Talk:Bohemian Grove

Alex Jones' video

Has it ever been verified by anyone as actually depicting the events he claims it depicts? I wouldn't put it past him to fabricate something to further his harebrained conspiracy theories. I think any mention of it should be removed unless someone can provide some substantiation that it was actually the "Cremation of Care." Just how did a relatively unknown conspiracy theorist get into a club for the world's elite, anyways? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.107.213 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

here's a link to the video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-82095917705734983 - he snuck in through the woods and pretended to be in the Hillbilly camp (i.e.) the Bush/Texas contingent -- Mblaxill (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a copy of the video, I've seen it. I asked for verification that it is what he claims it to be. And I find it very difficult that some random conspiracy nut with no connections would be able to sneak "in through the woods" and pretend "to be in the Hillbilly camp" without getting a rear end full of tazer, if not nine millimetres of lead. This club is supposedly open only to the rich and wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.107.213 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The footage has all the appearances of being exactly what it claims to be. Unless you feel you can bring forth a substantiated argument as to why you suspect it is likely not authentic, then I'd say leave it. ...like, for example, if you're in possession of copies of receipts from Alex Jones' filming budget which clearly documents expenditures for such things as obtaining multiple, identical transport trucks and dressing them with BC insignia. Or, documentation for production costs associated with the construction of replica signage that appears in both the Jones film and earlier, known, authenticated still images from the Grove. Or, perhaps something evidencing the substantial production costs related to an exact reconstruction of a 40 foot stone owl. Or, maybe even pay stubs for the hundreds of film extras Jones' hired for the shoot. Heck, I might even consider any valid, rational reason you can muster to suspect Alex Jones' of fabricating such things -- like any remote trace of a past history of engaging in such measures... do you have any of those things? 99.246.61.51 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to prove that it is false, and that's not what I'm trying to do (good job misrepresenting me). I'm merely asking for verification that it is what Jones claims it is. It's a pretty simple concept, and afaik a bedrock of Wikipedia policies: whenever something is presented as "evidence" of a controversial/disputed topic, it must be checked for verifiability. If Jones' video cannot be verified (as he does believe in every insane conspiracy theory in the books), it isn't appropriate to mention it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.107.213 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir, by attacking Mr. Jones mental stability and not the contents of his video you have shown bias towards the man and not the ideas and questions he raises. I wonder how much scrutiny you show towards other media, guerilla or otherwise. I can't imagine you showing such scrutiny towards other video evidence or news reporting so why this? Mr. Jones flims have been used for refrences by more established media other than Wikipedia, so give any evidence that this video is not valid for refrence on Wikipedia and leave the insults and doublethink to yourself. R. Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.54.196 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't someone just try and visually identify a known BG member in the video....thats just one way....i've not got the time... cheers (CMSpsacecakes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theyawn86 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, someone needs to fix the line about how Alex Jones "successfully made it out with documented evidence". Obviously written from a conspiracy point of view. The only thing this is evidence of is already known about.

Cancellation

Somebody delete the text ...

• Ritual-Place Wikimapia

... because of "Vandalism", IT IS NOT!!!

This is the Map Alex Jones use, you can see the map in the video! http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/bg_photos/008.jpg http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/bohemian_grove.html

On Wikimapia you can see the Lake and the tribune where the people sit too see the "Show"

Citations

There seems to be a disturbing lack of actual factual evidence in this article. Many statements are without citation, clearly going against the rules against "personal research" or any uncited material. Why is this? comment added by [[Jeremy] (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Moloch

I'm taking out the references to the Owl being named Moloch, because there is no support factually or mythologically for this to be true. Moloch was represented as a bull, not an owl, and all the references to the Grove Owl being called Moloch that I can find trace back to Alex Jones, a man who has repeatedly made unfounded accusations regarding the Grove.

Don't take this out. Perhaps you've never noticed the owl beside the "1" on the one dollar bill. Whatever the owl's name, be it "Moloch" or something else, is rather irrelevant. The name is more the issue here. Alex Jones might have misheard the name or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.24.99 (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see how an owl being beside the 1 on a one dollar bill is relevant, or even true. Also, as he said, the name is relevant if it says the name is Moloch. Seriously, I have no idea what you are trying to prove. Also, how exactly is Alex Jones a qualified expert on the issue?

you should grow eyes, there IS a owl named moloch on the one dollar bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.114 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A little blotch of ink doesn't count. Sorry. Kevin 12:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

answer the question, who cares about an owl on the $1 bill, thats not the freakin issue. we are talking about the name of the 40 foot stone owl statue are we not? where is the proof of the name being moloch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.73.47 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

buchanon mentioned moloch recently.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theyawn86 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing I've ever seen or heard from any Grover or any Grove-related artwork or literature relating Moloch to the large owl statue. The Owl is the Owl, and that's the extent of its identity. It's a hollow cement structure supported by steel bracing, with a locked door in its back, containing sound gear, power transformers, breakers and distribution conduits, lighting dimmers, communication signal lines and an electronic organ loudspeaker similar to a Leslie speaker but with no rotating parts. The structure is covered in enough lichen and moss to make it look like real stone from a medium distance. I was told that in the '60s or '70s, one man aspiring to full membership who owned a steam-cleaning rig brought the gear and a crew to the Grove on his own initiative and had the Owl blasted clean of its natural covering, revealing the bare concrete underneath. Nobody appreciated the effort and the guy was asked to leave for good. It makes a great story even if it isn't true. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cremation of Care

It is hardly the "main attraction" at the grove. It is the defacto "opening ceremony", but most of the political big wigs are there only on the second weekend, anyway.

Donald Rumsfeld is a member of Hillbillies, but hasn't attended the grove in years, either.

The club now prohibits members and guests to bring in the secret service as they have been disruptive to the grove activities. Nixon has visited the grove (as a member of the Cave Man camp) without the secret service, but G.H.W.Bush has not visited the grove since he became president. Probably a smart thing to do.

---

I added Bob Novak, since I remember someone on Capital Gang characterizing Bohemian Grove as a "place where one can see Bob Novak dance in a hula skirt." -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:45, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure he's probably a member since nobody on Capital Gang or a similar show would ever get their facts wrong, but maybe we should list people mentioned in original sources and not pundits, preferrably more than one place. Daniel Quinlan 01:14, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Bob Novak was in attendance when the remark was aired, and did not contradict it, but rather smiled angelically. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 04:23, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Well, i thinks thats pretty powerful evidence.

Politicians and "journalists" getting together for summer camp... that's good to know. Coeus (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

At the grove, guests attend a ritual wearing red-hooded robes and cremate a coffin effigy of "Dull Care" at the base of a 40-foot owl altar. This 'cremation of care' ceremony is the main attraction at the grove.

Some Bohemians include Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Alan Greenspan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William Jefferson Clinton, Robert Novak, etc.

Please NAME the sources who claim that BG puts on a cremation ritual.

Please NAME each source who says they saw the various presidents et al. at these rituals. --Uncle Ed 16:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What are you questioning? That these named individuals have attended at all or whether they attended that particular ceremony? If the latter, reword it so that, to your satisfaction, it no longer implies that any specific named individual attended any specific ceremony. It's hard to believe that you've even started to read the external links if you're questioning the effigy burning. Have you read them? If you haven't, I suggest that you start with Forbes magazine, then move on to the dissertation at the end of the list, though you'll probably find it rather dry and unsensational reading. Jamesday 00:40, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sacramento News and Review (a legit and respectable independent newspaper in Sacramento) on June 25, 2002 reported: "While no one outside the grove knows for sure who is attending this year's affair, past participants have included both George Bushes, Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, Caspar Weinberger, James Baker, Dick Cheney, Malcolm Forbes, Stephen Bechtel and a host of prominent CEOs and business leaders.... Some of the critics claim that important public-policy decisions are being made here in secret. Others point to the gathering's bizarre opening ceremony, in which a mock human sacrifice occurs, as evidence of occult activity..." I'm putting it back in. In the future please do at least a tiny bit of research before removing text. --mav 03:51, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Bill Clinton, a Democrat deemed sufficiently successful to be allowed into Bohemian Grove, has flown into Sonoma County airport to spend time amid the 2,700 acres 70 miles north-west of San Francisco." New Statesman 2004 article. From the same article: "This year, George H W Bush was in a camp named Hill Billies, along with dear old Rummy. Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and George P Shultz were in Mandalay." __meco (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter gave a talk at Lakeside in the early '90s. I was there, but I don't remember if it was 1990, 1991 or 1992. He began with a well-received joke that he was probably the only Democrat among the thousand or so men there... Which was wrong, because the few of us in the tech crew were Dems. I definitely saw Kissinger, Reagan, Baker, Wienberger and Daddy Bush in my summers working there. None of this will ever hold up as a reference, but I just wanted to let editors know that reasonable people (not tinfoil hat types) have been to the Grove and seen what goes on there. My two zinc/copper-sandwich cents... Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Old edits

I reverted the anonymous edit because:

1. they did not follow Ed's reasonable request for sources
2. first edit ever for that IP address

Daniel Quinlan 23:10, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

Daniel, I'm about to restore a couple of cites you removed. Here's why:

• San Francisco Examiner, your edit comment said that it was a different club. It's the same club. The Bohemian Grove is the summer campground of the San Francisco Bohemian Club. The end of the article explains the early campground days and the subsequent acquisition of the land which is now called the Bohemian Grove. See "Children who had been members of the Bohemian Club fondly remembered annual encampments and summer hi-jinks at the Bohemian Grove" and following text, starting about half way through the story.
• Rumsfeld. He's a well known participant (as if you want cites, or try a quick Google search - I think you'll find him mentioned in the dissertation as well) and the July journey to the club is clearly what he's referring to, though I've reworded it to say exactly what he says and let the reader draw their own conclusions about what he was referring to. Jamesday 10:37, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Rumsfeld a "well known participant?" Though he is "well known" but not a "well known participant." User:Boho

---

I removed "Many attendees are politically conservative." Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, and numerous other politicians who would never tout themselves as "politically conservative" have attended Bohemian Grove meetings. The allegation was unsupported and factually incorrect. 65.28.2.172 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

hey guys, you state in this section that the owl is a large 40 foot concrete stucture however if you watch alex jones second film on the subject. he has footage from a worker going inside the owl and it truns out to be a hollow 40 foot metal stucture which is used for storage the video is available on google video if you would like to confirm this (82.38.49.170 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

Hillbillies

From reading William Poundstone's Big Secrets series, I can believe that there's a camp called "Hillbillies". I'm also willing to believe that one or both Bush presidents have attended. I'm baffled, though, by the following paragraph, which appeared at an odd place in the article (after the external links):

The Bush's cabin at the Grove is called the Hillbillies. The Bush family worships Moloch and are reptocrats according to David Icke . In other words (as Dubya is wont to say), they are shapeshifting lizards. Other members of the Hillbillies camp includes Walter Cronkite and Micky Hart. The current President Bush is neither a member of the Club, nor on the waiting list, and Bush Sr. has not visited the Grove since his Presidency, and prefers to stay at his Kennebunk home.

Even if there is factually-accurate information in this paragraph, I'm pretty sure other parts of it are patent nonsense. Somebody with better information care to reinstate the good parts in an appropriate place?

-- Ventura 20:35, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

This is a mixed bag. The "Bush is a space lizard" idea is real, and verifiable, but its going to make a normal reader think we are fools ;) It ought to be included carefully, and at the bottom, in its own section. For more info see David Icke, reptilian humanoid, and Nazi mysticism. There is also a scrap of info and a link on Skull and bones. Sam [Spade] 21:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the space lizard idea dealt with sufficiently in other entries? Information about attendees which is not relevant to their antendance strikes me as a poor fit for the Bohemian Grove page. -- Ventura 22:54, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Good point. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rotten links

Preface: The past few days I read through most of the Rotten.com Library and noticed that many of the articles are either new or radically filled out. I also noted that several Wikipages linked to the Library and took it upon myself to add links to all relevant pages with significant Rotten pages (none of the spartan mini-pages). Several Users complained on my edit pages, and User:Clawson eventually reverted most of the pages. The following are the conversations made on various talk pages that I've organized here by users involved in the conversation (It seems to make the most sense).--TheGrza 06:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:TheGrza and User:Weyes

Please stop indiscriminately adding rotten.com external links to articles. External links to such articles should only be added if they contain extra information not available in the article (and even then, it is much preferred to add the content to the article itsself so wikipedia actually improves). See Wikipedia:External links for more information. --W(t) 01:43, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Hey, These links aren't indiscriminate and they do contain information or characterization that isn't available in the articles, specifically the Hashshashin link to al-Qaeda which is not found in either article.--TheGrza 01:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:TheGrza and User:Pavel Vozenilek

I very much agree with Weyes. Pavel Vozenilek 02:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain to me any way these links violate Wikipedia's external linking policy, or hurt the articles they appear in?--TheGrza 02:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The articles on rotten.com (at least those I chacked) do not contain more information than the Wikipedia article itself. Therefore they bring very little value. Such links may have value to prove article topic does exist but this is obviously not case of your links. (User:Pavel Vozenilek)

Please read the articles before you decide. They are much longer then before and DO add a lot to the articles they have been linked to. There are still miniscule articles, but I am not linking to those for precisely the reasons you have noted.--TheGrza 02:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:TheGrza and User:Grenavitar

Agreed, please stop gren 02:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Rotten Library has grown extensively lately, and the articles I am adding are fully fleshed out articles with significant information relating to the topics I've added them to. I haven't added the minor template-esque articles relating to any of these topics and so none of these links violates Wikipolicy regarding external links, or anything else for that matter.--TheGrza 02:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

They are highly POV gren 02:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links almost always violate the POV ideals cultivated here at Wikipedia. That's why they're external instead of internal links, and it's not an argument for their removal.--TheGrza 02:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vip Complaint

• TheGrza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Right now he is busily adding dozens of external links to rotten.com to various articles. These links show nothing new compared to Wikipedia, what I could check. Pavel Vozenilek 02:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • I am adding links to fleshed out articles, which Pavel failed to check before he posted this VIP. None of these articles simply rehash information, violate Wikipolicy on external links or constitute anything close to vandalism.--TheGrza 02:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is an edit dispute. Therefore it does not belong on VIP. Take it to WP:RFC if need be. Sockatume 04:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:TheGrza and User:Clawson

You can talk about how "fleshed out" these articles are all you want, but they are NOT adding anything to Wikipedia. At best, they're rather weak and poorly written editorials.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are clearly not simply poorly written editorials, they are encyclopedic articles from a different perspective then the one Wikipedia provides, with information that Wikipedia also doesn't provide. To remove them without reading the specific articles (All of which I read before I added them to Wikipedia, instead of prejudging them as it appears happened after Pavel added me to ViP after assuming, by his own admission, that he hadn't read the articles he complained about) is absurd.--TheGrza 02:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading them. They aren't encyclopedic, and they aren't particularly interesting. And they are editorials, but you're presenting them as fact. That's why you have to stop.—chris.lawson (talk) 02:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As soon as my edits started to be removed (or I became aware of that fact) I stopped adding to it because I'm not a big fan of gigantic retarded edit wars. Actually, in order to make sure this can be a conversation about the quality of the links instead of a fight, I make this gesture: You've missed some, further down the line. I believe Joanie Laurer is the last one not removed, but almost all of my edits after the first Bohemian Grove edit are on this topic. Also, please make sure you don't remove other edits I added while adding these links (not a shot at you, but it happened once in an edit war and it made my head explode).

In reference to your comments about them being poorly written editorials, you removed about 30 of the articles in the course of about 25 minutes, which make your claim that you read each one before deleting it a little bit questionable. Another point I'd like to make is that POV is not a qualifier for removal. In fact Rule 4. on Wikipedia:External links says "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is."

Many of these articles have the POV of the Rotten Library articles included in the page, but not in the link section. In fact, much of the material that is taken from the Rotten pages and finds it's way into the Wikipage isn't cited anywhere as the source of the information, and I know that I have at least used the page as a source, and there were also a couple pages that included the link already to reference the fact that information had been taken the page.

(Rule 3. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.)

I don't think that there is a context where these articles aren't allowed under Wikipolicy, not is it vandalism or linkspamming as I have been accused of.--TheGrza 03:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with TheGrza that this isn't vandalism, and must commend him for the constructive way he's trying to solve this. However, mass adding external links is always going to attract a lot of opposition, and rightly so. External links to informative articles should only be used in the rare case where important facts are missing from the article in question, and even then only as a stop-gap measure until the information has been incorporated into the article in question. In the majority of the rotten links posted I've only seen highly-pov essays on the subject matter that didn't significantly add anything to our articles. --W(t) 15:20, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Snuff films

There has never been any proof that any snuff film has ever been created. [1] Unless the user adding all of these unsubstantiated allegations has some hidden proof that has escaped all of the world's police agencies, allegations of snuff films makes all the rest of the edits suspect. Zoe 09:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• And the author needs to read up on the history of the swastika to understand its use prior to the rise of the Nazi Party and understand that anything from 1915 with a swastika on it is hardly suspect of anything. Zoe 09:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hey jerk, how about not removing all of the photos and suchDemigod of the Old Testament 09:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

How about making them thumbnails instead of gigantic images, and documenting your allegations? Please note that I did not stoop to name calling. And please respond to my comments above. Zoe 09:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to delete the image with the swastika, as it is an attempt at smearing the organization with an image that is not germane. Please note that I have no axe to grind on this issue. I have heard of the Bohemian Grove, but neither support nor deprecate the organization. I am merely trying to keep the article NPOV. Zoe 18:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

So you are going to delete factual history? You are going to supress the truth? I'll keep posting the photos.

If you want to post the image without the editorial comment about the swastika, I will withdraw my objections, but your pointing to it as some evidence of something evil is an editorial comment and violates NPOV. Zoe 21:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please include all the relevant facts regarding Paul Bonacci? The except ends with the court award, but does not mention that the decision was overturned, nor that the allegations were the result of a frame attempt.69.167.22.19 08:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Zoe here. The snuff films, nazism, and all the other charges are rumours and allegations. Its nice enough of Zoe to have moved them to the talk page, considering. Perhaps a compromise would be to add to the "external links" section some pages that have summaries of these allegations. Nygdan 1-25-2006

i think the person backing up this page is involved (with global elite) everything talked about bohemian grove that you a-holes have removed...is true, and you know it, and the films havent escaped the worlds police...the people in bohemian grove RUN THE F*cking world, which is why there is no proof...a-hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.114 (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a new world order, world police and all that CT crap. Give it a rest. Kevin 04:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is your proof that there is none kevin? Not being sarcastic, i wanna know your evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.114 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof that there is one, Anonymous? Not being sarcastic, I want to know your evidence. Kevin 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why 'allegedly'?

At the bottom under External Links it says that Alex Jones "allegedly" got into the grove. I'm of mind to just take that out, but I'm new here so I'm posing the question. Anyone object? --Chris Heath 02:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegations

I am moving the following to the talk page. These types of very serious allegations need to be properly sourced. Right now, the links are either not working or do not mention the Grove. Given the current climate, Wikipedia can not play games with this kind of stuff. -- JJay 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Allegations Child Snuff Porn

In the Franklin Coverup Scandal of 1989, investigators of that case discovered that Paul Bonacci wrote in his diary that he had been flown into the Grove by republican leader Lawrence King and was forced into sexual acts with other boys including snuff films and BDSM.[2] Paul Bonacci later testified to these charges in court with U.S. Senior District Judge Warren K. Urbom presiding. Bonacci won the court case and was awarded $1 million by Judge Urbom.[3]

can someone tell me what the point of all these "rituals" and symbolism is or explain why they are doing what they are doing?

Allegations of homosexual prostitution

Spy Magazine in the 1989 Issue reported about the grove and its busing in of homosexual prostitutes from surrounding towns and the problem with members contracting AIDS.

In 2004, the New York Post mentioned in its Page 6 column that a gay porn star was working at the retreat as a waiter.[4]

"Page 6" is not a very reliable source, especially since the latest revelations. I propose removing this sentence and its citation. -Will Beback 04:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Veracity?

I haven't found a single instance in this article where the various claims of Alex Jones are rationally scrutinized or given a substantial neutral analysis. For example, is it really commonly accepted that George Bush attended the Cremation of Care?

Further, aren't the quotes "However, Jones and Hanson's footage is a visual, modern reminder for those of the technilogical age that the people who run the United States and the world, and that make decisions affecting millions of people, still get up to this sort of thing" and "self-proclaimed Christian" slightly, if not extremely, partisan? It presents it as if it's a common fact that modern leaders are occultists and subtly (yet nonetheless clearly) criticises George Bush's proclaimed Christianity. I find it hard to believe that the majority of people take these or any other of Alex Jones' various claims for infallible gospel--as the writer of this particular section obviously does. Moneyobie 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On Bush's problaimed Christianity: everyone with any sort of critical thinking skills has at least one time or another wondered if perhaps Bush only proclaims his strong Christian faith for the same reason any snake-oil salesman would. Bush was a Skull and Bones member, and that society is famous for their tenet of gathering power in any way possible, including pretense of strong religious devotion. There is plenty of reason to question his faith, however, given his apparent level of intelligence, it may be quite possible that he has learned to believe the lie, if it is/was such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.24.99 (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, it's not the "various claims" of Alex Jones to which this article refers, but in fact the Video Evidence which clearly depicts the cremation of care, and if there is dispute over the use of the term "occult" or "occultic" I shall refer to the Oxford English Dictionary. After reading its definition, then tell me this is not occult:

1. a. Not disclosed or divulged, secret; kept secret; communicated only to the initiated. Now rare.
   b. Of or relating to magic, alchemy, astrology, theosophy, or other practical arts held to involve agencies of a secret or mysterious nature; of the nature of such an art; dealing with or versed in such matters; magical.
2. a. Not apprehended, or not apprehensible, by the mind; beyond ordinary understanding or knowledge; abstruse, mysterious; inexplicable.
3. a. Hidden from sight; concealed (by something interposed); not exposed to view.

Or:--Paul E. Ester 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

   2. With the. The realm of the unknown; the supernatural world or its influences, manifestations, etc.; (collectively) magic, alchemy, astrology, and other practical arts of a secret or mysterious nature.

So is the Grove Occult or not?

No, its just a fraternity. As "occultic" as, say, the Church of Bob. ...Satellite link attached to article. --ElectricEye 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I still dont see enoug skepticism

There are other gatherings of world leaders, the G8 and such.

Why is this Wiki article not more skeptical?

One such line reads "the primary means of corporate contact," anything to back that?

Im editing for lack of citations.

Blair

Add blair after this years meeting[5] --Paul E. Ester 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity of Quote

Is this quote even real?

"The world is divided in to three classes of people: a very small group that makes things happen, a somewhat larger group that watches things happen, and the great multitude which never knows what happened."

I did a google search on it and it only pops up on a handful of obscure conspiracy theorist sites.

News Story 31 Aug 06, possibly of interest

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/bohemian-grove-exposes-itself/25756/ Thought that this might be of some interest. Hi There 06:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on possible WP:BLP violations

One editor believes that this article may have WP:BLP violations because it is reporting a factual event regarding the Bohemian Grove. So far he has refused to dialog about this, but I am trying to do so.

I disagree that WP:BLP is violated for the following reasons:

1. First of all, this is not a Biography of living persons.
2. Even if it were a biography, I believe that the requirements are : Verifiability, Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View. If these are met, then the problems of violating WP:BLP are avoided. In this article, the item is referenced and there are other articles on the project which give further details. Furthermore, the article describes the suit as having been defeated. Thus, this passage meets the criteria of Verifiability, Reliable Sources and Neutral Point of View. It simply reports a factual bit of history.
3. There are no implications, assertions or innuendo regarding living persons. That living persons also happen to appear (in a different section) is not the same thing as a slur, innuendo or implication of something described elsewhere.

There may be other objections to this passage but it should NOT be an objection based upon WP:BLP. Since we have such policies they should be taken seriously and not used to indiscriminately remove information from articles that we do not like. --Blue Tie 19:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy applies to any material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, not just in the person's biography, if there is one. This includes talk pages, which may be an issue here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"...claimed that he had been kidnapped and flown to the Grove..." I have not found a reliable source for this, and am again removing the paragraph per WP:BLP. It should not be added again unless reliable sources are included with it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it can be reliably referenced. However, it is somewhat crufty. --Blue Tie 14:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mother Jones article

Should include reference to Aug. 81 Mother Jones (magazine) article... AnonMoos 15:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

BLP template

I added the WP:BLP template to the top of this page. All editors are reminded that when dealing with live persons and controversial information related to them, the quality of sources must be above reproach. If the source for any controversial statement is missing or of poor quality, it may be removed by anyone without discussion. Removal of such unsourced or poorly sourced statements is exempt from the WP:3RR rule. Crum375 03:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 05:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While it would be wrong 99% of the time to use a video as a source, there is no problem with posting links to Alex Jones' videos (when applicable) in the External Links section... His company (AEJ Productions) posts the videos itself for worldwide distribution (hence no copyright violation) e.g. [6], which is the video we are talking about, was posted by him. -Electrostatic1 10:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Biography project banner

I removed the WikiProject Biography banner. This page is about a place, not about a person.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography banner was in place because there was contested information regarding the histories of certain individuals interwoven throughout the article. This is discussed above. While I won't replace the banner (as I have no history with this article), it should probably be put back. Wolfraem 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I added the Citations Needed banner because after browsing the article I found, while there are sources listed at the bottom, many sections have no references. As the article reads to be more than just a superfluous attempt at conspiracy theory (read above) it really does need quality citation to point researchers to which references correspond to what content in the article. Not using in-line citations seriously damages the credibility of this article.
A list of sections needing citations:

1. Introduction
2. History
3. Past attendees
4. Facilities -- While the section refers to the external links, it should state which link(s) will provide the information.
5. Symbolism and Rituals -- Especially the Ceremony section.
6. Protests and Controversies
7. Quotations The second and third quote need direct sources

I'm not saying this to be critical to the article -- I find it an intriguing subject. However, especially when dealing in a situation where the subject matter is quite a bit less-than-popular, it must be held to a quality higher than most articles on this site in order to maintain a less-than-deserved level of respect. So, if anyone is still watching this article who contributed in the past, please step up and provide a professional level of citation support. Furthermore, once a section is sufficiently cited (where statements that can't be considered public knowledge are all accounted for), please feel free to remove it from my list. Wolfraem 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this raises an interesting point with wikipedia. Each of the sections you are questioning is supported by references. They are found in the references section. However, you are calling for in-line citations. I do not think wikipedia policy expressly mentions this preference for in-line citations, and really, it should. At the same time, I think it would be better if there were a template that also made this distinction -- saying "This article may have adequate references but they need to be converted to in-line citations." --Blue Tie 00:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any authoritative source that has defined what the Bohemian Grove society means by "dull care" in the ritual. --NNNSlogan 12 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.208.203 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

NY Times Gergen Quote

I noticed a back and forth over the neutrality of the NY times quote about "running around the woods naked" and just wanted to point out the misunderstanding - the Editor's Note portion is from the actual NY Times story, not a Wikipedia editor. Looks like the Times got an earful from someone and were forced to run a mea culpa of sorts the next day, so there's no neutrality issue ... although I was confused as well -- Mblaxill (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

"Being a homosexual is a mandatory requirement to join the club, you will be denied immediately if you are heterosexual. ... After 40 years of membership the men earn "Old Pedifile" status, giving them reserved seating at the Grove's daily talks, as well as other PREREQUISITESs."

That's a case of vandalism, I presume.

77.24.45.16 (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)