Talk:Library Bill of Rights: Difference between revisions
→Critical responses/Controversy: Response to Rlitwin |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Right on the ALA's web page appears the LBR and an link to a PDF version of the LBR. Look carefully at the postambles in both and a difference is evident, the HTML and the PDF. Since the ALA is the source of the LBR, the discrepancy should be resolved by the ALA so this wiki page reflects the correct postamble. IMHO. --[[User:SafeLibraries.org|SafeLibraries]] 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
Right on the ALA's web page appears the LBR and an link to a PDF version of the LBR. Look carefully at the postambles in both and a difference is evident, the HTML and the PDF. Since the ALA is the source of the LBR, the discrepancy should be resolved by the ALA so this wiki page reflects the correct postamble. IMHO. --[[User:SafeLibraries.org|SafeLibraries]] 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
: I am aware of what you are talking about. Note that the sources of the information in the history section are also ALA publications - the 1939 ''Bulletin'' and ALA's own history of itself published in 1939. I do not know why the postamble on the website doesn't acknowledge the 1939 version of the LBR, but I have it right in front of me. [[User:Rlitwin|Rlitwin]] 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Critical responses/Controversy == |
== Critical responses/Controversy == |
||
Revision as of 20:23, 9 July 2006
Talk:Library Bill of Rights
Cool, a new Library Bill of Rights page. Thanks, Rlitwin, for your work on this. --SafeLibraries 19:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Postamble Discrepancy
Right on the ALA's web page appears the LBR and an link to a PDF version of the LBR. Look carefully at the postambles in both and a difference is evident, the HTML and the PDF. Since the ALA is the source of the LBR, the discrepancy should be resolved by the ALA so this wiki page reflects the correct postamble. IMHO. --SafeLibraries 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of what you are talking about. Note that the sources of the information in the history section are also ALA publications - the 1939 Bulletin and ALA's own history of itself published in 1939. I do not know why the postamble on the website doesn't acknowledge the 1939 version of the LBR, but I have it right in front of me. Rlitwin 20:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Critical responses/Controversy
Let's all be honest here. The LBR is the source of considerable controversy. This controversy is absent from this page. Let's consider adding it in in a way we all agree that's wiki worthy.
The main controversy (is there another) is over the word age. Right off the top of my head I can think of a few things that might be relevant.
- 1) The US Supreme Court in US v. ALA said it is legitimate, even compelling, to keep children from inappropriate material, yet the ALA has explained why it will not change the LBR accordingly.
- 2) The ALA and its influence is huge over American libraries. So with the ALA not removing the age language, there still remains no reason why children should not have access to inappropriate materials, and with the ALA's nationwide influence, that's a lot of children.
- 3) In Overland Park, Kansas, a public library board voted 4-3 to remove the word "age" from their own LBR. That started a huge ALA, well, killer bee-like reaction resulting in the word being restored to the local policy and the governmental officials promising to carefully review the resumes of potential library board members to ensure only those aligned with the ALA get appointed to the positions.
So let's all take the time to consider how best to present it. --SafeLibraries 19:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- See current edit. Rlitwin 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Such a simple edit. Very general in nature. Shouldn't there be more to it? Let's hear what others have to say. --SafeLibraries 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)