Who's Who is areference work.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] 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.[19] Entries include notable figures from government, politics, academia, business, sport and the arts.Who's Who 2023 is the 175th edition and includes more than 33,000 people.
In 2004, the book was described as the United Kingdom's most prominent work of biographical reference.[20]
The book is the originalWho's Who book[21][22] and "the pioneer work of its type".[23][24][25] The book is an origin of the expression "who's who" used in a wider sense.[26][27][28]
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.[30] 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.[30][31] 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.[30]
Cedric Arthur Larson stated thatWho's Who in 1849 was not biographical.[32]Who's Who turned into abiographical dictionary in 1897.[9][33] In 1963 and 1975, Professor William Lawrence Rivers[34] wrote thatWho's Who then included biographical information.[35][36]
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 by Gale Research in Detroit.[37][38] The second edition contained biographies of almost seven thousand academics.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]
Who's Who 1897–1996 was published onCD-ROM[56] and was awarded theMcColvin Medal.[57][58]Who's Who 1897–1998 was also published on CD-ROM.[59][60]Who's Who was included in KnowUK from 1999.[61][62][63]Who's Who 2005 was included inXreferplus.[64] TheWho's Who & Who Was Who website (ukwhoswho.com) is dated from 2007 onwards.[65]Who's Who continues to be published annually inhardback.
A history ofWho's Who was published to coincide with the 150th edition in 1998.[29] "Preface with a Brief History 1849–1998" was included inWho's Who 1998.
From 1849 to 1850,Who's Who was edited byHenry Robert Addison,[68] from 1851 to 1864 by Charles Henry Oakes,[69] from 1865 by William John Lawson and from 1897 to 1899 by Douglas Sladen.[70] Subsequent editions do not disclose the identity of their editor.[71] 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.[72] 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.[20]
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.[78][79] He was listed inWho's Who 2016, which was published in 2015.[80] As of 2023, the most recent version of his entry on theWho's Who & Who Was Who website is dated 1 December 2016,[81] his death certificate having been issued in 2016.[82]
Inclusion inWho's Who does not involve any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy.[83] Some individuals have attempted to offer bribes in attempts to be included.[20]
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".[88][89]The Expository Times wrote thatWho's Who, 1910 included "Everybody who is anybody".[90] TheJournal of the Royal Institute of British Architects wrote that the choice of subjects included inWho's Who 1936 was generally appropriate.[91] 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.[20] In 2007, Jeremy Paxman criticised the publication for failing to include more non-BritishMEPs.[84] In 2010, Charles Moore criticised the criticism of the inclusiveness ofWho's Who.[92][93] In 2021, it was reported thatMichael Grade,[94] who wasChairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC from 2004[95] to 2006,[96] had criticisedWho's Who for failing to include entries forBenedict Cumberbatch andEddie Redmayne.[94]
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".[97] Douglas Sladen published or threatened to publish non-autobiographical entries for recalcitrant figures in order to coerce them to submit their own autobiographical forms.[98] 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."[99] 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.[98] 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."[99] 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."[98] 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.[20]
From 1897 onwards, entries have been compiled from questionnaires filled in by their subjects and then returned to the publisher.[100][101] Lea and Day wrote that this approach normally leads to increased accuracy.[102]
It has been said that, fromWho's Who 1897 onwards, the entries, or the majority of them, are autobiographical.[100][101][71]Nature Notes described the notices of naturalists inWho's Who, 1900 as "virtually autobiographical".[103][104][105]
Entries typically include full names, dates of birth, career details, club memberships, education, professional qualifications, publications, recreations and contact details.[19][109][110]
The Saturday Review wrote thatWho's Who 1904 is "generally accurate".[122]The World's Paper Trade Review wrote that "it may be relied on not only as being accurate but really authoritative".[123]The Law Magazine and Review wrote that "The accuracy of the information given shows the great care with which this work has been compiled".[124][125]The Law Journal wrote that the "biographical details of judges and leading members of the profession [...] so far as we have tested them, are [...] accurate".[126]
The Accountant's Magazine spoke of "the remarkable accuracy" ofWho's Who, 1905.[127] TheCanada Lancet wrote that "The book contains a vast amount of reliable information regarding persons of note throughout the British Empire".[128]The Law Journal wrote that the "biographical details of judges and leading lawyers [...] so far as we have tested them, are accurate".[129]
Engineering wrote thatWho's Who, 1906 gave "accurate information regarding the career of men whose names are frequently before the public in an official or other capacity".[130][131]Notes and Queries wrote that "For those engaged in literary and journalistic pursuits, Who's Who remains the most trustworthy [...] work of personal reference".[132][133]The Library World wrote that "its accuracy is well maintained".[134][135][136]
The Congregationalist and Christian World wrote thatWho's Who, 1907 "comes promptly to aid journalists and others who wish to consult [...] accurate biographies of the leading personages in the Western political and literary world, Britons of course predominating."[137]The Standard called it "a monument of painstaking care".[138]Page's Weekly wrote that "we have subjected Who's Who to several tests and are glad to find that the accuracy which pervades the subject matter is again worthy of high commendation".[139]Medical Record wrote that "The data about Americans mentioned in the work appear to be in the main correct, though we notice that the name of the lateAlbert Bierstadt, the artist, is retained in the book as though he were still living."[140] TheUnited Service Magazine wrote that "Immense pains are taken to ensure accuracy".[141]
The Dublin Journal of Medical Science wrote that the biographies inWho's Who, 1908 "may be considered to be accurate".[142]The Electrical Review wrote that "the details may generally be regarded as accurate".[143]Page's Weekly added that "We have many occasions had reason to admire the accuracy which is attained by the Editor of Who's Who".[144]
Country Life wrote thatWho's Who, 1909 was "of most praiseworthy accuracy".[145]The Scots Law Times wrote that "The information given about the persons named may be taken as reliable".[146]The Empire Review and Magazine wrote "the great pains taken to ensure accuracy gives to the volume additional value".[147][148]The American Review of Reviews wrote that it "continues [...] to sustain its high level of accuracy".[149][150][151]
Knowledge & Scientific News wrote thatWho's Who, 1910 "is kept up-to-date and accurate".[152][153]The Railway News wrote that "The information is brought thoroughly up to date".[154]Country Life wrote that "This year it appears to be as accurate [...] as usual."[155]Page's Weekly wrote that "Who's Who has a notable reputation to maintain and it is not surprising to find, therefore, that exceptional care is taken to render it a reference work of unimpeachable accuracy."[156]
The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1933 was praised by theSolicitors Journal[157] and by theJournal of State Medicine.[158] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1934 was praised by theClinical Journal,[159] by theBurlington Magazine[160] and by theJournal of State Medicine.[161] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1935 was praised byPublic Opinion,[162] by theSolicitors' Journal,[163] by theIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal[164] and by theClinical Journal.[165] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1936 was praised byEngineering.[166] 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.[167] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1937 was praised by theMunicipal Journal & Public Works Engineer.[168] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1938 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene[169] and by theNew Statesman and Nation.[170] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1939 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene.[171]
The accuracy ofWho's Who 1940 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene,[172][173] and the reliability of that edition was praised byThe Tennessee Teacher.[174] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1941 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene,[175] by theIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal[176] and by theMunicipal Journal & Local Government Administrator.[177] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1942 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene[178] and byThe Accountant.[179] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1943 was praised by theMedical Press and Circular.[180] The accuracy of certain entries inWho's Who, 1944 was praised by theJournal of the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene.[181] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1946 was praised by theIrish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal.[182] The accuracy ofWho's Who, 1949 was praised bySubscription Books Bulletin.[183]
In 1957, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by Ajit Kumar Mukherjee.[184]
The accuracy and reliability ofWho's Who 1970 was praised by Bohdan Stephan Wynar.[185] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1973 was praised byReference and Subscription Books Reviews.[186] In 1974, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by John Richard Meredith Wilson.[187] In 1975, the accuracy ofWho's Who was praised by Carolyn Sue Peterson.[188]
The accuracy ofWho's Who 1982 was praised by Jefferson D Caskey.[189] The accuracy ofWho's Who 1985 was praised by Jefferson D Caskey.[190] In 1986, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by John Richard Meredith Wilson.[191] The accuracy of the entry forReginald William Revans inWho's Who 1987 was praised by Yury Boshyk and Robert Lexow Dilworth.[192]
In 1995, the reliability ofWho's Who was praised by Professor Glenda Norquay.[193]
In 2001,BBC News qualified some of the entrants as "a little economical with the truth".[78] Writing inThe Spectator about a radio documentary on the book they prepared forBBC Radio 4 in 2004,Michael Crick and Martin Rosenbaum[194] wrote that there were questions about the accuracy of the entries, but that they frequently usedWho's Who themselves in their work as journalists.[20] In 2007, the reliability ofWho's Who Online was praised by William Ashford Kelly.[195][196][197] In 2014, the reliability of theWho's Who & Who Was Who website was praised by Fred Burchsted.[65]
Subjects are not permitted to include libellous statements in their entries.[78] 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.[20]
In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum wrote that the largest number of errors were in dates of birth.[20] It has been reported that entries forMohamed al-Fayed,[198][78]Anita Brookner,[78][72][199]Ken Dodd,[198][20]Susan Hampshire,[198][78][20]Nanette Newman,[198] andNicholas Parsons[20] 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.[78] 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.[200] It has been reported that the entry forJimmy Wray has displayed a disputed date of birth.[201]
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.[78] 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.[202] In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum claimed that the entry for Archer had also listed an incorrect sum of money.[20]
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[206][207][208][209][210] 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".[211][212][213] The press had been informed of the error by aPR company working for an alcohol company that Gulliver's company had bid to takeover.[214][215]Paddy Ashdown said that the PR company had performed "a rather unsavoury and tawdry" character "assassination".[216] The bald statement that Gulliver was educated at the Harvard University has been characterized as having a tendency to mislead.[212]
In 2004, Crick and Rosenbaum reported that Arthur Scargill had denied that his entry was completely accurate.[20]
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).[20]
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.[84]
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.[99][98]
The original nucleus ofWho's Who consisted of tables.[217][218][219] 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."[220] 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.[221][222]
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.
Errors contained inWho's Who entries are corrected inWho Was Who "where necessary" (the deceased subjects cannot object to corrections because they are deceased).[72][100]
^abcMelanie Cable-Alexander. "The what's what of Who's Who" in "Perspectives". The Financial Times. 19 May 1990. Section II: Weekend FT (Weekend May 19/May 20). p viii. [This newspaper article contains the following passage: But even if the living are allowed to edit their lives, the real story can eventually be found behind the entries inWho Was Who . . . In this volume, white lies are laid low and the truth is made whole again, because at that stage "they won't know a thing about it."]
^Friedman, Sam; Reeves, Aaron (15 April 2020)."From Aristocratic to Ordinary: Shifting Modes of Elite Distinction".American Sociological Review.85 (2):323–350.doi:10.1177/0003122420912941.ISSN0003-1224.S2CID218828282.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)
^abcSladen, Douglas Brooke Wheelton; Makino, Yoshio (1914).Twenty years of my life. University of California Libraries. London [England] : Constable. p. 237.
^abc"About".Who's Who & Who Was Who.Archived from the original on 4 August 2023. Retrieved13 September 2023.
^ab"Who's Who in 2022?".Who's Who & Who Was Who. 8 December 2021. Retrieved5 March 2025.
^"Duncan Smith, Rt Hon. (George) Iain". Who's Who 2002. Palgrave, New York. USA. 2002. p 614. "Duncan Smith, Rt Hon. (George) Iain". Who's Who 2003. A & C Black. London. 2003. p 620.
^"Duncan Smith, Rt Hon. (George) Iain". Who's Who 2004. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. USA. 2004. p 630.
^Hugo Vickers. "Help at hand for the malignant" in "Books for Christmas/3". The Times. Saturday 24 November 1984. The Times Saturday Books for Christmas: A Weekly Guide to Leisure, Entertainment and the Arts. Saturday, 24–30 November 1984. p 13.
"The Longest Novel" (1970)Lemon, Mark; Mayhew, Henry; Taylor, Tom; Brooks, Shirley; Burnand, Francis Cowley; Seaman, Owen (1970).Punch. Punch Publications Limited. Punch 731 (13 May 1970) [Review ofWho's Who 1970]
"Curious Facts about Famous People" (1963)Time and Tide: T & T. Time and Tide. 1963. Time and Tide 26 (21 to 27 March 1963) [Review ofWho's Who 1963]
"Reviewed work: Who's Who".Journal of the Royal Society of Arts.92 (4676):618–619. 1944.JSTOR41362125.
"Reviewed work: Who's Who 1940; the Writers' and Artists' Year Book 1940; the Official Year Book of the Scientific and Learned Societies of Great Britain and Ireland".Journal of the Royal Society of Arts.88 (4558): 502. 1940.JSTOR41402209.
"Reviewed work: Who's Who, 1938".Journal of the Royal Society of Arts.86 (4449): 355. 1938.JSTOR41361252.
"Reviewed work: Who's Who, 1937".Journal of the Royal Society of Arts.85 (4388): 168. 1936.JSTOR41360910.
"Reviewed work: Who's Who, 1910; Who's Who Year Book, 1910; the Writers' and Artists' Year Book, 1910; the Englishwoman's Year Book, 1910".The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.16 (82): 237. 1910.JSTOR858036.
"Reviewed work: Who's Who, 1909; the English-Woman's Year Book and Directory, G. E. Mitton; Who's Who Year-Book for 1909; the Writer's and Artist's Year-Book, 1909".The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs.14 (70): 249. 1909.JSTOR857772.
.jpg)
