Talk:Banned Books Week

Parargraph on gay-conversion books controversy

Is it a violation of WP:UNDUE to include information sourced only to one fox news article regarding Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays's claims regarding ALS's unwillingness to issue a statement regarding gay-conversion books being rejected by libraries?

Including an entire paragraph on a manufactured gay-conversion books pressure group going on fox news and whinging about not being included in Banned Books Week is providing massively WP:UNDUE weight to a non-notable non-incident. I notice that professional, paid ALA critic LAEC is the only person that supports it's inclusion currently. Does anyone else think the paragraph belongs? Hipocrite (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No. It doesn't belong; the manufactured "controversy" was flimsy to begin with. The "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays" got upset because some libraries didn't make shelf space for the antiquated propaganda they're pushing? And then they got miffed at the ALA because the ALA didn't feel like issuing a special statement specifically decrying the rejection of books promoting conversion therapy? "You're not championing my POV specifically, so you're not truly anti-censorship." Right. Or maybe the real issue is, as Hayley Gorenberg at Lambda Legal said, "All of the leading medical, therapeutic, psychiatric and social work organizations have a fair unanimity here about claims relating to the so-called ex-gay movement or so-called reparative therapy where the central idea is that these groups would like to try to change people's sexual orientation or gender identity, and the consensus is that it's unnecessary and damaging and can be severely harmful to people." Ultimately, this story isn't about censorship — it's about a political group's ineffective attempt to get their toxic literature into publicly funded libraries, using Banned Books Week as a convenient but inappropriate excuse. AtticusX (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does belong. It may not be a politically-correct position, but my understanding is that the ALA likes to brag about it's commitment to intellectual freedom. Or is that freedom to read differing views in library books contingent upon political/idealogical considerations? The Banned Books Week event is a major initiative concerning the ALA's declared commitment to intellectual freedom. So their disinterest in defending the banning of certain books deserves mention in this article. Fox News may be disliked by a segment of WP, but it is a reliable source. Hipocrite, do you have firm evidence that LAEC is paid to be a critic of the ALA on a wide range of issues, including BBW? Please present evidence, along with a direct quote from the COI policy that he is supposedly violating. Drrll (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:OUTING for me to reveal who a user is in real life. If LAEC announces his real name, I'll happily provide the evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has made false claims about me, and that causes me to doubt other things he has said. He said, and this is not true, that I'm a "professional, paid ALA critic." I have properly announced my WP:COI and may continue to edit as Wiki rules allow. I am becoming concerned that Hipocrite is proceeding down the path of WP:STALK against me.

By the way, the NCAC has claimed authorship of the censorship map. (The map was produced by an unreliable source acting on his own a long time back, and the ALA presented it without attribution as if it were its own, just as I reported previously.)

And my presenting such evidence has nothing to do with COI. On the other hand, it is in everyone's interest to produce an accurate and truthful article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Further evidence: "You can also view the latest map of book challenges across the US, created by NCAC's newest board member, Chris Peterson." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have incorporated this new reliable source into the article as well. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've since reverted myself, as I'm not willing to get into this edit war. You can have your article however you want it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed this ironic sentence from the lead of this article: "The United States campaign "stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them"" Drrll (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only ironic if you believe that's not really part of the campaign's agenda. The ALA declined to single out the conversion therapy cause and write a statement specially endorsing their literature, because... why would they want to do that? There are many unorthodox books at least as deserving of wider readership. But PFOX felt entitled to special treatment, and when they didn't get it, they went to FOX News, and FOX said, aha, this story fits our narrative! And that's apparently how we get to Wikipedia's statement that the ALA "has been criticized for not championing all books in the event." An absurd conclusion in this case. Are they supposed to become a mouthpiece for every special-interest group that exerts pressure on them? Given their political agenda and strategy, FOX News is definitely not a reliable source on the notability of this event, because this is exactly what they do: turn molehills into mountains to promote right-wing interests (like conversion therapy) and create the illusion of controversy around things that aren't especially controversial (like anti-censorship campaigns and public libraries).

Additionally, conversion therapy propaganda is not just an "unorthodox or unpopular viewpoint" — it's not just "politically incorrect", it is also essentially "incorrect", in that it goes against current understanding in Western psychology and mainstream academic studies. It has become the scientific equivalent of the flat-Earth theory; like modern flat-Earthers, proponents tend to be motivated by religious/political/personal convictions, but not out of respect for the scientific process of peer-reviewed studies, etc. Most libraries would have the sense to weed out flat-Earth propaganda from donations, because they have a responsibility to supply current information. To imply that this is censorship would be a false equivalency.

If additional sources can be found independent of FOX News, one might be inclined to take this paragraph's contents a little more seriously. AtticusX (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added another reference, from The Washington Post. I believe that closes this particular matter. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The ALA didn't have to endorse the conversion therapy literature--they just had to back up their claim to strongly support the availability of books with a wide range of viewpoints. As far as news outlets with a particular "narrative," "political agenda and strategy," few sources are as devoted to promoting a specific viewpoint on gay issues as the New York Times is in both its editorial pages and its news pages. So does that mean we disqualify the NYT as a reliable source on gay issues because of its strong advocacy? My guess is that if Fox News' overall treatment of gay issues is examined compared to the NYT's treatment of it, Fox News would more closely track with the sentiment of the American public than The Times.

As far as conversion therapy being equivalent to flat-Earthers, social sciences are hardly in the same league as the physical sciences. Social sciences are far more likely to be influenced by political and philosophical considerations than the physical sciences, yet even there we see strong political currents influencing the science (e.g. man-made global warming). To make a viewpoint in the realm of the social sciences beyond the pale is the epitome of political correctness. Drrll (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This controversy is tangential to the main point of the article even if it's properly sourced and cited. LAEC, I believe you have a conflict of interest in continuing to push for these revisions to this article. Jessamyn (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it that LAEC has a conflict of interest, but you don't as purveyor of Librarian.net? Drrll (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I derive none of my income, zero, from librarian.net. Librarian.net is not and has never been a part of my job. It's just a blog that I've been writing since 1999 and has no particular advocacy position regarding ALA one way or the other, though I've made the occasional post regarding ALA. I do not lead or belong to any organization that pushes any advocacy position regarding ALA. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that I have a conflict of interest, nor have they ever. I came here because comment was requested. Jessamyn (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jessamyn, I promise you my concern regarding the ex-gay issue is purely for Wikipedia reasons. FoxNews and the Washington Post both address the issue of libraries not including ex-gay books on Banned Books Week. That makes the issue Wikiworthy, and on the Banned Books Week page, no less. Having a library COI does not mean I must make no edits or provide no input. If people come to this page to clean off the ALA-negative information, my library COI does not require me to sit back and take no action while someone shouts from their WP:SOAPBOX. If I came here adding my own theories about BBW, that's one thing. But properly applying Wiki policy by making certain edits or reverting others is perfectly acceptable, even under COI restrictions. Recall how the Judith Krug page used to be a near verbatim copy of the ALA's page for Judith Krug. Yes, I had a COI, but I was allowed to edit and the page is far, far improved now precisely because of my input in ensuring Wikipedia is not a staging ground for copies of ALA web pages.

By the way, while I won't revert your edit, BBW really is the ALA's creation. The others climbed on board at the invitation of the ALA. To this day the ALA is the main promoter of BBW while the others hardly do anything, and even you have complained about that on your own Librarin.net blog, several times, I believe. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not "pushing for revisions." Rather, I am applying Wiki policy to create and maintain Wikipedia pages. If people are removing Wikiworthy info for POV reasons where that text has been present for quite a while and I'm reverting those POV edits, that's not "pushing for revisions." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• This particular issue does not appear to meet the threshold of relevance for this article. This is an encyclopedia article, not a running blow-by-blow of every little tiff in the US culture wars. Additionally, it is highly inappropriate to continually insert the material during an active RfC. Please remove it, and wait for a consensus here before replacing it. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• What active RfC? Has someone gone to RfC and not provided notice here? Did I miss something? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

? The notice is at the top of this section, and this discussion is linked at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. That's a general page. There's nothing there about this issue. Just please provide a direct link so people don't have to hunt around. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Here from RfC. I edited this section a little while ago, but on re-reading, I don't think it belongs. When you look at the facts of the case, it's clearly a manufactured controversy - libraries have no obligation to accept all books donated to them, and frequently reject books (I bought some Tolkien books to donate to my library because they didn't have all of them - did their rejection mean that it's now the ALA's job to promote Tolkien? No, because I'm not an attention-seeking political entity). It's received almost no coverage and is undue. However, I can see including this as a two-line note to a paragraph on Focus on the Family's actual relationship with Banned Books Week: ie. their well-known opposition to it because of its support of gay-positive books. Roscelese (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could argue it is manufactured, but then you would have the problem of the creator of BBW having been the manufacturer. BBW was created by Judith Krug of the American Library Association. 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.

Interesting, no?

She talks about the gay community. I do not think the ex-gay community differs in any way regarding this issue. Clearly Judith Krug is being very inclusive of minority interests, and ex-gays are a minority interest, so I hope no one is going to claim she didn't mention ex-gays, therefore they are excluded and this quote does not apply. That would be POV and go against the clear meaning of the quote. "We have to serve the information needs of all the community...." Ex-gays are part of the community. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whooooooaaaa, there, cut back on the OR. "Judith Krug manufactured this controversy" is in no way supported by any source here. Krug did not infiltrate FOTF and PFOX and force them to donate the books. Krug was not speaking about this "controversy" when she made that statement and she apparently has not clarified her statement in response to it. Your opinion that she was speaking about "ex-gays" is irrelevant. Roscelese (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentle now, cowboy, we are just talking in Talk. I'll assume I need not support my comments in Talk with RSs. You are correct, my opinion is irrelevant. Her words is what is relevant. "We have to serve the information needs of all the community". That's relevant. She says librarians have to serve the information needs of all the community. That's what she said, that's not my opinion, though it is my opinion. Weird sentence, huh?

Wait, it gets better. "[I]f 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. " Now ex-gays are pretty invisible, and they darn sure don't get good MSM coverage. So, uh, what. They are invisible. Wikipedia can just overlook them, right? "The truth is, we do have to. " Librarians have to include ex-gays. Judith Krug just said so, though she did not name each invisible community. That would be unreasonable. Come to think of it, how could you even count invisible communities? But I digress.

And it gets even better. "Another thing we have to be real careful about....", yes, librarians need to be real careful about this, "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." Incumbent! Must be represented in the collection! Must!

"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." What? Say that again? "[I]f they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library". That is the exact opposite of what was reported in Fox News where the library made the excuse that the publishers are small so the ex-gay books do not meet, ready for this?--the library's selection policy! You see? The ex-gay book is not banned, no, that's bad. Rather, it simply did not meet the library's selection policy. Cute, huh? Who cares what Krug said--it's just those wacky ex-gays.

Interesting! We have news stories saying the ex-gay books are not weighty enough to get past the library selection policies, but at the same time 1) the BBW creator said "if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library", 2) the BBW creator decries book banning!

Now who here is going to explain why on the BBW page the creator of BBW saying "if they are the only thing available, then I believe we have to get them into the library" and Fox News reporting the exact opposite thing is not Wikiworthy, especially where some sources directly call into question that very hypocrisy, even that very Krug quote? You see? It's not OR if it's sitting right there in the references. You just have see it and apply Wiki guidelines.

Let me take this moment to say we are discussing the BBW page. I get the sense that some people oppose giving exposure to the ex-gay community, hence the need to minimize or eliminate this ex-gay issue from the BBW page. Ironic, no? Be that as it may, the ex-gay issue vis-a-vis BBW is an excellent issue, and it does have some limited MSM coverage.--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages are presumably for discussing the content of the article, not for promoting one's personal views. I honestly don't care what you think about "ex-gays," because unless you have more reliable sources that discuss this "controversy," the article is currently giving it undue weight. Roscelese (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about the article. You are seeking to remove wikiworthy material. I am showing sources proving it is a controversy rooted in the very words of BBW's founder. I said my personal views are irrelevant but happen to match Judith Krug's point of view to be inclusive. Because we are talking in Talk. So no, I'm not using this as a forum, but nice try to divert attention from the issue. Again, the issue is the founder of BBW, her statements on book selection, the news stories statements on selection being directly opposed to the Krug statements, and another reference tying those two together. That's the issue. Undue weight? Wiki says to ignore all rules when they do not make sense. Libraries use undue weight to keep out ex-gay material, the BBW founder opposes that, another reference has pointed that out, and we at Wikipedia are supposed to use the undue excuse to commit the very crime that is the basis for the BBW founder's statements? Really, that's funny. Ex-gays don't get MSM coverage, so they are undue and should not be included in an article about the BBW founder speaking out against people being cut off with claims of undue weight. The undue weight rule in this particular narrow instance does not make sense and should be narrowly interpreted to allow ths matter. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL "we're just as bad!" If it's so important, either provide sources attesting its importance, or explain coherently why something unimportant should take up about a quarter of this article. "Ignore the rules" is not a catch-all. Roscelese (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see light at the end of the tunnel. I do not want to "take up about a quarter of this article". Why don't you write up something small that you would approve? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the bigger priority at the moment is to properly contextualize the "controversy" by writing about Focus on the Family's opposition to Banned Books Week. Then that paragraph can contain a sentence or two like "Focus, along with PFOX, has also criticized the ALA for not using Banned Books Week to champion 'ex-gay' books and books opposing same-sex marriage," or whatever phrasing you like, with appropriate sourcing. The back-and-forth responses probably aren't that significant. Roscelese (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for working with me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WSJ worth another look

• "Finding Censorship Where There Is None," by Mitchell Muncy, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2009, p.W13.

This source already appears (currently) as footnote 15, but it is worth a look to see it is supports any other ideas people are developing.

I see, for example, that he says:

In the common-law tradition, censorship refers specifically to the government's prior restraint on publication. None of the sponsors claim this has happened; the acts they have in mind are perpetrated by private citizens. Yet the cases on the map almost all involve ordinary people lodging complaints with school and library authorities. Before Banned Books Week began in 1982, such behavior was known as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.

And that is fully borne out exactly one year later by the ALA using Banned Books Week to label as censors every single one of hundreds petitioning the government for a redress of grievances: "2010 Banned Books Week - Top Ten Banned and Challenged Books for 2009," by American Library Association, OIFTube, 24 September 2010.

This WSJ article is definitely worth another look. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cuba: banned books the ALA overlooks

• "American Library Association Shamed," by Nat Hentoff, Laurel Leader-Call, 2 March 2007.

The ALA's membership booklet proclaims "the public’s right (everywhere) to explore in their libraries many points of view on all questions and issues facing them." An issue facing all members of the ALA is their leaders' shameful exception of the Cuban people's freedom to read.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Tomeboy and the Annoyed Librarian

Tomeboy

• "How Anti-Censors, 'Censor' the Truth About Censorship or ... Looking for Nazis in All the Wrong Places," by Tomeboy, Tomeboy, undated.
• "'Left' Out - Liberal Censors You Never Hear About," by Tomeboy, Tomeboy, undated.
• "You Gotta Buy'em to Ban'em," by Tomeboy, Tomeboy, undated.

Annoyed Librarian

• "The ALA Celebrates BBW!," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 1 October 2007.
• "'Banned' Books Week Strikes Again," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 29 September 2008.
• "'Censors' Are So Scary," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 6 October 2008.
• "'Some 'Censorship' is Good," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 8 October 2008.
• "'Librarians 'Censor' Statutory Rape Book," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 23 February 2009.
• "Celebrate 'Banned' Books Week!," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 30 September 2009.
• "ALA Asks The Wrong Questions," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 15 March 2010.
• "Why the OIF Can't be Taken Seriously," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 6 October 2010.

Tomeboy and the Annoyed Librarian are known in library circles, the latter now working for the Library Journal. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This may apply to the Annoyed Librarian: WP:NEWSBLOG.

It will take a while for me to process the new material you added, but I'll come up with a draft of the section to add and if you'll let me know what you think of it. Drrll (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Understood. No rush to produce Wikiworthy material anyway. Take your time. Then, I'll look, provide suggestions, but given my COI, it'll be up to everyone else to see if they all approve. The ALA has said it will have a huge propaganda push for the 30th anniversary of BBW next September. Let's make sure this page is rock solid so when the ALA editors arrive like they do on this and related pages, we as a community can stand together and ensure the page is not turned into another propaganda tool. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that "we as a community" include people who do not see this page as a propaganda tool or needing substantive revisions. If you think there are ALA employees editing this page in bad faith, I'd suggest taking that issue up directly via the appropriate channels. Jessamyn (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay Jessamyn. But the page could be improved. Almost all pages could be improved, no? You are an expert in this area--even quoted on the main page. Why don't you think of ways to improve the article? The improvements could be in areas other than those I suggested. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stores refusing to carry books by White Wolf Publishing.

Because i went to many stores and tried to sell my Black Furies Tribebook,only to get a very upset answer from the store owner saying they "Don't want that stuff here" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Wolf

There should be something done,because censorship hurts everyone.Werewolffan98 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive usage of quotes

Greetings; I've tagged the article for its excessive use of quotes. There are lengthy blockquotes as well as many "scare quoted" phrases herein, and this sort of usage should be minimized with paraphrasing to write a proper encyclopedic article. Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)