Talk:American Library Association/Archive 1

message: Why is the Goosebumps series banned or challenged?
Dunno, but it isn't banned or challenged by the ALA. They seem to be against such things. The ALA website seems to be promoting goosebumps: http://www.ala.org/ala/alsc/greatwebsites/greatwebsitesfavorite.htm AdinaBob 21:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this question here, instead of on the Goosebumps page?  Shouldn't it be removed?  In any case, the ALA doesn't challenge books, it reports on the challenges issued to school and public libraries by parents and community members.  The Goosebumps books were challenged "for being too frightening for young people and depicting occult or “Satanic” themes" . Deborah-jl 02:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Is there any sort of a cite besides personal observations about the liberal/conservative information added to the ALA page? Besides having typos, the newly added information is also unsourced. Jessamyn 14:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That the ALA has a political stance and issues statements on issues of national politics is a fact and the examples given are cited; I've sectioned them off.  That some librarians refuse to join the ALA because of its political stance is irrelevant (some refuse to join because of its irrelevance to their jobs, for example, or because of the cost. Similarly, I'm sure many retired people don't join the AARP or many black people the NAACP because of the political stance; in the absence of a counter organization of encyclopedic interest, I don't find it a wiki-worthy statement. Deborah-jl 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the sectioning off works really well to get this information across in a NPOV way. Good edit! Jessamyn 15:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  Now I'm all blushy, because, dude, you're Jessamyn. Deborah-jl 03:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite for liberal/conservative information? 

message: I find the statement that "Although such protests are between the members of a community and the community's library, the ALA usually issues a statement supporting the library's free speech rights during such controversies" to be misleading.  ALA supports the free speech (and free access to information) rights of the public, which is a very different thing from the free speech of the library, if a library can even be said to have rights.  The former is in the public interest; the latter implies that ALA is fighting for an agenda being advanced by the library.
Andreaj 15:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Speech Rights of the Library? 

message: I went through the whole text, SL, looking for anything that resembled a puff piece.  I added one or two modifiers.  I don't see the puff.  Could you tell us what passages you are referring to?
I also added the Dr. Laura thing in 1999, which was probably the most publicity the ALA has ever gotten, so it really ought to be in there.  Ethan Mitchell 03:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Dr. Laura is a good addition-- she's definitely a notable critic.  Good job! --Alecmconroy 03:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depuffification!  Funny!  I don't have that answer now as I'm going on memory, but just imagine the piece without the Critical Responses, now Controversy section.  And I made some minor edits to your work, Ethan Mitchell. --SafeLibraries 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, another major controvery is the Cuban librarian ignorification, since we are making up words here, and that involves Nat Hentoff and Andre Codrescu in a particularly public battle with Michael Gorman where Gorman claims Codrescu sandbagged the ALA.  I'd say that's major.  And the ALA's defiance of the USA Patriot Act is major too.  Heck Judith Krug even made up a "radical, militant librarian" button that the ALA actually sells online!  That's an ALA response to controversy -- laugh it off!  You want citations for this?  I have some.  --SafeLibraries 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I did take the liberty of removing the sentence "The Teen Hoopla web site has since been replaced."  It's true, the site may have been-- but in context, the implication is the the site was removed in response to the criticism.  But is this true?  It's been seven years-- I would expect them to have removed the site by now just as a matter of course.  Obviously, if they have said they removed it in response to the controversy, I withdraw my objection.  --Alecmconroy 04:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Depuffification and Dr. Laura

message: All, the article places political stances and controversies above other sections that are more descriptive of the ALA's structure.  Shouldn't this article be reordered accordingly?  Yes, I know that means stuff I like to see gets pushed down the page, but after all, as a wikipedian, I am supposed to try to improve things.  --SafeLibraries 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd change it a little to: Conferences, Controversy, Political Stances and then the rest as is. It seems to make sense to keep the lists at the bottom. Do you think there is a way we can roll political stances and controversy together? They seemsimilar though not entirely the same. Jessamyn (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, remember I'm not the be all and end all. But my opinion is that while the political stances may be controversial, or the controversies may be political, they are, as you say, not entirely the same.  Indeed the controversial stuff is not controversial from the ALA standpoint.  Essentially the controversial stuff is what other's think of the ALA -- indeed it used to be called Critical Responses.  Contrast that with the political stances.  That's the stuff that the ALA thinks/endorses/promotes.  From the ALA point of view, the political stances are not controversial.  Am I saying this right?  So I'd keep them separate, and I frankly think that benefits the ALA. And sometimes the controversies are not political -- like the age discrimination thing -- Republicans and Democrats - Liberals and Conservatives are often equally shocked at this policy.  And I see what you mean about the lists at the bottom. --SafeLibraries 01:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should sections be reordered?