Talk:International Biographical Centre

Annual shindig
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. 

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)

lower down within the same article.

The two seem to overlap. Further, http://www.abiworldwide.com/ABICongress.htm is hosted by the American Biographical Institute and thus doesn't constitute independent verification. Is the World's Congress on Science, Culture and Arts in the 21st Century covered by any newspaper or independent periodical? If so, let's see it. -- Hoary 07:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothke's article
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)

Why push everything to a political viewpoint over 'who is who' in the the positive reflections of people life biographies, careers etc who are instrumental in there purpose and causes of their (lives). Why is there such a political inquisition when success is 'success' whatever level one can attain this! A dishonor or Demotion of the meritous as some kind of editors superimposed scandle over who is who, who is the "proper" who or who, or is Media as Government representing the proper claim? One cant shoot first with no questions asked at so many who have spent their lives "doing" and only haveing a few words listed in their behalf--as would be a modern day Mozart (unknown now because some critic doesnt like classical or that this person would be unknown in this day-because pop media has opted out this genius (presenting a person who makes tribal crys as our worlds best attempt at new-music), only for a small reference somewhere in a journal or book-that tells us of a truthful background-for historical study, maybe some day? ) Or a casual listing of some religious leader that is (off the popular chart or the spurious notion of some 'popular' notion) whos background is "not" popular now, but is a formidable leader to some--over there---only a small listing as ledger for history---to what degree do we regulate who is who, what is what? Certain things, and certain people are! Is it a scheme of power and control? Or who is battering who for a name? Let this be unless there is a global supervisory authority that is set into motion of who is allowed and when! Is it Hollywood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.189.3 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Category change request
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)
 * There isn't a Category:Scam.  Ty  01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Résumé frauds and controversies seems adequate for the job. -- Hoary (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

puffery in Wikipedia user pages
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The forest fire continues:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Somchet Isarankura
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Professor Mahavir Saran Jain
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dranoopswarup
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sevagkp
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mardurill
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Niraleah1/His Eminency Dr. Hazrat Sheikh Shah Sufi Mohammed Nurul Alam

The hard edge contingency of certain debate in this area of restriction, licence, and censure continues. Some continue to reach out to ruin peoples lives and reputations, realizing a rather draconian action similar to a Goebles or Soviet censorship league, playing puffery and debate as to whom people are without really knowing them in person and spreading the ideas of subtrafuge etc. Is it cool, democratic or rings heavily of CIA. Its maddening, but this is the "New Order" of ruination that is political and set on bias, prejudice and the sentiments of dark rooms and shearly belief set cloak and dagger. Experts are plenty here and will seek to dissolve anything in their best politically notched hook...for benefit of few with agendas. One thing amazing to the writer is, if all this material is hoax, fraud, etc, as fully lit in this dark section of the woods, why on Earth don't the censors here take it head on, with formal lawsuits and litigation, not liable, slander sneaky debasement, and detritus slinging--   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.26.155 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Centre also does business as "International Biographical Association". MER-C 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Other Misusers of the Cambridge Reputation
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)

List of awards
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)
 * As no further sources have been found, I am going to remove the list again. Do not replace it unless sufficient sourcing is available. --Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone is puzzled by this Talk section, as I was: until 25 September 2017 the article included a section listing government leaders around the world (with Wikipedia articles) who had included IBC mentions and accolades in their CVs. The sources for the entries in the section were eventually removed from their original places and from the Wayback Machine, leaving all sources cited dead-linked. Then the whole section was deleted. Pol098 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Message from IBC
This message comes from the International Biographical Centre. We have been in operation for over 40 years, having published more than 1,000,000 biographies of people of note from all over the world in more than 150 editions of our reference works. Entry into our titles is based on merit alone and cannot be bought. We do offer a range of commemorative items alongside the publications but purchase is not a pre-requisite for inclusion. In the course of the research for our titles we select some people that we feel deserve further recognition for their work in the form of awards, again these titles cannot be bought and there is no obligation to purchase any item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.98.125 (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First, thank you for your candour in identifying yourself. However, we can only depend on sources that are published, independent and reliable.


 * I'm sorry that I didn't see your message earlier. Now that I do see it, I look more closely at the article and realize that it's very poor. Its history will show that in the last half hour I've questioned or simply removed some very dubious material.


 * I've had to stop in this enterprise, because of the demands that my salaried job make on my time. I think it's likely that at least some of the claimed sources I haven't yet looked at are also dodgy. Please do not remove any dubious material yourself: such an effort would almost certainly backfire. However, you are very welcome to question dubious material here on this talk page. Yopie (who I notice has been active here) or I or some other independent editor will read what you write and act upon it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take a look.--Yopie (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your communication, we apologise for not following the proper channels but we were unsure of the systems in place. Firstly, although we previously held an annual conference with the American Biographical Institute they closed their doors over 3 years ago and that was our only connection to them, please could any reference therefore be removed accordingly. Several of our members have commented that the International Congress was the only one where delegates from many different occupations and cultures could come together to enhance greater international understanding through lectures and cultural understanding.

We would be grateful if you could remove the part in the first paragraph stating “Government consumer advocates have described it as a 'scam' or as 'pretty tacky'” as this is not fact just opinion from a website and we feel that this is unjustified. Like all comments people always focus on the negative rather than any positive comments we receive about us and our work. We do have a number of positive comments on our facebook page should you wish to check further. https://www.facebook.com/Intbiogcentre.

We have attempted to contact the Western Australia Government page but have received no response from them. One of our valued members from Australia has also contacted them to no avail. This article was written a number of years ago and we feel that it should be removed from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.98.125 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I was last in contact with you in October and have not had any reply in regard to my comments, please could you have another look at this page so that we can move forward with this. With thanks| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.98.125 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinions on reliability
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)