Talk:Edwin Mellen Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There have been some substantial poor reviews of this publishers wrt its academic review process. e.g. [1] [2] The article also does not mention Mellen University or Mellon Honors College.[3]. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to the respected gentleman and scholar John Vandenberg: the aforementioned colleges and abovementioned publishing company are distinct,seperate organizations under seperate management with similar names. So there is no reason why all three should be mentioned in the same article any more than one would cover the twentieth century movie star Troy and the Trojan War in the same article or Paris Hilton in an article on the City of Paris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hardly the same thing since - at least in 1985, Herbert Richardson owned the press and Mellen University.[4], [5] (explaining why he was sacked from his post at the University of Toronto). Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Mellen Honors College ever actually existed. [6] discusses plans for it. Mellen University Press is interesting:,d.d2k (truncated due to spam block). As for Mellen Press itself, [7]. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial and Criticism[edit]

I agree 100% that the Edwin Mellen Press is controversial and has been criticized a lot. As someone correctly pointed out that is what is it mainly known for, if it is notable at all. As a matter of style I took out the word "controversial" from the opening sentence, but leaving the source for that information. I was trying to follow the general principles in writing of "show not tell" and "don't tell people what to think and feel." There's no real need for the word right there when in a matter of seconds the reader is actually reading about the controversy. I also suggest take out the "Criticism" subtitle. There is nothing wrong with a one or two paragraph article with no sub-sections. Also there is really no non-criticism section to separate the criticism section from. Borock (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Borock -- thanks for replying here; sorry that I undid your edit and didn't start a talk thread because I was rushing out of the house, thanks for doing so. I am in agreement that you can take out the word from the lede -- even though I agree with the critics and I think that having most of the article be about criticism can be neutral, since that is what the press is mostly known for, your "show not tell" invocation is correct. My objection was that one of the more important source footnotes is mostly a source for the controversy, so that if the word "controversial" is going to be removed, that source (which shouldn't be removed since it is important) would need to be reintegrated elsewhere. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That source is also used for another fact. I will try making both my suggested changes. If you don't like them change them back, or whatever. Borock (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New legal threats to critics (Scholarly Kitchen)[edit]

According to the Scholarly Kitchen blog, Edwin Mellen Press is sending legal threats to some blogs and commenters who have covered the case. (Full disclosure: I commented on one of the blog posts pointing to these edits to this wikipedia article when one of the bloggers mentioned similar comments on critical blog posts.) - Ben (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments at help desk[edit]

See Wikipedia:Help desk#re: strongly biased and incomplete articles. I have suggested that this is best discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comments at the help desk, to the effect that the article is well sourced. If there are other elements that should be added for the sake of balance, that's fine (to the extent that there are sources for them). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Stafford quote[edit]

I'm inclined to remove the Robert Stafford quote, as without the context it seems to be misleading. Currently the lead includes:

It has been described as a vanity press whose books "often prove to contain quite extraordinary gibberish".

The vanity press claim is in keeping with the sources being used. However, the quote at the end is sourced to Stafford [8], and that's missing the context. What he says is:

Briefly summarised, the reprinted report suggests that this publisher produces what appear to be from their titles to be properly researched, refereed and edited scholarly books but which often prove to contain quite extraordinary gibberish.

So Stafford isn't saying himself that they contain gibberish, but is instead summarising what he describes as a suggestion in another work. I'd be happy referencing the original report, if we have access to it, but as things stand we're making a strong statement as a factual claim, from a source which is only summarising a suggestion in another source, and this is a bit too far removed from our depiction for comfort. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So what you're saying is not that the quote is inaccurate (what I read from your edit summary) but that a secondhand source isn't good enough for this level of criticism? I suppose I can go along with that. It doesn't seem to be a very high-quality source, anyway: a local newsletter reporting on a local reprint of something whose provenance we don't know. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
More that the claim that Edwin Mellen Press has been described this way as inaccurate - Stafford has described a suggestion in a report about Edwin Miller Press in this manner, but hasn't actually described Edwin Mellen themselves. I wish we had the original report, as I'd like to use it, but I'll keep digging and see if I can find it. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


At some point it might be interesting to have an article on Richardson. I don't have all that much time for Wikipedia these days, but for someone who does, here are some interesting sources: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sample academic title[edit]

A scientific biography by Margaret Bailey of Gaspard de Prony is cited in that article. Though I have not seen the book, I suspect it is excellent since Ivor Grattan-Guinness recommended an earlier version (1984) at page 110 of his Convolutions in French Mathematics (1990).Rgdboer (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edwin Mellen Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)