Talk:Sierra Club/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sierra Club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709033515/http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2008-06-19.asp to http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2008-06-19.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Membership Figures
According to the infobox, the club has 2,100,000 members, citing the official website, which as of today even claims 2,400,000. This seems huge, especially since in a 2012 Q&A on a New York Times blog Michael Brune talks about 601,000 members in 2011. The "about" page actually counts "members and supporters"; as the definition of a "supporter" can be quite flexible, I suppose that is where the discrepancy comes from. So: should the number in the infobox be replaced? Mwarf (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I know this is a little old, but the problem still remains. I actually think membership should be cut if no reliable third party source is found. Toad02 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's what inline attribution is for. A self-published and WP:PRIMARY source is considered as a WP:Reliable source for what it says about itself. Putting that altogether, WP:Verification is satisfied with article text saying, in some fashion or other, According to the Sierra Club, as of date X their membership was y.(cited references). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- However, I do see your point. Their marketing stuff does say "members and supporters". So I looked up their legal pleadings, where the courts don't give a crap about online petitions and small donations. In 2017 one of these said membership was "over 750,000 nationally", so I'll update the infobox with that figure and ref. Thanks for calling it to our attention @Toad02:. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's what inline attribution is for. A self-published and WP:PRIMARY source is considered as a WP:Reliable source for what it says about itself. Putting that altogether, WP:Verification is satisfied with article text saying, in some fashion or other, According to the Sierra Club, as of date X their membership was y.(cited references). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)