Talk:Free Press (publisher)

What is an imprint?

Mentioned several times in the first para - link would help!

Last person's notes:

I'm currently under impression that this is the same imprint that was known in 1950s and 1960s as The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. If someone knows otherwise, please correct. --82.179.218.10 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The great scholarly social science books of the 1950s-1970s need to be added

Listing of notable books ignores all the great more-serious scholarly social scientific works of the 1950s-1970s. On my eventually ToDo list to fix. But please someone go right ahead and do it: Simmel; Parsons pop immediately to mind. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Webb

As stated in History for my edit today, my father's name was Valery Webb and not Valerie Webb as was incorrectly stated in the cited source. He was named after his grandfather, Valery Havard (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Valery_Havard). For a published source that contains the correct spelling, please see: Lakeland Ledger, June 26, 1997 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19970626&id=u74wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v_wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6520,3713424 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSWebb (talk • contribs) 13:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free Press (publisher). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melville blog

This source is being removed as a "bloggy web blog" which is ridiculous. It's an official publication of notable and well know publisher. They publish articles by staff and authors. The piece in question is a historical overview of FP which is not easy to find anywhere else. I've looked. It's a valuable and accurate resource. The word "blog" has nothing to do with its reliability. -- GreenC 04:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a company commentary blog written by "Claire Kelley is a the former Director of Library and Academic Marketing." about other companies. This particular blog is a commentary about what they read in the NYT. When the NYT source is already present, having another source that says "according to NYT" is pointless and redundant. What value do you propose that this reference adds? It's not an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence; and a source that cites one source, then a second source says that first source says... adds nothing, period. Graywalls (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "company commentary" that is a misrepresentation. She is a librarian and it is a research piece on the history of Free Press which has exactly 0 to do with Melville Press. I also find it funny you keep deleting 1 source at a time, then it gets readded by orphan bot because the source is used about 16 times in the article. Are you going to delete it 16 times, one at a time? Further, the piece is not "what they read in the NYT", there might be little overlap but most is not. You don't know anything about these companies, the publishing industry, you have not even read the underlying articles or understand what they say. Your ability to make a judgement is biased by your 1-trick blinkered POV that everything related to Melville is COI so you have done massive damage throughout Wikipedia by deleting these sources that are reliable in many cases. -- GreenC 13:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what COI is? You're the one who does not notice or look the other way on disallowed public relations editing which as a whole undermines the integrity of the entire encyclopedia. You can quit making personal attacks like "You don't know anything about these companies", because it's coming across as "i know better than you and my edits are better". I remove/replace questionable sources. The article previously said Free Press' emphasis is religion and sociology. It now says, religion and social science, according to NYT. Social science and sociology are not synonymous. Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I miss some things, but there are things you don't notice. This is in regards about your misjudgement about the source not "I know better than you my edits are better", which you are quoting as if I said those words. The problem is you have systematically engaged in a campaign to remove links to this web site, and what triggered it is not reliability but your zeal over COI, you are in effect enacting punishment because you found some evidence of COI edits from over a decade ago. Publishers, newspapers, magazines and book publishers are all similar. They have an editorial staff, editorial positions, an output of writings. They also sell products. That's how the world works. But that doesn't make their publications and writings unsuitable for Wikipedia when added by neutral editors. -- GreenC 16:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]