Talk:The New International Encyclopedia

[Untitled]
I removed the following sentence from the summary, because I think there is no good reason to single out this example.
 * "The supplement includes a short paragraph on the activities of a Bavarian named Adolf Hitler from 1920-24."

Andries 21:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hitler is always worthy of being mentioned. He was the leading figure in World War II.  He was a "charismatic" person who was the architect of that war.  Where have you been?  Velocicaptor 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why should he be singled out as an example? I admit that I have myself was very curious to see what was written in in a pre-war encyclopedia and looked it up there. It does not make sense to single him out. Andries 21:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I mentioned him. Some people may read the paragraph.  I think that it may be the earliest inclusion of Adolf Hitler in an encyclopedia.  Some other person removed his name, though, so the notation probably will be removed soon (but not by me).  Velocicaptor 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had removed it, but I will not do it again. Remembering my own behavior when reading another pre-war encyclopedia convinced me that singling out Hitler may have been right after all. Andries 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A noteworthy error
Daniel Chester French was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1913. The New International Encyclopedia lists him with the members of the American Academy of Arts and Letters.

Around 1910, those two similar organizations existed. Writers confusingly referred to both of them using the phrase "National Academy."

The American Academy of Sciences had been founded in 1780. The phrase "National Academy" was applied to it in the 19th century. Around 1910 the American Academy of Arts and Letters (founded in 1904) was called "National Academy," too, yet the older organization was also still being referred to as the "National Academy."

Sculptors became members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences but not of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. The New International Encyclopedia's main editions were copyrighted in 1902 and in 1917. They encompassed the years down to 1914. A supplement appeared in 1926. It covered the decade from 1914 to 1924. In the main edition produced about 1915 to 1917, Daniel Chester French was included as a member of the National Academy of Arts and Letters group. The error was reprinted in the supplement of 1926.

Another sculptor named Bela Pratt was described as being a member of the "National Academy." However, he was not included in the list of members of the American Academy of Arts and Letters. He, too, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 


 * Interesting, but this talk page is only meant to improve the article. I suggest the above remark is copied to Errors_in_the_New_International_Encyclopedia_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia because it is relevant for Wikipedia. A similar article exist for the Encyclopedia Britannica Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia Andries 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is beyond my ability to do. I prefer to allow someone else to act.  I will concentrate on submitting biographies since I have access to the encyclopedia.  It took me awhile to realize that an error existed and to see why it had been made.  I added the word "International" to the statement above this one.  GhostofSuperslum 16:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a pitty, because a list of mistakes in other encyclopedias are useful for other Wikipedia contributors and above all makes Wikipedia look relatively somewhat better. :) Andries 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lesser errors
Variant renditions or interpretations of the names of people, especially Europeans, occurred. Some Americans differ, too, from the names used in 2006. John Cochran is called "John Cochrane" in 2006 (on websites and in other Wikipedia articles).

In some rare cases, it is impossible to determine which variation of a name is the correct one.
 * Today, while working at Paul Albert Besnard, I learned that no Desire Mercier article existed. The encyclopedia calls him Desir&#233; Joseph Mercier. Articles in Wikipedia list him in various ways; as "Desire," "D&#233;sir&#233;&#45;Joseph" (WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/biographies/M), and "Desire Joseph."  I have no idea which variation is accurate, so I used the simplest name.  A "pipe" is a necessity with such names.  GhostofSuperslum 17:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Battle of Sayler's Creek" was fought during the American Civil War. The true name of the battle is in doubt.  New International Encyclopedia calls the place "Sailor's Creek," which establishes "Sailor's Creek" as being in use at the beginning of the 20th century when the publication of the encyclopedia was in progress.Superslum (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I currently own...
I temporally own a 1912 version of this encyclopedia. Is there anything anyone wants me to scan before I pass 'em on to a bookseller? ---J.S (T/C) 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Michael Smith (ontologist) so we can see if its real or not! 68.39.174.238 23:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll check it out when I get home tonight. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Scan some of the copyright dates into this talk page. People are now "tagging" the article, thereby insinuating that it contains fabrications, which it does, but only to a small degree.  I may scan some pages later on. Naysayers have appeared. GhostofSuperslum 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Michael Smith" did not have an entry in the 1912 edition of this encyclopedia. If it was in here it would be on page 261 of volume 18. I can't say for previous or latter editions, but he's certainly not in this one. Unfortunately I don't have access to a a scanner so I am unable to scan the lack of an entry for you.  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it... your talking about this article. Ah... Hmmm sorry... I don't have a scanner. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Article title
One question: Why is the title of our article "New International Encyclopedia" when the first illustration in the article shows the spelling "New International Encyclopædia". Did they use both spellings? Did they change sometime with a new edition? Encyclopædia Britannica is spelled with the ligature, both here and in the original. --Rbraunwa 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is included in the category English language encyclopedias. That may be why it is spelled without the "&aelig;."  It is likely that every edition employed the ligature.Velocicaptor 06:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Format
This format is monstrously unreadable and gives no idea of what importance the New International Encyclopedia had/hs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

what's with the 'foreign-born' sections?
More than half of this article seems to be dedicated to reprinting some tables of data the NIE contained on foreign-born people in various US cities as of 1910. This doesn't seem like it really belongs in an article on the encyclopedia itself; notable contents of the encyclopedia should be summarized, rather than just reprinting fairly random portions of it. Any objections if I remove these sections? --Delirium (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just read this article for the first time. Yes, the article is a mess, but no, please do not simply delete. Several of these sections do not belong in this article, but are (at least arguably) valuable because they provide links to other Wikipedia articles from a unique perspective: that of the early twentieth century. I think that each of these lists can be moved to its own article. -Arch dude (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it should definitely be moved or deleted, it doesn't seem to add anything to the article. 170.252.248.203 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at it months later, I saw the multiple sections summarizing US census reports, and grouped them as subsections into one section comprising a bit less than 20% of the space on my screen. This material has value for, among other things, insight into the bureaucratic and scholarly mindset of the time, even if not great value, and I see no compelling reason to get rid of it.  'Twould be pleasant, however, if the section said whether my subsections are exactly the names of the original articles, or of sections thereof.  Jim.henderson (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is crap, and not even an encyclopedia article. 90% of it should be removed. -R. fiend (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Spotty scans
It is annoying that archive.org does not have a non-Google scan for the 8th volume of the first edition. It seems very odd that there are so many volumes missing from the second edition as far as publicly available scans are concerned. It seems to be a serious gap that needs to be filled. Library Guy (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)