Talk:Brooks's

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source: About Brooks's, Brooks's Additional comments The "About" page was added to the club's website in March 2017; it reflects the subsequent changes made to the initial version of this history (timestamped 05:15, 2 May 2013) in revisions 553218853 and 556386537 later the same month.

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.

Wrong! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]