Talk:Who's Who

Untitled section
IS WHO's WHO for Real?

I would like to pose the question whether or not they have in fact nominated anyone for possilbe inclusion in the Who's Who biographical books?

I was "nominated" last spring for the American Teacher book but my wife insists that these nominations are suspect and that the company's motivation was to get me to buy the book (min $100.00). I have to agree that their refusal to divulge which of my former students nominated me validates her view. If the publisher really wanted to be taken seriously why don't they indicate to the nomineee who nominated them? Not to do so otherwise raises the spector of misleading the public, yes?

If there are people out there who have nominated their former teachers, or who have heard from former students that they were in fact nominated, I would like to hear about it.

TFToddlerf66 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect most people are "nominated" via database mailing list searches that are cross referenced and screened for errors. For example, they probably scan lists of degree holders by university, employees by company, position titles, and mentions in media publications. Everyone I know regards all Who's Who publications as a vanity publication. I don't know anyone who has ever used one as a reference for anything -- especially now that so much information about people is available online. 20+ years ago it might have been different.

Neuron1 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Un-Disambiguation
I would like to change this page from being a Disambiguation page. The fact that there are thousands of books with the title "Who's Who" as well as the common axiom "... is a virtual Who's Who of..." leaves hundreds of pages with links to nothing but a Disambiguation page. I changed the page around a bit to a)explain what a "Who's Who" is, b)what the axiom means, and c)a partial list of the more notable "Who's Who"'s. I realize the page needs work, any help would be appreciated. J04n(talk page) 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sesame Street Who's Who
We also need to mention the coloring book "Sesame Street Who's Who". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.86.250 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

cited source not found
There is no Skeptic volume 27, and no record of such an article in the library index I checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.200.94 (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

China
https://archive.org/details/5edwhoswhoinchina00shanuoft

https://archive.org/details/whoswhoinchinaco00poweuoft

Rajmaan (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

What kind of page is this
It's categorized as a list, wikiproject class is start (article), but it sure looks like it should be a disambiguation. Is the subject of the article a genre of book called "Who's Who"? Is it disambiguating between lots of books that start with "Who's Who", or is it a list of books that belong to the genre "Who's Who"? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problem
At present, this article is roughly 50% criticism. The criticism section deserves no more than a few paragraphs dispassionately summarizing what is found in legitimate sources.

It might be best to directly quote sources; if Australia has criticism of Who’s Who, don’t write that it’s ‘various governments’, for example. Exaggerating and editorializing are two main reasons for the NPOV problem.

Although we can’t use Carlson as a source (ergo, the Forbes pieces need to be removed), he does offer insight into the POV problem here: “There are cases-- relatively few in our judgment--of individuals with decidedly modest vocational achievement being included in the Who's Who volumes.”

From what I can tell, the scams are a relatively small problem, which is evidenced by the paltry offerings from acceptable sources. The size of the problem should be reflected by the size of the criticism section (including mention in the Lede, which is a bit bloated as well).

Excluding the editorializing, the skeptics blog, Tucker Carlson and any other non-RS, as well as sticking very close to what the sources are saying should add neutrality and greatly improve the atticle.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  18:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my recent edits will satisfy all parties. I’ve removed the POV tag.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  17:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to stop whitewashing this article. Coming back here to edit war every few weeks is disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removing so much long-standing content without any discussion, much less consensus, is very disruptive and tendentious. Whitewashing is one of the most egregious forms of NPOV violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But I thought you weren’t a fan of Tucker Carlson. And is t following me to harass me here against some rule?  petrarchan47  คุ  ก  14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing is a pretty serious charge. The difference between my version and yours is two paragraphs - in your version you re-added the following but changed nothing else:
 * ”One example was the Who's Who Among American High School Students which was criticized for questionable nomination practices as well as whether the listing's entries are fact-checked and accurate.[10][11] According to the admissions vice president of Hamline University, "It's honestly something that an admissions officer typically wouldn't consider or wouldn't play into an admissions decision," adding that "Who's Who... is just trying to sell books".[11]
 * Who's Who publications are not all of questionable value, but publishers that select truly notable people and provide trustworthy information on them are hard to identify. A & C Black's Who's Who is the canonical example of a legitimate Who's Who reference work, being the first to use the name and establish the approach in print, publishing annually since 1849. However, the longevity of a publication is not in itself a guarantee. In 1999 Tucker Carlson said in Forbes magazine that Marquis Who's Who, founded in 1898 but no longer an independent company, had adopted practices of address harvesting as a revenue stream, undermining its claim to legitimacy as a reference work listing people of merit.[12]”

The example of a high school scam comes from low quality sources: 1 and 2 I left it out of my version for that reason, and because this is a short, list-style article, thought mentioning every single instance there was a printed complaint about some version of a “who’s who” wasn’t necessary. I don’t think you can call this whitewashing when I’ve already addressed the scams in the Lede and body in a way you yourself found (nearly) sufficient. The second paragraph you re-added was from Tucker Carlson, known as a conspiracy theorist and to my knowledge, not allowed on WP as a source. My removal of Carlson is not whitewashing to my knowledge, but perhaps I’ll check with the RS notice board to make sure. Your paragraphs also make me wonder about the author, as they seem less reliant upon RS and sound very editorialized. The quotes selected are not neutral, considering how Carlson’s statement in my initial comment above wasn’t included whilst it would give the reader much better context. (“ “There are cases-- relatively few in our judgment--of individuals with decidedly modest vocational achievement being included in the Who's Who volumes.”)

“Whitewashing” should be reserved for describing the removal of negative content. What I’ve done is to try and present the facts in a balanced way. This was what I was trying to clean up - and my fix is nearly identical to the present one, so how am I the problem?  petrarchan47 คุ  ก  14:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree that Carlson can't be used here as a source. The blacklist is for media and its editorial processes, not for individuals.  If Forbes vetted the piece, it must be good.  Disagree that an article that is 50% criticism violates NPOV.  If that's what the sources say, watcha gonna do?  Have you seen the Phone fraud article?  Do you think it should be, say, 75% positive about phone fraud schemes?  Go wherever the sources take you. XavierItzm (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "If" indeed. If the sources predominately cover positive, or even neutral or incidental, aspects of a given subject, yet our article is, as contended, 50% negative, then that certainly puts the issue of NPOV on the table. The lede of this article says, "Who's Who, the oldest listing of prominent British people since 1849". If the account here is 50% or more negative, then no doubt there's a negative POV issue that needs to be fixed...or are we to assume that 50% of notable British people are negative sorts?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)