Talk:American Biographical Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plaques

While it is true that the ABI and others market plaques etc. as a bye-product of being listed, this is never a criteria for being listed. Each firm is entitled to their business model and its naive to expect a plaque to be issued free (perhaps the Nobel...) or for them not to earn any money (they do not represent the government).

There is a genuine review process of persons listed although like any other human process it has its error rate. There are some real examples of errors of judgement of these institutes but many of the articles attempting to pull down this business model are by people who are either too idealistic (read "stupid") or simply plain jealous of a peer who got listed but they did not! The ABI for example, is quoted on the bio of many leading persons (including graduates from Harvard) who do respect the fact that they got listed in the first place - its naive to expect all of them to be "suckers". Its more strategic where these people like the branding that these publications confer on them.

By and large the publications are of a decent 95-97% quality with a 3-5% error rate. Also true that they do rely on other prestigous listings (such as Marquis) and there is a whole load of internet research which gets done. The latter is the principal source of risk.

The most prestigious listing is Marquis (over 100 years) who have been reviewed by The New York Times, 2005 where they called them an "authoritative tool and valid portrait of [American] society". Forbes 2006 lists refers to Marquis as one source. An earlier 1999 article by Forbes criticised Marquis, but it's since been taken over and their current reference to Marquis obviously reflects their confidence.

In conclusion, yes these products are imperfect but are still a valuable source of information - they profile people from around the world in different walks of life (nothing wrong with a leading Chef being listed unless we're saying that Chefs don't contribute...). There is currently no valid replacement for these products as the free awards (like the Nobel or a specific countries national awards) go to a handful of people (and there are political undercurrents to these awards...) who are a fraction of the achievers in different walks of life who much deserve recognition/ are an important source of information for researchers.

Hence instead of making a webpage on ABI under fraud, the author would do well to do proper research and think out his arguements. Regards, Paul Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 05:14-05:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: A url in this post was changed in the 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) revision by user Dominique Blanc.)

Wonderful to have another editor looking at this article. Please sign your contributions with four tildes as instructed at the top of the edit box. I have removed your material from the article as Wikipedia does not quote itself as evidence. Because you referred to the talk page and your own comments, basically you were providing a circular reference. Evidence must come from third parties. I also removed what is termed weasel words such as many believe. Such phrases suggest something when no evidence is provided. You quote some statistics above on error rates. Where did they come from? It would be useful to have a citation. Having been twice offered Man of the Year I can tell you that the notability requirements for the ABI must be terribly low! Your raise the point about everyone is entitled to a business model. Mainstream biography companies such as Who's Who makes its money from selling its books rather than selling entries. I think that is a critical difference. Maustrauser 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You referred to an earlier article criticizing Marquis. For the record it is here Hall of the Lame The comments that Tucker Carlson makes in this article seems to mirror the criticisms of ABI too. Maustrauser 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how good or bad your credentials are... it is true that both ABI and IBC Cambridge titles are "sensationalist" in nature but that is the way they market their products. Both products are used by numerous libraries. Marquis for example, is used by the US Embassy librariesand also by respected universities such as Northwesternand Harvard's Biography Resource Center.

Specificly, on ABI (and I have seen their offer letters to senior people) - they have a covering letter confirming selection and a questionnaire asking for details. A third form allows you to select a Plaque should you want one - this is always always optional. You seem to be against them for some reason, did your peer get selected who you're trying to pull down?

Maustrauser - I suspect that ABI will view your article as Defamation. I am also amazed that you simply deleted my para - you obviously don't want another point-of-view to be even given a chance! I'm adding my piece as a SEE ALSO URL - don't delete it again or I will take up the matter with WIKIPEDIA that you're suppressing another's opinion.

Paul Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 07:05-07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: A url in this post was changed in the 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC) revision by Dominique Blanc.)

Please sign your posts as requested on the edit box using four tildes. I have no objection to Marquis. Why are you placing ABI and Marquis in the same box? I have no real objection to ABI either. They appear to be fulfilling a need for people to feel good about themselves. I simply wish that people didn't claim that being listed by ABI was a qualification. I deleted your paragraph because it cited Wikipedia as its source as I clearly explained in my reasoning above. Please also see: WP:Cite Please read Wikipedia policies before accusing me of suppressing other's opinions. I am delighted your are editing the article. it is simply necessary to cite third party sources, not your own commentary. I'd also appreciate if you didn't threaten me. Please see Wikipedia's policy on threats WP:ATTACK. You may also be interested in Wikipedia's policy on solving disputes. WP:DR. I am reverting your edit to the article.

I'd be delighted if you put in a section providing an alternative view. But it must be verifiable and use third party sources. Not your personal views. Please read some more of the Wikipedia policies before editing again. Maustrauser 07:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The main article must quote third party opinions, not the TALK PAGE - that's my view of the topic (thats why its called a discussion page...) Point is that there is another point-of-view which is not being currently taken up by your article (or even recognised). Why don't you recognise it? Yes, I agree that Marquis is the most respected of the Who's Who publications.

Paul Davies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR COMMENT

I have added my comments under the dispute page

• Talk Page on AMERICAN BIOGRAPHICAL INSTITUTE has a conflict between two editors. The first (author of the piece) has written a piece that amounts to Defamation without sufficient evidence of his own piece. The second (TALK PAGE) takes a more neutral and objective stand. The second has tried to introduce a para in the main article and also tried to introduce a URL under SEE ALSO but the first author has repeatedly removed these references supressing another point of view. The second author considers the first author to have a biased point-of-view that does not admit to another opinion 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 07:53-08:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I have not removed ANY material from the talk page. Thus I cannot understand why you are suggesting that I have. I have continually invited you to make verifiable edits on the article page. The only reverts of your material I have made are those that refer to your arguments on this talk page. Referring in the main article to a talk page discussion is not acceptable referencing. I think you would do best if you did a little editing here for a while before you started making allegations. I think you may have mixed up article pages and talk pages. I am always willing to have third parties review what I have written and look forward to any comments from other editors. And may I ask you for the fourth time to sign your posts, by typing four tildes once you have finished. It does make the debate so much easier to follow. Maustrauser 09:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT suggested that you have made DELETIONS FROM THE TALK PAGE - you've made deletions from the main article as if its your exclusive right to display one point of view! I have raised the issue that your own article is based more on your personal opinion and are unsubstantiated allegations against a 40 year old firm and does not admit to a contrarian opinion/is not balanced. I have serious reservations on your approach as it amounts to DEFAMATION. If ABI was a fraudulent institution, why has the US GOVERNMENT not shut it down over 40 years?? Paul Davies (I will NOT sign with four tildes as it links up to another PAUL DAVIES different from me) 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 10:00-10:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case I apologise. Your earlier unsigned statement implied that. I can't cite it as you refuse to sign your posts. I have made deletions from the article on the grounds that you provided no references for your statements. If you have references please use them to make verifiable comments on the article page. The article is based on the references provided under the reference heading and a google search of all those who claim to be "Man of the Year" etc. I do not believe that ABI is a fraudulent institution. I have not stated that. I believe that some people who have paid for ABI entries or even had them given 'free' misuse them to make them look better than they really are. I think the article by Tucker Carson, cited above demonstrates that quite well (although he is talking about Marquis). Maustrauser 10:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You've registered the article under the FRAUD section and disclaim responsibility... I suspect that ABI would not take that view. Please specify that Tucker's Forbes article is dated 1999, and they themselves refer to Marquis today for their 2006 lists. Paul Davies 10:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 10:50-11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm? Disclaim responsibility? I added the category fraud as I believe some people use their ABI affiliation for fraudulent purposes. Where have I used Tucker's commentary in the article? The only reference is on this page isn't it? How do you know that Forbes uses Marquis? They probably do, but do you have a citation for that? Please feel free to edit the article space and cite a reliable third party reference. Please sign your posts. Maustrauser 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

CITATION: Forbes 2006 lists refers to Marquis as one source - I had also given this link above! Look carefully at the sources on the right side of the lady. Nice spin on "fraud" by ABI listed persons - but its clearly not the case! Any judge would call it defamation.

Paul Davies 12:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 12:09-13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you fellows worked this out? I read the article, and it looks pretty good to me. Atom 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats your point-of-view, from my perspective it's a systematic attempt at defamation and one-sided. Paul Davies 02:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 02:16-02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me and Maustrauser seems ot be going otu of his way to be fair about what is in essence a company which dupes the foolish and vain. StuartDouglas 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate honorees?

The article says the ABI "operates by writing to individuals who have been cited elsewhere and invites them to be included for a fee." That would seem to indicate that they have some standards. But when this guy, a bar owner/crackpot historian, receives several ABI awards (including "ambassador of grand eminence"), I have a hard time believing the ABI has any kind of standards for who gets an award. -- Mwalcoff 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link but it does not refer to any ABI award! I'm seeing this article as a diliberate attempt by a group of people to defame ABI. Paul Davies 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 02:10-02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Pahys' website ([1]). You can see he is an "ambassador of grand eminence." I don't know how many of his claimed postnomial initials are ABI; some are from the International Biographical Association. -- Mwalcoff 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You must check out your facts before spreading misinformation (or is this deliberate…). Please check out the ABI and IBC publications at the links provided - ABI Publications, and IBC Publications. These chaps don’t market any product for “Ambassador of Grand Eminence” (and neither does the gent specify either ABI or IBC). Both publications are quoted on the CVs of leading academics who have obviously checked them out. PLEASE STOP YOUR DEFAMATION ATTEMPT. Paul Davies 03:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 03:04-03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do a Google search on /"Ambassador of Grand Eminence"/ and other initials claimed by Pahys. You'll see they're ABI or IBC awards, save one or two. -- Mwalcoff 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

academics will list anything. But there is no reference to the perhaps imaginary ambassador title in the article. So about what exactly are you complaining? There is a full quotation from the company explaining its practices in its own words.DGG 06:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the "ambassador" title, but Nick Pahys' own website does (see above). -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Ambassador of Grand Eminence"" appears to be a reasonably new ABI title. There are only 54 mentioned on Google, but they all cite that they came from ABI. Maybe it's not so popular as it does look a little over the top! Maustrauser 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are Nick Pahys' postnomial initials and what they apparently mean:

• DDG = Deputy Director General, International Biographical Centre
• CH = Unknown, common among ABI/IBC people
• AdVS = Advisor in Science, International Biographical Centre
• AGE = presumably Ambassador of Grand Emminence, American Biographical Institute (he mentions later on that he is an ambassador of grand emminence)
• LDA = Member, London Diplomatic Academy
• FIBA = Fellow of the International Biographical Association -- Mwalcoff 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The possibly mistaken use by others of ABI designations is not a RS for any conclusion about ABI. DGG 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the ABI is willing to declare a crackpot bar owner an "ambassador of grand emminence." -- Mwalcoff 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A new reading

This was unacceptable in its previous form, and I hope those readers who voiced their complaints about the previous biased and cynical tone and content will approve the changes. The references remain, however, but can now be evaluated in the context of a more positive evaluation of an organisation which I believe is motivated by good and by faith in the human race, even if they have somehow to confront the critics by the inevitable need to finance their work! Dominique 00:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit basically changed the article into an advertisement for the ABI. It's generally considered bad form on Wikipedia to make such wholesale changes without discussing them on the talk page beforehand. If there are specific sections of the article you object to, state your case here. -- Mwalcoff 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A perusal of contributions to the article's talk page was enough to convince me that the disagreement with your POV-infected article was well-established, and that the recommended etiquette of polite pre-engagement would be unproductive. You are unlikely to change your opinion. May I remind you, that WP articles should be primarily 'encyclopedic' and neutrality is not merely recommended but insisted upon by the Administrators. To present an international company from whom many distinguished people have accepted citations as 'Vanity Press' , and to imply overt 'commercialism' in the matter of awards offered by ABI, or similar bodies, is unquestionably 'an opinion' if not actual defamation as others seem to think. My corrections were aimed at presenting the indisputable facts of ABI's existence as a reference-publishing organisation, though at the same time you will have noticed that I did not attempt to conceal the controversies that others (of doubtful authority) had raised. This cannot be described as 'an advertisement' for ABI, just as any (neutral) article on any subject cannot be construed as advertising that subject. Personally, I have been happy to accept a number of citations from both ABI and IBC without having to pay a cent (apart from postage), and have chosen to 'purchase' one or two framed certificates of biographical inclusion at reasonable cost. I may or may not acquire supplementary awards if offered, but I would not necessarily refuse them on the grounds that the presentation and dispatch would attract a charge. It is a matter of degree, after all, and the acquisition of prizes etc as an end in itself, would find little favor with academics and serious achievers in any field. I do have to say that, as an impecunious graduate student at two US universities, I refused attainment 'pins', (awarded on grades) but only because of the cost (around $35 each!). The sensible solution to the present situation would be to request mediation/arbitration, although I doubt whether your slant on the subject would be regarded as impartial. At this point, I shall leave it to you to re-examine the article (and your conscience) - even an objective summary presentation limited to the first paragraph would be an improvement, rather than a pre-emptive attack at the outset. In the meantime, I shall consider the recommended recourse available in the case of continuing editorial conflict, since I am not prepared to enter into fruitless argument over opinions. Check out the following, especially under the heading 'What is excluded':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F

Dominique 20:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad that you weren't willing to give discussion a chance. I can only speak for myself, but I would be happy to discuss how to improve the article with an open mind. But I can tell you that if you simply go on to any article and make widespread and controversial changes without discussing them in advance, you're likely to be reverted.

There is no question that ABI does not always require the purchase of a book or certificate as a precondition of receiving an award. However, it is also clear that ABI absolutely meets the definition of a vanity press: It makes its money by selling books and certificates to its own honorees. This contrasts with traditional reference publishers, such as A & C Black (publishers of the original Who's Who), who make their money through sales of books to the general public. You won't find ABI books in Barnes & Noble, and you're extremely unlikely to find them in your local library, because it's not that kind of publisher. It's a vanity press.

You might want to check out the page Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You'll see that arbitration is the last step in a dispute, while you are at the first step of what need not be a dispute. The first step is to talk to other parties. Only if you can't resolve disputes in that manner should you consider things like a request for comment or third opinion. -- Mwalcoff 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems - unless I am mistaken - that you entered the debate well after the present form of the article was established. The 'Ambassador of Grand Eminence' issue I regarded as 'comic relief', assigning it to the 3-5% error rate mooted by one contributor. I myself have had reservations about the 'Awards' market, but have taken the view that it is up to the recipients themselves - who are by and large intelligent and perceptive honorees - to decide whether it is worth forking out for an acknowledgement of their work and distinctiveness within the human scheme of accomplishment (as assessed by the ABI or similar). My position however is that however flawed the qualification, the individuals singled out for special mention in the (basically free) publications, and/or selected for special attainment awards, are gifted and dedicated members of the human race, and by mounting an attack on the instigator of their elevation to international uniqueness, one is doing them a disservice. Hence my view that the acceptability of the article depends on avoiding any imbalance between exposing alleged 'fraudulence' in the operation of the publishers, and the benefits which may well accrue to those individuals whose work and dedication are acknowledged in the pages of their publications. After all, not all of the biographees succumb to the allure of beautifully crafted plaques and medals, and may be content to settle for lower-level documentation of their accomplishments. It is probably true to say that there are many deserving people who are destined for a life of obscurity unlikely to be alleviated by major awards. You mention Rfc and third opinion. The first has already been tried somewhat ineffectively judging by one or two third-party comments such as ...."a company which dupes the foolish and vain." Third-party opinions may not be any more objective.

If you are serious in wishing to balance the article, I would suggest a re-write of the first paragraph avoiding subjective expressions such as 'professes', claims, vanity press, operates etc., which would immediately raise the level to 'encyclopedic' objectivity. I note that in my own version I did raise a note of negativity in the first paragraph, but ideally this should be delayed until the main body of information is delivered without subjective comment. The awards can be listed, and at this point it would be quite legitimate to make a point about the 'multiplicity' of the awards, and the 'difficulty' of allocating them. I found one interesting reference which says it all: http://timgoodwin.tripod.com/biography.htm

Re sources, it is not enough merely to concentrate on ill-written letters and journalistic comments by cynical or disaffected people of doubtful accreditation. How representative are they? Similarly, on the positive side, one has to rely almost exclusively on the body of biographees as evidence of their faith in the validity of their inclusion or awards. So it is difficult to avoid the charge of 'taking up a position' or venting 'an opinion'. This is why, for an objective statement, one has to state facts, and facts alone.

I hope this is of some relevance. Dominique 23:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of your points on the charged words in the intro are well-taken, and I've made some changes in response. However, I don't think we can avoid the term vanity press, since that's what ABI is, as explained above. There's no doubt that some of the company's honorees are legitimate, but there's not question that some, like this crackpot, are not. -- Mwalcoff 05:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that my original assessment of any exchange on these issues was right - you are not going to change your mind. Your basic approach is that the ABI are fraudulent, and that this should be exposed. My position is that they do perform a service, and that many individuals and institutions acknowledge this. Unfortunately I have no ABI publication to refer to, but I do possess a copy of the IBC 'Cambridge Blue Book' which I - as a biographee - chose to purchase, although I didn't have to. (The IBC is also classed in WP as 'vanity press') It would be of interest to know if these organisations are at all interested in the unfavorable press they have in WP, or indeed whether the disparaging descriptions of their work has any effect on the take-up of citations and awards. I note incidentally that Juan Carlos (King of Spain) and George W Bush are biographees in the IBC publication.

Mr Bush also has coverage in a WP dedicated article. This can afford us an interesting illustration of how a controversial - indeed much criticised - subject can treated in a professional and balanced way. The writers of the article do not avoid mentioning controversy or criticism, or even the dubious nature of his election success, but this in no way dominates the profile, though doubtless there are many who would wish otherwise. The language is measured and objective, and the negatives are stated without giving the impression that the writer (or writers) is expressing a personal opinion.

Obviously, the matter of the ABI article will now need input from (qualified) third-parties. At least they will have plenty of material to assist their enquiry. Incidentally, my biography in the ABI publication was written by the publishers, and as I have said there was no charge for inclusion. Dominique 14:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

In my opinion, the entire lead paragraph needs to be re-worked. Using a derogatory phrase like "vanity press" without a supporting citation is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The lead paragraph also uses scare quotes, which conveys a negative, not neutral impression. Furthermore, there is no reason to quote the web site in the lead; it's enough present the claim with a reference. The lead paragraph gives the distinct impression that Wikipedia has taken the position that ABI is a scam. Wikipedia can't take such positions about any subject, which is why the WP:NPOV policy exists.

While you're at it, you might also want to clean up the inconsistency in references; some are footnotes, some are direct links in the text. -Amatulic 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you, Amatulic. The lead paragraph summarizes the rest of the article, which is well backed up by citations. The term "vanity press" may seem pejoritive, but that's simply the name of the business model the ABI uses. The quotes are not intended to be scare quotes. The second one, assuredly, is necessary, since it's a direct quotation. I'd say the first one is also called for. The lead paragraph does not make any statement regarding the legitimacy of the ABI; it simply states facts. If people choose to see it as a scam, that's not our problem. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tweaked the intro a little bit and added an NPOV tag to reflect this discussion. -- Mwalcoff 22:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Your revision of the lead is a great improvement. -Amatulic 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Earlier revision

Since my re-write started the current argument, I would be grateful for a 'third opinion' on the lead paragraph in that version. It is wrong to concentrate on the 'honors for sale' argument at the outset. The honorees are genuinely distinguished – some very eminent indeed - and would not have paid a cent for inclusion. The prizes and awards are a separate issue, and should be dealt with separately, and accurately. The books are by the way sold also to libraries and other institutions. The ‘vanity press’ expression is thus too controversial to be part of the initial definition of the subject.

Earlier revision of 13 July in full (Link keeps reverting, hence need to quote text here):

The American Biographical Institute, Inc is a United States based company based in North Carolina, which - like its sister company in Cambridge, England (the 'International Biographical Centre') - publishes biographical information about people based on their achievements. It has, however, attracted criticism from some quarters, since it offers awards of various kinds to selected biographees on payment of a fee, though by and large entries in the various publications are made without charge.

“ Participants in the American Biographical Institute's books write their own biographies and submit their own photos, according to the preface of the Great Minds of the 21st Century. ”

[1]

As their website states, it is: One of the world’s leading biographical reference publishers and authorities on global contemporary achievement. Founded in 1967, the Institute has exposed the biographies of outstanding men and women, the world over, in more than 150 separate reference volumes. During its nearly forty-year history, the ABI has recognized the deeds of outstanding men and women through the acknowledgement of professional documentation, and the tradition of biographical research and record. [3]

The position is clarified: Inclusion in an ABI reference title is based on personal achievement alone and is not available for purchase, [4]. Information about potential candidates for inclusion is drawn from various sources including recommendations by biographees already selected. The screening and selection of candidates is subject to rigorous evaluation by the Governing Board of the ABI under the direction of the President/Chairman, J M Evans.

The viability and appropriateness of the work of the Institute is vindicated by the large number of acceptances and support from distinguished individuals world-wide. By offering civil awards and certification of achievement across the gamut of cultural, scientific, educational and political fields, the ABI recognises - if imperfectly - the work of thousands of deserving professionals for whom there are too few governmental, national or international honors available. The cynics and critics must have a voice, though the principal charge of 'commercialism' does not stand up against the positive outcome of the Institute's commitment to human effort and accomplishment across the globe.

[2] ABI reference books (incl. The World Book of Knowledge which retails for US$795) [3] ), are made available to libraries and universities worldwide. [4]

Strike-out phrases can be deleted. Italicised sentence (or sentiments) should appear later.

The following statement (from ABI) is a negation of the accusing tone of the current format:

Copies of all American Biographical Institute publications are correctly registered and sent to the Library of Congress, Washington D.C.; official U.S. state libraries; major international libraries and archives; specialized libraries and businesses the world over. Publications are distributed also to public, private, and international libraries that have placed individual or standing orders, as well as to professional agencies and organizations. Included biographies also have the option to place a personal reservation, but only if they so choose.

Refer[2]

Regarding citations in the article, many of these are by investigative journalists and cannot be seen as fair judgement. These include Australian press comment which is hardly conclusive: note the 'Peace Prize Scam' fiasco: [3] The inclusion, by way of reference, of cv's and illustrations of awards or certificates in no way advances the 'scam' argument. Dominique 10:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Another third opinion

Dominique: In my opinion, your version is even more of a violation of the WP:NPOV policy than the version to which I originally offered a third opinion. I'll make some points:

• I agree that the original use of the term "vanity press" was wrong, but it now appears correctly and non-controverssionally in the version revised after my third opinion. The term bears mentioning in this article, but not the way I originally saw it. I would object to removing it.
• The fact that books are sold to libraries, including the Library of Congress, is irrelevant. Any book with an ISBN, even those published by vanity presses, will end up in some libraries and the Library of Congress. Mentioning this fact seems like a misleading way to inflate a presumption of significance and notability.
• Claiming that "by and large entries in the various publications are made without charge" needs a cite, preferably from an independent source. If the source is ABI, the source would need to specify numbers, not a bare assertion.
• Every sentence after the first 1/3 of your proposed paragraph above reads like an advertisement from ABI. Rightly or wrongly, I sense a conflict of interest here.
• "Vindication" of ABI's work doesn't arise from "the large number of acceptances and support from distinguished individuals world-wide". That's the argumentum ad numerum fallacy. One could as easily argue that the "large number" results from successfully marketing services to the unwary. It's either vindicating or damning, depending on point of view.
• Outside sources from long-established publications such as news services and government publications should be considered reliable, verifiable, and worthy of citing. However, I agree that the "peace prize scam fiasco" link you reference (which I had to access through Google's cache since the link appeared dead) doesn't represent ABI as a "scam", so it wouldn't be fair to use that as a citation for such a claim.

The purpose of a third opinion is to serve as a tie-breaking vote between two disagreeing editors. When I came to this article, however, I didn't agree with either of you. The lead paragraph has improved over the version I saw initially, but Dominique's proposal to include glowing language about ABI with only passing mention (and dismissal) of criticism would skew the POV in the other direction. That is unacceptable. -Amatulic 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Common sense reply

A proper evaluation will of course need input from more users, though I respect the intelligence that you bring to bear on this interpretation. Certainly my version was written as a 'corrective' to the existing article, since I was rather shocked at the language! You will notice that I have not been active in insisting on its 'publication'. Basically, an encyclopedic article should - as you implied in your opening remarks - avoid opinions or what sounds like opinions, and concentrate on substance. In this case the priority at the beginning would be surely to say that ABI is a publishing co., specify what it does, its significance i.e. size, coverage, its connections. Its methods, business practice should come second. Suggestions of duping the public (which in this case represent the higher echelons of intelligent humanity) and running a scam should certainly come third or later, unless you feel the whole outfit is a scam.

If you felt that my input (revision effort and talk page) was more POV than the version at present representing the interests of 'truth and legitimacy', you should have made that clear from the beginning. Your challenge to the original author was quite strong, but you seem to be very quickly mollified by his cosmetic changes which did not remove the POV effect, even if the 'vanity press' description became acceptable to you. As for the citations, these seem to relate to prizes and awards rather than the business of publishing biographies, and are journalistic in tone.

The problem is that it is much easier to find vociferous critics of an International Publishing Co who get revenue from awards to their nominees than advocates of the work that they do. These advocates include institutions who buy the books, and the biographees themselves whatever their motives, and whether they buy copies or not. Many of the 'distinguished persons' represented have no reason to give opinions good or bad about the publisher, but they can't think it is a bad idea otherwise why would they bother getting involved. My reference was not an 'argumentum ad numerum', but rather an 'argumentum ab auctoritate'. Incidentally encyclopedias do not command a large buying public, so the publisher has to make ends meet somehow. Personally I don't see anything wrong with offering (reduced price) copies to persons represented in the pages. And I don't think it is particularly 'vain' for those persons to consider buying. The question of the awards is, as I've said, a separate matter.

Re Library of Congress etc you say "Mentioning this fact seems like a misleading way to inflate a presumption of significance and notability." But it is a fact, and not an assumption or a way of sustaining a dubious argument. Should it not be mentioned in order to avoid giving the impression of significance or notability? In any case, it is important to rectify the omission in the article by stating that the ABI sells to libraries and other institutions and not just to honorees. The other 'significant' fact is of course 'no payment for entry', and at this time I can only verify that from experience (ABI and IBC publications). (One can pay for an enhanced entry e.g. with a photo, which a few choose to do). Therein lies the difficulty of verifying the 'positive', no problem it seems with the 'negative'.

'Conflict of interest', not exactly (I do ask questions about the awards), but in a sense I back my own argument in saying that you would have to look to the honorees to say positive things about the ABI!

'Glowing language' - only insofar as I felt it necessary to quote from the ABI website or the current article quotes for information. I certainly didn't want to rely on journalism or 'anti-elitist' Australian politicians (many of whom are intent on rubbishing the British monarchy, for a start).

I note that you borrowed the phrase 'an advertisement for the ABI' from the other party to the dispute.

I doubt if the ABI or IBC would be particularly concerned about the description of their enterprise (business, if you prefer) as it is portrayed in these pages. They are unlikely to see it as authoritative. Do you know of any published encyclopedias which list biographical dictionaries? I wonder what they say about the ABI? Dominique 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your points in order:

• To get more people involved in the dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
• The priority of the lead should summarize the rest of the article, although this is difficult to do if the entire article is only a paragraph or two. In any case, you are corrrect that the lead should say that ABI is a publishing co., specify what it does, and explain why it is notable — and one of its notable aspects happens to be its business model, which critics describe as a vanity press. Expansion of the descriptions of business practices and how they are perceived by reliable sources (news outlets, government publications, etc.) would certainly come later in the article, but if controversy is mentioned then it should be summarized in the lead. The term "vanity press" can be used in a neutral way (e.g. "Critics view the company as a vanity press"). The current lead still isn't great but the term "vanity press" is used more neutrally now. I was "mollified" by the progress I saw, not necessarily by the result.
• You are correct that the article conflates the awards with the publishing. Although they are related (being published as an "outstanding man of America" qualifies as a sort of award), the citations should not be used to confuse the two.
• If advocates' opinions can't be found, then by Wikipedia policy we cannot engage in original research, and especially not synthesis of the actions of others, to conclude that there exists notable population of advocates. If we can't find sources that make a claim, then the article can't make a claim.
• A book in the Library of Congress doesn't make it notable. The Library of Congress contains many non-notable and obscure books. Mentioning the fact serves no purpose other than to give the appearance of inflated importance.
• The fact that ABI bestows honors doesn't constitute an endorsement of ABI by the honorees.
• I was not aware I borrowed a phrase. The fact is, the text you proposed was full of loaded language to aggrandize the subject, making it seem like advertising. Removing the lengthy quoted parts from the web site and phrasing them neutrally would have helped a bit, but there's still the problem of undue weight being given to a viewpoint originating from the opinion of ABI about itself.
• Wikipedia doesn't claim to be authoritative. An article's authoritative quality derives from neutral language that doesn't give undue weight to a minority view that reliable sources don't support. The opinions of one publisher about itself constitutes a minority view. ABI's publication of biographies of luminary figures doesn't constitute an endorsement either, unless you can find actual statements from those figures endorsing ABI.

Please have a look at the linked phrases in my reply above; every one of them points to a relevant Wikipedia policy. -Amatulic 01:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Responses in order:

• I see this has already been tried rather ineffectively

• I didn’t say anything about ‘notable’, though one could say what it publishes, its international focus, and to whom it sells its publications (not just biographees), an important attribute which seems to have been skirted around. Yes, the article needs to be longer, then there is no need to synthesize aspects that should stand separately: i.e. its role and function (stated without judgment) and its business practices which can be introduced more neutrally in the way you suggest (Critics view etc).

• One does not have to pay for inclusion (how often has this point been made?), and inclusion is not an award whatever the title of the book. Conflation will have to be corrected

• The point is that there is little press in writing about an organisation without controversy. So there are no advocates’ or defenders’ citations available, though the status and social impact of a company – within the field of Biographical publications – is not unrelated to the distinction of those represented in the pages of its books, as well as the importance of the academic, civil or governmental institutions and libraries who acquire them. The suggestion that the detractors win the argument on the basis of a virtual vacuum of laudatory opinion is weak.

• You may have missed the stated reason for the library refs: the main point is that they sell books to libraries and not just biographees, and that this substantive fact is missed from the article

• Of course. The word I should have used was ‘biographees’ who represent a selection of professional people hardly likely to accept membership of a scam.

• I checked the history, and found the quotes were in fact transferred from the original article.

• As I said the ‘luminaries’ don’t find it necessary to endorse or even comment. In fact the only possible source of endorsement would be published reviews. And reviews of dictionaries and encyclopedias are normally of interest to academics or librarians.

Conclusion: I can only feel confirmed in my opinion that the application of the term ‘vanity press’, which you see as ‘uncontroversial’, may have to be looked at more closely. The definition afforded through the link is:

1. A vanity press or vanity publisher is a book printer which, while claiming to be a publisher, charges writers a fee in return for publishing their books or otherwise makes most of its money from the author rather than from the public….2.In its very simplest terms, while a commercial publisher's intended market is the general public, a vanity publisher's intended market are the authors themselves….3. Commercial publishers, on the other hand, derive their profit from sales of the book, and must therefore be cautious and deliberate in choosing to publish works that will sell…

Comment:

1. Putting aside the awards question for the moment, the publication of the books does not strictly conform to the Vanity label, since the ‘authors’ (biographees) don’t actually pay for the publication unless they buy the book, the books being otherwise sold to libraries etc.

2. The general public cannot be relied on to buy biographical encyclopedias, so a commercial publisher’s natural retail outlet is denied to specialist producers like ABI, IBC

3. The second part (saleability) does not apply for the same reason

The following definition may be closer:

A vanity publisher is:

"any company which charges a client to publish a book; or offers to include short stories, poems or other literary or artistic material in an anthology and then invites those included in it to buy a copy of that anthology."

(British Advertising Standards Authority Advice Note, Vanity Publishing, July 1997)

But again, this is not a parallel, and I am still persuaded that such publishers as ABI have little choice in the way they market their books. The awards, on the other hand, may be a more legitimate target for the critics, and should accordingly receive – as you seem to agree – separate treatment. Dominique 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Balanced solution?

In offering the following suggested solution, I am conscious of the fact that recent debate on the article has been limited to three editors, my own input being uncomfortably predominant. I hope that the following format will attract further impartial interest (and relevant debate) if not outright approval: it is not intended as a final draft. The main points arising from the recent discussion are:

neutral, factual description in the opening section

separate treatment of publishing and awards

company's sources of revenue

evaluation/application of 'vanity press' label

quality/availability of reference support

Re-structured article

The American Biographical Institute is a United States organisation based in North Carolina, which - like its sister company in Cambridge, England (the 'International Biographical Centre')- publishes biographical information about people, their careers and their achievements. The organisation’s website[4] provides the following description:

One of the world’s leading biographical reference publishers and authorities on global contemporary achievement. Founded in 1967, the Institute has exposed the biographies of outstanding men and women, the world over, in more than 150 separate reference volumes. During its nearly forty-year history, the ABI has recognized the deeds of outstanding men and women through the acknowledgement of professional documentation, and the tradition of biographical research and record.

The Institute’s work is based on stated principles:

• to publish factual profiles
• to research thoroughly
• to seek the confirmation and approval of the biographees themselves
• inclusion based on achievement alone – no purchase required

Funding

ABI receives no revenue from governmental or educational bodies (cf O.U.P.; Australian Dictionary of Biography, Biographical Dictionary of the US. Congress etc), and has limited circulation among the general public.

• Publications are distributed to public, private, and international libraries that have placed individual or standing orders, as well as to professional agencies and organizations.
• Included biographees have the option to place a personal reservation, but only if they so choose. (Commercial publishers of biographical dictionaries e.g. A & C Black of ‘Who’s Who’ do likewise)
• Awards, certificates and memberships (of distinguished orders) are offered to honorees, but again there is no obligation to buy.
  

Vanity Press

Critics have employed the term ‘vanity press’ to describe the business practice of the ABI. Such accusations emanate largely from the ‘popular’ press or personal comments by public figures who base their attacks on the costs levied on honorees who choose to purchase books or to accept awards. The underlying principle, however, of ‘free inclusion’ of selected biographees means that those represented do not pay for publication of their cv’s: a basic tenet of ‘vanity publishing’ is therefore not fulfilled. (See also Marquis Who’s Who)

Awards

With respect to awards, on the other hand, there are recipients who have listed ABI honors and memberships in their cv’s, or who have taken up offers to have their biographies enhanced (e.g. by photos) or highlighted. Such offers require payment to cover costs, which critics see as being appeals to ‘vanity’.* It is again up to individual honorees selected by the Governing Board to decide for themselves the usefulness (or appropriateness) of such ‘symbols’ of achievement, a number of which are reserved for ‘special’ (elite) recipients. The reliability of the selection process relates to the criteria for selection by the Board, who themselves are dependent on internationally established research bodies (ref ABI/research). It is inevitably an imperfect system, but there is evidence (eg Internet) that many distinguished entrants avail themselves of the award choices available, just as there are occasional examples of ‘trophy-hunters’.
*a parallel in the academic world would be a the purchase of robes and hoods to proclaim one’s degree status

Critics have focused on:(i) the multiplicity of the awards available (ii) the marketing of awards (iii) value or prestige to recipients

Sources

Apart from negative articles by journalists in the popular press, and occasional comments by minor public figures who may have been contacted by ABI for possible inclusion, there is a virtual vacuum of information impartial or otherwise about the business practices of the ABI and similar organizations. Critical reviews of publications may provide an insight, or relevant information may be obtained from the analysis of statistical data which, however, would have to be obtained from the company itself.
List of Awards etc See current article
Published titles include: Refer ABI website Dominique 13:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dominique,

This is a tremendous improvement over your original submission, and I hope that we'll be able to use some of it. However, I don't think we can cut and paste it over the original article for several reasons, including (but not limited to) the following:

Considering the amount of negative press the ABI has received, the controversy has to be somehow mentioned in the intro, I believe.

You don't cite any sources properly other than the ABI website.

You appear to contradict yourself, stating in the second and third sections that no one has to pay to be recognized by the ABI but then acknowelding in the fourth section that some people do have to pay in exchange for their awards.

Your paragraph about the term "vanity press" misses the point. ABI makes its money through sales to its honorees, not by sales to the general public. If that doesn't make it a vanity press, we should say what the ABI is rather than what it is not.

The article still seems apologetic toward the ABI, as in the sentence, "It is inevitably an imperfect system, but there is evidence (eg Internet) that many distinguished entrants avail themselves of the award choices available, just as there are occasional examples of ‘trophy-hunters’."

Finally, you seem to have something aginst the use of citations from the mass media. In an article like this one, there is nothing wrong with using information gleaned from the popular press, as you call it, since that's likely to be all there is. Wikipedia does not demand the use of scholarly sources in articles like these (or anywhere, for that matter). -- Mwalcoff 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm afraid that in spite of all the work and thought over two weeks, our relative positions remain much the same. The points you make, I believe have been dealt with in some detail already. The two main concerns - conflation and the press - underly your argument: (i) the awards 'scam' (if it is proven) cannot be used to denigrate the publishing activity (the prime activity of the company) (ii) colourful press articles and an absence of serious critiques cannot be seen as a licence to present a profile based on the former. Comparable situation: Have a look at the WP article & talk on 'Jonathan King', a well-known British music entrepreneur arrested on child sex charges. Much debate over the use of 'disgraced' in the opening para - generally felt that media language (newspapers or BBC) relating to a particular circumstance is not appropriate when introducing the subject and his achievements. Some statistical info from ABI could be useful e.g. how many entrants purchase books or awards (if offered)? How much revenue is acquired from the sale of books to libraries and institutions?

I'm sorry not to be able to continue with this project at this time, and hope you can find a resolution of remaining conflicts. I am sure you will want the article to progress beyond its present form, and that you would wish more input - contentious or supportive - from a wider range of editors. Good luck! Dominique 22:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is Who of Nerdy Scams

I have researched the “prestigious” awards from the American Biographical Institute (ABI) and from the International Biographical Centre (IBC)…of course not “center”; that would be rather ordinary.

After quite some research there is obviously no doubt in my mind that these organizations are vanity scams based on vanity publications which contain self-published biographies and basically anything you want the award to say for a buck…or in this case more like 200-700 bucks per award, or publication which contains the award. But of course, you don’t just buy your own award of choice, but you have to buy the publication which has your award as well, which itself costs hundreds of dollars, because it is a big book that contains thousands of phony awards…and you can buy some for your friends too, and recommend them as well, or anyone for that matter at their websites.

I don’t know if the situation about these scams is more silly than clever…I mean it is pretty silly for anyone with a few brain cells to give importance to being nominated for such highly claimed international award for having done nothing worth mentioning in their lives, and also for that nothing to have been researched by no one. There is tons of cases when these institutions address a guy with Mrs. and vice versa, even print the award as such…they don’t even bother to research or verify their names and gender, let alone to research their work some state far away, nor some countries oceans away.

On the other hand it is pretty clever scam…you come up with an organization that operates within the loopholes of the law. You are not breaking any promise; people give you money and you give them awards…the money of course to cover the expenses (such a hundreds of dollars for a book or wooden award?!). And you set up your organization for success because you are selling people self-esteem and international recognition. There is that little fact that all of this is false and unsubstantiated by any research (at least for most awards given to most people). But hey, what matters to you is the money, since you are a commercial company, not a scholarly entity. You know that there are lots of people out there who are either stupid or vain, or both, that would buy ABI or IBC rewards and publications of those rewards. So not only do you keep up the business, but you also come to various websites to confront the people who are not stupid enough to buy into your ABI and IBC scam, and have enough integrity and decency to speak up about these scams and caution the others.

Makes me puke…Ralph! - John Q Public 66.197.176.115 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Annual conference

I have removed the following text:

The American Biographical Institute and the International Biographical Centre hold an annual convention each year known as the International Congress on Science, Culture and Arts in the 21st Century. The Congress provides a forum for the artists, scientists, professionals and educators who are biographees to show their works. Selected biographees also conduct seminars at the Congress.[ABICongress.htm]

Simply because the website only refers to the 2005 conference, doesn't mention the IBC and doesn't provide the details as claimed in the para. Further the reference is from ABI itself. Are there any third party references to this "International Congress"? If so, this would make a much better reference. Gillyweed 11:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just did a Google search for "International Congress on Science, Culture and Arts in the 21st Century" and it threw up two results. One from ABI and one from a German website. Doesn't seem to well known to me. Gillyweed 11:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(I removed the <ref> markup to see the link.) — Athaenara ✉ 12:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition: People want controversy whereever they can possibly find it, saddeningly enough, people throw stones to decide the better man, woman or intellectual without knowing who or what we are talking about causing scandle and anything derogatory for the sole purpose of this. Has anyone been to the conference? Than how can they slam except from personal experience? Allot of oddballs here who simply conjecture from their moralistic sense and viewpoint which is infact contrary to their own perfectible sense! This discussion is libelous for many, and slanderous for many. Delete! CommonSense Oct.11 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.233.244 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)