Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:57, 21 March 2014

California: San Francisco Bay Area List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages policy only to include names on such lists if the person concerned has a Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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. . 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)

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. 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 , an honorary membership at the Whitefriars Club , honorary membership in the Concord Free Trade club , and membership in Lotos and possibly Players clubs in NYC , and an invitation to attend a Fellowcraft club dinner . 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.. 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", 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)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.
  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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

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)

• List-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• List-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
• Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
• San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
• WikiProject California articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment