Jump to content

Talk:Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Publication year

[edit]

The publication year is printed on the copyright page of a book. In this case, the copyright date is 2002. Google Books is not always a reliable source for the publication date, and library and citation standards are to use what is printed on the copyright page. This is reflected in the Library of Congress catalog number: "JC481 .G567 2002". Even the alleged 2001 edition has 2002 on the copyright page, and the print edition (which is what should be listed in the infobox) did not hit the shelves until 2002. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise How do we know that though? The copyright date is not infallible and is often wrong. I wasn't looking at Google Books whatsoever so no idea why you bring that up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW @Skyerise, my usage of "August 2001" is that that is when [1] the publisher says the e-book and hardcover versions initially went to print. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers put those dates out months before publication occurs. Do you think they go back and correct them if the book gets delayed? Publisher sales pages aren't WP:RS; we are discouraged from linking to them, even as sources, because that violates WP:PROMO. The publication data page is. Skyerise (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About websites, many GAs and FAs I've seen on books include them and there's no prohibition I have seen for citing them for primary information. They're both primary data - why would the publication data page be more reliable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really asking why the publisher's declaration in the book itself is more reliable than web pages that are built months in advance of actual publication??? The publication data pages are updated with every printing, just before the book goes to press. A source such as a publisher's web sales page cannot be reliable for something that occurs after it was written. Skyerise (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sales page was updated after the release since it includes material that postdates it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And copyright dates are not always equivalent to publication dates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the data page will typically have a printing date when that is different from the copyright date. When the printing date matches the copyright date, they don't bother. Skyerise (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first edition has a [2] 2001 LoC date and LCCN in its cataloguing data. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's interesting, but can't corroborate the August claim. It does suggest it was printed in 2001, but books are frequently boxed and sent to stores with a don't display until date instruction. Most unauthorized advance copies are due to unauthorized early distribution by bookstore employees. So is the publication date the same as the printing date? or rather is it the release date, when bookstores are authorized to put the book on the shelves? Probably should be discussed at WikiProject Books. Skyerise (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note: the 2001 LoC catalog number is not on file at the LoC, only the 2002 version. Skyerise (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That happens sometimes and I have no clue why. I once wrote an article on a French book that was published in France that had a LCC and LCCN listed in the physical copy of the book - but neither actually existed in the LoC catalogue, and the book itself had no edition ever catalogued. Do they just make them and then never file them? Nevertheless it complicates things (I will start a project discussion later but as is let’s keep it 2002 I suppose). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Sun_(Goodrick-Clarke_book)&oldid=1283831110"