Talk:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography

Effacing Appleton's

"Unrated" indeed! I have emended and expanded this article, which is the subject of current somewhat clumsy and unexplained undertakings by Wikipedia Administrators, that seem to be stripping all references to the untrustworthy Appleton's Cyclopedia from Wikipedia. The details, with some quite unimaginable further modern twists and turns inserted in on-line "versions" of Appleton's, can be followed:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/famousamericans.net
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Nov 13
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, under the heading "Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?' Starting 8 December 2007 and following days (This thread will soon be archived).

--Wetman (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the blanket statements about Appletons' being "unreliable" certainly pop up. Having worked with it for a year, I think it is a reliable source for United States and North American subjects, as Chandler states, and there is much that is difficult to obtain elsewhere. The only qualification I have seen from a close student of Appletons' is by Chandler, and she states that articles on Latin American subjects should be corroborated, and that otherwise it is a reliable source. Even for Latin American subjects, there is much of value to be found. I did see a general statement, "Beware of Appleton's [sic]" by G.S., but this is very vague, and his mispunctuating of the title leads me to suspect he doesn't have much direct experience with the work. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting

Why are we deleting all the references to Appleton's? If you don't like the links to Klos, remove the links ... and replace with the Google books version, but don't delete the references ... that's just, well stupid ... Why is it ok, to link to the New York Times archive, and not link to Klos's scanned version? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Online copy

I don't understand why there shouldn't be at least links to online copies in the article.

One copy is published by well-renowned Archive.org, scanned with support from MSN: [1]. I think linking it is a Good Thing. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Updates

In addition to the seventh volume supplement issued in 1901, the other six volumes were periodically updated with a final release in 1900. I state this just from inspection, and will keep an eye out for a verifiable ref on this matter until which time this note will suffice. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)