Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

message: Why is this not part of the main article on the Britannica?  It does not justify separate billing.
:The company and the main encyclopedia are not the same thing. Having a separate articles allows this to be categorised as a company. Greg Grahame 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The product - the book - seems to be conflated with the company for much of the article.  As a result, I expect readers to be confused by a number of things, as am I:
# If it was a partnership before incorporating, it must have changed names at least once.  For example the ninth edition was published by Adam and Charles Black and The Times Printing House.
# Companies cannot move overseas.  How did Sears acquire it?
# When was Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. incorporated?  In which state?
# Was EB a division of Sears, or a subsidiary?
Can anyone shed light on this and add it to the article?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I just removed this text from the article based someone asking a question in WP:OTRS.
---------
The company declared bankruptcy in late 1995; in January 1996, the company was purchased by billionaire Swiss financier Jacqui Safra for $136 million, though this was far less than the CEO, Joseph J. Esposito, had hoped.Shane Greenstein and Michelle Devereux,
"The Crisis at Encyclopædia Britannica" (pdf), case study 5-306-504, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2006*
-------------
I cannot read the original source but would like for all of this to be verified. The claim is that the source does not back up the purchase price nor does it describe a 1995 bankruptcy. If someone has access to the source, can they match what it says to these statements? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging a statement about bankruptcy 

message: Was they're a Werner edition of the James Baldwin guide to systematic reading.it has a total of 25 volumes it was also written by Frederick t Jones and Alexander ross read A.M also revised by G.A sigel if so would it be in the Britannica category cause I can't find any info online any help I can get I would appreciate thank you and have a great day  Godschild13 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a Werner edition of the James Baldwin guide to systematic reading  

message: The company was one of the first to offer encyclopaedia content online (in association with LexisNexis in the 1980s), and currently publishes in several mediums, including DVD and through its website.
This was the lead passage in section Jacqui Safra, where it amounted to a non-sequitur.  
Perhaps someone can place this event on its proper timeline and restore this text to the article. — MaxEnt 23:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed an orphan claim 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.. 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/20070927080425/http://www.howtoknow.com/BOL1.html to http://www.howtoknow.com/BOL1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020084752/http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html to http://corporate.britannica.com/company_info.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the lead, perhaps it would be proper to say something like: 
:"Encyclopædia Britannica Inc, also known simply as Britannica, is a Scottish company... etc" (I think you get the jist) 
Basically stating explicitly that EB is referred to as Britannica, rather than just having it implied by the article's usage starting in the next paragraph. Maybe I'm wrong though, so thought I would put the idea on the talk page first. --Pythagimedes (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  simply Britannica