Talk:Sons of the Revolution

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sons of the Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071202124434/http://sill-www.army.mil/awards/KNOXTROPHY.pdf to http://sill-www.army.mil/awards/KNOXTROPHY.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821032215/http://wcbstv.com:80/topstories/Sons.of.Revolution.2.784846.html to http://www.wcbstv.com/topstories/Sons.of.Revolution.2.784846.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Society of '83 connection
This academic paper suggests a connection to the "Society of '83", or that this was the organization's original title, named in honor of Evacuation Day (New York). A NYT article from 1884 is the only other reference I could find to the "Society of '83", however, and that makes it seem like a less direct connection.--Pharos (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Number of members
I restored the number of members deleted by 72.218.185.31 without comment that was recently added by. I'm not sure why the IP decided to delete it. Although the source is WP:PRIMARY, it should be reliable for determining the number of members of the org. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Source/Site out-of-date
Deleted number of members by due to source out of date by +/- four years. See http://www.sr1776.org/officers.php for updated officers list but with no new general president message yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.185.31 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable concern, but would also like to hear from Brotester (and any other editors following this discussion). In future, make sure to put reasons like that in the WP:EDITSUMMARY, or say "See talk page" and explain it in more detail on talk page--as you now have.
 * To avoid having the autosign bot sign your messages, end your message with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Also the ping for  will only work when you have the signature tildes.  See .  In this case, no ping is necessary, since Brotester was already notified above.  As an IP there is no way for us to ping you.  If you create an account, then we can ping you. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just checked the wayback machine for the President's message: here
 * That message was placed sometimes between 27 September 2015 and 14 December 2015.  There were no archives between those two snapshots.  So I have put in the date 2015 and the archive snapshot. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC):
 * David Tornheim "Membership" varies and is used to support an "advertising platform" see https://www.ana.net/membership. By your own research, the information added by was not verified and "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor" Verifiability. Is it reasonable to include the information when it goes against one of the Five pillars and after both of us concluded that it (Membership) was not verified before being placed on the page? Regards.72.218.185.31 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to our policy on verifiability, the key way to make something verifiable is to provide a citation to a reliable source. A citation has been provided.  The question you seem to be asking is whether the organization's reporting on its membership is reliable or not.  I believe it is.  Even if another source cites the membership==as say the Washington Post does as a source the ACLU's membership==my guess is that the reporter at the Washington Post got the number from the organization.  Since membership lists are often private, I do not see how you can get an accurate membership number without consulting the organization.  I will post your concern to WP:RS/N--that way we can get another opinion.  --David Tornheim (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since "Membership" as a heading was added; it's addition, the broader implications for including "Membership" in a Wikipedia page and whether or not it has a verifiable citation become the central point. The page was edited by on 18 October 2018. This is three years after the archived citation David Tornheim included from Wayback. I believe the best course of action is to remove "Membership" and be patient for a more current citation. Regards.72.218.185.31 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This was a few months ago but from what I recall, the source in question was not only the most recent but likely the only available reference I could find of the membership number in question.Brotester (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the discussion . My original point and the reason why I deleted "Membership" was that the source cited was from "President's Message" which David Tornheim confirmed was from 2015.  There is a new President see http://www.sr1776.org/officers.php Since "Membership" was not originally on the page and the new President will want to compose a new "President's Message" I believe it best to remove "Membership" and see if a more current citation becomes available in the future. Regards. 72.218.185.31 (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on discussion at WP:RS/N (link below), I have added the membership number to the WP:BODY of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted the mention in the InfoBox based on this reasoning at WP:RS/N. I would still support keeping it in, but I am deleting because of the mixed messages.  --David Tornheim (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice
I submitted the question about the reliability of the source here:
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_256

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)