Talk:New York Public Library/Archive 1

eBooks
You can rent out ebooks and other digital works at http://ebooks.nypl.org. How has this not been mentioned in the article?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilton gorske (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Telephone Reference
The telephone reference service section is copied nearly verbatim from This New York Times article but the footnote at the end of that section leads nowhere. Plagiarism is bad!

Lions
I removed this anonymous addition about the lions:
 * Their former names were Lord Astor and Lady Lenox, though both lions are male. At Christmas they were known for wearing large wreaths around their necks, though this practice ceased at the turn of the millenium because the necks of the lions were weakened by the weight of the wreaths.

This mixes truth and fiction and I thought it was too embarrassing to let the passage stand while I sorted it out. I must admit, though, that the fanciful notion that the weight of Christmas wreaths might weaken the lions' marble necks is a cut above our average vandalism. JamesMLane 14:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In the 57 years that I have called NYC home, Patience and Fortitude' are the only names I've known, and it was my parents who named them for me. They still get "wreathed" at Christmas time - it is a tradition that no one is thinking of ending. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC).

A November 2004 press release from NYPL (http://www.nypl.org/press/2004/lionconservation2004.cfm) describes the full restoration of the lions from damage due mainly to exposure, and states that they are not going to resume holiday wreathing. A wreath several yards wide may indeed weigh a fair amount, and while not mentioned as a cause of the surface damage, certainly couldn't help, especially during the freezing part of the year when the marble might need to expand and contract. The lions have not been wreathed since December 2003.
 * For what it's worth, the story I've heard while working at NYPL is that the wreaths themselves aren't causing damage, but that during inclement weather they trap moisture which freezes in the same spots repeatedly, accelerating damage to the Lions' necks. Epistemographer (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a section on "Branches," then there should also be a section on the Research Library. Almost nothing is said about the other 3 research centers.--kosboot 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Public Library
I'm having trouble moveing the page/article to include the capitalized article "The" in the title of this page. Yours, etc. Ludvikus 20:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the Main Branch building into it's own article
The article covers the entire organization, when a significant portion of it concerns the actual building. By breaking the main branch out, we can also comment more on the NRHP, etc. One question is the title of the new article, it's currently called the History of the Humanities and Social Sciences Library, but that's just the current organization name and likely to change over time. I'm thinking it should really be called either the address (though since it takes up the whole block that seems to be difficult to find) or NYPL: Main Branch dm 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added more about the NHL and NRHP, including in NRHP infobox, within the current article. I think that worked okay, so perhaps the need to create a separate article is less right now.  Unless you or someone wants to add a lot more detail about the flagship building. doncram 13:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Done: New York Public Library Main Branch. Potentially (probably eventually when enough information is added) the article could be separated into one on the building as a building and another on the branch as a functioning library. Noroton (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Separate section for the main branch building
With just a few moves, it's possible to create within the History section a subsection on just the "main branch building". I think doing so helps to clarify the purpose of the many paragraphs that just deal with that branch, and it would help readers who are looking for other history information (not about the main branch) can more quickly look elsewhere. I also plan to add information to the new main branch subsection about an article in today's Times about damage to the facade and repair efforts. The Wikipedia style recommendation for article sections is that they generally be about three paragraphs, just to make the articles easier to read. I'm hoping my rearranging would help with that, although the pictures already break up the gray matter, and the section is already extremely well written. Noroton (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mention just above, there was so much information in the section that I created a separate article and cut down on the section: New York Public Library Main Branch. Noroton (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How many branch libraries
At different points in the current article, it is stated there are 87 branch libraries, 82 branch libraries, 86 branch libraries. I don't really care how many there are, but this is way too many repetitions and, at a minimum it should be consistent. Is it noteworthy that there are about 80 branches, like is that more than in any other library system in the world? Maybe the count should be deleted altogether, especially if it is impossible to get it right. I am the one who got rid of the list of individual branch library names, of which there were 80(!), replacing that list with statement that there are 35 in Manhattan, 34 in the Bronx, 11 in Staten Island, adding up to 80. The public user in New York should go to the library website, not to wikipedia, to get their local branch info. I only then noticed that it added up to 80 not to the 82 stated in the text right there. ARGH. Someone else fix this! Or delete it all. doncram 13:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article now gives 3 different figures for branch libraries--77, 82 and 132! The library website suggests there are 84 branches--89 locations minus 4 research centers and one main library: http://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Telephone reference service
Is it free? It doesn't specify in the text. 86.147.160.133 (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Epistemographer (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Astor Library
The Astor library, which has an interesting history and a wonderful building, really should have its own page or section.

Controversies
On July 29, 2009, David Ferriero, the head of the Research Libraries, was nominated to be the 10th Archivist of the United States. At that time, Kosboot reviewed and edited the brief article about him.

In my view, the controversial issues which were added to that article about an NYPL administrator are no less relevant in this NYPL context? I have mirrored and tweaked Kosboot's contributions while adding them here. No doubt that this will garner comment and further editing which enhances the quality of both articles. --Tenmei (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Literary Lions
Does anyone know what a "Literary Lion" is? A whole bunch of Wikipedia articles mention this, some author or another is a NYPL "Literary Lion" (see for example Billy Collins) - I can't find anything on the web or NYPL website. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe people designated as "Literary Lions" function as unofficial advocates for the Library. -- kosboot (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Much of the History section appears to have been plagiarized from http://www.nypl.org/help/about-nypl/history. Someone may want to rectify that.  howcheng  {chat} 17:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
Since the Schomburg Center has a separate article, I'd like to make a separate article for The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. Are there any issues I should recognize before I get started? -- kosboot (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:New York Public Library 1908c.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:New York Public Library 1908c.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 23, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-05-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Third largest
The article says the library is the 3rd largest in North America without defining largest in what--size, collection, users, space?

At the end of that paragraph, it is stated the library is the 3rd largest in size of collection in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.109.15 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

New York Public Library for the Performing Arts
I've created this article (there was previously a redirect) with a little bit of content. A lot of work needs to be done, so any help (or places to list it) would be appreciated! You'll note that one of the sources, the 1975 book by Williams, is online the Library's website and can provide a lot of content (link included in the "References" section) -- kosboot (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good overview now - I stopped when I felt it was getting longer than the article on NYPL in general. :) -- kosboot (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource
Upheaval at the New York Public Library by Scott Sherman November 30, 2011. This article appeared in the December 19, 2011 edition of The Nation. 99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed-inline public attending
50,000 people walked through the building the first day. 50,000 People at the Dedication of the City's Great Library; Taft and Dix Take Part, The Evening World, May 23, 1911 "...a throng of more than 50,000 persons jammed the region around Bryant Park and poured through the vast, roomy space of the great marble structure..." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * removed the false uncited statement, change statement, remove dispute tag, put in citation and put in corroboration. Note: I do not flood articles with excessive citations, I use cf. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Push pull of citations
I am probably pop a few "self-published" citations from the 1901-1905 time period and push in some online citations from the dailies as I track down the building of the Schomburg. I have the law passed by the Governor and final contract by Carnegie, but I am missing the mayor or actor-mayor acquiescence to the NYS law. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Carrere & Hastings
"relatively unknown"? How "about prominent" instead ? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Complicated article
Tons of stuff wrong with this article, but it's very, very complicated. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is a disaster, but it's hard as heck, no doubt about that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction and affiliations
"Affiliation with", basically you go to the library and say I want book x, the librarian says the New York Public Library does not have that. And you go oh, and the librarian goes, but Columbia University does and here's a pass to get into the library. That's gonna be a monster job to find a citation for. Right now, affiliation means, the NYPL is associated with other libraries through the American Library Association, which it does - that will keep people off my back. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Finding a citation that Columbia University and the NYPL are both in the ALA should be easy, worse case scenario, to support the statement in the intro. Finding a citation that says a nypl member can borrow books from any library in nys and in the nyc metropolitan area will be hard as heck. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * it's still possible, i'll look back into "Wikipedia Loves Libraries" 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * in any event, the intro is clean of citations. as long as it remains ambiguous, it should be cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NYPL's major affiliations are not only with ALA, but with OCLC, METRO (the system that allowed you into Columbia's library), ReCap (storage facilities shared with Columbia and Princeton), and Marli (shared borrowing privileges with Columbia and NYU), and NYC Homework (with Queens and Brooklyn Public Libraries). Btw, if you're going to be doing lots of editing, it makes more sense to register and get an ID so people can communicate with you. It takes about 10 seconds maximum. -- kosboot (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections named controversy
There were two sections named controversies. One section named controversy is a major problem. Two is ridiculous. Delete one section arbitrarily and fold into the other. The remaining controversy section is not npov, but what can you do :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Entire section for nypl police
delete, no way does that deserve an entire section. folded into recent history 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms and Further reading
Criticisms of the NYPL should best be handled by professional authors, otherwise cherry picking will result. Nevertheless, I put 2 links in further reading temporarily because I have 20 webpages open in my browser and I want to close some of them. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lions' names look to be bogus
see this 1911-10-14 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not going to have much patience before deleting those names. They just don't fit in with the work of a world class sculptor. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The library lions are all over the place and are far and away the most talked about part of the library, people are writing poems to them, on and on: 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lion's names, there are 3 sentences on the lions' names. Delete all 3. Off topic, too detailed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Room size mistake?
I might have confused the two reading rooms. See here: The New York Public Library 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I made a bigger mistake by leaving the room size in the article. It's too detailed. Moving to delete. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

SIBL gaining popularity?
All the research libraries have access to up to date electronic resources. This is not true, especially the hagiographical "quickly gaining greater", and the press release is 9 (13) years old now:

"SIBL, with approximately 2 million volumes and 60,000 periodicals, is quickly gaining greater prominence in the NYPL's research library system because of its up-to-date electronic resources available to the general public." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah, original research indicates that electronic resource is 10 years out of date. I'm not slapping a dispute tag on it though because its too far down the bottom of the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Twitter used as a source for a bomb scare?
What is this? Move to delete.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In some cases, Twitter might be a valid source (e.g. from a trusted, verified account), but not here I think. Anyway, I am from DC and suspicious packages happen very often... almost daily at least and I think are not unusual in NYC either. :/  Totally agree with deleting it from the article. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * could not have said it better, it's best for me to sleep on it though. I'll copy and paste it from the body of the article to here for safekeeping. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary of changes January 9, 2012

 * 1) rearrange chronologically
 * 2) 3 sentences for Lions' names is way way way way off topic and way way way too detailed and is a copy and paste
 * I disagree. The Library has trademarked those lions - you can not use the image of them without permission (and payment).  That's just one instance that proves that NYPL regards them highly (as any corporation would regard their trademarked logo), as well as numerous internal projects that are based on lions' names.  -- kosboot (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Note: lions are very important but a professional author is required because there looks to be over 100 articles in the newspapers just about them
 * 2) twitter is a no go, not to mention there are hundreds of bomb scares in new york city every year
 * 3) Carnegie donated over 1 billion dollars, how the New York State Government and New York City Government handled it looks million times more important than the names of lions worth $10,000
 * 4) any critique of the main branch is not allowed in this article
 * 5) the actual dimensions of rooms are extremely specious in this article
 * 6) press releases are not allowed unless they say someone is going to tear down the building
 * 7) the main branch library should have at most 3 paragraphs, all that post 1969 stuff is way way way off topic, except for the 100th anniversary
 * 8) research libraries get a full subsection to themselves
 * 9) all other branch libraries get a full subsection to themselves
 * 10) introduction should not mention Brooklyn Public Library or Queens Public Library systems.
 * 11) Astor and Lenox libraries architect and other stuff in founding is way way way off topic
 * 12) founding is way, way, way too long
 * 13) This article should not be using nypl.org as its main source.


 * It's nice that you've made a list of what you consider to be your issues - but remember this is Wikipedia and anyone else is entitled to disagree with you by enlarging or altering what you see as the "proper" way of writing this articles. Remember that whatever you do has to be seen in the context of current and future collaborators. -- kosboot (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, of course, first of all, thanks for taking the time out to respond. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just blasted the article, you are more than welcome to revert my edits. I welcome any input you have. I honestly do not understand why, with 70 watchers, this article has such ridiculous stuff in it. I do not feel passionately about this article. But why with 70 watchers don't you guys put your helmet on and get in the game? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted sentences, citations, and I have even deleted whole paragraphs. Why do I have to be the big bad mean guy w 70 watchers out there? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article was stuck on nypl.org as, basically, it's only source. This article is all yours. Believe me, I got more than enuf headaches to deal with. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong template used for a National Historical Landmark
This article is using the library template. This cause major problems with me when I was doing the Schomburg article. Lots of tiny villages have libraries. The library template is the next edit. It's toast. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * i used the nrhp template for the schomburg center because it's not just a library, its a national treasure. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the NRHP template is the better choice here. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * no, my bad. this is an article about the new york public library system. the main branch gets the nrhp template, this get the library template. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now we got a modern professional author in the ballgame
Obviously, this book must be ascertained:


 * The New York Public Library: The Architecture and Decoration of the Stephen A. Schwarzman Building — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC) that book is a nogo 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed-inline founding

 * 1) "On the other hand, there was opposition to the idea that the unlearned should be allowed unfettered access to knowledge; the goal of education was to keep the public docile and obedient.[5]" That's not what the citation supports. The citation supports the idea that education the poorer class of people might help deter them from engaging in criminal activity, but, as of then, the upper financial class had reservations about subsidizing it.
 * 2) "Progressives" ...that's 40 to 50 years out of context......"then countered" ....The previous citation was 15 years prior to this statement's citation. That hardly can be construed as "countered"
 * 3) "tantamount to a crime.[6]" That's not what the citation says. The citation says, verbatim it would be an "antidote for crime"

66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Founding stuff way off topic
What's this? :

"A German-born architect, Alexander Saeltzer, designed the building in Rundbogenstil style, then the prevailing style for public building in Germany. Astor funded expansions of the building designed by Griffith Thomas [1859] and Thomas Stent [1881]. Both large expansions followed Saeltzer's original design so seamlessly that an observer cannot detect that the edifice was built in three stages. In 1920, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society purchased the building. By 1965 it was in disuse and faced demolition. The Public Theater (then the New York Shakespeare Festival) persuaded the city to purchase it for use as a theater. It was converted for theater use by Giorgio Cavaglieri".[10]


 * 1) german born, off topic
 * 2) rundbogenstil, off topic
 * 3) prevailing style, off topic
 * 4) griffith thomas and stent, off topic
 * 5) seamless, off topic
 * 6) three stages, off topic
 * 7) 1920, way off topic and out of context
 * 8) 1965, no
 * 9) last 2 sentences, no

66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * move to delete entire paragraph en masse 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * it's deleted 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New York Times 19th Century
It was a rinky dink newspaper in the 19th Century. Do not cherry pick editorials from the NYT in the 19th Century. The NYT is not in the ballgame until at least 1930. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness this article did not make Did you know on Wikipedia
This is meaningless stuff, as I see it now, but I am letting it slide for a little while longer:

"Library records for that day show that one of the very first items called for was N. I. Grot's Nravstvennye idealy nashego vremeni ("Ethical Ideas of Our Time") a study of Friedrich Nietzsche and Leo Tolstoy. The reader filed his slip at 9:08 a.m. and received his book just six minutes later.[7]"

Carnegie donates 1 billion dollars and ...c'mon that's not a did you know thingie ....66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * deleting, it's a direct copy and paste from the New York Public Library Main Branch. If they can get a Did you know, then I say godspeed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's meaningful if you know that the reader who called for Grot's Nravstvennye idealy nashego vremeni was David Shub, a manual laborer who educated himself in the NYPL, where he met Trotsky and Bukharin, and finally published Lenin: A biography in 1948. http://nplusonemag.com/lions-in-winter-part-2 (It's also meaningful if you know that the NYPL closed down its Slavic center where Shub, Trotsky and Bukharin did their research.) --Nbauman (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Complicated article, next step is the cornerstone
Basically I thing the article needs to be arranged chronologically and I think it best to start off the Main branch library with "the cornerstone was laid in 1902" and everything b4 that needs to be moved up. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Compartmentalizing is cool
I get it. It's easier to edit that way. But it's not fun to read. It's harder to write, but that's just the way it goes. And that's the way it's gotta be. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge request
The topic of libraries in the Gilded Age is a serious and significant one. Request move to Gilded Age and let them folks deal with it. I just want to get the library system consolidated. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * the section is based on poor quality original research and should be dropped. (the key cites do not deal with libraries at all). Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall scheme of the article
Does anyone have any overall scheme to this article? Do you guy wants to treat it like a living organism and make everything chronological? Do you guys want to treat it like a person that reacts to its environment? Because if you do, then the article has to be changed to something like Pre-Consolidation (or whatever name you want) (1849 or 1854 (take your pick) -1896) then Construction of the Libraries (or whatever title you want) (1897-1929) (the last Carnegie library was built in 1929). Or do you wan to just keep the same section heads. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Benefit w chronological is you don't have to say "In 19xx" 150 times in the article and can mix up the syntax with, weeks later, months later, in January, in the summer, etc. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the other benefit it you can create a temporary section called 20th Century (2000- ) and just let everyone come in and edit at will and ignore it. Once the article gets to 2000, you delete it and create a temporary section called post 2005 (2005-) and let everyone come in and play. Then when you finish up to 2005, you lick down the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you compartmentalize it, the Main Branch section can get blasted with the latest headlines and you'll have to revert it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally did not delete that stuff about perception of the library(or whatever title I had), I was already gearing up to look into public policy and trying to ascertain books about each decade in the 19th Century. But, really, I'm sorry, those were not serious sources to be treating very sophisticated topics.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever everyone wants is cool w me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) in the early 20th century, salacious books were being sold. What was the nypl's policy toward's them?
 * 2) what was the nypl policy towards the immigrants who did not speak english: "As many as 800 languages are spoken in New York [City], making it the most linguistically diverse city in the world."[28]
 * 3) how did the Great Depression impact the system
 * 4) did they have a systemic approach to WWII? (Schomburg Center did)
 * 5) during McCarthyism, did they deny putting certain authors on the shelves or do what a West Virginia library did and take a children's book written about Paul Robeson and throw it in the garbage?
 * 6) does the nypl allow decentralized control of hiring of librarians to respond to community needs?
 * 7) with the proliferation of pornography, what's the nypl's policy?
 * 8) circa 1919, the Carnegie Foundation realized that it was not the library buildings, but the librarians that were important. Did the nypl build a training program. (the Schomburg had 2 great ones that, at the very least, eased the development of the Harlem Renaissance)
 * 9) were any non book centric programs created that aided the nyc community (schomburg created the American Negro Theatre and out of the lil playhouse (also maybe 125th street library) came Sidney Poitier

66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Bibliographies to use
These are outdated, but still useful:
 * Reference Books
 * Harris, Michael H. and Davis, Donald G. Jr. (1978). American Library History: a bibliography. Austin: University of Texas ISBN 0-292-70332-5
 * Davis, Donald G. Jr and Tucker, John Mark (1989). American Library History: a comprehensive guide to the literature. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc. ISBN 0-87436-142-7

66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nasaw, David Andrew Carnegie
A review of this book states: "this work is well positioned to earn a valuable place on the shelves of academic and public libraries as well as those of professional historians".

Point being, Carnegie's purpose when lending the money was to get municipalities to start funding libraries, which they overwhelmingly did not, like they funded hospitals and police stations. Any objections on putting it it? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * not in this article, which has to be focused on NYPL. Carnegie did fund the NYPL branch libraries & thousands of cities in US, UK, Canada etc did accept Carnegie's terms Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Community relations
Regina M. Anderson solicited the help of W. E. B. Du Bois and Walter Francis White, in 1929 and 1930, to help break down racism, with respect to promotions, in the New York Public Library. A boycott ensued and she was promoted. Eight years later, she because the first African-American branch librarian in the NYPL. This belongs in the article. It's cited in Schomburg. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This don't work. Basically, they were prejudice against a few different groups. But it's essential for the Schomburg article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, E. J. Josey is the go to author on librarianship and civil rights. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

New York Public Library Bulletins
Some of them are online. They look to be primary source stuff, maybe they should be included in links, maybe not: Bulletin of the New York Public Library 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

More controversy
LeClerc's reorganization of the library has been very controversial, and a lot of people have published critiques of it. I'd like to see a good short bibliography of comprehensive articles available free online, but the last good one I just saw was:

http://nplusonemag.com/lions-in-winter Charles Petersen Lions in Winter, Part One n+1 9 May 2012

The critical articles are very good because they highlight the real issues facing the library, like research vs. serving the general public, books vs. digital.

In addition, Peterson's article (like many of the others) is a nice comprehensive history of the library, with interesting relevant facts, like


 * In the final contract with the city, signed on December 8, 1897, the trustees of the New York Public Library had promised that they would keep the building open at their own expense, twelve hours a day, 365 days a year, with the exception of Sundays, when the library would open at 1 and close at 9. The administration did so without a blip for decades, only beginning to take public money in the 1940s, and then only for routine maintenance and housekeeping. But in 1971 the library cut its hours by almost half, leaving the main building open Monday through Friday, and then only for eight hours each day. (op. cit.)

It would be nice to integrate these into the entry, but the issues are massively complicated. --Nbauman (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a good bibliography. http://www.steamthing.com/2012/04/a-chronology-of-press-clippings-about-the-nypls-central-library-plan.html --Nbauman (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New york public library bulletins and lists from over 100 years ago
Bulletin





































How is the Library Administered?
The NYPL obviously has some form of administration, and its managers presumably must answer to some kind of authority, whether that be a department of the city government, a State-appointed board, or some other body; but there is nothing in the article to let us know how the library is run, or by whom.

We know that the city has the power to slash the library's budget, and we're given the names and titles of a few people in the administration who have made controversial decisions; but the article gives readers very little information about how the library is governed, how those decisions are made, how the decision-makers are appointed, and by whom, and how they might be removed and replaced—important information for a public institution in a democracy.

The section on "Collection Development" rather awkwardly shoots off on a tangent about the rich, white, male, Protestant directors who dominated the institution at some point in its history, but we need a separate section on the evolution of the library's management, and another on its current administration.

Jdcrutch (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The article indicates that, despite its name, NYPL is a privately-owned corporation (not a public institution) that partners with NYC and receives some (but not even a majority) of its funding from the city. Therefore, the head of the library is its Board of Trustees. Beyond what's printed in each annual report (which only lists positions and their titles), I'm not aware of any publicly available document that explains how the administrative structure operates (and I'm a long-time employee).  Perhaps it would be better to refer readers to the annual reports available on the library website. -- kosboot (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox issue
The infobox includes the lines:
 * "Items collected: Gutenberg Bible"
 * "Size: 52,946,398"

This obviously needs to be fixed; though the Library holds a rare Gutenberg Bible, it also contains a vast array of other materials, and certainly the reference to 52+ million items held does not mean they are all Gutenberg Bibles. I had clicked on the edit window to fix the "items collected" line, but then I realized I'm not sure what to change it to. Suggestions welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Chief Library Officer
I tried editing the Infobox but maybe it's protected. Directly below Anthony Marx (in terms of management) is Mary Lee Kennedy, Chief Library Officer. She really should be mentioned for I believe that much of the library's strategic direction is emanating from her office. kosboot (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

number of staff
For the infobox: I believe the number of staff is closer to about 2,500, not 3,100. What is the source for that figure? kosboot (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on New York Public Library. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060721021232/http://www.time.com:80/time/2005/websites/ to http://www.time.com/time/2005/websites/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208231814/http://www.nypl.org:80/research/sibl/notice2.html to http://www.nypl.org/research/sibl/notice2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907104236/http://www.nypl.org/humanities/jewish to http://www.nypl.org/humanities/jewish
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061118111948/http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/jws/freidus.html to http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/jws/freidus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Ask the NYPL: What is the one book series everyone is expected to read (and know), but most no one is allowed to check out from the NYPL?
The legal existance of the NYPL needs to be flushed out. New York has not digitally published its laws (unlike the United States), so I cannot elucidate on it, but the NYPL charter gives the NYPL as being authorized by:


 * An Act to Incorporate the Trustees of the Astor Library
 * L. 1849, ch. 1
 * L. 1881, ch. 653
 * L. 1891, ch. 96
 * An Act to Incorporate the Trustees of the Lenox Library
 * L. 1870, ch. 2
 * L. 1892, ch. 166
 * An Act to Incorporate the Tilden Trust
 * L. 1887, ch. 85
 * An Act to Permit the Consolidation of Library Companies in the City of New York
 * L. 1892, ch. 541
 * L. 1895, ch. 209
 * An Agreement to Consolidate the Trustees of the Astor Library, the Trustees of the Lenox Library, and The Tilden Trust, into The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations
 * An Act to Incorporate the New York Free Circulating Library
 * L. 1884, ch. 166
 * An Agreement to Consolidate The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations, and The New York Free Circulating Library, into the The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations
 * An Act in Relation to the Composition of the Board of Trustees of The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations
 * L. 1902, ch. 21

Can someone provide or put these works on the Internet? (Apparently this is asking too much of the NYPL.) Int21h (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Int21h (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you might be misreading something. NYPL is a private corporation; the charter business is just New York State's method of allowing the business to operate (just as any business needs to have a license). - kosboot (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, NYPL does not collect legal works - those are more appropriate to a law library. - kosboot (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't misread what I cannot read, and we have no idea what the NYPL is until we read those laws. And as if it could be any more obvious *why* NYPL needs to let people check these books out: Normally a charter incorporates a legal entity, it is not a license although it may give the created entity license as an aside. (E.g., the New York City Charter does not give the NYC government license, it creates NYC and its government and defines their duties and responsibilities. -- If you're unsure about that, ask New York City's "Corporation" Counsel.) Int21h (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are they more appropriate for a law library? New York does not have public law libraries, in any event. (A courtroom is not a public library, its primary purpose is for those that have business with the court.) Int21h (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am thinking the 1902 act of the NYS legislature, which seems to be the first to refer to the NYPL, would be the first read. But alas, the NYPL appears to have decided that these out-of-copyright un-copyright-able and required-reading-for-every-new-yorker works are a low priority, and as a foreigner (under New York law, albeit a US resident) my local libraries could not give less of a shit if New York sinks into the ocean (sorry, couldn't describe any other way) so I'm SOL (and thus so are New Yorkers and the world IMO). Int21h (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No library can collect everything. NYPL has never considered certain subjects to be part of their collection strategy, for example:  law and science (also library science).  All you have to do is ask to go to a law library (NYC has at least 4 reputable law schools, each with its own decent library.) Personally speaking, I don't think anything in the citations you list will assist in improving the article. - kosboot (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First off, these works are already referenced in the article. And not indirectly either: "An act of the New York State Legislature incorporated the Lenox Library in 1870."


 * And I think you're incorrect about NYPL's posession of these books. It probably has a huge collection. The NYPL, along with the people of New York, live and die by these books (literally.) These books were probably among the first to be aquired by the library. Int21h (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Bingo. Though it is missing information about the New York Free Circulating Library, it's merger into the NYPL, and the 1902 act. Int21h (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Clean up
The Further reading section needs to be cleaned up. It comprises a quarter of the article, as seen here. Epic Genius (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it's a very useful section--a good reason to use Wikipedia. Reading is not off-putting for readers of THIS article. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, then do you want to collapse it? Move it to an article called Bibliography of the New York Public Library? It is off-putting when 20 kilobytes (!!) of the wikicode is devoted to a bibliography. Epic Genius (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "This bibliography is too big" is like saying the air is too breathable. - kosboot (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "offputting" to anyone interested in one of the world's most important research libraries. This is the quality of material that they respect Wikipedia for providing. Editors who are annoyed can just ignore the material instead of degrading Wikipedia.  Rjensen (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What is degrading Wikipedia is the massive amount of links to external websites. This, in my view, drives readers off Wikipedia. The air is way too toxic in this case. Epic Genius (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The further reading is 27,000 bytes?! This is waaaay too much material. It is one third of the entire freaking page. Epic Genius (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Any reader can ignore the links if they wish--but those who use them appreciate their value. It's not a "freaking page" to people interested in scholarship: it's solid material. We're talking world class libraries here not video games. As for % of page that's an uninformative complaint. It assumes that people follow up every link in Wikipedia whether it interests them or not.  How weird--no user I have seen is like that. Rjensen (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. It's supposed to be a page that is attractive for casual readers (i.e. no off-topic sections, like the further reading section), not an academic paper with 10,000 footnotes and bibliography. Epic Genius (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An issue with your point User:Epicgenius is that you say you are "speaking for Wikipedia." In actually you're only speaking for yourself.  The appropriate thing to do would be to have a Request for Comment and let a decision be achieved through consensus. - kosboot (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not speaking for myself. But if you want to have an RFC, I am fine with that. In fact, I'll create one right now. Epic Genius (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And I really don't get why you would !vote oppose if you actually wanted to keep the citations. Epic Genius (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * well i'm reversing myself and dropped most of them. They are of use only to advanced researchers who will be using a lot more than just these online items. Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should the further reading section of this article be trimmed?
Should the "Further reading" section of this article contain 63 citations to other websites and sources? If not, should it be reduced in size? Epic Genius (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is about one of the world's major research libraries--which is famous for its guides. Having a good selection of them will help serious users and annoy no one interested in libraries.  People not at all interested in research libraries will ignore this article in any case. Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's one of the most important public institutions in the country and the world. - kosboot (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you both oppose the "Further reading" section of this article containing 63 citations? Epic Genius (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to the number of citations.... Epic Genius (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC could have been worded to promote clarity. - kosboot (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing your vote appropriately. And yes, it is worded to be promoted clarity. "Should the 'Further reading' section of this article contain 63 citations to other websites and sources?" is a yes/no question, not a support/oppose ballot. Epic Genius (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it should not include all 63 entries. The section should be reduced in size. The number of further reading should be reasonable (WP:FURTHER) and it is my opinion that 63 is not reasonable. Wikipedia is not a directory (see also documentation at Template:Further reading cleanup). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 11:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep it It should be kept. Don't forget, Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, as editors we want to provide useful, legitimate, vetted information which researchers can use as a jumping-off place. Rule of thumb: More information is better than less. Also it should never be forgotten that Wikipedia guidelines are guidelines, they are not laws or rules that are set in stone. So guidelines that might otherwise suggest that fewer see-alsos or fewer external links can be set aside for good cause, and certainly the NY Public Library in all its glory rates as being a good cause. Damotclese (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not satisfied with a mere guideline? Here's a policy: WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 04:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Policies are "standards that all users should normally follow" (WP:POLICY); if we don't want to follow it here, we need to establish a strong case from some non-normal situation. I don't see it. Also, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a venue for supporting "good causes". Particularly, this applies to article space where WP:NPOV is one of the most fundamental policies; as far as article contents are concerned, Wikipedia does not acknowledge "good causes". Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 13:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be reduced tremendously. We are not, after all, a bibliography, which is what this section makes us. 63 is not reasonable. Cutting should start with the "Miscellaneous" section, which seems to be little more than just a collection of documents by the library and not even about the library; in other words, they could conceivably be listed as External links, but for that section they are also excessive and inappropriate, making us a repository of documents published by the topic of the article. The newspaper reports should be used to cite information in the article; that will serve the reader. And what purpose does the 1913 Catalogue of Books for the Blind in the Circulation Department serve? One assumes those documents and a host of others would be easily available from the library website itself, or from Google Books--at any rate, I don't see what a link to that document adds to this article. Likewise, there's a host of links (actually spread out over a few sections) to the library's Bulletin--those also are not appropriate, and if any editor thinks this is an important matter, they should simply write up Bulletin of the New York Public Library, and place a single (!) appropriate link to the archives there. Let me ping my two go-to librarians, and, to see what they think. But in general, no, we should not have such a "Further reading" list. Further reading is an essay, but it's a valuable one, and its first sentence is clear enough: "The further reading section of an article contains a bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article." Many of the works/sections do not add coverage of the the subject of the article--and the advice in WP:Further reading is perfectly in keeping with what WP:FURTHER, part of the MOS, suggests as well. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)