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

[Jeffrey P. Barton]

I would agree with Brenna, Richard, and Jane.

Pretty much *any* literature could be controversial, to someone at some time… (And this gets us into a question of “audience,” “author intent,” and format that I think is a slippery slope too.)

And I think “controversial” is confusing and am not sure what it adds for a searcher—won’t someone be looking for a subject and controversy *about* that?  And this seems/veers towards more of a subject concept than a format term, too?

“Controversial,” “polemical,” “literature of prejudice”… we’re covering an awful lot of ground there, no?  And some of it is really quite different.  Perhaps the broadness of the territory and lack of agreement among professionals suggests a level of generality that’s bound to be confusing to searchers?    I understand the desire to avoid “anti-…” but sometimes it’s easier to define something by what it’s not.

Jeff Barton
Princeton Rare Books & Special Colls.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Bychowski, Brenna
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 8:48 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] [RBMS] Controlled Vocabularies updates from ALA annual

I would chime in as being part of the camp that finds “Controversial literature” to be a confusing term. It sounds as though the literature itself is controversial, rather than the literature takes a part in a controversy.  When I first came across it in a record, it took me back for a moment. While I recognize that there is already a history of using “Controversial literature” in that way, I would prefer for CV not to go in that direction.  I do, however, support replacing “Literature of prejudice.”

Brenna

--
Brenna Bychowski
Cataloger, North American Imprints Program
American Antiquarian Society
185 Salisbury St.
Worcester, MA 01609
508.471.2145
bbychowski at mwa.org<mailto:bbychowski at mwa.org>



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Ryan Hildebrand
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 2:46 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Cc: Deborah Leslie (djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>)
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] [RBMS] Controlled Vocabularies updates from ALA annual

I am interested to hear reactions to Richard’s suggestion of “Controversial literature” (or perhaps “Controversial works”) as a replacement for “Literature of prejudice.” My only concern with the prhrase is that one might assume it indicates, e.g., Banned works, Censored works, etc.

I also would like to point out that the OED definition of Polemical offers a little more wiggle room with regard to aggression and force:  “1. Of the nature of, exhibiting, given to, or relating to dispute or controversy; contentious, disputatious, combative.”

Deborah, I didn’t take away from your message that you were suggesting changes to the Anti- terms—is that correct? I understand the argument against “Literature of prejudice,” but I think most of the Anti- terms can be justified by the content of the resources to which they are applied. Prejudice seems a slippery slope, but Anti- seems rather cut and dry.

Thanks,
Ryan



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 12:16 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] [RBMS] Controlled Vocabularies updates from ALA annual

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<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu<http://own.edu>>

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Carpenter, Jane <jfcarpenter at library.ucla.edu<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%28541%29%20346-1844>



From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto: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<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto:rbms at lists.ala.org>; dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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/20160715/8bc4bd14/attachment-0001.html>