[DCRM-L] [RBMS] Controlled Vocabularies updates from ALA annual

[Noble, Richard]

Might our old friend "controversial literature" be useful, in combination
with subject terms for the object of controversy? "Polemical" (from the
Greek for War) and "Controversial" (turning against) are semi-synonyms, so
to speak, the latter being perhaps better understanded of the people.

That  expression of an oppositional stance towards a body of persons for
their ethnicity, ancestry, beliefs etc. is the self-proclaimed purpose of a
work, as expressed in a title or summary, ought not to be buried. Our users
are often looking for such things, and it's not up to us to decide that we
ought not to make it too easy because we shy away from the exercise of
judgment.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Carpenter, Jane <
jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu> wrote:

> I suggested deleting due to lack of warrant. "Polemical literature"
> instead?
>
> What about all of the terms like "Anti-clerical literature" or
> Anti-Masonic literature".  These terms would not be considered
> "prejudicial" being NTs of a term deemed "prejudicial"?
>
> In defense of our SN, we were not saying that "all" literature opposed to
> a particular group was prejudicial, only that literature presenting the
> group with a negative intention
>
> Jane Carpenter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 11:49 AM, Ryan Hildebrand <rhilde at uoregon.edu> wrote:
>
> I am open to this discussion. Upon looking, I am surprised to see there
> isn’t much warrant for the phrase outside of the CV. I guess I’ve just
> grown accustomed to it. I’d be happy to work on a change request after
> others have had a chance to weigh in.
>
>
>
> If we go with Polemics (Polemical literature?) I think we need to steer
> away from “aggressive” and “forcefully presented,” as much of this type of
> writing is rather nuanced and delivered with the calm finesse of a good
> debater. I do think “polemical” is the right word, we would just need to be
> very careful in the construction of the SN.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
> Ryan Hildebrand
>
> Authorities & Special Collections Cataloging Librarian
>
> University of Oregon Libraries
>
> 1299 University of Oregon
>
> Eugene OR 97403-1299
>
> (541) 346-1844
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Deborah J. Leslie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 7:55 PM
> *To:* dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] [RBMS] Controlled Vocabularies updates from ALA
> annual
>
>
>
> Amy and Ryan, & al.,
>
>
>
> Please forgive this drive-by commenting on “Literature of prejudice,” but
> my time is tight, the comment involves a hierarchy instead of a single
> term, and the issue is important.
>
>
>
> A number of years ago, the thesaurus team acknowledged problems with the
> term “literature of prejudice,” but threw up our hands on a solution and
> postponed consideration of the whole issue. (Possibly because there wasn’t
> a formal thesaurus editorial team, only an Editor, without even a scheduled
> meeting. We usually met for lunch after the BSC meeting on Saturday at a
> café or restaurant, and reported at the BSC Sunday meeting. History lesson
> complimentary; more details upon request. (-;)
>
>
>
> Calling this type of literature—however hateful it is to most or all of
> us—“prejudicial” is a form of labelling, and therefore violates cataloger
> ethics. That is, we are imposing our own value judgments on the material.
> Who are we to say that all literature opposed to certain religious, racial,
> sexual, etc. groups cannot be the result of thoughtful consideration—by
> definition the opposite of prejudice?
>
>
>
> I’d like to propose replacing “Literature of prejudice” with the AAT term
> “Polemics,” which is scoped as “Aggressive, forcefully presented
> arguments, often disputing a policy or opinion.” The term and scope
> avoids labelling with value judgments while still acknowledging the
> controversial, passionate, vitriolic nature of the material.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* rbms-request at lists.ala.org [mailto:rbms-request at lists.ala.org
> <rbms-request at lists.ala.org>] *On Behalf Of *Amy Brown
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 29 June 29 2016 9:24
> *To:* rbms at lists.ala.org; dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Subject:* [RBMS] Controlled Vocabularies updates from ALA annual
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> The Controlled Vocabularies Community Discussion Blog (
> http://rbms.info/cv-comments/) has been updated with scope notes for *62*
> terms. These scope notes were reviewed at our committee meeting on June 25,
> 2015 at ALA Annual.
>
>
>
> Due to the volume of terms for comment, the comment period for these terms
> has been extended. *The comment period runs from June 29 to July 27,
> 2016.  *
>
>
>
> The CV team welcomes and encourages your feedback!  Let us hear from you
> on our blog at http://rbms.info/cv-comments/, and many thanks to those
> who have contributed in the past.
>
>
>
> With thanks,
>
>
>
> Amy F. Brown and Ryan Hildebrand, co-chairs
>
> RBMS Controlled Vocabularies Editorial Group
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20160707/64baa8a6/attachment-0001.html>