Talk:Bodleian Library

The Annals

An e-text of the Annals of the Bodleian Library, Oxford, A.D. 1598-A.D. 1867 by William Dunn Macray is now avaiable as a free download on Project Gutenberg. Does this warrant inclusion as a useful reference in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslin344 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Problematic wording - OULS/Bodleian rename

Hi - I represent the Bodleian Libraries and have just noticed the wording under 'Present and Future of Libraries' (last line) regarding identity and the name change to Bodleian Libraries from OULS. The wording is not neutral, and the citation used does not back the statement made (citation is a factual note of name change; sentence cites loss of identity etc).

Could someone please take a look and, if appropriate, please remove the statement. It is not backed up by fact. Thanks! --Liz McCarthy (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have removed the editorialising.--ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Create a template for the libraries' digitised volumes?

More than 300,000 of their rare books have been digitised and put on the web. Should we create a template to cite any of these used in Wikipedia? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Ovenden - new director

Hi all - The Bodleian has a new Bodley's Librarian, Richard Ovenden. I've updated his name in the sidebox as I felt it was a minor change, but am hesitant to do more due to conflict of interest issues (I'm in the Library's comms office). There are some updates needed in the section Bodley's Librarian. Would someone be willing to jump in? I'd suggest simply replacing the bit on Sarah Thomas with the following unless someone wants to add more background on Richard Ovenden:

The current Librarian, Richard Ovenden, was appointed in February 2014.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz McCarthy (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed for you Liz... think he was appointed 25 January? --gobears87 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Could use more good references! Only two valid references remaining. Have deleted the following as the link was dead and a thorough search of the Cherwell site shows it is well gone. *Price, Henry Clarke (16 November 2007). "The Bod's Secret Underbelly". Cherwell. Retrieved 2008-12-18. --gobears87 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Restored. Always check for the cache. 16:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.176.19 (talk)

Edit request: update number of holdings

I'm making this request rather than editing directly because I'm a paid employee of the Bodleian. The lead and infobox presently describe the number of holdings as 11M+. This was true until the start of last week, when the 12 millionth acquisition was announced. This was covered in third-party sources, for example:

• Alison Flood (10 November 2015). "Lost Shelley poem execrating 'rank corruption' of ruling class made public". The Guardian.
• Hannah Furness (11 November 2015). "'Lost' Shelley poem which helped get him expelled from Oxford to be seen at last". The Telegraph.
• "Percy Bysshe Shelley's lost poem acquired by Oxford University". BBC News. 10 November 2015.

Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: I'm rushing out the door right now, but if nobody's taken care of it by the time I get back late Thursday, I'd be happy to take a look at it then. Feel free to ping me if it looks like I have forgotten. --Xover (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done

I've updated both counts, and added a paragraph to the lede about the Shelley text. I figure we can leave that up in the lede for a bit while it's newsworthy, and relocate it (possibly trimmed somewhat) somewhere else later (I couldn't find a better place to deal with this, but somewhere in the History section is probably appropriate). Two things to take note of: 1) I didn't change the ref for the numbers, as the Bodleian's "About us" page would seem the most natural place to cite for this, but as it still lists the number as 11+, you may want to ping the webmaster about that. 2) I've tagged the relevant bit of the para in the lede with {{update after}} since it talks about the display of the physical work in the present tense, which will have to be changed to past tense (or removed) once it is no longer on display.

Hope that was what you had in mind (let me know if not). Also, @MartinPoulter and Liz McCarthy: please feel free to give me a holler if there's anything I can help with, such as WP:COI preventing you from easy fixes like this. I'd be more then happy to help out the Bodleian when I can. --Xover (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's great- and thanks for spotting the out-of-date bit on the Bodleian's own site. We'll get that fixed. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bodleian Library/CommentsTalk:Bodleian Library/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lots of useful and interesting stuff on this page, along with several photos and a fair few references. A candidate for WP:GA in the near future, hopefully! Casper Gutman 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Ok, I'll bite, Jack Sebastian ... Why did you remove a huge chunk of text that was equally sourced to what you left in? Did you seriously expect updated references to external webpages for all of it despite the fact the linked pages substantiated much of it? Also what the heck does "as promised, removing unsupported statements from the Pop culture section. Disagree with the removal? Bring a source or ping me in article discussion" - as promised WHERE? If you want to discuss an article, that's what this talk page is for. NOT in revision comments. I agree with the revision in part only because some of the information belonged in a different section or place. Just for example, why remove Harkness info and what kind of source would you insist has to be there to include it? It is in fact set there and actually should appear under location filming as well, since the tv series was filmed there. The filming section is woefully incomplete IMHO.

I'm not here to argue, just looking for proper justification on "as promised" (which you appear to do a lot of in your edits) and also why take away info on novels and leave only filming? That section is equally unsourced per your criteria. Why not remove all of it per your 'justification'? --gobears87 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian is referring to the fact that he added a "References needed" tag to the "Novels" subsection on 14 January, saying in his edit summary that "I will wait a week before removing uncited statements" – before deleting the entire subsection, and heavily pruning the (untagged) "Location filming" subsection, on 16 January, "as promised". He appears to have left in place the second sentence of "Location filming" because it did have a footnote (although as the cited source is a book specifically on Inspector Morse locations, it's unclear how reliable it's likely to be on these other productions). Personally, I tend to agree with gobears87: certainly the whole "Popular culture" section was and remains in need of improvement, but this sort of block deletion is not helpful. The deleted statements were not footnoted, but they were (mostly) effectively referenced, as details of the books and films in question were provided in-text – the reader had an indication of where to go for more information, which is the main purpose of references. The article is now poorer. GrindtXX (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me Grindtxx, and hello Gobears87. After casting about unsuccessfully for sources for the statements that were later removed, I decided to tag the items as needing references. I did wait a week (and was pretty clear about what would occur if sources couldn't be found by others); I removed them after waiting for other to supply sourcing.

All of our articles require explicit sourcing; there is no 'wink and a nod' allowances for articles without the aforementioned references because they pad the article. To be more blunt, if the location of filming for a series had been of any particular importance, they would have talked about it. It would be cited somewhere. And yet, it is not. We can not use our own recognition of The Bod as verification.

Lastly, this is how sections that need improvement get improvement. Unsupportable stuff gets removed and only that which is verifiable and referenced comes back in. In such ways, GA and FA quality articles are made.

Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well obviously I agree with GrindtXX and disagree with the huge removal. There are CERTAINLY Wiki articles that had and have the box you added ("references needed") which remain in place for months if not years. I think it is hugely over-reaching to assume that people are paying so much attention to a page that you can jump in and remove a huge section in a week because "as warned". That's a big assumption and honestly quite aggressive as an editor. You seem to have been here long enough to really know better than to be so aggressive Jack Sebastian and I wonder if you have been told off for this at all? I am not disputing the lack of sourcing, but honestly if I had the time and energy I could revert your edit in one minute and actually add those sources in another hour or less. So my take is this: put it back and wait for people to get in and source it. Wikipedia evolves slowly and to allow a week and do what you did to the literary section but not the filming section (and again Grindtxx is right on this, it is equally poorly sourced) is.... as I suggest quite aggressive, IMHO. --gobears87 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

p.s. Jack Sebastian please comment on this: "After casting about unsuccessfully for sources for the statements that were later removed" if you have editorial or research skills you could have sourced that literary section in an hour like I suggest. You do yourself no favours as an editor making such statements that are provably bogus (to be nice about it). Further edit to add: It is really not impressive to see people who have never contributed to an article come swooping in and telling other editors that the page lacks sources... yes it was true for that section but it is certainly more wiki-polite to allow people who have spent time and energy on the page correct it. I see no prior contributions here from you, Mr Sebastian, so I wonder why you felt the need to come in and delete a large section? I'm not trying to be mean here just make it clear how such edits appear to others, especially long time editors. [edited for civility] --gobears87 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Gobears87, You might want to revisit that Civility part of Wikipedia, and remember that it isn't an electric fence, its a broad reminder to not get all attack-y with your fellow editor. I get it, you feel that your time spent in developing out the article is getting dissed so I can "brag" about it (apparently, some kinky feather stuff is involved, but I'm veering away from that). A really good clue for yourself is that if you have to preface a comment by saying "I'm not trying to be mean here", spoiler alert - you're being mean, and you aren't taking any great steps to avoid such.

Now, that said, I am here to discuss edits, and not the editor. I offered folk who (as you say) regularly contribute to the article to add sourcing, with the consideration that they had more resources routes than I was personally aware of. I think that if the editor is passionate about the topic, they can find the sources in the allotted time, or at the very least, post in the talk page that they are aware of the problem and would like additional time to address the sourcing issue.

I address my timing of the deletion in the post reply to Grindtxx, below. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

First "thought". Last time I checked, there were 168 hours in a week, not 70 (length of time between Jack Sebastian's initial warning and subsequent radical deletion).

Second "thought". While I agree with Jack Sebastian that claims about film locations need verification from secondary sources, claims that certain scenes in novels and films are set in a particular place can be sourced to the work itself. E.g., the statement "The denouement of Michael Innes's Operation Pax (1951) is set in an imaginary version of the underground bookstack, reached at night by sliding down the 'Mendip cleft', a chute concealed in Radcliffe Square" includes within it the author, title, and date of the source of the information. Ideally, it required a footnote with slightly fuller details – "Innes, Michael (1975) [1951]. Operation Pax. Harmondsworth: Penguin. pp. 300–316." – but you can't claim that the statement was unsourced. (And before you object that that's a citation of a primary source, I refer you to WP:PRIMARY, which does not prohibit primary sources, merely requires that they be used "with care": this is precisely the sort of case where they may be used.)

Third "thought". No, this this sort of tagbombing and rapid deletion is not how "sections that need improvement get improvement". It's the easiest thing in the world to roam Wikipedia and randomly spot, tag and delete substandard articles or sections, but it's the hard slog of editing that leads to improvement. GrindtXX (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

First off, I need to apologize, GrindtXX; I didn;t realize that I had not waited the actual week. That's completely on me. However you choose to characterize my removal of the text (honestly, 'radical' was a tad strong, dontcha think?), I had promised to wait a week, and I did not. Mea culpa.

So, because of that alone, I will self revert. Further, I due to the responses here, I will wait for two weeks from today. As hard a 'slog' it is to get editing done, sourcing is not typically one of the slower tasks. I would also point out that if a book does indeed note the appearance of The Bod in it, we have a template for noting such. No template source was present in the article at the time of the removal of the uncited statements. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Having not built that section, I'm not motivated to source it other than to keep it in... but Jack Sebastian if all it needs is a template, why don't you volunteer to do it? If you are here because you care about the article itself, and are so adamant about not having "unsourced" links then go for it (I agree with GrindtXX of course that the links within Wikipedia should suffice until it can be updated). Considering how long it took for the page to be built to this point, I cannot see any rush to remove all that stuff. Let it get sourced naturally. It is not an A-class, so I don't see what your rush to remove info is really all about? You hadn't worked on this page before, so what's the real reason here? If the reason is about improving the page and you have the ability, then do it. Deletion is fast, proper edits are slow. --gobears87 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

p.s. please could you add as well where you have already been "casting about unsuccessfully for sources", because from what I can see in similar articles with sources for literature, they simply put in the actual book with ISBN etc - were you unable to find those? Any info you add here about sourcing success or lack of will be helpful to future editors! Ta. --gobears87 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've already noted that I had run a basic search; I am unsure as to why you keep asking about it. If you feel you could find more sources, have at it. As for leaving the stuff in the article, I believe I have already explained why it cannot. Without sources, its not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not some random collection of info, nor a collection of our opinions. "If challenged, it must be sourced or removed," is the principle on point here. We don't add stuff first and source it later - that's ass-backwards. We add stuff with a source. That is the way it works. If you've been here for any amount of time, you should have absorbed that bit of editorial guidance before now.

So, if you are 'not motivated enough to source it', it begs the question as to why you are wasting my time with bitching about why I choose not to. I've given you two weeks to source the material in question; if you can't be bothered to look for it, don't come crying to me. Now, do you have anything more valuable to contribute to the conversation? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have enough of a tech background to do this in a speedy fashion... so I'm not inserting a template but am putting a bunch of references here which someone can use to start sourcing stuff. Don't have time for more at the moment. These took about 15 mins or less. The sources that are supposedly hard to find seemed quite easy to me... (still unclear about where "casting about unsuccessfully for sources" led one). Obviously others clearly have different ideas about research difficulties. A few pasted below will be a good start for any editor wishing for better sources:

SOURCES FOR BODLEIAN UPDATE:

Deborah Harkness, Discovery of Witches:

Book: Discovery of Witches, Author: Deborah Harkness, Publisher: Penguin Books, 2011, ISBN 978-0-670-02241-0

TV series, filming location: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2177461/locations?ref_=tt_dt_dt

Dorothy Sayers, Gaudy Night:

Book: (Bodleian appears 38 times per Google books) Gaudy Night, Volume 10 of The Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries, Author: Dorothy L. Sayers, Publisher: ::::::::Gollancz, 1935, ISBN 978-0062196538

Filming: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216476/reference

LINK FOR ALL BODLEIAN FILMING, EXTERNAL SOURCE:

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?locations=Bodleian%20Library,%20Broad%20Street,%20Oxford,%20Oxfordshire,%20England,%20UK&ref_=ttloc_loc_9

also

https://visit.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/filming-photography

To be included in locations per Bodleian reference:

The Favourite, Mary Queen of Scots, Three Harry Potter films, Golden Compass, The Madness of King George, several episodes of Inspector Morse and Lewis and Endeavour.

Happy editing! --gobears87 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see you rolled up your sleeves, Gobears87. However, you encountered at least two of the same problems that I did while I did my equally brief search for connecting sources.

First, we don't really utilize IMDB as a source, for a variety of reasons (as outlined in WP:IMDB-EL). It's okay that you didn't know that, because IMDB is a pretty awesome source for media articles detailing cast and crew, and not a lot of editors are aware of this caveat.

Secondly, we tend to avoid travel sites (of which visit.bodleian.ox.ac.uk is), as they are rife with marketing and advertising "alternative facts." (WP:ADV).

You spent "15 minutes or less" to come up with the same sources I did, but were unaware of lack of usability. There's no shame in that - you're relatively inexperienced, with less than 500 edits to your account. I am not saying I am an expert here, but you should always consider the 'durability'of a source: how likely is it to change (which can happen frequently in Imdb's user-generated content) or whether the information is being presented as enticement or inducement (such as a travel website suggesting why you should visit). Filmquest and TripAdvisor (likely among your search results) would also fall into this category.

A good example of an adequate source would be something like this article from RadioTimes or this article from BBC, both of which dispassionately discusses the appearances of The Bod in film and tv.

I hope that this has been instructive for you, Gobears87. I realize that you are still in that early editor phase where you sulk and get all insult-y towards anyone who disagrees with you. The sooner you get over that, the better editor you are going to end up being. Have a splendid day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now extensively (perhaps excessively) annotated the "Novels" subsection, and have removed the tag. I don't intend to work on the "Locations" subsection, partly because it's trickier (for reasons already stated), partly because it interests me less, but mainly because I resent having my arm twisted.

We're all volunteers here, and part of that means having the luxury of choosing what topics to work on, when, and at what pace. Tags have their uses in highlighting content that needs attention, but, as gobears87 has said, sometimes they remain in place for years. I don't think there's any explicit guidance on this, but personally I feel that, unless the factual accuracy of a claim is seriously in doubt, or it's a potential breach of privacy, it's reasonable to allow tagged statements to stand for perhaps 6 months to a year before deleting purely because they're unreferenced. Jack Sebastian's self-adopted policy of drive-by tagging with one-week deadlines comes across as officious (or, to use two other adjectives you dislike, "radical" and "aggressive"), and it's not surprising they raise other editors' hackles. Right, I'm out of here. GrindtXX (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GrindtXX, thanks for supplying your opinion on the matter, as well as doing the work requested. In response, allow me to state that I am sorry if you feel that my tagging of unsupported content ruffles your feathers. Frankly, that would appear to be a you-shaped problem, though.

My process is as follows: I will be following my bliss to any given article, and if I see info that seems like it needs references, I'll check the history of the section to see if it ever had refs. If not, I will make a cursory search for sources (in order to solve the problem, instead of just report it). Finding some means I will add them to the article. Finding none means I will tag it as needing referencing. Considering that the alternative is just removal, I consider my approach very diplomatic and respectful of the work that others have put into the article/section. I put a one-week time limit on it because - in a great many cases - the info has been in the article for years without referencing. The short time limit means that those people who are invested in the article or subject will get off their asses and scare up RS for the statements. If editors need time, or add even one RS in response to the 1 week warning, it sort of resets the clock.
The goal of my tagging effort is to get the article cited, not to upset people. There is a difference there; one is meant to improve the article, and the other is useless in improving the article.
That said, someone who argues that there's no rush to add references for 6-12 months, that its "reasonable" to allow this? Miss me with that nonsense. If there's no rush to reference the statements, then there's equally no rush to add the material in the first place. You add material to an article that you are able to cite. Full stop. Anything else turns this into some crufty fansite.
Again, thanks for your efforts to firm up the article with references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting the sources

Okay, I had thought that, after the conversation of last week, everyone would be on the same page about how we use sources here in this article (as well as within Wikipedia); clearly, I was wrong. Instead of simply reverting these sources out and replacing the 'cn' tag, I'm going to point out the problems with the sources, and hopefully engage in some productive discussion about them.

'In popular culture' section, subsection 'Novels':

• Paragraph 1: a number of citations connect to the actual book as opposed to a source (say, for instance, a reviewer) who notes the use of The Bod in the book. The exception to this is if the Bodleian is explicitly discussed (and not just in passing, which would be trivial) in the novel. I am seeing only the primary source of the book being used, but no indication as to how in-depth the library plays in the plot of the story, or if it is just a location (which, as noted before, would be considered trivial). To be clear, unless the Bodleian plays a significant part in the story, its trivial.
• Paragraph 2: an unsupported claim is made that Tolkien was familiar with the Red Book of Hengest. As well, the claim that Red Book of Westmarch is retold in LoTR is equally unsupported (the two sources added merely denote stories by Tolkien, and do not appear to be critical essays on his comparison to, his usage of, or even his interest in that topic). Fortunately, the statement noting the housing of his manuscripts at The Bod is well-documented, and there don't appear to be problems with that.
• Paragraph 3: While it would be better to have a secondary source confirming the use of The Bod in her novels, the use of the primary sourcing is acceptable (though it will become a problem when it gets to GA review).
• Paragraph 4: despite the representation in the article, there is no indication that The Bod plays any significant role in the plot or setting of Selwood's novel; not even the wiki article or editorial reviews even mention The Bod. It would appear to be a trivial mention.

subsection 'Location filming':

• the very first sentence was addressed before; you cannot use a travel/marketing tool as a source (as per WP:AD); if you want to source films/tv that use the Bodleian, you have to find confirmation from a source that isn't the source that benefits from self-promotion.
• the second sentence mentions all of the places that have supposedly used the Bod as a filming location, and yet only a single source - a location guide book for Inspector Morse is utilized. Each instance must be cited, and the use of a single, unrelated source to cover all of the supposed locations seems...disingenuous.
• the remaining sentences of the subsection are without any sort of citation.

subsection 'Quotation':

• nowhere in the section does it note a relationship to the Bodleian. Personally, I know that its the Reader's Oath and it originated at Oxford, but I know that because my Dad went there, and took me and my siblings back there to instill in us a reverence for books. But I can't use my own personal knowledge of this, and so therefore a source needs to be found that connects the Reader's Oath to The Bod. As well, a connection needs to be made from Exeter to the library as well.

So those are the hurdles to overcome in the section. I welcome healthy discussion on these matters, as I am intent on using only concrete sourcing for this article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

--- And it bears pointing out that, without discussion or objection, I will consider these free to smite shortly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to some of these specific points, but first some general comments. (1) Although I've had this article on my watchlist for some years and have made various minor edits to it, I am not responsible for any substantial part of it and have no vested interest in preserving it as it is. I agreed at the outset of this discussion that the "Popular culture" section is in need of improvement: at the very least, I think it would work better as a bullet-point list in chronological order (as is common elsewhere), rather than the current attempt at prose. (2) There is absolutely nothing wrong, in referring to plot points within a work of fiction, in citing the work itself as a source. This is essentially stated at MOS:PLOTSOURCE (though that's discussing articles dedicated to single works, rather than mentions of such works within articles on other topics). There may, of course, be occasions when secondary sources may be cited as well as or instead of the primary source; and there's also the pragmatic point that it's generally easier to cite a book than a film, so in the case of films secondary written sources may be preferable. (3) I agree that some of the references to the Bodleian within fictional works are probably incidental and borderline trivial, and shouldn't be here, though as far as I can see none are utterly trivial: in all cases the matter is at least debatable.

So let's look at them individually:

1. Sayers, Gaudy Night. The plot is that Harriet Vane visits Oxford to investigate a mystery, under cover of carrying out some research in the Bodleian. "Bodleian" gets 4 hits and "Bodley" 6: several scenes depict Harriet at work there. It's fairly incidental to the plot, but is used more as an evocation of the scholarly life: and indeed, we already explicitly say it is "used as background scenery". So borderline. In favour of retention, Gaudy Night is an iconic Oxford novel, and the final episode in which the Bodleian is mentioned, at the very end of the book, is perhaps the most famous scene in the Sayers canon, in which Lord Peter Wimsey proposes marriage to Harriet and is accepted. I'd be inclined to leave it in, but I suspect you'll want to be more brutal.
2. White, Equinox. I haven't seen this book, but in the limited preview on Google Books "Bodleian" gets 8 hits. The "Chief Librarian", James Lightman, appears to be a prominent character, and the "tunnels" beneath the library seem to play a significant role in the plot. On the evidence at my disposal, I'd be inclined to keep.
3. Dexter, The Wench is Dead. The scenario is that Inspector Morse is confined to a hospital bed, and to pass the time decides to investigate a historical mystery: some of his documentary research is carried out by Christine Greenaway, a librarian at the Bodleian. "Bodleian" gets 7 hits and "Bodley" 4, and there's a paragraph about the library's "gloriously mellowed stone" etc, but as far as I can see none of the action takes place there. Christine does take a photocopy from a rare book there, but she goes to the city library to view local newspapers on microfilm. Debatable, but I'd be inclined to cut.
4. Innes, Operation Pax. "Bodleian" gets 14 hits and "Bodley" 26, and the underground bookstacks play a major role in the climactic final chapter. Undoubtedly keep.
5. Tolkien and the Red Book of Hergest. I have provided two citations for the claim that the title of the real Red Book of Hergest inspired that of Tolkien's fictional Red Book of Westmarch. These sources do not "merely denote stories by Tolkien", as you disingenuously claim. They are both reliable critical studies, the first of which (Day) states that "When we learn that the most important source of Welsh Celtic lore was preserved in the fourteenth-century Red Book of Hergest, we realize that Tolkien is making a small scholarly joke in naming his 'source' of Elf-lore the Red Book of Westmarch"; and the second of which (Hooker) states "For the Tolkiennymist, the coincidence of the names of the sources of Lady Charlotte Guest's and Tolkien's translations is striking: The Red Book of Hergest and the Red Book of Westmarch... The implication of this coincidence is intriguing." I did not and do not consider it necessary to provide specific citations for the introductory claims that Tolkien was an eminent Oxford philologist who would have been very aware of the Red Book of Hergest (WP:BLUE); but, again from Hooker, "Tolkien's well-known love of Welsh suggests that he would have likewise been well-acquainted with the source [the Red Book of Hergest] of Lady Guest's translation."
6. Harkness, Discovery of Witches. In this book, "Bodleian" gets 41 hits, "Selden" 22, the plot revolves around a Bodleian manuscript, and numerous scenes take place in the library. And you seem to have overlooked the fact that, in this case, I also supplied a secondary source, a Washington Post review (albeit with a dead url, which I will now correct). Undoubtedly keep.
7. Selwood, Sword of Moses. I haven't seen this book, but Google Books throws up two mentions of Duke Humfrey's Library (making it clear that scenes take place there), and I have provided a secondary source to an interview in which the author states "some key scenes happen in an Oxford college and also in the great medieval Bodleian Library. (I am surprised they let me back in after what I made happen there!!)". The novel takes its title from The Sword of Moses, a genuine medieval text surviving in two manuscripts, respectively in the Bodleian and British Libraries. Could do with confirmation and possibly minor adjustment from someone familiar with the full book, but the evidence to hand is that there's enough there to justify retention. Would you care to tell us what "editorial reviews" you have been consulting?
8. Location filming. As I've said, I haven't tried to check this subsection in detail, and I entirely agree that it needs more work. But your characterisation of the first cited source as a "travel/marketing tool" is tendentious. It's a page of the Bodleian's own website, but is not promotional. We should perhaps remove the word "popular", but the source is perfectly reliable and acceptable for the claim that many productions have been filmed at the library, and for its basic list of examples: see WP:SELFSOURCE. However, additional external sources are wanted as well.
9. With regard to the quotation, the fact that the words are taken from the reader's declaration is substantiated by the earlier Admission subsection (the clue's in the words "noted above"). Admittedly, the only source cited in that subsection is the Bodleian's own Twitter feed, so that also needs attention, but that's another issue.

So, over to you, Jack Sebastian. I see that you have ambitions of getting this article to GA review, so good luck with that. I rather doubt it's going to happen, though, if you're going to persist with your wholly critical and destructive approach to editing. You have so far contributed not so much as a constructive comma to this article, or demonstrated that you're interested in doing so. You seem to have driven Gobears87 away, and – once I've fixed that url – I'm going too. This is not my idea of collaboration, and I have better things to do with my time. GrindtXX (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

First GrindtXX,could you be troubled to change your bullet points to a numbered list? It will make them easier to address the merits of the instances individually.

Secondly, I accept your belief that you think my method of editing is "destructive"; I accept that you feel this way, despite us having different opinions on the subject. Likewise, I cannot affect how Gobears87 feels; I can only state that his insistence on failing to assume good faith was an approach that hinders collaborative editing. If he chooses to bail, it is because he chose to do so.

Thirdly, you've already stated that you agree with my assessment of a lot of the instances I pointed out, and yet continue to assume that my advocating removal is somehow [["wholly critical and destructive".

Lastly. I have already clearly outlined my reasons for better architecture as to just building the article willy-nilly and hoping it doesn't crash and burn. If you choose to not accept that, that is pretty much a you-shaped problem. You may now head off and do those "better things" with your time. I will take your views into serious consideration when I trim the article in a few days. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"did not forbid tobacco smoking, though libraries were then unheated"

I struggled somewhat to understand what this was saying. But now I think I follow.

Since even heating the buildings was forbidden because of fire danger, we would have rightly expected that smoking (hardly a necessity like heating in the dead of winter) would surely have been made forbidden for the same reason.

But in fact, although heating was disallowed, smoking was, quite counterintuitively, nonetheless permitted. Toddcs (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)