![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
Since the meeting is not public and no report is issued the US officials are violating the Logan act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.152.88 ( talk) 18:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the so-called "Bilderberg Group" is controversial, so an objective presentation must tolerate relevant, verifiable information that some may consider uncomplimentary to Bilderberg as well as information that gives a positive picture of the group's origins, sponsors, purposes and activities. This article is being monitored so that any change or addition that the censor or censors considers "negative" is deleted, usually within minutes of insertion. For instance, any of the many criticisms of the Bilderberg Group are labeled "conspiracy theories" in this article. The sub-title of the small section where such criticisms are mentioned (despite the large number of criticisms that have been published) is "Conspiracy theories". Attempts to change it to "Criticisms of the Bilderberg Group" - surely a more neutral title - are censored, even without the content of the sub-section being changed. Public and verifiable information about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, one of the founders of Bilderberg and its chairman for 21 years is removed, evidently because it is unflattering. But surely such information has a legitimate place in an informative article about Bilderberg. I have no objection to editing out irrelevancies or unverifiable matters of rumor, but as it stands, this page is being systematically censored in a biased manner, seemingly by agents (possibly self-appointed) of the Bilderberg Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The OPV tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. I do not accept the reasoning of the 'Conspiracy theories' section and will insert my view there. I do not accept your view that facts about Prince Bernhard, or other influential members of the Bilderberg Group, are irrelevant to this article, even if reported elsewhere. Even if unflattering (and, by the way, some information of this kind might also be flattering), it is material to understanding of the origins and purposes of this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This is absurd. Relevance may in many cases be debatable, but it is an intrinsic feature of content, not something that is in itself sourced. There are some quite good Wikipedia articles about controversial organizations where the background, orientation, activities and associations of founding members or officers are considered obviously relevant, and about which I don't think that anyone, whether critical or supportive of the organization, in question has any right to complain. Your implication that such information is not relevant, or that the relevance needs to be certified by some authority (You? the Pope? David Rockefeller?) amounts to pure, and egregious, censorship, not responsible editing. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's true that I didn't include edit summaries. I thought that the need for the edits was obvious. I have contributed to many other Wikipedia articles, improved consistency, added references, corrected spelling, removed bias; but this is the only article for which any of my edits have been "reverted". I have in any case explained myself clearly enough; you apparently haven't read what I have written, for example in this discussion. I have taken more than "a moment" to do that. You and Dougweller have only made self-righteous, but transparently dishonest, comments. OK, "there are some quite good Wikipedia articles", e.g. the article on the John Birch Society, certainly a controversial organization. The discussion page for that article contains some quite sharp exchanges, as one might imagine. Now, in that article, we find this: "The society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana on December 9, 1958 by a group of 12 men led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. One founding member was Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in America. Another was Revilo P. Oliver, a University of Illinois professor who later severed his relationship with the society and helped found the "white nationalist" National Alliance." Certainly it is both relevant and appropriate to say something about the orientation, associations and activities of the founders. The views of the Society are there presented, sourced to position statements of the Society itself and mentions that the Society has been has been described (by others) as "ultraconservative", "far right", "radical right", and "extremist", referencing these descriptions, as is proper. Now your Bilderberg article, with its meager and evasive content, says little or nothing about one of the main founders of the "Group", and attempts to add anything are deleted. It classifies all criticisms of the Group as "conspiracy theories", which is not a neutral description. It attributes such a theory to the John Birch Society, for example, sourcing not any publication or spokesperson of the Society itself but a second-hand reference archived at www.publiceye.org, which is itself referenced only to secondary sources antithetical to the Society. www.publiceye.org is a progressive activist group that states explicitly that it targets what it considers to be right-wing organizations, claiming that it is especially such orgnaizations that are embroiled in "conspiracy theories" (these, www.publiceye.org defines in its own terms). I should say that I rather sympathize with the direction of www.publiceye.org - and I am certainly no John Bircher - but that does not make www.publiceye.org an objective source for attributing specific conspiracy theories to the John Birch Society. If the Society has issued such theories, the only proper sources to cite would be the Society itself or its spokespersons. No anti-Bilderberg conspiracy theory is attributed to the John Birch Society in the Wikipedia article on the Society, which is rather detailed. Of course the John Birch Society is strongly opposed to what appears to be the Bilderberg sympathy for globalism; but that opposition does not, in itself, amount to a conspiracy theory, under any definition. The John Birch Society is described in the Bilderberg article as "a producerist advocacy group". This attribution is referenced to - well, well - www.publiceye.org, which, in its turn, does not cite anything from the John Birch Society but from secondary sources which, even if some of them have some credentials, are explicitly (and politically) opposed to the John Birch Society and other "populist" groups. Your Bilderberg article links to the Wikipedia articles on "John Birch Society" and "Producerism". However, the latter, which is itself flagged for bias, does not mention the John Birch Society as a "producerist" group, nor does it offer a link to the Wikipedia article on the Society despite providing a long list of links. The Wikipedia article on the John Birch Society does not identify the Society as "producerist" - the Society is described as a "political advocacy group that supports what it considers traditionally conservative causes such as the private ownership of property, the rule of law and U.S. sovereignty, and opposes globalism" - nor does the Birch article offer a link to the Wikipedia article on "Producerism". "Producerism" is, anyway, a pretty obvious and shoddy piece of socio-babble, one source for which seems to be - well, well - material archived at www.publiceye.org. www.publiceye.org does in turn single out Gary Allen as providing "an example of producerism" in his 1971 book, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, a book that surely contains a "conspiracy theory" if anything does (indeed, that is self-proclaimed). And Allen was a prominent John Bircher. www.publiceye.org states that "Allen's work is championed by the John Birch Society", but this statement is unreferenced. Neither Allen, nor his book, are referenced in the Wikipedia article on the John Birch Society nor on the discussion page for that article (which does go into the issue of conspiracy theories). The Bilderberg article essays to condemn "conspiracy theories", citing, among other things, an interview with G. William Domhoff, archived by - hmmm - www.publiceye.org. Domhoff has done excellent studies of the workings of the "global power elites", and instructs progressives (of whom he is one) not to worry about Bilderberg or the Council on Foreign Relations. Those, he says, are not the vehicles through which the elites control - they rather control through interlocking corporate directorates, whereas Bilderberg is merely a forum for trying out new ideas. Still, Domhoff remarks that "it is the same people more or less" (of course, that's left out of the Bilderberg article); and the only reason that he doesn't count himself as a conspiracy theorist is because of the (non-neutral) way he chooses to define such theories (i.e. as ungrounded and impervious to criticism). Now Domhoff is a thorough researcher who must surely be taken seriously. However, that doesn't mean that his opinion is definitive as regards "conspiracy theories". Murray Rothbard published an article in 1977 called "The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited" which is archived at http://mises.org/story/2809. There, Rothbard gives an alternative picture: "Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a 'conspiracy theory of history,' 'paranoid,' 'economic determinist,' and even 'Marxist.' These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party." One may disagree with Rothbard about all kinds of things - I certainly do - but he was a scholar of some repute and his view is germane to the attribution of "conspiracy theories" to organizations such as the John Birch Society - specifically named by Rothbard, but also taken on shaky grounds as a prime example of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theorizing" in the Bilderberg article itself (your idea, not mine). Therefore, I inserted a quotation from Rothbard and a citation to his article into the "Conspiracy theories" section of the Bilderberg article; but, naturally, it was deleted after a few minutes. Apparently, responsible opposing views on controverted issues are irrelevant. OK, all of this provides just ONE SMALL EXAMPLE of the bias and shoddiness of the Bilderberg article: use of loaded terms, partial sources, unsubstantiated attributions, selective and biased presentation of controversial views ... and on and on. You must think that we are all idiots out here - but we are not. The Wikipedia article on Bilderberg is a put-up job, and a sorry joke. I think that the whole thing should be deleted until someone is ready to write a serious, and properly referenced, article, answering questions about the originators of the Group, about its finances, about its objectives, and discussing, in a responsible way, the criticisms of Bilderberg, which is a controversial and secretive institution. I flagged the article as disputed, but of course the flag was deleted. The article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Is that specific enough for you? 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I took out the offending comment. But, you see, when you treat people like halfwits, they tend to get angry. That's insulting in itself. If you read, and understood, the substance of my remarks (a discussion of just one element of the article), you'll understand that the Bilderberg article needs to be re-written from beginning to end. And since you won't let anyone else do that, I view it as your responsibility. Who I am, and who you are, is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't care who you are (or who any other editor is). All I care about is the quality of Wikipedia content. There is room for discussion and disagreement, but that presupposes a certain level of honesty and competence; the discussion page here is full of examples where people make comments and arguments that seem not to be understood (if even read) by the moderators. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 07:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I see from Dougweller that it is simply a waste of time trying to get this article improved. I don't know whether it's mere obtuseness or disingenuousness, but, hey, what does it matter? If you want to keep this trash as your contribution to Wikipedia, I guess you must have your way. I must say that it's pretty thin, and any discerning reader will write it off for what it is. Anyway, like a number of well-meaning editors before me, I'm outta here. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 07:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong but our anonymous critic, User:85.197.218.34, may be User:Batvette. If so, he is a crank I have been dealing with for months on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page that shouldn't be taken seriously. If not, my apologies for dragging his name into this. -- Loremaster ( talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Former Nato Secretary-General Admits Bilderberg Sets Global Policy
www.infowarscom/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy/ unreliable fringe source?
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.152.88 ( talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's fear (or envy). For example, its been said that the secret organization's proposal to microchip everyone by year 2015 is likened to having the world population wear the mark of the beast on their palm or forehead, the same beast described in the Book of Revelation. But others believe that the mark of the beast is an actual mark of the beast (similar to the passage in the Bible about true believers being sealed by the Holy Spirit); not a microchip. Check the usual blog on the web; and you'll find out for yourself. Ronewirl ( talk) 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And there are religious organizations out there who believe the Bilderberg Group is evil. But, it doesn't explain why one of its attendees had once served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention? And several of past attendees are Episcopalian. Any ideas? None of the usual religious controversies can be found in this article. Ronewirl ( talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That meeting at the European Parliament about the Bilderberg Group was very important and a historic moment! Please keep this part of the wikipedia entry: "The European Parliament held a public speech to expose the Bilderberg Group shadow government with investigative journalist Daniel Estulin and on the initiatives of Lega Nord led by Mario Borghezio on June 1st, 2010." Guest ( talk) 08:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.141.66 ( talk)
This was evidently a press conference in a room of the European Parliament. Eg see [3] "The long running debate about ill advised alliances in the European Parliament came to a head at a press conference sponsored by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and their Italian Allies the Lega Nord to promote a book claiming that the Bilderberg Group is steering the world from behind the scenes." And [4] "Conspiracy theories abound in the corridors of the European Parliament, where yesterday Room 0A50 was booked for a press conference, apparently hosted by Nigel Farage and fellow Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom. The occasion was the launch of a new book about the Bilderberg Group, the elite annual conference whose attendees plan to take over the universe, or so conspiracy theorists claim. The book's author Daniel Estulin". In other words, a publicity stunt which doesn't belong in this article. Dougweller ( talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Factually incorrect. Neither the conference, or Estulin's book, claims that Bilderberger's wish to take over the world. Furthermore, mainstream media sources, as referenced in the conference cannot be regarded as reliable sources, such as The Independent, because they have Bilderberg attendees, (check the Wiki list). Additionally, the book is not new, it is in fact 3 years old, if you took the time to watch the conference you would know this, so the conference cannot be regarded as a publicity stunt, especially considering it has gained very little publicity. Estulin's new book is not about the Bilderberg group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.251.13 ( talk) 00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Dougweller, your sources are unreliable. Firstly, you cite a blog, enough said. Secondly, a small excerpt, a mini-story, from The Independent, whose intellectual and journalistic credibility is severely questionable with this quote "Well, yeah but no but"... The reliability of these sources coupled with the previously mentioned misinformation contained within them is not a strong argument against the credibility of Estulin's claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.251.13 ( talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"Only mainstream media sources are acceptable for this" Oh, I see, only mainstream media is the truth, all wikileaks, whistleblowers or suppressed findings are false. Good bye wikipedia, you are leading towards a censored world we only is truth what the big guys (and some girls) have confirmed to be publishable. Hey, folks, I understand that reliababilty is very important, but for many topics the wp mainarticle is interesting to read what the people (are made to) believe and the criticm or alternative meaning or conspirative theories are a good summary about what is realy the truth (for instance AIDS or JFK Murder or 9/11). Wake up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.162.198 ( talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is better to have criticism and conspiracy theories separate, if they are grouped as one it means any "criticism" of the group is a "conspiracy theory", I do not believe this is the case. I have tried to simply change the section titles two times both were instantly reverted [5], [6]. If this is not acceptable maybe we need to add a completely NEW criticism section or I could easily rewright the current Conspiracy theories section to be more of a clear cut criticism and drop other information down into the Origins of conspiracy theories.-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Take a look at my sources and how I used them seems pretty much by the book to me.--
"The thing about the Bilderberg group’s top secret meetings: you never know quite what is going on behind the police checkpoints." [7]
As the Bilderberg group uses its influence to keep off the Reuters, AP, and BBC news wires. [8]
"So if you think Reuters and AP provide the world with some kind of pure news-stream of undiluted fact truth, you're plainly mistaken. Quite how "managed" they are, I can't say.
The second thing is a conversation I had with the BBC foreign news desk. I'd been talking to them about maybe running a story on Bilderberg 2010. Everything was sounding positive, until I made a follow-up call. This is what I was told.
"Ah, yes, sorry, Bilderberg's been taken off our diary."
"Excuse me?"
"Um... It wasn't my decision."
Do I think that the Bilderberg group does its best to keep off the news wires? Absolutely."
Legally the participation of US citizens and politicians are forbidden from negotiating in secret with representatives of foreign governments by law, the Logan Act of 1799. [9]
"Some protesters outside the meeting say the participation of US citizens in the meeting is forbidden by law. One protester told RT that the Logan Act of 1799 forbids US citizens from negotiating in secret with representatives of foreign governments. Thus, if any American attendee were to come to an agreement on any issue, it could be a violation of federal law."
Many critics seem to agree that the Bilderberg Group each year advances its procedural steps in the process to meet their main goal, which is a single world economic and governance system controlled by the world bank and IMF, eventually leading to a one world currency. [10]
"Rudkowski argues that the group meets and plans out the coming year's worth of global economic and political events. Using the examples of the rise in oil prices in the past to the downfall of the US economy, Rudkowski said these were procedural steps in the process to meet their end game, which is a single world economic and governance system controlled by the world bank and IMF, eventually leading to a one world currency implemented by the G8 and G20."
In 2010 Henry Kissinger attended the Bilderberg meeting in Spain despite the fact he is wanted for questioning in Spain about war crimes, as people were getting arrested for trying to take photographs of the attendees. [11]. -- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted the contention that the Bilderberg meetings are closed to the press. While the Group does go to great lengths to restrict press freedom in regards to their deliberations, it cannot be forgotten that some of the attendants of this year's meeting include: Donald E. Graham (Chairman & CEO of The Washington Post), Peter Mansbridge (Chief correspondent, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), John Micklethwait (Editor-in-chief, The Economist), Moisés Naím (Editor-in-chief, Foreign Policy) Antti Blåfield (Senior Editorial Writer, Helsingin Sanomat), and Ruşen Çakir (Journalist). Not to mention two rapporteurs from The Economist. Basically, while the meeting may be closed to independent reporting, it is very friendly to media elites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.58.242 ( talk) 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You've missed the point: It's not that there's no journalists at the Bilderberg Group meetings; The point is that the mainstream media never even mentions the Bilderberg Group in it's news reports, much less tells anybody what goes on there or who attends. If it wasn't for the so-called "fringe" media, you and I probably would have no clue that there's even such a thing as the Bilderberg Group. So, if the journalists that attend the Bilderberg Group meetings aren't reporting on what goes on at those meetings, you have to ask yourself why. I mean, seriously: What kind of journalist would attend a private, invitation-only meeting where dozens of the power-elite are meeting in secret... and then forever keep quiet about everything he heard and saw while he was there? You have got to be kidding me. Half the reporters in the world would give their eye teeth to break that kind of story, and the other half would run screaming into the night in terror at the prospect of what they might find out! Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster - seriously - you have thousands of edits to your name. Leave edit summaries. Make an effort. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 23:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:External links guidelines page:
Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. They must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
Some external links are welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.
What should be linked
-- Loremaster ( talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted Fidel Castro's involvement with the in the conspiracy theories before and it was reverted without merit, however I've now added an AP article reference (via yahoo) that backs up the claim. Donhoraldo ( talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the term conspiracy theory has become mostly perjorative and is not at all neutral. It could be put in the article text through a cited quote as to someone's criticism, but otherwise, it should not be carried in the narrative voice. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
In the latest installment of The Keiser Report on Russia Today, a Dutch journalist, Micha Kat, informs of investigations that have been done into the exact location of the Bilderberg Group's secret headquarters in Leiden in the Netherlands. The information does not mention the university of Leiden which is currently mentioned in our article. I'm sure this is information that can be followed up on to expand this article. Also Kat is being sued by the group, allegedly the first time in history someone is being sued by the Bilderberg Group. __ meco ( talk) 12:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has obviously hacked up the page with nonsense. Probably need to revert to an earlier uncorrupted version. w.m. 69.161.81.190 ( talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleagues,
I just want to askt why I cannot find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
a link to the official Website of the Bilderberg Meetings http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org
I only can find that link at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg-Konferenz
Also I think that a link at chapter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Conspiracy_theories to a more academic source like Prof. G. W. Domhoff http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ WhoRulesAmerica.net: Power, Politics, & Social Change would be a helpful contribution.
With regards Erwin Lengauer, Mag. Erwin.lengauer@univie.ac.at http://ethik.univie.ac.at/lengauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin.lengauer ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear editors
I have found a new Bildeberg website
www.bilderbergonline.com I believe its official. I will leave it a few days before editing the post —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.14.78.226 (
talk)
01:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Bilderbergonline.com A few press releases have been submitted (I cant say to who) But the media is verifying the site as we speak and hopefully we should know the facts very soon indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.116.203 ( talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created a new section above which discusses Wikipedia guidelines about external links. -- Loremaster ( talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster - Bilderberg is not a 'gentlemen's club'. Why do you keep linking to gentlemen's club in the text 'the role of social clubs such as Bilderberg'? Please use edit summaries when replying or changing the article. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 07:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster - you added the following source:
Can you provide page numbers please? A Google Books search does not throw up any references to 'Bilderberg', but that is not, of course, infallible. [13] Please provide page numbers when citing books to aid verification. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 06:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As indicated by user Mezigue, the comments by the 'Party for Socialism and Liberation' are off-topic. While the source article is about the Bilderberg group, the quote included wasn't. The quote tells us the party's views on conspiracy theories, nothing about Bilderberg. If this quote belongs on Wikipedia, it belongs on the Party for Socialism and Liberation page, or the conspiracy theory page, not here. The removal edit was reverted by User:Loremaster without explanation. I have reverted back to the version by Mezigue. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In reading the exchanges on this articles talk page, it is clear that one of the contributors to this article is stubbornly pushing a point of view and reaching conclusions by combining sources. A review of the talk pages from this editors contributions will reveal a pattern of WP:OR and WP:syn. Someone ought to do something about it. 68.5.202.172 ( talk) 02:24, 16 October 2010 (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 | Archive 6 |
Since the meeting is not public and no report is issued the US officials are violating the Logan act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.152.88 ( talk) 18:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Obviously the so-called "Bilderberg Group" is controversial, so an objective presentation must tolerate relevant, verifiable information that some may consider uncomplimentary to Bilderberg as well as information that gives a positive picture of the group's origins, sponsors, purposes and activities. This article is being monitored so that any change or addition that the censor or censors considers "negative" is deleted, usually within minutes of insertion. For instance, any of the many criticisms of the Bilderberg Group are labeled "conspiracy theories" in this article. The sub-title of the small section where such criticisms are mentioned (despite the large number of criticisms that have been published) is "Conspiracy theories". Attempts to change it to "Criticisms of the Bilderberg Group" - surely a more neutral title - are censored, even without the content of the sub-section being changed. Public and verifiable information about Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, one of the founders of Bilderberg and its chairman for 21 years is removed, evidently because it is unflattering. But surely such information has a legitimate place in an informative article about Bilderberg. I have no objection to editing out irrelevancies or unverifiable matters of rumor, but as it stands, this page is being systematically censored in a biased manner, seemingly by agents (possibly self-appointed) of the Bilderberg Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The OPV tag is not to be removed until the dispute is resolved. I do not accept the reasoning of the 'Conspiracy theories' section and will insert my view there. I do not accept your view that facts about Prince Bernhard, or other influential members of the Bilderberg Group, are irrelevant to this article, even if reported elsewhere. Even if unflattering (and, by the way, some information of this kind might also be flattering), it is material to understanding of the origins and purposes of this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 09:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
This is absurd. Relevance may in many cases be debatable, but it is an intrinsic feature of content, not something that is in itself sourced. There are some quite good Wikipedia articles about controversial organizations where the background, orientation, activities and associations of founding members or officers are considered obviously relevant, and about which I don't think that anyone, whether critical or supportive of the organization, in question has any right to complain. Your implication that such information is not relevant, or that the relevance needs to be certified by some authority (You? the Pope? David Rockefeller?) amounts to pure, and egregious, censorship, not responsible editing. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's true that I didn't include edit summaries. I thought that the need for the edits was obvious. I have contributed to many other Wikipedia articles, improved consistency, added references, corrected spelling, removed bias; but this is the only article for which any of my edits have been "reverted". I have in any case explained myself clearly enough; you apparently haven't read what I have written, for example in this discussion. I have taken more than "a moment" to do that. You and Dougweller have only made self-righteous, but transparently dishonest, comments. OK, "there are some quite good Wikipedia articles", e.g. the article on the John Birch Society, certainly a controversial organization. The discussion page for that article contains some quite sharp exchanges, as one might imagine. Now, in that article, we find this: "The society was established in Indianapolis, Indiana on December 9, 1958 by a group of 12 men led by Robert Welch, Jr., a retired candy manufacturer from Belmont, Massachusetts. One founding member was Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, one of the largest private corporations in America. Another was Revilo P. Oliver, a University of Illinois professor who later severed his relationship with the society and helped found the "white nationalist" National Alliance." Certainly it is both relevant and appropriate to say something about the orientation, associations and activities of the founders. The views of the Society are there presented, sourced to position statements of the Society itself and mentions that the Society has been has been described (by others) as "ultraconservative", "far right", "radical right", and "extremist", referencing these descriptions, as is proper. Now your Bilderberg article, with its meager and evasive content, says little or nothing about one of the main founders of the "Group", and attempts to add anything are deleted. It classifies all criticisms of the Group as "conspiracy theories", which is not a neutral description. It attributes such a theory to the John Birch Society, for example, sourcing not any publication or spokesperson of the Society itself but a second-hand reference archived at www.publiceye.org, which is itself referenced only to secondary sources antithetical to the Society. www.publiceye.org is a progressive activist group that states explicitly that it targets what it considers to be right-wing organizations, claiming that it is especially such orgnaizations that are embroiled in "conspiracy theories" (these, www.publiceye.org defines in its own terms). I should say that I rather sympathize with the direction of www.publiceye.org - and I am certainly no John Bircher - but that does not make www.publiceye.org an objective source for attributing specific conspiracy theories to the John Birch Society. If the Society has issued such theories, the only proper sources to cite would be the Society itself or its spokespersons. No anti-Bilderberg conspiracy theory is attributed to the John Birch Society in the Wikipedia article on the Society, which is rather detailed. Of course the John Birch Society is strongly opposed to what appears to be the Bilderberg sympathy for globalism; but that opposition does not, in itself, amount to a conspiracy theory, under any definition. The John Birch Society is described in the Bilderberg article as "a producerist advocacy group". This attribution is referenced to - well, well - www.publiceye.org, which, in its turn, does not cite anything from the John Birch Society but from secondary sources which, even if some of them have some credentials, are explicitly (and politically) opposed to the John Birch Society and other "populist" groups. Your Bilderberg article links to the Wikipedia articles on "John Birch Society" and "Producerism". However, the latter, which is itself flagged for bias, does not mention the John Birch Society as a "producerist" group, nor does it offer a link to the Wikipedia article on the Society despite providing a long list of links. The Wikipedia article on the John Birch Society does not identify the Society as "producerist" - the Society is described as a "political advocacy group that supports what it considers traditionally conservative causes such as the private ownership of property, the rule of law and U.S. sovereignty, and opposes globalism" - nor does the Birch article offer a link to the Wikipedia article on "Producerism". "Producerism" is, anyway, a pretty obvious and shoddy piece of socio-babble, one source for which seems to be - well, well - material archived at www.publiceye.org. www.publiceye.org does in turn single out Gary Allen as providing "an example of producerism" in his 1971 book, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, a book that surely contains a "conspiracy theory" if anything does (indeed, that is self-proclaimed). And Allen was a prominent John Bircher. www.publiceye.org states that "Allen's work is championed by the John Birch Society", but this statement is unreferenced. Neither Allen, nor his book, are referenced in the Wikipedia article on the John Birch Society nor on the discussion page for that article (which does go into the issue of conspiracy theories). The Bilderberg article essays to condemn "conspiracy theories", citing, among other things, an interview with G. William Domhoff, archived by - hmmm - www.publiceye.org. Domhoff has done excellent studies of the workings of the "global power elites", and instructs progressives (of whom he is one) not to worry about Bilderberg or the Council on Foreign Relations. Those, he says, are not the vehicles through which the elites control - they rather control through interlocking corporate directorates, whereas Bilderberg is merely a forum for trying out new ideas. Still, Domhoff remarks that "it is the same people more or less" (of course, that's left out of the Bilderberg article); and the only reason that he doesn't count himself as a conspiracy theorist is because of the (non-neutral) way he chooses to define such theories (i.e. as ungrounded and impervious to criticism). Now Domhoff is a thorough researcher who must surely be taken seriously. However, that doesn't mean that his opinion is definitive as regards "conspiracy theories". Murray Rothbard published an article in 1977 called "The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited" which is archived at http://mises.org/story/2809. There, Rothbard gives an alternative picture: "Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a 'conspiracy theory of history,' 'paranoid,' 'economic determinist,' and even 'Marxist.' These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party." One may disagree with Rothbard about all kinds of things - I certainly do - but he was a scholar of some repute and his view is germane to the attribution of "conspiracy theories" to organizations such as the John Birch Society - specifically named by Rothbard, but also taken on shaky grounds as a prime example of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theorizing" in the Bilderberg article itself (your idea, not mine). Therefore, I inserted a quotation from Rothbard and a citation to his article into the "Conspiracy theories" section of the Bilderberg article; but, naturally, it was deleted after a few minutes. Apparently, responsible opposing views on controverted issues are irrelevant. OK, all of this provides just ONE SMALL EXAMPLE of the bias and shoddiness of the Bilderberg article: use of loaded terms, partial sources, unsubstantiated attributions, selective and biased presentation of controversial views ... and on and on. You must think that we are all idiots out here - but we are not. The Wikipedia article on Bilderberg is a put-up job, and a sorry joke. I think that the whole thing should be deleted until someone is ready to write a serious, and properly referenced, article, answering questions about the originators of the Group, about its finances, about its objectives, and discussing, in a responsible way, the criticisms of Bilderberg, which is a controversial and secretive institution. I flagged the article as disputed, but of course the flag was deleted. The article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Is that specific enough for you? 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I took out the offending comment. But, you see, when you treat people like halfwits, they tend to get angry. That's insulting in itself. If you read, and understood, the substance of my remarks (a discussion of just one element of the article), you'll understand that the Bilderberg article needs to be re-written from beginning to end. And since you won't let anyone else do that, I view it as your responsibility. Who I am, and who you are, is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't care who you are (or who any other editor is). All I care about is the quality of Wikipedia content. There is room for discussion and disagreement, but that presupposes a certain level of honesty and competence; the discussion page here is full of examples where people make comments and arguments that seem not to be understood (if even read) by the moderators. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 07:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I see from Dougweller that it is simply a waste of time trying to get this article improved. I don't know whether it's mere obtuseness or disingenuousness, but, hey, what does it matter? If you want to keep this trash as your contribution to Wikipedia, I guess you must have your way. I must say that it's pretty thin, and any discerning reader will write it off for what it is. Anyway, like a number of well-meaning editors before me, I'm outta here. 85.197.218.34 ( talk) 07:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong but our anonymous critic, User:85.197.218.34, may be User:Batvette. If so, he is a crank I have been dealing with for months on the Talk:New World Order (conspiracy theory) page that shouldn't be taken seriously. If not, my apologies for dragging his name into this. -- Loremaster ( talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Former Nato Secretary-General Admits Bilderberg Sets Global Policy
www.infowarscom/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy/ unreliable fringe source?
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.152.88 ( talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it's fear (or envy). For example, its been said that the secret organization's proposal to microchip everyone by year 2015 is likened to having the world population wear the mark of the beast on their palm or forehead, the same beast described in the Book of Revelation. But others believe that the mark of the beast is an actual mark of the beast (similar to the passage in the Bible about true believers being sealed by the Holy Spirit); not a microchip. Check the usual blog on the web; and you'll find out for yourself. Ronewirl ( talk) 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
And there are religious organizations out there who believe the Bilderberg Group is evil. But, it doesn't explain why one of its attendees had once served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention? And several of past attendees are Episcopalian. Any ideas? None of the usual religious controversies can be found in this article. Ronewirl ( talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That meeting at the European Parliament about the Bilderberg Group was very important and a historic moment! Please keep this part of the wikipedia entry: "The European Parliament held a public speech to expose the Bilderberg Group shadow government with investigative journalist Daniel Estulin and on the initiatives of Lega Nord led by Mario Borghezio on June 1st, 2010." Guest ( talk) 08:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.141.66 ( talk)
This was evidently a press conference in a room of the European Parliament. Eg see [3] "The long running debate about ill advised alliances in the European Parliament came to a head at a press conference sponsored by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and their Italian Allies the Lega Nord to promote a book claiming that the Bilderberg Group is steering the world from behind the scenes." And [4] "Conspiracy theories abound in the corridors of the European Parliament, where yesterday Room 0A50 was booked for a press conference, apparently hosted by Nigel Farage and fellow Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom. The occasion was the launch of a new book about the Bilderberg Group, the elite annual conference whose attendees plan to take over the universe, or so conspiracy theorists claim. The book's author Daniel Estulin". In other words, a publicity stunt which doesn't belong in this article. Dougweller ( talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Factually incorrect. Neither the conference, or Estulin's book, claims that Bilderberger's wish to take over the world. Furthermore, mainstream media sources, as referenced in the conference cannot be regarded as reliable sources, such as The Independent, because they have Bilderberg attendees, (check the Wiki list). Additionally, the book is not new, it is in fact 3 years old, if you took the time to watch the conference you would know this, so the conference cannot be regarded as a publicity stunt, especially considering it has gained very little publicity. Estulin's new book is not about the Bilderberg group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.251.13 ( talk) 00:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Dougweller, your sources are unreliable. Firstly, you cite a blog, enough said. Secondly, a small excerpt, a mini-story, from The Independent, whose intellectual and journalistic credibility is severely questionable with this quote "Well, yeah but no but"... The reliability of these sources coupled with the previously mentioned misinformation contained within them is not a strong argument against the credibility of Estulin's claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.251.13 ( talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"Only mainstream media sources are acceptable for this" Oh, I see, only mainstream media is the truth, all wikileaks, whistleblowers or suppressed findings are false. Good bye wikipedia, you are leading towards a censored world we only is truth what the big guys (and some girls) have confirmed to be publishable. Hey, folks, I understand that reliababilty is very important, but for many topics the wp mainarticle is interesting to read what the people (are made to) believe and the criticm or alternative meaning or conspirative theories are a good summary about what is realy the truth (for instance AIDS or JFK Murder or 9/11). Wake up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.162.198 ( talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is better to have criticism and conspiracy theories separate, if they are grouped as one it means any "criticism" of the group is a "conspiracy theory", I do not believe this is the case. I have tried to simply change the section titles two times both were instantly reverted [5], [6]. If this is not acceptable maybe we need to add a completely NEW criticism section or I could easily rewright the current Conspiracy theories section to be more of a clear cut criticism and drop other information down into the Origins of conspiracy theories.-- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Take a look at my sources and how I used them seems pretty much by the book to me.--
"The thing about the Bilderberg group’s top secret meetings: you never know quite what is going on behind the police checkpoints." [7]
As the Bilderberg group uses its influence to keep off the Reuters, AP, and BBC news wires. [8]
"So if you think Reuters and AP provide the world with some kind of pure news-stream of undiluted fact truth, you're plainly mistaken. Quite how "managed" they are, I can't say.
The second thing is a conversation I had with the BBC foreign news desk. I'd been talking to them about maybe running a story on Bilderberg 2010. Everything was sounding positive, until I made a follow-up call. This is what I was told.
"Ah, yes, sorry, Bilderberg's been taken off our diary."
"Excuse me?"
"Um... It wasn't my decision."
Do I think that the Bilderberg group does its best to keep off the news wires? Absolutely."
Legally the participation of US citizens and politicians are forbidden from negotiating in secret with representatives of foreign governments by law, the Logan Act of 1799. [9]
"Some protesters outside the meeting say the participation of US citizens in the meeting is forbidden by law. One protester told RT that the Logan Act of 1799 forbids US citizens from negotiating in secret with representatives of foreign governments. Thus, if any American attendee were to come to an agreement on any issue, it could be a violation of federal law."
Many critics seem to agree that the Bilderberg Group each year advances its procedural steps in the process to meet their main goal, which is a single world economic and governance system controlled by the world bank and IMF, eventually leading to a one world currency. [10]
"Rudkowski argues that the group meets and plans out the coming year's worth of global economic and political events. Using the examples of the rise in oil prices in the past to the downfall of the US economy, Rudkowski said these were procedural steps in the process to meet their end game, which is a single world economic and governance system controlled by the world bank and IMF, eventually leading to a one world currency implemented by the G8 and G20."
In 2010 Henry Kissinger attended the Bilderberg meeting in Spain despite the fact he is wanted for questioning in Spain about war crimes, as people were getting arrested for trying to take photographs of the attendees. [11]. -- Ducha mps_ comb MFA 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have deleted the contention that the Bilderberg meetings are closed to the press. While the Group does go to great lengths to restrict press freedom in regards to their deliberations, it cannot be forgotten that some of the attendants of this year's meeting include: Donald E. Graham (Chairman & CEO of The Washington Post), Peter Mansbridge (Chief correspondent, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), John Micklethwait (Editor-in-chief, The Economist), Moisés Naím (Editor-in-chief, Foreign Policy) Antti Blåfield (Senior Editorial Writer, Helsingin Sanomat), and Ruşen Çakir (Journalist). Not to mention two rapporteurs from The Economist. Basically, while the meeting may be closed to independent reporting, it is very friendly to media elites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.58.242 ( talk) 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You've missed the point: It's not that there's no journalists at the Bilderberg Group meetings; The point is that the mainstream media never even mentions the Bilderberg Group in it's news reports, much less tells anybody what goes on there or who attends. If it wasn't for the so-called "fringe" media, you and I probably would have no clue that there's even such a thing as the Bilderberg Group. So, if the journalists that attend the Bilderberg Group meetings aren't reporting on what goes on at those meetings, you have to ask yourself why. I mean, seriously: What kind of journalist would attend a private, invitation-only meeting where dozens of the power-elite are meeting in secret... and then forever keep quiet about everything he heard and saw while he was there? You have got to be kidding me. Half the reporters in the world would give their eye teeth to break that kind of story, and the other half would run screaming into the night in terror at the prospect of what they might find out! Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster - seriously - you have thousands of edits to your name. Leave edit summaries. Make an effort. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 23:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia:External links guidelines page:
Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. They must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
Some external links are welcome, but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable.
What should be linked
-- Loremaster ( talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I posted Fidel Castro's involvement with the in the conspiracy theories before and it was reverted without merit, however I've now added an AP article reference (via yahoo) that backs up the claim. Donhoraldo ( talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that the term conspiracy theory has become mostly perjorative and is not at all neutral. It could be put in the article text through a cited quote as to someone's criticism, but otherwise, it should not be carried in the narrative voice. Gwen Gale ( talk) 08:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
In the latest installment of The Keiser Report on Russia Today, a Dutch journalist, Micha Kat, informs of investigations that have been done into the exact location of the Bilderberg Group's secret headquarters in Leiden in the Netherlands. The information does not mention the university of Leiden which is currently mentioned in our article. I'm sure this is information that can be followed up on to expand this article. Also Kat is being sued by the group, allegedly the first time in history someone is being sued by the Bilderberg Group. __ meco ( talk) 12:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone has obviously hacked up the page with nonsense. Probably need to revert to an earlier uncorrupted version. w.m. 69.161.81.190 ( talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear colleagues,
I just want to askt why I cannot find at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
a link to the official Website of the Bilderberg Meetings http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org
I only can find that link at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg-Konferenz
Also I think that a link at chapter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group#Conspiracy_theories to a more academic source like Prof. G. W. Domhoff http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ WhoRulesAmerica.net: Power, Politics, & Social Change would be a helpful contribution.
With regards Erwin Lengauer, Mag. Erwin.lengauer@univie.ac.at http://ethik.univie.ac.at/lengauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erwin.lengauer ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear editors
I have found a new Bildeberg website
www.bilderbergonline.com I believe its official. I will leave it a few days before editing the post —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.14.78.226 (
talk)
01:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Bilderbergonline.com A few press releases have been submitted (I cant say to who) But the media is verifying the site as we speak and hopefully we should know the facts very soon indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.116.203 ( talk) 17:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I've created a new section above which discusses Wikipedia guidelines about external links. -- Loremaster ( talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster - Bilderberg is not a 'gentlemen's club'. Why do you keep linking to gentlemen's club in the text 'the role of social clubs such as Bilderberg'? Please use edit summaries when replying or changing the article. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 07:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Loremaster - you added the following source:
Can you provide page numbers please? A Google Books search does not throw up any references to 'Bilderberg', but that is not, of course, infallible. [13] Please provide page numbers when citing books to aid verification. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 06:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As indicated by user Mezigue, the comments by the 'Party for Socialism and Liberation' are off-topic. While the source article is about the Bilderberg group, the quote included wasn't. The quote tells us the party's views on conspiracy theories, nothing about Bilderberg. If this quote belongs on Wikipedia, it belongs on the Party for Socialism and Liberation page, or the conspiracy theory page, not here. The removal edit was reverted by User:Loremaster without explanation. I have reverted back to the version by Mezigue. - Crosbiesmith ( talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In reading the exchanges on this articles talk page, it is clear that one of the contributors to this article is stubbornly pushing a point of view and reaching conclusions by combining sources. A review of the talk pages from this editors contributions will reveal a pattern of WP:OR and WP:syn. Someone ought to do something about it. 68.5.202.172 ( talk) 02:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)