Jump to content

Talk:List of Bohemian Club members/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

another RfC

Taking into consideration the previous—although non-identical—RfC and other discussion on this talk page there is consensus to remove honorary members from the article. Comments regarding the loaded nature of the RfC question noted, but it seems clear the participants in this and preceding discussions are experienced enough and sufficiently familiar with the subject matter not be influenced by it. Ostensibly, the position for inclusion is that their honorary membership status can be attributed to reliable sources. The counter-position is chiefly that the sources are not reliable. There is an additional aside, raised mostly in the previous RfC, concerning the relevance or 'noteworthiness' of including the honorary members; it is this, when taken together with the concerns expressed about the reliability of the sources, that arrives at the consensus not to include honorary members. Bellerophon talk to me 19:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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 "honorary members" whose membership is noted in Phillips' and not in standard WP:RS biographies? 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alteration of RfC

\ Binksternet removed everything after "members" in editing this RfC at [1]. The issue, however, specifically includes a source which was not accepted by consensus on the talk page. Collect (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't accept your non-neutral RfC question. It seems as if you want to influence the direction of the RfC by slanting the question in your preferred direction. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


The ACTUAL RfC asked:

Ought this list include "honorary members" whose membership is noted in Phillips' and not in standard WP:RS biographies? 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is succinctly and properly worded per WP:RFC and has just about nothing to do with the elided version edit warred onto this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion appeared to me to have resulted in a clear WP:CONSENSUS about which one editor seems to hold veto-power. This RfC is to re-enforce the consensus or to negate that consensus. The discussion above clearly indicates that Phillips used publications from the club itself, and the clear consensus was that such claims were insufficient utterly. WP:CONSENSUS is clear that one person may not simply assert that a consensus did not exist. (Who gives a fig for reliable sources written about other topics? This topic is the Bohemian Club to be precise) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have amended your leading question. The honorary members appear in many high quality sources about the Bohemian Club, not just one. You positioned the one source you listed as being against reliable sources, but you failed to mention that you are talking about other topics, not the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So let me get this straight: You wish to refer to reliable sources which do not mention the Bohemian Club in order to remove certain entries from this list of Bohemian Club members? The topic here is the Bohemian Club, not the Mark Twain biography or the Richard Nixon biography. The reliable sources which discuss the Bohemian Club are the ones which will be used in this list, not reliable sources discussing other things. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It is my "eccentric wish" as you deem it to have Wikipedia articles follow policies including WP:RS I am sorry that you call it "eccentric" but that is how the policy works. If a "fact" derives from an unreliable source shown to be unreliable per WP:RS - use by others does not magically make it "reliable". We have previously shown that many of the "members" never stepped foot in the club and some (Holmes, e.g.) never heard of the club until they were made honorary members. And one person was ambushed in order to ask him to become a member. This is based on actual non-club-published sources, by the way. [2] Holmes did not accept the "honor" per the telegram (though they flew their flag at half-staff when he died soon after). The club has enough "real members" not to need adding the illustrious "honorary members" who could be told in the middle of the night that revelers had chosen to give them the honour. Collect (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest then that you get in touch with the university so that they can revoke the PhD from the person who wrote the dissertation. I'm sure they'll take your word for it that his research was so flawed. (Your own credentials for this purpose are well established, right?) Once his thesis has been retracted there won't be any argument about WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The dissertation cites the SPS sources. If a source is unreliable, citing by a dissertation does not turn the frog into a prince. Your suggestion is about the most outré ever found on any talk page -- and is either an ad hom or simply a rant. Cheers, and kindly avoid both in the future. Collect (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
First, the club itself is the best source for who are its honorary members. Second, whatever suspicion may surround a primary source is dispelled when a third party observer analyzes the primary source to relay to the reader its relevant points. That's how Wikipedia works, despite your distaste. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is your position then get WP:RS changed. And, for example, if a NYT article cites a "hoax" the hoax remains a hoax. It does not magically "become true" because the NYT noted it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Your interpretation of WP:RS is not supported by the actual guideline, which instructs us mainly to use secondary sources, and, to a lesser degree, primary sources used for unambiguous statements of fact. Nothing in RS says that a secondary source should be second-guessed.
Your hoax example would render unreliable the single NYT hoax piece but not all NYT articles. Such an example has no bearing on this RfC. Nobody is questioning whether the Bohemian Club made Twain or Nixon honorary members. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • First, page 37 of the Phillips dissertation does not list "honorary" as a category of membership. Secondly, take the example of Charles Coburn. On page 56 of Phillips, he indicates Coburn wrote a thank-you letter citing a primary source. On page 57 Philips footnotes that the club lists him as an honorary member. Phillips doesn't independently assert Coburn was ever a member and we have no independent source to say Coburn was. Finally, the dissertation was a discussion of white male clubs and the stuff they do, not who was or was not a member. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Remove all such material Keep such material out of the article As noted repeatedly above, and I do not intrinsically believe self-published sources even if cited by another author, where no sources directly about the person actually make any such claims. Collect (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC) (Avoiding use of word "keep" lest anyone misinterpret this comment) Collect (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What self-published sources are you talking about? You complained about the Phillips paper at RSN but you got no traction for your view that a successful doctoral thesis is somehow not reliable. Now that you assert the sources are primary, you are much farther out on the limb you have chosen. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep honorary members. Collect is laboring under the misapprehension that a third party observer writing in a reliable source is somehow guilty of violating Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:PRIMARY sources. Of course we accept WP:SECONDARY sources which use primary materials, whatever they may be. The third party observer examines the primary material and passes on to the reader any information judged relevant. Below I have listed some reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Domhoff writes "Writers Bret Harte and Mark Twain were made honorary members." Also in 1975 – Domhoff's chapter "Bohemia Betrayed: Sellout to the Social Register", page 639 within the book On Bohemia: The Code of the Self-Exiled. Again, Domhoff writes "Bret Harte and Mark Twain were made honorary members."
  • Shoumatoff writes that "Honorary member Richard Nixon, meanwhile, called it 'the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine.'" Shoumatoff also lists Mark Twain as a member.
  • Parry, Albert. Garrets and Pretenders: A History of Bohemianism in America. New York: Covici, Friede, 1933. On page 219 Parry writes that Bret Harte and Mark Twain were made honorary members of the Bohemian Club.
  • "Early Artists of the Bohemian Club: San Francisco as the Center of West Coast Art ", Resource Library Magazine. "Mark Twain and Bret Harte were honorary members..."
  • Ben Tarnoff writes in The Bohemians: Mark Twain and the San Francisco Writers Who Reinvented American Literature, page 185, that Ina Coolbrith was "elected" to the position of honorary member.
  • LaRouchite Brian Lantz writes in Executive Intelligence Report November 1982, "Bohemian Grove, Jack London, and the cultishness of California's politics", "Mark Twain was made an honorary member in 1873; Theodore Roosevelt was made an honorary member in 1903."
  • Stephen J. Mexal writes in Reading for Liberalism: The Overland Monthly and the Writing of the Modern American West, page 249, that "In recent years former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former president George H. W. Bush, and former defense Donald Rumsfeld have all become members or honorary members."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Binksternet (talk • contribs)
  • Keep honorary members -- the source is fine, a PhD dissertation even! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The "source" used was self-published by ... The Bohemian Club. Period. Collect (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • So the Bohemian Club is now publishing doctoral theses? The URL of the Bohemian Club's website is http://library.sonoma.edu/regional/faculty/phillips/bohemianindex.php , the library of Sonoma State University? This is ridiculous. Phillips' thesis was published by Sonoma State University. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The "thesis" cited an unreliable source -- if the NYT "cited" the "Protocols" in an article a century ago, that would have made the "Protocols" into "fact"? Collect (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Unless I've missed something, it's Phillips who has the PhD on this topic, not you. If you think his research is wrong, then as I suggested above you should convince the university who approved it to rescind the degree and retract the research. Here at Wikipedia we rely on what is in high quality sources -- particularly the products of academic research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
            • What a totally useless aside. If a philosopher in 1920 cited the Protocols, that would still not make the Protocols a "reliable source" for anything at all. Reputable writers have been known to use "bad sources" and since the dissertation was only tangentially about any specific members, the author would not have questioned it at all, just like an old philosopher would have "accepted" the Protocols. The student specified the sources he used -- and since no result can be "more reliable" than its sources, the unreliable (and in fact shown to be unreliable) source still fails. Unless you would argue the Protocols is a "reliable source" once a recognized scholar referred to it as such? Collect (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Phillips specifically discussed members and guests; of course the dissertation includes them. Your assertion is ridiculous that the author "would not have questioned it at all". You were not there when he defended his thesis, and you were not there when he performed so much research to form its foundation. Your conjecture here is worthless.
                Furthermore, there is nobody except you who has questioned the accuracy of the Bohemian Club's own lists of members. Nobody! Everybody else accepts that the club's own lists are the best available source, so they use them. Did Phillips double-check his information against other sources? Certainly. His thesis would never have passed otherwise. This weak attempt to invalidate the primary source can only end in failure. And the fact is inconsequential that a very reliable secondary source has used various primary sources; we do not question these sources on Wikipedia. Instead, we accept as reliable a demonstrably reliable source such as this doctoral thesis. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep honorary members - sources are reliable. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove per my comment above. AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove Per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP. The Grove is a controversial group (e.g. Clinton Administration officials had to resign when their membership was uncovered) and we should make sure that "membership" is a clearly-defined term. Steeletrap (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Collect is very concerned about Mark Twain, so BLP does not apply there. The list entries should all have good references, so RS and V are taken care of. I don't see what your point is about the Grove being a controversial group; this RfC is about membership in the Bohemian Club, not about attendees at the Bohemian Grove. You are mixing up the Grove and the Club. You are also misunderstanding the reasoning when you say that Clinton's people had to resign their club memberships. Elizabeth Drew writes in On the Edge: the Clinton Presidency that David Gergen was asked by Clinton's handlers to quit the Bohemian Club because of politics, since Clinton was a centrist Democratic Party member but the Bohemian Club was mostly conservative and Republican. Drew writes that Bobby Ray Inman was also asked to quit the Bohemian Club for the same reasons; Inman was worried that old rumors from the gay media would surface again, so he quit Clinton instead of the Bohemian Club. At his third visit to the Bohemian Grove, Vernon Jordan gave a Lakeside Talk in the summer of 1992; he started working for Clinton around the same time. He was never a Bohemian Club member and so he is not in this list. Both Gergen and Inman could be added, using Drew as the source. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "BLP does not apply there" is irrelevant when sources fail WP:V and you acknowledge that the sources are weak for three specific persons. Sorry -- this appears to be quite nearly SNOWing at the RfC at this point in time. Collect (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • BLP certainly does not apply to Twain, Riley or Holmes, the three men who did not avail themselves of honorary membership. As I said, RS and V continue to apply to this article such that every entry should be supported by verifiable reliable sources. Your problem is that you wish to use other reliable sources, ones that do not discuss the Bohemian Club, to counter the ones that do discuss the Bohemian Club. The proposal is ludicrous on its face. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As I never said BLP applies to Twain your iteration of that is ludicrous utterly. The problem here is the primary source has been shown to be unreliable for several specific people by WP:CONSENSUS of a large majority of editors here. Cheers -- and I find excessive iteration of the same position by a single editor who lacks any remote shot at having consensus agree with him to be an exercise in futility. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, nobody but you has challenged the primary sources. At this discussion topic your concern was quickly addressed by referring to the WP:PRIMARY guideline which allows for "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". Here at this RfC, you have pointed to off-topic sources about Twain which do not mention the Bohemian Club. Primary sources are not in play at this RfC. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Srich, that is not the topic of this RfC. Please review the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Srich, your additional text above confirms that you don't seem to understand the topic of this RfC. SPECIFICO talk 13:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I recommend that Srich32977 initiate a separate discussion of what to do with the redlinked names in the list. I said earlier that my original intention was to fill them all out, but that job proved too extensive. Note that I recently turned one of them blue: Charles R. Blyth. Many more of the redlinked names can be similarly turned into valid biographies, though perhaps not all of them. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 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.

Adding Otis "Dock" Marston

Longtime Bohemian Club member Otis "Dock" Marston had an apartment in the Club building in the 1970's, and also had an adjacent apartment with his voluminous Colorado River collection in it. The collection went to the Huntington Museum in San Marino, CA. Another reference is here: [3] RRFWTommartin (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Key to chart?

What is the explanation of why some names are in blue and others are in red?

Also, if there are 2700 members, as stated in the article, then this list is far from complete. Shouldn't there be some qualification in the title? Perhaps "Partial List of Bohemian Club Members"? or "Selected List of Bohemian Club Members"? And also, some explanation of the selection criteria?

The blue names are linked to Wikipedia pages. The red names are not linked anywhere. Yes, the list is far from complete. Good questions about re-naming the page. That discussion is beyond my pay grade... yours, tomRRFWTommartin (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Bohemian Club members. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Bohemian Club members. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bohemian_Club_members/Archive_2&oldid=1218435258"