Talk:Stratemeyer Syndicate

Re: POV check template

Perhaps you would like to tell the world why you think this article is biased? --FWDixon 20:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ted Scott Flying Stories

I added a link to Ted Scott Flying Stories. Theophilus88 20:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Theophilus88

An amalgam of copyrighted articles

This article is an amalgamation of copyrighted articles on the internet. Example: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/terms.html (Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute). You people have no shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.13.193 (talk • contribs) 18:50 (UTC), 19 August 2005

What? All that's on that link is a copyright notice. Do you have any actual evidence of plagiarism to present? --Ardonik.talk()^* 11:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

See http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2004/2/04.02.05.x.html for an example. FWDixon is a spammer and plagiarist with more than 100 links from Wiki to his web site to sell books thru Amazon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.13.193 (talk • contribs) 11:34 (UTC), 20 August 2005

Quote from our article:

Stratemeyer's business acumen, however, was in realizing that there was a huge, untapped market for children's books. Of course, boys devoured Horatio Alger, but they also read dime novels and penny dreadfuls. Here was an underground market waiting to be brought into the open and made even more profitable. In Stratemeyer's view, it was not the promise of sex or violence that made such reading attractive to boys; it was the thrill of feeling "grown-up," and the desire for a series of stories, an "I want some more" syndrome. Accordingly, Stratemeyer began writing a series called The Rover Boys, in which he established some key practices:

Quote from them:

Edward Stratemeyer was a writer, editor, and a businessman. He realized there was a large untapped market in children’s literature. He also knew that if he could create an “I want more” attitude with the reader, he could sell more books.
Some of the key practices Stratemeyer used to insure an interested audience continue to be used today.

It seems you're right about the semblance, 69.205.13.193 (by the way, sign your posts with ~~~~ in the future.) However, I think you are wrong to accuse FWDixon of plagiarism. It looks like the meat of the article was written mostly as-is in 2003 by an anonymous user, not him. From what I can tell, the worst FWDixon seems to have done was to add external links to his (highly relevant and informative) website at bobfinnan.com. As a neutral third party, I see no problem with this, and I have no idea why it's blown up into an edit war that forced this article to be protected.

Once the article is unprotected, it would be great if you could reword the questionable section to be more neutral, but please do not remove the links to bobfinnan.com without talking it out over here first. --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:46, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is way behind the times, but I just wanted to say that I am the person who wrote the bulk of the article, both originally and as it stands, and I most certainly did not plagiarize. The Yale link is to a lesson plan dated 2005. I wrote the article in 2003. They plagiarized from me! Ricardiana (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Al lthe key practices were also copied. Read on. This is just one example. All of the childrens series articles were copied from copyrighted books and articles. Changing a word here and there doesn't change that.

On Bob Finnan:

Finnan's entire web site, everything on the Hardy Boys, Tom Swift, Nancy Drew, and lots of other Stratemeyer series was copied from a bunch of reference books. Anybody that knows anything about these series knows this is true. This is plagiarism plain and simple. Worse is putting 100+ links to this site from Wiki, one for every Hardy Boys book and series and anything even a little related to the Stratemeyer Syndicate. Lets be real. This is spamming to sell books thru Amazon. Anybody can see this is overkill to promote a web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.13.193 (talk • contribs) 22:32 (UTC), 20 August 2005

The funny thing is that the authors of the reference books he claims I plagiarized are members of my Hardy Boys discussion group and/or have been in correspondance with me for years and not one of them has a problem with the site.--FWDixon 21:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Not CLAIMS you plagiarized them. You DID and then claimed copyright! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.13.193 (talk • contribs) 22:32 (UTC), 20 August 2005

Of course, it is true that there's a whole lot of "Buy it Now!" going on at FWDixon's website, but I still find his site relevant and have no problem with links to it. There are links there to sites that will be useful for enthusiasts, or at least for collectors. (I was disappointed, however, to find no plot summaries, trivia, or book reviews in the Tom Swift, Jr. section; Tom Swift and His Dyna-4 Capsule was one of my favorite books to read when I was growing up. I remember that the main capsule could separate from the other four sections. Ah, memories....) Now,

1. Which reference books were the contents of bobfinnan.com copied verbatim from?
2. Except for removing the link to FWDixon's website, do you have any plans to help us improve the article?

--Ardonik.talk()^* 00:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

All info on Tom Swift was copied from Bob Cook's reference book Tom Swift and His Amazing Works Catalog. All info on the Hardy Boys was copied from Hardy and Hardy Investigations by Tony Carpentieri, SynSine Press; The Lost Hardys: A Concordance by Robert L. Crawford, SynSine Press; The Bayport Companion by Charles Heffelfinger, self-published; Frank and Joe Turn Blue by Tony Carpentieri, SynSine Press; A Collector's Guide to Hardcover Boys' Series Books by E. Christian Mattson and tons of copyrighted articles on the Stratemeyers and their series. His HB discussion group on Yahoo would not offer any useful info if he did not have Paul Mular as a member. He knows only what he reads and copies out of other peoples books. If the links to this spammer/plagiarist's site are removed I will help with all of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.14.66 (talk • contribs) 1:01 (UTC), 22 August 2005

Quick comments:

1. Please sign the rest of your edits here. You have participated in discussion pages long enough to know that those are the rules. Also, because your IP address changes on occasion, I can't leave messages on your talk page and be sure that you'll receive them. Registering a username for yourself would help out quite a bit!
2. I'm astonished to learn that your desire to make useful contributions to this encyclopedia is conditional. No one is going to strike a deal with you in hopes that you might bestow the Wikipedia with your help. If you have a positive contribution to make, just make it.

That doesn't matter. The edits will continue until the problem that I pointed out is fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.14.66 (talk • contribs) 15:37 (UTC), 22 August 2005

1. To me, aside from the message boards and forums of FWDixon's website (which are significant, but it looks like you have no complaints about those), bobfinnan.com mostly appears to consist of lists of cover images, book titles, and Amazon links (chime in if there's something major that I'm missing.) Furthermore, it seems to me that your argument is that User:Fwdixon committed plagiarism by copying these lists of books from catalogs. You and I both know that having a list of book titles on a website isn't plagiarism, so tell me, where did my reasoning go wrong? Do you have more substantial evidence (say, a URL, an excerpt from it, and a quote from the original source) on which to lay your claim of plagiarism? 'Cause right now, I don't see it. The plagiarism you noticed in this article earlier wasn't Bob Finnan's fault.

--Ardonik.talk()^* 05:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Finnan copied everything on his web site from copyrighted books on these series and the Stratemeyer Syndicate. Formats, authors, biographic info, everything. Anyone familar with these series and the books I mentioned knows this. To create a web site on Tom Swift by using the info in Bob Cook's book is plagiarism plain and simple. To have links to Cook's web site www.glitterglow.com/ and Finnan's is redundant. Just keep Cook's which is the original source of the info and delete Finnan's. The same on the Hardy Boys and the rest of his pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.14.66 (talk • contribs) 15:37 (UTC), 22 August 2005

Did you know that User User:69.205.14.66 is a plagiarist? That's right folks! Every word he has used in his many rants are taken right out of the dictionary! A dictionary which is a copyrighted work! The horror, the horror! But seriously, the fact that this person remains anonymous and continues to make unfounded accustations is beginning to become a bit tiresome. It's true that I used many reference books in gathering information for my site but so what? That's why they are called reference books! I also spent hours at the NY Public Library poring over data in the Stratemeyer archives. It seems that the fact that the authors of these books (with whom I've been in contact for many years) have no problem with my site make no difference to our demented anonymous crusader. The reality is that this person has a personal grudge against me, for reasons best known to him, and the claims of spamming and plagiarism are a mere blind. If this person is so concerned about plagiarism, why isn't he removing links to other sites that have basically the same info, including sites which have copied their info directly from my site?--FWDixon 12:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Still blowing smoke. Claims about plagiarism unfounded? It is common knowledge. Every word on the site was copied from copyrighted books and articles. Have some pride and self respect and just put links to places to buy the books and articles you copied from. Comparisons to using a dictionary are just stupid. You are a plagiarist and you know it. And more than 100 links from Wiki to make a few cents per copy selling books thru Amazon IS spamming. About the other links, at least have some original stuff. Get a life you loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.14.66 (talk • contribs) 15:37 (UTC), 22 August 2005

Please avoid personal attacks.) --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I can see from looking at Special:Contributions/69.205.14.66 and Special:Contributions/69.205.13.193 that you have removed the link from dozens of articles already, usually with worthless edit summaries that simply say "spammer" or "plagiarist."

Please stop your link removal until this issue is worked out here. The encyclopedia belongs to all of us, not just you, so you must try to reach consensus. You are the only person here who objects to FWDixon's links, and if you continue to bypass our community without talking things over, you will be blocked from editing as countless others already have.

We have procedures in place to deal with content disputes. Waging an edit war as you are doing does not help this encyclopedia, even if you're right about your claims of plagiarism.

Here's hoping you take my reply seriously. --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry doesn't wash. If a concensus can't be reached that Finnan has spammed Wiki to sell books from his web site, this is obvious, then discussion is a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.14.66 (talk • contribs) on 21:21 (UTC), 22 August 2005

I can't verify the source of the materials one way or another. I'm not so fond of the "for sale" links on Finnan's page, but there seems to be useful information there. If it turns out it was taken from somewhere else, that's a potential problem. The copyright notice on Finnan's page also presents a potential problem. Regardless, mass-deletion of material and violation of the 3RR from an anonymous account is not a very effective nor compelling way to voice those complaints. --Alan Au 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fact: Finnan is guilty of link spamming. This is obvious.

Fact: Finnan's site exists to sell books at a few cents per copy thru Amazon and this is the reason for the link spamming.

Fact: Finnan created the site by copying info from copyrighted books on all of these series and then had the nerve to claim copyright on the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.202 (talk • contribs) 16:22 (UTC), 23 August 2005

This isn't fact, it's assertion. Merely repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. User FWDixon has contributed many pages to Wikipedia while all you seem to do is ignore every rule Wikipedia has (particularly the 3 revert rule) and remove links to his site(s). Apparently you think you are above the rules you expect everyone else to follow. The general consensus seems to be that the links are OK. I don't have a problem with them. Lighten up man!--Flonga 23:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, Flonga/Finnan. It is a fact and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.196 (talk • contribs) 15:23 (UTC), 25 August 2005

See [[1]] for agreement that these links are spamming and advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.202 (talk • contribs) 17:07 (UTC), 23 August 2005

I agree with the others that a link on the main Hardy Boys page linking to FWDixon's website is sufficient. I think the multiple links on the book pages is a little much. maltmomma 02:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Flonga has less than 20 edits - all concurring with interests of FWDixon --PhilipO 00:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be because I'm a friend of his and he asked me to help him out with this situation. Anything wrong with that?--Flonga 11:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes It is called being a meatpuppet (if that is what you are, and not a sockpuppet) and is against offical Wikipedia policy. --PhilipO 16:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

My concern with Fwdixon lies in the individual book stubs, which at this point serve no purpose but to link to his site. The Tower Treasure (first book in the series) is a perfect example. An article of that sort is pointless, and should be removed if it is not expanded in short order. It doesn't even state the name of the book's author or the year of publication! What I find strange is that The Tower Treasure article was indeed shaping up to be an actual article - ie it at least had a paragraph dedicated to plot summary. However Fwdixon [removed the text], with no explanation. It appears that text was contributed and modified over time by multiple individuals, so it was not a copy / paste or a plagiarism issue. It certainly gives the appearance that Fwdixon reduced the article to a stub so readers would find a worthless Wikipedia article and follow the link to his site for more information, which does indeed contain Amazon affiliate sales links. --Dan East 13:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree - and noted as much yesterday at [2]. I believe the individual book pages should be removed unless they are expanded greatly. Consensus? --PhilipO 16:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the individual book articles need to be removed, but I strongly feel that most of the links back to Fwdixon's site should be removed. I don't have a problem a link to the main page of his site from articles like Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew. But many many links all pointing at a big red "buy me" link on a personal website, even an informative one, is simply inappropriate for Wikipedia. Joyous (talk) 23:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

More on the link spamming and commercial advertising. Example http://hardyboys.bobfinnan.com/hbpb.htm is just a list of titles that all have links to Amazon. All of the books summaries were copied from Amazon. Every HB Digest title, Casefiles title, Clues Brothers title, Supermysteries title, Ultra Thriller title and so on has a link to Amazon and all summaries were copied from Amazon. Does that tell anyone something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.1.91 (talk • contribs) 12:44 (UTC), 27 August 2005

69.205.1.91: You really have some nerve. Now you are spamming the talk pages of the book articles, gloating that someone else was found to be link spamming. You've posted that same message to at least 15 talk pages related to Hardy Boys, and I can only imagine how many other non-Hardy Boys pages you've spammed as well. Now that a group of responsible Wikipedians is involved we can take care of this issue the proper way. Your "assistance" is no longer required in this matter. Thank you. --Dan East 01:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

There is a mighty big difference between plagiarism and flagrant link spamming to make a few cents per copy selling books thru Amazon and calling attention to these problems on related talk pages. You will get my "assistance" whenever I feel it is needed. Thank you. 69.205.1.91 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Unblock, perchance?

Has enough time passed that this article might be unblocked? I'd like to work on some of its grammar and flesh it out a bit as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels group.Estreya 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ted Scott german edition.jpg

The image Image:Ted Scott german edition.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The book [not] pictured to the right

I laughed. It's probably not proper style, but I did think this was funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.185.138 (talk) 09:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'll have to wait for someone else to change that. That's too funny to remove. Bzweebl (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Four years have gone by, so I am removing it. Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Germany is not a foreign country

"The books were even published in foreign countries, such as Germany" - but publisher Stratemeyer was of German origin! His own parents came from Hannover, Germany, as the biographical article about him explains. So it's rather natural for his books to be published in Germany, wouldn't you think? 79.196.224.110 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, not really. It was an American company publishing books in English. - BilCat (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Frank of the Prairie predates this

This can be improved since there ate multiple competing children adventures periodicals published before the syndicate started publishing. Boys own adventure being one.

Adventure book series like Frank of the Prairie whose author stated that boys wAnt adventure and not high literature.

This quote could be improved

Stratemeyer's business acumen was in realizing that there was a huge, untapped market for children's books. At a time when most children's books were aimed at moral instruction, the Stratemeyer Syndicate specialized in producing books that were meant primarily to be entertaining. In Stratemeyer's view, it was the thrill of feeling grown-up and the desire for a series of stories that made such reading attractive to children. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:A111:411F:7C76:9FAD (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

”At a time when most children's books were aimed at moral instruction, the Stratemeyer Syndicate specialized in producing books that were meant primarily to be entertaining.”. Could be changed as there was an established children’s adventure literature genre from at least the 1860s both with early examples, Tom Sawyer, Frank of the Prairie series, and numerous adventure periodicals Boys Own Adventure, for example, publishing for lengthy time show commercial potential. The “Most children’s books were aimed at moral instruction” is misguided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:A111:411F:7C76:9FAD (talk • contribs)

That text was added in 2009. Since no source is cited, I just removed the leading clause. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Need original source for quotes from reference 20 and 21 in addition to the book reference.

Can we get the original source for quotes for references 20 (Franklin K. Mathiews quoted) and 21 (Stanley Hall quotation). Both are quoted from a book Romalov 1995) and do not give the original source

Reference 20 - Romalov (1995), 117. Reference 21 - Romalov, Nancy Tillman. "Children's Series Books and the Rhetoric of Guidance: A Historical Overview." In Rediscovering Nancy Drew. Dyer, Carolyn Stewart, and Nancy Tillman Romalov, eds. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1995. Page 116. 107.197.56.204 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)