Talk:PublishAmerica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A list of sites about or referencing PublishAmerica (in no particular order)

Amey's PublishAmerica Sucks Blog

(The following three pages now seem to be defunct:)

These are the new links for the above articles. I am the author:

[edit] {{totally disputed}}

The Executive Director of PublishAmerica has emailed the helpdesk mailing list with a complaint regarding the content of the material of this article. I have attempted to respond as best I can.

first email

first response

second respone (second email is attached)

-JJLeahy 20:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"Nearly daily, I am having to change text of our entry on your site. Someone not affiliated with PublishAmerica keeps altering the text. How can we stop this from happening. I have posted what the text should be below."

It seems someone's a little bit confused between "Wikipedia article" and "press release". However, it is nice to know the identity of the person who keeps converting the article into what it shouldn't be -- i.e., one side only of the dispute. Also nice to have it confirmed that it is a representative of PublishAmerica itself, meaning it's not just a violation of NPOV but of Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the person who is complaining and allegedly attempting to change the article about PublishAmerica is one of the three directors of PublishAmerica. The Wikepedia Autobiography page contains also instructions about people advertising their business: "Creating or editing an article about yourself, your business, your publications, or any of your own achievements is strongly discouraged." -Lucia12 11:30, 14 November 2005 (GMT)

This article was nominated for deletion on November 10. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Could somebody suggest for me, please, what exactly is in dispute here? I mean, starting at the top of the page we have:

PublishAmerica is a Maryland-based book publisher founded in 1999 by Lawrence Alvin "Larry" Clopper III and Willem Meiners.

All of this information, except for the founder's names, can be found at http://www.publishamerica.com/aboutus.htm. Mr Meiners has apparently published a book through the company detailing its history (publicised on the front page of their site), and I have heard Mr Clopper's name mentioned in connection with it in several other places.

It has been the subject of controversy as it claims to be a "traditional" advance and royalty paying publisher but is accused of being a vanity press or author mill by many writers and authors' advocates.

The company's claims are adequately documented on their own web site. The accusations are clearly visible among the list of links above. I particularly recommend the two to Making Light. The Nielsen Haydens are experienced senior editors at a well known publisher, and very much appear to know what they're talking about.

PublishAmerica pays a nominal $1 advance to its authors, but then makes them bear most of the other costs that commercial publishers invest in their books.

I've seen numerous PA authors claim to have received their $1 advance and framed it, so I don't think this figure is in dispute. It is clear from discussions on PA's web site that they do not provide marketing for the books they publish. Marketing is, I believe "most of the other costs that commercial publishers invest in their books." I'll agree that this sentence is badly phrased and will change it when I've finished here.

In December of 2004 PublishAmerica agreed to publish the novel Atlanta Nights, which was later revealed to be a hoax designed to illustrate PublishAmerica's low quality standards.

Mr Macdonald, who organised the hoax, has publically stated in several venues that PA had accepted the novel. Nobody has ever (to my knowledge) questioned this fact. The novel was clearly a hoax, and the authors' intent in writing it is not the subject here.

In August 2005 PublishAmerica was sued by Encyclopedia Britannica for trademark violation over PublishAmerica's PublishBritannica imprint. The matter was settled out of court.

Clearly documented in the links section.

In late September 2005, PublishAmerica announced that its books would, starting in October, be returnable by the bookseller if they failed to sell, a standard practice among commercial publishers.

The announcement is still linked from PA's home page (under the title "PublishAmerica makes it's[sic] books returnable"). I don't think they can dispute the fact that sale-or-return is the standard practice in the publishing industry.

The announcement stated that this applied to "all" of its books, though it noted that there would be "a few exceptions initially" and that the offer would apply to United States booksellers only.

This is clearly born out by the details at http://www.publishamerica.com/return/index.asp

I don't think the contents of the external links should be relevant here, as Wikipedia is not publishing those contents. JulesH 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that if nobody comments on any specific problems with the article as it stands, we should remove the dispute tag. It's been nearly two weeks since I commented above, and nobody's suggested anything wrong with it. Another couple of days for a response should be fine. JulesH 21:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As no problems have been suggested, I've removed the dispute tag. Hopefully the quoted sources for all the allegations will help prevent future problems. JulesH 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

In the last line of the first paragraph of the article, the phrase "commercial publisher" is used. I think "conventional publisher" might be better. 88.109.61.162 13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Rather than "conventional publisher," the most-appropriate term for what most people think of as a publisher is "commercial publisher." That includes university and small presses, too, because the term refers to publishers who sell their books through the stream of commerce (not just to intent to profit).

With this understanding, PublishAmerica is not a commercial publisher. Further details would only set off this whole flame war again. Vanity presses are neither inherently evil nor inherently illegal; deceptive practices employed to hide their nature, however, are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.176.82 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

These are good points. Terminology is very important in this discussion. For instance, PublishAmerica describes itself as a "traditional publisher", but as reported by the Washington Post, that's a term Clopper and his partner take credit for coming up with -- it's no wonder that PublishAmerica would always fit their own definition of a "traditional publisher", no matter how little that matches what an aspiring author might think "traditional publisher" must be indicating. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Documentation of claims

A number of claims against PublishAmerica were added in this edit: [1], including that even before Atlanta Nights, PA was stung by a manuscript that consisted of the same thirty pages repeated over and over. Unfortunately, these claims were not documented in that edit. However, I accidentally ran across two sources for the 30-pages-repeated claim, here and here. I'm not sure whether these provide verifiability by themselves, but even if not, I'd be surprised if they didn't lead us to verifiable claims about other "sting" manuscripts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There's another reference to the 30 pages repeated thing here. I quote:

Macdonald previously told SCI FI Wire that other hoaxes are being perpetrated against PublishAmerica. Writer Kevin Yarbrough sent a 300-page manuscript consisting of 30 pages repeated 10 times. Clopper said he recognized such a hoax, although he did not know who was the author. "In that one, the hoaxster apologized that he had done such a thing," Clopper said.

So we have one of the directors of the company acknowledging that this has happened, according to scifi.com, a division of NBC Universal Television. I think this provides the necessary verifiability. I'll add a sentence or two to the article now. JulesH 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen a number of claims re. the returnability of PA's books that they've dropped the available discount to 5% for bookstores who want to take advantage of it. Unfortunately, I can't find anything that I'd consider verifiable. Does anyone have a good source for this? And perhaps for the claim (that I consider obviously true, but which could possibly be disputed) that this level of discount is so low that it would effectively prevent bookstores from purchasing the books? JulesH 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Links 2 and 3 in the article both lead to sources that require registration to view... [2] [3] Is there some way we can find sources anyone can see? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There are publically visible sources for most of these claims, e.g. the "true stories" in the links section. Unfortunately, they don't meet wikipedia's requirements for verifiability, so aren't appropriate for quoting as a source. It seems both of these pages have turned subscription-only recently -- the publishers' weekly one within the last week. I hope this isn't an ongoing trend for such sites, as it will make verifying this kind of claim much harder. JulesH 09:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added the 5% claim in, along with a link to a database that lets you find the discount for any title available through Ingram, which all PA books are. While I don't consider this source ideal, I think it's good enough for now. JulesH 10:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PA Contract

On August 28, 2006 I signed a 7 year contract with Publish America after my lawyer reviewed it and moments later witnessed my signature on it. Nowhere in that contract does it say that I have to pay any fees for publication to the company. The very definition of a vanity press clearly states that the author must pay for publication. I pay nothing for publication. The only thing I will have to pay for is the copyright, which is the norm. As for the writer's mill, I looked that up and found myself shrugging. There are literally tens of thousands of active authors with books being sold on Amazon and all three major chains, so I am personally not sure if this definition really fits or not. I suppose it would IF no books were available for sale anywhere, and no author was paid anything beyond the advance. I can tell you that if it were a writer's mill, the company would be in legal hot water even in arbritration. Clearly, the company is a publisher that can be commerical or conventional. My lawyer thought the contract was fair and reasonable. If he thought otherwise, we would have never signed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryteler (talk • contribs)

It is not under any circumstances the norm for authors to buy the copyright for their books. I don't know where you got that information. Also, it is very widely and loudly stated that your average lawyer should not be used to determine the validity of any publishing contracts. Only lawyers who specialize in publishing can tell you if it's good or not, and publishing/entertainment lawyers appear to be pretty unanimous in their outright condemnation of the PA contract. --Shinto 20:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Got to say I agree with Shinto: if your lawyer thought the contract was a good one, you should ask him what other publishing contracts he compared it to. Determining if a contract is reasonable is a job for an expert in the specific industry, because in the end it comes down to whether or not you could get a better deal elsewhere. Many POD print & distribution companies have significantly more author-friendly contracts (e.g. Lulu). JulesH 09:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I did, actually. He told me that he has seen many contracts over the years (he has been practicing law for 20 years) and that he liked the one I showed him. He said it was short, simple, and to the point. I wanted to know what he thought before I signed it. He advised me to sign it which I did. stryteler

Yes, I'm quite curious about this. Do you mean that PA is charging you money for the copyright in your own book? If not, what do you mean? AndyJones 12:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. What I meant was the copyright would be in my name and I would pay the fee myself when I submit the paperwork. user:strytelerstryteler

stryteller, please sign you posts by clicking the signature button up there (next to the crossed out W) or by typing --~~~~. Andy, PA requests all new authors to contact the copyright office themselves and to get the copyright and then send proof on to them. --Shinto 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Dolan's arbitration claim

Does anyone have a good site to refer to about Phil Dolan's successful arbitration against PA? It would be an important note to add to the article if we can find something at least reasonably respectable. JulesH 10:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher Defends Hoax Charges

I'm afraid I don't understand this edit. I've followed the link in its before and after versions, and neither leads to a story about PA. Can anyone work this out? Or explain it to me if I'm being dense? AndyJones 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's actually at the latter link but it's only one of many articles there; you need to scroll down to find it. It's under the headline "Publisher Defends Hoax Charges", though, so searching for it should be easy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to this page - Ed & Soots Writers' Guild

There have been a number of occasions lately where the links to the "Ed & Soots" site from this page have been removed, and these edits are later reverted. I note that the site in question does seem to have been taken down, however I feel the links should remain here for historical reasons. I've added notes describing the fact that the link is dead. JulesH 23:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

... I goofed; the first time the links were taken down, I followed them, saw that they went to something that called itself "Ed & Soots Writers' Guild" and assumed that the link removal was just another vandalistic attempt to surpress discussion as we've seen before on this article. It wasn't until later that I realized the pages the links went to stated that they were where Ed & Soots had been.... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Thanks for checking this; I keep assuming un-noted removal of links here is whitewashing... Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm Ed Williams, I help run "Ed and Soots' Writers Guild," and we are alive, well, and steadily kicking PA's heiny on a daily basis. Just click the link and see.

[edit] Arbitration

I posted the following on User talk:169.134.240.8

Do you have a source or the comments you added to PublishAmerica? What you say seems quite plausible, but I do not think we can say that PublishAmerica admitted any of these things without some published source to refer to.

AndyJones 20:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting for a mainstream source to publish something about the arbitration cases, but it isn't looking like it's going to happen any time soon. I've expanded the information a bit and added a reference to a site with some information about all of this. I've seen what Phil Dolan's said about the case in his own words (it was all up at www.publishamericasucks.com, but that site's gone down now), and everything we have here agrees with that. While this isn't exactly verifiable according to wikipedia's standards, it is somewhere close, and I'm personally convinced that it's true. And there are any number of people who have spoken to Mr Dolan about it and could confirm the details if necessary. JulesH 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link to an article in the Frederick News Post archives. I haven't read it, because you have to pay for it, but even the abstract you get on the login page supports our point here. JulesH 08:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Google cache has a version, but I don't want to link it on the main page because it'll probably disappear sometime in the near future. cached story Makes for a pretty entertaining read.--Shinto 10:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message board censorship

An anonymous contributor added the following paragraph at the end of the article:

currently 2/2006 publishamerica is censoring thier authors on thier spiritual message (public)boards.

Clearly this is unsupported and badly phrased, but if we can find supporting evidence for it I'd like to include something about this. JulesH 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how important it is, but about a couple weeks back the mods on the PA forum started locking threads left and right on the Spiritual forum. You can see it yourself here The goings-on at the message board level don't really seem relevant to me. --Shinto 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] material removed from article

I'm not entirely happy that I had to remove this from the article, because I'm pretty sure it's true. However, no sources are provided to verify it:

The forums in particular, have been the subjects of much criticism from those who condemn PublishAmerica. Many feel that it exhibits a cult like attitude, and several disenfranchised authors have complained that any protesting against PublishAmerica earns said authors a ban as well as insults from the administrators right before said ban. The cult like mentality is reinforced by an observation upon the forums that many of the forum regulars in being forced to promote their book on their own as per PublishAmerica's apathetic policies towards the marketing of their books, make their own self promotion websites. Many of the reviews and positive feedback on the websites, the webmasters, and the literary material of said webmasters are from fellow PublishAmerica authors who frequent the forums and see nothing wrong with the publisher.

If we can find sources for these claims then we may be able to reintroduce them to the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone put this back with these two sources:[4][5]. Unfortunately, they aren't sources for what the paragraph says. Come on, people. AndyJones 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed this again. The sources had changed from above; there were two new ones ([6][7]) and the 'truthaboutpa' link was dropped, but I still don't feel the paragraph was adequately supported. The speculations page just had a single short paragraph about the forum which said basically the same thing but was much less detailed. It might be enough to support a short summary of the problem, but certainly not the detailed analysis we see above. I'm not sure what the Meg Preece page was about -- is this an example of a PA writer's promotion site with other PA writers leaving supporting messages? If so, it isn't really clear what's happening. We have no way of knowing who the commenters are, etc. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the neutrality of the paragraph. I think it needs rephrasing to sound more balanced before we can put it back in the article. I've left it in, but commented. JulesH 08:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accounting discrepancies

Phil Dolan's at it again. This time, it seems, he's had an accountant going over the accounts of his royalty payments.

http://p105.ezboard.com/fedandsootswritersguildfrm57.showMessage?topicID=30.topic (scroll down to where it says "The following REPORT is the sole property of Phillip R. Dolan")

Not sure what we can do with this. Again, it'd be good to have it reported somewhere reputable. JulesH 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tomdennen's contribution

User:Tomdennen added the following in the middle of the commented section of the page. Not sure whether he intended it to be a comment on that part (although it seems a non-sequiteur) or just to be shown on the page, but as it is unsourced and needs a little work I haven't put it live on the page. It's an interesting comparison, though.

From Tom Dennen: The Encyclopedia business in America during the late fifties and early sixties developed a 'business model' similar to PublishAmerica's. The model was simple: Everyone who applied to be an Encyclopedia salesman was hired on the assumption that at least one set of books would be purchased by someone among the new salesman's family or friends.

At the same time, a vigorous and successful door-to-door sales campaign was set in motion during the few years it was popular to buy books from 'College Students".

JulesH 20:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those two new links

I'm not too sure about that second link, the "arbitration and how to do it" link. First off, it links to a message board where no one posting is a lawyer, and secondly it seems a little too inflammatory, especially for this entry which is a pain to keep impartial. What we can do (and I'm going to do in a second) is link the word arbitration in that last paragraph to the existing article about it. I won't delete that link yet, but I wondering what you guys think. --Shinto 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that's an improvement. AndyJones 12:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to the arbitration forum at The Guild, Phil Dolan is an active member at that website and had me post the information himself. It is the most updated and accurate information about arbitration available to date.

Well, everyone has an opinion, I suppose, as to the PA arbitration with Phil Dolan and the documents and information copied to The Guild, including the accounting report. Except me, that is. Since I am Phillip R. Dolan what I am going to write on the the subject is not an opinion it is FACT. Everything written in "Arbitration and how to do it" is the absolute truth. I wrote it and provided copies of the documents. Every bit of the copy of the accountant's report is true. I have had an intellectual property attorney review the Arbitration Summrary, Findings and Award along with the accountant's report, the PA sales records and other hard evidence. The material posted on The Guild atributed to me has indeed been vetted by an attorney. The Guild is the only site that carries an accurate explaination of the ONLY PA vs. author arbitration and the aftermath.

Phillip R. Dolan

This isn't an article about how to get out of a PublishAmerica contract, and that information isn't really relevant. I'm also pretty sure you're not supposed to post stuff about yourself anyway. Also, if you read the discussion over at the Barbara Bauer article, you'll see a long discussion about posting links to message boards and why Wiki has rules against doing it. --Shinto 04:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you wanted the truth instead of opinion about the PA aritration and the accountant's audit. This statement from above, "Not sure what we can do with this. Again, it'd be good to have it reported somewhere reputable. JulesH 15:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)" was misunderstood by me or you do not consider me a reputable source. Just delete my account of where the correct info is located. I would remind you though that you have links to sites that carry partial and even incorrect info on this subject. If that matters. Phil Dolan

Phil, the problem is that wikipedia has a very strict policy on what is acceptable as a source. And anything self-published can only be used in very unusual circumstances, which these don't really fulfil. I'm afraid the word "reputable" was the wrong one to use in the circumstance; I should have said "acceptable" and linked it to the policy page about this. Sorry for any confusion.

As for incorrect information, I'd be interested if you could point out what is wrong so we can remove that. But if partial information is all we can get within Wikipedia's policy on such things, partial information is what we'll have to keep. JulesH 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jules, I have read your policy and as I understand it everything you have written re the Phil Dolan vs PublishAmerica arbitration is wrong. Dead wrong! Why? Because I am the ONLY source for that event, the steps leading to that event and the aftermath. I am the only one who has the original legal documents, the evidence documents, the accountant's report, the arbitrators Summary, Findings and Award. and a legal opinion of the whole. I posted much of the material on The Guild. The arbitrator, Meiners and PA's attorney aren't talking that leaves me as the one and only source. For example: You do not accept me as a reliable source but you accept Pozkin and many other sites as reliable sources. I was their source. If you reject me as the source, the only source, then you must reject every word written about the arbitration and the aftermath. Phil Dolan

I don't make (nor do I agree with all of) Wiki's rules. But those are the rules. Your message board statements, even though you are the primary source, are still not as good as the article in the Frederick newspaper, even if you are the one and only source of the newspaper article. The logic is a newspaper article has to go through more vetting than a simple post on a message board, where it could really be anybody saying anything. I have no opinion on the Pozkin source, but if the facts are wrong, it should be removed. --Shinto 07:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure. I get it now. If Phil Dolan makes a statement about the Phil Dolan vs PA arbitration directly to you, that statement is not from a reliable source. But if Phil Dolan makes the same statement to Bridgette Harwood and she prints it, errors and all, then Bridgette is a reliable source regarding what Phil Dolan said to her. But I must make this clear to readers who may follow your logic: The only reliable source to Phil Dolan re the Phil Dolan vs PA arbitration is Phil Dolan. Phil Dolan states he posted correct information re the arbitration directly on The Guild. Phil Dolan states that Wiki has posted several unreliable sources to the arbitration event and Phil Dolan notes that Wiki has no intention of removing them. This then makes Wiki the most unreliable source of all re the PA arbitration. Phil Dolan

Phil, the problem is that we can't use self-published documents, or postings on message boards. I'm not sure of the status of the Pozkin page, what kind of editorial oversight there is there, but we don't really rely on that for any information about the arbitration; mainly we use an article that was published in the Frederick News Post. Nothing we say isn't in both sources. And the News Post, being a traditionally edited publication (irony intentional) is a good source according to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that you were their source: the point is that they have an editor who should have done at least some degree of background checking to ensure what you were saying was true. Wikipedia relies on others -- editors of mainstream publishers and newspapers -- to check facts for it. The basic idea is that a wikipedia reader can come to this page without knowing the first thing about who you are, and what the pozkin site is, but it'll give them a summary of what they want to know. Then, if they want to make sure it's true, they can read the News Post article. This works because most people trust newspapers. Trusting a random poster on an Internet site they've never heard of before and could have been set up by anyone, however, is a little harder. That's why the rule is there, and it really does make sense. Wikipedia can only repeat what's mainstream, because people know whether or not they can trust mainstream sources. Fringe sources that nobody's heard of are much harder.

And I ask again, which sources are unreliable, and what have they said that's incorrect? I'd very much like to correct that, but I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about here. JulesH 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useful link

http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Features/03Wallace_PODEssay.html

Contains a discussion of POD, with this paragraph:

[POD publishers] short-discount books. In other words, instead of extending a standard fifty-five percent discount through their wholesale distribution channels, publishing companies will usually offer far less, which in turn means a smaller discount to a bookstore. This obviously limits sales to mostly online venues and does not make it any easier to get into trade accounts.

Could be useful as a source for the 5% discount being bad? JulesH 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Saint-Ivan's edits

Just so you know, editing anonymously to get around your user having been blocked is against wikipedia policy. So I've reported the anonymous editor who reinserted information about Mr Saint-Ivan's reaction to these criticisms on administrator's noticeboard/incidents, which will likely result in a block for the IP address as well, as it appears to be static. 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm quite glad the topic got to the talk page. I'm a bit worried that Mr Sain-Ivan hasn't been given much of a chance to discuss his views, here. Obviously what he wrote was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia, but it would be nice if he would visit us here at the talk page to discuss his position, rather than being hounded out of wikipedia. If he is a budding writer, he has the makings of a great wikipedian, even though he hasn't got to grips with our policies, yet. AndyJones 20:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If I overeacted I appologize. However, I love PublishAmerica and not one happy PA author is interviewed in the article. As for self-promotion, I couldnt defend PA without disclosing my bias. When PA accepted my anthology it was the happiest day in my whole life. PA accepts about 30% of submissions as opposed to a half percent at traditional publ;ishers. Also traditional publishers require from 40 to 80 thoudand words. My biggest gripe is that if Philip Dolan had filed his petty suit against anyone else it would be comical. How could Dolan blame PA for thinking he could come out ahead after spending thousands and thousands to promote his book? Even if PA made every penny of profits from 'brick and mortar' stores Dolan wouldnt stand a chance to re-coup 13k. Dolan made a bad business decision and he should be man enough to take the hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.27.83 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Might not be that bad

Today I found this book "Vortex of Revelation" in Amazon with valid ISBN: http://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Revelation-B-Keller/dp/1424122473/sr=8-1/qid=1170110061/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0993527-0415047?ie=UTF8&s=books It is said to be published by this PublishAmerica, which suggests this company's books are not all fraud, at least. Wooyi 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazon lists all books that have ISBNs. An ISBN can be purchased by anyone who wishes to for (IIRC) $5. Yes, PublishAmerica publishes books. You can order them, and in most cases will actually get the book you ordered. These aren't the problems with PA; the problems are that they'll publish almost anything you want them to (despite their claims to the contrary), that they trick you into believing that because they publish a book it will be placed on shelves in bookshops, and that when you sign up they pressure you to provide details of friends and family they can market your book to. JulesH 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went over to the Publish America site and nowhere do they promise that your book will be on bookshelves. Lighthope 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also here when i searched books published by PublishAmerica in Library of Congress, I find [[8]], this result is quite impressive. I don't know if you would consider a LoC entry to be a source of quality. Wooyi 22:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. All this means is that, as they claim, they have an extremely high turnover of books. They achieve this via low quality. JulesH 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407) requires the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the U.S. Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. Copies of all works under copyright protection that have been published or distributed in the United States must be deposited with the Copyright Office within 3 months of the date of first publication."[9] A publisher having books in the Library of Congress is a sign that they're a reputable publisher like a lawyer having his phone number listed under "Lawyers" in the phone book is a sign that he's a reputable lawyer: it's not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I try Wooyi's link to a LOC search result, I get a "Timeout" notice. What did the link show? When I search [[10]] the LOC for PublishAmerica books actually held in the collection, using the keyword "PublishAmerica" I get 24 titles. Is this the number that's being considered? --64.223.151.166 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The link I put there was a search in Library of Congress catalogue. I think it's not there anymore because it's too old. But search again I guess you'll find some results there. Wooyi 00:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please walk me through exactly what search you're suggesting, and what results you expect? As I said, when I searched for PublishAmerica titles held in the LOC's collection, I get 24 books. Is that what you're referring to? If not, what? --64.223.151.166 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to duplicate the results on LOC, but this amazon search shows over 18,500 titles. This is probably the result Wooyi's referring to. JulesH 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No one's disputing that PublishAmerica has a lot of titles. 18,500 may well be right. But of those titles, only 24 seem to be in the Library of Congress collection. Is Wooyi perhaps talking about the number that have registered copyrights? If so, I fail to see how it's relevant. --64.223.151.166 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I think LOC search is broken, somehow. When I duplicate Wooyi's search terms from the link he provided (they're visible in the URL), I get no results at all. JulesH 17:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The naysayers are at it again. As a PA author, I can positivly say that they do NOT accept every submission. I tried several times before getting my anthology accepted. I also take issue with the comment that Amazon puts up anything with an ISB #. Every negative thing I heard or read about PA turned out to be false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:209.216.67.253 (talk • contribs)

And as a former PA editor, I think this guy probably knows their business methods better than you. The relevant quote: "Manuscripts could only be rejected for a certain set of reasons, all of which were tied into how costly or time-consuming it would be to get the thing to press." And Amazon will sell anything that's in print and has an ISBN. JulesH 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know he was a PA editor? Even if he was GOD he is 100% wrong!!!!!!!! My story collection was rejected several times before getting accepted and Amazon.Com does NOT put up every book with an ISBN#. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.56.127 (talk • contribs)

I'll accept maybe he was wrong and there is another reason a book can be rejected. I've seen suggestions that there is an automatic process that will reject your book if it isn't assigned to an editor quickly enough, which that editor didn't seem to know about, and wouldn't necessarily have known about. But please show me an example of an in-print book with an ISBN that is not listed on Amazon, because you are completely wrong there. JulesH 07:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Jules H. I apologize for taking so long to reply. I have seen several books published by PODs that did not get into Amazon's database in spite of an ISBN#. Edward Saint-Ivan

[edit] From a PublishAmerica author

Hi, I am an avid Wikipedian and have had a book published by this company. First of all it is NOT a vanity press. I did not have to pay on penny for my book to be published and I did NOT have to buy any of the books.

However that is as far as my defence of the company goes. They did publish my book but they have done nothing to promote it at all. Also they provide an option whereby you can have your book published unedited if you want it printed quickly. This says something to me....

I also agree that they probably print almost anything. As much as I like my book I was turned down by all the established companies at first point of contact.

So although I am glad that my book was published with no cost to me the article here seems entirely accurate. I am not going to edit the article to include any of this as I obviously do not have any references! Cls14 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether they're a vanity press or not really depends on your definitions. Some authors define vanity press in a way that includes PA, others don't. I like the term "author mill", myself... it makes the point quite succintly. JulesH 21:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They will print almost anything? I was rejected time and time again before getting my book accepted. I have nothing but good words for PublishAmerica. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.57.253 (talk • contribs).

[edit] My edits to the article

I have performed extensive edits to this article, because the article as it stood was not presented from a neutral point of view, and appeared to give excessive weight to criticisms of the company. I have also removed a lot of the material which did not have a reliable source cited for it (such as stuff hosted on anti-PublishAmerica web sites). Please, before adding controversial stuff back to the article, provide a reliable source (such as a newspaper report) which satisfies WP:V. - Mark 15:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My first instict was to say "ye gods, PublishAmerica discovered OTRS and now we're all doomed", but on a second inspection, I think this shorter version of the article is much better. I have to say, however, that "undue weight" on negative stuff is bound to be a problem when discussing a company with a long history of problems... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the undue weight thing. There's only so far you can go to attempt a neutral tone when most sources you can find about the company are negative. Please don't take my changes as an "OMG OTRS we can't touch it" sort of thing. There are still a lot of improvements which should be made to the article, including:

The bit about the books being returnable had something on the end about a discount being offered to booksellers being very low. I removed that in lack of a decent source.
The first paragraph of the Criticisms section isn't actually worded as a criticism, and probably should be. Needs a source.
I removed the last two "sting" manuscripts, because I felt that they were superfluous to the point. But that's just me. I think I read somewhere in one of the sources that PublishAmerica give an option to authors to publish quickly with no editorial control - maybe that is relevant here?

I hope that is all a help. I added all the relevant sources I could find on Factiva. - Mark 05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and for the record, I have to specifically thank you for handling this OTRS case the way you did. It was much better than the way Lava lamp was handled (which was probably why I was worried when I saw someone mentioning OTRS). =) The criticism section is actually pretty good now. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just going to add a phrase to the beginning of the Criticisms section in response to the above, but I made a clean spot and just kept going...let me know if I just smeared stuff around. In any case, the citations need fixing, but I thought I'd wait for feedback first. Flowanda | Talk 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readding content

Per edits made in response to a complaint to the OTRS (which I keep reading as the OTHERS, which is kinda creepy), before content is readded, it should probably be sourced more strictly to WP:RS or added to the talk page for discussion first. I don't know much about book publishing, but I like digging up sources, and it looks like there were edits removed mainly because their sources were soft, not because they weren't important. Just my nominal USD1 worth, but it seems dealing with it now could prevent a another visit from those, you know, OTheRS :) Flowanda | Talk 04:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: that bit about Miranda Prather

..."An American woman who gained national attention in July 1997 after" ...blah blah. Some people keep adding that, some people remove it per BLP.

I'm not touching the article, but I have a proposition.

How about I propose we just keep that off the article on the grounds that Prather's background has got nothing to do with the company? Speaking of unsavory companies with dubious leadership, you don't see Microsoft article stating it was "founded by a person with a penchant for both evil and two-word email replies and currently headed by an alleged chair-thrower - and they allegedly also had plans for making an Internet toilet." =)

If there's sources that this person is indeed the same person who was faking hate crimes, then by all means, mention that she's running PublishAmerica in the article in question (not here!) and restore the link. But having that sort of facts in this article is just embarrassing slime and a low-brow attempt to make the company look worse. I'm not saying the company is exactly a bastion of virtue, just that it manages to look pretty dubious by itself already! Please, focus on the company. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Why can't this page just wikilink to Miranda Prather and let all the unsavoury stuff be there? I vaguely remember being involved when that page was created. I recall some dispute about whether the facts there were verifiable and whether it was one-and-the-same Miranda Prather, but someone came up with sources which looked good enough to satisfy us at the time. AndyJones 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

She just doesn't seem to be all that notable...either here or in her own article. "Hundreds" of articles, maybe, but the incident the article is based around was 10 years ago and one-hit wonder articles are discouraged. There is also speculation on her talk page as to whether or not this is the same person, and mention of PA is noticeably absent from the main article. But you're right: the deleted description has no place here unless it's related to the company, and the info attributed to her is well sourced...but I wonder how much of the hijinks attributed to this company are associated with her and, if so, are there reliable sources? Flowanda | Talk 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The link to Miranda Prather was deleted by an anonymous contributor, claiming it was a different person. I've restored it, because User:Shinto has posted a link to a source on Talk:Miranda Prather that clearly shows it is the same person. JulesH 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the source JulesH referred to -- http://www.enmu.edu/friends/alumni/directory/index.php?ltr=P -- that shows a 1996 graduate named M. Prather at a publishamerica address. If ENMU verifies submitted information before publishing it in its alumni directory (either online or printed), then there should be no issues with internal links in this article, especially if the Prather article is updated with the PA info and links. Are alumni listings on .edu sites generally considered reliable? Flowanda | Talk 06:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Phil mention and citation

I could find no news source reporting on this segment, and the only available info from the show is a narrative retelling: http://drphil.com/slideshows/slideshow/3956/?id=3956&isTip=&slide=5&null=null In the six pages of the article (it's not a transcript), there's only one mention of PublishAmerica (and the representative is only identified by her first name), and the other mentions of publishing or a contract/money are all based on the claims, accusations and personal interpretations by the feuding guests made toward each other, not PA. It looks like the only reason PA was there was to confirm Dr. Phil's assertion that the book was not going to make $3 million in two months. In any case, unless there's a reliable source that indicates any more importance, I don't think the info needs a whole section, say that PA was "featured" or be in the controversial section. I would suggest adding something like this to the end of the History section: "PublishAmerica was included in a October 2007 Dr. Phil segment as the prospective publisher of a book that had sparked a family feud over rights and royalties.^[1]" Probably needs to be clearer, but it's Sunday. :) Flowanda | Talk 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't need a section of its own. We're not a news portal and we don't have the obligation to document every media appearance in meticulous detail. A sentence would definitely be enough, but not a whole section. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message Board Censorship

A lot of people have criticised PublishAmerica for censoring its message board, eliminating any negative posts.

Here is an example of one such instance:

Message retrieved Saturday, November 17, 2007 (URL http://bb.publishamerica.com/viewtopic.php?t=24476)

The last time I wrote on the message board about my problem with curling book covers, my message got pulled and I suspect that this one will be deleted as well. I ordered and paid for 200 copies of my book. The 200 copies I received had poor quality book covers that curl. I am embarrassed to sell them and PA ought to be embarrassed for printing such poor quality covers. I have asked to get out of my contract, PA says they've corrected the problem but I am still left with a supply of books with inferior curling covers. Hence, a warning to newcomers: don't order large quantities of books! I will say so long to all of you and good luck as I expect to be barred from any further postings on this forum. If you wish to keep in touch, please write to me via my Web site. Beverley

Here is the same message retrieved on Sunday, November 18, 2007 (URL http://bb.publishamerica.com/viewtopic.php?t=24476)

The topic or post you requested does not exist

The subject of censorship could probably merit inclusion under Criticisms in the article. Lighthope (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a bit of a problem: Message board censoring is, due to practical constraints, highly ephemeral. We can't easily document that behaviour here unless it's documented in reliable sources. (Consider your example: I, as an outsider can't verify the topic you gave did have what you claim it had - thus your example is your own research data, which can't be used in article as such). However, I'm pretty sure that such reliable documentation can be found. (Has this been documented in newspaper articles? There are people who went into arbitration with PublishAmerica, and I think some people have brought up the message board censorship there; is the evidence presented in those arbitration cases in public record?)
However, even after that, I still wonder if message board censorship as such warrants discussion in the article. Yes, it tells a lot about PublishAmerica as a community of authors and it's relationship with the authors, but does it really tell anything at all about them as a publishing house? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Direct Marketing

I am unsure how to incorporate this into the article (or even whether it ought to be incorporated), but one thing that sets PublishAmerica apart both from legitimate print-on-demand publishers on the one hand, and from the major traditional publishing houses on the other hand, is the pervasive use of direct marketing, especially unsolicited commercial email, which appears to be their primary (if not their only) form of book promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonadab (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this as a sourcing issue. If you can present a reliable source which refers to this aspect, then it's appropriate material for the article: otherwise it is not. AndyJones (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 82.35.253.56

I tried to revert the two most recent edits made by 82.35.253.56 (talk), but I received a blacklist error due to the link to Associated Content. Can someone with the appropriate privileges revert them, unless/until it's explained here why these deletions were made? Dori (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)