Talk:Princeton University Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Princeton University Press article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Bollingen Series

Just a note about the inclusion (See also section) of "Bollingen Press": it's properly called the Bollingen Series [1]. Athaenara (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, fixed it myself & wikified a bit. This article (which already had good content and structure) needs more year-of-publication dates where those are still missing for books and papers. Athaenara 04:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influential publications

The external link, recently added, to A Century in Books, includes a description of 100 of the Press's most important books (including each of those listed here). It should allay the concerns of the wiki editor who feels that "influential" cannot describe some books of which s/he is not yet aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girl2k (talk • contribs) 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

That link * (also in external links) merely echoes the Press about itself: one Press publication asserts the influence of other Press publications. Do you see how this is unencyclopedic? What's needed is confirmation "from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself" (—WP:NOTE). — Athænara ✉ 07:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC) * A Century in Books: Princeton University Press 1905-2005 (... prices, shopping cart, etc.)

But the wiki editor herself believed that some are "obviously" influential (without citation) ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girl2k (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To what does this specifically refer? — Athænara ✉ 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- to the repeated request for citation for describing books here as "influential." It was stated before on here -- when the page was flagged as in need of citation -- that some in the list were obviously influential but that others weren't and therefore they should have citations to prove they are influential. I don't see that as typical wikipedia practice. Click on any of the authors and you'll find the books referenced, some even as "masterpieces" without citations to prove such assertions. Anyhow, that's all I have to say about it. --Girl2k 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)