Talk:International Biographical Centre

message: A recent edit readded this:
: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.http://www.abiworldwide.com/ABICongress.htm
despite the existence of
:The International Biographical Centre does charge a service fee for its awards. The American Biographical Institute and the International Biographical Centre hold a joint convention each year known as the World's Congress on Science, Culture and Arts in the 21st Century. The convention provides a forum where artists, musicians, scientists, professionals and educators can show their works and lectures are held by selected biographees which volunteer to contribute to the convention.
Individual Look at the Point...
This is a good thing! Its a cultural organization..we need more! Why do we have to always dismiss or make problems with such organizations, looking into them or to charge or suggest that they are scams, bringing them into a dark light? Why? Many Many professional people have their listings with IBC, and as far as I see, there is positively no problem with this, nor should be. What is the Inquisition for? Logicly!   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.62.5 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Annual shindig

message: Ben Rothke's article "What's What with the Who's Who?" is informative and merits a link. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rothke's article

message: International Biographical Centre manages the awards which are nothing but scam as it can be checked from commerce ministry website of the Government of western Australia. http://www.docep.wa.gov.au/ConsumerProtection/scamnet/Scams/Melrose_Press_Ltd_tr.html
Therefore, I suggest to put this article into the scam category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratuliut (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a :Category:Scam. Ty 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Résumé frauds and controversies seems adequate for the job. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category change request 

message: A search for the string international biographical centre within WP user pages brings plenty of unintentionally amusing results. (Some innocent results too, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I've already taken the first 2 I looked at to MfD, promotional user pages which were the editor's only contribution. Maybe it should be a group MfD? Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you've started with a couple of individuals; here's my own small new contribution; but really, an editor with a spare evening and a spare bulldozer could dispose of many more. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look, beyond the first two the signal to noise ratio (um, okay) drops significantly to be not really worthwhile. MER-C 12:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back a little further, I found something to rescue, a truly terrible abandoned user draft I converted into N’gandu Peter Magande   DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: puffery in Wikipedia user pages

message: CISP (Cambridge International Science Publishing)offers some sensible journal titles, but many of its monographs cater to the blossoming market for pseudoscience. Many other publishers offer such dubious fare, but it is particularly misleading and deceptive to have both 'science' and 'Cambridge' in the company's name. Treat with caution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.104.102 (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Misusers of the Cambridge Reputation 

message: This list suffers of multiple problems. Not only is it completely WP:UNDUE, it also is original research (as actually clearly stated in the text on top of the list: based on Internet searches) and, even more importantly, it contains serious BLP violations: for some of these awards, the source given is the CV of a living person. Given the (justified) critical nature of this article, that is not a flattering thing to do, to say the least. The whole section should be removed, unless a reliable source (without these BLP problems) can be found (and even then I'd consider this an undue laundry list). --Randykitty (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of awards 

message: I just reverted an addition to the lead that does not belong there (wikilink to the organisation went nowhere, and not a well known organisation), but I think paragraph 2 of the lead with criticism could be argued to also be too narrow for the lead. I would suggest a new section in the main be created that attempts to address the issue of how the centre is seen. Sourced information goes there and then a summary of that section can be written for the lead. This would also take footnotes out of the lead, which would be a benefit. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions on reliability