Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Untitled

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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Confusing

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:

1. 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.
2. Companies cannot move overseas. How did Sears acquire it?
3. When was Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. incorporated? In which state?
4. 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)

Was there a 1909 Werner edition that had to be re written its a James Baldwin systematic readings if so would it be valuable or no

Godschild13 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have a set of encyclopedias that say Werner and was made in 1909 in Akron Ohio .I know the Werner company was printing the James Baldwin 1905 systematic readings for the Britannica during that time.the James Baldwin I have has 1910 dated on there and has no Britannica on it.so I looked at the 11 Britannica and it looked so close to the Werner encyclopedia .same maps same volumes and plate numbers.so I found out that hooper after obtaining the rights to the Britannica took Paul e Werner the Werner company to court because they were printing for Britannica at the time they printed the 1905 version but because there was an american owner now and the James Baldwin was being printed on american soil then hooper won rights over the books Werner was printing for the Britannica.so I then looked at the dates of them two and found that right after the court was settled he then took Werner's stuff that was Britannica since he owned the rights now and created the the 11 the edition I using the 9th and revising it just like the Werner company was but the Werner printed it first.but couldn't sell it since they lost in court.I have those encyclopedias from Werner I believe and with the dates prove that his set revised of the Britanica was produced first — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godschild13 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 20:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Encyclopædia Britannica (company) → Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. – What do you call a company that originated in Scotland but was bought by Americans, which uses British English but is based in centrally based in Chicago. The base of all the pages displays, "© Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc,"; legal documents [1] present "Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc."; webpage titles at site:www.britannica.com/ as displayed in web searches present Encyclopedia Britannica; and, coming full circle, "Britannica" related topics at http://www.britannica.com/ have titles such as Encyclopædia Britannica (English language reference work) which all appear under the a standard website header reading: "ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA". GregKaye 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support move. It seems proper and logical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Apple, Inc. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Challenging a statement about bankruptcy

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.

---

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)

Was there a Werner edition of the James Baldwin guide to systematic reading

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)

Removed an orphan claim

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

simply Britannica

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)