Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition/Archive 2

message: I can't find anything about "lazy negroes", etc. in the encyclopedia. I think we should see some proof first.
:I've got most of the volumes of EB11 in print. I just had a quick look at the US Civil War article but didn't see any mention of negroes at all. However looking at http://94.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HA/HAITI.htm it says "The people are almost entirely pure-blooded negroes, the mulattoes, who form about 10% of the population, being a rapidly diminishing and much-hated class. The negroes are a kindly, hospitable people, but ignorant and lazy. " Mintguy (T) 21:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional info

message: ;"Much content from the 1911 edition has been incorporated into Wikipedia; the count as of 26 September 2004 was about 2200 articles."
;2200 is about the number of pages in Category:1911 Britannica, but there are more which have been removed from the category as more info from other sources has been added.
;—wwoods 05:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia content

message: Does anyone have a "copyright-clean" version of the 1911 EB online? From what I can tell:
* 1911encyclopedia.org has an OCR scan that may be copyright-encumbered
* PG has released a handfull of volumes, but nowhere near all of them (and they won't be finished anytime soon)
* Some people/companies have scans of the encyclopedia, but nobody is making them available online -- at least not for free ($$) and not without claims of copyright.
Is there anywhere people can get this important document in its entirety online?  I'm surprised that someone like archive.org doesn't have scans on their site.
Womble 14:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright-clean version? 

message: Why why why is Caithness in this category? Laurel Bush 17:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caithness

message: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/1911wikipedia
*Link to proposal on mailing list: 
*Naming suggestions:1911 Wikipedia
*Domain name:en.1911wikipedia.org
*Scope:The 1911 Enyclopedia Brittanica is considered the best encyclopedia ever made. Many of the historical and literary articles in wikipedia use the 1911 Brittanica as the main source. A 19111 wikipedia project would work to put the entire encylopedia onlibe in wikipedia format. This would be an excellent source and support for wikipedia articles. Current online 1911 editions are ocd scanned and thus of very poor quality. Our wikipedia editors would be very effective in editing it.
*Details: 1911wikipedia
*Proposer:--Gary123 18:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1911 Wikipedia

message: In a recent book about the encyclopedia brittanica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Know-It-All:_One_Man%27s_Humble_Quest_to_Become_the_Smartest_Person_in_the_World 
under the passage on "encylopedia" it mentions a new yorker article that goes in depth on the 1911 brittanica. I think that article and the passage from the book itself would be very useful for this article.--Gary123 16:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More thoughts on 1911 Britannica

message: This is now available on Wikisource http://wikisource.org/wiki/EB1911:Original_introduction. Apwoolrich 18:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be useful, if you mean the editorial introduction.  But it seems gone?  scan here at the moment, you probably need alternatiff plugin.  Well worth reading for those interested in this subject.  flux.books 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How odd. If you click on the infobox for 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to the right of the main page you will find it. Has anyone altered the name of this page from EB1911 to something different? It worked fine with this link last August. I have added a note on the main page. Apwoolrich 19:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911 EB Introduction 

message: This is purely a subjective opinion. Often..how often? Regarded.. by whom? In fact someone in the 1930's who read both the 11th and 14th in entirety said the 14th was a "great improvement" over the 11th, that it had been mostly re-written.  The lead section needs to be written without presenting this rather one-sided opinion and keep with facts instead of hyping it up. If your going to present that "fact" that some people things its the best, then you also need to present the "fact" that there is considerable criticism of the encyclopedia. --Stbalbach 19:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please...of course new editions will be rewritten, as the old get outdated. That it's the greatest edition doesn't mean it's the best to use today. Where is there "considerable criticism" of the 11th edition? Actually the Criticisms section is rather silly, saying "Articles about science and medicine are outdated". Well, you don't say! What kind of criticism is it to say a book published in 1911 is outdated in 2005? And the only other criticism is that it wasn't exactly following a neutral point of view. Well, that's precisely what Kenneth Clark praised it for ("slightly coloured by prejudice"), there's no evidence that this has been a cause for "considerable criticism". 
Kolokol 19:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem obvious to you, but many people do take it literarly, that this encyclopedia really is the best encyclopedia ever published, even to this day. There is ample evidence of this all over Wikipedia with a core group of eb1911 supporters who cut and paste entire eb1911 articles in with no revisions or edits, including science articles. You may think its silly, and I would agree, but ive seen it many times. I even had a conversation with one person who said he'll only read history from Victorian authors. There really are people who think this encyclopedia is better than more recent ones. --Stbalbach 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even they will be aware that much of it is outdated. They may just sympathize more with the "Victorian POV", and that's their choice. Still, there is no objective evidence of widespread criticism. Your personal criticism doesn't belong in the article. Kolokol 21:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not aware. That is the point. They read the article and take it literarly word for word. Is there some reason you wish to subvert putting this encyclopedia into historical context? Historical context may be obvious to you, but its not obvious to other people. --Stbalbach 21:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, what does "greatest edition" mean? That is a subjective POV statement. If I wrote that in any article on Wikipedia Id be thrown out. "King Kong is regard by some people as the greatest movie ever made". Completely inappropriate to Wikiepdia. It's pretty obvious you have a strong bias in favour of eb1911 and are not solely interested in being fair and balanced. --Stbalbach 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you get the idea I "wish to subvert putting this encyclopedia into historical context"? Putting it into historical context is not "criticism". And the article does not say it's the greatest edition, which would indeed be POV. It says it is widely regarded as such, which is just fact. This works for movies just the same, e.g. Lo que le Paso a Santiago says it "is considered by many to be the greatest movie ever produced in Puerto Rico" or Balthazar (film) says it "is often praised as one of the greatest films ever made". Kolokol 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link provided doesnt say it's "the greatest".. it has a section header at the bottom with an ambiguous "still the best" (better than the 2005 version?), which doesnt really count, but more importantly, it is an article on a rare book dealer website.. It is an infomercial. Of course a rare book dealer will think highly of old books.  It's not a reliable source, or even authoritative. As for other articles doing the same, on wikipedia you can get away with that when no one contests it, in this case its being contested. A citeable authoritative source is being requested to back it up and put into context. --Stbalbach 22:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you won't find this kind of infomercial about, say, the 14th edition. And reliable sources are for facts, this one was just an example of the widely held opinion. But for a reliable source as to the fact that this opinion is indeed the prevailing one, will the current Britannica be good enough for you? It says: "The famed 11th edition was issued in 29 volumes ... The rich, leisurely prose of the 11th edition marked the pinnacle of literary style in the Britannica." It doesn't describe any other edition as "famed". Kolokol 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: heh.. quoting Encyclopedia Britannica about its own heritage doesnt count as a reliable source, as per the definition of reliable source. What we really need is a well-known author or scholar (who is neutral) who we can quote their name and give the "greatest" opinion some weight. Failing that I would not be opposed to replace "greatest" (someones opinion) with "famed" (factual), its more appropriate, not likely to be mis-understood. The infomercial link is appropriate for backing up that it is "famous", but not as a direct citeable authoritative source for the claim its the "greatest".  --Stbalbach 23:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "often regarded as the greatest edition" 

message: I used the word schedule loosely rather than get into details, but for example in the 1911 Appomattox article it gives information on which nearby towns the train will stop at (trains at the time were probably seen as permanent geographic fixtures like highways today).  --Stbalbach 23:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rail "schedules"  

message: Does it now?  This seems like the sort of claim I think it'd be better to leave out.
:Yes, it's not by any means the KJV of the Bible.  flux.books 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "yet stirs the heart of the modern literary reader" 

message: Forgive me if this question marks me as a Wikipedian come lately, but wasn't much of the initial Wikipedia filled out with articles copied verbatim from the 11th ed. EB?  Is that not worthy of mention in the article on it? --Jfruh 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally its bad form to discuss wikipedia on wikipedia (some rule about self-reference) if it can be discussed in a more general way; theres a section about EB1911's modern usage which can apply to wikipedia or any other site. I think there is also considerable controversy about the use of EB1911 articles on wikipedia being copied verbatim (see the Wikipedia Biases article). --Stbalbach 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Wiki depends so heavily on EB-11 is important for users to know. We should not hide it. It makes clear how influential EB11 still is.  That is we are showing the influence of EB11, not boasting about Wiki. In my opinion there is too much reliance on EB11 in Wiki, and it is indeed controversial.  But it is a verifiable fact of importance and use to users, so keep it.  The fact that EB11 is online is also important to users. Rjensen 02:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia does not "depend heavily" on EB1911. And Im not sure I agree mentioning Wikipedia is a good idea -- it lends EB1911 undo credibility, anyone can cut and paste an article in 1 minute but that doesnt mean its a quality article. Plus there is a rule about not self-referencing wikipedia in articles -- wikipedia is not the only source that uses EB1911, why just mention Wikipedia? There is already a whole section in this article that talks about the pros and cons of using EB1911 as a modern source. -- Stbalbach 03:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of relationship to Wikipedia