Talk:Simon & Schuster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale. | |
 |
Simon & Schuster is part of WikiProject Literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
I guess it should be Simon & Schuster all the way through, shouldn't it? That's what they actually call themselves. There was a long discussion in the TIME magazine article about whether it should be TIME, Time, Time Magazine, or whatever, and evidently it's decided that it should be TIME because that's what the mag itself calls itself. So I think it ought to be the same for S&S.... In any case, I don't think it should be both formats in the same article. Hayford Peirce 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "Too liberal"
An anon editor has twice inserted text to the effect that S&S is commonly criticized as exorbitantly liberal, especially in view of its having published "many books attacking President Bush during the 2004 election". Even as I have heard the criticsm levelled once or twice, I don't think that the such criticims are widespread, and, in any case, find neither in the text inserted by the anon editor nor in the results of my own Googling any independent source toward the proposition that S&S is thusly criticized. In the absence of any adduction to the contrary, I think it inappropriate that we should include such text in the article, inasmuch as ascribing the phrase "it is often said" to a given idea here in often a means by which to attempt to advance an agenda/belief and portrary that agenda/belief as being widely held and widely known; in any case, the text inserted was surely unencyclopedic and unsourced. Notwithstanding all that, if the text should be re-added, I'll not revert, lest I should seem to be only one trumpeting concerns here; I imagine that if others concur in my assessment here, they surely will undertake the task. Joe 00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed. Since only a third of the country supports George Bush, one must be an evangelical Christian to consider a publishing house "too liberal" because it prints authors who are criticial of his stewardship of the country. --DavidShankBone 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Simon.PNG
Image:Simon.PNG 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
