This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
A fact from Henry Scholberg appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 April 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
I've just added a paragraph based on Ruth Bowden's review. That paragraph finishes with a list of the various works, which is basically a copy/paste from her review. I don't see how to avoid this except by omitting the information entirely. As far as I am concerned, it is a simple, alphabetically-ordered list and therefore falls outside the scope of copyright law (or, at least, I'm pretty sure that is what Moonriddengirl (talk·contribs) has told me at some point in the past). If in doubt then I think MRG should be consulted. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source contradictions
The review by Kesavan (1988) apparently contradicts the Bowden (1987) review. Kesavan says "India has produced forty-five central encyclopedias" while Bowden lists 47 encyclopedias.
There is possibly also a ongoing confusion of Scholberg with his father. The Hindi Language grammar may well be written by his father, from what I can see from a Google Books snippet view. Solomon7968 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction in the sources. Bowden says 45 + 2 Urdu ones but is a bit ambiguous about whether the Urdu ones are Indian or not. I suspect it is all down to definitions of "India", ie: before or after partition. The book is called Encyclopaedias of India, IIRC, so that should be enough. If all you can see is a snippet view then I don't think we should make the claim: snippet views are not acceptable & "Henry Scholberg" is not an uncommon name ... but see what turns up at WorldCat also. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the 45 + 2 logic makes sense. And as for the Hindi grammar it was the work of his father. It was first published in 1940, 2nd edition in 1950, 3rd edition in 1955, 3rd edition reprint in 1962, and another edition (reprint?) in 1968. The Google Books 1968 edition is:
