Talk:Marquis Who's Who

message: While this page writes "Marquis Who's Who claims to require no publication or processing fees from the persons selected as biographees.[8]" {with ref. 8 is the FAQ}, on a related page -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Nelson_Marquis#Controversies -- it states that "awardees are encouraged to obtain a 'distribution package' by paying $800 of their own money instead of receiving any money or honours".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.35.54 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong information about payments?

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reads like an advert 

message: 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". 
:No, that is absolutely not what the article says.  Rather:
:"With the information highway now an international Interstate, is a 5,919-page, $749 reference book an authoritative tool and valid portrait of society, or a dinosaur from the print age?"
:In other words, it raises the question as to whether the book is totally useless.  Please do not equivocate like this.  Plclark (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot has changed from 1999

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allow Factual Evidence in the Article! 

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

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Marquis Who's Who's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nyt":
From H. O. West: 
From Mack Harrell: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Marquis Who's Who]] 

message: The criticism section of the article includes a quote from one  Jan Margosian, described as a consumer information coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice, which lumps together all Who's Who publications and suggests they are all more or less the same. This is - not to mince words - rubbish. There surely are some that have a business model based on including people just for buying the book, but Marquis Who's Who definitely does not do that. When they asked me for biographical information, they stated very clearly and prominently that inclusion did not depend on buying a copy. And I did not "self-nominate". 
I have no connection with the Marquis company (other than having been a biographee for several years) and I certainly never bought a copy in all the years they listed me. The main Marquis Who's Who in America is a valuable reference book, to be found in most libraries. It's more useful than Wikipedia because it lists more people.
Why is it appropriate to include uninformed nonsense in a Wikipedia article? In my opinion, the Jan Margosian quote should be removed.Sayitclearly (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that "the Jan Margosian quote should be removed" from the article, it may be possible to abstract or identify the larger issues, such as, "some would-be critics of Who's Who publications 'lump together all Who's Who publications and suggest they are all more or less the same', which is an inherently problematic and indefensible position.  [Then offer criticisms of that viewpoint, without attacking Jan Margosian (though perhaps the article could CITE that criticism in a footnote).] MaynardClark (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section actually misses a major point. These books are NOT biographies of notable people. They are biographies of anyone that they can persuade to pay for inclusion. I have just today received an entirely unsolicitied email from Marquis Who's Who, saying:
"Congratulations on your nomination!
August 31st, 2017 
RESPONSE NECESSARY BY Septemeber 5th, 2017 
Dear  John , 
You were recently nominated as a biographical candidate to be featured in the 2018 Who’s Who in America- the best-known, most trusted biographical resource on America’s most accomplished individuals since 1899". I have left the spelling and punctuation errors intact."
There is no reason why I - a New Zealander - would genuinely have been nominated for a Who's Who in America. This publisher is no better than a Nigerian scammer. The criticism section must be much harsher.203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Shortcomings of 'Who's Who publications' - could be one way to look at putative criticisms of Who's Who publications:
A chart that would actually STUDY the claims of various Who's Who publications to BE comparable to Marquis's Who's Who could show what they do and what they don't do.
Elements we do not have on entries in Who's Who publications include:
* When that entry FIRST appeared in that Who's Who publication.  
* WHY that entry was included in that Who's Who publication (e.g. notability - for what?  Does 'notability' depend, as JP Sartre might have suggested, upon the outcomes of history; in one possible scenario, all of party A is significant because they were precursors to a historic change, but all of party B would be insignificant because their efforts did not prevail.  However, counterfactually, with a different outcome, the historic 'winners' would be party B rather than party A, and that would involve a rewriting of history "by 'deletionists'" because notability is entirely, not partially, contingent upon their prevailing.  What makes prevailing in history happen?  Does prevailing in history imply being good, or even working for the optimal outcome?  How about dynamics of democracy, the crowd, the mob, the clique, the guild, the professional association, the academy, etc.?)?
* Should a discussion of 'criteria of notability' be included somewhere and linked in this article for those who want to research it further?  Surely the criteria of inclusion for any specific Who's Who publication do not match the criteria of notability (which may be more of a 'floating point' set of criteria). MaynardClark (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the point made by MarynardClark regarding the WHY.  It would great if there was some transparency in the same way that University rankings or Sports Rankings provide clear explanation on how they came to the results.  What are the key data points being looked at in the selection process. FactFidelity (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcomings

message: Reverting changes related to Cambridge Who's Who because citations provided and publicly available reference material do not support this position.  Given the nature of the industry, this seems like an attempt to provide inaccurate information about this information.  Not sure if this is a competitor doing this.  If there is information to contradict state records or public records then I'm open to the changes proposed.  Until then, it's in the best interest of the community to have the most accurate information supported by reliable sources.  I've transferred almost all the information from the citation into the article.
I'm new to this, but I'm a stickler for facts.  There is no value in people making up information to support an agenda.
FactFidelity (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Information provided has been verified with current and former employees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.185.181 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it too convenient to just say that information has been verified with current and former employees.  If these employees do exist then the entries should be added as attributed quotes.  Wikipedia should not used as a vehicle for personal agenda with unsubstantiated information.  Additionally, you mark my changes as vandalism even though every piece of information I have entered is validated with credible sources.  You have yet to supply one single source that can be verified to support the information you are providing.  Additionally, much of the information I entered came directly from the sources you provided. FactFidelity (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

text: It also appears that the primary purpose of all your edits is simply to connect this organization with a politically motivated article about a company that on the surface does not seem to have any relationship.  This is evidenced by your reference to the NYT article (New York Times, "‘We’re an Easy Target’: Taken In by the Trump Brand", June 2016) in the external links sections. 20:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Can a third party provide some input?  From mine perspective, this is starting to appear like someone who is purposefully trying to connect this organization with unsupported facts in order to impact the organization's reputation. Without reliable references of this relationship, I don't believe it's appropriate to allow this information to continue to stay on the page. I would like to remove this information.  I'd held off so far in order to be respectful of the community rules after observing the back and forth. FactFidelity (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it is about another company, so it fails verification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Sorry, retracted, it is a subsidiary of that very company, so technically that isn't another company. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing where it says it's a subsidiary.  Only mention of the subsidiary is by the anonymous updates.  The public records seem to indicate that each of the mentioned companies are standalone. My understanding of the records are the Marquis Who's Who's Ventures LLC is doing business as Marquis Who's Who, which is a trademark of Marquis Who's Who Ventures LLC. FactFidelity (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, according to Investopedia, a subsidiary is a company whose voting stock is more than 50% controlled by another company, usually referred to as the parent company or holding company.104.247.45.30 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://www.google.com/search?q=Marquis+Registry+and+Professional+Biographies,+a+Div.+of+Worldwide+Branding Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this page, https://worldwidebrandingfactportal.com/frequently-asked-questions/, and it seems to indicate the opposite.  Most of the links in the search you provide seem to be broken. This page seems to be directly associated with Worldwide Branding.  Looks like it's an attempt to address some of the issues that can be found online.  There just doesn't seem to be any credible sources to contradict the information provided by the State of Delaware. Look forward to your thoughts. FactFidelity (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Most links were still cached by Google, anyway when I posted the link. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

text: See my Google search at http://members.home.nl/tgeorgescu/temp/Marquis%20Registry%20and%20Professional%20Biographies,%20a%20Div.pdf Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate/Unsupported Information

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marquis Who's Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425235655/http://kent.bates.edu/erm/index.php/erm/find/type/Biographies to http://kent.bates.edu/erm/index.php/erm/find/type/Biographies
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marquis Who's Who. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209070549/http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/about/about_us.asp to http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/about/about_us.asp
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130127203909/http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/reviews/reference/891751-283/marquis_biographies_online__ereviews.html.csp to http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/reviews/reference/891751-283/marquis_biographies_online__ereviews.html.csp
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130128011335/http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/reviews/reference/891249-283/reference_reviews_august_2011.html.csp to http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/reviews/reference/891249-283/reference_reviews_august_2011.html.csp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Removal of criticism does not comply with WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV requires criticism and praise comport with WP:DUE. It does not state nor imply that criticism must be added. And Tucker Carlson is not it. petrarchan47คุก 00:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Marquis Who's Who LLC is not affiliated with Worldwide Branding. (https://worldwidebrandingfactportal.com/2014/04/16/q-what-is-the-difference-between-worldwide-whos-who-and-worldwide-branding/) Lindenfall (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: Hopefully others will weigh in on whether this meets WP:DUE. 
: In 2007, referring to the International Biographical Centre, the American Biographical Institute, and Marquis Who's Who, Jan Margosian, consumer information coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice, lumped all biographical reference volumes together in a "warning to consumers" to be wary, labeled all such companies "pretty tacky", and added that "I don't know why they would put you in there if they weren't hoping to get you to buy the book. You truly have to look at how they are marketing and what the spin is. It's something you might want to watch out for".
Marquis has said they do not require payment of any sort. petrarchan47คุก 00:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Petrarchan47 The informed opinion of "Jan Margosian, consumer information coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice" is not considered a "conspiracy theory". and the information is WP:DUE in that it named Marquis and, therefore, will be restored. Lindenfall (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory posing as encyclopedia-worthy critique 

message: In the article about Usenet, mentions that it were infested with child porn are to a high degree obsolete. But multiple editors decided to keep them inside the article. I guess same applies to this article. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, . I don’t think what we’re talking about is comparable to “infested with child porn”. Please also see . Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Usenet