Revision as of 08:46, 12 September 2007

controversy

I removed the controversy secion. It is unclear from this addition what is controversial about this position. If there is a controversy about YALSA, please explain it and cite it. Otherwise this is just basically saying that YALSA chooses books that are popular as well as literary which isn't really controversial. Jessamyn (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Jessamyn. Some of the controversy is implicit in the article "Racy Reading...." Why else would the reporter report the way she did. Some of the controversy is implicit in YALSA recommending books that the year before were substandard.

Now I say implicit because it is there, implicitly, in the Racy Reading article, but the main stream media in general has made no mention of a controversy (that I can find) about the ALA recommending racy reading for children that's substandard and besides, YALSA tells us, adults read Harlequin novels anyway, so what's the big diff. This is part of the problem with relying on the MSM. If the MSM doesn't print it, it doesn't exist. If the MSM does print it, it must be true. So other that the implicit controversy in Racy Reading, I have found no other MSM evidence of a controversy.

Of course I think the thing speaks for itself - a list of Harlequin noel recommendations for children based on admitted substandard books. But your point is, and I agree, we need wiki-solid proof. And if the implicit proof combined with the obviousness of the matter does not cut it in the wiki world, then you are correct. And as this issue is last year, the MSM discussing this is minimal now. Anyone what to respond? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the word racy doesn't imply a controversy except for those who feel that raciness and YA books are somehow totally antithetical to one another. That is, there's an implicit conclusion being drawn that is POV. For something to be controversial it really needs to be noted as a controversy in the media somewhere. YALSA rarely gets such media mention, but if you see any current-ish mentions, please feel free to bring them back here. Jessamyn (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

In 2005, the president of YALSA called a certain book "not the most literary," but in 2006 created a new list of ALA-recommended books that where exactly like the book criticized in 2005. "Pam Spencer Holley of the ... he's happy to see teen girls reading. Eventually, girls who are reading Gossip Girls will move on to better books, she says. 'Unless you read stuff that's perhaps not the most literary, you'll never understand what good works are,' says Holley. .... Besides, she says, what's the worst thing that can happen? 'Nobody complains about the adult women who read Harlequin romances.'" Less than a year later, " ... has announced a list of books to recommend to teens, both avid and reluctant readers, who are looking for books like Cecily von Ziegesar's 'Gossip Girl' series. 'The books on this list are perfect for when your readers have finished with every 'Gossip Girl' title in your library and are clamoring for another book like the Gossip Girl,' said YALSA President Pam Spencer Holley."

external links

Please do not add links that are just to news articles about the subject of the Misplaced Pages article. External links serve a very direct and narrow purpose and are not just for indicating an article where a group member was quoted. is the external links guideline. Jessamyn (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You minimize the article. It contains in a nutshell the very essence of YALSA as stated by its then President, not a mere "group member." And it was not just where someone was quoted.

Jessamyn, this has nothing to do with my soapbox you continue to claim I'm on. You think I added this article for some soapbox reason. No. The article is added precisely because it is about YALSA's president summarizing YALSA's beliefs. Since this is the YALSA page, the YALSA president stating the YALSA beliefs in a main stream media article is perfect for this page.

Further, leave out the article and the page looks like it was written by YALSA itself.

Lastly, the IP address that first removed it maps to the ALA's home town. So if it is to be discussed, it stays in until a decision is reached, If not, we just rewarded an ALA member editing an ALA page, and that is not wiki policy compliant. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, look at the history page. This page was created and is maintained by ALA members, other than myself--oh, I might be an ALA member too! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You may not understand what the external links section is supposed to be about. Please refer to the guideline I referred you to. Jessamyn (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jessamyn. You are fishing. I read that links guide and the link fits. You specify why it does not -- you raised the guide -- you specify.

Further, you are not acting in good faith. The link stays in until consensus is reached why it comes out. There is no hurry to take it out. As I explained why above, the link stays in. And let me add one more thing. YALSA now produces a Top 10 list of books like the Gossip Girls, and the reasoning for that is directly related to the interview of the YALSA president. I am adding back in the link and it is to stay in until consensus takes it out. Your taking it out will be considered bad faith by me under the given circumstances which, if you were not wearing your ALA glasses, you would see clearly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. Just reviewing the options here, the source is definitely relevant to the article as it is specific to young adults, and the ALA, the umbrella organization of the subject in question. All articles are to include criticism and controversy wherever it is relevant and its definitely relevant in this case. The questions is whether to have it as a link, or to include it with more specific criticism within the main text of the article. For now, I am open to either. Lingorama 08:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)