This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article says that OUP gives 30% of its after-tax income back to the university. But the prior sentence says that OUP is tax-exempt. This seems contradictory. Can someone fix this so that it makes more sense? 24.88.244.72 03:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Philip is correct. I have added an explanation of the tax puzzle to the page. Rimibchatterjee 13:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1. Does the permission to use the material from the two chapters explicitly include making them PD, or subect to the GFDL?, or does the copyright owner have the impression that this material will appear only in WP? 2.What parts of the article have been reproduced from the book? They need to be marked either by quotation marks or as block quotes. 3. Has the editor who added the specific references to unpublished letters, etc, actually seen them, or even seen them reproduced, or are they only known from the book also cited? In any case, why are the detailed references ncessary here? DGG 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I wrote the book on OUP in India, and yes, I have seen the unpublished sources I refer to. I've used some of my research material in the raw form and some which I've cited in my book. Most of the letters are at the OUP archive at its headquarters in Oxford. I haven't used the exact form of words in my book (the article would have been three times as long) but have condensed and summarised for Wikipedia. I own the copyright of my book, and I've done this article exclusively for WP. When I began editing this page the book was not yet out hence the detailed references. I can update them now I guess. Rimi talk 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Also see Rimi B. Chatterjee for details of the book
Does anyone know why OUP ceased to use the Oxford emblem with the motto "Dominus Illuminatio Mea" on most of its new books sometime around 1998/99? Presumably there was a very good reason for abandoning one of the most prestigious and recognizable brand symbols in the world?
Also, does anyone know why "Sapiet Felici" or "Sapientia Felicitatis" were occasionally used in place of "Dominus Illuminatio Mea" on OUP dust jackets?
The intro of this article doesn't summarize the topic very well. Some points:
Areas where I'm not so sure: Does it cover all of the important info about the OUP? Are the other details correct and not misleading? -- Mrwojo ( talk) 02:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there any scope in this article for recounting the establishment of the Music Department at OUP's London offices in 1925? I'm contemplating a biographical article on Hubert J. Foss, who was (among other activities) the first musical editor at Amen House. OUP is not only a major publisher of music today, but its influence on music in the 20th C through publication of the works of R Vaughan Williams and other composers should have some mention. A section on OUP's history and role as music publisher, if the material is available, would compliment a biographical article on Foss. Originalylem ( talk) 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The references section currently lists two unpublished sources used in the article:
Wikipedia articles simply cannot be based, in whole or in part, on unpublished sources. One of the points of requiring reliable sources is that those sources are published so that anyone else can verify the points made. Using unpublished sources also risks falling into the trap of original research, which is again against Wikipedia principles. I will endeavour to remove these sources from the article. Bencherlite Talk 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
there are a number of variant misspelling in WP articles of the word that someone may want to pursue GinAndChronically ( talk) 18:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oxford University Press/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Clearly the OUP is vitally important to outsiders' perceptions of Oxford. B-class because some sections aren't adequately referenced and there's a lack of detail in some areas -- look for the stub templates! Casper Gutman 08:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 08:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
What is the criteria to be listed in this list ? I think about reference book about Economics which is in its 13th edition written by Richard Lipsey and Alec Chrystal. Mascarponette ( talk) 15:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
One section is called "20th Century". I suggest calling it "Recent developments" or anything else that takes into account that we are well into to the 21st Century. Helenew fr ( talk) 05:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Lots of historical details, almost blow-by-blow, until the post-WWII era. Then: "The Press has evolved since then to be one of the largest players in a globally expanding scholarly and reference book market." It's almost as if this article were taken from a book published around 1955. Inquiring people want to know what happened since. Mcswell ( talk) 04:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I searched for a while for the status of OUP, and it seems to be that OUP is simply a commercial publisher, even though they are a university press. The wikipage about university presses says most of them are non-profit, should not then be fully disclamed that OUP is a for-profit publisher? -- 87.115.49.140 ( talk) 14:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
let’s use oxford commas in this article -- 108.17.71.32 ( talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a line "The Press had ended its relationship with Parker's in 1863 ...", but I don't find the word "Parker" anywhere else in the entry -- perhaps the previous reference got deleted? I have no idea what the line is referring to, perhaps a web search might find it? Otherwise delete? Lucubrations ( talk) 00:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm frustrated to not find clear information about when the bible printing monopoly started and ended. And the extent of the income from sales of bibles. And whether these bibles were produced for distribution to the colonies via missionaries etc. Can anyone give a simplified summary of this? Szczels ( talk) 14:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
He is mentioned so many times. Is it excessive? Drew Stanley ( talk) 15:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)