Talk:List of gentlemen's clubs in the United States/Archive 1

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) 10:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Several Erroneous Listings in Seattle & Bellevue
The Bellevue Club and several Seattle clubs, including the Washington Athletic Club, are listed as Gentlemens Clubs when they are clearly athletic clubs and serve very little social function. The Bellevue Club even has a children's swim team for petes sake! As far as I can tell, the only one of these clubs that should actually be termed a Gentlemens Club is The Rainier Club. (Ahfretheim (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

The Prepare for Genocide Club
Is this a real club? A Google search finds no information at all for a club of this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.117.91 (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Yacht Club, et al
This WP entry seems to be rather capricious regarding what kinds of "gentlemen's clubs" are appropriate to be included. The New York Yacht Club is a perfect example. It is neither restricted to men (women can be members in their own right), nor is it a "gentleman's club", as much as it is a sporting club. There is already a separate WP entry for sporting clubs. Since it would rather negate the point of the WP entry to expand it to include all other sporting clubs and clubs that allow women, I've removed it, and am going to examine the others on the list to see if they conform to the generally accepted definition as stated in the WP entry: that it be a club with restricted membership, devoted primarily to social interaction, and with a predominance of gentlemen (as opposed to a specific profession or trade), and with at least a predominance of male members. Bricology (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Much needed! Thanks for your sharp pencil editing. What about if a club qualified in the past but no longer does? Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that former gentlemen's clubs qualify. As the lead notes, most now admit women. --Bejnar (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

File:ULCNY.JPG may be deleted
I have tagged File:ULCNY.JPG, which is in use in this article for deletion because it does not have a copyright tag. If a copyright tag is not added within seven days the image will be deleted. -- Chris  01:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Integration of defunct or merged clubs
There seems to be no particular reason to remove from a list organized by state, those clubs that are defunct or have merged. In fact, as it is a rather long list and there is no notice that the first part is restricted to currently active clubs, the existing separate section does tend to get lost. They can be easily identified in the integrated list by their closure dates. If there is no objection, I will integrate those five clubs back into the list. As a matter of historical perspective, it does appear that there is a trend over the past 15-20 years, for this type of club in the US to cease being active. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Misquamicut Club
The Misquamicut Club of Watch Island, Rhode Island was deleted as it was/is a country club, not a gentlemen's club. --Bejnar (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely synthetic . ..
How many of these clubs are referred to elsewhere in WP:Reliable sources as "gentlemen's clubs"? Very few, I would say, particularly a club like this one. Can we change the name of the list to "Private social clubs?" That would certainly be accurate. The present article title is not accurate. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That a club admits women doesn't keep it from being a traditional gentlemen's club. The article gentlemen's club makes this abundantly clear. You're an American in California. To most Americans, "gentlemen's club" usually means a strip club, as this article (and the main "gentlemen's club" article) point out. In the UK, where this sort of city club originated, however, they are universally referred to as "gentlemen's clubs" (as in India, Hong Kong, Australia, and other former British countries). "Gentlemen's club" is the prevailing name for this sort of club throughout the English-speaking world. Most of the original English clubs on the Pall Mall now admit women. That doesn't make them not gentlemen's clubs. A "private social club" could be anything (the Gambino crime family's famous Ravenite Social Club comes to mind). A gentlemen's club is of a particular sort as denoted and described in its article. All the clubs on this list plainly fit the bill. That the term "gentlemen's club" isn't widely used in the US is of no consequence. If a club is "a members-only private club of a type originally set up by and for British upper class men in the eighteenth century, and popularised by English upper-middle class men and women in the late nineteenth century," it is a gentlemen's club, regardless of whether it now admits women, is located in the US, has a tie to a particular institution (be it the Oxford and Cambridge Club in London or the Harvard Club of New York) or has a particular concentration like yachting, bibliophilia, philately, comedy, etc. The Ravenite Social Club may have been a private social club, but it wasn't a traditional gentlemen's club. The Metropolitan Club of San Francisco, like the The University Women's Club in the UK and the Colony Club in New York, however, is. I find it telling that you're the lone detractor to this out of the several years this article has been on Wikipedia. The article isn't at all synthetic, and your tag should be removed. Clubwiki (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While you're right that admitting women would not neccesarily prevent it from being a Gentlemens Club in a sense, admitting CHILDREN absolutely would, and several of these (e.g. The Bellevue Club) DO, as would being entirely a fitness club with no social purpose. (Ahfretheim (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC))

OK, I take your point. But the list says American gentlemen's clubs. I only say that the article, since it is about the U.S. (presumably Canadians and Latin Americans don't have a role in this), should have a title that Americans would understand. This page has a lot of traffic http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/List_of_American_gentlemen%27s_clubs, but maybe those folks just want to find a place where they can ogle naked women. I don't want to be critical of this list, but I feel that its defenders should seek to make it better, not keep it the same. May I suggest: List of North American private social clubs? Then we could put in some Canadian clubs as well. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. Again, even in the US, "private social club" can mean anything. What would prevent the Ravenite Social Club from being placed on your list? Nothing. The traditional gentlemen's club is an identifiable, definable thing, and everything on this list fits that bill. If anything is "synthetic," "private social club" is. While you might call a strip club a "gentlemen's club," I'm a member of several of the clubs on this list and can assure you that the term "gentlemen's club" is alive and well in the US to refer to these clubs. Leave the article be. "Gentlemen's club" properly links to it in discussing the American clubs, as to the lists for India and other places. Clubwiki (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clubwiki, I too belong to a few of the clubs listed here. What do my fellow members call them? "Clubs", or perhaps "private clubs". I have never heard even old-timers refer to the clubs as "gentlemen's clubs". But what we members might call them is still not the issue at hand. WP isn't for a tiny minority of initiates to communicate with each other; it's an encyclopedia, and as such, it must err on the side of communicating with the broadest audience. And to that audience, the term "gentlemen's club" means one thing: a jiggle joint. Really. Google "gentlemen's club". How many of the top 100 hits refer to clubs like the Bohemian? One. This very entry. You have to wade through to hit #137 before you find anything that doesn't link to a strip club, and even that is to another WP entry, for White's. You say "'private social club' can mean anything". No, it can't. It means a "private" (not open to the public) "social" (intended to engender social intercourse) "club" (business entity). That handily defines more than 90% of the clubs listed here; that's far greater accuracy than the term "gentlemen's club" describes say, the Francesca, Metropolitan, Town & Country or Century Club -- four women-only clubs listed here. Bricology (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Private social club" is imprecise. A "list of private social clubs" would have to include country clubs, dedicated mob hangouts, the Knights of Columbus, Rotary Clubs, and anything else that is (1) private, (2) social, and (3) a club. Plainly, that's not what this list is of. This is a list of gentlemen's clubs, a type or subset of private social club, within the meaning of that term as defined in the article "gentlemen's club," which are located in the US. There's nothing synthetic or wrong with the name of this article. That some of this type of club are for women means nothing (The University Women's Club is listed in both the main gentlemen's club article and the List of London's gentlemen's clubs), because they still fit the definition of "gentlemen's club" in the "gentlemen's club" article. In any case, if your qualm is to including the womens' clubs, then advocate for their removal from the list. Changing the name of the list to something overinclusive and imprecise is not the solution. Clubwiki (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clubwiki, you have repeatedly claimed that "private social club is imprecise" but you have never explained what is supposedly "precise" about the "gentlemen's" part of "gentlemen's club". Please -- do explain. Which of the two most common meanings does it precisely refer to? -the British definition of "a man whose income does not derive from his own labor"? -or the American definition of "a man with refined manners"? If it's the British meaning, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a list of American clubs would be bound by that meaning. Your use of the term certainly doesn't reflect the vastly prevalent American use of the term "gentlemen's club", which has nothing to do with manners and everything to do with female flesh. As I've pointed out, a simple Google search reveals the prevailing (and precise) opinion: that a "gentlemen's club" is "a nightclub for men to see naked women", and that of the top 100 hits, only one hit reflects your opinion (this very WP entry). A Yahoo search yields a similar result; the first relevant hit is at #43, with 41 strip clubs coming first. These results clearly show Americans' perception of the term. San Francisco may have the highest concentration of private social clubs in the world; their are at least ten of them for its 800,000 residents, and that's not even including yacht clubs, country clubs, etc. I just looked in the SF Yellow Pages under "gentlemen's clubs". What do you suppose was listed? The Bohemian and the Pacific-Union? Hardly. Strip clubs like the "Crazy Horse" and the "New Century Theater". I looked in the Hoover's Business Directory (a subsidiary of Dun & Bradstreet) under "gentlemen's clubs". Again -- nothing but strip joints. Likewise, I checked business.com's directory for "gentlemen's clubs". The results? Nothing but jiggle joints. So clearly, the term "gentlemen's club" does have a precise meaning to Americans, and it isn't the kind you mean. Your claim that "private social club" would have to include the Rotary Club or the Knights of Columbus is nonsense; neither fit that definition. Both are service organizations . Rotary calls itself a service club; their own motto is "Service Above Self". The K of C is even more definitively not a "private social club" as they are an exclusively Catholic service club whose motto is "In Service to One, In Service to All". Country clubs are not the same as "private social clubs", since their raison d'etre is recreation rather than socializing ; they are private sporting clubs. And you may have noticed that some such clubs (The Olympic, for example) are already listed here. This "Ravenite Social Club" that you keep returning to just stretches your credibility. No one is going to actually believe that a mobster meetinghouse formerly located in a space now serving as a shoe store in the run-down "Little Italy" district deserves to be listed here just because of its name -- not only due to its lack of notability, but also because it doesn't fit the definition since it was never a social club. So, since the term "gentlemen's club" in the US is clearly, demonstrably and overwhelmingly taken to mean one thing -- a place for men to ogle naked women -- the onus is upon you to explain why the WP entry listing private social clubs in the US should instead use a term that is not only contrary to that prevailing American usage, but understood only in the British sense, and even then, only by a tiny minority of Americans. This, you have yet to do. Bricology (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Consensus may exist for a different name and if the continuing discussion on this page results in a consensus, feel free to start a new nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

List of American gentlemen's clubs → List of traditional 'gentlemen's clubs' in the United States — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC) The present title has a British ring to it (in the U.S. the phrase refers to public clubs where nude or nearly-nude women serve drinks or perform). There is already some discussion on the article Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support There are already two cogent and opposing arguments above, but to those I add Article titles. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose GeorgeLouis is the only detractor to this article's title and subject matter in the four years it's been around. He has unilaterally decided that the term "gentlemen's club" shouldn't be used because it's "synthetic." If anything, "private social club" is far more amorphous (the Gambino crime family's Ravenite Social Club arguably would have to be included; it's a "private social club" but assuredly not a "gentlemen's club"). The gentlemen's club is a definable, identifyable thing (with its own article), and this article lists gentlemen's clubs in the US, not merely private social clubs. Clubwiki (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't "private social club" used as a euphemism as well? (the joke from The Simpsons was that the Springfield Mafia met at The Legitimate Businessmen's Social Club, just thinking of examples from pop culture). I think the trend for "gentlemen's club" to be a euphemism for "strip club" is rather a global thing due to the changing habits of today's middle classes rather than a peculiarly American thing, though obviously it's more prevalent there. The least worst option for me still seems to be parity with the non-US articles at this time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support We're dealing with subjective perceptions (cultural baggage) about subjective terms ("gentlemen") that may also be complicated by people being from different parts of the US, different generations and different social strata. In such a muddle, I think that it's wisest to use the most neutral, accurate term, rather than one that some here think is traditional or commonly "accepted".  What, in the US, is a "gentleman"?  Is it the same as in Britain, where it denotes a man of means, who does not labor for an income?  Is it the same as is commonly meant in the US, to refer to a man of good manners?  And what percentage of the members of any of the clubs listed conform to either (much less both) definition?  As a member of a few of the clubs listed here, I can say that neither type of "gentlemen" predominate.  And the issue of gender is too relevant to be mooted by tradition: many of the clubs listed only admit women (and probably half of all listed are open to members of both sexes).  What accuracy could possibly be provided by listing them as "Gentlemen's Clubs" of either definition?  I seriously doubt that many, much less most, of WP's readers are going to confuse this list of clubs with "strip clubs" (which are not private), or with some obscure organized crime "club".  I think that the three most accurate descriptors for the clubs on this list are "private", "social" and "club"; those three terms solidly apply to all of the listed.  Having said that, I'd also like to see some of the clubs that are predominantly activity-oriented be split off into something like "Private Sporting Clubs".  For example, while the Olympic Club may provide social spaces and functions, the fact remains that its main focus is sport, recreation and exercise.  It's as inaccurate to list say, the Pacific-Union and the Olympic together as it would be to list White's and the Leander together.  So, my vote is for renaming this list "Private Social Clubs" and ensuring that all listed here conform to such a definition. Bricology (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per thumperward and Clubwiki. "Private social club" is much more meaningless term than "gentlemen's club." Has nothing to do with who are or are not "gentlemen." The term gentlemen's club has an accepted meaning, even if used less in the US. The clubs on this list are "gentlemen's clubs" within that meaning, not merely "private social clubs." The least worst option is parity with the other "gentlemen's club" articles. Wikophile (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "'Private social club' is much more meaningless a term than "gentlemen's club"? That's a rather odd claim, and one that seems exactly backwards to me. "Meaning", in its purest form, is for communication of a concept. Instead, it seems to me that you're making an appeal to tradition, and advocating for supposedly accepted meaning (by whom?), rather than advocating for disambituating communication. There's simply no reason to accept that an ambiguous, subjective, temporally varying, geographically influenced term like "gentlemen" more effectively conveys meaning than literal, objective terms like "private" and "social". Are these clubs "private" and "social"?  Without a doubt.  Are they reserved for "gentlemen"?  Not at all.  Suppose you give defending your opposition another try. Bricology (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, calling private clubs like the Colony and the Cosmopolitan -- both of which were founded by women for women members "gentlemen's clubs" is not only inaccurate, it's insulting to women. How would you feel if the list was titled "Ladies Clubs" instead, and the fact that men might also be members was just sort of implicit? Wikipedia isn't a bastion of tradition, it's an attempt to be encyclopedic. Calling women-only clubs (or even women-first clubs) "gentlemen's clubs" is anti- encyclopedic. Occam's Shaver (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems to me a bit like advocating for changing the name of the WP entry for "automobiles" to "horseless carriages". After all, that name is traditional, it has an "accepted meaning" and it's at least marginally descriptive.  But mitigating against the use of that term is the fact that automobiles very little resemble carriages anymore, and that most people in America have never ridden in any kind of vehicle drawn by a horse.  Why then should we cling to calling it a "horseless carriage" when that's no longer descriptive or accurate? Simply because of "tradition" and "accepted meaning"? That makes little sense to me. Meaning is constantly evolving and we are ever trying to find more concise and unambiguous ways to communicate it. Bricology (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible analogy, and it exactly proves why this article should stay as it is. There is a "horseless carriage" article: "horseless carriage" redirects to its proper name, Brass Era car. All Brass Era cars are automobiles, but not all automobiles are Brass Era cars. Just the same, all traditional gentlemen's clubs are private social clubs, but not all private social clubs are traditional gentlemen's clubs. There's an article gentlemen's club, there's a List of London's gentlemen's clubs, and there's a List of India's gentlemen's clubs. There's no reason the "List of American gentlemen's clubs" should be named any differently. Clubwiki (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The analogy is more apt than you care to admit, and you touched on it when you said "'horseless carriage' redirects to its proper name, Brass Era car". By all means -- feel free to set up a redirect for "List of American Gentlemen's Clubs" to its more correct name: "List of American Private Social Clubs". As I've demonstrated, the term "gentlemen's club" means just one thing to the vast majority of Americans: a club where men go to look at naked women .  Google hits are a valid way to demonstrate the public perception of a term. You're welcome to try to provide some objective evidence to the contrary (and I certainly wish you would at least try to).  So far, you've not done so; you just keep on trotting out the appeal to tradition.  Since WP is an encyclopedia, rather than a repository of traditional or arcane terms, it must reflect the most accurate usage of language possible, and that often requires reflecting differences between national uses of the language. The fact that "there's a List of London's gentlemen's clubs" proves nothing since there's also a WP entry listing British football clubs, which is quite separate from WP's corresponding but separate entry listing American football teams; both nations use the term "football" equally, but each means something totally different from the other.  Just as "gentlemen's club" means something quite different in the US from what it means in the UK.  You wrote "all traditional gentlemen's clubs are private social clubs, but not all private social clubs are traditional gentlemen's clubs."  So now you seem to be prevaricating with the modifier "traditional". Are you proposing changing the name of this entry to "List of American Traditional Gentlemen's Clubs"? The correlating fact is that all "traditional gentlemen's clubs" are anything BUT that very thing, since at least half of the clubs listed here are open to women too, and many of them are exclusively for women. I'd love to see one of you actually address the fact that it's a travesty of meaning to call the Metropolitan, Francesca, Century or Town & Country Clubs (which are listed here) "gentlemen's clubs", given that no gentleman has ever set foot inside of them except as guests in the company of one of its female members. Please -- do take a shot at explaining that novel use of the term "gentlemen". There are, in fact, a few women-only private social clubs in London (University Women's Club, London Ladie's Club, New Cavendish), but not one of them call themselves a "gentlemen's club" on their websites. Bricology (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "proper term" for "gentlemen's club" is not "private social club." Renaming this article "List of North American private social clubs" would be overinclusive and imprecise. A "list of private social clubs" would have to include country clubs, dedicated mob hangouts, the Knights of Columbus, Rotary Clubs, and anything else that is (1) private, (2) social, and (3) a club. Plainly, that's not what this list is of. This is a list of gentlemen's clubs, a type or subset of private social club, within the meaning of that term as defined in the article "gentlemen's club," which are located in the US. There's nothing synthetic or wrong with the name of this article. That some of this type of club are for women means nothing (The University Women's Club is listed in both the main gentlemen's club article and the List of London's gentlemen's clubs), because they still fit the definition of gentlemen's club. In any case, if your qualm is to including the womens' clubs in the list, then advocate for their removal from the list, not changing the name of the list to something overinclusive and imprecise. Clubwiki (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clubwiki, you have repeatedly claimed that "private social club is imprecise" but you have never explained what is supposedly "precise" about the "gentlemen's" part of "gentlemen's club". Please -- do explain. Which of the two most common meanings does it precisely refer to? -the British definition of "a man whose income does not derive from his own labor"? -or the American definition of "a man with refined manners"? If it's the British meaning, then it doesn't necessarily follow that a list of American clubs would be bound by that meaning. Your use of the term certainly doesn't reflect the vastly prevalent American use of the term "gentlemen's club", which has nothing to do with manners and everything to do with female flesh. As I've pointed out, a simple Google search reveals the prevailing (and precise) opinion: that a "gentlemen's club" is "a nightclub for men to see naked women", and that of the top 100 hits, only one hit reflects your opinion (this very WP entry). A Yahoo search yields a similar result; the first relevant hit is at #43, with 41 strip clubs coming first. These results clearly show Americans' perception of the term. San Francisco may have the highest concentration of private social clubs in the world; there are at least ten of them for its 800,000 residents, and that's not even including yacht clubs, country clubs, etc. I just looked in the SF Yellow Pages under "gentlemen's clubs". What do you suppose was listed? The Bohemian and the Pacific-Union? Hardly. Strip clubs like the "Crazy Horse" and the "New Century Theater". I looked in the Hoover's Business Directory (a subsidiary of Dun & Bradstreet) under "gentlemen's clubs". Again -- nothing but strip joints. Likewise, I checked business.com's directory for "gentlemen's clubs". The results? Nothing but jiggle joints. So clearly, the term "gentlemen's club" does have a precise meaning to Americans, and it isn't the kind you mean. Your claim that "private social club" would have to include the Rotary Club or the Knights of Columbus is nonsense; neither fit that definition. Both are service organizations. Rotary calls itself a service club; their own motto is "Service Above Self". The K of C is even more definitively not a "private social club" as they are an exclusively Catholic service club whose motto is "In Service to One, In Service to All". Country clubs are not the same as "private social clubs", since their raison d'etre is recreation rather than socializing; they are private sporting clubs. And you may have noticed that some such clubs (The Olympic, for example) are already listed here. This "Ravenite Social Club" that you keep returning to just stretches your credibility. No one is going to actually believe that a mobster meetinghouse formerly located in a space now serving as a shoe store in the run-down "Little Italy" district would be listed here just because of its name -- not only due to its lack of notability, but also because it doesn't fit the definition since it was never a social club. So, since the term "gentlemen's club" in the US is clearly, demonstrably and overwhelmingly taken to mean one thing -- a place for men to ogle naked women -- the onus is upon you to explain why the WP entry listing private social clubs in the US should instead use a term that is not only contrary to that prevailing American usage, but understood only in the British sense, and even then, only by a tiny minority of Americans. This, you have yet to do. Bricology (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per A "gentlemen's club" has an accepted definition, as used in this article, gentlemen's club, List of London's gentlemen's clubs, and List of India's gentlemen's clubs: "a members-only private club of a type originally set up by and for British upper class men in the eighteenth century, and popularised by English upper-middle class men and women in the late nineteenth century." The definition of "gentleman" doesn't matter. Whether "jiggle joints" have appropriated this term for their own use in and disseminated it in their Google, Yahoo, and Yellow Pages advertising is irrelevant. As for country clubs not being social, that's untrue. Plenty of socializing goes on at country clubs; lots of members don't golf, play tennis, or whatever, but instead just regularly use the restaurants/bars/lounges/etc. and attend social functions. Country clubs are "private social clubs." Gentlemen's clubs, as on this list and all the other articles about the subject, are quite different. Other private social clubs that aren't gentlemen's clubs include several that have been deleted from this list, such as the Holland Society of New York. And I disagree with your characterization of the Gambino family's former headquarters; it was a social club for people of their ilk for many years (and even registered with the State of New York as such). As other users including Binksternet, Bejnar, and Wikophile have explained, too, gentlemen's club is the accepted term to describe the subject of this article, and thus this article (especially in keeping with the other articles) should use it to describe that subject. Clubwiki (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the "accepted definition"! "Accepted" by whom? "Defined" by whom? You then wrote "...as used in this article..." and proceeded to link to three other Wikis as proof! Do you even know what a "circular argument" is? You're using WP to "prove" WP! That's like using "Dianetics" to "prove" Scientology! And again: I never disputed that "plenty of socializing goes on at country clubs". I said that the sporting/athletic/recreational facilities were removed, their primary appeal would be lost; the same is not true for private social clubs. If you're so sure that the Gambino's clubhouse both fits the definition of a "private social club" and that it was notable enough to warrant inclusion, then it should be here. Of course, it wasn't and it's not. And finally, you can drop the appeal to authority fallacy by quoting other WP users as more support. Show us actual authorities on clubs who support your claims. Bricology (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * support Wikophile wrote "The term gentlemen's club has an accepted meaning, even if used less in the US. The clubs on this list are "gentlemen's clubs" within that meaning..." I just Googled the phrase "gentlemen's club". Of the top ten results, only the first one (which links to WP's entry of that title) has anything to do with a "gentlemen's club" like the Knickerbocker Club. The other nine all refer to nightclubs where women take their clothes off. So apparently the term "gentlemen's club" does indeed have "an accepted meaning" in the United States -- it means a club where men watch strippers. And frankly, I doubt the Wiki-fu of anyone who uses phrases like "much more meaningless" and "least worst". I agree with Bricology. Rename it "private social clubs". Occam's Shaver (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to the UK Google, you will find much the same result. But of course we are talking only about the current, American list. Also check out the ads that run down the side: Mostly strip clubs. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Not to mention the racy photos! GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose I suppose that it may be a matter of class and age that determines whether "gentlemen's club" means a gentlemen's club or a public club where nude or nearly-nude women serve drinks or perform which are definitely not clubs for gentlemen. "Strip joint" seems the more appropriate term for them. "Gentlemen's club" in the raunchy sense is a poor euphemism. --Bejnar (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're certainly correct in saying that "gentlemen's club" is a poor euphemism for a strip joint; I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you. But the crux of the matter is that "strip joint" is exactly what the vast majority of Americans think a "gentlemen's club" is. WP isn't an organ of change; it's not our place to try to change people's perception of terms to conform with the preferences of a small minority. We have to use the language that the masses use to try to communicate ideas. By persisting in calling what are really private social clubs "gentlemen's clubs" simply because we would like to reclaim the term, or because the British use that term, we only confuse things for most of WP's American users. And add to that my own opinion that, as a female member of a female-only private social club listed here, I resent my club and my sister clubs being referred to as "gentlemen's clubs". As I've already pointed out, that's not only utterly inaccurate, it's downright insulting. It's rather like insisting upon calling male airline attendants "stewardesses" simply because of tradition. Occam's Shaver (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Occam, if that's your qualm, you should be advocating removing those clubs from this list (or simply remove them yourself), not changing the name of the list to something imprecise and overinclusive. A "list of private social clubs" would have to include anything that is (1) private, (2) social, and (3), a club, including country clubs, the Ravenite Social Club, the Knights of Columbus, Rotary Clubs, and anything else that fits those three qualifiers. Plainly, that's not what this list is of. This is a list of gentlemen's clubs, a type or subset of private social club, within the meaning of that term as defined in the article "gentlemen's club," which are located in the US. If your objection is to including women's clubs in that definition, make that your objection - not to the name of the list in the first place. Clubwiki (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clubwiki, you wrote "That some of this type of club are for women means nothing (The University Women's Club is listed in both the main gentlemen's club article and the List of London's gentlemen's clubs), because they still fit the definition of gentlemen's club". Then you suggested that, if I disagree with your assertion, I should advocate for removing women's clubs from the list. Well, which is it? Are women-only clubs definably "gentlemen's clubs", as you claim, or should I advocate for their removal because they're not? I don't see how you can have it both ways. After all, if I advocate for their removal, wouldn't I be just as much at variance with your perception of accuracy as you accuse me of already being? Also, just because the University Women's Club happens to be listed in any given category on Wikipedia does not lend support to your claim that they're definably a "gentlemen's club"; after all, the editor who put it there could be wrong. If the inclusion of one club or another in one category or another proved anything objectively, we wouldn't be debating this since it would be a foregone conclusion. You keep using the term "definition", but you've never actually provided us with a definition; just a traditional usage in a small part of the English-speaking world. In what dictionary or encyclopedia did you find this definition you're claiming? Even Wikipedia's entry for gentlemen's club states "In the United States the term gentlemen's club is frequently used as a euphemism for strip clubs, a trend also increasingly common in the United Kingdom, with chains such as Stringfellows and Spearmint Rhino using the term in this way." Clearly, there's serious ambiguity carried with the term. So not only have you not provided this "definition" that you've been claiming, but the definitions cited elsewhere contradict your claim. It seems to me that your entire argument rests upon one fact: that in Britain, private clubs like White's were known as "gentlemen's clubs", and you're determined to link American private social clubs to those British clubs. It's understandable, especially for traditionalists and perhaps Anglophiles, but it defies the American use of the English language. It seems to me that what bircology said earlier about "horseless carriage" having a redirect to (as you admitted) it's proper term: "brass era car". Likewise, I think that this disagreement can be simply and neatly settled by simply having a redirect page for "List of American gentlemen's clubs" to "List of American Private Social Clubs". Otherwise, I see no reason why we shouldn't list every notable "gentlemen's club" by the American definition here. That would mean that the Sapphire Gentlemen's Club in Las Vegas (according to Wikipedia, the largest "gentlemen's club" in the world) will be at the top of this list. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those clubs founded by women should be included, because they plainly fit the definition of "gentlemen's club" mentioned in the article gentlemen's club and its other lists concerning London and India (for example, the London women's clubs are included in List of London's gentlemen's clubs). But whether they should be included in the list is an entirely separate issue from whether the present name (the name it's had for 4+ years) should be changed. The proper term for "gentlemen's club" is not "private social club" - it's "gentlemen's club." A gentlemen's club is only one type of private social club; country clubs, fraternities and sororities, and anything that is (1) private, (2) social, and (3) a club are others. Indeed, the article social club explains that there are "two distinct types of social clubs, the historic gentlemen's clubs and the modern activities clubs." If the strip clubs need a list of notable ones, it should be under their proper term, strip club (the term Wikipedia uses), not the term "gentlemen's club" that they've tried to appropriate.Clubwiki (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clubwiki, you wrote "I think those clubs founded by women should be included, because they plainly fit the definition of 'gentlemen's club' mentioned in the article gentlemen's club and its other lists concerning London and India". That's an entirely circular argument, not to mention an appeal to authority fallacy. I asked for a definition from a reliable, objective primary source; you sent me back to another Wiki as "proof"! For all we know, you wrote those Wikis. But even if you didn't, have you noticed the paucity of listed sources? There's not a single primary source cited there that proves your case. Indeed, gentlemen's club states, in the second paragraph, "In the United States the term gentlemen's club is frequently used as a euphemism for strip clubs or pole bars". You continued "The proper term for 'gentlemen's club' is not 'private social club' - it's 'gentlemen's club'." I'm sorry, but that's not argument, that's tautology. Who says? You? A friend? The British? You've gotten no closer to proving the "proper term" for anything; you just keep repeating yourself, as if repetition will make it factual. And pulling country clubs, fraternities and sororities into it seems to me to be a diversion tactic. The term "Country club" is an Americanism dating to at least the time of the Civil War, and all such clubs feature sporting and/or recreational facilities as their main appeal, so they don't fit the definition of a "private social club". Fraternities and sororities are quite distinct since they're inevitably connected to universities or other such institutions. Again, not "private social clubs". It seems to me that you'd make just as much (or little) sense arguing that bars in America should be called "saloons" since that term predates "bars", or perhaps "pubs", since that's what the British call them. This entry is about American groups, and therefore whatever term the British may use is only relevant until it trespasses upon the common usage of American English. In American English, not one person in a thousand would think that the term "gentlemen's club" refers to The Brook or The Knickerbocker; most associate it with Hooter's or whatever. And given that many of my friends, male and female, belong to some of the private social clubs listed here, not one of them has ever called them "gentlemen's clubs" in my presence. I believe that, like me, they'd not only find that name inaccurate but pretentious. Again, I think that you're trying to make this conform to a British tradition, rather than acknowledging that Americans have our own usage of English that differs from theirs. Until you can show that the majority of American private social clubs, the very sort that are listed here, call themselves "gentlemen's clubs", you're just making endless circular arguments and appeals to authority. In fact, of the clubs in NYC that are listed here, most are described in their Wikis not as "gentlemen's clubs", but as "private social clubs", such as the Cosmopolitan, Metropolitan, Colony, Union, Union League, Century, Harmonie, Montauk and University Cubs. Few of the NYC clubs listed here have websites, but of those that do, how many of them describe themselves as "gentlemen's clubs"? Not one that I could find. The most common phrase used on their own websites is "private social club". Looking further afield, this seems to hold true; the few prominent clubs with websites almost invariably describe themselves as "private social clubs" (the Cosmos, Chicago, Algonquin, et al); I could not find one club that called itself a "gentlemen's club". Let me guess: they're all wrong, and you're right. Just as the majority of Americans who think of strip clubs when they hear the name are wrong, and you're right. Occam's Shaver (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article was created because originally these clubs were being listed on the article gentlemen's club under the subheading "United States." That was correctly recognized as being unwieldy, so this separate list of gentlemen's clubs in the United States was created. The examples that Binsternet and GeorgeLouis give below of old and recent use of "gentlemen's club" to mean the clubs on this list, just as defined in the main "gentlemen's club" article (which I didn't write, though your suggestion is flattering), are my proof.
 * Clubwiki, I presume that was your entry above (it was unsigned). I intended no flattery when I speculated that you may have been the author of that Wikipedia entry. First, because it was a poorly written article. And more saliently, because my point was that anyone can write a Wikipedia entry, no matter how far they are from being an expert, or being objective. Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The name "gentleman's club" still means the same thing as it did a century and more ago; the meaning has not stopped. A new, secondary meaning has arisen in the last few decades by strip clubs trying to improve their reputation, but the secondary new meaning does not erase the old primary one. Googling the terms will not give any help to the classic term—it will be overwhelmed by the internet-savvy strip clubs. Google hits are thus meaningless as a comparison. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Binksternet wrote "Googling the terms will not give any help to the classic term—it will be overwhelmed by the internet-savvy strip clubs. Google hits are thus meaningless as a comparison." Actually, the Google results are right in line with every other source of examples of public opinion and most usages of the term. As I have already pointed out, even the phone company's Yellow Pages has a category of "gentlemen's clubs", and it's not a listing of private social clubs, but rather strip clubs. So too do business directories like Dun & Bradstreet's Hoover's Business Directories. Neither of these usages have anything to do with "internet-savvy strip clubs" and everything to do with the common usage and understanding of the term. Bricology (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are confirming the presence of the second, minor definition of the term gentleman's club. The primary meaning remains the traditional one, while the more recent usage is the secondary meaning. There is no reason to unseat the traditional primary meaning because of the strip club attempt to gain legitimacy. The traditional meaning remains strong, especially among the gentlemen who make up these high class clubs for the wealthy. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Actually, I support this in principle, because the term "gentlemen's club" in the US has become so strongly associated with a euphemistic term for what is also euphemistically called "adult entertainment." However, as others have noted, the meaning of "private social club" is much broader (and, in fact, would include many women's clubs), making the proposed title inappropriate. Also, I oppose changing the name to "North American" because the scope of the list is limited to the United States, and I am not aware of any good reason to expand the scope of this particular list-article to include Canada and Mexico. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. A fellow member of my club mentioned this wikipedia debate to me, and I wanted to weigh in. I am a member of a club that is listed here, and have been so for more than 30 years. Indeed, I was privileged to serve as the Director of the club for 8 years. It's a club that was founded in the 19th century by women, for women, and remains women-only. It is as exclusive and traditional as just about any club on this list, and it enjoys reciprocity with some of the most exclusive and traditional clubs elsewhere in the world. The idea that some self-professed "expert" here has declared that my club is a de facto "gentlemen's club" is simply laughable. What authority he thinks he has is beyond me, but I feel confident that no one involved in women's-only private social clubs would agree with him. So does he believe that he's entitled to impose his opinions upon not only the thousands of members and staff of women-only clubs but also upon all American users of wikipedia?! I would hate to think so. My club is and has always been a self-described private social club, not a "gentlemen's club". This article should reflect that reality, not one person's agenda. Marion Bee (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The simple solution to your concern is to remove your private women's club from the list. I'll take a quick look to see if I can spot it. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That only qualifies as a solution if you choose to canvass every private social club in the US on this list, and ask them if they consider themselves to be a gentlemen's club or a private social club. I can pretty much promise you that every women's-only club on this list would object to being categorized as a gentlemen's anything (we do all communicate with each other, and I'll be happy to spread the word). So unless you are willing to do that and adjust this wikipedia list accordingly, then that's not the solution. It seems to me that the more salient question is which clubs consider THEMSELVES to be gentlemen's clubs rather than private social clubs, and whether or not they want to be identified here as such. I'd guess that none of the clubs listed here which are open to men and women would consider themselves to be gentlemen's clubs. And I'd bet that there are some men-only clubs that don't think of themselves as gentlemen's clubs either. I don't think that you or anyone else here has the authority to characterize them contrary to their self-perception and self-identification. Perhaps you'd care to explain where your authority comes from to characterize them differently. Marion Bee (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen's clubs are private social clubs, but not all "private social clubs" are gentlemen's clubs (that's like renaming the article "horse" "mammal" - all horses are mammals, but not all mammals are horses). There's as clear, distinct difference between the broad term "private social club" and the precise term "gentlemen's club." Even the article social club makes this clear. Clubwiki (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite familiar with formal fallacies, thank you very much. The two mistakes you seem to be oblivious to are presuming that the term "gentlemen's club" is anything like a "precise term", and claiming that such a term can include women-only clubs, athletic clubs, professional clubs, university alumni clubs and the host of other clubs listed here that have little in common with a "gentlemen's club" in the St. James sense, with anything like "precision". In fact, the list couldn't be more heterodox. The only commonality that they have is being private clubs. I looked at the "social club" article. I don't think it supports your views, or that it even supports this list! It says "Note that this article covers only two distinct types of social clubs, the historic gentlemen's clubs and the modern activities clubs. This article does not cover a variety of other types of clubs having some social characteristics, for example specific single-activity based clubs, military officers' clubs, country clubs, and fraternities and sororities." And yet we find many clubs listed here that are single-interest clubs, military officers' clubs, country clubs and so on. Here in Manhattan alone there are a dozen examples, all included in this list. The Grolier is a club expressly for bibliophiles. The Collector's Club is for philatelists. The National Arts Club supports fine arts. The Soldiers & Sailors is for military personnel. There are alumni clubs for Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Penn and Cornell. The Racquet and the NY Athletic Club are country clubs in everything but size and name. None of these have much in common with White's, Brooks's and other clubs that you're trying to tie these clubs to. Those St. James clubs are almost entirely for social interaction between men of a certain class and background. It's absurd to claim that the NY Yacht Club, whose primary purpose is sailing, is the same as White's, is the same as The Harmonie, is the same as the Spanish Benevolent Society. You're trying to force things together that don't fit, and excusing their poor fit by waving your wand and declaring that they're actually all "gentlemen's clubs". I'm not impressed by the tactic. Marion Bee (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And speaking of logical fallacies, I'd add this to what Marion wrote: much of what's been trotted out here by Clubwiki as "definition" is purely subjective, and clearly has changed over time. How many clubs today still conform to the original "gentlemen's club" pattern? (Men of a certain class and background, men- only, the presence of athletic facilities are minimal, etc.) Maybe a dozen in the US. Certainly fewer than a dozen in London (White's, Brooks's, Boodles, the Turf, the Carlton, maybe the East India, maybe the Reform and the Traveller's); so in all, maybe 30 world-wide. Since we're all being self-professed authorities here, I'd say that Clubwiki doesn't go nearly far enough. What is more "correct" of a definition for a "gentlemen's club": one that allows non-gentlemen, allows women, encourages ungentlemanly sweating and exertion? -or one that is most like White's was when formed? Clearly, the latter. Shall I rest my case? Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Occam, I'd actually agree with this line of reasoning (that, if you're going to call a club a "gentlemen's club", this list would have to be pared down to about 10% of its current length), although it's important to remember that clubs like White's and Boodle's were not known as "gentlemen's clubs" until the 19th century. Before that, they were simply known as "clubs" where men could go to drink and gamble. Likewise, the Carlton and Brooks's were originally political clubs where members of parties could go to strategize. The "gentlemen's club" moniker was a retronym created in the early 19th century, just as much as the image of St. James and Pall Mall clubs being peopled with conservative, stodgy old men. The fact is that most members of social clubs until the early-19th century were young rakehells whose only "virtues" were wealth and title. You may already know this, but most here obviously don't. Bricology (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Yes, my comment is twofold: (1) Should we include Canadians? (2) To the fear that Joe and Jerry's Pool Hall Social Club might be included, I must remind everybody that WP:Notability still applies. Nobody is arguing that non-Notable clubs should be included — only that the Notable clubs should be properly identified under an article title that means something to North American audiences. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A "gentlemen's club" is a strip club (AmE). This does not appear to be a list of strip clubs in the US, so it is categorically the wrong title. There was a little thing in 1776 that supposed to get rid of British Imperialism in America. Ofcourse, usually these things are country clubs... 76.65.129.5 (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually country clubs are quite different, and attempts to add them to this list have been successfully resisted. --Bejnar (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Country clubs, while private social clubs (they're (1) private, (2) social, and (3) clubs), are not gentlemen's clubs. Clubwiki (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Country clubs are not primarily social clubs; they are activity clubs, set up for sport and/or recreation. I defy you to show me even one notable, self-described country club that lacks a golf course, tennis courts, swimming pool or other sporting and/or recreation facilities. Conversely, very few of the private social clubs listed here have sporting and/or recreational facilities. They are two different animals. Bricology (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the gentlemen's clubs on this list have some form of recreation, be it exercise facilities, squash/racuqetball facilities, swimming pools, or even a secondary campus elsewhere with golf courses, tennis courts, etc. (e.g. Piedmont Driving Club, Olympic Club, Missouri Athletic Club). Indeed, many were formed for athletic purposes in the first place (e.g. New York Athletic Club, Washington Athletic Club, to add to those above). The difference is that a gentlemen's club is primarily located in a single building in an urban area, and a country club is only located on a campus in a non-urban area. Both are founded for a variety of purposes, both originally only admitted male members, and socializing and social activities are invariably a huge part of both. Country clubs are private, social, and clubs, and thus they're "private social clubs," too. But they're not gentlemen's clubs within the meaning of that term. Clubwiki (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed my use of the word "primarily". I'm well aware of the fact that many city clubs offer some athletic facilities; 3 of the in-town clubs I belong to have either squash courts, an exercise room, a pool, etc. But those are strictly adjuncts to their primary purpose -- that of a social club. Take those away (and indeed only a minority of members use them) and the club would remain just as active and desirable. But if you took the athletic/recreational/sporting facilities away from a country club, not that much would be left. Take the Olympic Club, open to both men and women, which has two clubhouses -- one in town and another outside of town. Its original purpose was purely as a private sporting facility; the first of its kind in the US. Few, if any, of the original members were "gentlemen". Yes, it has some social facilities, a dining room, a bar, etc. But no one would pay the $25,000 to join what remained of the club if its athletic/sporting/recreational facilities were removed. And yet, here they are on the list, supposedly conforming to your definition of a "gentlemen's club", despite (1) social intercourse being far from its primary function, (2) it not having been formed or originally peopled by gentlemen, (3) having members of both sexes, and (4) being both in the city and in the country. "Gentlemen's club"? Clearly not. And what of say, the Phyllis Court Club? It's rurally-situated, has little in the way of recreational facilities, and its main focus is social interaction. So, how would you define it? "Country club"? "Gentlemen's club"? I'd say that it's quite clearly a " private social club ", and nothing but. It seems to me that your definitions can be rather novel and sometimes wildly inaccurate. Bricology (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree that there should be a change but worry that the current proposed title may be a little too long-winded. How about "List of American Social Clubs"? - Haymaker (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As previously stated, that term is hugely ambiguous, as there are plenty of social clubs in the United States which we don't want to list here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thumperward. You should note "oppose" before your comment above in the survey. Clubwiki (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. Any competent closing admin will concentrate on the arguments made rather than the big bold words people have a curious habit of sticking in front of them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reiterating because it has been ignored. The term is Synthetic because probably none of the clubs refer to themselves as gentelemen's clubs. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the past, before strip clubs started polluting the term, many private clubs for wealthy or socially connected men were referred to as "gentleman's clubs". Certainly, the "Gentleman's Club" of Westboro is one of many examples. A book about Atlantic City describes the various gentleman's clubs starting with the Ocean Spray Club in 1886. A biography of John Hancock, PhD (not the famous signer of the Declaration of Independence), describes him joining the Cincinatti Literary Club in 1867, a gentleman's club. In Seattle, the Rainier Club was formed in 1888 as a gentlemen's club. In California, the Tuna Club "was founded in 1898 by Charles Frederick Holder of Pasadena as a gentlemen's club..." In Michigan, the Maple City Club and the Fellowship Club were mentioned in 1912 as gentleman's clubs. The Athletic Club in Los Angeles was founded in 1880 as a gentleman's club. In 1934, Rotary club members were encouraged to behave as if they were members of a gentleman's club. In 1952, historian Leland Dewitt Baldwin compared gentleman's clubs with "that uniquely American institution, the country club," both formed from members of the Social Register. In 1957 Boston, Cleveland Amory wrote that, "Harvard's clubs are modeled on the Proper Bostonian idea of a gentleman's club." Atlanta has its Atlanta Athletic Club, the largest gentleman's club in the Southeast. In San Francisco, the Pacific Club (later the Pacific-Union Club) has been described as the first gentleman's club of that city. Since the 1970s, Professor G. William Domhoff has studied what he terms gentleman's clubs, focusing on the San Francisco Bay Area, especially the Bohemian Club. There are many, many more examples of the traditional use of the term to describe high class private men's clubs. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All that any of this really shows is what clubs have been called (and mostly by outsiders, it seems), and most of your citations are at least a century old. Names change, and WP isn't a repository for old-fashioned ones. I could just as easily cite a dozen sources from the 1920s through '70s that refer to airline flight attendants as "stewardesses". However, that term has fallen out of use over the past 4 decades. Why? Because it's gender-specific and ambiguous (there are many kinds of stewards). "Flight attendant" is both gender-neutral and more literally descriptive than "stewardess", even though that was the "traditional" term and it was used for decades. I don't see any difference between that and your insisting upon using this old-fashioned, ambiguous, gender-specific term. Bricology (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument helps my case. Stewardess redirects to flight attendant, as it should. Gentlemen's club does not redirect to strip club—rather, it is the article about British-style high class social clubs in English-speaking countries such as the U.S. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Binksternet, I think you're having a little trouble with logic and/or reading comprehension. No one claimed that gentlemen's club already redirected to strip club, only that perhaps it should. The fact that "gentlemen's club" doesn't yet redirect to "strip club" is due to one fact alone: that no WP editor has set one up and successfully defended that redirection. You are, I hope, aware of how WP works -- that we're all editors and that entries are constantly being corrected and refined? -just like our usage of English is constantly being corrected and refined? So clearly, an ambiguous, old-fashioned, sexist term ("stewardess") appropriately redirects to its specific, modern, gender-neutral term ("flight attendant"), just as the ambiguous, sexist, old-fashioned term "gentlemen's club" should redirect to a specific, modern, gender-neutral term such as "private social club". The fact that, in the US, the term "gentlemen's club" is more prevalently understood to mean "strip club" is simply further proof that the term needs to be retired, or at least redirected. Let me try to clear it up one more time. Fact #1: "Stewardess" and "gentlemen's club" are both "traditional" terms that respectively predate "flight attendant" and "private social club". Fact #2: both "stewardess" and "gentlemen" are gender-specific and therefore discriminatory and inaccurate. Fact #3: "stewardess" and "gentlemen" are ambiguous; there are many different kinds of stewards, and at least two different kinds of gentlemen. Fact #4: "stewardess" was determined to be sexist and is now no longer used, having been replaced with the gender-neutral "flight attendant". Conclusion: "Gentlemen" is likewise sexist and should no longer be used for most of the clubs listed here, since most clubs are either mixed-gender or women-only. Therefore, like "stewardess" redirecting to "flight attendant", "gentlemen's club" should redirect to some other descriptor for clubs that is unambiguous, modern and gender-neutral. QED. Bricology (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't care what this list is called, but it needs to be purged of non-notable entries unless there are reliable independent sources as to which kind of gentleman's club they are. Currently any club with a website seems to be added. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, gentlemen (and ladies) order, please! As a possible compromise, I now suggest changing the name of the article to List of traditional 'gentlemen's clubs' in the United States, with the quotations added to show that it is an arcane use of the phrase. Mr. or Ms. Binksternet has shown some good examples of the traditional use, although they are not perfect and still seem synthetic to me in many places. The NY Times also has some recent references at this page If some change like this, to reflect current usage is not accepted by consensus, I fear that the entire page might be deleted: There would be good enough reason to do so. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. It'd still be in keeping with the rest of wikipedia's coverage of gentlemen's clubs and wouldn't use some meaningless and overinclusive term like "private social club". Clubwiki (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the scare quotes are a good idea in the article title. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Opting out of notifications
I made a single edit to this article and don't wish to participate in the rename discussion. I've been contacted about the discussion by two different editors and wish to formally opt out of any further messages regarding it. Thanks, Valfontis (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of traditional 'gentlemen's clubs' in the United States
Since Clubwiki says he is OK with renaming the article in the above words, perhaps we should do it? We are not getting anywhere otherwise. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I changed the suggested title above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quote marks are not acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't they acceptable, Binksternet? It's an expression used outside its normal usage. In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Oh, wait. I see your explanation in the section just above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, if the quote marks are removed, we could name the article List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States. Then the discussion about what clubs to add to the list can continue under the new rubric. Satisfactory to all? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's okay with me to move the article to List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States. Any other opinions? Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Deepest Apologies
Apologies for moving this without seeing the discussion from a few days ago, and I can't clean up my own mess. This will teach me to edit late at night. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this can be fixed easily enough. I have a request in at WP:RM. Hopefully it can be implemented without drama. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC) List of gentlemen's clubs in the United States → List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States –
 * The earliest name of the article was List of American gentlemen's clubs. A very recent "Requested move" discussion on the article's talk page closed as no consensus for List of traditional 'gentlemen's clubs' in the United States (with quote marks), but a subsequent discussion determined that the title should be "List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States" (without quote marks). An uninvolved editor came by and moved it to an entirely new name. It should be moved back to match involved editor consensus. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See long earlier discussion above at (ran 8-25 Sept 2011). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been no discussion and no consensus for omitting the word traditional from the title. The previous consensus was to include it. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Petroleum Club
There is no source for the Petroleum Club of Bakersfield being a "traditional gentleman's club." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, like all the other Petroleum Clubs, it plainly is. The PCB was founded in 1952 as a gentlemen's club for scions of the San Joaquin oil industry specifically in and around Bakersfield. Today, the leading citizens and businessmen of Bakersfield are members. Remember that a gentlemen's club is a members-only private club of a type originally set up by and for British upper class men in the eighteenth century, and popularised by English upper-middle class men and women in the late nineteenth century. It is characterized by its own clubhouse, dining and social activities, and an exclusive atmosphere. The PCB plainly fits this from a mere gander at its website. If you aren't satisfied with that website, put a "citation needed" tag next to the entry. But your lone disapproval (seems to be a common theme) isn't reason to delete it.Clubwiki (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor who posts the information in the article. Thank you. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The club's flashy website makes me think they are primarily a banquet venue, available for weddings, dinners, etc. It looks like the club folded or shrank severely and the building owners decided to make a little money on the unused facilities. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that anywhere on their website at all. All gentlemen's clubs allow their members to rent banquet rooms. The PCB is clearly a members-only association for businessmen in the Bakersfield area. It has private dining, bar, and banquet facilities. Burden of proof met: like all the other Petroleum Clubs in the southern/western US, it's a traditional gentlemen's club.Clubwiki (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pointing to a primary source and interpreting it does not count as meeting the burden of proof. Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable sources. Are there any WP:SECONDARY sources that say the club is a traditional gentlemen's club? Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This "club" is a commercial establishment: http://www.yelp.com/biz/petroleum-club-of-bakersfield-bakersfield. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That the PCB has a Yelp page is meaningless. So do the Bohemian Club ( - with pictures!), the Union Club of NY, the Knickerbocker Club , and the Somerset Club , just to name a few. The clubs don't make these, Yelp does. Likely every single notable gentlemen's club in the US has one, because they're listed in a telephone directory. And if GeorgeLouis had cared to look at the PCB's listing, he would've found this (rather funny) review: "Old skoooooooool baby.  Spend some time here and you'll surely rub elbows with the  "T-Boone Pickins" of Bakersfield.  This club is mos def old skool -- many a three martini lunch with a steak followed by cigar have been consumed here. If you know someone who has a membership here, you're in for a treat. The Petroleum Club is located on the top floor of the tallest building (12 stories) in Bak-o. At night, the location affords beautiful views of the entire San Joaquin Valley (depending on the smog level). The decor in here is all old, dark woods -- definitely reminiscent of a construction from the 60's. The service here is outsanding -- couldn't be better. All the employees here are outstanding -- keep it up!   Very well managed institution. ... All in all -- if you get an invite here, you are in for a treat. After a few cocktails, you'll definitely feel the essence of all of the biz deals done here and how the boys from the oil patch to do it right." Plainly, like all other Petroleum Clubs in the US, the PCB is a private, members-only club geared for businessmen that provides dining, bar, social, and lounge service. I am a member of several very prominent clubs on this list that have their own articles, and all have reciprocity with the PCB. The PCB plainly is a traditional gentlemen's club. Clubwiki (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clubwiki is correct; the link to Yelp was off the point, which is: WHERE are the neutral and reliable sources for this club? I apologize for the diversion. But, really, there are no reliable, neutral sources that say that this club is a "traditional gentlemen's club." Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any secondary source proving that the place is currently a traditional gentlemen's club. It may have been in the past: directories such as Who's Who in California and The California register included some worthies who held membership in the Petroleum Club of Bakersfield. In 1990 the club was nonprofit: . Not anymore, judging by the website. As reported in February 2006 in the Bakersfield Californian, the "private business club" moved in 2006 from its previous 3500 Truxtun Avenue restaurant location to the top of a 12-story building, one with a wide view, and it added restaurant facilities for the public. The Truxtun Ave location is listed in some reciprocal club directories such as this one, but another reciprocal directory from 2011 also lists the club. Reciprocity seems to be largely conducted with country clubs and city clubs including ones like Seattle's Harbor Club which allow both men and women. At the same time, other modern reciprocal directories such as this one do not list the club. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Petroleum Club appears to have moved a few times. The 3500 Truxtun Avenue location appears to have been built as a Cask'N Cleaver restaurant, then it was occupied by the club until 2006. I don't know where the Petroleum Club first met in Bakersfield.
 * Here's the club's reciprocal list. The Oakland Bellevue Club is on there: a social and fitness club. Another is San Francisco's defunct World Trade Club, formerly a business and social club. Caution: I don't know how much can be inferred from a club's affiliates and reciprocals. I would guess that the top clubs would not offer reciprocity to lesser ones. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

GeorgeLouis, please stop your edit war. You are the lone detractor to this page, which need I remind you has existed for many years. The consensus was to move it to "traditional gentlemen's club." So far, nobody agrees with your AfD. Yet, you persist in your edit war. You removed every CA gentlemen's club from this list that didn't have its own WP article, including some very prominent ones like the University Club of San Francisco, the Sutter Club of Sacramento, the Metropolitan Club of San Francisco, the Pacific Club of Newport Beach, etc. Every single one of the clubs you removed is obviously a traditional gentlemen's club. If you think they need some additional citiation, like the PCB then tag them. Don't delete them. Stop your edit war. Clubwiki (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this interesting list developed at such great length by User:Clubwiki could be better handled in another place, certainly not in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia that has certain basic rules, which are enumerated at Core content policies. It would not cost much to open a new website just for this list and anything else that Clubwiki would like to add. It might be a valuable addition to the World Wide Web. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't make this about me. This article was well-developed long before I joined Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia has core policies, one of which is WP:WL. Dozens of other editors have edited this article in its more than 4-year existence. You are the first - and only - to wage some sort of war against it. Your personal feelings about using the term "gentlemen's club," which the consensus desires, doesn't justify deleting content. The clubs on this list are all referenced, and the references all plainly show they are traditional gentlemen's clubs. Please stop your edit war, especially once the official result of your AfD request is "keep." Clubwiki (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Attacks against editors for being a "lone detractor", such as against GeorgeLouis within this thread, should not be allowed. That's not how Wikipedia should operate. This is not a battlefield for gangs to achieve a majority and terrorize individuals who don't agree with their groupthink. I personally disavow that criticism. And, GeorgeLouis is not the only critic of unsupported information about club articles and about this list-article as a whole, see AFD and see further discussion below. Include Mootros and me among other critics, because there is plenty worth criticism here. -- do  ncr   am  15:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Trim
This survived deletion but should probably have some stricter inclusion criteria. I suggested at the AFD that any without a blue link or secondary source should be removed. Thoughts? AIR corn (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The usefulness of the list would, in my opinion, be very much diminished by the imposition of stricter criteria. A better approach might be to concentrate our efforts on finding additional sources. Tillander 09:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Tillander, deletion would be a terrible idea. If you don't think a source is adequate, tag the entry for more. Clubwiki (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of unnotable clubs
I don't see any consensus here regarding to keep entries that have no own wikipedia article.

This is a list. It should only have notable entries, which is easily established by entities having an own article. For notability of a club see here. Wikipedia is not a directory. The previous accumulation of entries did not look like a list page, helping to link articles, or notable organisations, but was precisely a directory of ever club that exists or has existed in the US. Mootros (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Mootros, this was argued over and discussed at length in the "move" discussions above, as well as the AFD. The consensus in the AFD was that this list does not violate WP:NOTDIR, specifically because of its unique contribution to research. It is not "a directory of ever[sic] club that exists or has existed in the US" - no defunct clubs are listed here. You're unilaterally interpreting WP:N and WP:NOTDIR as meaning "unless a club already has an article, it's not notable." Nothing in WP:N says that, and the consensus in the AFD was specifically otherwise. I have reverted your massive removal of reference-sourced content. Please do not attempt such a unilateral move again again.Clubwiki (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * AFD them, not speedy. Wikipedia does not adhere to your standards, it adheres to community standards. k thx --Bobak (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at Mootro's edit history he went through and tagged gentlemen's clubs with speedies because unhappy with not getting his way here (including some articles beyond reproach). That is not the way to get things done on Wikipedia, but is rather a display of childish emotion that has no place on an encyclopedia. --Bobak (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That might be your view. The tags are to get things sorted out: either cleaned up, or removed. 02:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This ADF doesn't have any consensus on the matter to create a directory of not notable entries. Such a claim is quite disingenuous. All entries that I have removed are not notable clubs. Providing a website link does not establish notability. List here stick to Wikepedia only articles or notable content. Wikepedia lists are not a directory of unnotable clubs. Mootros (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mootros, no plausible reading of WP:N says that just because an entity doesn't presently have a wikipedia page, it isn't notable. This is your unilateral reading; already two editors have voiced opposition to your unilateral action. Many of the entries you deleted have links to articles as well as websites. It doesn't matter. The tag about additional references needed takes care of that. You are the only person objecting to this, and as such your unilateral action is improper. The AFD and Move discussions above discuss the WP:N and especially WP:NOTDIR issues in detail. Please stop your edit war. I am reverting your unilateral massive removal of sourced content.Clubwiki (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have only removed the entries without credible source. It looks like you are the only person defending this, from an account that has similarities to a single purpose account. Mootros (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest if you want to get on with these clubs here on Wikipedia, do it properly! Develop articles that are properly sourced, not just some links to a club's webpage or business directory. If you are not sure, I can provide guidance and mentorship. Overall, it's an interesting topic that deserves every right to be here, as the AFD has shown. Good luck. Mootros (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then simply tag those entries for new sources needed, as I now have done. Both Bobak and I have now objected to your tactics, and your further unilateral removal of content violates both the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS.Clubwiki (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Clubwiki and others that a list-article can include entries with appropriate support, which do not have separate Wikipedia articles. If an item has a separate wikipedia article that does establish its notability.  But we don't have to, and don't want to, create an article for each item in a list.  Reliable sources can be used to establish that the item indeed meets the criteria for a list.  FWIW, I am not very much involved with this article about the clubs;  i have worked on corresponding list article about historic buildings housing some of these clubs. -- do   ncr   am  17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but there are no reliable sources. This is the main problem. A link to the club website is not sufficient. Mootros (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Doncram's effort, I suggest to give it a ten days and see how much improvement in finding sources can be made. After that we should start looking into a clean up. Mootros (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are lots of reliable sources out there that each and every club on this list is notable, including those without present secondary sources, as any resident of any of these cities easily could tell you. Lots of the clubs without their own articles already have secondary sources establishing their notability as historical/prominent institutions; Mootros unilaterally removed them anyway (Pacheco Club, Standard Club of Chicago, University Club of Indianapolis, Petroleum Club of Wichita, Lexington Club, all but one of the New Orleans clubs, the Maryland Club, Saginaw Club, River Club of Kansas City, Racquet Club of St. Louis, the Leash, the Links Club, the Cape Fear Club, Queen City Club, Founders Club, Charleston Club, Mountain City Club, Tower Club of Tyson's Corner, Fauquier Club). The "move" and AFD discussions linked above both resulted in the consensus that there was no WP:NOTDIR violation. Every editor to respond to Mootros's unilateral tactic now has disagred with him. Mootros, leave this article be and stop your edit war that, by your own logic, is based on flawed reasoning. Your failure to respect the established WP:CONSENSUS in this article will result in a report of your edit war to an administrator.Clubwiki (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll stand up for Mootros having a legitimate point, that sources should indeed be provided to document the inclusion of items within the list, and that at least some of the links to official webpages of the clubs themselves seem inadequate to me. For one example, the link currently in the article to an official website for the City Club on Bunker Hill, of Los Angeles, doesn't really establish that the club belongs.  Drilling within that website to this "History" section gets to a point where it is asserted by the club that it is special for being relatively new, founded in 1989, and for being "inclusive".  All fine and good, but maybe not supporting it being "traditional" and for ever being a "gentleman's club".  Has it always had women members, and has it always had members from many races?  Maybe the club itself would not even want to be included on this wikipedia list, to the extent that the wikipedia list is intended to include all the traditionally men-only exclusive clubs.  Mootros suggestion to work on sources for a while seems like a pretty good solution for now.
 * I also tend to believe Clubwiki, that there will exist multiple good quality secondary sources in local newspaper coverage over the years, so it is not good to be too aggressive in removing all items. It is best to simply work at identifying and adding sources, and while I did not watch, and am not reviewing, the past removals, I would guess that Mootros was maybe too aggressive with that.  Anyhow, I note that Clubwiki just added a newspaper article source supporting one of the Arizona clubs, which turns out to have a pretty long heritage back into what was probably men-only eras, and I agree that source should suffice for that one.  Why not work ahead in the article, and discuss individual problem cases sometime in the future.  Maybe the questioned individual ones should be listed and discussed here, but after some period for adding of basic sources to the article, first.
 * Why not provide mention of year of founding of club and maybe some other salient facts like peak membership of a given club, within the list-article? The Arizona news article cites fact that an association of clubs documents falling membership at nearly all clubs.  Reporting peak membership and year may be possible for all/most clubs, and would not be ever-changing, and would be relevant to report in the list-article.  Anyhow, more productive additions of sources to the article is the way to go for now, IMO. -- do   ncr   am  17:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing User:Mootros's contribution history, he has obviously been engaged in some personal vendetta against gentlemen's clubs. The consensus was otherwise in the AFD/move discusisons above. Every single club on this list is notable; the list doesn't violate WP:N or WP:NOTDIR. Each one would be deserving of its own article, and the tags User:Clubwiki added should remain until secondary sources are added or the club receives its own article.Wikophile (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, I have to differ with the tone of that remark, and of others on this page, which seek to cast Mootros as being entirely alone in his/her views. I for one agree with some of Mootros' points.  In the AFD, which i did not participate in, there was at least one person arguing for deletion of all the unsupported items in this list.  And I think there would be general support from uninvolved wikipedia editors for some of Mootros views, if a wider RFC or other way to engage uninvolved editors was pursued.  It's not right to make too much of a local consensus of perhaps-highly-involved, perhaps-conflict-of-interest editors.
 * To push back, i haven't reviewed Wikophile's contributions, but I did look at Clubwiki's contributions. One could say he/she is on a personal mission to promote gentlemen's clubs.  Even Clubwiki's username suggests something along those lines;  I wonder if Clubwiki has an actual conflict of interest in editing here.
 * I don't really care to pursue COI type accusations, but I also don't want to see mob psychology going on. My point is that Mootros does have some valid points, and I agree wholeheartedly with Mootros' call for sourcing to be provided to support the unsupported items in some time period, after which all unsupported items should be removed. -- do   ncr   am  15:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

TOC and flag icons
I boldly went in and changed the article to use the TOC US states template for a horizontal Table Of Contents of state-specific sections. That template can be adjusted to handle issues like if there is a state that has no section in this article. I think it is an improvement to use that TOC. That template was used to improve another list article i've worked on, List of Masonic buildings in the United States.

To help make the template work properly as an index to sections, I deleted the state flag icons that were included in the state subsection titles. I think there is some wikipedia guideline or policy specifically about use of flag icons, basically along the lines of saying that too much use of flags is crufty. I happen to think that removing the flag icons is good to do. But if editors like them and want to return them, i don't mind. Please consider my edits to be a suggestion. Feel free to reverse. -- do  ncr   am  17:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

list membership issues: defunct clubs, clubs that never were men's only
The lede to the article now suggests that this is a list of clubs that were once men-only ("Traditionally these clubs were exclusively for men"). I actually think that is a defensible defining characteristic for inclusion of clubs into this list-article, and the list-article is useful for providing that. But then new clubs that have been open to women from their start, such as possibly the Bunker Hill one in Los Angeles, should be excluded (and perhaps covered in a different list-article?)

Also I just edited the lede to assert that the list is intended to cover all notable examples, including defunct clubs. Notability is not temporary; it is relevant to include important past clubs. This also helps avoid the appearance of being a current directory. And it makes this list more useful from social history perspective.

Another defining characteristic is exclusivity. A club's exclusion of persons of other races is relevant to mention, and supports the club's inclusion in this list. It would be relevant to mention the year of first non-white person being admitted, say, as a way to diplomatically suggest the previous exclusion. I think this can be done in an objective, non-pejorative way.

Also what about Teddy Roosevelt's all-mens all-top-executives-and-powerful-people club that met in Muir Woods' redwood grove, I think for several years running? It could be excluded on the grounds that it didn't have a building and facilities, but maybe it and others like it could be mentioned in a paragraph in the lede, if only to emphasize what the following list is about: landed, permanent, exclusive, high-end clubs:  old boy's clubs. -- do  ncr   am  17:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Doncram, see the "move" discussion above. The consensus was this should be the name for the page, because although "gentlemen's clubs" may admit women, in addition to men, it also describes a specific kind of private social club (as opposed to a country club or cultural club), as described in the article gentlemen's club. This article originally started out as its own list in the main "gentlemen's club" article, but it was rightly moved to its own article. The decision was made some years ago, again by consensus, not to list defunct clubs in this article (it once had a subsection called "defunct or closed clubs"). As for "Teddy Roosevelt's ... club that met in the Muir Woods," I believe you're talking about Bohemian Grove, a sub-institution of the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, both of which are alive and well, and both of which are included in this list.Clubwiki (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing to the Bohemian Grove item, i guess that is what i was referring to, mixed up in my mind with some T.R. - John Muir connection that I probably learned about at the same time.
 * About men-only or not, I dunno. It is not easy to define clearly what the list membership criteria should be.
 * About defunct clubs, I see further above on this Talk page mention in September 2010 that the defunct clubs section would be mixed in by state, which seems sensible. The section before mixing was:

Defunct or merged clubs
 * Chicago, Illinois
 * The Chicago Athletic Association (1890-2007)
 * Cleveland, Ohio
 * The Cleveland Athletic Club (1908-2007)
 * Grand Rapids, Michigan
 * The Peninsular Club (1881-2008)
 * Kansas City, Missouri
 * The University Club (1901-1999)
 * New York City, New York
 * The Downtown Athletic Club (1926-2002), which founded the Heisman Trophy and awarded it each year until damage in the September 11 attacks
 * I don't know if the info in those items is current, but it seems to me that these are indeed traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States which are appropriately included in the list-article, which seems important to differentiate this from a current directory for travelling members (which it has served as, according to some comments on this Talk page). I don't see discussion of the defunct ones being dropped, if they have been. -- do   ncr   am  21:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I further note that List of London's gentlemen's clubs and List of India's gentlemen's clubs include defunct ones. -- do  ncr   am  21:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring the lede sentence in the article stating that this is a list of both existing and defunct notable clubs. And putting in a separate section on the defunct ones, temporarily.  I would be fine for that section's contents to be distributed out to the state sections, but want to allow for some response here.  I'll distribute them out, and close that section, myself, if there is not a consensus against doing so. -- do   ncr   am  14:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the Defunct Clubs section was a temporary one. I moved the contents into the individual states sections because it seemed more logical to group them with their former peers (and, in the case of club mergers, current homes). == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bogus URLs -- verifiability
To ensure compliance with the verifiability principle, I have removed several entries in this list with bogus URLS or without any primary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_traditional_gentlemen%27s_clubs_in_the_United_States&action=historysubmit&diff=514460858&oldid=514326734 Mootros (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC) However, they do need documentation. Removed items, for further discussion:
 * I expect that many/most of the items removed are about places that are legitimately to be included in the list. I don't think that just because a once-valid reliable reference has its url turn bad, that the item should be removed.
 * inNew Haven, Connecticut
 * The Graduate Club (1892)
 * In Indianapolis, Indiana
 * The University Club of Indianapolis (1893)
 * In Columbia, Missouri
 * The University Club of Missouri University (1895)
 * In St. Joseph, Missouri
 * The Benton Club (1887)
 * In Easton, Pennsylvania
 * The Pomfret Club (1882)
 * in Chicago, Illinois
 * The Chicago Athletic Association (1890-2007)
 * In Kansas City, Missouri
 * The University Club (1901-1999)

References:
 * Is that all of the items removed? -- do  ncr   am  15:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think we are dealing with dead links, where we could legitianly say "once-valid reliable reference". No domain name has much more the appearance of bogus claims. Is there any evidence of that these domain names once belonged to any of the clubs? Mootros (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Clean up of non-notable clubs
I am just pasting these in here as we start cleaning up. This is for documentation and giving the possibility to dispute specific removals. Mootros (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina
 * Charlotte
 * The Charlotte City Club (1947)
 * Raleigh
 * The Cardinal Club (1979)
 * Wilmington
 * The Cape Fear Club (1866)

Montana
 * Miles City
 * The Miles City Club (1884)
 * The Montana Club (1885)

In Birmingham, Alabama In Anchorage, Alaska In Tempe, Arizona In Little Rock, Arkansas In Bakersfield, California In Fresno, California In Monterey, California In Newport Beach In Oakland, California In Palo Alto, California In Pasadena, California In San Francisco, California In San Jose, California In Santa Barbara, California
 * The Club (1951)
 * The Concordia Club (1886)
 * The Petroleum Club of Anchorage (1958)
 * The University Club (1989)
 * The Little Rock Club (1969)
 * The Petroleum Club of Bakersfield (1952)
 * The Downtown Club (1963)
 * Comment Secondary source, unknown website without editorial control, is not meeting standards. Mootros (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pacheco Club (1957)
 * The Pacific Club (1981)
 * The Bellevue Club (1929)
 * The University Club of Palo Alto (1952)
 * The University Club of Pasadena (1922)
 * The Bohemian Club (1872), which hosts the Bohemian Grove retreat
 * The Cercle de l'Union (1905)
 * The Concordia-Argonaut Club (1864)
 * The Metropolitan Club (1915)
 * The University Club of San Francisco (1890)
 * The Sainte Claire Club (1895)
 * The Santa Barbara Club (1892)
 * The University Club of Santa Barbara (1923)

In Colorado Springs, Colorado In Denver, Colorado References
 * The El Paso Club (1877)
 * The Denver Athletic Club (1884)
 * The University Club of Denver (1891)

Connecticut
 * Hartford
 * The Hartford Club (1873)
 * The Town and County Club (1925)
 * New Haven
 * The New Haven Lawn Club (1891)
 * New London
 * The Thames Club (1869)

Delaware
 * Wilmington
 * The University and Whist Club (1891)

District of Columbia
 * Washington
 * The University Club of Washington, D.C. (1904)

Florida
 * Jacksonville
 * The River Club (1954)
 * Orlando
 * The Citrus Club (1957)
 * The University Club of Orlando (1926)
 * Surfside
 * The Surf Club (1930)
 * Tallahassee
 * The Governor's Club (1982)
 * Tampa
 * The Tampa Club (1982)
 * The University Club of Tampa (1946)

Hawaii
 * Honolulu
 * The Pacific Club (1851)

Iowa
 * Davenport
 * The Outing Club (1891)
 * Des Moines
 * The Embassy Club (1909)

Maine
 * Portland
 * The Cumberland Club (1877)

South Carolina
 * Aiken
 * The Green Boundary Club (1956)
 * Charleston
 * The Charleston Club (1852)
 * Spartanburg
 * The Piedmont Club (1941)

References

Self-identification and gender-neutrality are the crux of the matter
No one disputes that the sort of clubs included here were sometimes referred to as "gentlemen's clubs" in London where the type began. It's significant that the modifier "gentlemen's" does not seem to have been used before the 19th century; before that, they were simply called "clubs" or "London clubs" since membership by gentlemen-only was implicitly understood. During the proliferation of clubs throughout Britain in the early-19th century, many clubs were formed that were decidedly not restricted to gentlemen, but were for scientists, artists or others who earned their own incomes. In the same respect, no one doubts that many American clubs were patterned after British clubs, and that some of them tried to (at first, anyway) limit their membership to gentlemen. However, neither of those historical facts are significant enough to trump the standard format that Wikipedia employs: that of using plain, descriptive, contemporary language that reflects the national vernacular of the subject. The Wiki on flight attendant is not found under "stewardess". The wiki for bar (establishment) is not found under "saloon" or "pub". So it's clear that traditional terms do not hold sway over contemporary, accepted, nationally distinct ones on WP. I would argue that the two most important factors regarding the name of this group are self-identification and gender-neutrality. Regarding the latter, I don't believe that there are any other examples of gender-specific titles for mixed-gender groups (much less opposite-gender groups) on WP. "Stewardess" is a clear example of that; a term that is specific to women (the "-ess" suffix indicates the feminine) that is no longer used. So one would have to make an overwhelming argument to trump the sexism and inaccuracy inherent in insisting upon maintaining such a term here and now to apply to women and men. "Gentlemen's" is utterly inaccurate in describing women's-only clubs and is clearly offensive to some women who have weighed in here; perhaps it is offensive to all women. Has that been taken into consideration? Apparently not. But even more important is self-identification. No individual WP editor has the right to impose a name upon a group. There are many people who believe that the Pope is the Antichrist. However, they cannot change the wiki to reflect their beliefs. The Catholic Church calls their leaders "Popes", and we grant them the determination as to what they are called. Likewise, Scientology is listed on WP as a "religion", rather than a "cult", as some would argue that it should be. It self-identifies as a religion, and so we accommodate them. If they preferred to be known as a cult, we would also be obliged to allow them to choose their categorization. If a WP editor attempted to change the title of Popes to Antichrist or to move Scientology from Religion to Cult would quickly find it reverted and very likely, themselves blocked from editing So, of the clubs listed here, how many of them self-identify as "gentlemen's clubs" and how many self-identify as something else? To find out, I went through the list and looked at the Wiki for every club that was purely for social interaction (following the traditional purpose of such clubs, rather than sporting/recreational clubs, professional clubs, school-connected clubs, etc.) Most of the Wikis on clubs describe them as "private social clubs" rather than "gentlemen's clubs". But that could be the result of WP editors imposing their own opinions on what such clubs are called, in which case the clubs' own websites would be more telling. And so I visited every such club that had a website listed on its respective Wiki. The results are these: of the 31 clubs that had websites, 20 of them described themselves as simply a "club", 4 as a "social club", 4 as a "private social club", 2 as a "private club" and one as a "city club". Not one club chose to self-identify as a "gentlemen's club" on its own website. If WP editors here are truly interested in ensuring that visitors who are looking for a list of the sorts of clubs included here are able to find that list using the term used in Britain from the 19th century until recently, the most sensible solution is to set up a redirect page of "List of American Gentlemen's Clubs" that leads to "List of American Private Social Clubs". To comply with WP's guidelines, we cannot simply call organizations whatever we might want to when it is in contradiction of those guidelines, much less in contradiction of the wishes of the clubs themselves who have every opportunity to call themselves "gentlemen's clubs", but clearly choose to not do so. Bricology (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers to Bricology for doing what the editors of this article should have done long ago—checking how the clubs themselves self-identified. Having done so, Bricology would be well within policy to delete each club from the list based on WP:Synthesis, or the list itself could be nominated for deletion. Is anybody in favor of the latter? I am beginning to lean in that direction if the list is not renamed to reflect the reality of its contents. Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and P.S. If you do a search on the NY Times index for "gentlemen's clubs," you will get results also for "strip clubs." GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with basing things on how the clubs themselves self-identify is that wikipedia requires independent third party sources...  Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 3rd-party sources are required for determining what category a particular entity fits into. And who would you suggest would be an appropriate 3rd party? Do you really think that any 3rd party has the authority to tell the Olympic Club -- "Sorry, folks, I know you think that you're a 'private athletic club', and that you say so on your website, but really you're a 'gentlemen's club'"? And you may be forgetting that some WP editor, who may have zero authority as a 3rd party, has already presumed to name this entry and populate it with clubs it thinks qualify. What could be more subjective than that?! I'm still waiting for Clubwiki to provide his supposed proof of what exactly constitutes a "gentlemen's club", and expect that I'll have to keep waiting. Bricology (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) If we don't need third party references or determining what category a particular entity fits into, if I claim to be a gentlemans' club, can I put myself in? (b) As I believe I've said before I'd like purge this list of all entries which don't have a third party reference (ideally two third party references). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) If you meet WP:Notability, add yourself. (b) If you think that any specific clubs listed here don't meet WP:Notability, by all means -- suggest them for removal. Bricology (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no more validity to how a club self-identifies versus how they are identified in reliable independent sources. Since this is a list of many clubs, the way each one self-indentifies will be of lesser importance than the way they are collectively identified by independent sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's absurd! So, if a person self-identifies as say, Jewish or gay or cranky or a nightowl, that's not as authoritative as whether or not someone else says that they are?! The clubs I listed self-identify as what they think they are, and they have no reason to be duplicitous. What's your suggestion: that they're trying to hide the "fact" that they're really "gentlemen's clubs"?! Other people, however, may indeed have agendas that would be served by portraying them as something other. And more to the point: you claim "...they are collectively identified by independent sources". There are no independent sources that are authoritative on the matter, much less a "collection" of them. Really. For all of the pixels that have been spilt here by you, Clubwiki, et al, not one person has managed to put forward anything resembling an objective 3rd party source that is authorized to adjudicate on the matter. What's your suggestion? That there's some Official American Institute of Clubs that can state what a club is? By all means -- let's see what you've got. In the meantime, consider these sources: 
 * Business Week magazine, in an article titled "LIVING IT UP: THE ELITE PRIVATE CLUBS" wrote of the nation's largest placement agency for private clubs, John Sibbald Associates, who annually rank private clubs. To wit: "Which clubs are tops? To find out, John R. Sibbald Associates Inc., a search firm specializing in recruiting club managers, surveyed 5,000 general managers, presidents, directors, and owners of private clubs. They were asked to rank the 'very best' clubs, and those that are the 'best managed and most successful' in five categories: city clubs, full-service country clubs, golf clubs, athletic clubs, and yacht clubs." (source: http://www.businessweek.com/1997/16/b3523139.htm )
 * World Golf magazine also wrote of John Sibbald Associates' club rankings, saying "...the prestigious Platinum Club of America award from John Sibbald, Publisher of the Club Leaders Forum and President of the Platinum Clubs of America. The Platinum Clubs of America are the 235 most highly regarded private clubs in the United States as voted by the Club Managers and Board Presidents from more than 6,000 private clubs across the country." (source: http://www.worldgolf.com/newswire/browse/59970-Sanctuary-Golf-Club-awarded-Platinum-Club-America-award )
 * And what does John Sibbald Associates and the Platinum Clubs of America call clubs like the Pacific-Union, Bohemian, Jonathan and Cosmos Clubs? "Gentlemen's clubs"? Nope. " City Clubs ". Never do they mention the word "gentlemen". (source: http://www.sibbaldassociates.com/pcoa.html ) Curious, hmm? Bricology (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Self identification is important, and as you have demonstrated, so is identification by others. Both kinds of identification are important to Wikipedia in determining how to name articles. The term "gentlemen's club" is still used by people to describe high class social clubs in America:
 * 2005 – Professor G. William Domhoff, U.C. Santa Cruz. "Resident members [of the Bohemian Club] were checked against one other social indicator, the Pacific Union Club, the most exclusive gentlemen's club in San Francisco."
 * 2011 – Time Out Boston. "Rowes Wharf Bar has the atmosphere of a gentlemen's club..." (Rowes Wharf Bar is expensive and classy, with dark wood paneling and subdued decor. No stripping.)
 * 2005 – Author Philip Ramey in Irving Fine: an American composer in his time. "Besides, the music department was run along the lines of a Boston gentlemen's club, and who had ever heard of a Jewish gentleman?" (Jews were not allowed in most gentlemen's clubs before about 1950–1970 or so...)
 * 2008 – Historic landmarks of Philadelphia. "In thus organizing, they became the first city gentlemen's club in Philadelphia and the oldest of its kind in the United States. (The Union Club in New York City was founded in 1836 and the Somerset in Boston in 1851.)"
 * 2000 – The Power Elite. Regarding wealthy upper classes: "The gentlemen's club is at once an important center of the financial and business network of decision and an essential center for certifying the socially fit."
 * 2007 – Institutions of reading: the social life of libraries in the United States. "Only a few blocks from Copley Square, he passes the Boston Athenaeum, a "temple of culture," "honored haunt of all the most civilized." A gentlemen's club to which, at least in retrospect, the city had paid deference, the Athenaeum was now sadly diminished..."
 * There are many more modern examples I can point to, but my time is short today. Basically, you are arguing for a secondary modern meaning and I am arguing for the primary old and modern meaning. I think the traditional term "gentlemen's club" is not yet completely replaced by the secondary meaning which is at most two decades old. I see it as having lasting power, especially in scholarly circles. Scholarly sources are Wikipedia's best sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Paring back the list
More than a year ago an attempt was made to secure the deletion of this article. The result of the discussion at that time was "Keep". More recently it appears possible that the same goal is being pursued by degrees. My understanding that this is meant to be a list of existent AND defunct clubs (and in fact the latter information is arguably even more useful than the former). Until a consensus emerges about what the character of this article should be I think the list in its full form should remain available. MargaretStreet (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * NOT WHAT I DID. If you looked more carefully, you would see that I INCREASED the number of clubs, rather than paring them back. The only club I deleted was the Vespers in Philadelphia, which is not a traditional gentlemen's club, but a rowing club on the Schuylkill River. I did not delete the defunct clubs, I moved them into the individual sections for each city alongside their former peers (which I made clear both on the Edit page and on this Talk page). I also added added dozens of images of the clubs and placed them in galleries by city. Just because the number of bytes went down does not mean the substance of the article was changed. Most of those lost bytes came from the coding for the old images (ALL of which were retained). You've erased not only my work, but that of others, and screwed up the Contents bar for all. Reverting. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me now that I misunderstood the situation and made a serious mistake. Please accept my apologies. In any case you were not the editor I was referring to. Again, my sincere apologies.MargaretStreet (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's okay. You obviously were working in good faith. Best wishes. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this a traditional gentlemen's club?
This is the clubhouse of the South River Club, located on a country road outside Annapolis, Maryland. The club meets 4 times a year.

Even though its membership is limited to men, this strikes me as a different animal than a traditional gentlemen's club.

-- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, while a bit unconventional, it is a traditional gentlemen's club. It's the oldest one in the US, too. As this recent article points out, it was specifically modeled on London gentlemen's clubs. It readily fits the definition given in the main article, gentlemen's club. It's also one of the most exclusive clubs in America. 67.53.65.66 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

City clubs, that's what they are, it's true
This is one of the silliest articles on Wikipedia. No one, but no one, uses the term "gentlemen's club" to refer to city clubs. I suggest this article be changed to "List of city clubs in the United States," because that is what they are called. One potent source ought to be the web page of the Club Managers Association of America (CMAA), http://www.cmaa.org/template.aspx?id=216. Here it says, "The Club Managers Association of America (CMAA) is the professional association for managers of membership clubs. With close to 7,000 members across all classifications, our manager members run more than 3,000 country, golf, city, athletic, faculty, yacht, town and military clubs." Later on the page, "80 percent of CMAA members' clubs are golf and country clubs; 11 percent of CMAA members' clubs are city clubs; 4 percent of CMAA members' clubs are yacht clubs..."

Another worthy source might be the web page of the Harvard Club of Boston, which advertises reciprocity by stating, "Our members take their show on the road - literally - to any of our 136 affiliated private city clubs worldwide." (http://www.harvardclub.com/club/scripts/section/section.asp?NS=RC) A similar page on the site of the Penn Club of New York says, "Many of the reciprocal clubs of The Penn Club are very exclusive city clubs and selective country clubs around the world." (http://www.pennclub.org/Default.aspx?p=DynamicModule&pageid=289627&ssid=173779&vnf=1) Or how about this page at the Toledo Club, which not only promises reciprocity at city clubs but refers to itself as a city club, "As a premier City Club, Toledo Club members have reciprocal privileges at over 120 City Clubs around the world." (http://toledoclub.memberstatements.com/tour/tours.cfm?tourid=63575)

Bellczar (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. And now that Clubwiki seems to have been banned for sockpuppetry, perhaps we can finally get some consensus here.  "City clubs" are what these are. Bricology (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to reassess the title and focus of this article
This article has been through many fits and starts over the years and, after the departure of one of its more contentious editors, I'd like to propose that we reassess both the title and the focus of the article. I think that there's general consensus about the kind of organization we're hoping to capture here -- those organizations which most resemble the traditional private clubs of London, such as White's -- so to begin, I'd like to propose that we craft a definition. Having said that, I don't think that an article listing clubs in the US must disallow the distinctions between British and American customs and terminology, especially given the fact that the number of such clubs in the US dwarfs the number in Britain. For example, the traditional private clubs of London have historic ties to the aristocracy and nobility, which is not the case in the US. Also, the understood meaning of the term "gentleman" is different between the two countries. But the commonalities the two countries share give us some parameters to work within. This is my sense of them:  Clubhouse: the club possesses its own private clubhouse, or, at minimum, has permanent facilities within another clubhouse. Location: it is located within a city, although it may have ancillary facilities elsewhere. Facilities: there are facilities for comfortable seating, reading, etc., and beverage service (and often dining service) are available. <li>Membership: membership can only be attained through proposal by existing members, and a favorable vote by most or all other members. <li>Purpose: the primary functions of the club are for socializing, and as a refuge from the public spaces of cities. <li>Expectations of behavior: it is possible to have one's membership terminated by a vote of a sufficient number of other members, and/or by the management, for behavior that would be insufficient grounds for termination by most organizations.</ul> There are, of course, many other parameters that one might want to add, but I would prefer if we erred on the side of inclusiveness. I'd argue against including terms like "upper-class", due to the ambiguous meaning of that term in the US. The list (so far) treats clubs irrespective of whether they're women-only, men-only or mixed; this seems sensible to me. It would logically necessitate a renaming of the article. I think that the descriptor "traditional" is warranted, as are "private" and "city", whereas "gentlemen" is not. So, perhaps a logical order would be "traditional private city clubs". Thoughts? Bricology (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be straying from Gentlemen%27s_club, which doesn't seem to make the distinctions you bring up. That means we need sources, and should probably update the other article accordingly. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree ... the term "gentleman" sounds a bit archaic. Perhaps a more straightforward title for the article would be: "private social clubs founded exclusively for men". Buckyboot (talk) 09:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A new but related article could be: "private social clubs founded exclusively for women". Clubs could be included even if they have become 'co-ed' since their founding. respectfully, Buckyboot (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States. 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/20081005190730/http://www.theclubinc.org/Club/Scripts/Home/home.asp to http://www.theclubinc.org/Club/Scripts/Home/home.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130624141059/http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/mobile_county/bienville-club-to-close-its-doors to http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/local_news/mobile_county/bienville-club-to-close-its-doors
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811195644/http://www.petroclub.org/ to http://www.petroclub.org/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130624175546/http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=2034 to http://www.tempe.gov/index.aspx?page=2034
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917083953/http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/07/4791061/counter-culture-visits-the-exclusive.html to http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/07/4791061/counter-culture-visits-the-exclusive.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404072831/http://www.denverpetroleumclub.com/ to https://www.denverpetroleumclub.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518082148/https://www.georgetownclub.org/Home.aspx to https://georgetownclub.org/Home.aspx
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130119000425/http://chicago-il.chamberofcommerce.com/chicago-athletic-association-building-to-be-renovated-1824/ to http://chicago-il.chamberofcommerce.com/chicago-athletic-association-building-to-be-renovated-1824/
 * Added tag to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/la/la0000/la0076/data/la0076data.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140308200956/http://www.bpl.lib.me.us/LocalHistory/Images/Tarratine.jpg to http://www.bpl.lib.me.us/LocalHistory/Images/Tarratine.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061124185137/http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/september2003/brief.html to http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/september2003/brief.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528131656/http://www.oakwoodcountryclub.org/history_beg.html to http://www.oakwoodcountryclub.org/history_beg.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331081327/http://www.privatedining.com/files/menus/m0000000166-01.pdf to http://www.privatedining.com/files/menus/m0000000166-01.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207160101/http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/july2008/noonday.html to http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/july2008/noonday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205172514/http://www.beartoothnbc.com/features/big-sky-chronicles/18036-big-sky-chronicles-montana-club.html to http://www.beartoothnbc.com/features/big-sky-chronicles/18036-big-sky-chronicles-montana-club.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830042503/http://www.parkavenueclub.com/club/scripts/home/home.asp to http://www.parkavenueclub.com/club/scripts/home/home.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611061438/http://www.buffalorising.com/2011/03/ten-apartments-planned-at-allendelaware-location.html to http://www.buffalorising.com/2011/03/ten-apartments-planned-at-allendelaware-location.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719201357/http://www.beaconclub.net/website/ourfacilities/home.asp to http://www.beaconclub.net/website/ourfacilities/home.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120726051634/http://www.schuylkillvision.com/Schuylkill-County/timeline-of-schuylkill-county.html to http://www.schuylkillvision.com/Schuylkill-County/timeline-of-schuylkill-county.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130713030249/http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/historians-make-tk-new-home to http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/historians-make-tk-new-home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715032106/http://www.texnews.com/1998/2000/brazos/bill0110.html to http://www.texnews.com/1998/2000/brazos/bill0110.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202094642/http://beaumontclubtx.com/ to http://www.beaumontclubtx.com/
 * Added tag to http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20101127/NEWS02/101126013/Ethan-Allen-Club-see-end-an-era
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130717083825/http://newamericanluxury.com/2012/bellevue-club-hotel-bellevue/ to http://newamericanluxury.com/2012/bellevue-club-hotel-bellevue/

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) 03:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)