Talk:John Wiley & Sons
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Fair use rationale for Image:Wiley.gif
Image:Wiley.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Please help remove unsubstantiated marketing-speak
I'm sorry, I can't withhold my disgust: This article was an embarrassment of unsubtantiated foo lifted straight from poorly written marketing materials. I'd appreciate some help bringing it in line with WP style. (Sorry, I'm something of a WP neophyte... I believe there's an "anti-advertising" template somewhere for this, but don't know where or how to implement it.) Thanks, --tgeller (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Found and added the template. Sorry for my earlier tone: It was born of impotence. Viva WP! --tgeller (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I worked on at lot of the language. Hopefully, with more references and citations and less ad copy, it reads more appropriately now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suckaduck (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is still an issue. The History section in particular seems lifted out of a brochure. Describing how many nobel laureates published is glitzy, and appeals to the fame of the Nobel prize, but isn't all that meaningful. Number of total authors, or total journals, or articles, or something like that would at least be more useful. The description of the centennial celebration is also too advertising-y. KHenriksson (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys - does anyone disagree that the 'Notable' section should be removed? Firstly, the issue didn't actually involve Wiley at all. Secondly, I don't think this incident is notable in its own right anyway. Finally the only reference that isn't to the blog itself is broken. Unless anyone says otherwise on this page, I'll delete this next time I come by this page (which may be some time). I should say here that I do work at Wiley, and as such will be happy to consider others' viewpoints on this. Hopsyturvy (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- a week is a long time in wiki; it's done —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopsyturvy (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What is the relationship in the following publishers....
Book on Guinness
I relied heavily on quotes from one article for this summary. The Copy and paste template was put on it. I've put the footnote on each of the three paragraphs now. There was also talk of a rewrite in the Edit summary. I may try but did do a fair amount in reducing a big article to a few lines plus the blockquote of the direct circumstances of the case. I'm leaving the template on, for the time being. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed here and here (my finetune), hopefully adequately. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I would think this section should be a separate page, as it has important free speech and press implications, and for institutions such as libraries and booksellers. At the same time, copyright holders are worried about mass importation of cheaply-produced foreign books. The case is different from the precedents, since it involves printed matter, books, not other products. One attorney also pointed out how poor people rely on the right to buy goods that are used. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/a-supreme-court-clash-could-change-what-ownership-means/2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've linked the case name above to the (non-existent) page you propose. If you would like to create the page, just click on the red link and you're off and running. I agree the case, like Omega, probably warrants its own article. Alas, for now and probably forever, it's not for me to do. If you wish to encourage it further (without doing it yourself) you can do the link like above in the Wiley article itself; even of the section-heading as above. The red link sends a strong message to readers (which some don't like, of course). One other bit: The only other place in Wikipedia the case name currently appears is in the Omega article, at Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.#Impact; and it's "red-linked" there. (The paragraphs on Kirtsaeng in the Wiley article link to that Omega paragraph; and inspired by your initiative here I think I'll link some part of that Omega paragraph over here to Wiley's paragraphs, for the time being. Thanks.) Hopefully a help.
- I also recommend you set up a User name for yourself so your IP number ("67...") doesn't keep getting published. Put a note at my talk page if you'd like guidance on that or on setting up the Kirtsaeng article (it's doable, a good exercise, I recommend it). Cheers. Swliv (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to redirect Van Nostrand-Reinhold to John Wiley & Sons, Van Nostrand-Reinhold should at least appear on the page somewhere. I'm assuming that the person who did this incorrectly assumed that the acquisition of Van Nostrand-Reinhold by Wiley meant that any information about their previous existence as a separate company was now a subject of no interest to anyone, but they could bloody well mention the company somewhere on the page they're redirecting to so that people know why they're on a page about Wiley rather than a page about Van Nostrand-Reinhold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)