Talk:Beefsteak Club

WP:FOOD Tagging
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) 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order; stubby sentences
I have reverted edits to this article because an editor rewrote the article so that it was no longer in chronological order. If you want to try to reorganize the article, that is great, but try to keep your organization in chronological order to give the reader a historical overview. More important than merely reorganizing it would be do add more WP:Reliable sources to verify the information given. Also, it is not recommended to separate short one or two sentence paragraphs. You can combine short descriptions of the clubs in one substantial paragraph. The introduction to the article could be expanded to summarize the high points of all that comes afterwards. See WP:LEAD. Perhaps that would help you introduce points higher up that you thought were very important. See Wikipedia:Article development for more tips on developing article. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:18 am, Today (UTC−5)
 * I agree with Ss here in that each individual club does not need to be divided out into one sentence 'mini-paragraphs' but can be included in one large paragraph. The chronological sequence of the earlier article should be maintained for ease of understanding as to where these different clubs are historically in relation to each other. Jack1956 (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is not to defend the way I did it and certainly not to suggest that there aren't endless better ways still to improve those lines, but rather, as explained below, that Ss should not have simply deleted my work which also removed other improvements I made to those exact lines. Also he should not have implied the existence of some kind official policy on the matter ("it is not recommended to separate short one or two sentence paragraphs"). If he, or you or anyone wants to re-word it: super. But every change and especially every deletion must be properly accounted for. As long as this is done how could anyone not welcome the fellowship of fresh contributions. Ancillarydata (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

SERIOUS COMPLAINT
Dear Ssilvers,

You have now TWICE mass deleted an entire afternoon's work: work which was not the product of one 'saved change' but several, each one carefully explained. If you mass delete it a third time I will open a complaint against you.

I wish to object in the strongest and most open and honest terms to the way you undid many hours of my work, covering numerous changes, in a single swoop; initially (before my first protest that is) you justified your deletion a complex series of improvements purely on the grounds of your objection to one single alleged change. We will return to the substance of that alleged change shortly. Even now you have increased you objection to just two changes having deleted so very many disparate corrections and improvements. Furthermore your mass deletion of so many changes also means that I must now find the time not only carefully to consider this combined complaint and self-defense but also to the reply I gave when undoing your mass deletion. This sort of behaviour puts people off making changes to Wikipedia at all, especially the kind of properly broken down and responsibly explained multiple changes such as I made. If you think you can improve my changes, then I invite and welcome you to do so with the greatest pleasure and sense of fellowship possible. In other words, please do not merely delete other people's work requiring them to find the time to think through, compose, type and check such corrections as you subsequently demand before you lift your (pre-emptively demonstrated) threat that you will otherwise keep deleting their work (this is EXACTLY, fully and accurately your current position). I'm afraid that it necessary that you make what ever corrections you demand yourself, removing ONLY what you can justify the removal of.

As for your claim that I have made the entry less chronological I have no less that six answers:

Firstly, the irony is that it was precisely your good seld and absolutely not me who chose to move listing of the clubs OUT of chronological order back in 2009 !!! See: "13:17, 27 May 2009 Ssilvers (talk | contribs) (7,416 bytes) (→History: ce)"

Secondly, the entry was LESS chronological BEFORE I made my change today not MORE chronological. That is to say, it was giving the impression that the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street had developed out of (or was otherwise in some way heir to) other gridiron and beef themed clubs, due, (a) to the paragraph's position at the end of the entry and (b) due to its subtitle (something like "The Present Day Beefsteak Club") which, following the misleading (see below for explanation) subtitle "Early Beefsteak Clubs" above it in the text (I say misleadingly since it included mention of many clubs which were founded well after the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street) again it gave the impression that the position it held (before my change today) did imply a chronological sequence that was not in fact correct anyway. My change corrected that impression and made the article no less chronologically sequenced. I had in fact considered moving that paragraph about the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street to the middle of the entry, where it would be in true chronological order, and where, ironically, it had previously been, but, I did not think it proper entirely to undo the input of another contributor (i.e., that the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street deserved a special status and singling out within the article). That is one reason why I moved the specially subtitled paragraph on the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street from the end (where it appeared to imply position in the text in relation to Chronological sequence) What reason have you for suggesting that the changes I made were in anyway less chronological?

Thirdly, the previous sequence, listing all clubs except the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street as "Early Beefsteak Clubs" was misleading since many of the clubs mentioned there were found well after the Beefsteak Club of Irving Street. My own club, the Gridiron Club of Washington DC, is, I assure you very alive and I do not think that the that the noble and ancient Beefsteak Club of Irving Street would take kindly to the unchivalrous suggestion that they either are somehow newer than us or heir to our somehow apparently defunct past.

Fourthly, the article is entitled Beefsteak Club after all. The name Beefsteak Club has had been applied to many clubs over history but for the moment there is only one with exactly that name which the article mentions so it is not unreasonable to suggest that mention of that club (especially since otherwise it is very confusing that the article features a photo of their clubhouse and a figure with information about that club) should receive special status

Fifthly, leading on from that point, although, ironically, my change of today made the article more chronological not less, and although your changes of 13:17, 27 May 2009 made the article less chronological not more, I challenge your unilateral right to demand that other contributors prefer a chronological rather than a thematic basis for discussion. If you want the thing to be chronological you need to rewrite the thing yourself not simply block other people's efforts. Furthermore you would need to re-write the thing in such a way as respect other people's contributions and explains ALL deletions that you make INDIVIDUALLY. If what you are wanting is to create a concensus however, what you need to lobby for said consensus here on the discussion page. As I say however, the irony is that I personally would strongly prefer a chronological sequencing in this case and my changes did much to restore it.

Sixthly, some of the other clubs had become out of chronological order since earlier versions so that some of my changes of earlier today which you undid (on the grounds of desiring a chronological sequence!) merely restored an unchronological sequence.

As for your subsequent objection, "Also, it is not recommended to separate short one or two sentence paragraphs. You can combine short descriptions of the clubs in one substantial paragraph." It is necessary to point out that you have no special right to arbitrate whether it is or is not "recommended" that paragraphs be short. It is true that some poets have some quite interesting and complex ideas about using the typography of paragraphs simply to make the appearance of the lines of their poem more or less visually attractive on a page. I would however argue that within a Wikipedia entry paragraphs should be determined thematically. Are you suggesting that the clubs about which we know less do not deserve the dignity or status of having their own paragraph each? That they are in someway less important and should therefore take up less physical space on the page? That is the only way in which I can find these clubs to be thematically linked. I could imagine such an argument and if you wish to reword the information about those clubs accordingly then I am afraid that you need to find the time to do this yourself rather than demand that I do so or else you'll simple delete all my other changes too.

Furthermore I am personally offended by your line "More important than merely reorganizing it would be do add more WP:Reliable sources to verify the information given." By this you imply either that I have made the entry less reliable which is untrue or that you are casting aspersions upon the "importance" you attribute to my efforts. What specific changes are you accusing me of having made that require support by additional references?

Most seriously of all the tone of demands and the unilateral nature of your deletions imply (no doubt accidentally) that you are doing and writing these things from some position of authority from within Wikipedia. I'm sure you did not mean to come across this way and feel grateful that I have brought this to you attention.

You have now TWICE mass deleted an entire afternoon's work: work which was not the product of one 'saved change' but several, each one carefully explained. If you mass delete it a third time I will open a complaint against you.

Ancillarydata (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ancillary data. I have not read what you wrote above, because it is unreasonably long.  I can tell you that what you did to this article was not good editing.  You did not do any research to add new material, you merely reorganized it, in contravention of our style guidelines, to change the article from following the history of this topic chronologically to instead present it in a disjointed fashion, with lots of short, stubby paragraphs.  As I said in my edit summaries, if you really want to improve this article, you should do some research and add some well-referenced new information.  You are a new editor here.  Why not try to get along? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I have done some research and am in the process of adding new information, and references for such of the existing material as I can find. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ssilvers, I do not agree that it is "unreasonable" for a something as serious as a complaint against another member to have been supported by a earnest amount of effort, evidence and argument. It is not appropriate that you persist in publicly accusing me of inappropriately removing chronological sequence when, as I have shown, my only effect on chronological sequence has been to restore it whereas it was you yourself who have twice removed chronological sequence (13:17, 27 May 2009, then again [twice in fact] on 20 November 2010). Furthermore the revision you quasi-restored on at 16:15, 21 November 2010 once again ignored chronological sequence. Also I do not agree that it is appropriate that you should label another member's work as poor editing, especially without citing your reasoning. I do not agree that any of my changes were in contravention of "our style guidelines" and the accusation should especially not be levelled without presenting evidence. It is self evidently incorrect that the organisation of material is an unimportant thing and additional information is not the only way to improve any argument or presentation of information. It was not appropriate that you should use a public forum to say something as so abbrasive and irrelevant as "Why not try to get along?". And to suggest that a contributor who arrives late in the history of an article has fewer rights than someone who had made changes at an earlier date is also logically mistaken and a belief to the great disbenefit of the expression a exploration of truth. Ancillarydata (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology of the main club
I think it might make it easier for the reader if we finish the Sublime Society section off in 1867 along with the Society itself (I have tons of new stuff on its last years) and then move Irving's revival and the 1966 revival into a single section along with the Irving Street club, being careful to distinguish between the two currently existing manifestations, the Sublime Society and the Club. Thoughts gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that will ultimately produce the best clarity, go ahead. Happy editing!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is super work, Tim. I've increased the assessment of the article to B-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tim Riley, this seems a very good plan. Ancillarydata (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Glasse
While looking out material for this article I found this, from the correspondence columns of The Times (12 December 1845, p. 6):

It is very puzzling to me, and I am not sure if it ought to go in the article. Hannah Glasse was the Julia Child of her day, but: Any thoughts on this strange letter would be most welcome. – Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In Dec 1845 she had only just begun writing her cookery book, which didn't come out until the following year.
 * 2) She was completely obscure in 1845, so who would have thought to send a letter falsely purporting to be from her?
 * 3) She was never a professional cook (was quite posh in fact) – so couldn't have been on the staff of the club.
 * 4) There were no women members of the club, and as far as one can tell (pretty confidently) there were never any women guests.


 * I see another problem with this: Glasse died in 1770.  The Art of Cookery came out in 1747, so we are a century off.  Please check your time machine and advise.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good grief! Decade wise, century foolish! When you're as old as I am (i.e. 4,000 years) one century tends to elide into another. Thank you, Ssilvers – that goes a long way to explaining it. By eighteen (duh!) forty five, Glasse was an established classic, and some Beefsteak wag no doubt thought it amusing to send a letter signed in her name recommending boiled Duke. Presumably the words in quotes are actual quotes from her book. I think we can rapidly forget about this section of the talk page! – Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the Hannah Glasse article, as it shows her influence 100 years later. Is the duke in question Bernard Howard, 12th Duke of Norfolk, since this is Norfolk Curry? His article is devoid of interesting detail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there has been an interesting Duke of Norfolk since the one who fought on the good (but losing) side at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 (I remember it well; do not believe all you read in young Will Shakespeare's plays.) I'll follow up, and perhaps give Mrs. Glasse's article a once-over as a penance for the above idiocy. Tim riley (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Amendments to recent contributions
Other additions seem well-referenced and in conformity with WP standards Tim riley (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "family ancestors" – corrected tautology
 * "New Lyceum" –  "Lyceum" tout court is the idiomatic usage – see The Times, The Observer of the period, passim.
 * Removed POV "and therefore the Beefsteak Club can be said to be the third successor to the tradition of the Sublime Society" – it can be said to be anything. Citation (already in place but obscured by the insertion of these words) now visible.
 * Removed POV ("symbolically most potent")
 * Removed duplicate external link – link already included in ref section

Deletion by Peter

 * I moved the below posting here, as it had been posted to my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

re comment that intro material should not be deleted from "beefsteak Club": The second and third paragraphs of the intro material were more than summary and contained very details descriptions that were almost identical to large parts of the text that followed under the history section. These intro paragraphs were thus not "a concise overview" as suggested under WP:LEAD. If you review this info you will see that it is very repetitive. I checked before deleting these intro paragraphs that all the information was repeated and moved a few sentences to the lower paras to ensure that no info was lost. I may agree that a second paragraph is needed in the intro, but not the ones that are there at present.

Also, the current version does not contain the paragraph under "Other 18th and 19C clubs" that I wrote concerning the Melbourne Beefsteak club. See the last paragraph in my version of this section, which is fully referenced. Please at least reinstate this paragraph, or let me know that I can put it back.

Please rewrite the into paragraphs to reduce the amount of repetition and I will then be happy with the article. -- PeterChickenCampbell (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Peter. I put in your Melbourne paragraph, slightly streamlined, but I disagree that the lead is too long. The Lead should contain an overview or summary of the entire article, which it does.  Everything in the lead should be repeated at greater length in the article, with references, which it is.  See WP:LEAD.   Unfortunately, your changes to the Lead section obscured your other changes and made them difficult to consider.  Let us know what else you are trying to accomplish, and we can try to help you.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beefsteak Club. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100228204226/http://www.sublimesocietyofbeefsteaks.org/History/History_and_Context.html to http://www.sublimesocietyofbeefsteaks.org/History/History_and_Context.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319224847/http://dozer.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/cfa/cfa.php?view_cfa=3 to http://dozer.infodiv.unimelb.edu.au/cfa/cfa.php?view_cfa=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728070921/http://www.sublimesocietyofbeefsteaks.org/History/Songs_of_the_Sublime_Society.html to http://www.sublimesocietyofbeefsteaks.org/History/Songs_of_the_Sublime_Society.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)