![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The last two points are not criticisms. I don't know how this fits into NPOV. Should criticism section contain rebuttals?-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you comment on my post? Only when I edited the article did you comment and revert. Isn't this the purpose of the discussion page?
You wrote: "That looks better now you have deleted the Davignon and Healey quotes." Are you being sarcastic? Please be straightforward.
If two sides are to be presented in a criticism section, then shouldn't the section be entitled 'editorial' or 'commentary'? (I'm joking, of course. My point is, how can a criticism section be so entitled while containing rebuttals?)
Plus:
I'm not seeing two sides to these criticism sections:
Bank_for_International_Settlements#Criticism
World_Bank#Criticism
International_Monetary_Fund#Criticism
North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Criticism_and_controversies
-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I see. You've changed the section title to 'Conspiracy theories'. Hmmm. Kind of demeans the content. Also, there are differences between the two. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The entry is as follows:
Since many Bilderberg Group attendees were U.S. politicians when they attended, their attending of the Bilderberg Group meetings is in fact felonious by the Logan Act. This has sparked a great deal of controversy, especially in the alternative media, although this fact is not well known.
I really couldn't think of any way to dissect the heavy POV from this without it becoming meaningless. Specifically, my reasons for deleting this are:
Please let me know if anyone finds this edit objectionable. If the argument presented here is widely represented, then it should be in the article, but not presented as fact.-- Thusled ( talk) 07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content. In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates. All services and information provided on this website are provided as general information only. Any medical advice, home remedies and all other medical information on this website should not be treated as a substitute for the medical advice of your own doctor. We not responsible for any diagnosis of treatment made by anyone based on any of the content of this website. Always consult your own doctor if you are in any way concerned about your health. | ” |
It looks like this has been a contentious issue in this article, so rather than just making the edit, let's discuss it. I'm of the opinion that the "Theories" section should be once again named "Conspiracy Theories," mainly because that is how other articles with more prominent conspiracy theories (i.e. September 11 Attacks and John F. Kennedy assassination) handle the issue. It is also more clear, as the average reader may not understand why a gathering of business men would involve theories and may assume the group discusses economic theory or something.
I realize the term often has a pejorative connotation, but even though I am decidedly not a conspiracy theorist I assure you I do not intend any insult by this change. The fact is that the "Theories" section currently involves only conspiracy theories (that is, theories involving the cooperation of a group to gain at another's expense without the other knowing, though in the case of conspiracy theories themselves the scale is massive) and as such the current title is not descriptive. In fact, I find it to be deliberately misleading and deceptive.
If no one objects, I will make the change within three days.-- Thusled ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
First, it seems that no criticisms of the Bilderberg Group have been allowed to appear in this article unless labeled as "conspiracy theories". There are plenty of publicly aired criticisms that cannot fairly be labeled as such, but apparently no discussion of them is to be allowed here. Further, it is irresponsible to classify something as a "conspiracy theory" unless it is verifiable that it is such. By common understanding, a "conspiracy theory" is not merely a theory that postulates a nefarious conspiracy, but one that has no objective grounding. Personally, I am not a fan of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theories", but the presentation here is biased, not only with respect to the examples mentioned but in the way that all criticism of Bilderberg is excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Every attempt to remove the obvious bias from this section has been censored. How can I get onto the Bilderberg payroll? I could use some cash. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The word conspiracy did not materialize from someone's paranoid mind, we have the word because there is such a thing as a conspiracy. The bias against the credibility of a theory labeled that of a conspiracy has become commonplace in the minds of Americans and other English speakers, and consequently has entered the American and other English speaking vernaculars as such. Therefore I believe that it is decidedly biased to refer to a theory as one of conspiracy in this neutral context of factual documentation.( Greg Sweet ( talk) 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC))
I'm not convinced that it's notable, but it's certainly not a reliable source for anything other than its own existance. It's a Wiki, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikileaks is not, of itself, a reliable source. It deals with primary material, with the hope that secondary sourcing will be forthcoming as journalists and investigators pick up what's available there. And an absolutely shameless plug: I've converted the entirety of the 1980 Bad Aachen conference pdf to wikitext, available here: [1]. Some analysis is on the talk page; more would be great (I was born after 1980, so no context there from me). Xavexgoem ( talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any sources that reveal who funds the meetings? It would be interesting as there is, in many contries, laws about what kind of private 'offerings' a politician in office can accept. Nunamiut ( talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Someone please look into this and provide references. - mike
68.28.105.226 (
talk)
23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dougweller removed the following bit from the reactios in section with the comment "(Lots of people send letters and write about it in their blogs. Not notable.)" :
Harry van Bommel, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, sent a letter asking questions regarding the participation of members of the Dutch government and royalty on these meetings. [1] [2]
How a member of the parliament asking questions to the representatives is not notable? You removed this same bit twice already for different reasons.What's going on? This is really important, it's one of the few notable reactions. Can you explain why? 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
by the way, can [2] be used as reference for a 2008 meeting?
Also your reasons for dismissing Daniel Estulin are nonsense. "tiny extremist press that asks for money from authors before publishing)". Rea search a little bit, he is very respected researcher and writer and his work has being recognized everywhere. 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 09:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What sources are contentious please? I've just replaced one said to be SPS which was published by a reputable publisher. Dougweller ( talk) 05:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
A chapter on Retinger in Hugh Wilford, The CIA, the British Left and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?, London: Frank Cass 2003
two articles by Valérie Aubourg on the early years of the Bilderberg Group: Valérie Aubourg, “Organizing Atlanticism: The Bilderberg Group and the Atlantic Institute, 1952–1963”, in: Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam (eds.), The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, London: Frank Cass, 2003, pp. 92–105 and Valérie Aubourg, “Le groupe de Bilderberg et l’intégration européenne jusqu’au milieu des années 1960. Une influence complexe”, in: Michel Dumoulin (ed.), Réseaux économiques et construction européenne. Economic Networks and European Integration, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang, 2004, pp. 411- 430. The first article was also published in Intelligence and National Security, 1743-9019, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 92 – 105. Dougweller ( talk) 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It can be trivial for you, but this meeting was supposedly to not even exist. Calling everything as fringe, crook or tin-foil-hat will not help you here either. Please with reasoning, trying to dismiss the meeting as fringe illusionary won't make it less important. "(trivial, 'dozens' is hardly anything, all international meetings have some sort of fringe opposition, often much bigger than this". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
David Rockefeller, today's honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group said to attendees of 1991 meeting held near Munich, Germany that 'the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries'. In his autobiography 'Memoires' he wrote that he is proud of 'one world' agenda. Bilderberg strikes again.
This is taken from the references already provided in the article, the intention is to add this info at the end of the section about origin and add purpose to the paragraph title. Since fellow editors may consider alternate wording or feel the need to water down this particular formulation I've placed it here so it may be 'peer reviewed'. Please share your thoughts, thanks. TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note that
TheFourFreedoms has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet.
[8]
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the Bilderberg 2009 page, which was just deleted, there were the same number of opinions for both side. The page was deleted without merging it to the main article, which was the initial proposal. I would ask politely for it to be reversed, as there were no discussion of the subject, only empty statements, which were all replied. If some people here think that delapidating the bilderberg pages will put it on obscurity, Iḿ sorry, but the truth will prevail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Bilderberg_Meeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.236 ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reported it here to XLinkBot [9]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
MINA (Macedonian international news agency) has stated the following prediction by Daniel Estulin even worse, a new US report on these secret Bilderberg meetings states: “Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.” [3] I hope the above prediction is not true :( but due to the fact that he is routinely right I am afraid it might be). The Count of Monte Cristo ( talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=6807 The Count of Monte Cristo ( talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is RS enough to use about people i the List article, then obviously we can use it to describe the group, right? It says:
"What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern cspecially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. Tn short, Bildcrberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can bc expressed and mutual understanding enhanced, Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference." Dougweller ( talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The article does not address why the Bilderberg group exists. Can someone with knowledge on the subject add this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.225 ( talk) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
it's about everything u can imagine, it's not about hiding stuff it's about talking about the world's problems and how we together can solve them. Markthemac ( talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
people should never stop talking, as that's how wars get started (avoiding general ignorance). Markthemac ( talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The porpose of the group is to mantain and gather control, over politics, organizations, corporations and media. Echofloripa ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This may not be a forum for an argument but i would like to see some evidence. I would like to see sources from a reliable book or website or even a press release ;) that says ,
"Last year they discussed "a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus2010 ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly very important to hold a separated page for each meeting. The 2009 meeting was removed in a very totalitarian way, without even giving me a chance to get the very important content it had into the main page. This main page became a ridiculous bunch of mocking about the subject. It should clearly be re-written, with a focused approached. There is more attention on showing how fringe it is and the "conspiracy theory" than actually getting to the point, showing the documents that leaked and other sources. Echofloripa ( talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I added two other reliable sources, and italian and a Dutch newspaper. [4] [5] Echofloripa ( talk) 14:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the way the lead describes the security arrangements may be misleading, in that it suggests that this is somehow unusual for a meeting including some of the world's leading political figures. So far as I know, all meetings of this kind have high security, and the type depends upon the country where the meeting takes place. Dougweller ( talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is relevant to include on this page a reference to the Jesse Ventura's Episode 5 of the program "conspiracy theory", that covers very well the Bilderberg Group. See the playlist here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As per the BLP discussion ( [11]), I am suggesting the following text to be included in the Conspiracy Theories section, or on a separate page for Bilderberg-related conspiracies (I prefer to have it on a separate page):
In an episode of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series ( TruTV), the Bilderberg group was accused of masterminding a mass (worldwide) sterilization and foodborne disease program via food additives (such as Aspartame) and water fluoridation. The episode also claimed that the group planned a world depopulation program via alleged long-term effects ("soft kill") of the H1N1 vaccine. The episode, first aired in December 2009, stated that the reason for these sinister plans is the Bilderbeg group's desire to have less people on the planet so that their utopic future could be achieved, as written on the Georgia Guidestones. John Hyams ( talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* It's already bad enough that Americans are drowning in conspiracy theories. The last thing we needed is Jesse Ventura using his celebrity as a former wrestler and action movie star and his credibility as a former state governor to not only give credence to all this paranoia but further contaminate a new audience with it through a cable TV series... That being said, I'm not opposed to a very brief mention that the Bilderberg Group is accused of a population control conspiracy but we don't need to go into more details than than. -- Loremaster ( talk) 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Domhoff quote is only tangentially about Bilderberg. It's about Domhoff's view of the relationship between progressives and Republicans. I will remove this shortly. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In light of Crosbiesmith's paraphrasing of the Domhoff quote and my improvements, I consider this dispute resolved. -- Loremaster ( talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The headline speaks for itself. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have now voiced my concerns. Anything perceived as reflecting negatively on the Bilderberg Group is removed, even if it is relevant and verifiable information. Explicit criticisms of Bilderberg are either not mentioned or are classified as "conspiracy theories" without their credentials being examined. Attempts at improvement are deleted without response or comment. I have now stated my dissatisfactions clearly and leave time for others to respond or make improvements. As it is, I am highly dissatisfied with the completeness or objectivity of this article.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"What part of our policy isn't ... being followed?" - Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. ...Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. - Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view, and for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." - Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality. - Some words carry non-neutral implications. Is more needed? 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following ' These conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the Bilderberg Group, in association with many other secretive organizations, works towards the creation of a " New World Order" in the form of bureaucratic collectivist one- world government', sourced to Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press; 1 edition. p. 60-61. ISBN 0520238052.. [13]. These pages deal only with the writings of Milton Cooper, not any of the previously named individuals, nor anybody else. Furthermore, the referenced pages do not say anything about 'bureaucratic collectivist one-world government'. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 07:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
How can I contact an executive officer in the Bilburg Group?
In the middle of the article is says: "...While serving members of government do not usually attend, prominent politicians from North America and Europe are past attendees. In recent years, board members from many large publicly-traded corporations have attended, including IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Daimler.[12]" We see all the prime ministers and presidents having participated, like Blair, Bill Clinton, both Bush, and in this year, Matti Vanhanen, , prime-minister of Finland, Jyrki Katainen (Minister of Finance of Finland), Papathanasiou, Prime minister of Greece, among several others. Also, big public-traded corporations have been participating since its formation. [14] [15] [16]
Can we please discuss this here before going ahead and removing whole sections? The reason given was "dl - anything can be questioned, so what? And as we have a list of attendees,suggesting they are breaking the law without better sources probably breaches WP:BLP)". We are suggesting that there is a law that clearly states it's a crime for a member of the government to meet privately to foreign private corporations. The law is sourced, member of parliament are only asking for an investigation. In which way it can be considered WP:BLP(Biographies of living persons)?? Sorry you can't just go and delete the whole section. I will rephrase that then to make sure there is no direct judgement. 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
here is the original text:
The legality of such meetings can be questioned according to the United States law. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. In his website, Congressman Ron Paul says: "Are U.S. officials violating the 'Logan Act' if they attend the current Bilderberg meeting in Athens? Would the 'Freedom of Information Act' give reporters/citizens access to flights or cost associated with attending? Thereby proving any U.S official presence?" [6]
It's not a congressman, it's some guy on some conspiracy forum. Please be careful. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The last two points are not criticisms. I don't know how this fits into NPOV. Should criticism section contain rebuttals?-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't you comment on my post? Only when I edited the article did you comment and revert. Isn't this the purpose of the discussion page?
You wrote: "That looks better now you have deleted the Davignon and Healey quotes." Are you being sarcastic? Please be straightforward.
If two sides are to be presented in a criticism section, then shouldn't the section be entitled 'editorial' or 'commentary'? (I'm joking, of course. My point is, how can a criticism section be so entitled while containing rebuttals?)
Plus:
I'm not seeing two sides to these criticism sections:
Bank_for_International_Settlements#Criticism
World_Bank#Criticism
International_Monetary_Fund#Criticism
North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Criticism_and_controversies
-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I see. You've changed the section title to 'Conspiracy theories'. Hmmm. Kind of demeans the content. Also, there are differences between the two. -- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The entry is as follows:
Since many Bilderberg Group attendees were U.S. politicians when they attended, their attending of the Bilderberg Group meetings is in fact felonious by the Logan Act. This has sparked a great deal of controversy, especially in the alternative media, although this fact is not well known.
I really couldn't think of any way to dissect the heavy POV from this without it becoming meaningless. Specifically, my reasons for deleting this are:
Please let me know if anyone finds this edit objectionable. If the argument presented here is widely represented, then it should be in the article, but not presented as fact.-- Thusled ( talk) 07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content. In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates. All services and information provided on this website are provided as general information only. Any medical advice, home remedies and all other medical information on this website should not be treated as a substitute for the medical advice of your own doctor. We not responsible for any diagnosis of treatment made by anyone based on any of the content of this website. Always consult your own doctor if you are in any way concerned about your health. | ” |
It looks like this has been a contentious issue in this article, so rather than just making the edit, let's discuss it. I'm of the opinion that the "Theories" section should be once again named "Conspiracy Theories," mainly because that is how other articles with more prominent conspiracy theories (i.e. September 11 Attacks and John F. Kennedy assassination) handle the issue. It is also more clear, as the average reader may not understand why a gathering of business men would involve theories and may assume the group discusses economic theory or something.
I realize the term often has a pejorative connotation, but even though I am decidedly not a conspiracy theorist I assure you I do not intend any insult by this change. The fact is that the "Theories" section currently involves only conspiracy theories (that is, theories involving the cooperation of a group to gain at another's expense without the other knowing, though in the case of conspiracy theories themselves the scale is massive) and as such the current title is not descriptive. In fact, I find it to be deliberately misleading and deceptive.
If no one objects, I will make the change within three days.-- Thusled ( talk) 03:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
First, it seems that no criticisms of the Bilderberg Group have been allowed to appear in this article unless labeled as "conspiracy theories". There are plenty of publicly aired criticisms that cannot fairly be labeled as such, but apparently no discussion of them is to be allowed here. Further, it is irresponsible to classify something as a "conspiracy theory" unless it is verifiable that it is such. By common understanding, a "conspiracy theory" is not merely a theory that postulates a nefarious conspiracy, but one that has no objective grounding. Personally, I am not a fan of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theories", but the presentation here is biased, not only with respect to the examples mentioned but in the way that all criticism of Bilderberg is excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Every attempt to remove the obvious bias from this section has been censored. How can I get onto the Bilderberg payroll? I could use some cash. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The word conspiracy did not materialize from someone's paranoid mind, we have the word because there is such a thing as a conspiracy. The bias against the credibility of a theory labeled that of a conspiracy has become commonplace in the minds of Americans and other English speakers, and consequently has entered the American and other English speaking vernaculars as such. Therefore I believe that it is decidedly biased to refer to a theory as one of conspiracy in this neutral context of factual documentation.( Greg Sweet ( talk) 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC))
I'm not convinced that it's notable, but it's certainly not a reliable source for anything other than its own existance. It's a Wiki, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikileaks is not, of itself, a reliable source. It deals with primary material, with the hope that secondary sourcing will be forthcoming as journalists and investigators pick up what's available there. And an absolutely shameless plug: I've converted the entirety of the 1980 Bad Aachen conference pdf to wikitext, available here: [1]. Some analysis is on the talk page; more would be great (I was born after 1980, so no context there from me). Xavexgoem ( talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there any sources that reveal who funds the meetings? It would be interesting as there is, in many contries, laws about what kind of private 'offerings' a politician in office can accept. Nunamiut ( talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Someone please look into this and provide references. - mike
68.28.105.226 (
talk)
23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dougweller removed the following bit from the reactios in section with the comment "(Lots of people send letters and write about it in their blogs. Not notable.)" :
Harry van Bommel, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, sent a letter asking questions regarding the participation of members of the Dutch government and royalty on these meetings. [1] [2]
How a member of the parliament asking questions to the representatives is not notable? You removed this same bit twice already for different reasons.What's going on? This is really important, it's one of the few notable reactions. Can you explain why? 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
by the way, can [2] be used as reference for a 2008 meeting?
Also your reasons for dismissing Daniel Estulin are nonsense. "tiny extremist press that asks for money from authors before publishing)". Rea search a little bit, he is very respected researcher and writer and his work has being recognized everywhere. 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 09:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What sources are contentious please? I've just replaced one said to be SPS which was published by a reputable publisher. Dougweller ( talk) 05:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
A chapter on Retinger in Hugh Wilford, The CIA, the British Left and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?, London: Frank Cass 2003
two articles by Valérie Aubourg on the early years of the Bilderberg Group: Valérie Aubourg, “Organizing Atlanticism: The Bilderberg Group and the Atlantic Institute, 1952–1963”, in: Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam (eds.), The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, London: Frank Cass, 2003, pp. 92–105 and Valérie Aubourg, “Le groupe de Bilderberg et l’intégration européenne jusqu’au milieu des années 1960. Une influence complexe”, in: Michel Dumoulin (ed.), Réseaux économiques et construction européenne. Economic Networks and European Integration, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang, 2004, pp. 411- 430. The first article was also published in Intelligence and National Security, 1743-9019, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 92 – 105. Dougweller ( talk) 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It can be trivial for you, but this meeting was supposedly to not even exist. Calling everything as fringe, crook or tin-foil-hat will not help you here either. Please with reasoning, trying to dismiss the meeting as fringe illusionary won't make it less important. "(trivial, 'dozens' is hardly anything, all international meetings have some sort of fringe opposition, often much bigger than this". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
David Rockefeller, today's honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group said to attendees of 1991 meeting held near Munich, Germany that 'the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries'. In his autobiography 'Memoires' he wrote that he is proud of 'one world' agenda. Bilderberg strikes again.
This is taken from the references already provided in the article, the intention is to add this info at the end of the section about origin and add purpose to the paragraph title. Since fellow editors may consider alternate wording or feel the need to water down this particular formulation I've placed it here so it may be 'peer reviewed'. Please share your thoughts, thanks. TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note that
TheFourFreedoms has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet.
[8]
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the Bilderberg 2009 page, which was just deleted, there were the same number of opinions for both side. The page was deleted without merging it to the main article, which was the initial proposal. I would ask politely for it to be reversed, as there were no discussion of the subject, only empty statements, which were all replied. If some people here think that delapidating the bilderberg pages will put it on obscurity, Iḿ sorry, but the truth will prevail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Bilderberg_Meeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.236 ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've reported it here to XLinkBot [9]. Dougweller ( talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
MINA (Macedonian international news agency) has stated the following prediction by Daniel Estulin even worse, a new US report on these secret Bilderberg meetings states: “Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.” [3] I hope the above prediction is not true :( but due to the fact that he is routinely right I am afraid it might be). The Count of Monte Cristo ( talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=6807 The Count of Monte Cristo ( talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is RS enough to use about people i the List article, then obviously we can use it to describe the group, right? It says:
"What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern cspecially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. Tn short, Bildcrberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can bc expressed and mutual understanding enhanced, Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference." Dougweller ( talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The article does not address why the Bilderberg group exists. Can someone with knowledge on the subject add this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.225 ( talk) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
it's about everything u can imagine, it's not about hiding stuff it's about talking about the world's problems and how we together can solve them. Markthemac ( talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
people should never stop talking, as that's how wars get started (avoiding general ignorance). Markthemac ( talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The porpose of the group is to mantain and gather control, over politics, organizations, corporations and media. Echofloripa ( talk) 13:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This may not be a forum for an argument but i would like to see some evidence. I would like to see sources from a reliable book or website or even a press release ;) that says ,
"Last year they discussed "a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus2010 ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly very important to hold a separated page for each meeting. The 2009 meeting was removed in a very totalitarian way, without even giving me a chance to get the very important content it had into the main page. This main page became a ridiculous bunch of mocking about the subject. It should clearly be re-written, with a focused approached. There is more attention on showing how fringe it is and the "conspiracy theory" than actually getting to the point, showing the documents that leaked and other sources. Echofloripa ( talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I added two other reliable sources, and italian and a Dutch newspaper. [4] [5] Echofloripa ( talk) 14:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the way the lead describes the security arrangements may be misleading, in that it suggests that this is somehow unusual for a meeting including some of the world's leading political figures. So far as I know, all meetings of this kind have high security, and the type depends upon the country where the meeting takes place. Dougweller ( talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is relevant to include on this page a reference to the Jesse Ventura's Episode 5 of the program "conspiracy theory", that covers very well the Bilderberg Group. See the playlist here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
As per the BLP discussion ( [11]), I am suggesting the following text to be included in the Conspiracy Theories section, or on a separate page for Bilderberg-related conspiracies (I prefer to have it on a separate page):
In an episode of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series ( TruTV), the Bilderberg group was accused of masterminding a mass (worldwide) sterilization and foodborne disease program via food additives (such as Aspartame) and water fluoridation. The episode also claimed that the group planned a world depopulation program via alleged long-term effects ("soft kill") of the H1N1 vaccine. The episode, first aired in December 2009, stated that the reason for these sinister plans is the Bilderbeg group's desire to have less people on the planet so that their utopic future could be achieved, as written on the Georgia Guidestones. John Hyams ( talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* It's already bad enough that Americans are drowning in conspiracy theories. The last thing we needed is Jesse Ventura using his celebrity as a former wrestler and action movie star and his credibility as a former state governor to not only give credence to all this paranoia but further contaminate a new audience with it through a cable TV series... That being said, I'm not opposed to a very brief mention that the Bilderberg Group is accused of a population control conspiracy but we don't need to go into more details than than. -- Loremaster ( talk) 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The Domhoff quote is only tangentially about Bilderberg. It's about Domhoff's view of the relationship between progressives and Republicans. I will remove this shortly. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In light of Crosbiesmith's paraphrasing of the Domhoff quote and my improvements, I consider this dispute resolved. -- Loremaster ( talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The headline speaks for itself. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have now voiced my concerns. Anything perceived as reflecting negatively on the Bilderberg Group is removed, even if it is relevant and verifiable information. Explicit criticisms of Bilderberg are either not mentioned or are classified as "conspiracy theories" without their credentials being examined. Attempts at improvement are deleted without response or comment. I have now stated my dissatisfactions clearly and leave time for others to respond or make improvements. As it is, I am highly dissatisfied with the completeness or objectivity of this article.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"What part of our policy isn't ... being followed?" - Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. ...Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. - Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view, and for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." - Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality. - Some words carry non-neutral implications. Is more needed? 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following ' These conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the Bilderberg Group, in association with many other secretive organizations, works towards the creation of a " New World Order" in the form of bureaucratic collectivist one- world government', sourced to Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press; 1 edition. p. 60-61. ISBN 0520238052.. [13]. These pages deal only with the writings of Milton Cooper, not any of the previously named individuals, nor anybody else. Furthermore, the referenced pages do not say anything about 'bureaucratic collectivist one-world government'. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 07:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
How can I contact an executive officer in the Bilburg Group?
In the middle of the article is says: "...While serving members of government do not usually attend, prominent politicians from North America and Europe are past attendees. In recent years, board members from many large publicly-traded corporations have attended, including IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Daimler.[12]" We see all the prime ministers and presidents having participated, like Blair, Bill Clinton, both Bush, and in this year, Matti Vanhanen, , prime-minister of Finland, Jyrki Katainen (Minister of Finance of Finland), Papathanasiou, Prime minister of Greece, among several others. Also, big public-traded corporations have been participating since its formation. [14] [15] [16]
Can we please discuss this here before going ahead and removing whole sections? The reason given was "dl - anything can be questioned, so what? And as we have a list of attendees,suggesting they are breaking the law without better sources probably breaches WP:BLP)". We are suggesting that there is a law that clearly states it's a crime for a member of the government to meet privately to foreign private corporations. The law is sourced, member of parliament are only asking for an investigation. In which way it can be considered WP:BLP(Biographies of living persons)?? Sorry you can't just go and delete the whole section. I will rephrase that then to make sure there is no direct judgement. 194.74.151.201 ( talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
here is the original text:
The legality of such meetings can be questioned according to the United States law. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. In his website, Congressman Ron Paul says: "Are U.S. officials violating the 'Logan Act' if they attend the current Bilderberg meeting in Athens? Would the 'Freedom of Information Act' give reporters/citizens access to flights or cost associated with attending? Thereby proving any U.S official presence?" [6]
It's not a congressman, it's some guy on some conspiracy forum. Please be careful. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)