proposing specific language. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this topic is worthy of its own small section if additional sources can be located, since this seems far more responsible for making certain titles unavailable in libraries and bookstores than any actual banning of books. The part of the quote "But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then begin to ask for it" seems especially relevant to this topic, given that Krug created BBW. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell article I just added below pertains to this particular topic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful for criticism

I'm linking all authors and sources to aid in evaluation:

• "The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores," by Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com, 17 September 2008.

Not directly related that I can see, but quite a number of attempted censorship issues, like Media Matters for America and some politicians telling stores not to sell books.

• "The Silliest Celebration," by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 4 December 2009.

This is directly related to BBW, which she calls a "fraud".

• "Censorship Propaganda Is Just So Much Hogwash," by Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, 3 October 1994.

A poster in the display proclaimed this to be "Banned Books Week." The kind of shameless propaganda that has become commonplace in false charges of "censorship" or "book banning" has apparently now been institutionalized with a week of its own.

....

No one calls it censorship when the old McGuffey's Readers are no longer purchased by the public schools (though they are still available and are actually being used in some private schools). No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village.

It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that it is called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.

So, the above may be useful by themselves or for the information mentioned or linked therein, to help with our research, not necessarily to be inserted as a RS. I may find more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Jacoby on book exclusion

Westbender removed the sentence about libraries and bookstores excluding titles and authors (as well as publishers) they dislike with the edit summary "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Yes, his argument is not proof, but the sentence is not worded as if this is fact. It says that "he argues that," attributing it as an opinion of Jacoby. Drrll (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is for facts, not increments suppositions if newspaper columnists. Adding this is prejudicial. Westbender (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia regularly features opinions of those reliably sourced, as does this article multiple times. WP:IRS talks about using opinions in articles:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

How is this prejudicial, other than you may not like this opinion being expressed?

Drrll (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

the concern is what makes his particular opinion worth reporting here? Westbender (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. May I suggest you allow the quote as that will prevent me from developing references to further prove and expand on what Jacoby has said. Basically, library selection is used as a means to censor library material, only do it in a politically acceptable way. So, for example, claiming ex-gay books don't meet library selection policies is a convenient way to keep out ex-gay books. Judith Krug herself has acknowledged this happens, only in a context she supports. I can get that quote from her. She's the heart of the ALA's BBW. She created it. She said libraries should not reject books from flimsy sources if those sources are the only sources for that kind of book. So put the Jacoby quote back in. "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Whatever, but Judith Krug comments are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. ". -- How do you know it is "representative", and not just a columnists's rant? Columns don't have the same fact-checking rigor as news articles. Westbender (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll try to get some RSs together on this now. It aligns almost exactly with Judith Krug's statement. I'll find it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Krug statement and ref below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC COI

Everyone, although it has been said here and there, I now want a clear section on my COI on this page. I already have it announced on my User Page.

I think some significant changes are needed on this page, but, given the COI, I will largely stick to Talk and allow others to see the value, if any, in my proposed edits.

Basically, in the context of so-called "banned books" (in reality no books have been banned in the USA since Fanny Hill about half a century ago, though plenty are challenged), the creator of banned books week [BBW] discussed how selection of books has been used to censor books. Setting aside all bias, I think a neutrally written section on that topic, or more specifically her view on that topic, would be appropriate on the BBW page since she is BBW's creator. Input from other ALA big wigs may be relevant as well, such as the Doug Archer quote already in the article.

This thought occurred to me not as a result of any WP:SOAPBOX, but as a result of the Jacoby quote currently under review by Westbender/Drrll/myself. So, despite my COI, or perhaps because of it, I may be aware of issues and RSs that people can work on in this Talk section to produce useful content for eventual inclusion on the main page. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection vs censorship proposal

BBW was created by Judith Krug of the American Library Association. On the subject of BBW, I believe it may be relevant to include some of her thinking on the issue. For example, here she is discussing how library selection is used to censor out material, how that is wrong, and how libraries should resist doing so:

• "On the Line for the First Amendment," by Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries, 27 May 2009 (July 1995 interview with Judith Krug).

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long "the community" that we served was the visible community.... And so, if we didn't see those people, then we didn't have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.


...


We never served the gay community. Now, we didn't serve the gay community because there weren't materials to serve them. You can't buy materials if they're not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren't wonderful, it's still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women's movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can't sit back and say, "Well, they're not the high-quality materials I'm used to buying." They're probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.

Let's see if I find anything else. But, basically because of my COI, I would like others to take what I supply and draft something accordingly. That's partly why I'm not proposing specific language. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this topic is worthy of its own small section if additional sources can be located, since this seems far more responsible for making certain titles unavailable in libraries and bookstores than any actual banning of books. The part of the quote "But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then begin to ask for it" seems especially relevant to this topic, given that Krug created BBW. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell article I just added below pertains to this particular topic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful for criticism

I'm linking all authors and sources to aid in evaluation:

• "The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores," by Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com, 17 September 2008.

Not directly related that I can see, but quite a number of attempted censorship issues, like Media Matters for America and some politicians telling stores not to sell books.

• "The Silliest Celebration," by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 4 December 2009.

This is directly related to BBW, which she calls a "fraud".

• "Censorship Propaganda Is Just So Much Hogwash," by Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, 3 October 1994.

A poster in the display proclaimed this to be "Banned Books Week." The kind of shameless propaganda that has become commonplace in false charges of "censorship" or "book banning" has apparently now been institutionalized with a week of its own.

....

No one calls it censorship when the old McGuffey's Readers are no longer purchased by the public schools (though they are still available and are actually being used in some private schools). No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village.

It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that it is called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.

So, the above may be useful by themselves or for the information mentioned or linked therein, to help with our research, not necessarily to be inserted as a RS. I may find more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Jacoby on book exclusion

Westbender removed the sentence about libraries and bookstores excluding titles and authors (as well as publishers) they dislike with the edit summary "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Yes, his argument is not proof, but the sentence is not worded as if this is fact. It says that "he argues that," attributing it as an opinion of Jacoby. Drrll (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is for facts, not increments suppositions if newspaper columnists. Adding this is prejudicial. Westbender (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia regularly features opinions of those reliably sourced, as does this article multiple times. WP:IRS talks about using opinions in articles:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

How is this prejudicial, other than you may not like this opinion being expressed?

Drrll (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

the concern is what makes his particular opinion worth reporting here? Westbender (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. May I suggest you allow the quote as that will prevent me from developing references to further prove and expand on what Jacoby has said. Basically, library selection is used as a means to censor library material, only do it in a politically acceptable way. So, for example, claiming ex-gay books don't meet library selection policies is a convenient way to keep out ex-gay books. Judith Krug herself has acknowledged this happens, only in a context she supports. I can get that quote from her. She's the heart of the ALA's BBW. She created it. She said libraries should not reject books from flimsy sources if those sources are the only sources for that kind of book. So put the Jacoby quote back in. "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Whatever, but Judith Krug comments are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. ". -- How do you know it is "representative", and not just a columnists's rant? Columns don't have the same fact-checking rigor as news articles. Westbender (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll try to get some RSs together on this now. It aligns almost exactly with Judith Krug's statement. I'll find it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Krug statement and ref below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC COI

Everyone, although it has been said here and there, I now want a clear section on my COI on this page. I already have it announced on my User Page.

I think some significant changes are needed on this page, but, given the COI, I will largely stick to Talk and allow others to see the value, if any, in my proposed edits.

Basically, in the context of so-called "banned books" (in reality no books have been banned in the USA since Fanny Hill about half a century ago, though plenty are challenged), the creator of banned books week [BBW] discussed how selection of books has been used to censor books. Setting aside all bias, I think a neutrally written section on that topic, or more specifically her view on that topic, would be appropriate on the BBW page since she is BBW's creator. Input from other ALA big wigs may be relevant as well, such as the Doug Archer quote already in the article.

This thought occurred to me not as a result of any WP:SOAPBOX, but as a result of the Jacoby quote currently under review by Westbender/Drrll/myself. So, despite my COI, or perhaps because of it, I may be aware of issues and RSs that people can work on in this Talk section to produce useful content for eventual inclusion on the main page. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection vs censorship proposal

BBW was created by Judith Krug of the American Library Association. On the subject of BBW, I believe it may be relevant to include some of her thinking on the issue. For example, here she is discussing how library selection is used to censor out material, how that is wrong, and how libraries should resist doing so:

• "On the Line for the First Amendment," by Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries, 27 May 2009 (July 1995 interview with Judith Krug).

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long "the community" that we served was the visible community.... And so, if we didn't see those people, then we didn't have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.


...


We never served the gay community. Now, we didn't serve the gay community because there weren't materials to serve them. You can't buy materials if they're not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren't wonderful, it's still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women's movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can't sit back and say, "Well, they're not the high-quality materials I'm used to buying." They're probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.

Let's see if I find anything else. But, basically because of my COI, I would like others to take what I supply and draft something accordingly. That's partly why I'm not proposing specific language. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this topic is worthy of its own small section if additional sources can be located, since this seems far more responsible for making certain titles unavailable in libraries and bookstores than any actual banning of books. The part of the quote "But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then begin to ask for it" seems especially relevant to this topic, given that Krug created BBW. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell article I just added below pertains to this particular topic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful for criticism

I'm linking all authors and sources to aid in evaluation:

• "The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores," by Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com, 17 September 2008.

Not directly related that I can see, but quite a number of attempted censorship issues, like Media Matters for America and some politicians telling stores not to sell books.

• "The Silliest Celebration," by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 4 December 2009.

This is directly related to BBW, which she calls a "fraud".

• "Censorship Propaganda Is Just So Much Hogwash," by Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, 3 October 1994.

A poster in the display proclaimed this to be "Banned Books Week." The kind of shameless propaganda that has become commonplace in false charges of "censorship" or "book banning" has apparently now been institutionalized with a week of its own.

....

No one calls it censorship when the old McGuffey's Readers are no longer purchased by the public schools (though they are still available and are actually being used in some private schools). No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village.

It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that it is called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.

So, the above may be useful by themselves or for the information mentioned or linked therein, to help with our research, not necessarily to be inserted as a RS. I may find more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Jacoby on book exclusion

Westbender removed the sentence about libraries and bookstores excluding titles and authors (as well as publishers) they dislike with the edit summary "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Yes, his argument is not proof, but the sentence is not worded as if this is fact. It says that "he argues that," attributing it as an opinion of Jacoby. Drrll (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is for facts, not increments suppositions if newspaper columnists. Adding this is prejudicial. Westbender (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia regularly features opinions of those reliably sourced, as does this article multiple times. WP:IRS talks about using opinions in articles:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

How is this prejudicial, other than you may not like this opinion being expressed?

Drrll (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

the concern is what makes his particular opinion worth reporting here? Westbender (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. May I suggest you allow the quote as that will prevent me from developing references to further prove and expand on what Jacoby has said. Basically, library selection is used as a means to censor library material, only do it in a politically acceptable way. So, for example, claiming ex-gay books don't meet library selection policies is a convenient way to keep out ex-gay books. Judith Krug herself has acknowledged this happens, only in a context she supports. I can get that quote from her. She's the heart of the ALA's BBW. She created it. She said libraries should not reject books from flimsy sources if those sources are the only sources for that kind of book. So put the Jacoby quote back in. "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Whatever, but Judith Krug comments are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. ". -- How do you know it is "representative", and not just a columnists's rant? Columns don't have the same fact-checking rigor as news articles. Westbender (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll try to get some RSs together on this now. It aligns almost exactly with Judith Krug's statement. I'll find it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Krug statement and ref below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC COI

Everyone, although it has been said here and there, I now want a clear section on my COI on this page. I already have it announced on my User Page.

I think some significant changes are needed on this page, but, given the COI, I will largely stick to Talk and allow others to see the value, if any, in my proposed edits.

Basically, in the context of so-called "banned books" (in reality no books have been banned in the USA since Fanny Hill about half a century ago, though plenty are challenged), the creator of banned books week [BBW] discussed how selection of books has been used to censor books. Setting aside all bias, I think a neutrally written section on that topic, or more specifically her view on that topic, would be appropriate on the BBW page since she is BBW's creator. Input from other ALA big wigs may be relevant as well, such as the Doug Archer quote already in the article.

This thought occurred to me not as a result of any WP:SOAPBOX, but as a result of the Jacoby quote currently under review by Westbender/Drrll/myself. So, despite my COI, or perhaps because of it, I may be aware of issues and RSs that people can work on in this Talk section to produce useful content for eventual inclusion on the main page. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection vs censorship proposal

BBW was created by Judith Krug of the American Library Association. On the subject of BBW, I believe it may be relevant to include some of her thinking on the issue. For example, here she is discussing how library selection is used to censor out material, how that is wrong, and how libraries should resist doing so:

• "On the Line for the First Amendment," by Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries, 27 May 2009 (July 1995 interview with Judith Krug).

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long "the community" that we served was the visible community.... And so, if we didn't see those people, then we didn't have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.


...


We never served the gay community. Now, we didn't serve the gay community because there weren't materials to serve them. You can't buy materials if they're not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren't wonderful, it's still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women's movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can't sit back and say, "Well, they're not the high-quality materials I'm used to buying." They're probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.

Let's see if I find anything else. But, basically because of my COI, I would like others to take what I supply and draft something accordingly. That's partly why I'm not proposing specific language. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this topic is worthy of its own small section if additional sources can be located, since this seems far more responsible for making certain titles unavailable in libraries and bookstores than any actual banning of books. The part of the quote "But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then begin to ask for it" seems especially relevant to this topic, given that Krug created BBW. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell article I just added below pertains to this particular topic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful for criticism

I'm linking all authors and sources to aid in evaluation:

• "The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores," by Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com, 17 September 2008.

Not directly related that I can see, but quite a number of attempted censorship issues, like Media Matters for America and some politicians telling stores not to sell books.

• "The Silliest Celebration," by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 4 December 2009.

This is directly related to BBW, which she calls a "fraud".

• "Censorship Propaganda Is Just So Much Hogwash," by Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, 3 October 1994.

A poster in the display proclaimed this to be "Banned Books Week." The kind of shameless propaganda that has become commonplace in false charges of "censorship" or "book banning" has apparently now been institutionalized with a week of its own.

....

No one calls it censorship when the old McGuffey's Readers are no longer purchased by the public schools (though they are still available and are actually being used in some private schools). No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village.

It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that it is called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.

So, the above may be useful by themselves or for the information mentioned or linked therein, to help with our research, not necessarily to be inserted as a RS. I may find more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Jacoby on book exclusion

Westbender removed the sentence about libraries and bookstores excluding titles and authors (as well as publishers) they dislike with the edit summary "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Yes, his argument is not proof, but the sentence is not worded as if this is fact. It says that "he argues that," attributing it as an opinion of Jacoby. Drrll (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is for facts, not increments suppositions if newspaper columnists. Adding this is prejudicial. Westbender (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia regularly features opinions of those reliably sourced, as does this article multiple times. WP:IRS talks about using opinions in articles:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

How is this prejudicial, other than you may not like this opinion being expressed?

Drrll (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

the concern is what makes his particular opinion worth reporting here? Westbender (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. May I suggest you allow the quote as that will prevent me from developing references to further prove and expand on what Jacoby has said. Basically, library selection is used as a means to censor library material, only do it in a politically acceptable way. So, for example, claiming ex-gay books don't meet library selection policies is a convenient way to keep out ex-gay books. Judith Krug herself has acknowledged this happens, only in a context she supports. I can get that quote from her. She's the heart of the ALA's BBW. She created it. She said libraries should not reject books from flimsy sources if those sources are the only sources for that kind of book. So put the Jacoby quote back in. "His argument isn't proof that librarians exercise this kind of selection." Whatever, but Judith Krug comments are. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is worth reporting because it is representative of significant criticism. ". -- How do you know it is "representative", and not just a columnists's rant? Columns don't have the same fact-checking rigor as news articles. Westbender (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'll try to get some RSs together on this now. It aligns almost exactly with Judith Krug's statement. I'll find it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Krug statement and ref below. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

LAEC COI

Everyone, although it has been said here and there, I now want a clear section on my COI on this page. I already have it announced on my User Page.

I think some significant changes are needed on this page, but, given the COI, I will largely stick to Talk and allow others to see the value, if any, in my proposed edits.

Basically, in the context of so-called "banned books" (in reality no books have been banned in the USA since Fanny Hill about half a century ago, though plenty are challenged), the creator of banned books week [BBW] discussed how selection of books has been used to censor books. Setting aside all bias, I think a neutrally written section on that topic, or more specifically her view on that topic, would be appropriate on the BBW page since she is BBW's creator. Input from other ALA big wigs may be relevant as well, such as the Doug Archer quote already in the article.

This thought occurred to me not as a result of any WP:SOAPBOX, but as a result of the Jacoby quote currently under review by Westbender/Drrll/myself. So, despite my COI, or perhaps because of it, I may be aware of issues and RSs that people can work on in this Talk section to produce useful content for eventual inclusion on the main page. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection vs censorship proposal

BBW was created by Judith Krug of the American Library Association. On the subject of BBW, I believe it may be relevant to include some of her thinking on the issue. For example, here she is discussing how library selection is used to censor out material, how that is wrong, and how libraries should resist doing so:

• "On the Line for the First Amendment," by Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries, 27 May 2009 (July 1995 interview with Judith Krug).

We have to serve the information needs of all the community and for so long "the community" that we served was the visible community.... And so, if we didn't see those people, then we didn't have to include them in our service arena. The truth is, we do have to.


...


We never served the gay community. Now, we didn't serve the gay community because there weren't materials to serve them. You can't buy materials if they're not there. But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then to begin to ask for it. Another thing we have to be real careful about is that even though the materials that come out initially aren't wonderful, it's still incumbent upon us to have that voice represented in the collection. This was exactly what happened in the early days of the women's movement, and as the black community became more visible and began to demand more materials that fulfilled their particular information needs. We can't sit back and say, "Well, they're not the high-quality materials I'm used to buying." They're probably not, but if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library.

Let's see if I find anything else. But, basically because of my COI, I would like others to take what I supply and draft something accordingly. That's partly why I'm not proposing specific language. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this topic is worthy of its own small section if additional sources can be located, since this seems far more responsible for making certain titles unavailable in libraries and bookstores than any actual banning of books. The part of the quote "But part of our responsibility is to identify what we need and then begin to ask for it" seems especially relevant to this topic, given that Krug created BBW. Drrll (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Thomas Sowell article I just added below pertains to this particular topic. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly useful for criticism

I'm linking all authors and sources to aid in evaluation:

• "The Book Banners Hollywood Ignores," by Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com, 17 September 2008.

Not directly related that I can see, but quite a number of attempted censorship issues, like Media Matters for America and some politicians telling stores not to sell books.

• "The Silliest Celebration," by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 4 December 2009.

This is directly related to BBW, which she calls a "fraud".

• "Censorship Propaganda Is Just So Much Hogwash," by Thomas Sowell, The Washington Times, 3 October 1994.

A poster in the display proclaimed this to be "Banned Books Week." The kind of shameless propaganda that has become commonplace in false charges of "censorship" or "book banning" has apparently now been institutionalized with a week of its own.

....

No one calls it censorship when the old McGuffey's Readers are no longer purchased by the public schools (though they are still available and are actually being used in some private schools). No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village.

It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that it is called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.

So, the above may be useful by themselves or for the information mentioned or linked therein, to help with our research, not necessarily to be inserted as a RS. I may find more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

BBW founder okays book removals

• "Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week," by Judith Krug, Curriculum Review, 46:1, September 2006.

On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)