If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check outWikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The edit by 84.172.224.145 seems to suggest that the 20th c. edition is a successor to the 19th c. edition. Is there evidence to that effect? To say that it "carried over some of the old material" begs the question, as in some sense that could be said of any edition of any encyclopedia, especially at this time when copyright laws were far less restrictive.
Certainly there are major questions of organizational continuity with other encyclopedias - lots of transfers and bankruptcies - for example, the Britannica. At some level, it's a brand, not an enterprise. However, the content there was clearly more continuous, and there wasn't a 45 year gap.flux.books16:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "encyclopedia" article of the Americana has a section about itself, which suggests continuity. That the new Americana carried over material from the old at least makes clear that it was a deliberate continuation of the brand, not just two entirely different encyclopedias which accidentally shared the same name.Kolokol19:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's always healthy to take a company's own statements about itself with a grain of salt. And a suggestion isn't a fact; plus, they would of course want to "suggest" continuity as a matter of marketing. I don't see support for the conclusion about it being intentional at this point - the name just as easily could have been a result of the involvement of ScientificAmerican, or merely the obvious alternative to Britannica. There are many other variations of that name which have been published. And sugggesting continuity, and there actually being continuity, are two different things. Did they buy any of the rights or assets, as e.g. Britannica publishers did? Did they have any more right to the content of the older edition, or carry over any more of the content, than any other publisher would have, at that time? Next time I'm in a library, I'll try to find the c. 1903 edition and see what they say about it.
Is that a question? And which edition? According to one contemporary source, the original price (1832, at which time several volumes had been issued) was to be $2.50 per volume for 12 volumes, or $30 total. What it actually cost, I couldn't tell you at the moment. And 13 volumes were issued.flux.books23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an American and have accesss to Britannica online and the print version and both use British spelling, also. It's domain is.com, not.co.uk and it spells certain words likemeter asmetre. Do versions in the UK say "British English" on them?Britannica is run in Chicago but I think they try to pretend they're British because of the name of the work.--Primetime14:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When Britannica came under American ownership it did not abandon British spelling, and it indeed did maintain a connection to British scholarship. Of course, this has nothing to do with Encyclopedia Americana. --Aaron Walden21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Sutter thing does not go very well with the rest of the article but I found it interesting when I learnt about it, so IWP:BOLD.Perhaps you can sandwich it with "The encyclopedia was useful for the pioneers... as shown in the case of Sutter...". --84.20.17.8412:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In the US, anything published prior to 1923 is in the public domain, and since this is an American work, it will also be in the public domain in those countries with the rule of the shorter term with respect to the US. The first mention in the renewals is in 1927, so 1923-1926 EA may also be in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk)15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:GrolierBldg.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
