Talk:List of Skull and Bones members

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps this list should be divided into living and dead members. Kukini 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] External Links

This really doesn't belong on the front page. Perhaps someone can salvage it and make a proper list of links.

A number of "complete" lists of members can be found on the web, and perhaps should be incorporated here. More useful would be a database capable of search and sorting, with fields for year, employments, family, marriage, etc. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Skull-And-Bones1833-1985.htm http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/3/skullroster.htm http://www.mabus.biz/skull/ http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/list_skull_and_bones.htm

As of 15 May 2006 new lists were appearing frequently, so check the Internet, e.g.: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=%22skull+and+bones%22+Ashley+Baribault+Beckley+carl+tucker+&btnG=Search

137.53.45.66 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does the current link say "includes errors"? Why did someone include a link that they know to be incorrect? Nach0king 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dubious entries

I found these entries on the membership list. Please provide some sort of reliable source to back these entries before putting them back.

  • Matthew Campbell (2007), Canadian heavyweight rower
  • Gabriel Hernandez (2007), Hip-Hop Mogul
  • Bryan Gaviola (1983) Guerilla Leader
  • Anson Phelps Stokes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC). this damn bot is too fast! Umeboshi 07:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I found one more:

  • Daniel Suppers (1980), former CEO of McDonalds and fast-food connoisseur

Umeboshi 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

About 2 months ago, Paul Giamatti was listed as a bonesman on this site. What happened to his name? 72.43.140.182 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order by date

Instead of alphabetic order, I'm inclined to order members by year of entry. This would provide historical context by grouping together contemporaries - Crosbiesmith 13:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do 199.172.246.196 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced list

I have removed the list of alleged members in it entirety, pending sources. The sources provided are unverifiable. See WP:V. Please do not add unless you have reputable sources that can be cited. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robbins

As this is the only source cited, this article is not neutral and in violation of policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The society published their lists until 1971. Let's stick with these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The lists are fine with me, I was unaware of them until now. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am just concerned from a WP:BLP perspective that we avoid assign living people to this society based on one source only. I would suggest we stick with the published lists if we can find a source, and avoid using Robbins exclusively as a source. We also need to cleanup accordingly the articles in the Category:Bonesmen, for the same reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is with the Robbins book. It's not some conspiracy tome, it's from a mainstream publisher and written by an established journalist. More sources can be added later, such as the lists. Where can these lists be found? The links above don't strike me as very reliable. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem with her book is that it is a singular source. Asserting that living person XYZ is a member of this secret and controversial secret society, on the basis of a singular source violates WP:NPOV, unless the book describe a person claiming to belong to the society and not just a journa::::::::::list's speculation even if that speculation is published in a book. This article is not about the book Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power, is it? Note that my concern relates to living persons only. The ELs provided as sources are most definitively unacceptable as sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No argument about the external links. I'm aware that this is not an article about that book and I'm not sure why you thought that silly suggestion was necessary. If you feel that we need more sources, then we will get them, but using this particular source does not violate any Wikipedia policies. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does: See WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP. If we have only one source for these claims and these claims are controversial, we are violating policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight does not apply here. Undue weight applies to amplifying minority views to be equivalent to minority ones. That has nothing to do with this list. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am seeing only one source that claims that these persons belong to this controversial secret society. That is indeed amplifying a minority view, is it not? A verifiable fact can and should be sourced to multiplicity of sources, otherwise it is an opinion and cannot be given the weight of fact as done currently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. The belief in a flat earth is a minority viewpoint. For your analogy to be correct and applicable it would require multiple sources claiming certain individuals are not in S&B and for me to be elevating Robbins above these sources. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
We agree then to disagree. I will place a request for comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the point? I'm already adding multiple sources for living individuals. Isn't that what you wanted? Or am I misunderstanding your objections? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The point is to ask other editors to weigh in. My concerns have been stated above, specifically about living people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I am disputing the factual accuracy of some of these claims, please restore the dispute tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you specify which particular claims you are disputing? Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

<<< outdent) Oh, there are many. One example: Amos Alonzo Stagg -- Robbins does not provide any references about where did she got the information about Stagg being a Bonesman. As such, we cannot verify that as a fact. We can verify that as an 'opinion of Robbins, but that is not what the article is saying: The article is stating that Stagg was a Bonesman as if it was a verifiable fact, which it is obviously not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If an investigative journalist states a fact in a work of journalism, then it is perfectly acceptable to take that fact at face value and use it as a source provided the source is reliable. Most reliable sources accepted by Wikipedia standards state plenty of things as fact without the reader necessarily knowing the source of that individual fact. This is simply not an acceptable reason to dispute an otherwise reliable source, unless you want to dispute half of the sources used in Wikipedia.
If there is a serious dispute about a particular individual, I am willing to make the effort and investigate. But a blanket dispute about the Robbins book is unwarranted. Do you really think that Stagg wasn't a Bonesman? Then why does he have Bones memorabilia in his archived papers? I've spent most of my day working on this article and Robbins has been backed up again and again by other sources, every time I've checked. I really don't see the problem here. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing that Stagg was not a bonesman. I took that name at random and checked the text in Robbins book. There is zero information about him in the book besides saying "he was a bonesman". If that is a known fact, then I would not argue for more sources. But as this secret society is quite controversial, and being part of it may have quite distinct political implications, I am arguing for caution in regard to living people specifically, which is my only interest in this article (I came here due to a post on WP:BLP/N which I monitor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You've already said that, I've already agreed, and I'm spending my time coming up with additional sources for living individuals. I don't understand why you are continuing this dispute when there's nothing left to dispute. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Stagg's memorabilia "Box: 119, This box includes ticket stubs, schedules and passes for University of Chicago, White Sox and Cubs games, a Skull and Bones directory" means nothing besides the fact that box 119 contained a directory of S&B and some tickets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
While you are at it, take a look at Stagg's University: The Rise, Decline, and Fall of Big-time Football at Chicago, or Current Biography for 1954. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not have access to that book. But if you found there a mention of Stagg in the context of this article, by all means add it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just read Robbins book. Most, if not all post 1971 are unsourced speculation by Robbins, or at best, she provides no clues about what were her sources. I am not saying that the book is a fantasy, not at all. But given the lack of information on the subject, this book does not provide any sources to attest to the verifiability of these people being part of this society. I would love to find such a source, as I think that, if verified, it is quite fascinating. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are twelve pages of sources plus her own investigative research. You are holding this source up to far higher and more arbitrary standards than Wikipedia demands, even in the case of BLP. There's really no reason to single out this book, from a mainstream publisher by a reputable journalist, for this arbitrary impossible standard, especially when it is corroborated by other sources in every case that we've looked at. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I leave it at this, Gamaliel. I will keep this in my watchlist and will come back in a week or two to see what other sources you can find. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Summary

Comments by involved editors

This article contains a list of people claimed to belong to the secret society Skull and Bones. Most of the individuals listed in the article are included based on one source only, a book by investigative journalist Alexandra Robbins.

Concerns have been expressed about the possibility of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP violations given the scarcity of sources to verify these claims.

Looking forward to comments from other editors about this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comments by respondents to the RfC

Is there a reason to think Robbins is not a reliable source? If there's only one definitive book on the topic, it's hard not to keep relying on it, but my mind can certainly be changed if there's reliable criticism of the accuracy of the book. THF 23:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know, and our readers do not know how reliable or not reliable that source is. That is why, specifically for living people we ought to attribute opinions to those that hold them, rather than assert tehse opinion as a facts. Given the scarcity of sources on the subject, in particular post 1971 at which time the society stopped publishing their membership lists, I do not think that we can attest to the verifiability of Robbins claims as if these were facts, unless there are additional sources that verify these people as members of the society. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anybody on the list who can't be verified from the published membership lists. THF 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Which published lists? I have not found any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're the one who referred to pre-1971 published membership lists. THF 03:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but we have a problem: These lists are not being used as a source for this article! The reasons are that these list are not widely available. We need someone at Yale to pull them of their Library... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the above and Wikipedia policy, all entries in the list that a) concern a living person, and b) lack any citation, should be removed immediately. Entries of living persons with citations should be left in, unless the source is disputed. While the reliability of sources in the context of the living persons biography policy must be taken seriously, the minimum requirement is that someone unconnected to Wikipedia must have questioned the reliability of the source (WP:CS).

Entries of deceased persons should be treated as any other text on Wikipedia would be. Leave it in with a {{cite}} tags for a while, and if there is reasonable doubt that no source can be found, they should be deleted after a while. Finding those old member lists should not be that difficult - try Talk:Yale University or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Yale University. --User:Krator (t c) 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements about many living members, presumably back to Yale's graduating class of 2000, could be sourced to the Rumpus: http://www.yale.edu/rumpus/archives/index.htm , specifically, say, Page 4 of this PDF for members of '06. Antelan talk 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Two independant reliable sources minimum. I think that's the standard journalists requirement would be to publish anywhere else. Otherwise, it could be just somebody with a bone to pick. No bones about it, two sources seems the minimum standard. Can it be proved that Robbins adhered to this maxim? --Tbeatty 05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Are you going to demand that type of proof for all sources on every article on Wikipedia? The Robbins source is a published, attributable work, which is better than I can say for many citations on Wikipedia, and certainly good enough for this article. If there's a serious doubt regarding one or two specific members, I'm sure we could nicely ask someone who still has SML access to look it up in the originals. By the way, I'm unwatching this, so if you have a response that's broader than this article, please leave it on my talk page. Antelan talk 05:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I read some parts of Robbbins book, and in most of the cases she does not say anything about her sources. We need more than Robbins book for verifiability, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep the names, but also indicate to readers that the source is a single book, and that they should consult the book and decide for themselves if they consider the information credible.Circumspect 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy tag

Can we removed the 'factual accuracy is disputed tag'? I don't see any factual dispute here. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mindfully.org link

The list of members linked by User talk:Acaryatid is described as being from Anthony Sutton, but the page doesn't mention him. I'm going to remove it. If we were to accept Sutton as a source, it would be better to reference him directly. However, I don't think we can use him, as he explicitly relies on personal sources which cannot be verified. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Membership

Most of the info is common knowledge among educated citizens of the Unitede States of America. However, much like the lists at Wolf's Head and Scroll and Key, it needs editing. Bones has been powerful, indeed, or its members have been powerful (said another way). A list of 50 to 70 and probably 60 would make the point in this forum; likewise, a list of 25 to 35 would make the point for W.H.S. or Keys. Any questions?SLY111 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)SLY111

The readership of Wikipedia is not limited to the US, and in any case the references to do harm, so there is no compelling reason to remove them, while Wikipedia policies encourage their inclusion. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:SLY111 - why are you removing referenced members? E.g., why did you remove Edwin F. Sweet? Why are you categorizing these as minor edits? Removing material is not a minor edit. I will revert these changes shortly. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Skull and bones.jpg

Image:Skull and bones.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Research request

It is true the existing lists have been published for some years without legal challenge by any of the people listed and as such the validity of the list could not be seriously contested.

However I am supprised to read the above comment: The society published their lists until 1971.

If the Order published its lists there would be 1500 names from the 20th century alone; perhaps the Order did admit some very well known sons of power were members but I doubt a complete admission of members ha been available.

Is there any forum for the discussion of additional names? I am specifically interested to know if Philip Wilson Bonsal (Yale 1924) was a member or not; I would expect he probably did get tapped, but can this be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.14.212 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

Is it true that all Bonesmen are WASPs? Are any Catholic, Jewish or Black? It would be useful to indicate this information somehow on the page. Bletchley (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)