Talk:Bohemian Grove

Alex Jones

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.--207.216.77.201 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Known about by few, judging by some of the people on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautant (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Censorship by Binksternet

I am reporting censorship by user Binksternet. You can read about this censorship here. In fact, this user has been found guilty of this censorship twice. Apparently, Binksternet does not understand that s/he does not own Wikipedia, that it is a COLLABORATIVE project. Instead, s/he seems to be trying to DICTATE it's content. Sicjedi (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several reasons I removed that text. It's wrong, it's undue weight per WP:WEIGHT and it's a deprecated repository of text per Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources.

• Wrong. The text was poorly transcribed by Alex Jones in his video. He mishears "fairy unguents" as "carrion", probably because his microphone rustled at the wrong time and because the distance from the ceremony. 'Fairy un-' rhymes with "carrion"... and the last syllable of '-guents' was pronounced softly at that performance, masked by the shitty microphone situation. The correct text changes very slightly from year to year; it appears each year in historic Bohemian club publications such as:
  • Bohemian Club. Ceremony of the Cremation of Care, July 27, 1918
  • Bromley, George T.; Frederick Somers; Bohemian Club. The Cremation of Care Fifty-third Celebration, 1933
  • Field, Charles Kellogg; Bohemian Club. The Cremation of Care. "On the Occasion of the Sixty-seventh Consecutive Performance of the Cremation of Care, the Ritual Now in Use is Published by the Club for Its Members with the Introductory Review of the Evolution of the Ceremonial." 1947
  • Field, Palmer; Bohemian Club. The Cremation of Care: A History Exhumed and Dusted Off by Palmer Field. "Upon the Occasion of the 74th Consecutive Performance, July 18, 1953"
  • Garnett, Porter, The Bohemian Jinks: A Treatise, 1908
  • Keeler, Charles Augustus; Wade C Hughan; Karen Melcher (frontispiece); Peter Rutledge Koch. A Service for the Cremation of Care, Lands End Press, 1989
  • Newhall, Almer M.; Bohemian Club. The Ceremony of the Cremation of Care, 1920
  • Swinnerton, James G.; Bohemian Club. The Cremation of Care. "Fiftieth anniversary of the cremation of care." 1930
• Undue Weight. The text pulls the attention more toward the Cremation of Care when the article is about the Bohemian Grove.
• Not repository. The text should be uploaded to its own new webpage at Wikisource. That venue is where full transcriptions are to be hosted. Naturally, if you put the Jones version up, I'll follow it with one or more official versions. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the Owl Statue

Binksternet deleted an old photo I found because the date I thought it was 1912 when I uploaded it but apparently the statue was built in the 1920s. I think the photo would add to the article, what do others think? Itabletboy (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the photo, and I think it should be in the article. However, you uploaded it without proper sourcing, just like you uploaded two other photos to Commons. I believe you got it from an internet site, but for the Commons, you will have to find the original source of the photo, and name it. Once you do that, you will likely find that the source is not old enough to make the photo public domain because of age. One alternative is to upload the photo just on the English-language Wikipedia, and to write up a non-free use rationale. You can see one of those in place at the image File:Harvey Hancock at Bohemian Grove 1967.jpeg, where it was not free, but its use has been rationalized for the two articles it appears in. By the way, the statue is the "Owl Shrine" from Haig Patigian, not Moloch or whatever fanciful ideas came from Alex Jones. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and after a slight review, I see that you are also correct that the statue is not supposed to be Moloch at all, that was the name on the image in error I think. Itabletboy (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I will try to do a proper image upload later on and thanks again. Itabletboy (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added a photo of the statue and surrounding area that I took. I marked it as free use, but now I am not sure it qualifies. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Owl_Shrine.jpg Aarkwilde (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why your image would not be free use. Looks okay to me, except that the nearby ferns are speeding by and blurry, and your Hawaiian shirt shows in the car's rear view mirror. The Owl is not very well featured but its placement is. Maybe I'll crop the photo to trim the mirror. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the owl statue alluded to the old proposed site for the bohemians club. The project was called the Owel's Nest and was to be constructed in what is current day San Carlos, Californai. However, due to local disapproval, the project was abandon and the current site of Bohemian grove was deiced. This being said, even though the statue may not have been an artifact from the founding era, the depiction of an owl may be explained by the original project's name.

This is a particular area of interest for me and I have done some research on the topic as my family and I live in one of the original retreats for the bohemian club. The building was built by Nathaniel J. Brittan and was used to entertain his fellow mates in the 1870's. Much of this information is available on the following websites:

http://www.inconspicuoustruth.com/#!__political-main/bohemian-club http://www.cityofsancarlos.org/visitors/history_of_san_carlos/san_carlos_in_the_1800.asp http://www.noehill.com/sanmateo/nat1994001500.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.233.78 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is some misinformation mixed in with the accurate facts. First off, Nathaniel J. Brittan joined the Bohemian Club on February 3, 1874, two years after its founding in April 1872, so he cannot be a founding member. Second, Brittan's offer to host the club at his house could never have been seriously considered by the club, since they were looking for much larger acreage—a couple of thousand acres. I believe you may have reversed the significance of "Owl's Nest" with the owl mascot... The club's mascot was made the owl "at an early date", certainly by December 1874 when the new mascot was reported in the Overland Monthly: "Scientific notes". With Brittan being a fairly new member having little clout at that time, I doubt he was able to push for the owl as mascot based on his San Carlos building project. Brittan is never mentioned in Bohemian Club history documents as having anything to do with the owl mascot, nor is he mentioned as offering a San Carlos alternative location for the Grove encampment. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Uninhibited behavior

I added a subsection on this aspect which it seems to me is oneof,if not, the most notable aspect of the event. Itabletboy (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I did not try to put inflammatory info from the source but I do wonder whether we should include the allegations of homosexual undertones somewhere in the article (as allegations) ? Itabletboy (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody alleges homosexual 'undertones', they allege homosexual activity. There are indeed homosexual men in the Bohemian Club, a few, just as there are homosexual men who have not joined the club. The way I read the story, some of the ones in the club have sex at the Bohemian Grove, which allows for the concept that most do not. So what? Some of the heterosexual club members go outside the Grove and pay hookers for sex, female prostitutes they meet at the nearby Northwood Golf Club lounge and elsewhere. Most homo- and hetero- Grovers do not hunt for sex while they hang out at the camp, as far as I can tell. Club members who seek sex while they are at the Grove are in the minority. The difference between the two groups of sex-seeking clubbers is that one group must go outside the camp to find women, and the other group may go outside to find men, or may not, by choice. This is not big news, in my mind. I don't think it is a major issue of the Bohemian Grove exactly, I think it is an issue of the Bohemian Club, if anything. Did you know club men can spend the night at the Bohemian Club all year long if they want to, and they spend maybe three weeks at the Grove? Some 94–95% of the chances for club men to have sex with each other would be happening at the Club in the city, not the Grove in the country.

Speaking of alleged homosexual activity, I am giving notice of intent to post some links quoting former Pres. Richard Nixon on that point, and linking to audio of him in his own words. There seems to be some support for it, so I'll make the edit here shortly.96.59.162.50 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If peeing on trees is what you think is important, explain why. Weiss says it is "the most gloried-in" part of hanging out at the camp—the freedom to piss anywhere, or not quite anywhere, as he explains later in the article. The club men and their guests 'glory' in the activity, but so do hunters and hikers in the woods, farmers in their fields, fishermen, sailors, explorers... a lot of men urinate in nature when they get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm relying on our notability policy. Re: "homosexual undertones": I'm just reading the Weiss article for the first time and he does say in his description of the Cremation of Care ( I'll make up an acronym COC ) that "Vaguely homosexual undertones suffused this spectacle, as they do much of ritualized life in the Grove". I don't really think we're supposed to make judgments as to what's important but rather to include content relative to what the RS's think is important,i.e. notable and Weiss does clearly state that he thought the peeing and other uninhibited behavior is especially important to this group and I'd say it deserves a subsection at least.

This paragraph in Weiss's report clearly states,I think, that the uninhibited behavior is the most notable aspect of the Bohemian Grove which is the title of this article.

"You know you are inside the Bohemian Grove when you come down a trail in the woods and hear piano music from amid a group of tents and then round a bend to see a man with a beer in one hand and his penis in the other, urinating into the bushes. This is the most gloried-in ritual of the encampment, the freedom of powerful men to pee wherever they like, a right the club has invoked when trying to fight government anti-sex discrimination efforts and one curtailed only when it comes to a few popular redwoods just outside the Dining Circle. Tacked to one of these haplessly postprandial trees is a sign conveying the fairy-dust mixture of boyishness and courtliness that envelops the encampment." Itabletboy (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Brad Meltzer attempted infiltration

I deleted a paragraph discussing the attempted infiltration by Brad Meltzer and a Decoded film crew in which the on-air talent and two crew persons were turned away from the main entrance and then the two crew persons were arrested trespassing from the river, with Meltzer escaping security. It's an unbelievably lame story, not worthy of the name "journalism", but the History Channel aired it anyway. Journalist Zennie Abraham, the CEO of Sports Business Simulations, blogged about it at SF Gate, calling it "embarrassingly bad and devoid of any real information" and that the Decoded episode "decoded nothing".

I deleted it because the episode was not the subject of mainstream media commentary: it was not important enough. Abraham's blog is not a good enough source, not mainstream enough. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias

This article clearly has a strong bias to hint towards nefarious activities occurring at this camp. It needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.190.215 (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

One change that could be done is eliminating Bilderberg Group from the See Also section... unrelated, merely CT thought Sailingfanblues (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

quick follow-up, I went ahead and removed Bilderberg, S1, Trilateral Commission, and World Economic Forum b/c their inclusion really felt like 'I think this means something...' conspiracy theory nonsense. They are unmentioned anywhere else in the article, probably b/c if they were it would rely on unreliable sourcing and they are more think tank/discussion groups than recreational retreats (even if they all involve important members of our society.) Please feel free to discuss below. Sailingfanblues (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This article doesn't have enough documentation of the nefarious activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautant (talk • contribs) 23:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Quote Section

Why is there a quote section on this page? I feel like I'm reading IMDB. If these quotes are so important, why are they not integrated into the text in general? Thoughts on removing this? (And for the record, I still think they should be nixed even though they are all negative, anti-conspiracy theory quotes...) Sailingfanblues (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was never a fan of this section. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All in favor of deleting? Perhaps 3 days of conversation/dissent? Sailingfanblues (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Infiltration Section

In July 2024, a YouTube user named "Dancer" claiming to have infiltrated Bohemian Grove released high-definition video footage purportedly showing the interior of the campgrounds. The authenticity and significance of this footage have not been independently verified by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundDrout (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This section is way too long and features unnecessary summaries of multiple Alex Jones films. I think it could be pruned with more concise references to the notable Spy infiltration and the less important conspiracy theorist attempts. (Moreover, is there not a better term than infiltration? If so many people have done it, the word makes these attempts seem more arduous than they must actually have been.) Also, I'm not sure where to move it to, but the Teddy Bear's Picnic/Harry Shearer film note does not make sense where it is... it's a parody, not an infiltration. Thoughts on what to do about this? Sailingfanblues (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the article not have enough references to the "notable" Spy documentation? It honestly is filled with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronautant (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've re-written the infiltration section and moved it to a new section regarding security overall. I removed parts which seemed biased and attempted to present only news-worthy infiltration. I did my best to keep a neutral point of view, but I am open to any criticism of my efforts. ([User:brianhama|brianhama])

What about the irony of calling it "bohemian"?

Surely this deserves a mention. Bohemians are those who choose poverty and outsider status for the sake of art and integrity to one's non-materialistic ideals. The name of this group is either radically redifining what bohemianism is to incorporate major portions of its antethesis, or is thoroughly ironic. I'm not yet familiar enough with Wikipedia's rules, & I expect making such a comment in the article will be deleted as possibly inappropriate. I can provide some references on the definition of bohemianism (e.g. Among the Bohemians by Virginia Nicholson). Question to more experienced Wikipedia editors: Is such material entirely out of place in this article, or could it be used? If so, any tips? Deluno (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of what you are looking for is already in the Bohemianism article. The connection is that wandering newspaper reporters in America during the American Civil War took to calling themselves Bohemians. (We would call them war correspondents today.) A few years later in San Francisco, some newspapermen who were starting a new men's club settled upon the already familiar term "bohemian". Later Bo Clubbers were wealthy men-about-town rather than ink-stained newsies, so the club's use of the term "bohemian" drifted away from previous definitions. Several of the club members have taken a go at the issue, notably George Sterling who wrote that poverty, youth and radicalism were essential to the true definition of bohemian, but none of these elements were present in the upper crust of the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the name seems ironic nowadays. Of course, any potentially controversial additions to the article should be based on (and cite) reliable sources. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it's as ironic as you're making it out to be. First, because there were bohemians in the club from the beginning -- artists, poets and so forth. I wouldn't say that poverty is a requirement for bohemianism; I could cite many bohemians who were born with, or even made their own money. But as to the BC: surely Joaquin Miller, Bret Harte, Henry George, Ambrose Bierce and Jack London (all early or founding members) could be described as "bohemians". Bricology (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"See also"

In the section "See also", there is a link to the wiki about the Pacific-Union Club, with this justification: "An elite San Francisco-based club whose membership interlinks with the Bohemian Club and Grove." I think this is nonsensical. Yes, some of the members of the P-U are Bohemians and some Bohemians also belong to the P-U, but it's nowhere near a majority of either, and many Bohemians also belong to other "elite San Francisco-based clubs" such as the St. Francis Yacht Club, so should we also link to those clubs? I don't see why. I'll give it a week or two for others to argue for it staying. If no one does, I'll just remove it. Bricology (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The P-U Club link should stay but the justification should go. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, Binksternet. The way it works is that you need to provide justification for why it should stay, not just declare it to be so. The fact is that the majority of P-U Club members live in the SF area. The majority of Bohemians do not. There are are no formal ties between the Bohemian and P-U Clubs. Indeed, there aren't even any informal ties beyond the fact that many people in the SF area belong to multiple clubs. One could just as easily claim that the Olympic Club, the St. Francis Yacht Club or the San Francisco Golf Club "interlink with the Bohemian Club and Grove". It's nonsensical, and the onus is upon the editor who added it to justify its inclusion. Bricology (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The "See also" area is for articles on related subjects that have not been mentioned in the article body. Certainly the Pacific-Union Club and the St. Francis Yacht Club are also San Francisco-based exclusive clubs, as is the Family Club. Other clubs that are known for exclusivity and are also popularly thought of as sources of conspiracy are in the "See also" section. This does not mean that the P-U Club is known for conspiracy; it is not. It is simply local to Bohemian and also exclusive. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that the justification for the "see also" is based upon the claim that the P-U club "membership interlinks with the Bohemian Club and Grove". This is simply not true, nor has the editor who added it made anything like a case for it being true. Without that claim being substantiated, there's no more reason to have the P-U listed in the "see also" section than to have the St. Francis or any other local club listed there. It's irrelevant to the article. Again: the onus is upon those who add things to justify their addition, not upon me (or any other skeptical editor) to suggest that they be removed for irrelevancy or lack of objective sources. Furthermore, you wrote "This does not mean that the P-U Club is known for conspiracy; it is not." Where did that come from?! No one suggested (least of all I, who know very well otherwise) that any conspiracy is involved with the P-U. Finally, you wrote "It is simply local to Bohemian and also exclusive." So is the Town & Country. So is the SF Golf Club. So are a dozen other "local" and "exclusive" clubs. But they aren't listed here; the P-U is. And it's worth pointing out that the P-U and BC do not have reciprocity with each other, which further refutes the notion of their memberships "interlinking". Try again. Bricology (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are conflating my defense of the listing of P-U with the notion that I am defending the text following the wikilink. I would remove all text from the See also section except for wikilinks. Binksternet (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguments can be made for the other 3 clubs being listed, as they all have verifiable, formal connections to the BC. The Belizean Grove was explicitly patterned upon the BC, and the Family was formed by members kicked out of the BC. Rancheros Visitadores is a bit more tenuous, but since it was founded by BC members in good standing, I won't argue for or against its inclusion. The P-U, however, is entirely a coincidental connection; it's simply one of a dozen other exclusive clubs located in San Francisco, any one or more of which could just as logically be listed. Consequently, I've removed it from the list. Bricology (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

Was later shown to be an attendee. Mabye someone should look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.249.75 (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shown? Show me. Binksternet (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

it was in this newstatesman article http://newstatesman.com/node/148638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.249.75 (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So what do you want to say in this article about Bill Clinton possibly attending? You would have a tough time saying which year it was since the source gives no details. You could not say whose guest he was nor whether he stopped in for a few hours or for a few weeks.

The best you could do is to say that such and such a reporter in the New Statesman wrote that Clinton flew to Sonoma County airport to visit the Grove. That's all there is in the source. You cannot present it as a fact, the only fact is that a reporter reported it.

You know, a lot of people have attended, even Democrat presidents. I heard Jimmy Carter give a lunchtime speech there. He joked about being the only Democrat in the place, and got a good laugh. Binksternet (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Infiltrations rewrite

3rd paragraph resubmit)

Jones' follow-up film, The Order of Death,[25] documents events in July of 2005 wherein an employee, Chris Jones (no relation), smuggled out videotape of the Owl Shrine, even venturing inside the hollow statue.[26] He also got footage of effigies, the lakeside, and select camps; as well as a membership list. The film also included footage of the protest organized by the Bohemian Grove Action Network that took place outside of the Grove on Bohemian Highway where it seemed a majority engaged in an "occult counter-ritual" known as the Resurrection of Care, supposedly a counter-ritual against the Cremation of Care. In 2012, Chris Jones released more of his footage direct to YouTube entitled, "Deeper Inside Bohemian Grove." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StlhOlztQNw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE5:D220:5D6B:876C:F3B2:5259 (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would we want to post a link to the youtube video? Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of reference?

Why would someone want to remove the attribution of the "weaving spiders come not here" quote (Shakespeare) which I added? Puzzled. Midnightmuse (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the Club motto, not the Grove motto. The attribution of the quote appears at the Bohemian Club article: "a line taken from Act 2, Scene 2, of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream." At the Bohemian Grove itself, the motto is only interesting as far as it is followed or ignored. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the attribution in the first place because this article (still) says: 'The Club motto is "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here," which implies that outside concerns and business deals are to be left outside.' ...It sounded to me like the person interpreting the motto didn't understand its meaning in context and maybe didn't know it was Shakespeare either. Why would you delete the attribution, yet leave in the entire line quoting the Club-not-Grove's motto and its unsupported interpretation? Midnightmuse (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I assume we are talking about this reversion from July 2012. I continue to think that club-specific facts should be featured at the Bohemian Club article while this article should carry only those facts pertaining to the Grove, with just enough club context to provide understanding. The Shakespeare context is not needed here, as there is nothing about a men's gathering among redwood trees which compares to a charm spoken by fairies to protect their Queen Titania while she is sleeping. That context is not even needed at the club article, where it says only

The club motto is "Weaving Spiders Come Not Here", a line taken from Act 2, Scene 2, of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. The club motto implies that outside concerns and business deals are to be left outside. When gathered in groups, Bohemians usually adhere to the injunction, though discussion of business often occurs between pairs of members.

This interpretation is taken from the Peter Martin Phillips paper. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

2016 Re-emergence after Cibolo Ranch Death of Scalia

Seems that the sister organization spawned from this club to Scalia's would be worthy of section.--Wikipietime (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Open Vandalism by bullies, perhaps long-time editors?..

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bohemian_Grove&diff=767465083&oldid=767326546

Editor claims not reliable sources: Of the 4 sources cites, 2 were the President in his own voice (reliable). One was wikiquote (which we hope is reliable, since it is a part of Wikipedia). The 4th source might or might not be reliable, but that is moot, as we see clear bullying to suppress truth.

Editor "neutrality" is clearly not neutral. Stand down or else face edit war, which you can not win.96.59.131.65 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Besides, this was discussed it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bohemian_Grove#Uninhibited_behaior above and no dissent ensued = some modicum of consensus. Let's talk about it - with more than just the bully and myself = invitation for other input.96.59.131.65 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Giving "Peace" a 2nd chance

A few days ago, I made some edits to this article, after having discussed it in 'Talk' here, and seeing no objections, I made the edit (or series of edits, as there were typos, etc., but I'll count them as one edit for simplicity). My edit was "reverted" by User:Neutrality, in this edit (when my IP address was 96.59.162.50). After a few days or so, I noticed this, and I reverted his edit, and reported this to one of the notice boards, using a new IP address (my ISP is dynamic and randomly changes). You can see where I reported it here, using this IP: 96.59.131.65. On 02:58, 26 February 2017, I was blocked by another admin here for supposedly disruptive editing. [Other than the one mistake that I think I made below - wrongly using a 'report incident to administrators board' - without speaking to Mr. Neutrality first, I can't see the problem. Both us us reverted once, and not only did I not violate the "3 revert" rule, I wasn't even planning on it. I was hoping to Request Comment & Feedback from the admin board, where I posted a complaint, seeking unbiased 3rd parties to weigh in.]

While I think that I had not edited disruptively, I do admit that I think that I may have wrongly used that notice board to report the bad revert by Neutrality, because I think the rules required me to try and talk it out several times, and then report it only if that failed. (So, I'm admitting that I may have made a mistake, but other than that, I don't see what I did to deserve getting blocked.) The block was for 31 hours.

I complained to a friend, and as he owed me a favor, I was able to convince him to speak to this point. While "sockpupptet" behavior (me using a 2nd IP) is against the rules, I did not do this. However, getting another person speak for you is also sometimes against the rules. My friend's IP was 47.192.18.128 that day, and apparently he protested that I was mistreated, and got blocked himself. In this edit, he explained that it was not against the rules for him to be my "proxy" or "spokesperson" if the edit was productive, verifiable, and there were independent reasons (which there were: he felt I was mistreated). But he was blocked, also for 31 hours.

As I said, I edited under 96.59.162.50 (on Feb 24, 2017) and under 96.59.131.65 (on Feb 26, 2017). My friend edited under 47.192.18.128 (on Feb 27, 2017). And, it appears today, that I'm editing under 96.59.138.30 today (01 Mar, 2017).

As I said, I was wrongly accused of using multiple IP addresses, and the proxy was permissible for the exceptions mentioned above, but I will admit that this is a "gray" area, and just to be fair and demonstrate "Wikipedia Good Faith," a chief guideline, here, I'll pretend that I was guilty of "multiple IP" addresses, and accept the 31-hour block. However, the last block on any IP address with which I had any influence in editing was way back on "04:27, 27 February 2017" according to the block logs. Even that is over two days (48 hours) ago, so I waited the "extra time" to demonstrate good faith. (I'm not perfect, ok, but I have good faith.)

Moving on, assuming I want to edit in good faith, I'm not sure what I should do differently now (e.g., what did I, or my friend, do wrong last time?). Perhaps we were hasty to use various "report" or "notice" boards (three different "report incident" boards were used by my count) initially, and perhaps we should have sought help from "request for comment" pages. If that was the problems, please tell me. I can't read minds, and I'm doing my best here.

BACK STORY: I was called on the phone by a friend, claiming the government was covering up "Bohemian Grove" mischief, and he gave me one example, with Nixon claiming some deviant behavior. I Googled it, but found it was missing from Wikipedia, and he claimed Wikipedia was in on the alleged coverup. So, I told him that I felt he was wrong, but just to prove him wrong, I offered to add it to the article. (He does not know how to use Wikipedia, and this was not his idea: All he did was complain.) I attempted to edit it and got reverted and blocked! I, in turn, asked for help from a third person, and the same thing happened to him, and he left, probably not to return any time soon, due to the difficulty and apparent mistreatment. (Apparent, as I am expressing an opinion that I think he was mistreated by failure to apply the proxy exception.)

But anyhow, we all make mistakes. (I admitted to a mistake above, and I make many mistakes, so I am not perfect.) So, I'm posting a request for comment here, asking what is wrong with the 4 sources I cited. If I was wrong, why was this not reverted in the Wikiquote page, which basically said the same thing as the 'edit' that I added? If, however, the Wikiquote page is allowed to stand (and not have that section deleted), then what is the problem with my proposal to copy their edit, here, word-for-word?

I will add: My first friend also alleged all kinds of weird things at the Bohemian Grove, such as lynchings of African Americans (he is Black, but I am not), and I found credible sources to add it, and was thinking of accepting his argument that this was a significant portion of American History. But I decided against because, while lynchings of ANYONE are horribly evil, nonetheless, this was not newsworthy for the 'grove', since lynchings (and worse) occurred all around the country (especially in the South). But, if any other editor wants to add that (with documented sources), I'm ok with it.

I may post this question on an actual "request for comment" page, but anyhow, I'm asking for feedback on the talk page before I proceed any further, assuming that this is the proper protocol for seeking to make an edit. Please tell me what I or my second friend did that was inappropriate, and also, please suggest a proper solution, with the proper protocol. I'm not perfect, but please assume good faith, ok? Thank you.96.59.138.30 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notes to self: The initial reverting editor, Neutrality, suggested See WP:RS, WP:RSN in his edit comments. I also found Requests_for_comment and Wikipedia:Third_opinion as possible places to resolve disputes, but one of them, RfC, says: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC," and the other, 3rd-opinion page, one says: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in | Third Opinion frequently asked questions." NOTE: It seems appropriate for us to try and talk it out among ourselves before bothering outsiders, and spending valuable time & focus resources. So, I'll wait, and assume that 3 of my 4 sources were valid, or, in worst case scenario, I simply copy what was done on Wikiquote, here, as it is OK there. While it's hard to search the tapes at the source they list, nonetheless, independent sources, which I also cited, verify the accuracy of the official Presidential Tape website, as accurate.96.59.138.30 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi websites (like "The Daily Stormer") are, obviously, not reliable sources. It's astonishing that this needs to be explained to you. If you have the time and energy to write a huge wall of text, you should have the time and energy to read our policies and guidelines. Also, wikis and other user-generated content are not reliable either; see WP:CIRCULAR. Neutrality^talk 05:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you for replying. I did not know anything about The_Daily_Stormer being Nazi-related, but now that you point this out, I agree. (Technically, this source could still be used: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources But, as it's controversial, I'm OK with it being left off. Using a Nazi or possibly-prejudiced source is a bad taste, so I do not object here.)

Also, I took a look at WP:CIRCULAR, and I think you are right: I did not know that Wikipedia thought of itself as unreliable. It is correct to ask editors to cite to the actual source that Wikiquote had cited (if it is reliable), so I will look into that.

But of the two audio tapes of The President, in his own voice? What is wrong with them? That may look like "original research," but it is not: It's not trying to "argue" for some conclusion, but rather reports a fact, and is, itself, a fact. And, even if both of those videos are Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources, the exception above would certainly apply. (I don't see why not.) In fact, here is the guideline allowing those "unknown" Youtube users (2 different users) to be used:

"However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Moreover, Youtube gets the thumbs up here: "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Links should be carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion." Wikipedia:Video_links There is a note on copyright, but I think the president's old tapes are, by now, in the public domain. (Plus, you can't copyright the president's governmental tapes, as the government is owned by the people. Not like, say, a private news agency, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.)

OK, so the rules (and common sense) say the Nazi-link is out, and Wikiquote is out too, but the 2 videos (and possibly things cited by Wikiquote) are in. Besides, I know it's hard to find the archives copy on the link provided by Wikiquote, but: "...an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources So, I will remove the 2 bad links you identified, use the 2 good ones I kept, and look at both the stuff Wikiquote cites, as well as scour the Internet for more reliable (and less controversial) sources. Does this sound good? Thanks for replying.96.59.138.30 (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Notes to self: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/633466 looksgood to cite Nixon. Whoah!! I hit the motherload: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-11-07/news/9911070165_1_oval-office-tapes-nixon-john-d-ehrlichman/2 is "Nixon On Tape Expounds On Welfare And Homosexuality," November 07, 1999|By James Warren, at the Chicago Tribune. Maybe Vox_(website)? http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9464035/dick-nixon-first-person VOX says it is on: "But consider this from May 13, 1971," not the June date cited in Wikiquote. Time to check sources further before adding anything: "The Confessions of @dick_nixon," by Justin Sherin on October 8, 2015, VOX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.138.30 (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Sun-Times lists "May 13, 1971" as the date: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-sun-times/20090224/281762740160123 (Chicago Sun-Times, 24 Feb 2009, "Nixon's views on gays come as no surprise: Throws around slurs liberally in recording with his top aide" This agrees with VOX, so I take that date, and reject the Wikiquote date. Maybe I fix Wikiquote's date later? CNN says May 13, 1971 http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/05/cg.00.html CNN by Capital Gang, "Bill Bennett Discusses the Results of the New Hampshire Primary," Aired February 5, 2000. OK, enough good cites exist to fix this without controversial sources.96.59.138.30 (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• RESOLVED - I'm not sure, but it looks like my last edit on the article was OK. (If not, we can talk about it.) So, it looks like this is probably resolved (mostly or totally). Thank you for your patience, fellow-editors.96.59.138.30 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bohemian Grove. 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/20060720075754/http://www.fair.org/index.php to http://www.fair.org/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419142311/http://www.verlang.com/sfbay0004ref_bm_02.html to http://www.verlang.com/sfbay0004ref_bm_02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611165825/http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_2101-2150/sb_2110_cfa_960415_112802_sen_comm.html to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_2101-2150/sb_2110_cfa_960415_112802_sen_comm.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lsureveille.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=1536ce04-3f58-40d2-ae66-f272c19d17d9

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"A two-week, three-weekend encampment"

How should it possibly comprise only two weeks but three weekends??? This does not make sense to me. Hoping for your intellectual support--Mocht (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fifteen or sixteen days long, starting on a Friday night or Saturday morning, ending on a Sunday afternoon. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Okay, thanks a lot! But in this case, it shouldn't be called "a two-week encampment", right?--Mocht (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's described in many sources as a two-week encampment. Nobody calls it 15 or 16 days. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: And still it is confusing IMHO to speak of a two-week event if it lasts longer than that...--Mocht (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

Track 3 of Ab-Soul's Control System album is called Bohemian Grove and features the phrase "got me harder than sneaking a bitch in Bohemian Grove" referring to the general "men only" policy.

References

Luganda

Luganda 41.210.146.231 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas

Hey, someone should consider adding the allegations published today by ProPublica regarding Justice Thomas and the Koch brothers at Bohemian Grove?

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus 76.147.5.101 (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

I dont think that the only 2 controversies to come out of Bohemian Grove are it being a boys' club and logging. Dunno might be wrong though 2A02:85F:E858:51C3:BD46:CA7E:9E7F:7A0F (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Bohemiam Grove Infiltration

I feel its important we add something about the Bohemiam Grove Infiltration that just took place, as it was recorded in 4k and seems very hard to be faked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vy8LTmmDvk (By Dancer on youtube) SoundDrout (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)