Jump to content

Talk:Judith Krug/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article has serious POV problems

I can see at least two areas where the article is really out of balance. On the two areas of first amendement rights emphasized the article uses the rare examples that are the exception as the highlighted and not the rule. E.G. the purpose of laws guaranteeing confidentiality which the ALA has upheld is not for protection ofhijackers but for the 99.99% of the public which are not hijackers.

The same goes for the attempts at censorship of erotica and pornography . By emphazing exposure of children and not the protection of rights of adults, or the history of attempts at censorship in libriaries (eg not allowing Henry Miller texts) there is a skew overemphasizing the fringe view of a group (appently this safelibraries.org "group" or more likly two or three people with a website).

If one is going to get into all this in this biography one is also going to have to add material on the long history of attempted cencsorship in libraries, as well as their monitoring in authoritatrian societies in order to add balance and remove POV issues.

If one is going to make charged and POV statements refering to "pornography" why not a definition used by the libraires detractors as to what they consider pornography. It would put a lot of this in context. they are not talking about legally defined obsenity, but a hugely broader group of material they consider objectionable and widely available in libraries already.

should it not be noted that the is safelibraries organization would be censoring, for example, wikipedia content?


POV

An author eliminating POV spam from his or her original article is exercising editorial control, not censorship. This is a bio of Judith Krug. Those who want to post another, separate article arguing their point of view concerning ALA policy here on Wikipedia are free to do so without any interference from this author. The real query is whether those who accuse others of censorship would allow others to dictate the content of their own web pages or articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcs47 (talk • contribs) 13:28 EST, 1 November 2005.

Note that no one "owns" a wikipedia article. While removing PoV content and/or spam from an article is something any wikipedia editor can and ought to do, the original creator has no greator rights than anyone else in content disputes. However, recent practice has been against including lists of quotations in wikipedia biographical articles, because the selection of such quotes can be PoV, and because they aren't really part of the usual format of a biographical article. Instead, such quotes may be posted to wikiquote and a link inserted to the wikiquote entry. DES (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, essays or large amounts of text are probably better placed on Wikisource, with a link on the Wikipedia page. -- Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs 22:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree -- the long quotes form the subjects publsihed works should probably be summerized, or just citations given, with full texts at wikidource if they are availabel free of copyright. The amouth of text now present in such quotes is problomatical on copyright grounds alone, unless these texts have been relased as PD or under the GFDL. DES (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. Will edit page to remove long text quotes. Article text was added with a view to letting the subject "speak for herself" rather than let selective POV quotes/spam misrepresent her views. Dcs47 23:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article needs to be rewritten as more-or-less standard encyclopedic biographical article, not the chirpy conference-participant-potted-bio style it has now -- kind of like this one, from which the entire introduction was lifted. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Carlton. You removed the quotes I added, only two, that I have done in response to the above discussion, and you removed the link to WikiQuote. First, I was observing the direction given above in this very discussion. Second, I have read the WikiQuote policy and it says it is perfectly appropriate to add a link to the WikiQuote page on a Wikepedia page and it is perfectly legitimate to add a few samples quotes. As seen above, "Instead, such quotes may be posted to wikiquote and a link inserted to the wikiquote entry. DES" By claiming you have removed excessive quotes you have completely ignored the above discussion. Now Dcs47 not only removes my quotes but then posted her own. In response to the above discussion, she too took her quoted material back down in consideration of a more appropriate spot to place them. I too have taken the above discussion to mean I can create a WikiQuote page and link to it here. Even Dsc47 says I can do so in her first post above. I have acted in accordance with the Wiki policy as I can read online and as described by various Wikipedians. Therefore, I am revising to add back the link to WikiQuote and the sample links since they are in full compliance with Wiki policy and with the discussion seen above.
Wikiquote is intended to have verifiable quotations by and about notable people -- look at its policies for more on the matter. it is very standard for a wikipedia articel to carry a link to the wikiquote entry on the sme subject -- indeed recently many wikipedia articels that had quotation sections have replaced these with a wikiquote link. DES (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, DES, and all other Wikipedians, for providing the valuable guidance you have. Your edits to my added quotes, DES, are outstanding, a perfect compromise between providing too much information for a biographical wikipedia page and completely removing information. Thanks again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.240.212 (talk • contribs) 16:39 EST, 2 November 2005.

Biographical info

We are lacking some basic biographical information, particularly the date (or at least the year) of Krug's birth. Also, a list of her publications (or the most notable ones) would be appropriate. DES (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Critical responses

I have added a short section on people who have expressed strong criticism of Krug and her public stands on library non-censorship policy. DES (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Another area of the Krug shortcomings has been the failure to take action on the internal censoring that goes on in our cities' public libraries. Library staff have been kept from critiquing their own public institutions. Public documentation of our cities' public libraries are not disclosed flouting FOI Freedom of Information public records sunshine open government principles. dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donwarnersaklad)
On the Judith Krug Wikipedia Talk page you said:
"Another area of the Krug shortcomings has been the failure to take action on the internal censoring that goes on in our cities' public libraries. Library staff have been kept from critiquing their own public institutions. Public documentation of our cities' public libraries are not disclosed flouting FOI Freedom of Information public records sunshine open government principles.
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donwarnersaklad 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC))
Would you please further clarify that?

Please send along what you would like clarified...

You just asked Please send along what you would like clarified. May I assume we should carry on this conversation here since you replied here and not my email? Here's what I want clarified and perhaps greatly expanded. Please provide detailed information on, as you say, internal censoring that goes on in our cities' public libraries. Also on, as you say, library staff that have been kept from critiquing their own public institutions. You also state laws are being, as you say, flouted. We would like detail on this. After we get the details we may call the people directly, unless they do not want this, to determine the truth of the matter for ourselves before we make such information public. As you may have noticed, almost every single statement we make on the web site is backed up with a direct link to the source material. Essentially we are making no statements ourselves other than aggregating links to other information that, when gathered together, tends to show that the American Library Association may be directly and negatively impacting children in public libraries, including public school libraries, nationwide. We think, and I'll guess most fair-minded people would agree, that an organization with the highest level of infiltration into local community libraries of any organization that arrogates to itself the function of censorship police, using cries of censorship as a reason why children should have continued access to pornography, but that itself censors librarys or librarians, is extremely hypocritical, at the least, and should not be considered authoritative on the issue of what is censorship. You are reporting that you have information that tends to prove that the ALA is engaged in a pattern of censorship. We are asking that you provide the details so we may investigate then report what we find. This goes to the very heart of the matter of the ALA using claims of censorship to push pornography into public libraries and public schools. We are aware that the ALA is suppressing information, but we want to hear what you have to say. Now we wish to find out exactly what's what. If your story checks out, we may also offer a platform for the publication of the speech that has been suppressed by the ALA or fear of the ALA. We personally know librarians afraid of the ALA, but now, thanks to you, we may be on to a national expose of librarians speaking out about the ALA in a way they formerly feared, and in a way that may allow local communities to regain control from the ALA. Thank you very much. 

May we use what you say on a web site?

Please send along the names referred to with the pronoun... "we" 

By "we" I mean we at http://SafeLibraries.org

We are the ones who caused the Judith Krug page to appear in its
current format and who created the Krug WikiQuote page.

We are very critical of Judith Krug and the ALA.

We are trying to show people how the ALA is, in short, an
extremist organization and the public needs to regain control of
their own libraries.

See SafeLibraries.org  http://www.safelibraries.org/
and I think you will see what I mean and perhaps even agree.



Your comments raise issues of which we are peripherally aware,
but we would like to learn more.

What can you tell us?

Please send along the names referred to with... "us"

The states' public records FOI Freedom of Information, Sunshine open public meetings, open government efforts at appeals are outlined on states' government web links like http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

Cities' charters, ordinances and city clerks may have further information as well for their respective cities.

See also http://www.leg.state.mn.us/foi/cogi.html 

We may post your comments or our own work as sculpted by your
comments on the SafeLibraries.org web site, unless you tell us
not to.



For example you say staff are kept from critiquing their
libraries.

You say public documentation is not disclosed in violation of
the law.

Know that we will publish these critiques and we will publish
this documentation.

At this time we are getting almost 2500 hits per DAY!



Would you be interesting in helping each other - your providing
us with suppressed information and we posting the supressed
information for all to see?

Please send along the names referred to with... "us", "we" 

Perhaps you can start a librarian underground movement to
disclose this information and we could provide the vehicle for
doing so.
Dan 
plan2succeed -at- gmail.com
- --
- ----------
http://www.plan2succeed.org/

24.149.135.182 21:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Seth Finkelstein (as identified by Wikipedia moniker itself) - you removed information claiming it was non encyclopedic because an opponent said it. Yet what you removed was not what an opponent said but was what the person said whose page this is, only the quote appears on the opponent's web site or was quoted there. I do not see this as a valid reason to remove information based on what you said. The source of the information does not mean the information is any less valid. Please convince me otherwise that the quote should be removed before I add back the quote by Judith Krug.


Dan(?) (you have the advantage of me), please see Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable ... For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. ... Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources".
It's a clear violation of the "Dubious sources" policy
Seth Finkelstein 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


24.149.135.182 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Yes, Seth Finkelstein, this is Dan. I really have to admire your work in the past. You clearly are a very bright person with a very impressive record. For example, if I read the web correctly, you actually wrote a brief to the US Supreme Court in favor of the ALA and the ACLU in the CIPA case that the ALA ultimately lost, US v. ALA. You have won an award from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. You are an expert witness in various cases. You have other great accomplishments of which most people will never come near. Now I understand why you have taken the action you have to remove the words of Judith Krug from Judith Krug's page that casts Judith Krug in a negative light. Talk about bias, Bernard Goldberg could write a whole chapter just on you! You removed "Blocking material leads to censorship. That goes for pornography and bestiality, too. If you don't like it, don't look at it ... Every time I hear someone say, I want to protect the children, I want to pull my hair out." Now that quote was made by Judith Krug and it is important people know that. Judith Krug said it and she's proud of it because she made at least one similar statement in the future. But you decided for some reason it should not appear on the Judith Krug page in the Critical Responses section. You then removed the quote and the citation to that quote, Quoted in "Preventing Kids From Seeing Illegal Smut Is Not Unconstitutional; It's Common Sense" by Janet M. LaRue, National Center for Policy Analysis, 2001. Your reasoning for this was "Remove quote source to opponent - not encyclopedic." Janet M. LaRue was not the source of that quote. Judith Krug was. First, in your comment above, you are implying that Janet M. LaRue, well known as she is, is a dubious source. There's your bias showing again. Second, Janet M. LaRue was not the source of the quote. Judith Krug was. Therefore, I will be returning the quote and the citation back to the page at the conclusion of this very illuminating conversation. We really have to thank Wikipedia for the opportunity it has provided us to address each other in this fashion whilst also informing others of the issues involved. Thanks to Wikipedia, people now see exactly how censorship or the like is practiced by those who only want one view of the world to be seen. In addition to your above actions and statements, you have illustrated a new form a censorship introduced on the Judith Krug page. You see previously her deputy had performed repeated wholesale removals of language, Judith Krug's own words mind you, that she did not want anyone to see. You, however, in addition to wholesale removal of information in violation of the whole spirit of Wikipedia, have introduced a new element, namely changing the language to place a whole new spin on the information. In doing so you have obliterated the truth. For the sake of this point I am making, the truth is that it was librarians who decided on their own, sua sponte as you might perhaps say in your well written CIPA brief to the US Supreme Court, that librarians will no longer help keep children safe from, for example, pornography. There was no popular uprising that forced librarians to do this. No law was passed. No executive order was signed. No judge legislated from the bench. Rather, librarians themselves decided this on their own, likely with great influence from the ACLU. Then they told everyone that everyone must comply. And guess what, everyone just accepts this, likely because at the time the people did not realize the ramifications. Now I quote a source that is making this statement, and I do so to provide context for another outrageous quote by Judith Krug. I did not add the statement to counter Judith Krug. I added it merely to provide context -- Judith Krug's statement would not have been understandable without the context. You then editted the words in a way that completely changed the meaning and completely provided a wrong picture. Once again, I have to give you credit. You are very intelligent and facile with words. But that does not make you right. Let's look at what the quote said, then how you changed it. The original quote said, "In "The Internet and the Seduction of the American Public Library" online version, Helen Chaffee Biehle strongly criticises Krug and the ALA for changing the previous ideal that librarians should act as the representatives of parents and society, restricting access to appropriate content, particularly for children." Oh, by the way, I did not write this. Another Wikipedian who repaired the ALA's censorship did this. Be that as it may, here is what you changed this to: "In "The Internet and the Seduction of the American Public Library" online version, Helen Chaffee Biehle strongly criticises Krug and the ALA for opposing her (Biehle's) advocated ideal that librarians should act as the representatives of parents and society, restricting access to appropriate content, particularly for children." I know you are smart enough to see exactly what I am saying and exactly how your edits have turned the tables upside down creating a completely false impression. That's likely why you made the edit. But given your actions and your censorship, I'll bet you will not admit this, not admit your error, and not reverse your censorship voluntarily. Again, you are very intelligent and I respect that. But censorship either wholesale or by changing words is entirely inappropriate and something unbecoming someone upon which the courts rely for information. Please refrain from such actions in the future. I look forward to your response.

Dan, thank you for your comments. It is true I have much interest and achievements in civil-liberties issues. For that reason, I'm being conservative (pun unintended) in my changes, and grounding them in specific Wikipedia policies. Again, Wikipedia:Verifiability states:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. (emphasis in original)
If you believe a quote to be accurate, an "unimpeachable" source should be found. Just for example, at what time was it said, to whom, and in what context? If none of these questions can be answered, then that casts extreme doubt on the reliability of the source.
Regarding Biehle, her assertions as to the former and proper role of libraries are fairly characterized as exactly that, not as factual descriptions of historical state.
I'll let the rest pass, as I find Wiki-pages aren't good environments for long discussion.
Seth Finkelstein 05:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

24.149.135.182 06:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Boy you answer fast! How did you first find out about the Krug page in the first place, take the time to read, then make changes so fast? In any case I have considered what you suggested. I have looked at Wikipedia:Verifiability and I find that you are again playing fast and loose with your words. When I read your citation, I had to say to myself, okay, maybe he has a point, I want to follow Wiki policy so I'll check it out. What I found out is like the horse of a different color in the Wizard of Oz. Reread the sentence again, only this time in context of the paragraph: "Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit. Editors should therefore be specific, avoid weasel words, and provide references, linking to the source if it's online, and giving a brief citation in brackets after the sentence if it isn't. Giving citations in brackets after a sentence is called Harvard referencing. For example: After the bombing, a spokesperson in Bali said you can't have total security. This is difficult to verify. Many spokespersons may have commented on the incident, and it's unreasonable to expect someone to check all these statements looking for the one that matches. Consider instead: Andi Mallarangeng, spokesperson for Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia's president, told reporters: 'Suicide bombers in open places. You can't put metal detectors everywhere. You have to be realistic.' [1] This is easy to verify. An inline link to an article is provided, and the exact quote is given, so it can be fed into a search engine to find other sources for it." Given this context, the quote and citation are entirely appropriate. As soon as our conversation dies down, I'm putting them back up on the main page. Your obvious bias is so palpable that it is clear to me this is the reason for your rationalizations for censoring and rewording information. As to Biehle, her assertions, as you put it, are at least very close to the historical truth. Historically librarians used to protect children from harm. Now they don't. When you and I were kids we would go to a public library and pornography was kept away from us. Now it is not. That's why many parents are not even aware of the situation - because they did not experience it. Many parents think librarians help keep their children from porn. They do not. Your comments that Biehle is not historically accurate in the face of the obvious truth that you seek to suppress makes you really sound extreme. Maybe you are not but you sound it. Everyone knows librarians did not used to allow children access to porn. Now they do, but not everyone knows this. People like you, apparently, are responsible for ensuring that parents remain in the dark as to this fact. We do not need Ms. Biehle to prove it. She is only there to provide context for a Krug quote. Really, I think you have lived in a world of censorship fears for so long that you may not even be aware that what you are doing is inappropriate. Keeping children away from material that is illegal or inappropriate for them is not censorship. Your removing information and changing sentences to present a false impression is.


"Burden of evidence" also applies to quality of sources, not merely format of citation. I removed the quote per "dubious sources", encyclopedia standards require "sources should be unimpeachable". This is editorial policy, not censorship. Once more, if you cannot find a more reputable source for the quote, that should indicate something - "don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth".
Seth Finkelstein 18:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


24.149.135.182 02:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Seth, thanks again for the response.

- Looking at the "unimpeachable" reference, I note the Wiki policy goes on to say, "Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources. Sometimes a particular statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it -- don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example: According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces." Looking at the Krug quote you have deleted, the quote is of Mrs. Krug's words, not a "claim made." We are not saying Krug is right or wrong or that we feel she is right or wrong. We are merely reporting what she actually said. No one else. Her words. We are not making a claim about her. We are citing the source where her words are made public. Impeachability goes to impeaching the claims made by the person making them about someone else, not the person making the quoted statement in the first place, else you would be saying what Krug has said is impeachable. I do not think this is your intention. Citing Mrs. Krug's own words means Mrs. Krug made the statement. Not me. Not Janet M. LaRue. A claim cannot be impeached where there is no claim made in the first place.

- Let's move on to the issue of "dubious truth." You are implying that Janet M. LaRue's reporting of Judith Krug's words is dubious, yes? Krug saying "Every time I hear someone say, I want to protect the children, I want to pull my hair out," if I understand you correctly, is a dubious statement because Mrs. LaRue is reporting it, yes? Isn't it possible the statement sounds dubious because it is inherently dubious? Now Judith Krug has gone on to make substantially similar statements. "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children...." That's from "Oak Lawn Library Vows to Keep Playboy on Shelf," by Jo Napolitano, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 23, 2005. Compare the two quotes and the obvious similarity jumps out at you. Would you now argue that the Chicago Tribune is a dubious source? I think not. The Chicago Tribune works hard to perform outstanding journalism. Will you now question them because you don't like people knowing that Judith Krug makes dubious statements.

- Let's move on again, this time to the issue of "relative unimportance" or "limited interest." Judith Krug is the decades-long leader of the ALA's OIF that arrogates to itself the role of censorship police. To unbiased people, it is of obvious importance that the leader of the ALA's censorship police who decries keeping children from reading or viewing any material they wish is also the same person who is tired of people concerned for the safety of children. It even makes her want to pull her hair out! Now that's extremism to me, and it is definitely important for people to know and of great interest. They are her own words, after all. She has said similar things repeatedly. She is obviously proud of her stance. Her influence nationwide leads libraries to make decisions on the safety of children but that issue makes her want to pull her hair out. This goes to the issue of credibility. How credible is an organization that literally, admittedly, could care less about the safety of children?

- Given everything we have discussed here and above, her own words are entirely appropriate on her own page. Since the editorial policy does not apply or has been adequately met as I have shown, your actions are not mere editorialization but worse.


Dan, regarding the question: "You are implying that Janet M. LaRue's reporting of Judith Krug's words is dubious, yes?"- YES. I will state it outright. Sourcing an alleged quote by Judith Krug to "Janet M. LaRue is senior director of legal studies at the Family Research Council, an organization devoted to restoring traditional values to American society.", with no other confirming evidence, is a clear violation of standards to cite credible sources - "The author has a conflict of interest".
I'm not overly happy with newspaper quotes, since they often aren't accurate, or are sensationalized. But Janet LaRue is an egregious example of a dubious source here.
Fourth time: If you can't find a better source, that's relevant to the dubiousity.
Seth Finkelstein 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


24.149.135.182 13:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Okay, Seth. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are correct. I disagree but let's assume you are correct. If so, you have shown her statement about wanting to pull her hair out when people try to protect children is from a dubious source. Standing on its own, then, it gets excluded, given the assumption we are working under. But now, assuming for the sake of argument, there is an unimpeachable source that says Krug quoted essentially the same thing. Then that is considered corroboration and it lends credibility to the statement in question. That is exactly what I have done. The Chicago Tribune reported she said "I get very concerned when we start hearing people who want to convert this country into a safe place for children...." The Chicago Tribune is not dubious. It meets your stated standard of finding a better source. It does not have a conflict of interest. It is reporting essentially the same thing as Mrs. LaRue. I'll bet we could actually call Mrs. Krug and she would honestly and happily admit she made that statement. Mrs. Krug may make outrageous statements about not protecting children from harm but I've never known her to be dishonest. So I say the Krug quote as reported by LaRue is accurate. But you may not because of your bias. Okay. Be that as it may. Then how about if the quote about pulling her hair out was replaced with the quote about people trying to convert the country into a safe place for children. Look, Seth, she says this repeatedly. She is proud of it. It's how she feels. She would be happy that people know her point of view. You keep insisting it should be cut out. Really, you must be really high on yourself to think you can continue to justify why you are cutting out information that is illustrating critical responses and that Judith Krug herself would likely want people to know. Judith Krug wants people to know that libraries are for all people, not just children, that it frustrates her that efforts to increase safety for children often hamper access for adults, and you keep cutting that out of her Wiki page. If I wasn't living through this I wouldn't believe someone could have so much hubris. I can't believe anyone would use you as an expert witness or any court would give any credence to anything you do or say.

Section headers

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Capitalisation specifies that headings should be in sentance case (only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized), and not in title case (all significant words are capitalized). I don't fully agree with this, but it is wikipedia style. DES (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


Donations

SafeLibraries, why is this relevant? Per WP:LIVING "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." -- Seth Finkelstein 03:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree here, this person's minor political contributions do not in any way rate the amount of space you took up to include them. This is an encyclopedia article, not a catch-all for any and all information about Krug. None of the contributions she has made seem even remotely noteworthy or relevant to her work at ALA. Looks like she is a Democrat, and so is about half the US. It's not like she gave 10K to Book Burner's Anonymous and then supports intellectual freedom on the other hand. It's clear from your past edits that you have a bone to pick with Krug and the work she does at ALA, but please try to make your work on Wikipedia appropriate and relevant to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Jessamyn (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Guess what. I agree with you both, now that I see what you are saying. I guess it does not need to be mentioned here, but I do think it is eyebrow raising that she has given over $5,000 over the years to the largest abortion lobby. She claims she is only looking after the rights of children in public libraries while at the same time she supports aborting the babies before they get into the library. I think this shows her claim to be protecting children's rights is false. It think it shows she has a different agenda. Be that as it may, it's not encyclopedic, yet, so you guys are right to remove it. --SafeLibraries 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

She will be missed.

Judith Krug, after a prolonged illness, passed away with dignity on Saturday, April 11, 2009 in Chicago, Illinois. She was a remarkable woman and was a vivid example of how one person's passionate advocacy can make difference in our society. She is survived by her husband, two children, their spouses and five grand children. Deepwikidc (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Added link to Commons:Category:Judith Krug. — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources

Possible sources for accolades [1]. (The links were rightly removed from being hyperlinked directly to the text; just noting here for future reference and research.) — Cirt (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Referencing cleanup

Lots of cites were just basically barelinks to the homepages of the organizations mentioned.

I've gone ahead and removed those.

Next step ongoing is to do some additional research in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Referencing cleanup is  Done. At least, for now. I've gone through and either sourced or pruned all the previously unreferenced bits. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article had a GA Review which was successful and it was promoted to WP:GA quality, review at: Talk:Judith Krug/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested copy edit from Guild of Copy Editors

I've requested a copy edit from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, hopefully they'll be by some time soon to go through the article.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is now  Done. — Cirt (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Krug. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judith Krug. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judith_Krug/Archive_1&oldid=792697714"