.jpg) 1959 edition | |
| Language | English |
|---|---|
Release number | 177 (Who's Who 2025)[1] |
| Subject | Biography[2] (1897 onwards) |
| Genre | Who's Who[3] |
| Publisher | |
Publication date | 1849–present |
| Publication place | United Kingdom |
| ISBN | 9781408181201 |
| Text | Who's Who atWikisource |
| Website | ukwhoswho |
Who's Who is areference work.[6] It has been published annually in the form of ahardback book since 1849, and has been published online since 1999. It has also been published onCD-ROM. It lists, and gives information on, people from around the world who influence British life.[7] Entries include notable figures from government, politics, academia, business, sport and the arts.Who's Who 2025 is the 177th edition and includes more than 32,500 people.
In 2004, the book was described as the United Kingdom's most prominent work of biographical reference.[8]
The book is the originalWho's Who book[9] and "the pioneer work of its type".[10] The book is an origin of the expression "who's who" used in a wider sense.[11][12][13]
Who's Who has been published since 1849.[14]
When book publisherA & C Black bought the copyright to the publication in 1896,Douglas Sladen was employed with a three-year contract to overhaul the publication. According to Sladen, the oldWho's Who was solely a "handbook of the titled and official classes only", which he sought to modernize by including celebrities from all circles through the use of autobiographical forms.[15] Between 1897 and 1899, under Sladen,Who's Who expanded its number of entries from 6,000 to 8,500. The inclusion of a "recreations" section for biographees to fill proved to be particularly successful for the book: according to Sladen, newspapers "never tired of quoting the recreations of eminent people", thus attracting publicity for the publication.[15][16] While Sladen's contract was not renewed, the revisedWho's Who experienced financial success: its sales rose from 10,000 to 12,000 copies between 1901 and 1910, in spite of a twofold increase in the book price for that period.[15]
Cedric Arthur Larson stated thatWho's Who in 1849 was not biographical.[17]Who's Who turned into abiographical dictionary in 1897.[3][18] In 1963 and 1975, William Lawrence Rivers wrote thatWho's Who then included biographical information.[19]
In 1973, a spinoff version, calledThe Academic Who's Who, was released by the same publisher. Both the first edition, published in 1973, and the second edition, published in 1975, were published by Adam & Charles Black in London. The first US edition was published by Bowker in New York, and the second byGale Research in Detroit.[20] The second edition contained biographies of almost seven thousand academics.[21]
Who's Who 1897–1996 was published onCD-ROM[22] and was awarded theMcColvin Medal.[23][24]Who's Who 1897–1998 was also published on CD-ROM.[25][26]Who's Who was included in KnowUK from 1999.[27][28][29]Who's Who 2005 was included inXreferplus.[30] TheWho's Who & Who Was Who website (ukwhoswho.com) is dated from 2007 onwards.[31]Who's Who continues to be published annually inhardback.
A history ofWho's Who was published to coincide with the 150th edition in 1998.[14] "Preface with a Brief History 1849–1998" was included inWho's Who 1998.
Who's Who was originally published byBaily Brothers.[32] Since 1897, it has been published by A & C Black.[14] It has been published in New York by theMacmillan Company[33] and bySt. Martin's Press.[34]
From 1849 to 1850,Who's Who was edited byHenry Robert Addison,[35] from 1851 to 1864 byCharles Henry Oakes,[36] from 1865 by William John Lawson and from 1897 to 1899 by Douglas Sladen.[37] Subsequent editions do not disclose the identity of their editor.[38] In 1990, it was reported that after the departure of Douglas Brooke Wheelton Sladen, the people who compiledWho's Who remained anonymous to conceal the fact that they were female.[39] In 2004, it was reported that the editorial staff and the selection panel endeavour to operate in anonymity so as to shield themselves from unwanted pressures.[8]
Academics who studyelites have used the book as the primary reference for deducing who is part of theBritish elite.[40]
The subjects ofWho's Who entries includepeers,MPs,judges, seniorcivil servants, writers, lawyers,scientists,academics, actors,athletes,artists andhereditaryaristocrats. 50 percent of new entrants (such as those holding a professorial chair atOxbridge, baronets, peers, MPs, judges etc.) are included automatically by virtue of theiroffice or title; the other 50 percent are selected at the discretion of a board of advisors.[41][42][43] Inclusion has come to carry a considerable level of prestige:Paul Levy stated inThe Wall Street Journal in 1996 that having an entry inWho's Who "really puts the stamp of eminence on a modern British life".[44]
Once someone is included inWho's Who they remain in it for life: MPs, for example, are not removed when they leave Parliament. The7th Earl of Lucan continued to be listed in the book after he went missing in 1974 and even after he wasdeclared legally dead in 1999.[45][46] He was listed inWho's Who 2016, which was published in 2015.[47] As of 2023, the most recent version of his entry on theWho's Who & Who Was Who website is dated 1 December 2016,[48] his death certificate having been issued in 2016.[49]
Inclusion inWho's Who does not involve any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy.[50] Some individuals have attempted to offer bribes in attempts to be included.[8]
The publication includes the members of theScottish Parliament,Welsh andNorthern Ireland Assemblies, members of theHouse of Commons, thechief executives of all UK cities and counties, andforeign ambassadors accredited to London. There was a high proportion ofOxford andCambridge graduates among the new entrants inWho's Who 2008.[51] During the reign ofQueen Victoria, the proportion of such graduates was less than 20%.[52]
In a review ofWho's Who, 1907, theLaw Magazine and Review declared: "So comprehensive is the scheme of the work that it is well-nigh impossible to find any person at all entitled to be considered prominent in any particular sphere, whose biography is not included".[53]The Expository Times wrote thatWho's Who, 1910 included "Everybody who is anybody".[54] TheJournal of the Royal Institute of British Architects wrote that the choice of subjects included inWho's Who 1936 was generally appropriate.[55] Writing inThe Spectator about a radio documentary on the book they prepared forBBC Radio 4 in 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum criticised, or reported that others had criticised, the publication for its lack of inclusion of well known celebrities, sports personalities, solicitors, and the quasi-totality of Britain's wealthiest people. They also questioned the inclusion of allbaronets.[8] In 2007, Jeremy Paxman criticised the publication for failing to include more non-BritishMEPs.[51] In 2010, Charles Moore criticised the criticism of the inclusiveness ofWho's Who.[56] In 2021, it was reported thatMichael Grade,[57] who wasChairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC from 2004[58] to 2006,[59] had criticisedWho's Who for failing to include entries forBenedict Cumberbatch andEddie Redmayne.[57]
Richard Fitzwilliams, former editor ofThe International Who's Who quoted inThe Independent in 2015 indicated thatArthur Scargill andTony Benn were included inWho's Who against their wishes, and thatW. S. Gilbert was "threatened with being given a concocted version of his entry unless he provided one".[60] Douglas Sladen published or threatened to publish non-autobiographical entries for recalcitrant figures in order to coerce them to submit their own autobiographical forms.[61] In his autobiography, Douglas Sladen wrote: "W. S. Gilbert wrote the rudest letter of anybody. He said he was always being pestered by unimportant people for information about himself. So I put him down in the book as "Writer of Verses and the libretti to Sir Arthur Sullivan's comic operas." He then wrote me a letter . . . in which he asked me if that was the way to treat a man who had written seventy original dramas. Next year he filled up his form as readily as a peer's widow who has married a commoner."[62] In a footnote to the preceding passage from Sladen's autobiography, the historianPhilip Waller said that "Sladen did not always allow accuracy to get in the way of a good story", and that the actual facts consist of the inclusion of the line "Writer of Verses and the libretti to Sir Arthur Sullivan's comic operas" in Gilbert's biography inWho's Who 1897 and1898, and the removal of that line from Gilbert's biography inWho's Who 1899, to which no other changes were made.[61] In his autobiography, Sladen wrote: "A prominent authoress first of all refused to fill up her form at all. I wrote to tell her that in that case I should have to fill it up for her. She showed no concern about this until I sent her a proof of the biography, in which I made her out ten years older than she really was, and said that I meant to insert the biography in that form unless there was anything she wished to correct. She then corrected it, and added so much that it would have taken the whole column if I had inserted all she sent."[62] According to Philip Waller, this "was how Sladen behaved: if celebrities did not deliver, he invented a CV for them. It usually brought them into line."[61] In 2004, it was reported that Scargill had argued that people who do not wish to be inWho's Who should be allowed to opt out.[8]
From 1897 onwards, entries have been compiled from questionnaires filled in by their subjects and then returned to the publisher.[63][64] Lea and Day wrote that this approach normally leads to increased accuracy.[65]
It has been said that, fromWho's Who 1897 onwards, the entries, or the majority of them, are autobiographical.[63][64][38]Nature Notes described the notices of naturalists inWho's Who, 1900 as "virtually autobiographical".[66]
InA & C Black Ltd v Claude Stacey Ltd,Mr Justice Tomlin, sitting in theChancery Division of theHigh Court of Justice in England, held that the "author", within the meaning of that expression in section 5 of theCopyright Act 1911, of each biography inWho's Who was the compiler.[67] This decision has been cited as authority as to the meaning of the expression "author" in theCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.[68]
Entries typically include full names, dates of birth, career details, club memberships, education, professional qualifications, publications, recreations and contact details.[7][69][70]
Who's Who has been repeatedly described as useful[71] and indispensable.[72]
The accuracy ofWho's Who 1904 was praised byThe Saturday Review,[73]The World's Paper Trade Review,[74]The Law Magazine and Review[75] andThe Law Journal.[76] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1905 was praised byThe Accountant's Magazine,[77]Canada Lancet[78] andThe Law Journal.[79] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1906 was praised byEngineering,[80]Notes and Queries[81] andThe Library World.[82] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1907 was praised byThe Congregationalist and Christian World,[83]Page's Weekly[84] and theUnited Service Magazine.[85]Medical Record also praised the accuracy of that edition, but wrote that the book included an entry for a deceased person.[86] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1908 was praised byThe Dublin Journal of Medical Science,[87]The Electrical Review[88] andPage's Weekly.[89] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1909 was praised byCountry Life,[90]The Scots Law Times,[91]The Empire Review and Magazine[92] andThe American Review of Reviews.[93] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1910 was praised byKnowledge & Scientific News,[94]The Railway News,[95]Country Life[96] andPage's Weekly.[97]
The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1933 was praised by theSolicitors Journal[98] and by theJournal of State Medicine.[99] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1934 was praised by theClinical Journal,[100] by theBurlington Magazine[101] and by theJournal of State Medicine.[102] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1935 was praised byPublic Opinion,[103] by theSolicitors' Journal,[104] by theIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal[105] and by theClinical Journal.[106] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1936 was praised byEngineering.[107] TheIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal also praised the accuracy of that edition, but wrote that the book included an entry for a deceased person.[108] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1937 was praised by theMunicipal Journal & Public Works Engineer.[109] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1938 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene[110] and by theNew Statesman and Nation.[111] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1939 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene.[112]
The accuracy ofWho's Who 1940 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene,[113] and the reliability of that edition was praised byThe Tennessee Teacher.[114] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1941 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene,[115] by theIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal[116] and by theMunicipal Journal & Local Government Administrator.[117] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1942 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene[118] and byThe Accountant.[119] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1943 was praised by theMedical Press and Circular.[120] The accuracy of certain entries inWho's Who, 1944 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene.[121] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1946 was praised by theIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal.[122] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1949 was praised bySubscription Books Bulletin.[123]
In 1957, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by Ajit Kumar Mukherjee.[124]
The accuracy and reliability ofWho's Who 1970 was praised by Bohdan Stephan Wynar.[125] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1973 was praised byReference and Subscription Books Reviews.[126] In 1974, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by John Richard Meredith Wilson.[127] In 1975, the accuracy ofWho's Who was praised by Carolyn Sue Peterson.[128]
The accuracy ofWho's Who 1982 was praised by Jefferson D Caskey.[129] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1985 was praised by Jefferson D Caskey.[130] In 1986, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by John Richard Meredith Wilson.[131] The accuracy of the entry forReginald William Revans inWho's Who 1987 was praised by Yury Boshyk and Robert Lexow Dilworth.[132]
In 1995, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by Professor Glenda Norquay.[133]
In 2001,BBC News qualified some of the entrants as "a little economical with the truth".[45] Writing inThe Spectator about a radio documentary on the book they prepared forBBC Radio 4 in 2004,Michael Crick and Martin Rosenbaum wrote that there were questions about the accuracy of the entries, but that they frequently usedWho's Who themselves in their work as journalists.[8] In 2007, the reliability ofWho's Who Online was praised by William Ashford Kelly.[134] In 2014, the reliability of theWho's Who & Who Was Who website was praised by Fred Burchsted.[31]
Subjects are not permitted to include libellous statements in their entries.[45] In 2004, the publishing director for reference books ofBloomsbury, which owns A & C Black, the publisher ofWho's Who, stated that if an inaccuracy was brought to the attention of the editors, they would raise it with the biographee first. If the biographee insisted or failed to respond, however, no correction would be issued. The director stated that "the vast majority of errors" are sorted by mutual agreement betweenWho's Who and the biographee.[8]
In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum wrote that the largest number of errors were in dates of birth.[8] It has been reported that entries forMohamed al-Fayed,[135][45]Anita Brookner,[45][39][136]Ken Dodd,[135][8]Susan Hampshire,[135][45][8]Nanette Newman,[135] andNicholas Parsons[8] have displayed incorrect dates of birth. The BBC claimed that when Brookner was asked by the editors ofWho's Who whether she wanted her date of birth corrected, she asked to have it blanked instead.[45] Errors in the dates of birth of Mohamed al-Fayed, Ken Dodd and Susan Hampshire had previously been reported by Compton Miller, editor ofWho's Really Who, in a book review of A & C Black'sWho's Who 1998, in which Compton Miller praised the entries for Mohamed al-Fayed, Ken Dodd and Susan Hampshire in his own book.[137] It has been reported that the entry forJimmy Wray has displayed a disputed date of birth.[138]
In 2001,BBC News claimed that former MPJeffrey Archer had listedBrasenose College, Oxford, under the education part of hisWho's Who entry, despite having no degree and having only attended a one-year postgraduate physical education course.[45] Previously, in a 1997 letter to the editor ofThe Independent,Paul Flather of Oxford University had written that the training course Archer had taken at Brasenose College was "not strictly a university course", and that hisWho's Who entry also incorrectly listed his year of attendance.[139] In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum claimed that the entry for Archer had also listed an incorrect sum of money.[8]
The entry forIain Duncan Smith in (in particular)Who's Who 2002 andWho's Who 2003 claimed that he had been educated at "Univ. di Perugia".[140] This claim did not appear inWho's Who 2004.[141] In 2002,BBC Newsnight reported that Duncan Smith had attended theUniversità per Stranieri di Perugia and had never attended theUniversità degli Studi di Perugia.[142]
The entry forJames Gulliver in (in particular)Who's Who 1972,Who's Who 1973,Who's Who 1980,Who's Who 1985 andWho's Who 1986, stated that he had been educated atHarvard University[143][144][145][146][147] and did not mention that he had been educated at, and had received anMSc from, theGeorgia Institute of Technology in 1954.The press repeatedly reported that Gulliver had received anMBA fromHarvard Business School. Those press reports were not correct. He had in fact done a marketing course at Harvard Business School for three weeks in 1954. On 9 March 1986, Gulliver said that hisWho's Who entry was not correct in relation "to a degree achieved in 1954".[148][149][150] The press had been informed of the error by aPR company working for an alcohol company that Gulliver's company had bid to takeover.[151][152]Paddy Ashdown said that the PR company had performed "a rather unsavoury and tawdry" character "assassination".[153] The bald statement that Gulliver was educated at the Harvard University has been characterized as having a tendency to mislead.[149]
In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum reported that Arthur Scargill had denied that his entry was completely accurate.[8]
In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum named six people whose entries were claimed to have contained at least one omission at some point in time (excluding entries claimed to have displayed at least one error at some point in time).[8]
Jeremy Paxman has calculated that only 8% of new entrants in 2008 made any reference to marital breakdown, which is far below the national average.[51]
The non-autobiographical entry for W. S. Gilbert inWho's Who 1897 andWho's Who 1898 did not include the fact that Gilbert had written seventy original dramas.[62][61]
The original nucleus ofWho's Who consisted of tables.[154] In a review ofWho's Who 1903, theSurveyor and Municipal and County Engineer wrote "From time to time it has been found necessary to remove some useful tables inserted in the front of the book, in order to make room for the biographies, and now the portentous increase of the latter has led to the complete removal of the tables, with the exception, of course, of those devoted to the Royal Family and to obituaries. The publishers hope . . . to issue the various tables separately . . . at a later date."[155] The tables were moved into theWho's Who Year Book from the first edition of that year book, theWho's Who Year Book, 1904, onwards.[156]
When the subject of aWho's Who entry dies, the biography is transferred to the next volume ofWho Was Who, where it is usually printed as it appeared in its lastWho's Who, with the date of death added.
The first volume ofWho Was Who covered deaths between 1897 and 1915. They were then published at 10-year intervals, and since 1990 at five-year intervals.
Who Was Who series:
Corrections
Errors contained inWho's Who entries are corrected inWho Was Who "where necessary" (the deceased subjects cannot object to corrections because they are deceased).[39][63]
Cumulated index
There is acumulative index, titled "cumulated index":
This legitimacy has been demonstrated in a number of ways: the book has long been considered the most valid catalogue of the British elite among elite scholars (see, e.g., Griffiths, Miles, and Savage 2008; Heath 1981; Kelsall 1955; Kirby 2016; Miles and Savage 2012; Stanworth and Giddens 1974)
