Talk:Private Case

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Private Case article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Private Case is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 12, 2023.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 28, 2023	Peer review	Reviewed
July 15, 2023	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bibliophile

Currently I am confused by the inclusion of the word "bibliophile" throughout the article. I reverted my partial change to "bibliographer" upon learning that a bibliophile can also refer to a book collector. However, there is a sentence here reading: "In around 1934 the bibliophile and collector Alfred Rose". This explicitly separates what it means to be a 'phile and a collector. However as my original edit summary stated, being a book lover itself isn't really noteworthy; the act of collecting books or being a bibliographer is. Thus, I think that sentence should either be "In around 1934 the bibliophile Alfred Rose" or "In around 1934 the book collector Alfred Rose", consistent in all mentions. I might be wrong, so I'd love external input on this. Gerald WL 09:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliophile is not necessarily a book collector: it is a book lover. It's meaning is in its etymology: "biblio" from the French for book and "phile" from the Greek (ϕίλος) for friend. Additionally, a bibliophile is nothing to do with a bibliographer. Addendum: just checking the OED, where it lists bibliophile as "A lover of books; a book-fancier; also as adjective", and no mention of collecting at all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. That just further reaffirms my question: what does being a bibliophile have to do with the content of this article? Certainly their donations of books were not simply due to their bibliophilia, but due to their activity of book collecting; thus, Alfred Rose being a book collector is a more noteworthy credential than Rose being a bibliophile. A similar case is with "The historian and bibliophile Patrick J. Kearney"-- him being a book lover doesn't establish any credibility, him being a historian does. Gerald WL 03:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It provides pertinent information on the people in question. - SchroCat (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you think it is pertinent, but in what ways? The article for Henry Spencer Ashbee, for instance, mentions him as "a book collector, writer and bibliographer." That, too, is the pertinent information in this article in my view, as him being solely an enthusiast of books do not explain his "bequest to the library in 1900 of 15,299 volumes containing 8,764 works"; it would make more sense to him being a book collector (which is not misinformation) then elaborate it with his enourmous donation. Whether they love books or not, as I see it here, is secondary to their actual occupation. Gerald WL 10:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we will have to agree to disagree. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent references

Piledhigheranddeeper, can you let me know what this is and where it can be found? I’ll put it into a consistent format with the other references, as it looks rather odd at the moment. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented it out again. I found a copy of the RFI (at https://web.archive.org/web/20100727085658/http://www.library.yale.edu/preservation/Mudd%20RFI%20final.pdf), which gives no information about their Zeta holdings. There is a diagram showing where "Zeta" is located in the archives, but no further information as to what it is. Hopefully you will be able to find a better reference to it, as I think it would be a worthwhile addition. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ref showed that Zeta was no longer kept hidden away. Here are some cites for what the collection contained: Jeffrey F. Thomas, "Yale's Zeta Shelves: Fanny Hill and Emily Post", Yale Daily News, Oct. 12, 1957, p. 7. Mark Schuster, "Library houses pornography from A to Zeta", Yale Daily News, Oct. 3, 1979, p. 7. You may insert as you like.

Except it doesn't show that. It has a map with the word "Zeta" on it, but no indication what "Zeta" refers to or whether anything has been moved. Given the two Yale Daily News are from 1957 and 1979, I'm not sure they can be used to support something that claims a collection was moved. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has a map of the general circulation stacks from ca. 2004, showing that Zeta is in there, and therefore in general circulation (and thus, no longer sequestered). The earlier refs are for the proposition that the "private" collection was called "Zeta" and a small description of what was in there. If that's too much to handle, I would suggest dropping the last clause from the sentence. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is too problematic for inclusion. Aside from the overt WP:SYNTH needed to join up some disparate dots, having a map does not say that whatever collection of erotica and pornography Yale held was open access. Given there is no reference in any works to Yale holding a significant or notable collection, let alone how it has been handled or dealt with, I wonder if it's even worth mentioning, given the section is only about the other notable collections held, rather than just any holdings by every institution. This article is about a collection of the British library, not a general article about similar collections held by all institutions around the world. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like there might be enough in the Yale Daily News sources to say that Yale categorised its pornography under "Zeta", at least in the 1950s? That would fit the (consciously fairly minimal) attention given to e.g. the Phi/Fie collection. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I can't write it: I haven't read or seen the source. I'll always AGF that it exists and it supports things others have written, but I won't write anything based on a source I haven't read. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"with no restrictions on access"

Hmm.. along with some previously less restricted material with a different catalogue code, you have to sit in certain seats to read it and - unlike the rest of the main reading rooms - you're not allowed to photograph "restricted or special access material" like this even if it's out of copyright. Lovingboth (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you have described is not a restriction on access and not correct for all items. It’s also the same process for other holdings at the BL. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it applies to all of the 'PC' and 'Cup' catalogue material I've ever looked at. In the days of the British Museum's Reading Room, you had to be sat at a table in front of the desk in a side room opposite the Reading Room's main entrance. Now, there is a table - still watched over - in both Humanities 1 and 2 where you have to sit that is reserved for those materials. This does not apply to any other material in those rooms.

It's absolutely not a big restriction on access, but it is a small one. Certainly in the Museum days, if all the seats at the naughty table were filled, you'd be told that you couldn't have the requested material.

Those tables have 'no photos' signs that the other tables conspicuously lack. I've not tried breaking that rule to see if it's enforced, but it's there. Lovingboth (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum days finished a while ago! There are no similar restrictions in place currently ~~(indeed, there is a 1964 copy of Fanny Hill shelved in one of the reading rooms for any readers to access and sit where they will)~~. Many of the older books are only viewable in the Rare Books reading room, but that is because of their age. Other parts of the collection are available in any of the reading rooms, but with no restrictions. As an aside, the electoral roll records can only be viewed in the Social Sciences reading room and cannot be photographed or scanned, but it's still not a restriction on access, just on the method of copying, as full copies can be written by hand. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not my experience: each time I get something from the PC or Cup catalogue material, I'm directed to a specific table in Humanities, no matter how innocuous it would be now - but OK.

I do note that there are - unsurprisingly - plenty of copies of Fanny Hill. Some are PC (e.g. P.C.30.g.51. from 1850), some are Cup (e.g. Cup.410.b.61 from 1900ish), and some are general (e.g. YA.1999.a.941 from 1890ish or X.958/5008 from 1960). No-one ever claimed the cataloguing was consistent, but I would be very surprised if it was a copy from the first two catalogue sections that was on open access.

What's the catalogue number of the 1964 version? The only one from 1964 I can find in the catalogue is a German edition and that's PC. Lovingboth (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the '64: it was an appendix about FH, rather than the work itself.

I don't know what to say about your personal experiences, but the works are available in multiple reading rooms, as searches on a few of the sources show (the older ones being directed to Rare Books, others available in a reading room of one's choice); the digitised copies available through Gage are similarly available in multiple locations in the BL (and worldwide too!). Regardless of that original research, we reflect what the sources say, which is that there are no restrictions to accessing the material. Cordially - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Open access"

A bit of library terminology from someone in the trade: for material to be on "open access" it will be on a shelf in the open library which anyone can access and take books off. The opposite is "closed access" where an item is kept on a shelf in a section of the library only accessible to staff or offsite, and readers have to order the material to a reading room. The Private Case material was formerly restricted, which meant it could only be viewed by special permission. It is no longer restricted, but neither is it kept on a generally accessible shelf, so it cannot be sad to be on "open access". Wilus (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded: it's not accessible via the catalogue. That suggests that to look at the material you can look at a catalogue: you can't you can only find the listing in the catalogue. - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]