Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohemian Grove

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 5 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup. – Avi 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Grove

[edit]

Delete or Speedy Delete, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states in part:

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source…These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia….

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject.

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources.

There are two versions of this page Bohemian Grove and Bohemian Club. The AFD applies to the first only, as the second only needs some editing. I am asking that Bohemian Grove be both deleted and protected from recreation.

Between the main page and the talk page we have allegations of child prostitution, sexual harassment, involvement in an "ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony", etc. with those attending including Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Alan Greenspan, Dwight D. Eisenhower, William Jefferson Clinton, Robert Novak, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry,

The original article was created on 7 November 2003, with the only source cited being Alex Jones (radio). The proper name for the club is the Bohemian Club, however, Jones sells a video titled “Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove” so we have an article titled Grove instead of Club -the name of the club’s compound instead of the name of the club. IMO Jones used “Grove” as it sounds more pagan/sinister than “Club”; whatever his reason, his usage is the reason for the current page title. The only reason for someone to look-up “Bohemian Grove” on Wikipedia is to validate Jones’s claims, which seems to be the main reason for this page existing. If someone had never been exposed to Jones, and wanted information about the club, they would use the correct name “Bohemian Club”.

The best choice at this point would be to invoke Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criterion G10 for more details). Brimba 20:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The frequency of edit corrections on this article indicates it is being agressively patrolled by editors with an unusually strong interest in its deletion. Anyone patrolling this article who is or has been a member of, associated with, or acting as an agent of the Bohemian Club should provide complete disclosure and perhaps should refrain from editing or commenting on this article or the associated deletion article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.133.154 (talk • contribs)
  • This article is not a biography of a living person, but a description and discussion of an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.133.154 (talk • contribs)
see above These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia Brimba 03:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For the following reasons:
  1. Neither the Bohemian Club nor the Bohemian Grove are people. Thus the WP:BLP does not apply to the article. Specific details about people within the article may need to be edited but this is not cause to delete the article.
  2. The Bohemian Club is an organization. The Bohemian Grove is a place. The two are as different as " The Department of Defense" is different from "The Pentagon" The Bohemian Grove has its own unque history and purpose, apart from the Bohemian Club.
  3. I saw no defamatory information about any living person or individual.
  4. Lack of References is not cause for articles to be deleted. Instead, they should be improved. If notes and footnotes are needed regarding either the Club or the Grove, they should be requested rather than the article deleted. Either that or a bunch of articles should be deleted.
  5. However the article is actually pretty well referenced, but it is not footnoted. The references are in other sections labeled "See Also" or "Further Reading" which is not particularly wikipedia standard, but it is still references.
  6. There are kooks who see demons and so on in the actions in the Grove. In the interest of NPOV their views should not be cause for deletion. However, alternative views should be sought. I have sought them and they are not easy to find, so their lack of existance here is not direct evidence of bias. But if the article is biased... improve it, do not delete it.
  7. The two articles LOOK similar because of lists of people (which should be verified) but the lists are actually different and so is the content of the articles.
  8. However, if two articles is one too many they should be merged (with redirect) not deleted.

--Blue Tie 05:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy keep merge - the article may need a cleanup, but a suggestion of deletion is absolutely ludicrious. We can't just afd every article that has POV added. Hell in the time it took to file this nom you could have removed all the nmaterial you find objectionable. Eek. Just read both properly. Lets merge them Glen 05:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean out conspiracy crap. Obviously noteworthy, look at the sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and/or Merge  : It would be bizarre if Wikipedia didn't have comprehensive info on this considering everything else that's on Wikipedia.
  • I know I'm an anon, and can't really have my opinion counted, but this seems to be notable enough, but only notable enough to have it merged into the other article. The conspiracy stuff, and anything that cannot be verified with a reliable source needs to be gutted, per BLP. The sooner the better. --198.185.18.207 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY SHOULD THE "CONSPIRACY STUFF" BE REMOVED? How are you so completely certain of what is conspiracy and what is not? do YOU have proof that what you deem and throw off as consipracy is actually false?

  • This article should be left as it is. The strident calls for removal only make it that much more important to keep in it's exact form.
    Apparantly, you do not know how WP works. We can't just put stuff in articles that we might think is true. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA! We have to base things in verifiable reality rather than some make-believe wannabe world. Thanks, though. --198.185.18.207 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, you don't know how WP works. By definition, WP is a compilation of edits by anyone who chooses to edit. This process may or may not result in truth. WP simply presents as truth what the consensus of its reader/editors believe. This is a sort of 'consensus reality', rather than any sort of absolute truth.
Comment, The problem is that we are saying these people amongst other things are involved in child prostitution. We have sentences such as “was forced into sexual acts with other boys.” Only at the very end of the page do we state “after hearing many hours of testimony, the grand jury threw out all of the allegations concerning sexual abuse, labeling the charges a "carefully crafted hoax". That’s the child prostitution part, the conspiracy part is only slightly better. Some of the people listed have passed on, such as Ronald Reagan; many however still qualify as living. How is that for a start?
The internet is full of conspiracy theories and lurid tales involving this club, most of which can easily be debunked. The larger problem is that in validating any of the conspiracy theories, or appearing to treat them as being potentially creditable, we have given underpinnings to all. If someone makes ten claims, and Wikipedia treats three as being potentially creditable, it becomes harder to dismiss the other seven outright.
Apparently you saw at least one problem as you removed: "Jones states that, according to "Kyle", "it was a constant irritant being asked by old men if he slept around and wanted to have some fun"." While it’s great to have that gone, it will likely return in a few weeks. Better to merge, and then delete.
Brimba 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in agreement with Merge because they are two different things: A club (with separate address and activities) and a High-end Camp Resort owned by the club but with its own unique history, purpose and significance.
As far as the comments about being forced into sexual acts with boys... this is ONE SMALL Paragraph nearly at the end of the article under a section clearly labled "Controversies". It is verifiable and referenced (though it could be referenced better). It does NOT violate any wikipedia standards and it is written in standard news / summary style. The problem that you are having is with wikipedia standards. Your idea that including allegations is a bad idea might be a good one. I would support it. But I would have you note that there are problems with it too. For example, Bill Clinton faced numerous allegations that were never proved in court or substantiated regarding sexual misadventures. Bill O'Reilly had a lawsuit with many lurid details filed against him. These were not sustained in court but they are significant events and reasonably included in any encyclopedia. So what rule could you establish that would allow those things in but NOT permit the same thing related to Bohemian Grove?
Finally, I would point out that merging does not get rid of that content. --Blue Tie 14:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Don't delete, don't merge because its controversial,
If this article is derogatory and controversial, then label it that way let people make up their own minds. Maybe wikipedia should create a category for this very thing. It's is controversial and derogatory and maybe some dismiss the citations but people should be given the opportunity to make decisions for them selves. I would suggest that they create a category conspiracy theories or just theories, because some times all you have are theories, and what make one persons theory more credible then another. Like evolution for instance, there is evidence but not conclusive thus evolution is a theory, a credible one at that but its still a theory and people should treat it like that. Let people make up their own minds and let them examine this evidence and any claims people make. It's the only way it will be able to move past a theory. It's the only way people will investigate it and gather more evidence to prove it. Its how science works, publishes an interpretation of a evidence, a theory and others examine it and add to the body of evidence to either prove or disprove it. You cant just dismiss some thing because its controversial. If we did that we would be no better then those who killed Galileo. Don't delete, don't merge because its controversial and when or if it is disproved leave it there and let people decide.165.146.80.83 01:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and/or Merge: People suggest things for deletion for often bizarre and political reasons. It would be unique and unencyclopedic if Wikipedia didn't have info on this, particularly considering everything else that's on Wikipedia. Rgds, - Trident13 13:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The most efficient way to present information on this subject is to have the general article on the Bohemian Club, and this daughter article with more specific information about the campground. The "Past attendees" section appears to duplicate information that's properly in the general article. My vote is not a vote against removing such duplicative material, along with any specific passages that are POV, unverifiable, etc. AfD is not a substitute for a "Cleanup" tag or for editing anything in the article that's problematic. JamesMLane t c 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of information about this place out there, it just needs to be added to the article. Deserves a separate article from Bohemian Club and besides, the club is almost universally known, even to members, as "Bohemian Grove". wikipediatrix 03:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Encyclopedic entries must be verifiable. None of the references sited provide an independent non-biased verification of the material in the article. There is no verification or evidence anywhere that any of the names listed have ever had anything to do with the site or the club. The only way I could see allowing the article to stay would be by providing proper references for all of the claims in the article and removing all the unverifiable claims and people. --Matt 0123 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are at about 20 credible references cited. They simply are not put in-line and are not called references but are listed under "Further Reading". There are also a number of references found on line in addition to these print references. These are found in the "Links" section. I do not think that an argument about it not being referenced is valid. But perhaps the way that it is referenced can be improved. That would not be grounds for deletion. --Blue Tie 11:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the entries in Further Reading or External Links provides a verifiable first hand account that Bill Clinton and George Bush attended the camp? (One example of many unverifviable claims in this article). A link to an external site that provides the same list of unreferenced names is not a reference. As I stated previously, it is inappropriate to maintain this article with the unreferenced claims and names listed. We can not toss out integrity because so many people want it to be true. The way it is referenced is the key to any encylopedic entry, and is in fact the best grounds for deletion. The people who like the article retained should take the time to properly reference it. Matt 0123 11:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at them? There are several. There is nothing particularly unusual that they attend -- it is covered in the ordinary press as "incidental". It is a vacation for them. For example, Bill Clinton went there and the press almost ignored it. You can read that he went there a year after the fact in an article by Alexander Cockburn, for the September 1995 edition of The Nation, (by the way, that would be a reference if you need one) but he wasn't talking about the Bohemian Grove, he was talking about Bill Clinton going on vacation to Yellow Stone Park and mentions that last year he went to Bohemian Grove. My point here is that it is not a scandalous thing, nor an unexpected thing that rich and powerful people attend a campground club designed for rich and powerful people to routinely attend. That George Bush attended is also attested to in several sources. For example, the Sonoma County Free Press has published a list of people who have spoken at the "Lakeside Talk" at Bohemian Grove. http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/bohos/highlights.html It includes George Bush. It is not a scandalous thing. It is, in fact, a matter of distinction and an honor rather than something that would lead to libel per WP:BLP, so on both counts: Lack of sources and on danger of libel I do not understand this concern. --Blue Tie 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. There is a vast amount of material from reliable sources on this subject; its existence is unquestionably verifiable and notable. The key to a good article is to replace the conspiracy stuff with solid information -- including criticisms and allegations where backed up by reliable sources as to matters of record. --MCB 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep / Do Not Merge Per Blue Tie. Bohemiam Grove is distinct from the Club, and its summer meetings attract many notables who may never visit the club in SF. Source better or delete much of the conspiracy stuff. NBGPWS 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, with cleanup tag and allow for organic improvement. Remove any information that cannot be sourced... could be construed as libel. --Czj 08:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bohemian_Grove&oldid=1137636722"