Talk:American Library Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1
/Archive 2


[edit] Archive

I have archived Talk so we can concentrate on moving forward with the current state of the article.--Jackbirdsong 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risque vs Explicit

The word "risque" appeared in the main page. I changed its spelling to add the accent (not shown here merely for convenience). Now history shows it was changed to "explicit." Here is the sentence for context:

In 1999, radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger campaigned publicly against the ALA's intellectual freedom policy, specifically in regard to the ALA's refusal to remove a link on its web site to an explicit sex-education site for teens.[9]

It appears Dr. Laura's problem was not with the "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" aspect of the web site, rather with the "verging on impropriety or indecency" aspect, as described in the article. It further appears the ALA's calling it "explicit" is an attempt to minimize the risque nature of the material about which Dr. Laura is complaining in the first place. Therefore, I say the accurate, non-POV word to describe Dr. Laura's "campaign" is "risque," not "explicit." I politely disagree that risque is less vague than explicit; I do believe it is less accurate in this context and its removal changes the whole tone of the argument from one of indecency or impropriety to one of openness, and since everyone is in favor of being open, casting Dr. Laura's claim as one of openness is a subtle way to inject POV into the article. (Let's be clear I am not saying that was the intent in anyone's mind -- on the contrary there was an excellent intent to find a "less vague" word.)

Anyone mind if it gets changed back to "risque"? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Explicit is fine and is more widely understood and appropriate in this context. I would suggest leaving it as is. Jessamyn (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, Jessamym. Let's also get input from non-ALA members too.
And you know what? It's possible risque is indeed a word not as well understood as explicit is, and is likely the reason it was changed out in the first place. But it's not better to use an incorrect word just because its better understood. Look, the ALA says children should have access to inappropriate material to "become thinking adults and [an] informed electorate." So I find it ironic that this page should need to be dumbed down by choosing an inaccurate word just because it's better understood.
The better solution might be to choose a better understood word that means what risque means, with the key being the "verging on impropriety or indecency" meaning of risque, not the "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" meaning of explicit. But I see no good synonyms. Perhaps it might be better to use a phrase, therefore, such as "suggestive of sexual impropriety" or "verging on impropriety." Openness, explicitness, is just not the problem. It is not true explicitness was the problem. There has to be something better. JackBirdSong has been doing well improving the article--perhaps he could think of something.
You know, risque might not be misunderstood in the first place, as we all think. Here, for example, is a BBC News article entitled "Curtains Up on Risque US Statues" in a rather well-known incident that had photographers diving to the floor to get this very shot. First sentence: "A pair of risque Art Deco statues at the US Justice Department have been quietly put back on show, three years after a mysterious cover-up."
In sum, I'm for restoring risque, and if not, for using an appropriate phrase, but explicit is just plain wrong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Risque sonds kinda odd to me, overtones of "inappropriately eroticized" or something. A risque novel, and risque joke. It's not something that comes to mind when I think of a open and frank sex-ed site. I'd go with explicit-- the "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" hits the nail on the head--Alecmconroy 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Alecmconroy, you prove my point. Dr. Laura's whole point, the whole thing is that children learning about fisting and bestiality and how to heighten the effects of an orgasm by cutting off one's oxygen supply is "inappropriately eroticized." Indeed is it ever appropriate to teach children how to orgasm while cutting off the air supply? Did you know children die from this occasionally? Is it not inappropriate? What "sounds kinda odd to [you]" is POV, the article and the facts are what they are, not what we want them to be.
Cutting off the air supply to improve an orgasm not "open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality," rather it is "inappropriately eroticized" because people end up dead from doing it. An analogy would be to describe using a razor blade to slice open one's wrists so as to heighten sexual pleasure, but just be sure not to slice too much.
It is clear to me you do not understand what the issue in the wiki page was about. The issue is about Dr. Laura's very public complaints about the ALA recommending a web site for children that teaches children inappropriate sexual behaviors such as cutting off one's air supply for a better orgasm that occasionally results in the death of children. That's the issue. Not the open, frank discussion of sex. That's not the issue. Claiming Dr. Laura is against the open, frank discussion of sex is blatantly false. What's she against, as illustrated in the article cited and others on the topic, is the inappropriateness of the material being presented to children.
I realize this is unbelievable, but it's what she's talking about, she here's an example an inappropriate sexual information for children, ESPECIALLY WHERE LIBRARIANS IN THE ALA ARE RECOMMENDING THIS FOR CHILDREN TO READ - her whole point - the whole reason this became a news story in the first place:

Dear Alice,

What is auto-erotic asphyxiation?


Dear Reader,

Auto-erotic asphyxiation (AEA) is the term used to describe the practice of cutting off the blood supply to the brain through self-applied suffocation methods while masturbating to orgasm. The interference of blood supply to the brain brought on by AEA can induce cerebral anoxia, a deficiency of oxygen in the brain. It is thought that the lack of blood flow and oxygen can intensify sensations, producing sensations of giddiness, lightheadedness, or exhilaration that can heighten the orgasmic experience. It's also possible that the helplessness and self-endangerment inherent in the techniques enhance the person's sexual gratification.

Of course, this same self-endangerment that may provide a thrill to the person carrying out AEA also weakens one's self-control and judgment, which can easily result in accidental death. Exactly how many people engage in AEA is unknown, and the practice almost always remains a secret until a person dies accidentally. It's estimated that between 500 and 1000 deaths occur annually in the United States from this dangerous type of masturbation. While it is thought to be practiced more often by adolescent or young adult guys, a small number of women die from AEA every year.

If a person does not die from cerebral anoxia, brain or tissue damage could possibly occur, depending on how long the brain and body are deprived of oxygen. A person also risks lacerating, cutting or bruising the neck, trachea, and esophagus, depending on the suffocation or strangulation technique used.

These immediate threats to the brain and body, including death and brain damage, make auto-erotic asphyxiation one of the riskiest of all sexual behaviors.

Alice

Please reconsider, and we still need input from people, including myself, who have been consistently on one side or another of matters relating to the ALA generally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


The answer to that question is very clear in stating "These immediate threats to the brain and body, including death and brain damage, make auto-erotic asphyxiation one of the riskiest of all sexual behaviors." This is not eroticizing it or advocating it, this is explaining it. The whole purpose of that website is to explain things to teens and young adults in clear frank tones. The fact that some of the things explained are about risky sex is a positive feature of the site, not a negative. The ALA and its divisions reccommend thousands of websites for children and adults every year. This site was reccommended by their Young Adult Services division in 1999 if I recall correctly and linked from their website as one of literally tens of thousands outgoing links. Go Ask Alice has also been reccommended in the past by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The NBC Nightly News, Good Morning America, CNBC, The Boston Globe, Architectural Digest, Men's Health and the Harvard Health Letter. The Dr. Laura attention was a dramatic bit of mainstream media coverage and possibly worthy of note, but it ultimately didn't go anywhere. The site is still linked from the ALA website and continues to provide good information on sexual health. [1] I will again restate my feeling that risque is inappropriate compared to explicit here. Jessamyn (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Jessamyn, that's your POV again. I too read the text and thought exactly as you have. However, how you and I think is irrelevant. Yes, the site is clear about what can be done and the dangers, but that's not the issue. The issue is not whether the site is frank or not. The issue is Dr. Laura's claim as appears in the wiki article. Dr. Laura, according to the article cited and others not cited, is not making the frankness of the site an issue. What she is saying, and the very reason this came to national prominence, is that librarians serving that site up on a silver platter for children is inappropriate. That's the whole issue. Not the frankness, not the explicitness. Is was the risque or bordering on improprietyness of librarians using that site as a source of sexual info for children.
And you argued it's one of tens of thousands of sites recommended. Perhaps when you look at the universe of all sites. But when you drill down to the sites relating to sexuality for children recommended to children, it was the leading site recommended by the ALA for children. The ALA even had a separate web page devoted solely to explaining why it would continue to recommend this very site to children despite the national controversy (don't have the URL off the top of my head). Indeed in my own library, the site was on a "Fun Sites for Kids and Teens" page. Now where do you think my local librarians got the idea to use that site? And when I pointed it out to them, they agreed it was inappropriate on a kids page and promised to remove it. (They never did.)
I know you understand exactly what I'm saying. Please explain why this ALA page should provide misinformation by implying Dr. Laura's complaints were about the frankness of the web site rather than the real issue, namely, the inappropriateness of librarians placing this web site within a click's distance of children. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, if you ask me, "explicit" even sounds worse than "risque". I hear "risque" and I think "slightly naughty, but mostly a lot of fun". I hear "explicit" and I think "graphic, potentially innapropriate for young". --Alecmconroy 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The sentence as it's used in the article is speaking in Wikipedia voice, not paraphrasing Dr. Laura and as such should be using NPOV language. If you want to include a direct quote from her that says risque, please go ahead. Otherwise, I will once again remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you are attempting to treat it like a soapbox, and you should seriously consider refraining from editing this article unless you can treat it encyclopedically and with NPOV. Jessamyn (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the arguments of Alecmconroy and Jessamyn are quite sensible. Unattributed "risque" would really be POV. Grouse 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Finally someone new to weigh in. Good. Based on your commment, I'll go get evidence from source material. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"1. LIBRARIANS ARE BAD, KIDS, GO ASK DR. LAURA

"Dr. Laura has evil in her sites and, once again, she's firing at will. The target? Librarians, or, more accurately, the American Library Association.

"The moralist of the airwaves has, in recent days, called the ALA's administration "twits," said the ALA had an "agenda" to expose kids to pornography and even accused the organization of booby-trapping the show's broadcast equipment.

"She also knows how to hit where it hurts: "Next time in your town, when the budget comes up for libraries, eliminate it until reasonable, decent persons are in charge," she told listeners.

"All this venom coming through the microphone is a result of a recommendation, on the ALA website for the Columbia University's Go Ask Alice website on ALA's Teen Hoopla guide for teenagers. The Teen Hoopla area is a resource for young adults (ages 12-18) that investigates topics of interest to teens. The current featured topic is safe driving, for example. However, both public and school libraries which have Go Ask Alice on their shelves, the young adult title to which the above site is related, should expect some challenges of the book."

More as I find it. Is an agenda to expose kids to porn risque or explicit? Is the target of Dr. Laura's comments the ALA or a web site? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I meant when I said that "risque" would need to be attributed. Simply, I don't think it is appropriate to use the word risque here without it being in quotes. For example, the ALA's refusal to remove a link on its web site to an explicit sex-education site for teens, which she called "risque". To do this you would need to find a reliable source that quoted her calling the site "risque."

Grouse 15:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the sentence, "In 1999, radio personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger campaigned publicly against the ALA's intellectual freedom policy, specifically in regard to the ALA's refusal to remove a link on its web site to an explicit sex-education site for teens," explicit replaced risque. The sentence is a summary of the controversy, not the exact words. Why does the exact word risque need to be found in a reliable source for a summary sentence but the exact word explicit does not? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Because calling this web site risque would be POV as it implies a moral judgment on the web site. Explicit does not. Please remember Wikipedia's official policy on WP:NPOV. Grouse 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, I'm not being argumentive or even POV. A web site that suggests essentially hanging oneself to get a better orgasm is risque, not explicit. That's fact, not POV. And risque may be too mild a word. It's not a moral judgement, it's all the dead kids left in the wake of this advice—a matter of life and death, not morality.
If anyone thinks that describing such behavior as risque is POV, if anyone thinks it's a moral judgement to suggest it's risque to teach children to hang themselves to get better orgasms or for librarians to point children in that direction, then we all might as well pack up our bags, go home, hang ourselves, and have one last terrific orgasm better than ever before. And bring the kids.
Proverbs 13:24 – Spare the noose, spoil the child. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The very arguments you are making for "risque" in this most recent response indicates that a moral judgment is inherent in doing so. Grouse 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize everybody - I had made the original edit that resulted in all of this discussion, and having no idea it would be an issue, I took a break from this page for awhile. So, first I would just like to remind everybody to please stay specific to the issue at hand - we should avoid debating politics here. That being said, the less summarized reasons for my change of "risque" to "explicit" are as follows: "Risque" is slightly POV in its usage here - whether the website is risque or not is a matter of subjective opinion (what is indecent to you may not be to me). However, the site is certainly explicit in its material, and the term "explicit" is far more frequently used in regard to films, music, websites, etc. to indicate content (which is perhaps why it was used in the referenced article). This is a very minor issue, and I agree with Grouse that a quoted line using the term risque would be acceptable. Otherwise, lets just move on. Cheers. --Jackbirdsong 11:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/m/e/Talk%7EAmerican_Library_Association_6564.html"