Talk:Osprey Publishing

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

World War II[edit]

It would be nice if Osprey would include works about lesser known combatant countries of World War II, such as Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand. It would also be nice if colonial armies of World War II such as the French Armee d'Afrique, the British Indian Army, the Dutch East Indies Army, America's Philippine Army, Philippine Constabulary, and Philippine Scouts were also featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.218.22 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I would assume that those who were not major nations were colonial in part and would have been absorbed or relied on the armies of major nations.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.46 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey does include a lot of lesser known combatants, and you can go to their website and nominate any subject you want. Asking for it here won't make it happen. 71.209.73.127 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

There are some very interesting Spanish military units which should be featured among the titles of Osprey such as the 1st King's Immemorial Regiment, which is said to be the oldest military unit in the world, and the Spanish Marines, which are said to be the oldest Marine unit in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.38.253 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much to ask, when we are dealing with Osprey and their general animosity against Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.61.46 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for it here won't make it happen. Osprey has quite a few books on Spain and Spanish subjects. You can see some of them at https://ospreypublishing.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=spanish. 71.209.73.127 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

I recently made in inquiry to Osprey, as I know a lot of Wikipedia articles use either text or artwork from them. Here is the response I got. Palm_Dogg 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Dear [Palm dogg],

Thank you for your email.  All our material (text & artwork) is our copyright and is protected by copyright law.
Anyone wanting to use our material must apply to us for usage via our official Application Form.
Artwork appearing on third party website must be of a low-resolution quality and we supply the a/w to you on disc.  

Please pass this onto your contacts at Wikipedia, and get them to contact us in each instance, when they want to use our material. 

Yours sincerely,

Diane Hurdley
Permissions Administrator
Osprey Publishing Ltd
[email protected]

I have removed the vast majority of the text of the page since it was a copyright violation of the Osprey Publishing website's own history page. We now just have a link to the Osprey website, and a short statement that the company is a British publishing company along with various stub notices on the page. David Newton 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey Advertisment[edit]

This article is too uncritical. What is this, a free advertisment?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 05:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's a notable publisher. If you can produce quotable criticism, it will certainly be included in the article. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article could do with a section on the ownership and management of Osprey. Is it independently owned (who by?) or is it part of a larger group? m.e. (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Lendering review[edit]

Hi. I reverted an edit by Nepaheshgar in regards to the Jona Lendering review of Shadows in the Desert. While I understand that Jona Lendering also published a version of that review on his blog, the version used for the article is the one from the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. While I suspect taht the journal isn;t peer reviewed, it does have an editorial board, so it would be regareed as a reliable source (although clearly not as reliable as a full double-blind peer-reviewed journal would be). Equally, I guess, the reference is used to show an opinion in regard to the work, which allows a tad more leeway - although in this case I don't think the leeway is necessary. It was certainly an extremely negitive review, but as it was only extensive review found, I think it deserves to be included - especially given that the two much less extensive, but far more positive, reviews are also mentioned. Still, other opinions are welcome. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brywn Mawr is not a peer reviewed journal, so it does not fall under WP:RS. Yes someone maintains the whole blog but it is not peer reviewed and originally it is taken from a blog post. For example, Jona Lendering's review was responded to by another person in this magazine (which has an editorial board) here: [1]. So either his review should be taken out, or the response from the other magazine should be mentioned, since it is another E-Magazine. Thanks.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now I just mentioned that it is not a peer reviewed journal. So I gave precedence to the peer reviewed journal first, but then mention reactions to it in non-peer reviewed journal and also a response to Lendering in a non-peer reviewed magazine.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be miss-reading WP:RS: while it does give a preference to peer-reviewed journals, it makes specific mention of "scholarly review articles", which this would fall under. (In my experience, reviews aren't generally peer-reviewed anyway, being treated differently to academic papers, but that may just be a product of my own experiences, and not generally the case). You could raise it at the RS noticeboard, but I'd be surprised if it proved to be a problem. In regard to the second article, I belive it was in the earlier (pre-merger) version, so a mention would make sense to me. However, it's worth remembering thst it was published as an anonymous letter, not as an article, so while it provides a different opinion, I'm not sure how much weight would be appropriate. In relation to the other journals, I don't belive that CHOICE is peer reviewed, but I don;t know anything about Middle East. - Bilby (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay given that WP:RS makes a distinction between peer reviewed and ranks it first, I also separated the reviews into peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed. I think reviews that are peer-reviewed depend on who is reviewing it. Specially if the editor himself has read the book or has some knowledge of the subject, it really helps. For example Lendering claims Gotarzes II site does not exist in his review, but a peer reviewer might have caught such an error. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that reviews are not necessarily peer-reviewed even if they themselves appear in peer-reviewed journals (where the papers published are the ones usually peer-reviewed) - I've been involved in the peer review process and never heard of book reviews getting more than editorial scrutiny (but things vary in different fields). Unless you know that the reviews are peer-reviewed then it is original research to flag them as such.
As has been said WP:RS doesn't exclude everything that is not in a peer-reviewed journal. Obviously, peer-reviewed papers are preferred for articles but when dealing with reviews we may find reviews that are just as good in newspapers, for example. (Emperor (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I agree, it all depends on how much the editor wants to involve himself. I am distinguishing between a peer reviewed journal and non peer reviewed e-journal in terms of the journal type. A peer reviewed journal after all is under editorial scrutiny. So for example if the book review has unsound statements, the editor or other reviewers can catch it, although it is not guaranteed they do it. But there is a clear distinguishing between a published peer reviewed journal and a non peer-reviewed e-journal in terms of quality. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since no evidence has been presented that the reviews by Rhodes and Higham were peer-reviewed (I don't think book reviews generally are, even if they appear in a journal that also publishes peer-reviewed articles), the distinction currently being made by the article is misleading. And whether a journal appears electronically, in print or both has nothing to do with whether it's peer-reviewed or "reliable" in Wikipedia terms. EALacey (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the relevant publications, and the supposed distinction between peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed doesn't hold up. Both CRFAL and BMCR have guidelines for reviewers online, and neither indicates that reviews are scrutinised by anyone outside the editorial board. The Middle East is a magazine, not a journal, and Rhodes's review of the book is one paragraph long; it's a work of journalism rather than scholarship, and extremely unlikely to be peer-reviewed. EALacey (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you clearly know the distinction, I am talking about the quality of the journal/e-journal. "Bryn Mawr Classical Review" is not a peer-reviewed journal and other editors know this as well. Yes the editor or editoral board make the decision on what to post, but the actual article is not reviewed by other peers. For example no one reviewed Lendering's comments. "Middle East" is peer reviewed [2] journal and articles in it are peer reviewed. Also it seems that Lendering's review is the only negative review. So one cannot say reaction has been "mixed". If anything, overall opinion has been positive and given the endorsment by Frye, Lendering should not get the same weight. Specially since he is an archivist by Profession. So I believe one should delete that sentence about the reaction, unless there is a source stating that reaction has been mixed.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The publishers of The Middle East describe it as a current affairs magazine. I've sampled several issues, and Fred Rhodes seems to write all the book reviews (usually 1-2 paragraphs each) as well as a significant number of other articles. He is clearly a journalist employed by the magazine, and it is absurd to suggest without supporting evidence that the editors send each of his numerous short book reviews for expert analysis before deciding whether to publish it. EALacey (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books published by osprey[edit]

American marines

http://books.google.com/books?id=AA8iug1xk7QC&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-2vyfbnyWuIC&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=c9PQihjv4s0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rr7Ur3P1mNMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=EIZ2vzFyOXMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rkJYue5dCJgC&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false chinese civil war communists ambush american marines

http://books.google.com/books?id=ckVrJZCrH60C&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Britain

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bwi-sUw5Z24C&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false boxer and tibetans

http://books.google.com/books?id=3M20fgpFR94C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=AH3fnqAr0GYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=mTEzDzht6LAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hRomHcdKd90C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

China http://books.google.com/books?id=k4IXwl-jVGMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=S1eqO3Z1rgEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uWwU8kJndD0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Ur0z8EmtvqkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=erlv2BM04zEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=K3WpHC8vpnsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JMTLB99IpzsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck6IumJLdPkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=xxE6rybpvHQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=2YleP1OP4HsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=0TjxaHltoY0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=eviiOkceimoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=KTTELJ9N0XUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=RKMOeKP7rOgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=sY_HQ1t9iocC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT CATALOG[edit]

We are not a publishers catalog. We do not include in our entries for publishers a list of their books, or series, though we do include notable titles, or at least the most notable. Are any of the series notable? DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a list of books here. What's your point? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Board Games[edit]

Osprey also publishes a number of Board and Minature Games, but there is no mention on the page. Should a reference be included? Harris Seldon (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osprey_Publishing&oldid=1209550780"