Talk:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]