Talk:Edwin Mellen Press

Neutrality
There have been some substantial poor reviews of this publishers wrt its academic review process. e.g.   The article also does not mention Mellen University or Mellon Honors College.. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to the respected gentleman and scholar John Vandenberg: the aforementioned colleges and abovementioned publishing company are distinct,seperate organizations under seperate management with similar names. So there is no reason why all three should be mentioned in the same article any more than one would cover the twentieth century movie star Troy and the Trojan War in the same article or Paris Hilton in an article on the City of Paris.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.201.66 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hardly the same thing since - at least in 1985, Herbert Richardson owned the press and Mellen University., (explaining why he was sacked from his post at the University of Toronto). Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Mellen Honors College ever actually existed. discusses plans for it. Mellen University Press is interesting: www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=31&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAAOB4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.safs.ca%2Facademicfreedom%2Fmiles.html&ei=tHvkULPGFejI0AXy0oDIDw&usg=AFQjCNHq-SbC5FvTRXRIgTDFLYusAvHp0Q&sig2=dt9fmaNM_Q-14TluqKWKlA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.d2k (truncated due to spam block). As for Mellen Press itself, . Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial and Criticism
I agree 100% that the Edwin Mellen Press is controversial and has been criticized a lot. As someone correctly pointed out that is what is it mainly known for, if it is notable at all. As a matter of style I took out the word "controversial" from the opening sentence, but leaving the source for that information. I was trying to follow the general principles in writing of "show not tell" and "don't tell people what to think and feel." There's no real need for the word right there when in a matter of seconds the reader is actually reading about the controversy. I also suggest take out the "Criticism" subtitle. There is nothing wrong with a one or two paragraph article with no sub-sections. Also there is really no non-criticism section to separate the criticism section from. Borock (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Borock -- thanks for replying here; sorry that I undid your edit and didn't start a talk thread because I was rushing out of the house, thanks for doing so. I am in agreement that you can take out the word from the lede -- even though I agree with the critics and I think that having most of the article be about criticism can be neutral, since that is what the press is mostly known for, your "show not tell" invocation is correct.  My objection was that one of the more important source footnotes is mostly a source for the controversy, so that if the word "controversial" is going to be removed, that source (which shouldn't be removed since it is important) would need to be reintegrated elsewhere. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That source is also used for another fact. I will try making both my suggested changes.  If you don't like them change them back, or whatever. Borock (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

New legal threats to critics (Scholarly Kitchen)
According to the Scholarly Kitchen blog, Edwin Mellen Press is sending legal threats to some blogs and commenters who have covered the case. (Full disclosure: I commented on one of the blog posts pointing to these edits to this wikipedia article when one of the bloggers mentioned similar comments on critical blog posts.) - Ben (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments at help desk
See Help desk. I have suggested that this is best discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments at the help desk, to the effect that the article is well sourced. If there are other elements that should be added for the sake of balance, that's fine (to the extent that there are sources for them).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Robert Stafford quote
I'm inclined to remove the Robert Stafford quote, as without the context it seems to be misleading. Currently the lead includes:
 * It has been described as a vanity press whose books "often prove to contain quite extraordinary gibberish".

The vanity press claim is in keeping with the sources being used. However, the quote at the end is sourced to Stafford, and that's missing the context. What he says is:
 * Briefly summarised, the reprinted report suggests that this publisher produces what appear to be from their titles to be properly researched, refereed and edited scholarly books but which often prove to contain quite extraordinary gibberish.

So Stafford isn't saying himself that they contain gibberish, but is instead summarising what he describes as a suggestion in another work. I'd be happy referencing the original report, if we have access to it, but as things stand we're making a strong statement as a factual claim, from a source which is only summarising a suggestion in another source, and this is a bit too far removed from our depiction for comfort. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is not that the quote is inaccurate (what I read from your edit summary) but that a secondhand source isn't good enough for this level of criticism? I suppose I can go along with that. It doesn't seem to be a very high-quality source, anyway: a local newsletter reporting on a local reprint of something whose provenance we don't know. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More that the claim that Edwin Mellen Press has been described this way as inaccurate - Stafford has described a suggestion in a report about Edwin Miller Press in this manner, but hasn't actually described Edwin Mellen themselves. I wish we had the original report, as I'd like to use it, but I'll keep digging and see if I can find it. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Richardson
At some point it might be interesting to have an article on Richardson. I don't have all that much time for Wikipedia these days, but for someone who does, here are some interesting sources:, , ,. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sample academic title
A scientific biography by Margaret Bailey of Gaspard de Prony is cited in that article. Though I have not seen the book, I suspect it is excellent since Ivor Grattan-Guinness recommended an earlier version (1984) at page 110 of his Convolutions in French Mathematics (1990).Rgdboer (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edwin Mellen Press. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081107094106/http://www.mellenpress.com:80/index.cfm to http://www.mellenpress.com/index.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Vanity press?
Reading between the lines of the criticism section, it looks as if the press has been successful in its legal action when accused of being a 'vanity press', which that article defines as "a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published". It would be nice to have it clarified that this press is indeed "non-subsidy" (i.e. not a vanity press). Assuming that is the case. 216.8.187.209 (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Reminder on Neutrality and Criticism
Just a quick reminder, for all editors, of some useful guides I found: • Neutral point of view

• Controversial articles

• No personal attacks

• Vandalism

• Criticism

• Be neutral in form

In view of the policies on Criticism and Neutrality in form, I will change the heading to 'Reception' rather than 'Criticism'. Doodyalley (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
Some issues: Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Cites WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, even in lead. Needs better secondary source to describe it.
 * 2) #Selected published works, #History, #Scholarly publishing seem promotional.
 * 3) #Reception looks like WP:SYNTH, chaining multiple incidents together to make the statement (in lead)
 * 4) #Reception also contains a 'counterargument' from the press itself which is WP:ABOUTSELF and might not be appropriate in this context, as it might create a WP:FALSEBALANCE.


 * yeah, you're right. this article has been all over the place, it initially just stated that it's a vanity press then (in my opinion) paid editors were used (like most recently "Doodyalley" who however denies having any association with the press [despite all their edits being concerned with them]). I tried to to fix it a little but the article is still way too accommodating of what is might very well be WP:FALSEBALANCE Bari&#39; bin Farangi (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)