Talk:Revolutionary Voices

Not child porn
Some editors are insisting on claiming the book is child pornography. They base this claim on the School Library Journal saying it is as a result of quoting the library's director who sent an email calling it child pornography. However, that characterization came in a single two word email, and that library director latter explained she was making essentially a joke.:


 * http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2010/08/03/the_register_news/news/doc4c5878149d36a655683719.txt


 * In response to a question from Bordentown librarian Andy Woodworth, who asked what the basis was for the removal, she replied simply, “Child pornography.”
 * Mr. Woodworth declined to comment for this article. In an interview this week Ms. Sweet agreed the e-mails sound strongly worded but insisted they were not meant that way.
 * ”I was really being funny, even if it doesn’t sound it,” she said. “Maybe they were ill-advised words, but I’ve learned something: Be careful what you put in e-mail. They were not meant in any way other than being facetious.”

So we have a reliable source saying:
 * 1) "the e-mails sound strongly worded but insisted they were not meant that way."
 * 2) "'I was really being funny, even if it doesn’t sound it,' she said."
 * 3) "'Maybe they were ill-advised words, but I've learned something: Be careful what you put in e-mail. They were not meant in any way other than being facetious.'"

And there it is: facetious.

There are no WP:RSs saying it is child porn unless those sources are quoting the same two word email.

It is pure WP:POV and WP:OR, possibly WP:SYN, to claim the book is child porn based on a two word email that the library director said herself was "facetious."

Therefore, I am restoring the word "facetious" to the story, only I will add quotes this time, and I will add back the ref, and I will remove the cat. I will then note in the history comment to discuss this matter here. The book is clearly not child porn without WP:RSs saying so and claiming it is borders on WP:BLP so I am removing it immediately without waiting for discussion.

I understand people new to Wikipedia believe they are improving Wikipedia by making false claims that the book is child pornography but Wikipedia has rules that must be followed and it is not to be used as a WP:SOAPBOX. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

LAEC COI notice
I have a COI notice on my User page, but to be clear, I am placing a WP:COI notice here since I have written on this matter involving this book at "Et tu, Mary Minow? Then Fall, Gail Sweet!"  Please note my edits, however, have been Wiki compliant. Further, I have attempted to encourage others to make edits to improve this article but that never happened, so I am editing as NPOV as possible and citing everything, including "facetious", to WP:RSs. I am "certain that a neutral editor would agree that [my] edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia". I realize the citations need work, as I noted above. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I actually have no COI with this book whatsoever or its author. I have a COI regarding library issues generally. I have been directly involved in this story to the extent that I was the first source to interview the library director and publish her views, whereas all other sources at that time had merely published the written material obtained by the ACLU. Sources are finally catching up and publishing the library director's statements. To the extent I include anything the library director said, I am sourcing the WP:RS only and not any conversation I had directly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: Revolutionary Readings Review: Go See It. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are posting links to your blog where you have an Amazon affiliate advertisement linking to this book's page. It's my understanding that if the reader of your blog then buys the book you, the webmaster, receive a 10% commission. So you're trying to make money off this "controversy". That's a COI. Promoters have long know that "banned in Boston" and its modern equivalents are good for business. Condemning a book for being shocking and filthy might actually increase sales. In the future, please do not use Wikipedia to promote your activist causes and your monetized blog.    Will Beback    talk    12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Revolutionary Voices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.missionamerica.com/stoppflag2.php?PHPSESSID=0c11a8dd74932f84d7b4a1331a266c5f
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705051318/http://www.aclutx.org/files/ACLUFTX%20Banned%20Books%20Report%202005.pdf to http://www.aclutx.org/files/ACLUFTX%20Banned%20Books%20Report%202005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)