Battle of Honey Springs

Page contents not supported in other languages.

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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree that it is still an issue. First, I think there is a potential WP:COI with Wiley321 (talk · contribs) (I have noticed them about this suspicion). Please help me to rephrase the article! − Pintoch (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notable??

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree for what it's worth (Gabeshootman (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

What is the relationship in the following publishers....

--58.38.42.115 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book on Guinness

I'm adding a mention of their book on beer by aviation expert Bill Yenne, if nobody minds. Beer is brewed by scientific methods, isn't it...?86.42.218.214 (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banking industry

They have branched in a timely way in to banking analysis in 2011.86.42.213.177 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

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)[reply]

Fixed here and here (my finetune), hopefully adequately. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 67.169.72.186 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Van Nostrand-Reinhold

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 206.221.149.50 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur heartily; came to WP looking for Van Nostrand and was redirected to an article about Wiley that did not mention Van Nostrand. However, your implicit assumption that the redirect is diminishing the information content of WP is unproven: before the redirect it appears there was nothing. Anyone who has reliable sourced information on Van Nostrand and/or its acquisition by Wiley is free to add a paragraph to the Wiley article.--Lieven Smits (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between Wiley and Bloomberg

We need to clarify the relationship between John Wiley & Sons and Bloomberg L.P.. The former seems to control Bloomberg Press, while the latter is said to own Bloomberg Businessweek and related properties, meanwhile the style guide The Bloomberg Way, produced by editors of the latter, is published by the former. What gives?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV template removed

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Khazar2: More recently, User:Pintoch added another neutrality tag to this article. Can we do anything to make this article more "neutral?" Jarble (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Wiley & Sons. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that the story of how it started is encyclopedic

I feel like when reading the history section of this page, the story of the founder coming to America, founding the print shop, and then the trials of starting a huge company are explained in intimate detail.



I also feel like Wikipedia notability guidelines promote page creations for only celebrities or people who have had news made about them. Which in itself, is not encyclopedic

(Gabeshootman (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Wiley & Sons. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Wiley & Sons → Wiley (publisher) – Per WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:OFFICIALNAME) and WP:CONCISE, though WP:RECOGNIZABLE is also a factor. The long, nineteenth-century name is not how this company is usually referred to, nor what it usually calls itself. Their very recognizable trade name is simply Wiley. All other notable printer/bookseller/publishers surnamed Wiley are part of the story of this company, so there's not even a need for a hatnote.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I think the official (legal) name still is John Wiley & Sons, because the copyright statement at the bottom of their website pages still uses that name and their leadersship page still says "president and CEO ofJohn Wiley & Sons". However, everywhere else do they simply use "Wiley", so this move makes sense. --Randykitty (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I'm going especially by the logo as it appears on their books in modern times. They publish some very popular series, so the average reader is going to see lots and lots of "Wiley" and very little "John Wiley & Sons". Part of what motivated this RM was that (despite being well-read) I was not certain these were the same company (or subsidiaries of one company), and suspected that the long name was an old academic publisher and that the short name referred to the publisher of about half the tech books that exist. WP isn't 100% consistent on this stuff; we have an article at Chevrolet rather than the legal name Chevrolet Division of General Motors Company, but we also have Ford Motor Company presumably because of the ambiguity of the very common name Ford – "Ford (company)" would still be ambiguous, and "Ford (automobile company)" would be less concise than just using the legal company name. We have no such complications with "Wiley (publisher)".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Agreed with above. "Wiley" is what they commonly go by, as seen on their website (and URL). Like SMcCandlish, I was only familiar with Wiley, and wasn't even sure these were the same company at first. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"John Wiley & Sons Inc. 'A'" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect John Wiley & Sons Inc. 'A' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § John Wiley & Sons Inc. 'A' until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Evolutionary Applications" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Evolutionary Applications has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Evolutionary Applications until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pesticide Science (journal)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pesticide Science (journal) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Pesticide Science (journal) until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Weed Research (journal)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Weed Research (journal) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Weed Research (journal) until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiley_(publisher)