Talk:Garrick Club

Notability?
I fail to see the notability of this establishment, or any reason to list it here. Timdlocklear (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike its New York counterpart, there is no mention of notable/famous members, and the only source cited here is the club's website. Placing an AFD tag on page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdlocklear (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD is an Overwhelming "No," but...
I originally nominated this article for deletion because, with no previous knowledge of the subject, the article gives absolutely no hint to notability.

After more research, apparently there are several famous members and there is some mention of an extensive art collection.

I note, however, that the article in its current form is severely and damningly deficient. Without knowing anything about the Garrick Club, this just looks like some club fan or business owner created their own page for advertisement purposes (a POV which can be further solidified by the fact that the edit history says "Removed Advertisement.")

There are no sources, as well, aside from the club's own website.

I realize that my AfD recommendation did not go over well, but in all honesty if this place is truly as notable as many are claiming it needs some serious TLC, some sources, and explanatory text as to exactly why the club is significant.

As I pointed out in the AfD debate, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A user should not have to notice a subject here and then be required to go out and research it, the research needs to come here! For God's sakes, tell us why the darn (edit) place is important or just delete it already!


 * Also Noting that much of this article is written in British slang, and is not in line with quality standards for Wikipedia.

Timdlocklear (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The process of deletion does require that you make some effort at improving an article before nominating for deletion. A search is always a good start. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, all is well and resolved now, and I see that someone has taken the initiative of editing to improve the article. I have seen articles nominated for deletion for far less than questionable notability, so it is highly doubtful that my AfD nomination based on speculative reasoning is going to have a severe and unrepairable impact on the Wikipedia community. There will be no pleasing those offended that I don't know what the heck this is, but maybe the same folks will edit this to a point to where it actually explains itself. Timdlocklear (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume "unrepairable" is American slang for irreparable? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable members
A listing of current notable members would be a fine thing. But until someone with the knowledge, probably a member with the wit to edit WP, gets on board, I have meanwhile removed the following one entry to this page.
 * Adam Raphael JohnClarknew (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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) 09:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Membership figure
Article says "around 1,30 members" - should that be 1,300? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable members.
The two listings of past members and notable members seems to overlap as some of the "notable members" (on the bottom), according to the wikipedia articles about them, have passed away. (Noël Coward, John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, John Mortimer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.124.21 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a Who's Who of Actors?
This needs to be rewritten in the style o an encyclopaedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.86.193 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Major rework
This article was very poor and a sad state of affairs. Reading above, the notability was questioned. To explain, and perhaps this still is captioned, but there is a common impression that these secretive private members clubs of very senior public figures, including judges, politicians, businessmen, etc are the real place work gets done, or where people with connections will help other members etc.

In this case, like many, it's all male, which in itself has been extensively reported on just on the view that if these societies exist, shouldn't women be allowed to network, further their interests, etc.

Most of the content talking about past members and art works etc, has been lifted from the Garrick website. It's descriptive, it will be hard to independently reference.

For now, I've focused on the issues associated with the club that have been well reported in the major reliable broadsheets etc. Next I will add the implications of male-only membership to a society or club perceived as the place to do business. Montezuma69 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Has, "The Guardian" got it wrong yet again?
The Guardian bangs on about conflicting legal advice the Garrick received (from the same barrister) in relation to the Equality Act (I do hope the advice was free) affording (so called) rights to acquire membership of gentleman's clubs.

White's Club is older than the Garrick and does not allow women to join or visit (their club) even as a guest (apart from the late, Queen Elizabeth II).

There are no rights for men or women to join single sex clubs, unless their rules specify exceptions. It may be an anomaly in 2024, but the all male or female clubs, as things stand are entitled to set a membership criteria based on gender, despite the best efforts of Harriet Harman MP. Jaymailsays (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Footnote on women's clubs see also link
User:Jaymailsays has asked this to be taken to the talk page: an external link footnote on a see also link is not a thing on Wikipedia, right? A MOS:SEEALSO wikilink is either appropriate for inclusion or not.

I'm not even sure what purpose this footnote is meant to be serving. Does Jaymailsays want to externally link to some online lists of women's clubs "for balance"? Direct comparisons to the Garrick Club could go in the text if sources exist, but direct links to such websites don't seem like they belong in the "see also" or "external links" sections. Belbury (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Belbury There isn't anything that says we are prevented from having a relevant external link to a source. In the current context of the Garrick refusing to allow female membership, a link to female private clubs that mirror the rules of the Garrick is wholly appropriate. In the future, if content is updated and expanded to deal with the broader debate and we mostly think the footnote link can be removed, that's ok too. But we are not at that stage. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKSTOAVOID has Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject at #13. Your list blog article about women's members' clubs does not include any mention of the Garrick or gentlemen's clubs, so it is not directly related. Belbury (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Comparison with women-only clubs
Sorry, I may be missing something but why does the second paragraph say that the Garrick is unlike women-only clubs because only men can join? Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Unlike at women-only clubs such as Allbright, women are effectively banned from becoming members at the Garrick Club seems a clumsy framing for suggesting that women-only clubs are the norm, and that the Garrick is a surprising exception.
 * I've removed the text once already, so won't edit war it back out. Why do you think it's important to frame the lead in this way, User:Betterkeks? Belbury (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it's very clumsy. The Garrick is not unlike those women-only clubs precisely because they both have sex-based membership criteria. Women membership in the Clubland clubs is increasingly common but it seems to me the way it's written is probably violating WP:POV; it's passing judgment on whether that is good or bad. By all means report the controversy but no need to defend or condemn it and particularly not in the lead. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @ and, oh gawd, did I just walk into another snakepit? Of course saying women-only clubs are the norm, and that the Garrick is a surprising exception is absurd.


 * The second paragraph says that women are not eligible to become members at the Garrick Club, unlike at women-only clubs such as Allbright where women can, precisely because of WP:NPOV. Well, it tries to, and I didn’t want to alter it too much either and take it all the way to a backdrop that embraces DEI. I agree we can do better, and think that "effectively banned", a phrasing that is not used in the cited news article, seems like WP:POV. How about something along these lines?




 * Maybe the fact that objectionability goes beyond gender-based exclusion could also be mentioned, but perhaps that is too much here and the three sentences above should be it. Betterkeks (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The original paragraph in the article was Women are effectively banned from becoming members, and until 2010 were unable to visit the club even as the guest or spouse of a club member.
 * I think it's useful to clarify that the Garrick isn't the only London club where this is the case, but to describe London clubs as predominantly male-only would be incorrect (the list of members' clubs in London article puts it at less than 25%) and I'm not sure the specific comparison to Allbright is a useful one, if no secondary sources draw that parallel.
 * This is controversial because it is at odds with diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. isn't very clear about what you're saying is controversial (the Garrick, men's clubs, or all gender-restricted clubs?), and whose "efforts" it is at odds with. I don't know whether it's worth mentioning the current Garrick news cycle in the lead at all.
 * I'll cut your suggested paragraph down to an undisputed sentence about all-male membership and the Garrick not being unique in this. Belbury (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think, @Betterkeks, that your proposed wording is better but would agree with @Belbury that saying These clubs are predominantly male only is not correct. Likewise I think making explicit reference to DEI (we actually call it EDI in Britain) just raises more questions than it solves.
 * Contra @Belbury, I think mentioning that the Garrick has been at the centre of controversy re male-only clubs still existing in the lead is fine because it has (for whatever reason) been the club that has caught the most media anger for it. Arguably, it is what it is most famous for now. I would frame it slightly differently to emphasise that it has historically been at the heart of that controversy. I would word it thus:
 * I don't think this wording is perfect and I'd add citations to older articles as well as the current media cycle for the last sentence. One issue I think remains is that there have been news articles that there have been legal opinions by KCs saying actually women are eligible to be members per the current rules. My feeling is that that belongs in the section dedicated to the controversy rather that in the lead but I think it makes the wording of Women are not eligible particularly awkward. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw @Belbury changed the paragraph and I think it's better than what I wrote. My preferred wording would be something like this:
 * Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Has been criticised" may be clearer in this case, but sure, no objection to that. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are credible sources saying women have never been ineligible, then we need to change the wording, perhaps to not been accepted as members. Betterkeks (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. Not been accepted sidesteps the issue of whether they are eligible or not (KC's opinion etc) and I also prefer has been criticised as neater and more direct. I'll go ahead and make the change. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If there are credible sources saying women have never been ineligible, then we need to change the wording, perhaps to not been accepted as members. Betterkeks (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of you. Not been accepted sidesteps the issue of whether they are eligible or not (KC's opinion etc) and I also prefer has been criticised as neater and more direct. I'll go ahead and make the change. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)