Talk:Bohemian Grove

message: 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)
thread_title: Alex Jones

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  the Owl Statue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Brad Meltzer attempted infiltration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: 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)
replies: text: I was never a fan of this section. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  All in favor of deleting? Perhaps 3 days of conversation/dissent?  Sailingfanblues (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Infiltration Section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What about the irony of calling it "bohemian"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The P-U Club link should stay but the justification should go. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "See also" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  This interpretation is taken from the Peter Martin Phillips paper. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2016 Re-emergence after Cibolo Ranch Death of Scalia 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "A two-week, three-weekend encampment" 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarence Thomas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies