Talk:Skull and Bones

Anyone know if women are allowed into Skull and Bones? I recall having heard that they amended the rules a while back. --KrJnX 03:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removal of excessive skepticism

Thanks, "Jolly Roger"; a specially created account, I see :-) I realised after I'd rewritten and submitted the article that the society actually existed. Sorry for the bother. I was too tired to amend the article and haven't got round to fixing it. I've got some interesting information to add when I have the time.

Mr. Jones 20:48, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

POV bollocks

seriously, this article is more about disrespecting conspiracy theories than it is about skull and bones. what the ?@#$? show me the facts. show me the arguments. dont spend half the article saying 'conspiracy theories suck'

Old, Untitled Talk

The speculation as I understood was that the S&B society allowed and encouraged members to cooperativly scheme for money & power, without any moral considerations. From selling guns to Indians, to selling munitions to Germany in WW-1 or doing the banking for the Nazi party during WW-II; whatever it takes to make themselves and the country more profitable is promoted as the ultimate good. Have to kill off a few thousand citizens so the US can stabilise its long term oil industry arrangements?, that would be seen a good in the eyes of the S&B society. A belief in black magic wouldn't concern me one bit; but, if its members do use fiscal profit as their measure of 'success', then that would be a worry.

---

From edit comment: accusation was made; evidence is absent. S&B is as "Satanist" as Harry Potter. would be better to attribute the allegation, but I don't know named persons who allege it

I wasn't making an accusation; I was reporting that allegations have been made. That is why I bracketed the claim with the fact that most of the "well-known" S&B, such as the Bushes, profess Christianity. I consider the allegation kind of silly, actually -- but then, I'm not a Christian or any other sort of religious practitioner.

To insert "baseless", however, causes the article to make the theological claim that S&B rituals are -not- Satanic, for which there is -also- no evidence provided. Funny, that! Wikipedia is not a catechism. --FOo

No, to insert "baseless" is to say that the claim is made without evidence, not that it is false. I agree with you that the allegation is silly, and I object to putting unattributed silly allegations in the Wikipedia. The fact that some people will call any ritual but their own "Satanic" makes their calling any particular ritual Satanic somewhat less important to report. -- Someone else 05:00 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Charges of Satanism are, in fact, "baseless"... at least if one demands a basis be rational. On what basis are you asserting the charges were made? Please add them in, if you can locate them. In fact, the supposed basis is most often that the rites are not Christian, and use skulls.... a 'basis' from which you cannot reasonably reach "Satanism" with a large pole. -- Someone else 08:03 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

If charges of Satanism have indeed been made, then we need to attribute these views properly instead of simply dismissing them as baseless. To do so would violate NPOV, since the people making the charges would probably not agree with our assessment. Regardless, I agree that claims of Satanism seem far-fetched. While the documented S&B rituals have a lot in common with Satanic rites, that does not mean that the ideological background is the same -- just that the people doing it are equally brainfucked. --Eloquence 08:18 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

"Liken", I like that, it's much better. I put purported in front of the video. Rituals occur in the tomb, not in the "courtyard" so what's he's video'd is not a standard ritual. -- Someone else

I would argue that excluding ridiculous claims is not a violation of POV policy. One can make no statement with which everyone would agree, and an accusation should be either [1] Rational or [2] made by a lot of people to merit includsion. -- Someone else 08:22 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I agree -- if it's only on some personal website and without evidence it does not merit inclusion. --Eloquence 08:24 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

have led some to liken them to Satanic practices

Who is some here? Can we have some references and/or named advocates, please? And were they comparing the rituals with ones that form part of satanic ritual abuse, the church of Satan, or the Temple of Set? Martin 11:27 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The Black Lodge, as their name suggests, engage in Black Magick, as opposed to White. This means that their magickal endeavours are directed at Material Wealth, rather than Gnostic Attainment. They sell their souls to demonic entities for power, knowing not the profound stupidity of such a decision, blinded severely by their greed. They mete out havoc and death in the name of these entities, spreading their hatred and avarice until the Darkness within their hearts consumes them completely, sealing up their Minds in the Endless Tomb of Yaldabaoth.

---

Unsupported Conspiracy Theory, the Bohemian Grove issue? Excuse me?

Thank God for Fundamentalist Christians. I don't generally like them, but they come in handy when it comes to being incredibly fiesty at getting video footage of things like this. ;)

Video Footage of Bohemian Grove Ritual

---

Link not dead. Works fine. Don't delete it again. Khranus

---

'Speculation regarding' is slightly more acceptable, but this article seems like yet another where the notion of NPOV fails... It's a failed concept from the beginning, because it assumes that the majority of people can settle on one 'neutral' intepretation of phenomena. Clearly this is not the case. Khranus

You're missing the point of NPOV -- the aim is not to agree on a single viewpoint, but to report on the diversity of viewpoints. Where a viewpoint is generally accepted and unopposed, it may be reported as such. Where there is controversy, both sides' opinions should be mentioned. If one set of opinions are a minority opinion, this should also be stated. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV to see more. NPOV has been described as "the one non-negotiable rule" on Wikipedia. -- Karada 00:57, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. Don't you see the impracticality of such a philosophy? The only way for all viewpoints to be expressed is to leave them in their most natural state--allow them to flow with the Tao, as it were. Which would require that one central article no longer be the norm, but a series of different articles dedicated to different viewpoints--separated from one another and titled. People continue to cling to the failed notion of 'NPOV', and though it might appear to work in theory (which I don't think it does), it fails in practise. It's been used as nothing but a method for the furtherment of popular, accepted opinions, and is unfair to less popular memes. Simply put, NPOV denies humans the right to honest expression of their opinions--and that is, frankly, impractical and destined to fail. Khranus

You are free to believe that, but NPOV is a non-negotiable part of Wikipedia policy, and those who repeatedly violate it will be banned.—Eloquence

But true NPOV is impossible. You can't seperate a piece of writing from it's author and try to give it impartiality, there is no priviledged position from which to describe reality. We are all ultimately subjective beings, thus we cannot have NPOV as that implies an objective viewpoint. The idea of NPOV can't be interpreted as a hardline ban on any kind of interpretation; it is a necessary artifact of language. NPOV is intended to keep the debates on wikipedia centered on facts rather than affiliations, but NPOV also functions in an essentially norm-reinforcing manner, whereby the most commonly accepted notions are the ones perpetuated.

Hello post-modernism. Watch much Fox News? —Daelin

by no means void

this article is missing an essential element that i find is common in entries of a similar nature. whenever discussing controversial topics which are the subject of conspiracy theory, at least some lip service is given to the more commonly held (and/or more or less empirically justifiable if not totally substantiable) theories. i feel that this is prudent, considering the social implications of the effect the legend has on popular culture... especially so in this case because we are dealing with a society that is, by the admission of none other than the next president of the united states, a big fat 'secret'.

i would love an exposition on the theories surrounding the known history and more substantial of the evidence. i came here hoping to learn more about the supposed roots of the group in the opium trade, but found no mention whatsoever... i know that that isnt exactly an obscure part of the lore of S&B... what gives? PopeFauveXXIII, 6/24/04

Satanism?

Satanism in many contexts is a pejorative term. If someone profits from nuclear war, threatens nuclear war, engages in nuclear war, subjugates entire populations with opium and/or economic blackmail, misleads entire populations through controlled media, and invades harmless countries without justification, does that make him or her a Satanist? User:Tammie [sig added after by Sam]

I think Satanism = Nihilism = Atheism = Rejection of God = Bad person, but maybe thats just me. Sam [Spade] 14:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's just you, I'd hardly call myself a 'bad person' :/ -Das BooT-

Review amalek. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheism=Satanism? That's the dumbest thing I've heard since Bush said "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." Atheism is not believing in anything. Satanism isn't. If you vorship the devil, you're not an atheist, you're a satanist, because you do believe in something (satan in that case). Atheism is simply not believing in anything. I'm an atheist, and I'm proud of it. I don't see how by any logic, one can think that satanism=atheism. It's like saying you can use water instead of diesel in a car. Dumbass...

Don't pay attention to Sam. He's seems to enjoy baiting atheists for his own amusement. Kaldari 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of info

A much less common view is that Skull and Bones members are Dinosauroids or space aliens, often with ties to Nazi mysticism.

Why does this keep getting removed? It is a verifiable, (altho ridiculous) pov. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably because there is no source listed, nor does "skull and bones" show up as a link from the D. or s.a. articles. Please verify with a link before reinserting that paragraph. +sj+ 01:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I listed a source, which is now deleted. I'll list more tho, since you seem to take issue with it.Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything citable, so I agree it should stay out unless someone can verify it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delta Kappa Epsilon

Delta Kappa Epsilon (George W. Bush's fraternity) incorporates Druidic rituals in its intiation and pledgeship rites, including the uses of hooded black robes and candles. Many former dekes were also members of Skull and Bones and hold many powerful and influential positions in government, business and other affairs. Their membership includes: George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Rutherford B. Hayes, Sidney Souers (the first director of the CIA,) J.P. Morgan, Dean Witter, Irving Chase of Chase Manhattan, George Pataki, George Steinbrenner, A. Bartlett Giamatti, William Wrigley, and William Randolph Hearst, among countless others.

Deke involves utmost secrecy, the use of mystics and horrific pledgeship rituals involving brutality and humiliation. Branding of the buttocks with an iron "delta" is common among chapters.

Many young Dekes frequent George W. Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch and are allowed to do so simply because of their affiliation with Delta Kappa Epsilon.

What the heck is up with all of that upper case text?

Is all of that unwikified text copied from somewhere? RickK 10:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

This article is a mess

This article is a total mess. What do you guys think of replacing it with the Skull and Bones article from hierarchypedia: http://www.hierarchypedia.com/wiki/index.php/Skull_and_Bones The hierarchypedia article is GFDL, so it's fair game to reproduce verbatim. It's certainly a lot more coherant and readable than this article. Kaldari 06:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree - the current article is rubbish - the hierarchy entry certainly looks more professional.

(The preceding comment was posted by anon user with IP 195.194.199.50)

Yes, I also agree — the current article is simply terrible. I was going to start a thread here on how to improve it, but I agree we should just use the hierarchy article. Neilc 06:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's get rid of this portion of the Talk page. The link is dead and thus cannot merit discussion.--SVTCobra 7 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)

For people who get their writings edited out here

Hello I have created a new mediawiki site to house conspiratorial viewpoints and other information that gets edited out of wikipedia due to lack of encyclopedic nature. If you would like to contribute the link is on my user page at User:Conwiki April 18, 2005.

Factual dispute

207.200.116.13 has disputed the existence of the Skull & Bones and wishes to edit the article in a fashion consistent with this belief. Will anyone defend their existence or prove that they don't exist? I personally believe they do exist and will look into proof. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 01:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

They don't, there's all these conspiracy nuts that think they do exist because they want to think that America is dictatorship and there's a one-world government...Well I'll tell you now this is all not true.--207.200.116.13 02:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well thats fine, is there any way you can debunk the volumes that have been written to prove their existence? I welcome any kind of proof that this is indeed over a century of delusion.— oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 03:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you believe it doesn't exist have a look at the videos floating around the internet of George Bush and John Kerry admitting membership. Also see the hierarchypedia page at the bootom with many photos of the Skull and Bones classes. Then try going to Yale and looking in the year book for father Bush's year and it tells you he is a mebmer. Any suggestion that it doesn't exist is ridiculous --Hierarchypedia 12:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The anon's claim is ridiculous. And we shouldn't be tagging this article as disputed because of it. It has also now gone almost 5 days since Oo64eva asked him to come up with any documentation, and he hasn't. So I'm removing the disputed tag. Shanes 12:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's china?

I was thoroughly enjoying the article until I came across this little nugget: "In the tomb with each other for one year, members dine off Hitler's china set and silverware consuming expensive gourmet meals cooked for them by their own private maid/chef." In the tomb for one year? Hitler's china set? Is this factual, a typo, or what? Mr Bound 23:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This whole paragraph is suspect at best:

There are innumerable human skulls and bones in the 'tomb,' which of course is illegal under Connecticut law. Bones members are reported to be forced to reveal their innermost secrets and their "sexual biography" to one another. It has been suggested that this may be used for blackmailing. In the tomb with each other for one year, members dine off Hitler's china set and silverware consuming expensive gourmet meals cooked for them by their own private maid/chef. Members are given new code names. Plus, the members call themselves "Knights," and simultaneously call everyone else in the world at large "barbarians." The Order encourages members to view the world outside of Skull and Bones in a desensitized fashion and in a dissimulating fashion. Another dissociation is that clocks in the Bones 'tomb' run intentionally five minutes fast from the rest of the world, to give the members an ongoing sense that the Bonesmen's space is a totally separate world--and a world just a bit ahead of the curve of the rest of the "barbarians" outside. --SVTCobra 7 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond suspect, it is incoherent. "innumerable" skulls? Why are they not numerable? "I has been suggested" ??? It has been suggested the moon is made of green cheese -- somebody probably ought to include that, too. What is the source for this nonsense? There is none. This speaks volumes about the credibility of Wikipedia. Could someone please file a libel suit against Jim Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation. Oh fay? 16:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph is uncited and unbelievable. Can someone give me a reason why it hasn't been removed? -- SCZenz 20:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of rosters comment

I'm going to remove the part of the article that states "its membership rosters are a secret" because later in the article an extensive list of members is provided and then later it says "However the membership for each year is held in the Yale University archives." Dismas 10:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think their current rosters actually are secret though. Only the older ones are in the archives. Kaldari 17:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Slightly POV?

"The movie received horrible reviews and the fictitious nature of the film hardly needs to be disputed." --Joewithajay 00:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

"The fictitious nature of the film hardly needs to be disputed." shouldn't be in an enclyipedia, as it's not back up by evidence posted. Bayerischermann 03:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

in defence of the Smith, Brown, White, Johnson, Jones and Thompson "families"

This second category of core families covers such names as Smith, Allen, Brown, Clark, White, Day, Johnson, Jones, Miller, Stewart, Thompson, Cheney, Taft, Williams.

Ummm, IMHO, or rather in wikipedia's NPOV humble opinion, many of these are extremely common names in the United States:

List_of_most_common_surnames#United_States:

1. Smith (1.006%) - 3 million US citizens
2. Johnson (0.810%) - 2.4 million
3. (Williams (0.699%))
4. Jones (0.621%) - 1.8 million
5. Brown (0.621%) - 1.8 million
6. ...
7. White (0.279%)- 0.9 million
8. ...
9. Thompson (0.269%) - 0.8 million

Having frequent occurrence of these names is rather an argument in favour of random sampling (well, the total Smith+Johnson+Jones+Brown+White+Thompson is about 3.6% - someone could check if the fraction in Skull+Bones is 3.6% within Poisson error) rather than a bias in favour of certain families. IMHO only Cheney and Taft have any chance of being rare names here.

In fact, to see if S+B represents the present mix of family names in the US, and to see whether or not it has an anti-hispanic bias, it might be useful to check (date again from the same wikipedia page) whether the fractions of family names

1. Garcia (0.254%)
2. Martinez (0.234%)

are present among e.g. the last decade of S+B members, to within Poisson error. Of course, there are probably more useful things you could be doing with your time... Boud 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Warning! Government or Skull and Bones agents may be vandalizing this article

Socora threw on 2 tags recently with no comment at all. Socora has made no other contributions to Wikipedia at all. [[1]] 64.229.31.95 13:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean anything. Suggesting that someone is a government agent just because they posted 2 tags is complete conjecture. I'd like to see REAL proof, not just conspiracy theories. Government agents are limited in number, they wouldn't waste time tagging a wikipedia article. It's probably someone who thinks that the insane conspiracy theories in this article shouldn't be in wikipedia. If this happened in any other article, it would have gone unnoticed. Lay off the drugs, you're becoming paranoid.

---

Not to mention, that IP is in canada.

 whois 64.229.31.95            
 Bell Canada BELLCANADA-5 (NET-64-228-0-0-1) 
                                 64.228.0.0 - 64.231.255.255
 HSE HSE6921-CA (NET-64-229-28-0-1) 
                                 64.229.28.0 - 64.229.31.255

TheJackal 10:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Aliens

Yeah, hey crazy brothers, I think ALIENS formed this society to turn humans into canned goods. Word. And... THE GOVERNMENT IS EDITING THIS ENTRY! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

NIcknames?

Is this a joke or what?

Bones names of selected Bonesmen

   * William Howard Taft: Darth Sidius
   * F. O. Matthiessen: Darth Maul
   * Averell Harriman: Darth Tyranus
   * Henry Luce: Darth Vader
   * Briton Hadden: Galactus
   * Archibald MacLeish: Skeletor
   * McGeorge Bundy: Beast Man
   * Potter Stewart: El Crappo Magnifico
   * William F. Buckley: Cheeky Boy
   * Anson Phelps Stokes: Lassie
   * Reuben Holden: McGyver
   * Charles Seymour: Wild Fire
   * Donald Ogden Stewart: Monty

It's been like that for days, so I guess it's accurate. I guess these guys were like "magiculis miraculis" a type of alien that can see the pop culture OF THE FUTURE! 209.124.115.101

Unverified tag

Ok, this article contains a lot of rather dubious statements. These need to be cited, every last sentence of them, from reputable published works as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. See also Wikipedia:Citations. Eventually, if there are no citations, I'll start getting rid of the really preposterous stuff, like the coffin masturbation and Hitler's china. (It's not that I think it's not true, necessarily, it's that I can't believe it's been documented!) -- SCZenz 19:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*

The nicknames come from a book by Scroll and Key member Alexandra Robbins. She also cites the Nazi materials in the Tomb. Also in "Fleshing Out Skull and Bones" testiomny is given by people who have been in the tomb that there is NAzi materials in there.

You shouldn't go deleteing things because there is no referance to them when you do a google or yahoo search. There is a lot of information that is not on search engines!

I have also removed the referance "so-called secret society" and replaced it with "secret society." You can look at material from Yale that refers to it as a secret society. Also, the membership lists for the societies used to be printed in various newspapers to keep old boys informed. Quoting an article from the Chicago Daily Tribune, on May 26, 1899:

Yale's annual senior elections capping the supreme hope of the indergraduated for secret society honors, occurred this afternoon.

Thus secret society is encyclopedic; so-called secret society is an uninformed statement.

--81.155.49.224 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I can delete things that are not linked in reputable sources, and so can anyone else, if I request they be cited first and nobody cites them. We're writing an encyclopedia, which means our articles must indicate where the information comes from, especially if it appears dubious! For example, the source you list here is potentially biased, and all the facts that come from her should note that it came from her book in the text. Please refer to:

• WP:RS#Unattributed material
• WP:RS#Evaluating sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

Please cite your sources appropriately in the text according to Wikipedia:Cite sources.

You're absolutely right, of course, about the word "so-called"—us knowing if it exists or not isn't what makes it secret. -- SCZenz 22:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheney

As in Dick Cheney?

I believe so, yes.--Sean|Black 02:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Pacifica House

I removed the reference to Pacifica house as uncited. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Pacifica House. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)