Talk:Scott Foresman

Concerns re: sources and references

Hello. This article is full of information, but without references to reliable sources to back up the facts being presented this article will most likely be deleted. It reads alot like an advertisment, and has no sources listed.

What is most needed is a demonstration that the subject is notable and that the facts put forth are accurate. Thank you, I will check back in a few days. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for.

The company has a rich history of creating cultural phenomenoms of publishing: from the terribly important Roberts Rules of Order, and the prolific D'Nealian writing instruction series, to the educational and nostalgic Dick and Jane series. While clearly a for-profit business, Pearson Scott Foresman has a mission of education.

The information came from research I have put together from the Pearson Scott Foresman web site as well as from contacts I made at the company. I hope this helps. Please let me know what I'm missing.

Regards,

 ChicagoRookie 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I should have mentioned before, the article needs to meet the criteria laid out here: WP:CORP to be included in the encyclopedic. Thanks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

excellent. thanks for the help. i'll get to work.

ChicagoRookie 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What happens when you turn Wikipedia into an ad

The current version of this article reads like a hyped-up report to shareholders, so I'm deleting most of it, and if you put the garbage back, I'll propose that the entire article be deleted. See Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. For a sane article about a company in the same business, see Harcourt_Education. See how there aren't mindnumbingly blatant bits of advertising cruft in that article? Good.

I'd like to ask the Pearson Scott Foresman corporate shill here to please stop misusing the encyclopedia. Golly gee, Dick and Jane, look here! "The California State Board of Education unanimously approved Pearson Scott Foresman’s innovative curriculum in 2006"! That's an "educational milestone" that belongs in an encyclopedia? No. It's not.

Listen, shill, thousands of people involved in elementary education know that Pearson Scott Foresman treats 6th graders like rabid wild animals that need to be subdued by giant two-page glossy color spreads of cute kids and furry animals before the poor dears will understand what tiny bits of math and science exist in your godawful math and science texts. Imagine a 6th grader pounding their textbook with a dumb-ass grin on his or her face and shouting, "LOOK MOM! THERE'S A BIG PICTURE OF A CUTE PANDA IN MY MATH BOOK SO MATH MUST BE FUN! HOORAY! MAKE THE SCHOOL BOARD ORDER MORE! Who's Al Gerba?" and you have the universal fantasy of Pearson Scott Foresman corporate shills. The more stupid we as a nation get, the more likely we are to buy their books in large quantities so we'll be even more stupid in the next generation.

Maybe your shareholders read Scott Foresman books as kids so you can treat them like the idiots they are, but, believe me, most Wikipedia editors are smart people as a result of never coming into contact with most of your so-called educational materials as children. Now take your corporate spam out of this encyclopedia or "I shall be forced to taunt you once again." 71.162.69.247 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pearson Scott Foresman images on Commons

• commons:Category:PD-ScottForesman

Pearson Scott Foresman has donated a number of images to Wikimedia Commons as public domain. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)