Talk:Oxford University Press

Tax-exempt?
The article says that OUP gives 30% of its after-tax income back to the university. But the prior sentence says that OUP is tax-exempt. This seems contradictory. Can someone fix this so that it makes more sense? 24.88.244.72 03:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, About OUP seems to have the same contradiction!
 * Serein 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Serein 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believes this refers to the OUP being exempt from corporation tax, but liable for Value Added Tax. PhilipPage 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Philip is correct. I have added an explanation of the tax puzzle to the page. Rimibchatterjee 13:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and references
1. Does the permission to use the material from the two chapters explicitly include making them PD, or subect to the GFDL?, or does the copyright owner have the impression that this material will appear only in WP? 2.What parts of the article have been reproduced from the book? They need to be marked either by quotation marks or as block quotes. 3. Has the editor who added the specific references to unpublished letters, etc, actually seen them, or even seen them reproduced, or are they only known from the book also cited? In any case, why are the detailed references ncessary here? DGG 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I wrote the book on OUP in India, and yes, I have seen the unpublished sources I refer to. I've used some of my research material in the raw form and some which I've cited in my book. Most of the letters are at the OUP archive at its headquarters in Oxford. I haven't used the exact form of words in my book (the article would have been three times as long) but have condensed and summarised for Wikipedia. I own the copyright of my book, and I've done this article exclusively for WP. When I began editing this page the book was not yet out hence the detailed references. I can update them now I guess. Rimi talk 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Also see Rimi B. Chatterjee for details of the book

Dominus Illuminatio Mea
Does anyone know why OUP ceased to use the Oxford emblem with the motto "Dominus Illuminatio Mea" on most of its new books sometime around 1998/99? Presumably there was a very good reason for abandoning one of the most prestigious and recognizable brand symbols in the world?

Also, does anyone know why "Sapiet Felici" or "Sapientia Felicitatis" were occasionally used in place of "Dominus Illuminatio Mea" on OUP dust jackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.133.153 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oxford emblem - there was a redesign / branding exercise at that time, covering all OUP books rather than just the academic titles. On the titles that are aimed at an academic market, the crest and the motto make better sense, but OUP publishes worldwide and to a very large variety of markets. The aim was to provide a simple, clear, and uniform logo that would be used on all OUP books, marketing, letterheads, websites, etc.


 * I think it succeeded pretty well actually. Do you really think the crest and motto was one of the most prestigious and recognizable brand symbols in the world? I don't think our ELT customers would necessarily agree.Jenniscott (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Do you really think the crest and motto was one of the most prestigious and recognizable brand symbols in the world?" Absolutely. I don't personally know a single marketing professional who disagrees.  My colleagues and I have been somewhat puzzled by this for some years now.  (Of course, this doesn't affect the argument that the symbol may have less of an aura in certain contexts.)


 * "I don't think our ELT customers would necessarily agree." Need some help here.  Can you tell me why they wouldn't agree?  I'm not familiar with ELT customers.  (And are they now ELL customers?)  Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.133.153 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
The intro of this article doesn't summarize the topic very well. Some points: Areas where I'm not so sure: Does it cover all of the important info about the OUP? Are the other details correct and not misleading? --Mrwojo (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1478 could be a bit misleading. Is that when we're saying the OUP started?
 * It says it's the largest university press in the world. By what measure?
 * It mentions Canada as its second international venture. Is this significant?
 * A few too many details about the tax exempt situation.
 * For the second time it mentions it's the largest university press. (This time it specifies the measure, though.)
 * It introduces Andrew Malcolm and Making Names, yet the article never discusses them.
 * The list of recent business deals could be digested.
 * Most of the ISBN info is on the trivial side.


 * There is no reference to UK distribution centre (based in Kettering) which is a pivotal part of OUP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.239.92 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Music Department
Is there any scope in this article for recounting the establishment of the Music Department at OUP's London offices in 1925? I'm contemplating a biographical article on Hubert J. Foss, who was (among other activities) the first musical editor at Amen House. OUP is not only a major publisher of music today, but its influence on music in the 20th C through publication of the works of R Vaughan Williams and other composers should have some mention. A section on OUP's history and role as music publisher, if the material is available, would compliment a biographical article on Foss. Originalylem (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished sources
The references section currently lists two unpublished sources used in the article:
 * OUP archives held at OUP Headquarters, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford. File headed ‘Henry Frowde, late Publisher’, H.S. Milford’s Letterbooks, Henry Frowde’s Letterbooks, Secretary’s Letterbooks, File DUP/C/3/13
 * Noel L. Carrington, ‘Initiation into Publishing’, in ‘Ebb Tide of the Raj’, unpublished memoir in the holdings of the Oriental and India Office Collection, British Library.

Wikipedia articles simply cannot be based, in whole or in part, on unpublished sources. One of the points of requiring reliable sources is that those sources are published so that anyone else can verify the points made. Using unpublished sources also risks falling into the trap of original research, which is again against Wikipedia principles. I will endeavour to remove these sources from the article. BencherliteTalk 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

sp "Oxord"
there are a number of variant misspelling in WP articles of the word that someone may want to pursueGinAndChronically (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Important series and titles
What is the criteria to be listed in this list ? I think about reference book about Economics which is in its 13th edition written by Richard Lipsey and Alec Chrystal.Mascarponette (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Section title
One section is called "20th Century". I suggest calling it "Recent developments" or anything else that takes into account that we are well into to the 21st Century. Helenew fr (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

21st century
Lots of historical details, almost blow-by-blow, until the post-WWII era. Then: "The Press has evolved since then to be one of the largest players in a globally expanding scholarly and reference book market." It's almost as if this article were taken from a book published around 1955. Inquiring people want to know what happened since. Mcswell (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

idea
let’s use oxford commas in this article --108.17.71.32 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxford shortnotes style, too. Tyrone Madera (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

For profit status
I searched for a while for the status of OUP, and it seems to be that OUP is simply a commercial publisher, even though they are a university press. The wikipage about university presses says most of them are non-profit, should not then be fully disclamed that OUP is a for-profit publisher? --87.115.49.140 (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OUP isn't simply a for-profit publisher, the situation is more complicated. OUP is legally fully part of Oxford University which is a (statuary) charity. While OUP is in practice largely independent, it is formally run as a department of Oxford University that does trading (ie for profit) activity - as lots of Departments of the University (and also other charities generally) do. In particular OUP is not just a company owned by Oxford University (in which case you could argue for saying it's for profit even though it's owned by a non-profit) but it's fully integrated in Oxford University's governance. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

dangling reference to "Parker's"?
There is a line "The Press had ended its relationship with Parker's in 1863 ...", but I don't find the word "Parker" anywhere else in the entry -- perhaps the previous reference got deleted? I have no idea what the line is referring to, perhaps a web search might find it? Otherwise delete? Lucubrations (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The line doesn't make much sense in isolation, but appears to be correct, as it is supported by the following reference to Sutcliffe p. 16, which can be checked via Internet Archive. Parker's was the publisher managed by John Henry Parker (writer). TSventon (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Bible Monopolies
I'm frustrated to not find clear information about when the bible printing monopoly started and ended. And the extent of the income from sales of bibles. And whether these bibles were produced for distribution to the colonies via missionaries etc. Can anyone give a simplified summary of this? Szczels (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Malcolm
He is mentioned so many times. Is it excessive? Drew Stanley (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)