Talk:American Biographical Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Comment[edit]

When I see that efforts at publication and biography are listed as vanity press I find it necessary to comment that vanity press usually refers to the fact that self proclaimed work and self published efforts often end up stored in boxes where they are never seen. The fact of character references and the semiotics of commercial effort are both required in job application and illustrious as heraldry. Before an organization such as this is can be condemned, it should be necessary to investigate that being advertised. As mentioned, several leaders in politics hold proclamations from the ABI. 207.69.139.148 (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Dr. Joseph A. Uphoff, Jr.

I am myself thinking of what will happen to me in the future when I am dead. I have my names listed in some references as an achiever and "famous" internationally but I want a compendium of my life representing my biography in a book (before I die). So to whom shall I turn to- The ABI. Sometimes we don't like ABI but if we look at personal circumstances it is alright to be a part of it. Whether it will be stored in a box or be seen from time to time by people frequenting the libraries... at least I am not forgotten and I have done something for myself and for the world during my time. Selected to receive awards from ABI if appropriate is something to cherish... at least you are selected but you don't necessarily have to buy it. It is a rarity that one can acknowledge you in the form of awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.245.84.187 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment 2[edit]

Acts of Political, Social, Business, personal and otherwise -Defamation (is actually a basis of what you are saying, not just against the ABI but all of its participants and people whom you have chosen to declare worthy of a vanity press scam front...and this ABI is of a particular social organization as evidenced, an organization not just of 1 or 2 people but tens of thousands, if not 100's of thousands involved (each declared by this text, aka vanity press as unworthy recipiants of their awards...be this an accusation). I would like to know if you have contacted the organization themselves or federal agents, state authorities or lawyers and persued 'proper'legal proceedings which would be 'the right thing to do' if you truely believe and have evidence what you are telling us against thousands of people. Please take this to court as a lawsuit, persue legal action and accuse where it is right, not just by lending words as accusations.."that is defamation". Maybe you are right, or maybe you are wrong in your assesment. If you are right there is no false accusation, but if you are wrong then it gets sticky. Being a lawyer has its merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.242.164 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a member of the ABI and take insult in the perpetration of words stating 'fraud' or other accusations which I feel have been directed my way and to the entire associationin this Wikipedia Artical. Where does this end? What caonciousness is leading people to pronounce SCAM under this title. And what these links are is pure unadulterated defamation not only to myself but to thousands of people whos individual merits should be listed in books. Being a lawyer does have its merits and no matter how innocent this discussion is, it intrudes on the private sanctity of the establishment of our careers and livelihood. I would sit in with my testimony that the ABI, in my case has published 100% evidenced facts. Never mind the awards, they have been known throughout the ages as Belle Letters in every pattern of every profession in the United States, Europe and beyond. In fact some pride themselves in a job well done by this, others consider these to be a mere marker, a plaque in their home to say "Ive made this remarkable distinction" If grade-point-average is the only dependable source of nominations made by awards etc. they leave a number of very distinguised gentlemen out of the question for any award determined by GPA. One can reference Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison and many others-if this particular is graded by GPA or testing one might find particulars that their GPA's were not so fine at one time, but they continued to be the greatest personalities of all possible genius, and if we were to vet them far enough we would find them mere men and women. I dont like awards, but there is an importance to awards that goes beyond saying and it just dosent mean awards by inner sancum establishments which pass money to each other via diploma. This happens all the time in our governments. There is of course something completely different in the type of award offered here. There is no political anomoly other than the establisment of ones own determination at acceptance. How many times has there been the gift factor or honor factor among professors at our great universities for leverage of one type of power towards another deed. This should be self evident. I will leave it to the individual and their own concience. But please, it is wrong to put a dim light to people who are working each day to preserve our culture and heritage whether in science, medicine or art. If we assume the monochrome society suggested by some here, we are moving towards a Soviet type of conciousness percipitating more decay than we have seen by the 'inspection' neurosis that seems more prevailent now than any time I can remember. Some obvious shame should be put on those with this perception. The defamation character that I am witnessing in this these articals is no better than the word and is strongly in the context to 'character defamation' in its strictest meaning. Please take this to court and see what law prevails under the constitution, including the international constitutions that have been written for the greater sake of man as well as the personal privacy intervention acts. (personal inquisition and property as well as what may considered venturing into peoples private lives- in some instances-..referencing footnotes to put people in a dim light) I am all for freedom of speech, but such should be ajusted in character and context not defamation and indecisive argument with a dull sheen to it. Anonomous- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.221.234 (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the ABI was under bankruptcy. I suppose the agents of "change" had put their influence in announcement of some kind of deceit there, conspiracy or otherwise known as scam. I think that the energy in the fondling of "Truth" and "Justice" by the de-illuminators who closed a viable construct down, by subtfug should think back one day on what they have done. Its sad, I mean really sad what is going on with the ironing of society by an American home-based variety of agents putting the word scam on just about everything as our country is pulling itself down, and the people of those books might just have been enlightened enough in their truthful biographies and skills to save our poor country, or at least inspire us as we sink to the bottom. Now they have done it. Arnt they proud of themselves. Now the corporation lives to tell us of their version of truth, with no way out but 'their decisions of who we are, and what we ever had done (to tell our children in complete biography-never mind the plaques or awards) I'm sure that the posters of this incredible satire can take themselves to church now. Its really sad that the ABI is in bankruptcy. Change. We will know what this all means tomorrow when we wake up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.133.194 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

SAD Story

Look at the people who are trying to make an important significance in our societies! Give them something whether or not it is pride for at least trying, and if a medal for attempting, or a little spotlight in which they can pride as their own!. All one has to do is to go out there and see all that is being done, or being not done, or being undone as to notice there are a very few people taking their stands, in arts, culture and sciences...period, and it goes often far from the tailored lawns of the Universitys or academic institutions that we know. Where are these people? Are they acknowledged? Given one voice? Or ignored? If they are given any 'biography' it should be full and complete and it should be somewhere important without bias and in the authors own tone. I think from what I have seen ABI has been complete to their word and better in quality to other publications. Its sad that our cultures have taken the spotlight and given this only to a select few of omnipotent presences or rich and prosperous individuals who operate from a signet or star attraction aka .Hollywood and little or nothing is said about the rest or their talents and abilities....my gosh the world is sad when we put down those who do and try to do, and try harder than the rest. The world becomes a very sad place when we forget about some measure of respect or attempt to slide off the board so many good people. To buy an award? I dont think so...you can never buy an award nor its worth. People do take ads out in papers and quarter page leaflets for much much more that a few hundreds, call it vanity. By the way how much is a 1/2 page ad in the New York Times? How about Time Magazine? The New Yorker? Call this vanity too..all for the crisis of ones inherant need to be published...and then the supurb violinist,clarinetist, singer,or folklorist, that is to be sponsored at Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Center, yet remains unknown because of the lack of spotlight-or if self sponsored-(which incidentaly cost much more than the publication of a book...or the plaquette, or medal...these people are spending their lives so we can benefit from their talents. Need I say more? Now we can speak of honesty. (Does anyone know what the hall rental at Lincoln Center, Town Hall or Carnegie is nowadays?...outrageous, and its not just because some practice and are good)Some just would like to be in a book, just to say our names actually were somewhere. Please respect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.218.184 (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced text[edit]

Special:Contributions/Nobody191919 added the following text to the article:

Here's how they work

ABI buys mailing lists from organizations. Using those names, they send out blanket mailings inviting individuals to be in biographical books. When the forms come back to ABI, they're marked (A) buy, (B) bill and (C) no sale. A forms go directly to the "editors," data-entry drones making minimum wage who never went to college and are beholden to type a certain amount of entries per day. B forms go next. C forms are saved in a pile, and the best are used to fill in the holes in titles such as "2000 Women of Distinction" et. al.

Regardless of whether a respondent buys entry into a volume (printed at a shop that specializes in high-school year books) or not, just by replying buys the respondent into a life time of junk mail.

This is a scam. Do not respond to mailings.

It may be true, and it may be good advice, but it's not referenced or encyclopedic as per Neutral point of view and other policies detailed in the Reliable sources guideline, so I removed the section heading and paragraphs from the article and copied them here. — Athaenara 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that. I worked at ABI when I was young. Even then, I had nightmares that "60 Minutes" cameras would come in and bust everybody. It's really sad how many people drink the Kool-Aid and buy trinket after trinket. The owners laugh all the way to the bank.
Stepos (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Stepos

From a viewpoint of Absolutism-Then all venues that gather information, or publish tomes of biography or other distinctions should be under high scrutiny, security and monitorship and no awards should ever be given without proper absolute protocol by those all ready in the "knowlege, instruction, advertisment or fame base system"-ie Mediawood (In Charge of Popular Referance), State, governmental authorities and Learning Institutions in charge of "Knowlege Bases"..then we have an absolutist format for distribution of information. However too many people are slipping through the cracks and loops of a Popularist society (too many of the better ones)...There are many (and many more) that deserve recognition for they put their lives out there (most dont)..and are often tilled under by spite, rhetoric and professional jealousy, as Popularism of the type we see today only focuses on the Pop culture and Mediawood and have dismissed many. Many names go by the wayside as Mediawood makes its selection very quickly. Should there be a framwork beyond Mediawood for awards? Should we be beholden only to Mediawood for establishing excellence. How any business works is more less the same all the way around-now with much complaint and thought provoking laughter is now rippling the ground for many as to how Mediawood has preselected our heros. I personally think that there should be a free distribution of information, to allow for Absolutism not to occur, as well as some allowance for good names to exist beyond the parameters of Mediawood, as well as people to live in some satisfaction of having their good names published and established without a firm hand of politics governing who is who, natural selection should take over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.170.120 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced items in list[edit]

I removed twenty or more titles from the very long list in the American Biographical Institute#Awards and titles sold section. User Gillyweed (talk · contribs) restored them and posted the following on my talk page:

G'day. Great job keeping an eye on the above article. I reverted your deletion of the unreferenced material as I will reference it over the next few weeks. They can all be found by a Google search. Just give me a little time. Gillyweed (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is preferable for such a list to be brief and encyclopedic. — Athaenara 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Random commentary[edit]

Some people feel it is a legitmate action to be included in biographical publications, paid for or not. Societal rewards, awards, inclusions or social gatherings are sometimes part of membership as with any society or social order in the United States, Europe and throughout the world. I hope there would not be an inquisition into various governmental awards that bend favoritism in a plethoria of ways, nor would I wish that media awards in general are so heavily scrutinized that they take away the joy of their possessors. Afterall we are talking about a "private institute". Political Correctness seems to doubt that any fee should be paid for a biography, but it is, this is just business. Books require work, the same work as all common business. Time is spent in research, printing nd paper is used in the bindings as well as the distribution of any book on any shelf in any library. It is reasonable to accept that there is a fee involved with any business transaction, unless it is non profit or charity. Since these are so rare in our scheme of influence, registres often do charge some fee. Sometimes this fee is for the listing, as in advertising. If one considers every paid incluson a scam then an aweful lot of business actions would lead to the conclusive ideas. From personal experience I dont think that paid inclusion is a "wrong" thing yet many people seem to have various thoughts on these principles. Legitimacy can be a question "always". To call Whos Who -a scam- is overlooking many of the potential uses for these books. If biography, any biography publishing is termed a scam, we should go to church to condemn it, or continue to develop within ourselves better biographies and vett those contingincies with accuracy instead of blanket white wash, polite analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.198.196 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on the individual. If you want to retire due to old age by staring and being secured at the four walls of your room that is your office or your livelihood niche throughout your life, you do not need ABI. If you want to know the whole world who you are and your contributions I think you need something like ABI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.63.149 (talkcontribs)

If you look into the American Biographical Institute (ABI) one will find a legitimate business...like any legitimate business (Look and See!) And thousands upon thousands of biographies from all over the entire world, not just the corner store. What American Biographical Institute is, is a biographical resource, and a good one at that! Should they give out awards? This is their business, why not these people have earned it, and if they havnt (let the gods rest the case) Who are we to analyze and can we propose analysis? Is this a "government" affair? Logicly no. Are there comments of people here that "dont like biography...or their biography, others biography, of any purpose...published for some feeling that some may "be in there, while others might not be?" Of course..if its just a cold attack in order to complain, or make scandle about "achievement" and little nodes of complaint of the areas of something called recognition (for whatever that is worth..or is actually worth, doing something that actually recognizes achievement) Lets face it, there is a great deal of heresay about "achievement" and what it actually may or may not be. We can go on forever regarding that one. But to do ones homework..to find there .."is not a scam" here-there is evidence for this, whether we like it or not. American Biographical Institute is a legitimate business from all legal aspects. So why the inquiry? Why the questioning..if its not our karma to begin with? Why not take it as it is...reference. And why not just a little ego that is allowed (even though a developing socialistic society in the west..where people are largly defined by two groups, those with money, status, and control and worker class) to allow for the specific, safe and at points "right" and "good" indulgance for people to be acknowledged for whatever they did, or do, or wish to dream and have manifest? Why point to the negative in all instance of scandle or scam? Why not let things be..as well as contributions be as a mark to attempt a greater and better society in the long run with good ambitions, hopes and dreams for fulfillment. I think people should just ask themselves this and spare the misery of always putting a negative spin on everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.127.123 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Anfaber, 3 May 2011[edit]

I am serving as a representative of the American Biographical Institute. Much of the content in this entry is either false or so misleading that it confuses and turns away those chosen as award recipients by the Institute. There is absolutely no cost associated with accepting an award (only the commemorative, OPTIONAL merchandise, and I tried repeatedly to edit the information to indicate such) and deserving individuals who could be listing their awards on their resumes instantly grow fearful when they read untruths on the Internet. There have been individuals who have called the office just to see if the company actually exists, which it most certainly does. I'm sure there are many individuals who don't even bother to do that.

Wikipedia is apparently incredibly careful about what is posted in its entries, as is evidenced by my many edits being reversed. Yet, what I have been trying to do is edit the entry to actually be truthful! Each edit I've made has come with a detailed explanation, and yet the slander remains.

If Wikipedia is unwilling to let the American Biographical Institute be represented fairly and truthfully, please simply remove the entry. The Institute would rather have the sole source of information about itself on the Internet be its own Web site, which provides recipients with honest information rather than what some disgruntled and uninformed blogger thinks.

I've taken the liberty of saving the copy for the entry, as I've been trying to edit it to read. Most of what I did was edit claims that there are fees to accept awards, as there aren't. Rather, recipients of awards can choose to purchase the commemorative merchandise. I did, however, remove a few blatently libelous statements, as well as cleaned up some of the grammar and mechanics a bit. You'll find all of this pasted below.

Thank you.

The American Biographical Wikipedia page, as it should be presented:

Anfaber (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: first of all, you have an obvious conflict of interest and your desire for your site to be the only source of information on the internet is the exact reason for this guideline. If you have reliable and non-primary sources to back up your claims, we would be happy to insert them to include all sides of the issue, but simply removing the current sourced content from the article won't happen. Please point out any specific claims that are either unsourced or are not backed up by their sources and they will be removed. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Vanity Press[edit]

See [1] "It’s a place where authors go to pay to have their work published, a kind of shop once dismissed as a “vanity publisher.” There was a stigma attached to it then,” she says. “But times have changed.” Listed as a vanity publisher here: [2]. Whatever you call it, the author pays for the book to be published. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Validity of reference books such as publications by IBI[edit]

On many occasions I have crossed the path, where some professionals are dismissing the value of reference books published by the like's of IBI publications,whether you pay for entry by purchase of the particular publication, or not. Let's evaluate the status:

1. entries are based on certain merits which a particular individual presents. They are evaluated on the basis of facts presented, exaggerated or not. Just like the IRS or in Canada, the Revenue Canada, they are based on the principle of TRUST, with the legal responsibility on the individual.

2. the information is collected, processed and published. The publishing is deposited at the Library of Congress, assigned Catalog number, and registered and assigned ISBN number. By this the publishing become a legal document, which in a matter of any law dispute may work for the individual, or, against him if he provided false information.

3. these publications are the least influenced publications by self-serving commerce oriented professional publications. These publications are exactly as they present themselves - They are REFERENCE BOOKS, and they are the closest to the democratic principles, since they are representing data which otherwise would not be accessible. They are non-political, not associated with elitist groups or organization and establishments (where you pay for the privileges by membership, percentage value of sale like in galleries etc.).

Therefore any notion of being a scam is ungrounded. Business, of course ! Sometimes the (paid for)reference is many times over returned in legal reference in individuals public record, and, possibly, the only means to record some facts which need to be recorded.

Rasto Hlavina 74.210.37.164 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is an issue of trust: whether potential readers can trust that inclusion is not affected by whether a person has paid (and how much) as well as the accuracy of the biographical details of those included. I know someone who managed to get their dog included in an ABI publication, merely on the strength of his recommendation. So there might be reason to wonder if the business end might be allowed to drive the biographical.
But if you're willing to to trust the propriety of the ABI as well as the honesty of its customers, that's fine! It's not Wikipedia's place to make value judgments of that sort. We provide factual content backed by reliable, independent sources that allow readers to make informed decisions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The ABI is a reputable and factual organization that is no longer in publication 2013. Its pretty darn awful that there is the word "conspiracy" put as a Pilot as vanity press, etc, when the organization has printed truthful and a well organized product for many years. Wikipedia is blunt. And it is sharp... If this were the witch hunts, Wikipedia is the Church. Its sad and sorry that organizations are getting disposed of by the daggers of the few. No freedom, but censorship inspired criticism, to many parts of Wikipedia- defoliation of projects, aimed at progress are in small numbers. Attributed Traps Set by Wikipedia for certain Freedoms of Press by Political Correction Heavyweights-by spoof and humor..."someones pet in ABI publications..." nonsense! Did they purchase the volume or is this in an absurd sense of word of mouth, link, they say...internet divide and conquer? Does anyone view the publications, or is it paid by competitor intervention to stealth products? Or set there proof-positive 'court judged' criticism? The validity of reference books...are as reference books, valid for their content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.25.226 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC) "They", whoever they are, managed to put the organization pretty well out of business. Probably the Conspiracy theory here is a description-taken out in words- Well Wikipedia is known for this, as with other non-governmental (intergovernmental agents which have turned inside out, moral responsibility, to be an entrapment and closure of business. Need I say more? What really needs to be done is this article and its references to the ABI (Raising the rifle away: The automated security age- or whatever- having done their job in closing this venue, and I must warn others too, the Night and Fog censoring of material is happening just as in a book Farenheight 451. No more comment, but surely a fire has started that will likely be encumbering another generation to beware of the Shadow Media Agents, and prescribe for tomorrow, a just setting for controlled media in all aspects, ways, shapes and forms of NewsSpeak. Who are the next victims to Freedom of Press?!!!

Trust[edit]

As one makes the journey of life, with open mind, he learns that it would be naive to take anything with Trust. That is why the dollar note says IN GOD WE TRUST, and not In this bank note we trust.

If someone attaches an expression such as Scam on something I would not take it for granted, I would also question why? The journalists, politicians and other, most probably have their reason for it. Could it be : trust only us, at which point they are attempting to compare themselves to The God ( In God We Trust)?

Nothing in this world is infallible. As for the man who entered his dog into ABI publishing - don't you think that this man actually perpetrated a 'scam' on the ABI?

To know something, is to verify it, get the content under scrutiny and verify again from many aspects, perspectives and sources etc., simply use your mind - think to the fullest potential of the mind. That is why I believe the reference to 'scam' should be eliminated. P.S. Personally I have used some of these publications for selfish reason, to protect my work, research and achievements from plagiarism, intellectual property theft etc.

Rasto Hlavina74.210.37.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC).

We are doing too good a job of railing out our culture in the arts and science....attacks on vanity press, pay for play. Realism. Why destroy peoples reputations and lives through funky article attacking vanity press, whos who and any award or accolade,prize or awarded that is not "Police Funded", one knowing exactly that statement in an eminent control league..police state scenario {chosen few]. Who is who? Now attack business..legitimate business, and impose {spurious and selected aesthetics of value} In addition to tearing up and disposing of businesses ABI-or whatever-these self serving critics, not opening a forum, but offering lynching posts.. I just wish Wikipedia would know legalities and quit the business of MORALISM. This article paints the pot black...and allows for Wikipedia intrusion into business criticism, liable, and slander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.157.203 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)