Talk:Tate Publishing & Enterprises

Er, what?

a Christian publisher that prints books of all types

If it prints (publishes?) books of all types, is its Christianity significant? If its Christianity is significant, does it print books of all types? -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but they call themselves a Christian publisher and I don't have a good reason not to believe them. (They call themselves "not a vanity press", too, but for that one there's good reason not to take their word for it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The company calls itself a Christian publisher because we (yes, I am an employee) have a Christian statement of faith, our founders are Christians, and we publish a lot of Christian books. Not all of our books are written for a Christian audience, however. Personally, I prefer the terminology "Christian-owned", but publishers -- like music labels -- are often labeled in their respective industry as "Christian" if they publish Christian books or music. Our buyer at Barnes & Noble, for example, is the religious books buyer. (Also, see below for countervening evidence regarding one of the sources cited in support of calling Tate a vanity press.) JimMiller (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

One of Tate's submission guidelines is that your manuscript not be "weak in faith."--Markyw (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Vanity Press

Tate Publishing is not a "vanity press" as books are traditionally published as well as co-operatively published. With Tate Publishing, an author only partially funds the publishing; whereas an author pays 100% of the publishing fees with a vanity press. Tate Publishing should be described as a traditional/co-operative publisher. Pauljean (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A vanity press takes everything submitted. Tate does not.Chubberson (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

“ The US National Endowment for the Arts, in its instructions to applicants defines vanity press "as one that does any of the following: requires individual writers to pay for part or all of the publication costs; asks writers to buy or sell copies of the publication; publishes the work of anyone who subscribes to the publication or joins the organization through membership fees; publishes the work of anyone who buys an advertisement in the publication; publishes work without competitive selection; or publishes work without professional editing."[3] ”

Note that the phrase "any of" means that taking all submissions and requiring authors to pay 100% of the costs are not necessary to fulfill this definition. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes on in it's definition of Vanity Press to say that "A vanity press will generally agree to print and bind any author's work if the author is willing to pay for the service; these fees typically form a vanity press's profits. However, online on-demand printers also fit this definition as they publish without competitive selection." Tate Publishiing cleary does not, as it only publishes 4% of submissions; so Wikipedia is contradicing itself in categorizing Tate Pulishing as such. This should be changed by Wikipedia.Pauljean (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia article is only as good as the third party references it cites. In this case the Publisher Standards Board reference clearly identifies Tate Publishing as a vanity publisher. --Deskford (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Any Wikipedia article is only as good as the third party references it cites." This is very true. However, the Publisher Standards Board isn't given the same scrutiny that Tate Publishing is given. Visit their website. Almost all of the links are broken, and the site does not appear to have been maintained. The WHOIS information shows that the registration is private. A search of Hoover's and Manta.com reveal that the organization is located in Sheridan, WY. A search of the Wyoming Secretary of State's database (https://wyobiz.wy.gov/Business/FilingDetails.aspx?FilingNum=2006-000505637) reveals that the organization filed as a domestic non-profit in January of 2006 and was dissolved for delinquent taxes on June 4, 2008. FULL DISCLOSURE: I am an employee of Tate Publishing, although I have been a registered user and occasional editor on Wikipedia since before I began working here in October of 2008. If I were not an employee and I discovered that the Publisher Standards Board was no longer in existence and appears to be the work of a single individual, I would have removed the information attributed to them already. In light of the potential for conflict of interest, however, I came to the talk page to present my findings, and I leave it to the Wikipedia community to decide whether this information should be removed.JimMiller (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Tate Publishing does not call themselves a vanity press. That is incorrect, I spoke with them many times and they have numerous options, they use traditional, royalty advance and vanity press options, but even if you pay you can get your money back if you sell a certain amount of books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyuser (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Davedolphin Dave Dolphin is the Director of Book Production for Tate Publishing and has a clear conflict of interest. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave Dolphin is a good person to get info from if he is the Dir. of Book Production. Why can't his information count. He would know more than most in my opinion about the company itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyuser (talk • contribs) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See [1] Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Extortion charges

I just removed from the article material referring to this news story, according to which the owners of Tate Publishing were arrested and charged with extortion for not paying their contributors: [2]. The removed text was a copyright violation, so it had to go, but also we don't generally include criminal charges on Wikipedia articles unless they have already led to a conviction, so this is still too preliminary to include. Nevertheless, it may be worth keeping an eye on as the case develops. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein I see that you reverted an IPs edits that claimed content with no reliable sources. However, if you visit the Tate Publishing website: [3] listed on the article's External Links, you will find they are no longer in business in any capacity; as this article will show: [4]. The tense now is incorrect. Furthermore, the arrest, indictment charges, postponement due to overwhelming claims & complaints still being produced, Attorney General filings, etc as seen here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] is a very important part of this article and its company's business. I agree that WP does not include criminal charges on individual BLPs, but this is not merely WP:RECENTISM and can be worded as such to better explain the current and factual situation at hand of a company. As it is, the January 2017 statement is not current and not representative of the company or its practices. I think we can do better and still stay within the guidelines of WP. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Is or Was?

Hi, Walter Görlitz. May I ask why you reverted the tense for this company? It went under / closed operations years ago and no longer does what the present tense purports it of doing: Tate Publishing Closed Its Doors, Tate Publishing Victims Might Get Their Works Back, "... the businesses ceased operations in January (2017) ...". How can the article state this as true: "Tate Publishing & Enterprises, LLC is a Christian publisher that prints books of all types. In general, it operates on the vanity press model in which most authors pay for the publication of their books."? Curious. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it. The editor in question is a wikihound. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I had no idea; but understand now. I do know they are no longer in operation; and given that other shuttered book publishers: Category: Defunt Book Publishing Companies of the United State Category are listed as was, I wondered if Tate should receive the same tense treatment. Thanks so much for your quick reply. I'll only change the tense. Unless other editors bring concern here. Best, Maineartists (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

• To any editor wishing to correct my edits regarding present tense updating relating to the cease in operations for this company back in 2017. Please feel free where I may have been in error grammatically. I caught myself in past and present tenses; and second guessed this sentence: "Its publishing charges may have been refunded for books with sufficient sales volumes." Having been changed from the previous: "Its publishing charges may be refunded for books with sufficient sales volumes." Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)