Talk:Collier's Encyclopedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] Jmabel remarks
Side note: I grew up with this one: my dad was a VP at Crowell Collier Macmillan. And, no, I'm not the author of the article. -- Jmabel 06:45, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
So, I happen to know but can't cite from anywhere: Collier's Encyclopedia in its heyday relied heavily on door-to-door sales and the like. In the late 1960s, top encyclopedia salesmen earned more in a year than the company's executives. Then the U.S. government cracked down heavily on high-pressure sales tactics. For example, all large purchases had a three-day opt-out clause. Far worse than that for Collier's sales force, they actually were required by a court order to show all prospects a piece of paper that listed several high-pressure sales tactics the company had used in the past. Needless to say, sales fell off dramatically.
Does anyone have any idea where I might look for a citation for any of this? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] First edition?
I question the accuracy of the statement that this encyclopedia was first published in 1950-51, now that we have added articles from the 1921 edition to Wikisource. Eclecticology 18:01, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
- The Wikisource articles are from Collier's New Encyclopedia. There seems to be no continuity between the two. Gzornenplatz 19:24, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Style
I've tried to edit recent massive and mostly useful additions by User:HQCentral to be a little closer to Wikipedia style. The article has become a bit much of an essay, though a very informative one. - Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say: I hope this isn't plagiarized. " The binding—black Fabrikoid with red panels and gold lettering—is both sturdy and attractive" is so not Wikipedia style that it leaves me wondering a little. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the complements. Rest assured, though, that it's not plagiarized. There's nothing wrong with being different (I think the opinions make it more informative). I won't fight it, though.—HQCentral 05:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- About the tags, though: They're cluttering up the entry, making it hard to read and edit. They also make it look like it isn't sourced--which it is. I think you've made your WP:POINT, so it's time to move on. I also changed the subheadings to level three because the sections aren't chapter headings, they're what is called subheadings.—HQCentral 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- They look like perfectly valid requests for citation to me, clutter or not; please do provide acceptable citations before removing them (or just eliminate the statements in question, but that's another issue). Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- The tags serve no purpose because I'm not going to go to the library and double-check the references. I shouldn't have to, either.--HQCentral 03:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- They look like perfectly valid requests for citation to me, clutter or not; please do provide acceptable citations before removing them (or just eliminate the statements in question, but that's another issue). Kirill Lokshin 03:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
We now know that [User:HQCentral|HQCentral]] is the sockpuppet of a notorious plagiarizer. So Jmabel's concern about plagiarism was well-founded. -Will Beback 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Born In East L.A.
A set of Collier's appears in Rudy's (Cheech Marin) house in the movie Born in East L.A.[1]
[edit] Sales other than US
I am sitting beside a copy of Collier's which I purchased in the 1960's - here in the UK. The high-pressure sales mentioned above obtained here also. I find it still a worthwhile purchase, even though much is less current than it was. We also had the year-books for some five years afterwards, although they tended to be (unlike the encyclopaedias themselves) more US-oriented. I find the index of great value when checking to see if there are any places with similar names in the US/Canada to those in UK, but I do use them a great deal otherwise Peter Shearan 11:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
I've added a few {{fact}} tags as a start as this article makes many assertions with no inline references. Reads as probably true but has poor referencing. I see from the page history and the above that this is an ongoing issue - I think that there needs to be an understanding that, for wikipedia, a sentence reading XXX is YYY is unsupportable, in most cases, without a reliably sourced reference. Please leave the tags until someone finds the references - Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just reverted you. Can you point to the part of the policy (WP:CITE) that states that references must be inline?--HQCentral 01:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Checkout the quick reference guide. You either need to use Harvard, embedded links or footnotes - all of which are inline citations. Without inline citations all the article has is a bibliography. I do suggest you revert yourself here after reading reference guide - Peripitus (Talk) 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Status of article, possible sources
I gather that HQCentral has now been characterized as a "serial plagiarizer" and his edits have all been reverted (not by me), so we are back to little more than a stub, as we were when he started working on this. I'm guessing that the three references he cited are nonetheless valid, if anyone wants to follow them up.
- American Reference Books Annual, 1992, pp. 16-17
- Reference Sources for Small and Medium-Sized Libraries, 5th ed. (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1992), pp. 30-31.
- William A. Katz, Introduction to Reference Work, vol. 1, pp. 242-43
- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Great Encyclopedia terrible article
This was a great encyclopedia, but this is a terrible article. I'll try to help out. I mean I knew more before I started reading the article. Aaron Bowen 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
