Customer Reviews

Columbia Encyclopedia

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have bought a Columbia encyclopedia every 5 years or so for over 20 years, with each one having been superior to its predecessor. I grew up with them and their awesome wealth of knowledge. But this encyclopedia is a notch above my highest expectation. In this age of computer encyclopedias, it may seem futile to buy a printed version. But from experience, I know that this encyclopedia often has information that I can't find on Encarta or Compton's. And that is priceless. It is well worth it to have this compendium of information.

This is a wonderful reference book. The information is superbly presented. Where the entry might be unfamiliar it provides a pronunciation key (exceptionally convenient for foreign or archaic words). The entries themselves are well balanced for readability, content, and completeness. And most articles include a bibliography if you wish to research further.

It is also a reference in which you can get delightfully lost. My searches take me in many directions. It's first class cross-referencing makes an in-depth investigation a snap, but sometimes it is better to ramble. And this is the beauty of the book, unlike structured links with Web or CD encyclopedias, in the Columbia Encyclopedia the links are only encumbered by your imagination and curiosity.

If you are not American, (I'm Canadian) don't worry about obsessive jingoism that often pervades American efforts. The Columbia presentation is evenhanded and globally egalitarian in scope and breadth.

If you don't already own this excellent volume it should be on your bookshelf. If you are a teacher it should be in both the school library and your classroom (grades 6-12), and if you are a parent it should be in your home. The Columbia Encyclopedia is truly a rare and valuable information jewel.

This my second version Columbia Encyclopedia and the new edition deserves much the same praise as the old one did.

The amazing thing about this encyclopedia is I often prefer it to my Britannica CD (or the online service). It's faster, more to the point, and has a surprising number of very clear and helpful illustrations and charts (all the Supreme Court Justices and their dates, p. 2754; a schematic for an iron blast furnace, p. 323). It's also a great gazetteer (Inuvik - Northwest Territories Candada, pop. 8,491, with a whole darn paragraph on the place!). The only downside is that as impressive as this thing is, it has to be brief. Only 2 sentences on King Khufu of Egypt, for example, seems a bit unfair, but such is life. (On the up side, they give 16 lines to my favorite writer H.H.Munro, aka Saki.)

It is also pretty topical--it has room to give a third of a page to the Monica Lewinksy scandal--but not always as much as I'd like. Country entries often get their data only from 1995 figures, which in a 2000 enyclopedia seems a bit late. Still, I quibble. This is a great book.

I think both books are outstanding, and more complementary than rivals. In fact, I use both. Nevertheless, there are some differences.
Columbia's big dimensions and weight (8.9 pounds/4 kg) make almost necessary to read it on a desk. Britannica Concise (BCE) is 6.7 pounds/3 kg and smaller.
Both utilize an extremely small font size. Columbia contains 6.5 million words. BCE "only" 2.6.
Britannica C has over 2000 photographs, maps, tables, drawings, color illustrations; nations flags ... In Columbia, illustrations are sparse, limited to about 500 black-and-white line drawings.
Columbia's 6th edition stopped in 1999. BCE is of April 2003 and is edited every year in spring, but I don't know if they are going to update it or not.
Britannica Concise has articles like Super Bowl, Viagra, Coca-Cola, Big Stick Policy, Mother's Day and Father's Day ... that don't exist in Columbia.
Quantity does not always mean Quality. B Concise seems to be more shrewd, witty and, by the way, less subjective. For instance, Columbia's article Homosexuality concludes in this way: "But AIDS (.....) also sparked moralistic reactions; some felt, for example, that it represented a form of judgment on homosexuality". BCE's same article is shorter, but neutral, and does not say such a thing.
As I said before, both books are outstanding and complementary.

I bought the Columbia encyclopedia a little over a year ago and now I feel qualified enough to review it.

I'm never amazed at the amount of information that is presented in this book. It has never failed me or my seventh-grade daughter with any of her school related questions. Whether her questions have to do with the population density of Calcutta (population and area in sq. miles), cell reproduction or plate tectonics, I have yet to find something that she needed and it was not there.

The information is presented in a very succinct manner. There is never too much or too little information for a specific entry - always just enough. The "also see" and bibliography references at the end of many entries are very useful. The binding is great. I was afraid that this huge book after constant use would crack at the hinges, but that is not true. This is one of the bulkiest books I've got and, yet, surprisingly, is also one of the strongest. After more than a year's frequent use, the hinges feel as strong as when I bought it and so do the ledge and spine.

This is not a multimedia information center. There are no pictures, only maps and drawings. When you first open it, you are faced with columns and columns of small font text, though it's nicely laid out.

I do not find any social or political bias in the book, but I may not be sensitive to it. One will not find positive or negative references being made on specific issues, although one may find something to the extend of "some academics feel that..." or "in this century XYZ has fallen out of favor with..." The book does not take sides, its stance is neutral and objective with no flavor. It does not offend and its errors (if any) are ones of omission not commission.

It may be a good idea to visit your local library first to take a closer look at its heftiness, lack of pictures and, perhaps, objectivity prior to purchasing it to see if it's something that suits your family's style. If you decide to buy it without examining it first, I don't believe you will be dissapointed - it's a great book and a best buy.

I was just writing an essay about the best way to learn (or teach) anything new. My main suggestion is always to start with the Big Picture. The brain doesn't want a lot of detail on the first plunge; the brain needs to see forest, not trees. Especially a young brain.

I think the best place to start is a dictionary, then a concise reference encyclopedia, such as the Columbia.

When I was a teenager, I loved taking on some new topic in this heavy tome. I knew I wouldn't be overwhelmed, that there'd be just the perfect short statement. Ahhh, so that's what X is! Okay, I can handle that...

When that short statement seems easy, then you jump to a middle-level encyclopedia, then to the biggest one you can find, then a book. Each pass takes you deeper, and makes you feel more in command. Conversely, sometimes when you really know a topic, it's fun to see Columbia's short take--you might realize that what you already learned is skewered in some direction.

It is fabulous. It is so much fun to read. The information is presented first class. I spend so many pleasurable hours with this volume! For the price you pay, the value is unbelievable. I still prefer it over any other encyclopedia on a market.

As far as content goes, the book is certainly a treasure house of information. However, on certain sensitive socio-political topics, some of the contributors clearly show their bias. Thus, one should approach such entries with the proverbial grain of salt. I feel that an encyclopedia's contributors should be as factual and objective as possible, and make a point to avoid any appearance of personal bias...

The Sixth edition of The Columbia Encyclopedia notes that " . . . new ballistics tests conducted with modern equipment in 1961 seemed to prove conclusively that the pistol found on Sacco had been used to murder the guard." That concession is not yet in other mainline encyclopedias. The 1983 ballistics test conducted by three ballistics experts chosen by Dr. Henry Lee led to this published conclusion: "Of the caliber .32 Auto cartridges in possession of Nicola Sacco at the time of his apprehension (Exhibit #31), sixteen (16) were manufactured by The Peters Cartridge Company; and, of the sixteen cartridges, six (6) were made on the same machine that made the two Peters fired cartridge cases (Fraher shells) that were recovered from the crime scene." This conclusion is on p. 28 of AFTE Journal (Volume 17, Number 3) July 1985. See two related articles on ballistics by Dr. James E. Starrs in Journal of Forensic Sciences (April and July, 1986). Columbia's bibliography appended to the entry "Sacco-Vanzetti Case" does not cite the 1986 book by Francis Russell, "Sacco and Vanzetti: The Case Resolved." Recall that Judge Charles E. Wyzanski, Jr. wrote to Francis Russell on March 31, 1986, and underlined this statement: "I myself am persuaded by your writings that Sacco was guilty." Editors of The Columbia Encyclopedia have not cited the book on Sacco and Vanzetti (2006) that has new evidence. In the fullness of time this 2006 book will be cited in textbooks created for the survey course in U. S. history. Francis Russell told me in his letter of June 29, 1988: "I too have been distressed by the slant of the encyclopedias and reference books. But I think in time the truth will prevail over these liberal obsessions. Eventually my view will be accepted, not because I am so clever but because facts are facts." One new fact is Charles C. Palmer's letter of June 17, 1921, discovered in the files of Dudley P. Ranney. (See Transcript of the Record, p. 5018.) Palmer's letter deepens our understanding of the testimony on Vanzetti's revolver by Dexter natives Elbridge Atwater and Rexford Slater. It confirms again Vanzetti's guilt.

Just wanted to look up a simple fact-the arab population of Hatay. I found this in the entry on Hatay: "The population is predominantly Arab but includes many Christians."

This statement equates Arab with non-christian. It totally confuses a religious identity with a linguistic and ethnic one. One would conclude from it that the Christians in Hatay are not Arabs.

Arabs can be Christian, Muslim, Druze, Chaldean, Atheist...How do I know? Because a good friend of mine is an Arab Christian from Syria.

Allowing such a simple error makes me doubt the veracity of the information throughout. Where are the editors? Boo, hiss.