Talk:List of Bohemian Club members/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tennessee Ernie Ford

I remember reading in a biography of Tennessee Ernie Ford written by his son that Ford became a member of the Bohemian Club when he moved to the San Francisco area in the 1960's. Somebody who does work on this list might want to confirm the fact and add this Ford to the list. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he appears in Domhoff page 33, also Time magazine in 1964. Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush

George W. Bush has never been a member of the Bohemian Club. His father became a member in, IIRC, 1993. Bricology (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. The "W" entry has no supporting reference, so I will remove it. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Full list on wikileaks

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove_Guest_List_2008

http://wlstorage.net/file/bohemian-grove-guest-list-2008.pdf

Alexander Shulgin for example is not presently on the wiki-article list but is in the wikileaks list etc.

86.44.238.236 (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The guest list is not the same thing as the list of club members. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK...but Shulgin even talks about being a member in his books, see his page, I've never even edited his. Secondly, at least referencing the wikileaks doc would be a good addition, don't you think?

86.44.238.236 (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If the wikileaks document has no way to tell members apart from invited guests then it is useless here. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Page could be libelous

There are no sources for many of the "members", and others appear to be mere attendees. Steeletrap (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC) I propose we change the page to "attendees" of Bohemian Grove. We can note when an individual is a confirmed member, per RS. The current version appears to be libelous, however. Steeletrap (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's contradictory to label the page as libelous but then to propose expanding the scope to include more people.

I do not think listing "attendees" is useful or as important as listing members. It takes a lot more prominence, determination and influence to become a member than to get invited to club events. A complete list of Grove attendees plus members would have more than 10,000 entries. The page would be awash in non-notables. (Hell, I've attended a few club events purely as a guest of a member, and I'm nobody.) The exception is the slightly easier membership path offered to musicians and those with theatrical production experience. Even these people need determination and dedication to become members, while guests do not.

The proposal about shifting the focus to include attendees is not the same thing as the concerns about the page holding controversial information about living persons. The latter concern can be fixed by finding sources for entries without a reference. You are welcome to help with this task. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no contradiction because we would then be labeling people accurately: individuals who attended the Grove but are not (to our knowledge) members. The current version is potentially libelous because it labels everyone who once attended as members. If any of these people are 1) alive and 2) attended but are not members, the page is very likely libelous. It is definitely libelous if I am correct in thinking that many of the people on the list never even attended, and are simply listed as having attended because conspiracy theorists think it would be interesting if they had. Steeletrap (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been riding herd on this article since I created it after I tried making a Category:Bohemian Club members and was told to listify the information. It is possible that people have added names without me noticing. At any rate, I have been trying to keep the list dedicated to members only, as that is the original scope of the article. If someone listed was only a guest and never a member then they should be removed. Again, you are invited to find references wherever they are needed, and you are free to remove guests who never were members. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

BC Constitution is self-published source only

It is pretty clear that organizations which publish membership lists are primary sources, and self-published as well. Unless a secondary reliable source reports on a person's membership therein, the information does not meet Wikipedia requirements for sourcing. Collect (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. You'll see at WP:PRIMARY that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The primary sources seen in the article are being used appropriately and within policy. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed all names lacking a citation

Given the WP:BLP issues raised here and at WP:BLPN, [1] I've removed all names lacking a citation. Though BLP policy clearly doesn't apply to all those previously named (many are dead), I can see no legitimate grounds for including any names without a reference - if it isn't referenced here, how are we supposed to be able to verify it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Redlinked names

It is normal Wikipedia policy only to include names on such lists if the person concerned has a Wikipedia article, or is likely to merit an article. Given the large numbers of redlinked names, I have to say that I'm dubious about the general applicability of the latter - and would suggest that such redlinked names should be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here's a version of the article as it appeared following two weeks of my attention. Every name was wikilinked, as you can see, even though some people had no articles written. I did that because I thought I would be able to create a bunch of stubs for these men, but I never got around to making articles for all of them. Rather, I pushed fewer biography articles to a higher C- or B-class quality, for instance Ulderico Marcelli, Domenico Brescia, Nino Marcelli and Wallace Arthur Sabin. The possibility still exists for the red linked names to have stubs created. None of them are insignificant characters. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK -- 2 out of 3 -- I was actually able to find a source for the mysterious F. L. Unger [2] but nothing else about him at all. He may have been a prominent attorney, but I would never leap to judgment based on initials alone. He did travel to Hawaii by ship and back to San Francisco -- but one can not use ship records in a logical manner here. Collect (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Artists whose work displayed by Grove mislabeled as 'members'

Dozens of artists who appear to have no connection to the Grove apart from having their art displayed by it are listed as "members." They include Samuel Brooks, Norton Bush, G. Cadenasso, Paul Frenzeny, Percy Grey, Christian Jorgenson, Larenzo Latimer, Xavier Martinez, Daniel O'Connell, Gorttado Piazzoni, Granville Redman, William Ritschel, Julian Rix, H.E. Smith, Jules Tavenier, Frank van Sloun, Virgil Williams, and Theodore Wores. The "source" for their membership is broken link on the fine arts website of Saint Mary's College of California. I searched around the website and found a link that indicates only that the the works of the above artists were displayed at the Grove. However, the link gives no indication that any of them were "members" of the Grove. This is an obvious violation of WP:V/WP:NOR. I tried to remove it and provided my rationale but got reverted without explanation. I would appreciate some comments on this. Steeletrap (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A visit by you is so pleasant, Steeletrap. Thanks for showing up.

If you had attended this brilliant art show like I did then you would have seen how the curators found that the artists were indeed members of the Bohemian Club. California's State Historian, Dr. Kevin Starr, who is a current member of the Bohemian Club, helped to research the showing, and he gave a lecture on the topic of "Early Artists of the Bohemian Club".

The Wayback Machine helps us to locate the webpage that I used as a reference back in 2009: https://web.archive.org/web/20070522001745/http://stmarys-ca.edu/arts/hearst-art-gallery/past-exhibits/2001-2002/early-artists.html. On that page you'll see it says that "the club's most notable creativity was among its members who worked in the visual arts." Members, not friends or whatever. Members. The webpage lists the following artists as members: Samuel Marsden Brookes, Norton Bush, Giuseppe Cadenasso, Maynard Dixon, Paul Frenzeny, Percy Grey, Thomas Hill, Christian Jorgensen, William Keith, Lorenzo Latimer, Xavier Martinez, Gottardo Piazzoni, Granville Redman, William Ritschel, Julian Rix, H. E. Smith, Jules Tavernier, Frank van Sloun, Virgil Williams, and Theodore Wores. This is the same list you have found.

If you can show that any one of these men was not in the Bohemian Club, ever, then feel free to remove that entry from the list. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot directly engage Binksternet. But I encourage everyone to read all sources posted here. I reiterate my view that there is no evidence that any of these people were members, and sources only establish that their art was displayed at the Grove. Steeletrap (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

How's that WP:Competence thing working for you? Welcome to a topic about which you apparently have no knowledge. Me, I've been interested in the history of the Bohemian Club since 1983 when I was a 22-year-old guest at a wine appreciation dinner held at the clubhouse in the city. If you had any knowledge in this topic, you would already know that Maynard Dixon and Xavier Martínez are among the most famous painters of the club. Jules Tavernier (painter) was one of the most popular Bo Club members, according to the Society of California Pioneers, though he couldn't be a 'founding' member if he and Paul Frenzeny joined the club in 1875, as is asserted by California Art Auction. William Keith (artist) joined the club in 1872, according to the website williamkeithpaintings.com. The California Pioneers also identify Samuel Marsden Brookes as a club member, and Keith's tutor.[3]

If you wish to help out with the issue of who is a member and who is not, you should try to find some corroborating or contradictory sources. Pointing to a reliable source and saying it is not reliable cannot be your best option. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Norton Bush covered at [4] Embracing Scenes about Lakes Tahoe & Donner: Painters, Illustrators & Sketch Artists 1855-1915 Barbara Lekisch; Great West Books, 2003 - 238 pages has an extensive biographical section on Norton Bush and does not describe him as a Bohemian Club member, although it identifies others as members. [5] mentions Bush in 1853, and specifically does not link him to the Bohemian Club at all. [6] which is about the Bohemian Club mentions Bush as a pallbearer at Brookes' funeral, but does not ascribe membership in the club to him. Alas -- I think we have another hole in the dam. Collect (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Norton Bush is not shown to be a club member by very many other reliable sources. The Spanierman Gallery says he was a member of the Bric-A-Brac Club (really the president) but they don't mention the Bohemian Club. On the other hand, the California Pioneers say Bush was a Bo Club member: Norton Bush. So there is little to go on here, just Kevin Starr and the Society of California Pioneers. I appreciate you looking further afield. The Embracing Scenes book in particular is an excellent source for more names of members. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is a mess and makes a mockery of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. I hope we can bring more neutral parties onto the scene. Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The empty repetition of inapplicable policies does not strengthen your position. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The source used in the article (I just repaired the dead link) does not say that any of these artists were members. I lack the competence to know if they were, but suggest better sources should be used. TFD (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the new URL. The source says "But the club's most notable creativity was among its members who worked in the visual arts," after which it lists the artists. I don't see the problem. The text is very clear. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The source does not establish that the specific people listed are members. If you can't comprehend this, I don't know how to proceed except to tell you that you're wrong. Ask a friend, maybe. Steeletrap (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's all about reading comprehension. The article talks about members who are artists, and then it lists them. It could not be made any plainer. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The relevant passage is as follows:

"But the club's most notable creativity was among its members who worked in the visual arts.

[New Paragraph] "The works on display date from the Bohemian Club's strongest period, from the 1870s to about 1915. Artists exhibited include Samuel Marsden Brookes, Norton Bush, Giuseppe Cadenasso, Maynard Dixon, Paul Frenzeny, Percy Grey, Thomas Hill, Christian Jorgensen, William Keith, Lorenzo Latimer, Xavier Martinez, Gottardo Piazzoni, Granville Redman, William Ritschel, Julian Rix, H. E. Smith, Jules Tavernier, Frank van Sloun, Virgil Williams, and Theodore Wores."

Inferring that everyone mentioned in the second paragraph is a member fails WP:V and basic principles of logic. Nowhere is it stated or implied that all of those artists are members. The context certainly gives one reason to suspect they are all members, but reasonable suspicion doesn't constitute verification. A reasonable counter-interpretation of the passage is that it lists people whose work in the visual arts was displayed at the Grove, many but not all of whom are members. This is just a matter of logic and reading comprehension and there's nothing to do if you can't see it.

On another note, it appears my BLP posting was a sterling success. Recognizing the policy violations of the page, several editors have come to it, added sources and removed unsourced content. There is a still a lot of work to do moving forward, but this is a good start. Steeletrap (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Changing of question posed in an RfC now at AN/I

The total and repeated disruption of the RfC is noted at WP:AN/I Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason this is so contentious?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What am I missing? Is membership somehow considered to be a "bad" thing by some? Is there a modern-day political left vs. right issue here of which I am unaware? If so, would someone share so those of us not clued in can understand (and, in my case anyway, just avoid this article)? If not, I can't understand why there is so much contention about issues discussed above. For example, why is the clubs list of membership not sufficient? What's wrong with noting, where possible, if someone's membership was honorary? Who cares if people were made members and didn't approve or didn't even know? I feel like there's some underlying issue not being disclosed to us regular, doltish editors. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason is based on editor interaction and personalities. Sometime in late February the exchanges began and have not let up. (My impression is that people want to be "right" and get their view accepted no matter what.) {{Calmtalk}} has not helped much, nor has my suggestion that the list be confined to bluelinked names. Alas. – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe, this list article was relatively quiet until late February when Steeletrap first visited the talk page, adding a couple of contradictory comments, noting that there are no sources for many entries, recommending an expansion of the list to include attendees, and also saying the list looks libelous. Steeletrap and I had previously been in conflict with regard to Austrian economics topics; see the ArbCom case which resulted in Steeletrap getting topic banned. So there's reason for Steeletrap to have no love for me.

Nothing much came of Steeletrap's complaint and suggestion in February, but the issue was apparently simmering. In March, Steeletrap took the issue to BLPN without any further discussion here: "Mass BLP violation, potential libel in List of Bohemian Club members". BLPN regular Andy the Grump stepped in to trim the unreferenced entries, and Collect came to chide me for my work up to that point. The BLPN discussion concluded with various comments, mostly about how Steeletrap's complaint was disruptive, especially noting that Steeletrap appeared to prefer that I be sanctioned in some way, more than she wished to have the list article be improved. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

When I took the issue to BLPN, it provoked criticism from the "regulars" (read: guild members/frat brothers), who didn't like me criticizing one of 'their own.' However, the BLPN posting was a success, in that it drew attention to clear violations of policy regarding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Even Binksternet doesn't dispute this. Steeletrap (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, this is the diff showing changes to the list article from the time of your first complaint/suggestion until now. A bunch of names were removed because they were unsupported by reference, despite the fact that they could easily be referenced: Kevin Starr, Domenico Brescia, Richard Bunger Evans, etc. Other names were removed because there was no biography written yet, for instance the name of Dr. Frank K. Ainsworth who was chief surgeon of the Southern Pacific Railway. Only one name was removed along with its references: Andrew Knight with two refs pointing to the Sonoma Free Press, a paper local to the Bohemian Grove. The references were http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/lakesidetalks2006.html and http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/camps2008.html , which can be seen on the Wayback Machine as https://web.archive.org/web/20060716124349/http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/lakesidetalks2006.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20090202175324/http://sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/camps2008.html . So it looks like the list had no problems with reliable sources. The biggest problems it had were that not enough entries were supported by references (though most of this was repairable), and that it had a lot of redlinked names, which it still does. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of this section is appallingly non-utile, including claims that any editor came here to "chide" another editor, or that the BLP/N posting resulted in any reprimand of Steeletrap or resulted in him being declared to be disruptive. This section has fallen into the great bottomless pit of recrimination and, were I not mentioned in it, I would hat this whole schmear post haste. Collect (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect is right, it is now a section about the talkpage, and editors are loosing focus that article talkpages are for discussions on how to improve articles. Perhaps it can help in re-focusing the discussion, but unless others have more (and new) "helpful" comments I will soon follow Collect's suggestion and achieve this thread. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Philips as a source

Specifically states that the people listed attended a summer encampment, and does not assert "membership" for them. Collect (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Phillips is not at all confused about who is a member and who is a guest. On page 15 of the main Phillips text he says he was invited to the Spring Jinks event at the Bohemian Grove, and that "the difference is that Club members can invited California guests for the Spring Jinks," but higher approval is needed for club members to invite guests to the summer encampment. To arrive at his list of members, he says he worked with a number of sources including "active Bohemian Club membership list[s] for 1941, 1971, and 1991," based on "those members who were listed on the annual summer encampment lists," which includes about 90% of the club. See pages 19–20. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

And since I read the source and he specifies that he used attendance, I fear your cavil fails. Cheers -- find an actual reliable source for membership if we assert that people are members. "Summer encampment" attendees are not necessarily "members." Collect (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Phillips uses a lot of different sources, to come up with member and guest lists. He is not confused about the issue, as you appear to be. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Try to figure out what Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993. means. I suggest that the guest were not members. I happen it to mean he also used Lists of guests to summer encampments in this doctoral dissertation which has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal AFAICT. Sorry -- the dissertation's ownwording fails to be convincing to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect, my friend, you need to read the whole Phillips work. The author looked at myriad sources, and is not stuck as you suppose on lists of men who went to the summer encampments, whether they be lists of members who went to the summer encampments, or lists of guests who did. Phillips looked at numerous corroborating documents stored in numerous locations. He says his sources include archives at UC Berkeley, the California Historical Society, the California State Library, and boxes of archived papers from several Bo Club members. Phillips also interviewed dozens of members, eight employees, and others with information—some 200 people in all. See page 21. Your complaint is ungrounded that Phillips failed to find sufficient materials in order to identify who was a club member. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I went through the entire dissertation. That you seem to think anyone who demurs from what you "know" to be the "truth" must have somehow failed in his editorial duties is far from laudable. If he even lists one person who is not a member, then he is not usable as a source - and it appears he relied basically on self-published sources in the first place. Cheers. And please avoid personal comments on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for not taking your complaint seriously when you have not pointed to any particular failure of Phillips. Name one man who is misidentified by Phillips. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In science, if one source is a contaminant, the entire result is compromised. I would expect you to understand that. AFAICT, the "Bohemian Club" asserted that many well-known artists were members, but the sources about those people do not corroborate membership. The sources we are left with are the later sources asserting folks were members many years ago -- but that is not exactly a "strong source" at that point. IIRC, the Rosicrucians assert Franklin was a member. [7]. I find no contemporary confirmation that some of the "famous members" were members at all (several are clearly marked as "honorary" and I suppose one may make anyone wishes an "honorary" member of any club) -- other than their inclusion in material furnished by the club. Definitely not in the established biographies of many of these people. Collect (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

How is this list article related to the scientific method? Answer: It is not. Instead, the list article is based on published reliable sources, which are commonly kept here on Wikipedia despite the presence of one or two errors. I guess that's why the guideline is called WP:Reliable sources rather than WP:Perfect sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you acknowledge that the club-published list has errors -- that you defend it is "only one or two" is interesting because it is "two out of two checked" which failed verification. In a random sample that sort of record is not really enviable nor defensible. Collect (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I acknowledge nothing of the sort. Rather, I am telling you that Wikipedia commonly accepts as reliable publications which have been known to publish errors; a fact already known to you. I don't see any errors in the club's lists. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The classic example is Mark Twain who has had a huge number of biographies -- none of which seem to mention the Bohemian Club other than one anecdote I found where he was reported to be "chairman" at a dinner, broke the cardinal rule of "no speeches" and was never invited back in a book about the Bohemian Club. The anecdote appears nowhere in any biography of Twain, and is not proof of "membership" at all. It is not even in his rambling autobiography. [ http://books.google.com/books?id=9ewiAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=mark+twain+biography++%22bohemian+club%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XY4rU6WfG4nUqgG5moGgDg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=%20bohemian%20club&f=false] where one expect to find some mention of a membership -- has none. So mark "Twain" as being a problematic claim for membership. The fact that he only lived in San Francisco for about three years and was not famous at the time is a minor problem -- he was there seven years before the official founding of the Bohemian Club. When the club was founded, Twain lived in Hartford, Connecticut. A long commute to San Francisco. In 1906 he wrote: " I haven't been there (San Francisco) since 1868" which, in my opinion, makes the "membership claim" exceedingly weak. He wasn't there when it was founded, and there is no record of him having been made a member of a club he did not know the very existence of! How many more do you need? Twain is about as well documented a person as lived in the US. Collect (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see the problem. Phillips says Clemens (Twain) was given an honorary membership. You don't have to be present to win this honor, apparently. Domhoff agrees that Twain was made an honorary member, and so does Weiss. Even Shoumatoff confirms it. None of these people are worried about whether Twain actually showed up at the clubhouse or the Grove. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And every "source" traces back to the club SPS itself. There are zero WP:RS sources on Twain making the claim that he was a member which do not rely on the clubs own list -- but any club in the world can list someone as a member who never went to it and could never have gone to it, and it is clear that Twain was not in San Francisco between 1868 and 1906. When the impossible is refuted, one must be left with the possible. Sorry --- the source is the club, and as such is less than reliable when it is refuted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And it clearly impossible for him to have been an "early member" if your supposition that it was "honorary" is allowed -- he lived in Hartford. The only clubs I can find him associated with are The Hartford Monday Evening Club [8], an honorary membership at the Whitefriars Club [9], honorary membership in the Concord Free Trade club [10], and membership in Lotos and possibly Players clubs in NYC [11][12], and an invitation to attend a Fellowcraft club dinner [13]. He joked about a "Juggernaut club" which did not exist in reality. The "Bohemian Club" is found nowhere in his autobiography or any of his published works or letters. In 1899 he was given honorary membership in the Savage Club in London ... but no record of him attending it other than one dinner.[14]. And we ought not elide the "Routledge Encyclopedia of Mark Twain" which has him a member of the "English Society for Psychical Research" which hardly seems a "club", [15] not a single mention of the "Bohemian Club" in the massive tome of 848 pages. As all of your sources trace back to a single source, the club itself, and this encompasses every single major work about Twain and zero of them mention that "club" I suggest we hold an RfC here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC dated 21 March 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ought this list include Mark Twain? 13:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion:

As noted above, the source used in this list uses the primary source published by the Bohemian Club itself. No biography or reference work on Twain mentions that club at all, and the period in which he was supposed to be a member of that club was one where he was not even in California, much less in San Francisco. It appears in no published material by Twain or in his letters, nor in encyclopedias about Twain (Routledge etc).) As it is only found in what the club itself asserts, and no actual other works on Twain even suggest a membership (all works and clubs are in the discussion above), I suggest that sources based on an unreliable source (the club's own PR) are also therefore unreliable here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to me that this raised a fairly fundamental problem - there is nothing to prevent a hypothetical club declaring someone to be a 'honorary member', without the consent (or perhaps even the knowledge) of the individual concerned. As to whether that is the case here, I don't know - but we should probably be wary of stating as a fact that someone was an 'honorary member' without evidence that they acknowledged such membership. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy is hereby declared a member of the Wikipedia Biography Cabal. Honorary membership and he is now stuck with it. :) Collect (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment The publications of the Grove are not academic and thus do not meet RS muster. We should delete every 'member' listed by the Grove that is not substantiated by secondary sources. This not only is essential for the verifiability but also the notability of information we add to Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The answer is in the sources: when an author talks about who is a member of the Bohemian Club, does the name of Mark Twain or Clemens come up? Yes, it does. Phillips talks about it, listing honorary members. Domhoff says that Twain was made an honorary member. Weiss mentions Twain. Shoumatoff mentions Twain.
  If the RfC was titled "should honorary members be listed here?" then I would say yes, they should, despite the fact that a few honorary members have not attended any club functions. Again my basis is in the reliable sources: do they discuss the honorary member? It does not matter whether the ultimate source was the Bo Club itself; when Phillips and Domhoff and Weiss and Shoumatoff print it, it becomes reliable for Wikipedia.
  Note that Steeletrap's 'vote' is not about Twain, it is about a much larger problem that Steeletrap has with this list, that it should not exist at all; a position which is at odds with several publications that list club members. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your only problem is not a single source about Twain in tens of thousands of pages says anything remotely like the claim. And your sources all derive directly and specifically from a self-published claim from the club itself. WP:RS specifically excludes such sources unless 2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); and it is reasonably clear that the basis for all your sources is that Bohemian Club self-published source. I assume the editors who did not "phrase their opinion as a Keep or Oppose" are not precluded from dong so, so your point about User:Steeletrap is totally irrelevant here, and verges on disruption of the process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your logician's opinion, Collect. You will note that Wikipedia's guide on WP:Reliable sources does not include a section whereby the source is rendered unreliable because its information came from the subject under discussion. It does not matter whether you think it is "reasonably clear" that the Bo Club is the original source for the claim that Twain was made an honorary member. Who else other than the club would be the best source for a list of people they have made honorary members? I showed four reliable, third party sources that say Twain was made an honorary member. Four is quite enough for this claim; two would have been more than enough. Your thousands of sources which do not make the assertion are not relevant. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Remove A source which is self-published as its initial root is subject to reasonable review -- and since not a single source about Twain has anything remotely near the claim, it is reasonable to use the major works on Twain for any claims of membership in organizations rather than using a self-published membership list. In the case of Twain, were the claim supportable, one would expect to find at least one editor in the history of publishing works on Twain to have found the fact. As none did, it is reasonable to accept that the initial source is not reliable, and that any source once discredited, is discredited on Wikipedia as a "reliable source" on the similar areas involved. Collect (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Remove Per WP:V and WP:RS. Steeletrap (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:V and WP:RS -- an academic source gives a perfectly good answer to the question. The amateur researchers active on this thread do not have the credentials nor the authority to gainsay what is in that source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the writers about Twain are amateurs? Or that the Routledge Encyclopedia of Mark Twain is an amateur source? Interesting position, that. Usually Routledge tomes are considered strong reliable sources on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No darling -- the clear reference was to amateur researchers on this thread. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Remove When it comes to Biography pages, I always think it's best to be cautious. I agree with Collect, we need one more source. JamesRoberts (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be worth something to add an asterisks to those honorary members and make a comment at the end of the page stating some sort of disclaimer? The Bohemian Club undoubtedly put time and effort into associating these people with the core values of their club, I think that at minimum these honorary members are noteworthy of being mentioned on this page.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of "member" is clear and colloquial. "Honorary member" has an obscure and indeterminate meaning. Half or more of viewers won't notice or follow the asterix and will just assume that "honorary members" (a term that has no clear meaning, and could encompass involuntary associations) are "members" of (i.e. active, regular participants in) the Grove. Honorary member therefore shouldn't be included on the list. Steeletrap (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comatmebro, you can see that the word "Honorary" is placed next to the name of each honorary member. I think that is better than an asterisk system. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In the case at hand, we have no reason to believe Twain even knew he was an "Honorary member" at all -- the honor does not show up in any of his papers, writings or letters at all, nor in any books about Twain. Collect (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So what? This is a list of Bo Club members, not a list of things Twain cared about, or a list of things Twain was known for. As a list entry, Twain is supported by four sources mentioned here on the talk page. Should we put this fact in the Twain biography? Of course not—it is too unimportant to his biography. Yet the Twain entry fits the scope of this list and is well referenced. So much for your discovery of an Achilles heel through which you can shoot this article down. What nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Twain is supported only by the BC in its self-published PR list. As it appears in zero works by or about Twain, nor in his letters or papers, nor in his autobiography, and has the teensy complication that he was nowhere near San Francisco until the club was 34 years old, I suggest that the listing was not only "erroneous", but should have been known to be erroneous by those promoting the list. One anecdote promoted even has Twain "meeting" Harte at the club ... which was impossible as they were friends from the Angels Camp prospecting days. I suspect one problem is that Twain used the word "bohemian" in 1867, but not in the context of being part of a club which would not exist for another five years. Collect (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your suspicion has no bearing on this matter. Twain's physical location has no bearing on whether the Bohemians named him an honorary member—he could have been anywhere. You appear to be spinning your wheels. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They could have named Pope Leo XIII a "member" but if the person has no records backing up the claim, and trained historians find nothing to substantiate the claim, and not a single book about the person mentions the claim, and voluminous amounts of personal documents show no evidence for the claim, would you allow it? Sorry "could have named him an honorary member" is a ludicrous standard for us to take when ascribing actual membership of any sort to anyone. Collect (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

California's "trained" historian Kevin Starr writes that Twain was an honorary member. Robert Howe Fletcher wrote in the 1898 Annals of the Bohemian Club, page 54, that Twain "became an honorary member of the Club October 17, 1873, while Bret Harte also became an honorary member about the same time." Whether the Bohemians would have named Pope Leo an honorary member is beyond the scope of this RfC, though of course they could have done so had they wished. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - On the subject of honorary members, its not unusual for fraternal organizations like this to adopt members in this way for any number of official or unofficial reasons. Quite often the only reference to this kind of activity beyond interpersonal communication is in the organization's records. Its likely that the group wanted the bragging rights that Twain/Clemens was a member and nothing more. Given the sources cited, I would guess that this is the case, but without other sources to back up that theory its just conjecture. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Remove If the article explained why these members were inducted as honorary members of the Bohemian Club, it would be worth including them on the list. Until this article has the capacity to do this, I do not think it is necessary to include these people on the list.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I did a bit of searching and it seems that Mark Twain was known to be an honorary member as far back as 1933 (apparently republished in 2005), with the publication of Garretts & Pretenders: A History of Bohemianism in America by Albert Parry, which states, "In 1873, Mark Twain and Bret Harte were elected honorary members." (p. 219). All I've got is the Google Books reference but I think the reference should still be valid. Even if the book sourced this fact to the original membership list, the fact that it was published in this secondary source suggests that the information should be included. Ca2james (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem is simple: The book is sourced to ... The Bohemian Club itself. No biographies of Twain so much as mention it, and Twain for sure never visited it (He was in SF for a few hours in 1906 to make a speech only)). If Twain never considered himself a member, should we call him one? Or if the KKK named Obama as an "honorary member" how far would the laughter peal? Collect (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Being given an honorary membership isn't the same thing as applying to become a member of a club. An honorary membership is something that's conferred upon another person and does not necessarily require either their consent or acceptance; moreover, the person doesn't have to visit the facility or acknowledge the honorary membership for it to have been awarded. The fact that Twain didn't acknowledge or repudiate the membership does not mean that his name should be excluded. Instead, because there is clearly controversy here, that should be noted with the entry.

Now let's consider your example: suppose the KKK did name Obama an honorary member (the laughter would definitely peal because we all know that this would never happen but let's play pretend). Would Obama, like Twain, ignore this situation? No - he would repudiate the honorary membership, and so if we were making such a list we would include his name with a note that he rejected the membership. Ca2james (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your argument would fly if this discussion were taking place at Talk:Mark Twain, however the context of the topic at hand is that Twain has indeed been mentioned repeatedly by observers of the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Remove See no reason to list honorary members, especially if they don't acknowledge this in any way. AIRcorn (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Consensus appears to be "remove" As only two editors stated "keep" and provided no policy-based reasons, and the clear majority !voted to "delete" it is reasonably clear that there is no basis for retaining contested lists of "honorary members." Collect (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• No consensus for change is shown yet. Opinion appears divided, with policy-based arguments supporting the status quo. The argument against having primary sources failed, and the argument about what would go in Mark Twain's biography was irrelevant. Twain/Clemens was seen to be repeatedly mentioned in reliable secondary sources discussing the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You already !voted -- and are in a clear minority on this. Your attempt at a "supervote" and interpolations arguing with many editors here are contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please abide by the clear [[WP:CONSENSUS[[ here. Collect (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia works by consensus, not voting. The strength of the arguments here is weighted toward the fact that so many WP:Reliable sources discussing the Bohemian Club also discuss the various honorary members. The arguments against honorary members range from 'I don't like it' to pointing to reliable sources written about other topics such as Mark Twain's life and career. Who gives a fig for reliable sources written about other topics? This topic is the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliability of Club claims about "membership" of celebrities

A painful surprise came in 1892 when James Whitcomb Riley was accosted in his hotel by a proud representative of the Club. (Riley told the person that it would have to go through his business manager!)"

Garrets and Pretenders: Bohemian Life in America from Poe to Kerouac by Albert Parry; Courier Dover Publications, Jun 17, 2013; 480 pages.

Seems to show why the problem exists. Collect (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is not called List of people who agreed to be Bohemian Club members. Your source shows that the Bohemian Club members honored James Whitcomb Riley with free membership. That fact that Riley did not care for the membership is not what this list is about. Certainly some text can be added to the opening blurb naming those who never took advantage of membership. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OK -- so you agree that people were named who never may have even known they were named honorary members. Neat. Collect (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, we should make a separate column for "honorary members." Otherwise you're just spreading misinformation, Binksternet Steeletrap (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You missed the part where every honorary member has the word "honorary" entered in their list entry. No misinformation is being spread, thank goodness. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you know better than to put words in my mouth, words I never stated. Your bolded sentence fragment is your own, not mine, and not a quote. I expect that every person who was given honorary membership was notified by the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that backs up your 'expectation'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources saying that the Bohemian Club failed to give notice to any man that it elected to the position of honorary member. That complete absence is how I derive my expectation.

The question is not relevant anyway, since this list article is supposed to be holding only members, standard and honorary, that are supported by reliable sources. If a reliable source says that the person is a club member or an honorary member, then they go in the list. It's really that simple. The intention has, over time, fallen somewhat short of the mark, but if anybody spots an insufficiently referenced entry then it should be removed. Also, any entry which is not a member but a guest. I have removed several such entries recently. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What we have is evidence that the "membership" was frivolously granted (Holmes) to people who had never heard of it at all. And that some regarded it as a nugatory act. Collect (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the honorary members were told. We have evidence that the club granted honorary membership to Riley who refused the honor when he was notified. We have evidence that the club granted honorary membership to Holmes, based on the acclaim given to the poet's work (not frivolous), but the news was ill received because of the late hour of the telegram. Nevertheless, the New York Times obituary for Holmes said that he was an honorary member of the Bohemian Club, and that the club had sent flowers to the funeral. Regarding Mark Twain, we have no indication from him at all, negative or positive. We just have a dozen reliable third-party sources saying he was made an honorary member, for instance the Federal Writers' Project which says "Among the honorary members elected to the club have been Mark Twain, Bret Harte, and Oliver Wendell Holmes." (See San Francisco in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City by the Bay, page 183.) Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This page was a disaster, with all sorts of totally unsourced and poorly sourced names, until my BLP posting a month or so ago. Steeletrap (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So basically, 'membership' of this club isn't contingent on the agreement of the supposed 'member' - and we have no actual evidence that it is always even contingent on the knowledge of the supposed member. How then, is this supposed 'membership' actually an attribute of the 'member' at all? To my way of thinking, all it amounts to is a statement by the club that they consider the person a member - whether the person likes it or not. That the club acts in this way might possibly be worth commenting on in the article on it, but I fail to see why an encyclopaedia would need to compile a list of such individuals - it tells us precisely nothing about any meaningful relationship between the club and the person concerned. It is trivia at best, and potentially misleading at worst. Such so-called 'honorary members' should only be included where sources clearly indicate that they considered themselves to be members - anything beyond that is just puffery for the club. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is being blown out of proportion. There are only a few honorary members who did not avail themselves of the honor, all of whom have been mentioned here (Holmes, Riley, Twain). By far the majority enjoyed the club's largesse. Typically, honorary membership was granted to a man who had been a regular member for many years. Certainly the club could elect anybody they wished for puffery reasons, but they rarely granted honorary membership. It was expensive to host people for dinner, drinks and a night or two of lodging, for one. The club preferred that members pay their own way.

Regarding puffery, I would hate to see poorly referenced names added to the list of members, just to inflate their reputation. Instead, I think we should look to see whether multiple RS talking about the club also mention the honorary member. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Um -- we have shown that three were iffy -- that does not mean that research would not show similar status for others at all. Your "by far ... largesse" comment is not supported by any reliable sources, and appears to be an unfounded assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been looking very hard for a month now and you have not found another person who did not avail themselves of the club's honorary membership. Whatever "iffy" means, it does not apply to Holmes who was clearly made aware of the honorary membership, nor of Riley who was also made aware. The only one we don't know about is Twain. Nevertheless, a dozen reliable sources tell us that Twain was made an honorary member. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(od) I am glad you find the Mark Twain archives to be "off topic" for claims about Mark Twain. Unfortunately I tend to think papers directly related to a person and exhaustively studied are actually reliable sources for information about that person. Riley shooed the club member away, and Holmes was annoyed. Clearly I could start a "Gnarph Society", name you as a member, and then publish that "fact." And I stopped at three because I found three in a matter of minutes. Your assertion that therefore I could not find more is absurd and Beckett-ish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not a celebrity; I would be horrified to find that the local chapter of the KKK named me an honorary member despite having never applied, never attended an event, etc. I would strenuously fight being labeled a member and I'm concerned that some Wikipedia editors, looking at a book or paper citing KKK internal records, tangentially mention me as a member. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)