In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Response from a Librarian!
WAGC
Member Posts: 81 ✭✭
actually NOT a bad idea! let readers KNOW what Liars anti gunners really are............. could possibly be advantageous for the RKBA!
Nancy
<gunflower@e...> wrote:
> This is a response I've received from a librarian that I asked to in essence get rid of Bellesiles fraudulent book. I think her answer is well-thought out. If nothing else, we will start a debate in college universities about book banning. I've removed her name to protect her privacy.
>
> Janalee
>
> _______________
> Dear Janalee,
>
> I had written this up for another patron who wrote to us about this book a few weeks ago - I hope you don't mind my sending it on to you and I hope it addresses your concerns. Please do write again if I can be of further help.
>
> M.
>
> Thank you very much for taking the time to write to us about this title. We've looked into the history of this book and certainly agree that it is thoroughly discredited.
>
> This leaves the library in a dilemma - one in which whatever action we take feels in many ways wrong. We are still working out a course of action - but I am planning to suggest we add a note to the catalog record which states: "Awarded Bancroft prize, prize rescinded, December 2002." I would like to share my thinking - and have attached a couple of the articles which I found most useful.
>
> Two of our most deeply held values as librarians are in conflict here. On the one hand, providing users with the highest quality information is at the heart of our mission. On the other, libraries believe strongly that it sets a dangerous precedent to withdraw a book - any book - from a collection based on the perceived worth or correctness of its content. It should never be librarians who decide in the end what books are bad or good - it is critical to a free society that this judgment be left to readers.
>
> We try as a research library to preserve, ideally, all scholarly information (bad, good, biased, unbiased, well written, poorly written) on any given subject or, when that is impossible, at least to represent every possible viewpoint. We know future researchers will want to investigate what views were held and by whom and when and that they will want to be able to look at every title which was published.
>
> On the other hand, it is very disturbing that students - and others - may see only this book and not see that the work has been discredited. Though libraries are also very wary of labeling books, it would seem that in this case that might be an alternative. Such a label would alert readers to check further into the book, but would leave it available for use.
>
> This title though seems destined to be used to teach the methods of history. How did it happen that these errors went undetected by a prestigious scholarly press? How could the Bancroft Committee have not done a better job of vetting a book they proposed to honor? Which scholars spotted the errors and what led them to be suspicious? And I suspect it will lead to useful discussion with students as to what may happen when a researcher has a personal view and is engaged in research which may or may not support that view.
>
> (While working on this response to you, I told my 20 year old about it and asked her opinion. She thought we should keep the book, but label it and said she thought "it is a lesson to students that people do lie in the real word and you can't always trust a book. And it is a lesson that you will be found out if you falsify your papers.")
>
> I hope that you will call or write if you would like to discuss the issue further,
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Head, Collection Development
> Marriott Library
>
The Second Amendment IS our Homeland Security
Nancy
<gunflower@e...> wrote:
> This is a response I've received from a librarian that I asked to in essence get rid of Bellesiles fraudulent book. I think her answer is well-thought out. If nothing else, we will start a debate in college universities about book banning. I've removed her name to protect her privacy.
>
> Janalee
>
> _______________
> Dear Janalee,
>
> I had written this up for another patron who wrote to us about this book a few weeks ago - I hope you don't mind my sending it on to you and I hope it addresses your concerns. Please do write again if I can be of further help.
>
> M.
>
> Thank you very much for taking the time to write to us about this title. We've looked into the history of this book and certainly agree that it is thoroughly discredited.
>
> This leaves the library in a dilemma - one in which whatever action we take feels in many ways wrong. We are still working out a course of action - but I am planning to suggest we add a note to the catalog record which states: "Awarded Bancroft prize, prize rescinded, December 2002." I would like to share my thinking - and have attached a couple of the articles which I found most useful.
>
> Two of our most deeply held values as librarians are in conflict here. On the one hand, providing users with the highest quality information is at the heart of our mission. On the other, libraries believe strongly that it sets a dangerous precedent to withdraw a book - any book - from a collection based on the perceived worth or correctness of its content. It should never be librarians who decide in the end what books are bad or good - it is critical to a free society that this judgment be left to readers.
>
> We try as a research library to preserve, ideally, all scholarly information (bad, good, biased, unbiased, well written, poorly written) on any given subject or, when that is impossible, at least to represent every possible viewpoint. We know future researchers will want to investigate what views were held and by whom and when and that they will want to be able to look at every title which was published.
>
> On the other hand, it is very disturbing that students - and others - may see only this book and not see that the work has been discredited. Though libraries are also very wary of labeling books, it would seem that in this case that might be an alternative. Such a label would alert readers to check further into the book, but would leave it available for use.
>
> This title though seems destined to be used to teach the methods of history. How did it happen that these errors went undetected by a prestigious scholarly press? How could the Bancroft Committee have not done a better job of vetting a book they proposed to honor? Which scholars spotted the errors and what led them to be suspicious? And I suspect it will lead to useful discussion with students as to what may happen when a researcher has a personal view and is engaged in research which may or may not support that view.
>
> (While working on this response to you, I told my 20 year old about it and asked her opinion. She thought we should keep the book, but label it and said she thought "it is a lesson to students that people do lie in the real word and you can't always trust a book. And it is a lesson that you will be found out if you falsify your papers.")
>
> I hope that you will call or write if you would like to discuss the issue further,
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Head, Collection Development
> Marriott Library
>
The Second Amendment IS our Homeland Security
Comments
There should be a disclaimer on the cover of this book, stating that is has been proven false, and has been discredited, or something.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
Emory University history professor Michael Bellesiles, whose book, "Arming America" was hailed as proof that "America had no well-rooted history of firearms ownership" has resigned his position. It was determined that he failed to carefully document his findings; make available to others his sources, evidence and data; and he misrepresented evidence or the sources of evidence.
Good riddance, komrade!!! Liars like you deserve to be drug out in the middle of the street and flogged. Find it comforting that all that happened was you had to resign.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.