Talk:Llewellyn Worldwide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Statements in "Criticisms" section need to cite reliable sources[edit]

The statement "Llewellyn Worldwide receives negative consideration from the neopagan community for publishing authors such as Silver RavenWolf, who are controversial in their own right" appears to be negative in nature both to Llewellyn Worldwide and potentially to Silver Ravenwolf. As such, it should be properly sourced and cited. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect historical information

The article claims falsely that the Llewellyn Publishing Company was set up by Llewellyn George in 1901. This is untrue. It was not set up by him before some time in the period 1911 to 1912. Prior to that, his books and annuals were published by I. Hulery Fletcher, director of the Portland School of Astrology. I have copies of publications from 1907 and 1910 which show this clearly. In 1907 George was employed as an astrologer by the Portland School of Astrology whose director was I. Hulery Fletcher (source: The New Improved Perpetual Planetary Hour Book by Llewellyn George, first edition, 1907). In 1910 he was the principal of the Portland School of Astrology but its publishing arm, and probably also the entire school, continued to be directed by Fletcher (source: Planetary Daily Guide for All, 1911).

The current early history page at Llewellyn's corporate website is an unreliable source and its claim that George set up his publishing company in 1901 has been firmly disproven by reference to the above publications.Philip Graves (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)