Talk:Five laws of library science

rules 2 and 3

• Can anyone explain what the heck rules 2 and 3 mean? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:40, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

My take on those two is as folows:

"Every reader his or her book."

This seems to me to point out that anyone can benefit from library services, and that it is up to the librarian to make sure that anyone seeking service from a library receives that service. Alternately, it could be pointing out that for anyone seeking help (especifically important to Reference services) there is a resource that will help them.

"Every book its reader."

This one seems a little easier to explain: I would say that it points out that, no matter what the librarian thinks of a particular book (or resource), that book may prove to be useful to a borrower. This can be problematic to implement: Ideally, libraries would/should try to collect everything, and be able to keep it forever. However, no library has the resources to do so: There are space issues, preservation issues, and (perhaps most importantly) funding issues, that prevent libraries from doing so.

c. (--Hermitcl 10:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC))

So... the basic point is: "At least one book for every reader; at least one reader for every book"? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it isn't about quantity, and certainly not just one book. I would interpret rule 2 to mean that we (librarians) shouldn't expect every reader to like or want the same materials, that readers are unique and have particular tastes or requirements, and we should look for the right materials to fit that particular person. I would interpret rule 3 the same way it is described above, meaning especially that when a librarian is selecting materials, to think of the broadest possible group of readers, and to gauge the likelihood, for example, that the reader a particular book seems to be written for will come into your library. If that seems like a roundabout way of deciding, I would add that I find myself thinking just this thought when I read reviews of books to decide which ones to spend money on. The longer I work as a librarian (now 12 years), the more easily I can imagine a wide variety of readers. It makes it very hard to stick to the budget, especially when you have seen what people really read, which is a very wide range of literature! Rica siskind (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

1. Books for use.

2. For every reader a book. vijayaraj

3. every book for reader.

4. Save time of the reader.

5. A library is a growing organism.

I found this on: http://valinor.ca/muffin.html

- RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text of the five laws has been edited to reflect what is stated in Rubin (2016). A request for copy editing message has been added to the top of the page so that another editor may double-check and verify the page's grammar for accuracy.

- Msoul13 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy editing was completed by BluePenguin18 on 21 March 2020.

- Msoul13 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The text of the five laws has been edited to reflect what was stated in Ranganathan's original.

- Msoul13 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A statement by Ranganathan

• I read a book that Ranganathan wrote a long time ago about librarianship when he had invented only 4 laws; he wrote about "making an Ulster of the fifth law - the Law of Parsimony". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ranganathan discusses the Law of Parsimony in his 1972 paper Impact of Growth in the Universe of Subjects on Classification. However, this source does not indicate a clear connection between this law and the Five Laws of Library Science. Perhaps another editor can provide some clarification? Msoul13 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I found another mention of this in Ranganathan's 1957 paper "Library Science and Scientific Method." The information has been added to the article. Msoul13 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns & the Second Law

In the book The Five Laws of Library Science, Ranganathan uses the pronouns "his" and "her" in defining and discussing the Second Law. Retaining these in the text of the article ensures that Ranganathan's theory is reproduced accurately. As such, I have been reverting edits that attempt to change Ranganathan's chosen pronouns. Msoul13 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)