Talk:Marquis Who's Who

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone verify that this is not spam, or at least not "legitimate"? I get these all the time in the mail and it doesn't seem like any legitimate publications would have an opt-out nomination process.

I (as a Who's Who biographee) think that the opposite is true, that there isn't an "opt out" process. I've corresponded with others who've asked not to be included and were anyway, and there are also asterisked biographies, where it was compiled without the participation of the biographee. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Does not say that there are now a of publications. Article seems to be focussed on Who's Who in America but there is now Who's Who in the World &c. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (disclaimer: biographee in both).

Contents

[edit] Who's Who among Who's Whos

I come at this as a collector of Who's Who books, as a Who's Who in America biographee, and also as compiler of a political biography web site, Political Graveyard.

Note that "Who's Who" is not trademarked, and anyone can call title a book that way.

For some time now, Marquis has been the most important biographical compilation publisher, with people included based strictly on "reference value" (though they certainly try to sell the books to their biographees). Though Marquis publishes various specific books like "Who's Who in American Law" and "Who's Who in Education", etc., and regional books like "Who's Who in the Midwest", their flagship has been "Who's Who in America", published in regular issues for over a century. Despite the high price, practically every public library in America has a shelf full of Marquis volumes.

Marquis used to have an almost equally respectable competitor called Mayflower, which published books covering broad regions (Eastern States, Central States, etc.) in the 1920s and 1930s. I don't know what happened to Mayflower, but I think it's possible that Marquis absorbed them. I have never seen a nationwide biographical compilation by Mayflower, but there may be such a thing. Mayflower's format and style were strikingly similar to Marquis.

There are some perfectly good local or regional books in specific areas, usually states or larger cities, published locally in the 1920s through the 1960s or so. Those publishers probably don't have the ambition to go beyond those areas, especially given that Marquis is so dominant in the field.

At the other pole from Marquis are the fraudulent Who's Whos, which are obviously designed to sell books to biographees and are almost never found in libraries. For example, I have a Who's Who in California (1983) which doesn't include the Governor, any of the main political leaders of the state, or really any well-known celebrities.Kestenbaum 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What you say is consistent with my research, there are plenty of scams related to "Who's who" fraudulent books. But this does not mean that we cannot include criticism made against the Who's Who as published in Forbes magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If you think the article is "slanted" because of that statement, feel free to add more content about the subject itself. It will be welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Do you have any information about how Marquis does fact checking and what is the inclusion criteria? In browsing last year's edition, it inclusion criteria seems rather arbitraty and it confirms many of the issues raised in the Forbes article... Read a cite from that article, below:
Or say hello to Stephen Geiman, who teaches gym at Wilson Memorial High School in Fishersville, Virginia. From 1970 to 1972, Geiman, a graduate of the physical education program at Appalachian State University, was the school's driver's ed instructor. Or David Dolsen, an undertaker in Denver. Or Amy Fung, an accountant from Staten Island. And let's not forget Mary Morgan, a 55-year-old social worker in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. Or Lila Licens, an administrative assistant from Tacoma, Washington, who has been president of the Mt. Rainier chapter of Professional Secretaries International since 1994. Or Courtland Paul, a landscape architect in San Juan Capistrano, who implores Who's Who readers to "Be on time, produce more than is expected and always, ALWAYS be fair!!!" And of course there's Marguerite Gearhart, a school nurse in Jupiter, Florida, who lists among her myriad accomplishments a 1968-69 stint as "co-leader" of a Campfire Girls troupe. Never heard of these people? Then you haven't read Who's Who lately. [1] ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you're looking at the thing through the wrong end. It's easy to scorn Who's Who as old-fashioned and elitist, which it certainly is -- I roll my eyes when I see its references to "distinguished Americans" and the like. And obviously this Forbes columnist went through pages of Who's Who and found a few people who seem to belie the "distinguished" label. Aha, he seems to be saying, it's an empty honor after all.
But if you need to find out, say, where a former member of the Pepsico board of directors went to school, or the birthplace of one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there probably isn't anywhere else to find it. And it doesn't matter one whit whether there happens to be a school nurse or a landscape architect listed somewhere on a nearby page. Libraries don't shell out hundreds of dollars for this book in order to give honor to the chosen biographees -- they want it because it answers reference questions they get every day.
The great advantage Marquis owns is that its hoary reputation and seeming veneration of its biographees helps persuade an astonishingly high proportion of the country's business and political and entertainment elite to fill out those questionnaires year after year, hence providing everyone else with miles of useful biographical data.
I don't know what kind of fact checking they actually do, but it doesn't really matter that much. When a celebrity lies about his age or other basic facts, the inevitable disclosure is terribly embarrassing. Remember Gary Hart? At least all those people are on the record with a version of their life story, rather than exercising economic or political power from shadowy anonymity.
As I mentioned above, there are vanity Who's Whos out there. The books they publish are worthless except as curiosities, because they aren't trying to be works of reference. Marquis strokes the egos of its biographees, sure, most recently with the inclusion of those sappy messages you can pay to have appended to your entry (quoted to great effect by the Forbes columnist). And they sell them books and plaques and so forth. But all the vanity features and merchandise is just a little extra money on the side; I'm guessing only a small percentage ever buy anything. The goal of the enterprise is to profit by publishing a reference work that thousands of libraries all over America will consider worth the price. Kestenbaum 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I have now rewritten the piece according to my understanding of the subject, retaining the reference to Tucker Carlson and his criticisms. Kestenbaum 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have edited it further and NPOV'ed some of the text. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reads like an advert

The article lead reads like an advert, using not NPOV language and without attributing the many assertions made there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A lot has changed from 1999

Today, Marquis remains as the most prestigious listing and has recently been reviewed by The New York Times, 2005 where they called them an "authoritative tool and valid portrait of [American] society". Forbes 2006 lists refers to Marquis as one source. While the earlier 1999 article by Forbes criticised Marquis, it has since been taken over and their current reference to Marquis obviously reflects their confidence.

Marquis, is used by the US Embassy librariesand also by respected universities such as Northwestern and Harvard's Biography Resource Center.

Most persons criticising Marquis are plain jealous because they never got listed themselves! Others can't understand the business model and take on a highly idealistic approach which seems to suggest that biographical firms can't make money (these chaps don't work for the government or foundations!). Fact is that Marquis offers a valuable service by reviewing people from different walks of life, in the US/outside it, and picking the leaders. These people deserve recognition and Marquis provides it.

Marquis don't insist on any purchases prior to listing and its optional not to make any purchases. It's probably not 100% perfect but remains the most accurate/ prestigious rating amongst the Who's Who publications with over 100 years behind them. It is a valuable source of reference and is used as such by important institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allow Factual Evidence in the Article!

I note that I had edited the original article and put the Forbes 2006 link into the article. It was deleted and I have reverted it, as the correct position with regard to Forbes should be transparent. I believe that Wikipedia is a forum for everyone to objectively add factual material. I would request the other editor NOT to delete this edit as its an important clarification - a lot has changed from 1999 and the article must be objective/ upto date. Marquis was bought out in 2003 and the Forbes reference obviously reflects their current confidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.142.231 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who's Who as a Wikipedia reference

I'd like to see a position from Wikipedians on use of Who's Who citations in biographies of living people and questions of notability. I've come across a couple of pages where the only citation was from Marquis Who's Who and they seemed pretty sketchy. Thoughts? Toddstreat1 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:SELFPUB:

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I'm pretty sure that Marquis Who's Who falls into this category. Does anyone disagree? Toddstreat1 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do, as the selection process is not well understood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the notion that Marquis Who's Who is a "questionable" source.
  • Nearly every sizable library in America spends hundreds of dollars to buy each new edition as it comes out. Librarians have treated it as a valuable source from the beginning.
  • The information is provided by the biographee, but the people are chosen by Marquis, and the information is solicited and obtained and edited by Marquis. It's not like a blog posting.
Listing in Who's Who ought not be taken as proof of notability, since the inclusion threshold is lower than it is for Wikipedia. But for those who are notable, providing false information to Marquis is likely to generate bad publicity when found out. Kestenbaum 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. A sweeping generalization is not needed. Just note that there is huge confusion about which who's who is who (not pun intended). My point is that if there is biographical info worth presenting in a Wikipedia article, there should be other more reliable sources that "Who's Who". If specific bio material is only available in "Who's Who", it sholud not be used in a Wikipedia article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's what I wrote, but that's pretty much what I meant. Thanks for confirming. Toddstreat1 15:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selection process

We need to expand on the selection process for being included in these lists. We need both self-published assertions about how they do that selection, as well as third parties, for NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've added Marquis self-published assertions about the selection process. JGHowes talk - 01:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)