Talk:Brooks's
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Spelling of club name
[edit]Scepticism about the entry of this club under the original spelling has proved correct (after discussion with the club itself, contact details here: http://www.csma.org.uk/mainclub.htm#brooks, on 20 Dec 2007) and I've therefore pasted the entire text into the current entry. Robma (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
History
[edit]I very much like the recent revision by User:Phinn, but the article might now be read to suggest that all 27 founding members had been blackballed by White's. Humbling for the club, if true, but is that what is meant?45ossington (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you 45ossington. I have found an additional source that clarified that only two establishing members of the preceding 'society' established at Almack's on Pall Mall had been blackballed by White's and I have now amended the article accordingly. Phinn (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
List of former members
[edit]The (anonymous) excision of the list of notable former members strikes me as a bit precipitate and indeed discourteous in tone.
- "Wikipedia is not a list" - no, but it contains many lists.
- "unreferenced" - Dod's Parliamentary Companion, the source for the vast majority of the entries, is listed at the bottom of the article. Perhaps it would be better if each entry had its own citation, but we should not permit the best to become the enemy of the good.
- "ridiculously long" - I can see that the list may be thought to unbalance the article, in which case it might be better in a separate article of its own.
- Overall, I think an historical list of those who were members of London's foremost Whig club is potentially of some value, and quite a lot of work went into it. I am restoring the list temporarily, pending further discussion.
45ossington (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Alleged exclusivity
[edit]What is meant by describing Brooks's as one of the most "exclusive" clubs in the world? The claim to extreme "exclusivity" is unverified and unverifiable. Eg, what proportion of candidates or potential candidates is rejected; how does that compare with other clubs, etc.? If what is meant is that Brooks's is one of the most socially prestigious clubs in the world, then it would be better to say so (if, which I doubt, a reliable source can be cited). 45ossington (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)