Evolution of a Subject Heading

The Story Continues

Anna M. Ferris

Anna M. Ferris (anna.ferris@colorado.edu) is an Associate Professor and Catalog Librarian in Resource Description Services, University of Colorado Boulder.

Manuscript submitted July 25, 2021; returned to author for revision January 3, 2022; revised manuscript submitted January 23, 2022; accepted for publication March 7, 2022.

In 2018, the author published a paper that describes the process by which catalogers at Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) institutions create and propose new subject headings for inclusion in the Library of Congress Subject Heading (LCSH) controlled vocabulary. In a related vein, this paper describes the process of proposing a revision to an established subject heading via the Subject Authority Cooperative (SACO) Program’s Subject Heading Proposal System. Two separate proposals are presented: one to revise the authority record for the subject heading, Concentration camps [150] by removing the cross reference, Internment camps [450], from that authority record; the other proposal is to establish the cross reference as an authorized subject heading. The reasons for revising subject headings are explored, and a detailed review of the revision process using the SACO Proposal System is presented for the benefit of other catalogers seeking to make changes to subject headings they encounter in their own collections.

As catalogers perform bibliographic control—their most fundamental responsibility as librarians—they are fully aware that they are providing a direct service to the users of their library’s catalog. This holds true for those catalogers who, whether in an academic library setting or in the wider cataloging community, increasingly find themselves in a position to redress instances of objectionable or inadequate LCSH subject headings. The launching of the Cataloging Lab in 2018 illustrates how any cataloger can proactively “be a part of making improvements to the vocabulary that so many libraries use.”1 As a collaborative online tool or wiki, the Cataloging Lab is a timely and valuable platform that the general public can access to propose changes to LCSH.2 This paper, however, focuses on the formal process by which catalogers at PCC institutions submit proposals to revise, replace, or delete an established subject heading in LCSH through the SACO Proposal System.

Literature Review

Revisions made to Library of Congress (LC) subject headings have been a topic of discussion in the cataloging literature for decades. In Critical Views of LCSH, Cochrane and Kirtland provide an extensive bibliography of publications from between the 1940’s and 1979 that point out issues with LC’s list of subject headings. They report on the issue of LCSH language, thus:

The language of LCSH is a subject of greatest specific interest. Only modestly treated in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The number of writings on this topic have more than doubled since 1971. Sparseness of headings and currency and prejudices of LCSH did not trouble analysts until the late 1960’s. Then they attacked LC’s shortcomings vigorously.3

Numerous authors broached the issue of subject heading revisions from different perspectives including (1) concerns about cataloging operations, (2) concerns about ethical or empathic language, and (3) Sanford Berman’s perspective. The different perspectives are outlined below.

Concerns about Cataloging Operations

Quality control and cost efficiency are the primary concerns in studies that examine bibliographic records contributed by “member” libraries to the OCLC Union Catalog through the cooperative cataloging process. “Member copy” were those records that did not originate from LC. Ryans and Hudson examined OCLC bibliographic records that revealed substandard entries in the Collation, Added Entry, Series, and Title Statement fields, with Subject Headings fields representing the entries that required the most revision.4 Substandard entries were more than likely the result of cataloger error or lack of oversight during the cataloging process. However, Denda offered another feasible explanation:

Catalogers cope with an ever-increasing workload by relying on copy cataloging from trusted sources. This cataloging is often acquired and reused with minimal revision or no revision. … This reliance on acceptance of existing cataloging makes the frequency with which the subject headings will be evaluated and examined unlikely in most libraries, unless the resource is local in nature, such as a dissertation or thesis at the university, or a unique resource requiring original cataloging.5

Salas-Tull/Halverson and McClellan identified “loss of access to library materials” as an important reason for libraries to be concerned about bibliographic records that contain incorrect or misleading subject headings.6 McClellan provided a useful overview of previous studies that addressed subject heading revision patterns at libraries, and showed the efforts undertaken by OCLC to improve quality control processes in general, thereby helping to maintain the quality of the bibliographic records in their union catalog.

Concerns about Ethical and Empathic Language

For years, criticism of LC subject headings was not foremost in the minds of catalogers. It was understood that the subject headings being added to the LCSH controlled vocabulary were vetted by LC subject policy specialists. Today, subject headings are added through the SACO program and are vetted by specialists in LC’s Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division (PTCP) who adhere to the specific principles and protocols—such as literary warrant—that justify the creation of the new subject headings that represent current topics appearing in a broad range of library collections.

Bolstered by the publication of Sanford Berman’s Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People in 1971, catalogers increasingly sought to rectify the use of outdated, biased, or inappropriate subject headings in the collections for which they were responsible.7 Nuckolls, Denda, Howard and Knowlton, and Waterman identified instances of biases in LCSH terms within disciplines ranging from Women’s Studies, African-American Studies, LGBTQIA, and Gender Studies.8 The ALA document, Toward a Code of Ethics for Cataloging, affirms that, “Because catalogers are professionals and experts in a field that impacts society for good or harm, they must be aware of the ethical implications and responsibilities of what they do.”9

A prime example of this is the united campaign by the cataloging community and the American Library Association (ALA) to replace the controversial subject headings “Aliens” and “Illegal aliens” with less pejorative terms. In November 2021, LC agreed to make the change with the new terms, “Noncitizens” and “Illegal immigration.”10 Numerous papers and reports and the ALA 2021 Midwinter Meeting illustrate the lengths to which catalogers will go to affect important changes in LCSH.11 Watson introduced a new concept—catalogic warrant—which is the motivation of “critical catalogers” as they advocate for the radical cataloging movement. He explains it as:

By reading and examining subject headings and classification schema from a social justice-oriented perspective, catalogic warrant reflects on the potential harm or benefit of each term on users and the library community as a whole. Critical catalogers understand the catalog in a “holistic manner,” and see systems like LCC or DDC as living documents that can be revised and improved.12

Sanford Berman’s Perspective

Berman’s contributions to the subject heading revision movement are significant. Over the greater part of his twenty-six year career as head cataloger of the Hennepin County Library (HCL) system, he advocated for sweeping changes to LCSH in the interest of upholding free speech and access to information. His exploits are well-documented, and Gilyard described the circumstances that “radicalized” him and sparked his activism while working in Lusaka, Zambia in the late 1960s.13 The use of one subject heading in particular, kafir, in the University of Zambia Library’s catalog was a derogatory term for Black South Africans and was highly offensive to many of his colleagues. When Berman found that other such objectionable headings were being used in library catalogs worldwide, he launched a campaign to redress the situation by publicly singling out controversial subject headings and biased language. Given his position at HCL, Berman and his staff submitted regular lists of hundreds of subject headings to be revised. They made the changes locally in HCL’s catalog, and many of those submissions were successfully adopted by LC. A prolific writer, Berman’s contributions and published works, besides Prejudices, included Joy of Cataloging, Subject Cataloging: Critiques and Innovations, and Jackdaws strut in peacock’s feathers (in Librarians at Liberty).14 In the HCL Cataloging Bulletin (begun in 1973 and published until 1999), the subject headings designated for revision by Berman fell into the following categories: Awkward/bizarre vocabulary; Unrecognized topics & genres; Biased vocabularies; Needed but unrecognized cross-references & subdivisions; Inconsistent assignment to literary works; Inadequate assignment; and Mistakes.15

Berman’s influence on the “radicalization” of other catalogers cannot be ignored. Gross stated, “He has inspired and challenged generations of catalogers to prioritize the needs of library users over deferential adherence to standards.”16 Notably, HCL’s bibliographic database and the authority files were largely a local system created and managed by Berman and independent of LC’s required standards and norms. Berman’s method of exercising his own form of professional autonomy when making changes to LCSH terms did not include going through the formal SACO proposal workflow expected of all catalogers. As specified on the SACO Proposal Workflow website: “SACO proposals must go through the editorial process in order to be incorporated into the controlled vocabulary of Library of Congress Subject Headings.”17 Berman admits to this himself:

I plead guilty to recommending new and revised subject headings outside the officially-prescribed channels. I have been doing so for decades… All are proposed with model scope notes and cross-references and frequently accompanied by usage-examples, assignment candidate citations, and definitions from authoritative thesauri and other sources.18

Further examination of Berman’s motivation is beyond the focus of this paper. The purpose here is to demonstrate the steps involved when submitting a proposal to revise, replace, or delete an established subject heading in LCSH using the “officially-prescribed channels” of the SACO Subject Heading Proposal System, which is available to participating members of the SACO program via LC’s subscription-based cataloging tool, Classification Web.19

Few papers address the process for submitting subject heading revision proposals to the PTCP. Ferris examined the process involved when using the SACO system to propose new subject headings for inclusion in LCSH.20 In the following sections, the author demonstrates, first, the proposal submitted to revise the subject authority record for “Concentration camps,” seeking to remove the 450 cross reference, Internment camps, from that record and, second, the proposal to have that reference established as a separate subject heading. The proposals were reviewed, vetted, and subsequently approved with significant modifications by PTCP Division specialists.

The Subject Heading Revision Process

LC Documentation

LC provides ample documentation and instructions for catalogers to consult when making proposals to modify LCSH terms. The online document, Process for Adding and Revising Library of Congress Subject Headings, lists the steps to follow when preparing any proposal. Background information in the introductory “Overview” section states:

“LCSH has been continually updated since its first edition was published in 1914. Until the second half of the twentieth century, proposals to add headings and to change existing headings were made by LC catalogers alone. Today, LC also accepts proposals from libraries and other institutions that participate in the Subject Authority Cooperative (SACO) Program. Suggestions for improvement may also be submitted by the general public by emailing the Policy, Training and Cooperative Programs Division (PTCP).

Cataloging policy specialists in PTCP, the unit of LC that maintains LCSH, review thousands of proposals every year and determine whether each should be accepted and incorporated into LCSH. A majority of the proposals submitted each year are accepted.”21

The Subject Heading Manual (SHM) contains instruction sheet H193 Changing a Heading or Deleting a Subject Authority Record that provides guidance when seeking to: (1) change the data in the 1XX field and reassign the old heading to the 4XX (Used For) field as a cross-reference, (2) completely delete the subject authority record, or (3) split the original heading into two or more new headings, thereby deleting the original heading and creating new subject headings with new control numbers.22 Another instruction sheet, H195 Changing References in Subject Authority Records, explains the process for adding, deleting, or altering 260 (the Complex See reference), 360 (the Complex See Also reference), 4XX (See From tracing) and 5XX (See Also From Tracing) fields related to subject heading references only.23 Both documents instruct catalogers to use the SACO Proposal System via Classification Web.24

Figure 1 shows the Subject Heading Proposal System menu in an earlier version that was available to the author in 2019. A newer version was released in 2020 by the Cataloging Distribution Service at LC (see appendix).

Figure 2 shows the drop-down menu that appears when a subject heading term is searched. The subject heading, Birds, was selected to illustrate this point. As previously noted, few studies have described the process of submitting proposals to make changes to an authorized subject heading in the LC Subject Authority File until this paper. Figure 3 shows the subject authority record for Concentration camps (LCCN # sh85029589), the subject heading in question, that was originally established by LC in 1986.

As a valid cross reference, the fourth 450, Internment camps, directs researchers to use the authorized 150 heading, Concentration camps, when searching for works on the topic of internment camps. The author was compelled to propose a change to this subject authority record. The reasoning is explained in the next section.

Method

While on sabbatical leave in 2018 to research how Holocaust materials are cataloged in Polish libraries, the author had the opportunity to tour the Auschwitz concentration camp in Oświęcim, Poland. The author also visited the internment camp in Drancy, a town on the outskirts of Paris, where the Nazis gathered Jewish people before transporting them to Auschwitz. Having managed the cataloging of over 4,000 monographs in the Harry W. Mazal Holocaust Collection at the University of Colorado Boulder, the author was surprised to see that the internment camp at Drancy had been established as Drancy (Concentration camp (sh 85039387)). Figure 4 shows the authority record in OCLC.

Superseded versions of the authority record—established as a MARC110 Corporate Body—show that upgrades have been made through the years, such as the addition of new RDA coding and 670 fields indicating that the camp was a “transit camp” and a “detention camp.” After seeing the obvious differences between an extermination camp and a transit camp, the author prepared to submit two proposals: (1) to have the cross reference, Internment camps, removed from the subject authority record for Concentration camps, and (2) to establish that term as a separate subject heading. It is worth noting that the motivation for making this proposal did not stem from any of the categories seen in Berman’s HCL Cataloging Bulletin. Instead, the author’s rationale was to justify the change to the qualifier for the Drancy camp so that it would display more accurately as “Drancy (Internment camp).”

Proposal 1: Removing a 450 Cross Reference

The author followed the steps outlined in H195 Changing References in Subject Authority Records:

• The subject heading Concentration camps (sh85029589) was identified in the Subject Heading Proposal System in Classification Web (see figure 1);
• “Propose a change to this record” was selected from the dropdown menu (see figure 2);
• The first three 450 cross references, Death camps; Detention camps; Extermination camps, were retained in alphabetical order (see figure 3);
• The 450 cross reference, Internment camps, was deleted;
• The 550 See Also references, Detention of persons and Military camps, were retained;
• A new 550 See Also reference for Internment camps was added in accordance with H195, #3 which stipulates “in order to link two headings as related terms, the authority record for each heading must have a 5XX field containing the other heading.”25

No further changes were necessary. Figure 5 shows the final version of Proposal 1 prior to submission to PTCP.

Proposal 2: Proposing a New Subject Heading

The next step in the process was to submit the proposal to establish a separate subject heading for Internment camps as the “related term” to Concentration camps. Using the Subject Heading Proposal System (see figure 1), the author selected “Propose a New HeadingTopical Heading” and completed the form seen in figure 6.

Following the steps in Process for Adding and Revising Library of Congress Subject Headings, the author entered the information below:

• 053: The LC Class number, HV8963 (CF 93007851053), was assigned since it already existed in LC Classification (LCC) schedules for the topic of concentration camps and internment camps;
• 150: The heading, Internment camps, was added;
• 450: Transit camps was added as a cross reference and justified in the first 670 with the work by Stone;
• 550: Concentration camps was inserted to create the Related Term link between the two subject headings;
• 670s: Following the guidelines in Process for Adding…, the author researched a variety of reference sources for usage, definitions, and descriptions related to internment camps. 670 fields were added to show citations from two monographs, the US Holocaust Museum website, an online article, and an entry from Wikipedia;
• 952: The Cataloger’s Comments field was used to provide the author’s reason for making the proposal and to alert PTCP about numerous authority records that would need to be revised after the qualifier Internment camp could be used instead of Concentration camp.

Figure 7 shows the final version of Proposal #2 before it was submitted for review by PTCP.

Proposals 1 and 2 were submitted on February 10, 2020, with an email addressed to naco@loc.gov to notify the PTCP that the proposals had been submitted. On April 19, 2021, the Summary of Decisions from Editorial Meeting 2104 was posted as a joint announcement pertaining to the two proposals.26 The announcement states:

Internment camps; concentration camps

Proposals to remove the UF [Used For] Internment camps from the heading Concentration camps and establish it separately appeared on this list. Rather than approving the proposals as submitted, the heading Concentration camps was cancelled and replaced by two headings, Nazi concentration camps and Internment camps. Internment camps has a UF from Concentration camps, and Nazi concentration camps is an NT [Narrower Term] of Internment camps. Going forward, works about concentration or internment camps other than those established by the Nazis should be assigned the heading Internment camps. Alternately, separate headings for concentration camps run by other regimes (e.g., the Khmer Rouge) may be proposed and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Headings in the form Concentration camp . . . (e.g., Concentration camp buildings) also will be cancelled and replaced by two headings. Those proposals will appear on a future tentative list.

Each proposal was ultimately approved and added to the Subject Authority File on May 18, 2021.

Results

Modifications to Proposal 1 made by the PTCP

Figure 8 shows the new subject heading authority record for Nazi concentration camps.

A review of the final authority record shows the modifications that were made by PTCP specialists to Proposal 1 (see figure 5):

• 010: The new LCCN number “sh 2021003726” was assigned alongside the cancelled number ($z);
• 150: The main heading was changed to Nazi concentration camps;
• 360: The Complex See Also reference was deleted because the Explanatory text scope note ($i), used to show the relationship between the 150 heading and other established subjects, was no longer valid;
• 450 #1: Concentration camps was reassigned as a cross reference; the subfield code (“$w nne”) indicates that this term had been a previously authorized RDA access point and a valid LCSH subject heading;
• 450 #2: A variant form of the main heading was added in indirect order;
• 450 #3 & #4: Variant forms of the two cross references for Nazi death camps and Nazi extermination camps were added in indirect order. Note: all the cross references are listed in alphabetical order.
• 450 #5 & #6: Cross references for Nazi death camps and Nazi extermination camps were added in direct order;
• 450: The cross reference for Detention camps was removed since the original 670 justifying its use as a variant access point was deleted;
• 550: Internment camps was added as a See Also From reference; the subfield code ($w g) indicates that this established subject heading is a “broader term” than the established subject heading in the 150 field;
• 550: The cross references for Detention of persons and Military camps were removed since the 670s that served to justify their use as variant access points had been deleted;
• 670: All Source Information Data from the original authority record were deleted;
• 670 #1: The work by Dan Stone was added; it provides a clear distinction between the function of a Nazi concentration camp and an internment camp;
• 670 #2: An entry from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Holocaust Encyclopedia was added; it provides a crucial definition showing the main function of the Nazi camp system as opposed to that of other types of prison camps.

Modifications to Proposal 2 made by the PTCP

Figure 9 shows the new subject heading authority record for Internment camps.

The modifications made by the PTCP to Proposal 2 (see figure 7) are as follows:

• 010: The new LCCN number “sh 2020000306” was assigned alongside the cancelled ($z) number for the former subject heading Concentration camps;
• 360: The Complex See Also reference was added as an Explanatory text ($i) scope note to show the relationship between the 150 heading and other established subjects;
• 450: The cross reference for Transit camps was deleted as it was no longer necessary;
• 450 #1: Concentration camps was assigned as a cross reference; the subfield code (“$w nne”) indicates that this term had been a previously authorized RDA access point and a valid LCSH subject heading;
• 550: The See Also From reference Concentration camps ($w g) was no longer valid as that subject heading authority record had been deleted;
• 550: Detention of persons was added as a See Also From reference; the subfield code ($w g) indicates that this established subject heading is a “broader term” than the established subject heading in the 150 field;
• 670: The work by Stone was deleted as a reference source from this record and reassigned in the subject authority record for Nazi concentration camps;
• 670 #1: The work by McGrath was retained with some enhancement; the subfield $u (Uniform Resource Identifier) link was repositioned to the end of the field;
• 670 #2: The work by Myers and Moshenska was retained;
• 670 #3: An entry from the Oxford English Dictionary was added to distinguish between the definition of an internment camp and a concentration camp.

Bibliographic File Maintenance

Instruction sheet H 165, Subject Heading Changes in Bibliographic Records provides guidance in the steps required to complete the authority file maintenance—with prior vetting and approval by PTCP—when an existing subject heading has been changed or a new subject heading has been established.27 More specifically, paragraph 1.b, “Revising existing subject headings” addresses the maintenance to be done when updating a subject heading from its old form to the new form; paragraph 1.c, “Establishing new subject headings” states, “Search the bibliographic database to locate existing bibliographic records for which the new heading is appropriate. In some cases, the existing subject heading or headings will be deleted and the new heading substituted. In other cases, the existing headings will be retained and the new heading added.”28

The LCSH Approved Monthly List 06a dated June 18, 2021 noted that file maintenance was done to eighty-six subject heading records because of the changes generated by the Concentration camps and the Internment camps proposals. Below are examples of the file maintenance performed:

SAMPLE: New Heading (forty-five new subject headings were established.)

150 Child internment camp inmates [May Subd Geog] [sp2021004026]

450 UF Child concentration camp inmates [Former heading]

550 BT Internment camp inmates

SAMPLE: Cancelled Heading (twenty-four subject headings were cancelled.)

150 Child concentration camp inmates CANCEL HEADING [sp 00000273 ]

682 This authority record has been deleted because the heading is covered by the subject headings Child internment camp inmates (DLC)sh2021004026 and Child Nazi concentration camp inmates (DLC)sh2021004027

SAMPLE: Changed Heading (Five headings were changed.)

150 Concentration camp uprisings--Poland CHANGE HEADING

150 Nazi concentration camp uprisings--Poland [sp2019102875]

Conclusion

It is worth highlighting the importance of literary warrant—the critical principle that guides all catalogers when establishing a subject heading in LCSH. As taught in the course, “Basic Subject Cataloging using LCSH,” the main aspects of literary warrant are:

• Subject headings are created for use in cataloging and reflect the topics covered in a given collection
• The terminology selected to formulate individual subject headings reflects the terminology used in current literature.29

Catalogers recognize that the subject headings they may find to be objectionable or pejorative today were once valid headings that figured prominently in the literature or that conformed to usage in specific collections. At the same time, catalogers are aware of the evolving nature of language—and, likewise, the nature of literary warrant—because such changes have major consequences on the LCSH terms that they assign in their catalogs. Buckland summarized the unavoidable “obsolescence” of assigned subject headings thus:

Even when the denotation is stable, the connotation or attitudes to the connotation may change. Always, some linguistic expressions are socially unacceptable. That might not matter much, except that what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable not only differs from one cultural group to another, but changes over time, and, especially during changes, may be the site of contest.30

Fortunately, catalogers have the means to rectify the situation by making necessary revisions and adjustments to subject headings in LCSH via the SACO program. In this paper, the revision to the authorized subject heading Concentration camps is a case in point. Stone affirmed that the connotation of the term has changed through the years, “The term ‘concentration camps’ has come to denote places like Dachau when in fact most of them were quite different.”31 By actively participating in programs such as SACO, or working through such platforms as the Cataloging Lab, catalogers from libraries and institutions show that they are committed to revising problematic subject headings, continuing the work started by Berman and others. Hopefully, going forward and knowing that there are systems available to catalogers to make needed changes to LCSH, more such subject heading revisions will be submitted and approved.32

References and Notes

1. Violet Fox, “Field Reports: The Cataloging Lab,” Library Journal 143, no. 6 (April 1, 2018): 12–14.
2. The Cataloging Lab, accessed January 8, 2022, https://cataloginglab.org/.
3. Pauline A. Cochrane and Monika Kirtland, Critical Views of LCSH—The Library of Congress Subject Headings; A Bibliographic and Bibliometric Essay and An Analysis of Vocabulary Control in the Library of Congress List of Subject Headings (LCSH) (Syracuse University Printing Services, 125 College Place, Syracuse, NY 13210, 1981), accessed January 8, 2022, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED208900.
4. Cynthia C. Ryans, “A Study of Errors Found in Non-MARC Cataloging in a Machine-Assisted System,” Journal of Library Automation 11, no. 2 (1978): 125–32; Judith Hudson, “Revisions to Contributed Cataloging in a Cooperative Cataloging Database,” Journal of Library Automation 14, no. 2 (1981): 116–20.
5. Kayo Denda, “Beyond Subject Headings A Structured Information Retrieval Tool for Interdisciplinary Fields,” Library Resources and Technical Services 49, no. 4 (2005): 267–68.
6. Laura Salas-Tull and Jacque Halverson, “Subject Heading Revision: A Comparative Study,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 7, no. 3 (1987): 3–12; Edna McClellan, “Subject Headings for OCLC Rare Book Records: A Case Study,” OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives 19, no. 3 (2003): 100–105.
7. Sandford Berman, Prejudices and Antipathies: A Tract on the LC Subject Heads Concerning People (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1993).
8. Karen A. Nuckolls, “Subject Access to Diversity Materials,” Reference Librarian 21, no. 45–46 (1994): 241–51; Karen A. Nuckolls, “LC Subject Headings, FAST Headings, and Apps: Diversity Can Be Problematic In the 21st Century,” (2015), Law Faculty Scholarly Articles, 555, https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/555; Denda, “Beyond Subject Headings,” 266–75; Sara A. Howard and Steven A. Knowlton, “Browsing through Bias: The Library of Congress Classification and Subject Headings for African American Studies and LGBTQIA Studies,” Library Trends 67, no. 1 (2018): 74–88; Tracy Waterman, “Sex and Gender in the Library of Congress Subject Headings, 1988–2003,” (master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2004).
9. Sheila A. Bair, “Toward a Code of Ethics for Cataloging,” Technical Services Quarterly 23, no. 1 (2005): 6.
10. American Libraries Magazine, “Library of Congress Changes Illegal Aliens Subject Heading,” accessed January 13, 2022. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blogs/the-scoop/library-of-congress-changes-illegal-aliens-subject-heading/.
11. Jake Scobey-Thal, “Illegal Alien: A Short History,” Foreign Policy (blog), accessed July 24, 2021, https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/27/illegal-alien-a-short-history/; Tina Gross, “Examining the Subject Heading ‘Illegal Aliens,’” (presentation, CaMMS Forum: Working Within and Going Beyond: Approaches to Problematic Terminology or Gaps in Established Vocabularies, American Library Association Midwinter Meeting, Atlanta, GA, January 22, 2017); “Resolution on Replacing the Library of Congress Subject Heading ‘Illegal Aliens’ with ‘Undocumented Immigrants,’” January 25, 2021, www.ala.org/aboutala/sites/ala.org.aboutala/files/content/ALA%20CD%2044%20Final%20Revision%20Resolution%20on%20replacing%20the%20Library%20of%20Congress%20Subject%20Heading%20_Illegal%20aliens_%20with%20_Undocumented%20immigrants_.pdf.
12. Brian M. Watson, “‘There Was Sex but No Sexuality:’ Critical Cataloging and the Classification of Asexuality in LCSH,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 58, no. 6 (2020): 547–65, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2020.1796876.
13. Burl Gilyard, “Sandy Berman’s Last Stand,” City Pages 20, no. 971 (1999): 3.
14. Sanford Berman, Joy of Cataloging (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1981); Sanford Berman, “Subject Cataloging: Critiques and Innovations,” Technical Services Quarterly 2, no. 1–2 (1984); Sanford Berman, “Jackdaws Strut in Peacock’s Feathers: The Sham of ‘Standard’ Cataloging,” Librarians at Liberty 5, no. 2 (1998): 1, 4–21.
15. Berman, “Jackdaws Strut in Peacock’s Feathers,” 4–8.
16. Sanford Berman and Tina Gross, “Expand, Humanize, Simplify: An Interview with Sandy Berman,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 55, no. 6 (2017): 347.
17. “SACO Proposal Workflow—SACO—Program for Cooperative Cataloging (Library of Congress),” accessed July 24, 2021, www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/SACOWorkflow.html.
18. Berman and Gross, “Expand, Humanize, Simplify,” 354.
19. In an email from January 5, 2022, Patricia Hayward, Product Services Librarian with the Policy and Standards Division at LC, confirmed that “Libraries who subscribe to Class Web must be SACO members to access the proposal system. We have had discussions about opening the proposal system in a read-only format for all, so at least all Class Web subscribers could easily see what is being proposed but that’s a policy decision that is still being worked on. The Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms (LCDGT) has been revived and is operating under an ‘advisory group’ which includes outside organizations, not just LC Policy staff. This advisory group was given access to Class Web and the proposal system with read-only capabilities in order to assist with input for demographic terms. This is a trial program for LCDGT only, but the general idea here is to see if something like this might work with LCSH and make it more participatory.” Information about Classification Web (a product developed by the Minaret company—which is also the name of the Class Web proprietary database) is available at www.loc.gov/cds/classweb/. For non-PCC institutions, the Subject Authority Proposal Form is available at www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcshproposalformnew.pdf.
20. Anna M. Ferris, “Birth of a Subject Heading,” Library Resources & Technical Services 62, no. 1 (2018): 16–27.
21. “Process for Adding and Revising Library of Congress Subject Headings,” accessed July 24, 2021, www.loc.gov/aba/cataloging/subject/lcsh-process.html.
22. “H193 Changing a Heading or Deleting a Subject Authority Record,” Library of Congress, Subject Headings Manual, January 2020, www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0193.pdf.
23. “H195 Changing References in Subject Authority Records,” Library of Congress, Subject Headings Manual, January 2020, www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0195.pdf.
24. “Subject Heading Proposal Menu,” accessed July 24, 2021, https://classweb.org/Menu/subject.html.
25. “H195 Changing References in Subject Authority Records,” Library of Congress, Subject Headings Manual, January 2020, accessed July 24, 2021, www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0195.pdf.
26. “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 2104,” Subject Authority Cooperative Program, Program for Cooperative Cataloging, Library of Congress, April 19, 2021, www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/cpsoeditorial.html.
27. “H165 Subject Heading Changes in Bibliographical Records,” Library of Congress, Subject Headings Manual, January 2020, www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0165.pdf.
28. “H165 Subject Heading Changes in Bibliographical Records.”
29. Lori Robare et al., “Basic Subject Cataloging Using LCSH: Instructor’s Manual,” Subject Analysis Committee, Association of Library Collections & Technical Services, American Library Association, 2011, www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/basicsubject/pdf/LCSH_Instructor_2011.pdf.
30. Michael K. Buckland, “Obsolescence in Subject Description,” Journal of Documentation 68, no. 2 (2012): 159.
31. Dan Stone, Concentration Camps: A Short History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 131.
32. In July 2021, Cataloging Policy specialists with the PTCP approved the author’s request to substitute the qualifier Internment camp for Concentration camp in 110 authority records where the case applied. On July 26, 2021, the author revised the heading for ARN #4172205, which now displays as Drancy (Internment camp).

Appendix