Talk:American Library Association/Archive 4

History

The history section of the article seems very thin: Founded by Justin Winsor, Charles Ammi Cutter, Samuel S. Green, James L. Whitney, Melvil Dewey (Melvil Dui), Fred B. Perkins and Thomas W. Bicknell in 1876 in Philadelphia and chartered in 1879 in Massachusetts, its head office is now in Chicago. It seems to be merely a list of names and locations with a few dates for seasoning. I presume these people were librarians who all knew each other. It would be a great idea to add their motivations. What was it they hoped to accomplish with this association? How have the goals of the association changed over time? Why did they move their headquarters from Philadelphia to Chicago? -ErinHowarth (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Added information that Charles Evans was a founding member. Evans would become the ALA's first treasurer. See Holley, E.G. (1963). Charles Evans: American bibliographer. Urbana: University of Chicago Press, p.68. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petercannon usf (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Membership

When reading the membership section, I was impressed by the following. Perhaps if someone can work the answers to these questions into the article, it might be considered an improvement. Why is ALA membership open to any person or organization? Why isn't it limited to libraries and librarians? There must be a reason for that. It seems so weird? -ErinHowarth (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

When reading the membership section, I was impressed by the following. Perhaps if someone can work the answers to these questions into the article, it might be considered an improvement: How large is the elected council and the executive board? How long do they serve? How are they elected? I imagine it probably goes like stockholders in a corporation. I'm always getting little ballots to mail in so that someone else can cast my vote. They call it proxy, but if they would just send me candidate statements I could vote myself. -ErinHowarth (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Activities

This section seems to me to be too general to be interesting or useful. If the eleven divisions and seventeen round tables are static, then it seems prudent to me to list them all and describe with that do in three sentences, using active verbs if possible. My first impression is that the ALA does a lot of nothing, and I'm just a little frustrated. -ErinHowarth (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Civil liberties

This section needs a lot of work. Currently it states only: In 1970, the ALA founded the first lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender professional organization, called the "Task Force on Gay Liberation". While I believe this does belong in the article several more sentences are required. Specifically, I think this section should explain the ALAs more general stance toward civil liberties the same way that the intellectual freedom section and the privacy section does, and then something should be included to better explain why their stance on civil liberties belongs under a heading of politics. For example, the other sections refer to specific acts of congress, that's obviously politics. The civil liberties section needs something like that, too. -ErinHowarth (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It would also be nice to see something other than the ALA referenced here. Papers/libraries are always picking up ALA stories. Why does it all have to come from statements released by ALA itself?Gag01001 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoting censorship

Words needs to be quoted where they are the view of the relevant subject and not the fact. For example, Rush Limbaugh says some people are "feminazis." The word has to be in quotes because it is Limbaugh's view or coined term or sarcasm, etc., and not the actual truth. In truth, the people who Limbaugh calls "feminazis"--in quotes--are not feminazis--not in quotes.

In the United States of America, no book has been censored for about half a century. Indeed with the Internet, censorship would be practically impossible at this time. That is why you see countries censoring the Internet. Iran, for example, just censored Facebook, if I am not mistaken. The United States does not censor in such a fashion. Neither does it prevent the publication of any work. It did about half a century ago, but no longer. Some say the "Fairness Doctrine" is the "Censorship Doctrine," but that is not yet responsible for any censorship in the USA as it has not yet been passed into law.

In public schools and public libraries, sometimes the public finds that certain books are inappropriate for the intended audience. A public school, for example, may remove a pervasively vulgar work. Oh, the work may be a top quality, award winning book, but it may still be inappropriate for the school and removed from that school. Indeed the US Supreme Court has directly addressed that very question in Board of Education v. Pico. The removal of pervasively vulgar material from public schools is not censorship.

Similarly, public libraries are guided by a law that created them and policies that define the collection policy. Sometimes, very rarely but sometimes, material that violates either that law or that policy or both is removed from that library. Books properly removed under existing law or under existing collection policies and practices are not censored. It is not censorship to remove public library materials that violate the law or the libraries own policies. Indeed libraries have procedures in place to make this very determination.

When talking about the removal of books from public libraries and schools, the use of the term "censorship" does not describe the facts and is actually false, except in very, very rare circumstances. Saying, for example, that so and so opposes censorship in public libraries when such usage is intended to refer to legally removed materials as censored is misleading. In reality, in truth, the sentence should say that so and so opposes "censorship" in public libraries. The quotes are used to indicate that the writer or the so-and-so believes the legal removal of materials is censorship when in reality it is not.

The ALA is an organization that believes that any material whatsoever that is successfully challenged is thereby censored. That is factually not true, in accordance with the above examples, and for many other reasons, but that is the ALA's view. And it may be a perfectly legitimate view, but it is still a view. And as a view that is not factual, it must be placed into quotation marks.

Now let's look at the sentence in question:

As a result of its stance on intellectual freedom, the ALA is generally opposed to any censorship of the material in libraries.[14]

The citation is to the "Library Bill of Rights," an ALA statement of policy that holds it is "age" discrimination for a librarian to keep a child from any material whatsoever. Looking at the source directly, we find censorship is mentioned as follows:

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

Think about that. "Libraries should challenge censorship." I agree. You agree. We all agree. Libraries should challenge censorship. Now you have two problems:

Problem one: legally removed material is not censored, and

Problem two: "libraries challenging censorship" is not the same thing as "ALA is generally opposed to any censorship of the material in libraries."

Both problems can be solved simply. Place the word "censorship" in quote marks. Gone is the implication that a falsity is fact. Gone is the implication that what the ALA actually said in the cited source is accurately reflected in the Wiki article. In other words, this is the proper way to comply with Wiki policy and write the sentence:

As a result of its stance on intellectual freedom, the ALA is generally opposed to any "censorship" of the material in libraries.[14]

Come to think of it, the Wiki sentence as currently phrased is inaccurate for yet a third reason, again cured by the use of quotation marks:

Problem three: the ALA does not oppose the censorship of certain information with which it disagrees or is trying to hide. Well, I suppose the use of the word "generally" would allow for this, but still it is misleading as it stands now.

Quotations marks will kill three birds with one stone. It's not censorship in reality, but it is "censorship," as the term is used by the ALA. Hence "censorship" is the best way to phrase this.

I hope this comment answer's Orangemike's concerns as expressed here: 17:17, 24 May 2009 Orangemike (talk | contribs) (18,135 bytes) (please explain your reasoning on the article's talk page before reverting this edit). --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're already aware from discussions elsewhere that your definition of "censorship" disagrees with that of most people. Whether or not you should be right--subjective definitions being a matter of consensus, possibly you should be right but aren't because most people haven't realized it yet--until you can convince the majority of the English-speaking world to adopt your definition of "censorship", a use of it in the current majority sense shouldn't be scare-quoted. --CrazyDreamer (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My view is irrelevant. The ALA's view is relevant. The ALA's view is that keeping inappropriate material from children is censorship. The US Supreme Court says it is not. Therefore, the ALA's definition should be quotated as it is not censorship. I will add back in the quotes.

The ALA lost US v. ALA in 2003. The US Supreme Court said, "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," and found CIPA constitutional. Yet after that, the ALA still advises communities, "The 'right to use a library' includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age ... violates Article V."

Keeping inappropriate material from children is not censorship. The ALA says it is. Hence the quotes.

And they are not "scare" quotes, as you say. They are simply quotes to indicate that's what the ALA calls it. The ALA actually uses the word censorship. Or Censoring. Or censor, Etc. That is not what it is in reality.

I am not arguing the ALA is wrong in its view. I am simply reflecting the facts vis-a-vis the ALA and the US Supreme Court. It has absolutely nothing to do with me, except to the extent that I am the person adding the quotes to reflect the fact.

If anyone persists in removing the quotations marks, I will change the article to expand on the matter, explaining exactly how and why the ALA is wrong, with quotes from reliable source after reliable source, including, for example, former members of the ALA Council.

And I do not appreciate how the explanation for removing the quotes started: "I think that you're already aware from discussions elsewhere that your definition of 'censorship' disagrees with that of most people." That's confrontational. It is not wiki friendly. It's irrelevant and distracts from the issue, namely, the ALA's definition of censorship includes the very thing the US Supreme Court says is not censorship. The US Supreme Court is the reference here, not me. Don't make me the straw man. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You got here before me, so I'll leave it at your version for now to avoid an edit war. I suspect that we'll probably have to take this through a dispute resolution process at some point, though, because I can't see either of us changing our minds and no-one else seems to be interested in voicing an opinion (other than whomever first wrote that sentence and Orangemike, both also against you). First I'll give it another shot and listen to your reply as well, though. Sound like a reasonable plan?

For clarification of what I meant by "scare quotes," I would like to quote from the scare quotes Wikipedia entry I linked to in my previous comment: "When the enclosed text is a quotation from another source, scare quotes may indicate that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase itself) […] or that the writer feels it is a misnomer." As I understand it, the ALA uses the word "censorship" and you believe that they are using the word incorrectly, so you put quotation marks around it to indicate that.

Would you mind giving a clear and concise definition of "censorship" from your PoV? You state that anything "legally removed" is not censored, but I'm not sure if you mean that censorship is illegal by definition or if library challenges in specific don't count because, e.g., they aren't prior restraint. You cite Supreme Court cases regarding the First Amendment, so are you suggesting that the definition of "censorship" is anything that runs afoul of First Amendment protections, or is the First Amendment secondary to your definition and merely appears as a result of the application to specific cases?

Regarding the court cases, I should note that neither the plurality opinion in United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., nor either concurrence, nor Stevens' dissent use any form of the word "censor," leaving only Souter's dissent (joined in by Ginsburg). Souter discusses censorship as different from library selection policies, but he only refers to it being "presumptively invalid" (emphasis added) and that he wishes to avoid "unjustifiable" censorship, suggesting that even he understands that censorship may be good and legal when done for a legitimate and compelling reason. Similarly, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico by Pico, which Souter cites quite a lot in defense of his argument that CIPA is adult censorship, has a single opinion—a dissent—using the word "censor," and then in regards to the Court's relationship with the school board, not whether the school board's actions constituted censorship. If these cases are determining the definition of the word "censor," I don't see it; it seems rather that they are determining whether or not certain acts are constitutional. If being constitutional is the definition of censorship, then these cases happen to determine whether specific acts meet that definition, but it isn't their definition, it's yours, and they neither rely on nor give any other evidence that they subscribe to it.

As for the definition of censorship, I can find quite a few. E.g.:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor. […] Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is censored in most jurisdictions in the world" (Wikipedia)

"The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression" (Wiktionary)

"censorship, official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group. It may be applied to the mails, speech, the press, the theater, dance, art, literature, photography, the cinema, radio, television, or computer networks. Censorship may be either preventive or punitive, according to whether it is exercised before or after the expression has been made public." (Columbia Encyclopedia)

"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is lawful to censor obscene entertainment to safeguard children from pornography" (West's Encyclopedia of American Law)

It would seem to me that, based on the above, referring to the removal of materials from libraries and age-based restrictions on obscene materials, however legally and morally correct, as "censorship" is a valid use of the term. In that case, the Supreme Court decisions are not deciding whether or not acts are censorship but whether or not that censorship is legal. I hold that this is the case; protecting children can require acts that are morally imperative and perfectly legal and still censorship. Removing access to materials ("suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material") for reasons of content ("objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient") is a pretty good short definition of "censorship", however legal and moral it might be under the circumstances. —CrazyDreamer (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm legitimate, and even compelling, and you are just a crazy dreamer. Joke! Kidding!

There is a difference between censorship and selection. If something makes it past the selection process erroneously so it is later removed, that is not censorship. If, as in the West's Encyclopedia of American Law example, obscene entertainment is "censored," in reality the material erroneously passed the selection process and correcting errors in the results of that process is not censorship. Besides, you pointed out how the SCOTUS cases didn't cite censorship, then you point out the West's Encyclopedia of American Law definition names censorship as being an issue in such a case. I'm not saying you can't it both ways, I am saying this is indeed a very tricky area, so tricky even the sources you cite, or anyone can cite, may seem to contradict each other and may actually contradict each other.

Keeping inappropriate material from children is not censorship, not even "good" censorship--it is just the proper application of a selection policy. All libraries have selection policies, and in most, inappropriate material for children does not make it past the selection policy. Removing that which has made it past the selection process erroneously is simply applying the policy, it is not censorship, and the material supposedly censored is available is tons of other places.

Real censorship is not keeping inappropriate material from children. You know it, I know it, reliable sources know it, the whole world knows it. The ALA's use of censorship, as used in the Wiki article, references the ALA's Library Bill of Rights, which specifically names "age" as a qualifier the ALA will not allow as a reason to separate children from any material whatsoever. It's the ALA's own definition that puts into play the issue of age-related "censorship." To the extent the ALA is making the argument that keeping inappropriate materials from children is "censorship," that word needs to be in quotation marks if that is how the Wiki article is presenting the ALA's views.

If the word is not put in quotation marks, then it is being used from the ALA's point of view, and this is an encyclopedia, not an ALA means for furthering its point of view. The ALA has the Library Bill of Rights and the Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Freedom to Read Foundation to do that, etc. It should not also have Wikipedia promote its point of view as if it were factual. Factually, keeping inappropriate material from children is not censorship. The ALA says it is. Quotation marks are required in such an instance. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to get into the meta discussion, but I think the question of what is or isn't censorship comes down, in large part, to whether affirmative acts are being taken to prevent access. IF not for some intentional action to remove something due to its content, would someone have access to the material that they now no longer have access to?

When people try to have a book like "Heather Has Two Mommies" removed from a library, that's attempted censorship. On the other hand, if the same book were to degrade in condition from use to the point that it's taken out circulation, through the same process that all books can be removed from circulation-- that's not censorship.

Similarly, if a normal content-neutral selection process would result in a book being purchased, then attempts to prevent it's purchase due to content concerns are probably censorship. Harry Potter books are incredibly popular and normally any books of that level of popularity would be acquired by libraries through their normal content-neutral selection process. Trying to prevent its acquisition due to concerns about its content would therefore be attempting censorship.

I think some people are arguing is that society has a duty to censor the reading materials of children, which is both a widely held and a widely debated point. But I don't think we can say that society has a duty to "select" some books and prevent child from accessing them-- whether good or bad, right or wrong, it is a debate over whether censorship should be applied to children's reading materials. Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's definitely the debate our society is having. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And as to "Heather Has Two Mommies," you are very close to the truth. The book is appropriate for children of all ages. Some people object to the political message it contains. Blocking political messages is a no no. But other books are filled with, for example, x-rated material inappropriate for children. Heather Has Two Mommies is not such a book.

The thing is, however, real censorship is Cuba burning the books of and jailing and beating Cuban librarians, Iran cutting off the heads of the lawyers defending political opponents, the United States (potentially in the future) using the FCC to force radio stations to host "diversity" through "local" programming with the obvious intent and effect to silence national talk show hosts, etc. That's censorship. Keeping inappropriate material from children, something everyone does worldwide, is not censorship. To say it is is to devalue real censorship and real efforts to expose and prevent real censorship.

For example, as one former ALA Councilor said, generally involving the ALA's definition of censorship, "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." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In the instances you cite, I still see varying forms of censorship, rather than some cases of censorship and some cases of selection. Some examples are obviously far more controversial, while some aren't as controversial. But choosing what another human being can read or write is censorship, even if justified. The fact that many if not most people feel that censorship is an important component of good parenting doesn't make it not censorship.

But language is in the ear of the beholder, and I can understand that if anyone thinks "Censorship is bad" but "It is good to preventing someone from reading or writing content involved x,y or z", they might reach the conclusion that "preventing someone from reading or writing content involved x,y or z is not censorship". --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"[C]hoosing what another human being can read or write is censorship...." No it is not, at least not necessarily. There is much, much more to it than that. Let's not dumb down the word "censorship" until it is relatively meaningless. The ALA's use of the word to include keeping inappropriate material from children makes it meaningless because then everyone does it in the normal course of living. And not just parents. Everyone. Therefore, the ALA's usage as such (keeping inappropriate material from children) must be quoted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the heart of it-- I think the use of the word censorship is appropriate the process, even if it is children involved. Particularly in light of the fact that libraries have to select on a child-population basis, not on a child-by-child individual basis. But whichevers. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Alecmconroy. And thanks again as you were one of the very first people to provide me with guidance on Wiki rules and etiquette. I hope you can see a big difference from then to now. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to outdent some to keep this from getting ridiculous. (I like my indents smaller than my text width.)

None of us are going to change our opinion about what the word "censorship" means; there will always be a difference of opinion. (Perhaps that's why statutory and case law generally avoids using it, Justice Souter notwithstanding.) Despite this, I think that it is clear from this discussion and from evidence elsewhere that your opinion as to what constitutes censorship is in the minority. While notable minority viewpoints do deserve recognition on Wikipedia, the correct place for a dispute over the meaning of "censorship" is in the censorship article, not here. (It might be interesting to edit that page to point out that most anti-censorship groups don't obviously define what they consider "censorship" to mean and what definitions do exist vary widely.) The article here should assume the majority use of "censorship" as a large umbrella term and unquote '"censorship"', relying on the link to the censorship article to provide those interested in what that means with the necessary background on its lack of universal definition.

I would also like to note that, while age-based restrictions are considered part of censorship by groups such as the ALA and NCAC, neither one considers those the only form of censorship. Unfortunately, the section of the ALA article that we're arguing over focuses almost entirely on age-based restrictions; this may confuse readers and fails to represent a lot of what the ALA'S Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) works on. Also, the OIF works on issues that might not be considered censorship even by them; their definition of "intellectual freedom" doesn't define it as merely the inverse of "censorship". The section needs a re-write to make these things clearer.

In short, I'm proposing that three things all be done to resolve this dispute:

1. The word in question be unquoted and similar changes made if necessary.
2. The censorship article be reviewed and modified to reflect the lack of a universal definition.
3. The intellectual freedom subsection of this article be modified to reflect the full range of activities undertaken by the OIF and separate out the specific, controversial issue of age-based restrictions.

Could we see a show of hands as to who finds this acceptable?

I'm glad that we've kept this thing civil; if only all Wikipedia disputes stayed that way. --CrazyDreamer (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The word should be quoted as it is a direct quote of the linked source which includes, "Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment."

The word should be quoted because it is the ALA's use of the term, not the reality of censorship. For example, the US Supreme Court cases of US v. ALA, yes, the same ALA we are discussing, and Board of Education v. Pico allow for the prevention or removal of certain material from public (including school) libraries. In other words, it's legal, in certain circumstances.

Also, it is not censorship to keep children from inappropriate materials. That may be my personal opinion which is irrelevant on Wikipedia, but my opinion happens to coincide with the Court's: "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." All members--unanimous. Censorship is clearly not "legitimate, and even compelling." Then the Court went on to hold, though not in so many words, it is not censorship to keep certain material out of libraries. The ALA, on the other hand, and by way of example, advises libraries not to use what US v. ALA found legal claiming the legal solution amounts to the very censorship and First Amendment rights denial that the Court said is not the case. The ALA says one thing and the US Supreme Court says another. On Wikipedia, we have to provide an accurate view of the subject matter, not the view of a losing party in a US Supreme Court case that's still advising people how to sidestep that very case. Yes, the ALA won a small victory, but on this issue, this most important issue, it lost. Losing has consequences. One of them is that Wikipedia presents the losers views in quotation marks.

You said, "I think that it is clear from this discussion and from evidence elsewhere that your opinion as to what constitutes censorship is in the minority." It is irrelevant in this case if I am in the minority. We are not all arguing against each other. Rather, we have higher sources. The US Supreme Court is one of those sources. And in a matter the ALA itself raised, brought to the US Supreme Court, and lost, the US Supreme Court becomes a particularly relevant source. So the question here is not that my "opinion as to what constitutes censorship is in the minority" of the editors editing this page, rather it is whether the editors are willing to rise above the simple us-versus-them view of editing to instead apply the accuracy needed as borne out by legitimate sources such as the US Supreme Court. A hundred editors opposing one does not make those hundred editors right if they are not right. In short, might doesn't make right.

Your ideas about the censorship article and an improved treatment of the OIF section in this article are excellent and I agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

More support for quoting the word censorship:

"The ALA's definition of censorship has no relationship whatsoever to what everyone else in the entire world understands by the word. It's incoherent and self-serving." "Celebrate 'Banned' Books Week!," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 30 September 2009.

And there's more in that LJ source than just what I quoted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not official Library Journal comment, that's a columnist, no more a reliable source than the similar screed in the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages on the same topic. (Apparently, chilling effect has disappeared since I was a student, so we don't have to worry any more.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Screed"- a ranting piece of writing. No POV there in that last comment. And the ALA calling parents "censors" for filing complaints under existing library material reconsideration policies, that's.... --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

ALA presidents list

I think the huge ALA president's list just added is not encyclopedic for a variety of reasons, and it may run afoul of Wiki policies and practices. What do others think? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• See: List of Presidents of the American Bar Association. M2545 (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Notice that ABA example shows the list being on a separate page. On the ALA page, it's on the same page. May I suggest creating a new page for the ALA? Remember MOS:LIST. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do this (make the presidents their own page). If there are any concerns, let me know and we can discuss. KConWiki (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)