Talk:Bilderberg Meeting/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Legality of US officials participation is not mentioned.

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)

Fallacy already dealt with above. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Article is Censored With Bilderberg Bias

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 naming of the 'Conspiracy theories' section is discussed above. Please continue the discussion there. Prince Bernhard's life is discussed in the Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld article, which is appropriate. I am removing the POV tag. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 09:14, 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)

If Bernhard's activities are relevant, you will have to find a reliable source stating their relevance. See WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 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)

This page is for discussing the article. Please always be specific. If you believe material should be included, explain why. In your edits to the article you have not even included edit summaries, which are a good place to explain the purpose of an edit. When your edits were rejected you have commented on the talk page but you have never explained why a particular edit should have been retained. Take a moment to explain yourself. Always be specific. Where you say, 'There are some quite good Wikipedia articles...', link to the article you mean. It only takes a minute. If you cannot explain the purpose of your edits you will probably find they continue to be reverted. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:15, 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)

Thanks for the detail. I will read more carefully and comment later. It's late here. You're right about the reference to the JBS, the way it's described as producerist, and the way the society's views are sourced to publieye.org. I did remove the producerist thing earlier this week, [1], but it was reverted. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I actually did read it more carefully and I don't appreciate the bit about moving my lips. How about you get a log-in and, better yet, use your own name, as I do? You might then think twice about posting insults in public forums. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As for Rothbard, he doesn't discuss the Bilderberg Group, and using him would be original research. Fine in an essay, not fine here. And the IP seems to have done very little editing, maybe a dozen articles, certainly not 'many'. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 14 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)

85.197.218.34, don't lose hope. Whatever you want to include may need some adjustments and compromises before it can be accepted. Consider reducing the scale and details of the edits, in a way that pro-Bilderberg editors would be able to live with. John Hyams (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with "anti-Bilderberg" edits is therefore "pro-Bilderberg"? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I really find it annoying when people think that editors must be for or against the subject of an article, not simply interested in having a good article. John, just out of curiousity, are you arguing that the Rothbard material should be included? If so, why isn't it OR? If not, do you realise you look as though you are? Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Pro" according to 85.197.218.34s POV. Obviously he/she said that criticism is generally not accepted. I don't know whether it's right becuase I didn't track the entire article's editing history (in terms of content), nor have I seen his past edits. I was merely trying to encourage the editor, since it reminded me some of the editing obstacles I had to encounter in the past, including in this article (not that the obstacles are not OK, they are a natural part of Wikipedia editing and in the end contribute to its quality). John Hyams (talk) 03:06, 16 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

Former Nato Secretary-General Admits Bilderberg Sets Global Policy

www.infowarscom/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy/

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.152.88 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

infowars.com is obviously not a reliable source. --Loremaster (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if verified, he was a crook who accepted a huge bribe, who only went to two meetings, why should anyone believe him? But reading a translation of the newspaper report, he didn't say that anyway. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Infowars is not the source. Radio 1 (VRT) is. (An mp3 of the interview is online.) The transcript on zonnewind is accurate, but you're correct: Claes does not say that they "set global policy". He only says that the participants "are supposed to" implement the strategies outlined in the Bilderberg synthesis reports in their respective environments (political, corporate, cultural etc.). Additional note: ad hominem is pseudoscientific; just because Claes is allegedly a "crook", doesn't mean that what he said in the interview is a lie. —95.89.24.43 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way: Infowars changed "are supposed to" into "are mandated to". That's more than a slight difference. So definitely no "setting of global policy". (Here's the interview.) —95.89.24.43 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Fear

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)

European Parliament Public Speech with Lega Norte

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)

It was a minor press conference for, I believe, a book, that's all. Not sponsored by the European Parliament nor approved by it. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not so minor as you describe, because various noteworthy news outlets did cover the event. Nevertheless, it is a very important historic event, that took place. For the first time in history they openly discussed the bilderberg group at the European Parliament. This is noteworthy and important to add to the wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.141.66 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a press conference called by UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party, Lega Nord and the EFD group in Press Room PHS 0A50, with the only member of the European Parliament present being Mario Borghezio., despite a press release on Estulin's website, copied all over the web, claiming that "Estulin’s talk is equivalent to addressing a joint session of Congress." That claim is clearly far from the truth, even the UKIP speaker wasn't there and the EFD group distanced itself from Estulin. [2]. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Estulin and the European parliament

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)

Agreed. --Loremaster (talk) 23:38, 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)

Well, that's very clear. You don't understand our policies on reliable sources at WP:RS. Only mainstream media sources are acceptable for this. The blog isn't for a source, it's just for background information. This was a press conference, by definition a publicity attempt - I'd call it a stunt myself - by 2 minor rightwing parties. Failed publicity attempt perhaps I should say. It was not an EU conference in any sense of the word, it was just a press conference, and not a very important one. The website doesn't work for me, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 00:54, 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)

addition of a criticism section

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.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need to have two sections, with one focusing on rational criticism from reliable sources and the other on paranoid conspiracy theories. Furthemore, I don't think it is necessary to have a subsection called Origins of conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doug, can you work on expanding the Criticisms section to avoid it being filled with conspiracy crap. Articles from the mainstream media simply report claims made conspiracy theorists who protest in front of a Bilderberg meeting isn't what I consider rational criticism from reliable sources. This section should focus only on what scholars think of it. --Loremaster (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a dodgy laptop that crashes regularly & travelling, but will do my best. Ducha, your last edit not only had unreliable sources, where they were reliable you misrepresented them. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone who claims to have has a Master of Fine Arts, User:Duchamps_comb's summarizing and writing skills are very poor awesome but not what I want or like. That's why I would prefer someone else writing this section until I find the time to do it myself. --Loremaster (talk) 20:57, 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]. --Duchamps_comb MFA 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, all those claims you have chosen from the sources are opinion. The term "argues" indicates my point. There is no evidence that American representatives are negotiating anything. The Bilderbergers bring all this controversy on themselves by refusing to be transparent. Also, you're quite naive if you think a European country would arrest a former American Secretary of State. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to go over each one above, but "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." is a misrepresentation of the article, which uses "may" a couple of times and " One protester told RT that the Logan Act of 1799 forbids US citizens from negotiating in secret" and of course the Logan act doesn't apply to meeting in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For someone who claims to have a Master of Fine Arts, User:Duchamps_comb's summarizing and writing skills are very poor. We're not interested in your attacks opinions about other editor's skills. Keep them to yourself and remember you have absolutely no authority to decide who's allowed to edit this page or not, will you? Otherwise, create your own Wiki project. Dornicke (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell are you again? Actually, don't answer that cause I don't care. For the recond, as long as I respect Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, I will say what I want when I want and nothing you say or do will stop me. That being said, I never claimed to have the authority to decide who is allowed to edit this page or not. However, when someones diminishes the quality of an article I watch over with poor writing and misrepresentation of sources, I can and will say so. Furthemore, I made a suggestion that Dougweller writes the Criticism section as a way of neutralizing an edit war between him and Duchamps_comb where Dougweller was simply undoing Duchamps_comb's edits instead of adding new content that could potentially make Duchamps_comb happy. --Loremaster (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Lore please don't be a WP:TIGER, play nice.--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. --Loremaster (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed to the press?

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)

There have been countless pieces on the Bilderberg Group in numeroues papers in Germany at least (including the horrid Bild-Zeitung). And there have been occasionally in previous years. 92.227.151.174 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg certainly gets covered in the UK media, but the bottom line is that most meetings and conferences that are fundamentally similar to Bilderberg rarely make headline news, anyway. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use edit summaries

Loremaster - seriously - you have thousands of edits to your name. Leave edit summaries. Make an effort. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

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

1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fidel Castro & Conspiracy theories

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)

Good but you should know that your edit was reverted since you initially didn't provide a source and it isn't widely known that Castro subscribes to Bilderberg conspiracy theories. --Loremaster (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a headline story.Donhoraldo (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The headline story came out August 18 so most people still don't know yet. Therefore, adding a source for facts that are not well-known when editing an article is the wisest course of action to avoid reverts. That being said, why are you reverting my improvements to the article? --Loremaster (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the edit. perhaps you could explain and we could see about improving the article in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you see the need for the edit is irrelevant. Mentioning that both left-winger and right-wingers have embraced different versions of the Bildgerbeg conspiracy is quite note-worthy. You need to explain why isn't before deleting it. --Loremaster (talk) 21:01, 21 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)

Fair enough but both Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura describe themselves as conspiracy theorists. The latter even has a show called Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura... --Loremaster (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we will have to live with the term conspiracy theory for the lack of any better description. It is an accurate description which has garnered a heavily discrediting connotation. Perhaps that will change if and when a larger segment of the world's population comes to understand that conspiracies do exist and also play a large role in shaping the world. --meco (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Meco, I suggest you read this essay. --Loremaster (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I got the gist of it. It's standard debunking material which in my opinion displays either deceitfulness or ignorance about worldly matters on the part of its author. From my personal exposure to matters related to what motivates the rich and powerful of this world I'm much more aligned with Margaret Mead in her famous quote:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

— Margaret Mead, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead

__meco (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You have obviously not taken the time to absorb and understand the content of the essay nor find out the field of study its author specializing in. The fact that you would misinterpret a quote from Margaret Mead (that is only meant to inspire progressive and revolutionary activists) to support your own deceitfulness and ignorance only demonstrates that it would be a waste of time pursuing this conversation further. --Loremaster (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You are getting heavily off-topic. WP:NOTAFORUM 77.10.186.68 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More on the Leiden HQ and Bilderberg suing Dutch journalist

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)

Does anybody know whether Russia Today is considered to be a RS? 77.10.176.204 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

See for yourself what past discussions have had to say on that. __meco (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

According to a variety of sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin "propaganda". --Loremaster (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Link to website

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)

I kind of doubt it's an official website. But I don't know much. ×××BrightBlackHeaven<sup>(talk)</sup>××× 09:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We need evidence that it is an official site before we can use it as a source. There are a couple of rightwing sites with the Bilderberg name in them, just the name doesn't make it official. I think it may be official, but we need evidence. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be used a a source without it being official, because the contents concentrate on the facts, there's not much room for speculation and interpretation in it. The website is maintained by a Dutch company from Rotterdam, www.connectholland.nl, which does not say much about the origins of their data, though. --92.225.116.134 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we know they're facts? If it gives a pretense of being official while it's actually not, then it shouldn't be linked to at all. I don't personally see why the actual Bilderberg group would make a website (it seems to defeat their purpose), and a quick google search shows it's mostly promoted via conspiracy theorist sites. I'm not saying it's likely or even probably some sort of a hoax, but I think we should have at least some verification that the website author is in actual connection with the Bilderberg Group, before we link to it as a primary source. ×××BrightBlackHeaven<sup>(talk)</sup>××× 21:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a very helpful comment, but I've read in various places that the Bilderberg Group is not happy with its appearance in mainstream media this year (The Guardian, and other European media), so they decided to step forward and create a website to diversify the speculations and make it look "more ordinary". One could actually call the official representative to confirm the origin of the site (the contact/number has been leaked in 2009), but the participant lists look correct compared to pictures and reports, and bilderbergmeetings.org is hosted in the Netherlands, where the official contact address is also situated... -- 04:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kistano (talk • contribs)

Actually it is helpful. I'm inclined to think the site is legitimate, but given the lengths the right will go to on this issue we need to be cautious. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Olaf Scholz, A German member of Parliament confirmed that he attended Bilderberg this year, and that more information about the conferences can be found on that website. That's not a full confirmation, but why should he refer to a fake/inofficial website in an official context. ( http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/olaf_scholz-575-37942.html#questions ) Did someone call the ISP? :) -- Kistano (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I found [12] but it still leaves us with the choice authentic or accurate spoof. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we just add a link and say that it appears to be / claims to be the offical website? Martinlc (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have good reason to think the site is a spoof. It is fairly cheap looking, and very easily quickly put together. Other conspiracy sites have the same lists, and Alex Jones waves it about. The site has incriminating evidence that shows a conspiracy theorists mind at work. Go to the page http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2010.html. Why on earth is the word "off-the-record" underlined? Those keywords appear 3 times in one text. Years 2009, and 2009 have the same underlining, for no apparent reason. Underlining is very unprofessional for official sites. Why the Bilderbergs wouldn't spend more time building a better site with more detailed info and more current news is beyond me. Why no other site from any of the people listed there point to the Bilderberg site is also beyond me. Of course if we conclude the site is set up by someone pretending to represent the Bilderberg group, then it all makes sense. I've been talking to a person called YougMissRothschild on youtube who clearly is pretending to be a rich entrepreneur who is preparing for the public to go on riots, and trying to incense anger by flashing about how many companies she owns, how often she flies in a jet, how she's going to the G20 with her father, etc etc. It is very clear that they are not who they say they are, and are trying to make people hate them. In other words, conspiracy theorists are going undercover, pretending to be people they are not, and pretending that their website has been approved by certain groups they want to attack. You can tell from the little time that was put into the website that it is not an official page. You can tell from the emphasis they put on 'off the record', 'no press conference'. Recently I watched a youtube video of two conspiracy theorist activists, I think at the G20, lying to security about being undercover cops. They even said they were there to see if they could incite anger and pick out people who were like them (conspiracy theorist types). So be very aware that conspiracy theorists are not hiding behind false faces and telling you that they are someone they are not! Its a great, cheap technique, and that's why they use it. I have emailed the website builder jeroen@connectholland.nl and asked him to provide me with any external sites from any of the people he lists as Bilderberg members who link to his site. I'm sure he'll soon be making websites for them too and cross-link them as well. But we'll be able to tell. I tried another line of investigation and Charlie Skelton who is a friend of Alex Jones was one of the first people to write an article about the website. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/11/bilderberg-sinister-with-smile —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion prog guy (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless we can get confirmation we need to clean up this and other articles, removing anything sourced from it. I saw Charlie Skelton's article but that wasn't definite. He's a friend of Alex Jones and the Guardian uses him? Can we confirm their relationship? Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 1 July 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)

We should be careful here. Is there any support for this being the official website from the Organisation itself or secondary sources? 217.187.224.139 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the Bilderberg group would have a such a modest website... --Loremaster (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But more important than our impressions is the fact that there are several pages trying to appear as if out there. For us as editors this means we need "proof" if put a website into the article, since we obviously cannot take them at face value. Btw. thank you for editing out the mess-up in the other IPs edit, I tried and failed. 217.187.224.139 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur. No "about" link, heck, no other links period! Looking at the source, it appears to be a Word document that was published via a MS wizard of some type. It's certainly not something that a halfway competent web developer would have produced. I suspect it's either someone having fun or a fishing expedition to see what kinds of contact information they get. Whois says it was created on August 6th, 2010, with contact information out of the UK. Extremely doubtful this is legit. Ravensfire (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: there is a link to the "official website" in the article already. But the discussion above has not satisfyingly shown that this is actually the case, has it? (Sidenote: I moved this discussion up to the appropriate place). 217.187.224.139 (talk) 21:12, 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)

Still no confirmation on www.bilderbergmeetings.org. Removed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

'Gentleman's club'

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)

“Gentleman's clubs” are the social clubs that Domhoff describes. The Bohemian Club is a perfect example and it is listed in the List of American gentlemen's clubs article. As for edit summaries, I got the message already... --Loremaster (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bohemian Grove is indeed a club. The Bilderberg Group is not a club - it is an annual conference. The Bilderberg Group does not have a membership - only a steering committee and an advisory committee. Non-committee members invited to attend are not in any sense 'members'. This is all in the article. In conflating the two you are making the same error as the conspiracy theorists you spend your time debunking- Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We're supposed to follow what the sources say, and some of the sources do refer to bilderberg as a club. That being said, the term 'gentlemen's club' does not appear in the Domhoff interview (and that's not exactly a very reliable source--does Domhoff not publish in reputable academic journals?). I think if no reliable sources characterize Bilderberg as a gentleman's club, for us to make that connection would be original research. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Domhoff is the one who describes the Bilderberg Group as a social club not me.
2. Although the Bilderberg Group may not technically be a social club with members, Domhoff is arguing that it can be viewed as a “social club”.
3. Domhoff is a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power who has published in reputable academic journals and written a book on the subject entitled Who Rules America?.
4. That being said, since the source doesn't use the term “gentleman's clubs” and it isn't crucial that we link the term “social clubs” to the Gentleman's club article, I have no problem removing the internal link to resolve this minor dispute.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that at least one other source refers to the subject as a club, so I think there should be no problem using that term. Loremaster, given that Domhoff has published in reputable academic journals and written a book, are there any references to Bilderberg in any of those? My feeling is that using such as a source would be preferable to an interview (but please note I am not objecting to use of the interview, but rather wondering aloud if there are better sources out there)? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are but let me get back to you on that as soon as possible since my time and resources are limited. --Loremaster (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg and Who Rules America

Loremaster - you added the following source:

• Domhoff, G. William (2005). Who Rules America? Power, Politics, and Social Change. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 5 edition. ISBN 0072876255..

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)

The book doesn't explicitly mention Bilderberg but discusses the role of social clubs. That being said, the book was referenced as a source to testify to the fact that Domhoff is a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power. Therefore, I've moved the source to the middle of the sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Party for Socialism and Liberation quote

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)

I have and will continue to restored this quote because 1) the entire section is about conspiracy theories implicating the Bilderberg group and the disputed quote does discuss the group by describing them as “a few leaders from imperialist countries”. --Loremaster (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is off topic and will be removed again. You are illustrating a section about conspiracy theories with quotes from a group that does not believe in them. This is patently random and absurd. Mezigue (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the notion that use of the quote is inappropriate. The article does indeed contain much information about the book which is about the bildergberg group, the entire section in which the quote appears does not directly deal with the book or the bilderberg group. Note that the article is not about the bilderberg group itself, but rather Estulin's view of it. I'm not sure the review itself is from a reliable source in the first place, but if we were to use it, I think it would only be appropriate in a small section oriented to Estulin's book. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mezigue, you haven't made a serious argument I can reply to. In fact, you are the one who sounds random and absurd!

Nuujinn, I disagree because of reasons I already explained above. The Claims of political conspiracies section of the Bilderberg group article is about conspiracy theories implicating the Bilderberg group manufactured by people like Estulin, LaRouche, the Birchers and others. The quote from the 'Party for Socialism and Liberation' statement explains why Marxists reject conspiracy theories in general and conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg group manufactured by Estulin and co. Therefore, the quote serves as a critique of all the claims made in this section. --Loremaster (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the quote shows how the author is arguing that Marxist reject conspiracy theories in general. Leaving aside my personal experience that Marxists do not all share this view, I would point out that the review of Estulin is used as a vehicle for this argument, and the article really isn't about the Bilderberg group. So I think quoting from the article where it directly treats Estulin's view of the Bilderberg group is much more informative and appropriate for this article, although I readily confess some concern about the relative reliability of this particular source. This article is not about conspiracy theories in the general sense, and I fear that you may be passing into the realm of OR making this connection. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that reliability of the 'Party for Socialism and Liberation' statement is open to debate. However, I still maintain that it is relevant because it contains a critique of conspiracies theories in general and Bilderberg conspiracy theories in particular which is the focus of the Claims of political conspiracies section of the Wikipedia article on the Bilderberg group. That being said, in the interest of resolving this dispute, I am willing to replace the disputed quote with one from the statement which directly treats of Estulin's view of the Bilderberg group for the reasons you expressed. --Loremaster (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Now the page says, "Popular knowledge of the existence of the Bilderberg group increased in late August 2010 when the group and conspiracy theories about its real purpose were featured prominently in the news." This is not supported by the Yahoo source. The same goes for the 'unprecedented surge'. The fact that Yahoo news have published the story implies neither a prominent feature or increased popular knowledge and besides, this needs to be explicitly stated in the source. Besides being un-sourced, the effect of the current text is to promote the significance of Daniel Estulin, a direction I didn't expect things to take. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, these phrases are taken from the Party for Socialism and Liberation website. The reference to the Yahoo source is incorrect. There is no point in correcting this because, as discussed, the Party for Socialism and Liberation website is not a reliable source for anything other than the group's own opinions. The claims of notability will need to be removed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

1. The Yahoo News site republished an Associated Press article. I assume you know that the Associated Press is one the most important nationally oriented news service in the United States. News collected by the AP is published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, in addition to more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters.
2. The reference to the Associated Press source (through Yahoo News) only serves as the best example of a prominent news service which has discussed the existence of the Bilderberg group and conspiracy theories about it. However, you are right that we need a reliable source for the specific claim that “popular knowledge of the existence of the Bilderberg group increased in late August 2010” and of there being an 'unprecedented surge of interest' so I will delete it for now.
3. The 'Party for Socialism and Liberation' statement is an acceptable source for their opinions about the effects publicity given to Estulin and his ideas might have.
4. Regardless of the effect you imagine the current text has or the direction you want things to take, Estulin and his ideas are significant since many prominent Bilderberg conspiracy theorists such as Lyndon LaRouche and Alex Jones were influenced by him. The fact that the president of Communist Cuba adheres to, and promotes, Estulin's anti-Marxist conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg group further testifies to this significance. It would therefore be a form of obscurantism not to report this important information in a section about claims of political conspiracy about the Bilderberg group.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I read with troubled amusement

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)

I'm afraid you would have to be more specific for anyone to know what precisely you mean, but in any case, this page is for discussion of a particular articles content, and not an appropriate venue to discuss the activities of a given editors in the general sense. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact I take criticism more seriously when it comes someone who has the courage to express it while using a registered account; I cannot deny that I am stubborn but I'm not pushing a point of view nor trying to add my original research. I am simply trying to make sure that the Claims of political conspiracies section is comprehensive by including as many critical points of views from sources that deserve to be better known because they contribute to readers having a keener socio-political understanding of claims made about the Bilderberg group. --Loremaster (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)