Jump to content

Talk:Bilderberg Meeting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Cleanup

Corrected the number invited to 137, it has since been reverted to "around 130" by Crosbiesmith ?. Added the word conspiracy to the http://www.bilderberg.org link. Omeganumber

Removed the last sentence from the Declared Purpose, as it was not related to said section and is discussed later.

Can anyone tell if this tag is still valid? if so, what should still be done. If there is no reply in two weeks (before april 25) I will delete the tag altogether Martijn Hoekstra 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been substantially cleaned up since August. I'm removing the tag. If anyone disagrees, please state your reasons here. - Crosbiesmith 11:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my style of formulation (which was corrected meanwhile by others) as I tried to complement that paragraph.

--84.137.112.205 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Lammerstraat@t-online.de (newcomer)

Hmm, something I do not understand (technically): I only opended the discussion here, added my remark above, furthermore looked up the history (but didn´t change nothing in the article) - but then, when I went back to the article (or even opended it again later) m y old sentence stood there again (including that type-error "whome"). That was not my intention, I tried (several times) to replace it by the the newer version (from the history) again; hope it works now.

--84.137.112.205 04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Lammerstraat@t-online.de

The 2003 Bilderberg meeting

The folllowing is written from a highly critical perspective.

The 2003 Bilderberg meeting in Versailles conveniently merged into the G8 meeting of finance ministers in Paris, a 20-minute car ride from Versailles, on May 19. The procedure is traditional: what happens in the Bilderberg is usually a preview of what is later discussed at the full G8 gathering, scheduled in 2003 for June 1 to 3 at Evian-les-Bains in the French Alps.

On Bilderberg's first full 2003 working day on May 15, 2003, French President Jacques Chirac delivered a welcoming speech, trying to bury the bitter divisions among the guests over the war on Iraq by emphasizing that the US and Western Europe are longtime allies. But Chirac's gracious hosting may not have been enough to soothe the hawks in the US administration still miffed at "pacifist" France.

An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.

According to a banking source in the City of London connected to Versailles, what has transpired from the 2003 meeting is that American and European Bilderbergers have not exactly managed to control their split over the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, as well as over Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hardline policy against the Palestinians.

Europe's elite were opposed to an American invasion of Iraq since the 2002 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia. Rumsfeld himself had promised them it wouldn't happen. Last week, everybody struck back at Rumsfeld, asking about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction". Most of Europe's elite do not believe American promises that Iraq's oil will "benefit the Iraqi people". They know that revenues from Iraqi oil will be used to rebuild what America has bombed. And the debate is still raging on what kind of contracts which rewarded Bechtel and Halliburton Energy Services will "benefit" Western Europe.

Europe's elite, according to those close to Bilderberg, are suspicious that the US does not need or even want a stable, legitimate central government in Iraq. When that happens, there will be no reason for the US to remain in the country. Europe's elite see the US establishing "facts on the ground": establishing a long-term military presence and getting the oil flowing again under American control. This could go on for years, as long as the Americans can guarantee enough essential services to prevent the Iraqi people from engaging in a war of national liberation.

It was also extremely hard at the Versailles meeting to forge a consensus on the necessity of a European Union army totally independent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The US establishment, of course, is against the EU army. But so are some Europeans, starting with anti-army cheerleader Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary general. Europe's elite can't stand US domination of NATO any more. Some Europeans suggest a separate force, but controlled by NATO. Americans argue that a separate EU force would dissolve NATO's role as the UN's world army. And Americans insist that NATO is no longer confined to the defense of Europe: its troops now could go anywhere in the world, directed or not by the UN Security Council. The impasse remains.

All these crucial developments were discussed behind closed doors. The Trianon Palace Hotel in Versailles was closed to the public. Part-time employees were sent home. The ones who remained were told that they would be fired if caught revealing anything about the meeting. Armed guards completely isolated and cordoned off the hotel. Some members of the American corporate press attended - but the public will never know about it: Bilderberg news is not fit to print - or broadcast. No journalists from any media controlled by Bilderberg multinational tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch were or will be allowed to report it.


oooh, do we have insider here? Mr. Rockefeller is that you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.248.199 (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Moved here:

And ABB happened to have sold two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea. (At the time, of course, North Korea was not a recognized active member of the "axis of evil".)

Not relevant. -- Viajero 11:40, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Anybody know of an official, or non-critical website? According to the article, the agenda is not secret, so it's known, published exactly how?

Good point. Speaking of which, how does the information on such an organization (secret or not) get discovered and who publishes it? Sweetfreek 21:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"political clout": NPoV?

Is Attendees [...] try to magnify their political clout NPoV? Andy Mabbett 21:06, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope ;) Sam [Spade] 21:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That should have a shape, a form. [](...[])+ [](...[])+[]...[](...[])+ (...) + [] (...[]). In each [] (...[]) you can consider a person in a double sense, one significant, sintactic, and another, heuristic, semantic. There is discussion about the topic (Hintikka, for example; and basically Searle -the theory of the sign-) the belief of a single person is not substantive almost in the more cases, but what about the knowledge? In an androtic sense for the government, you should make noise before say works to anothers. Affectiveness stays in the pledge the most of the time, on that the knowledge reflects point to point the metrical of each position. Mostly a position underkissed should be a prominent position. And by the way that is the case. Who doesnt work cant manage properly the fact, yes she can manage the efect, and hesitate when the fact becomes relevant. In order to discuss, a NP comprehension of the factors is always by effect of the fact view under primary consideration; in a way like another, decisions art to have multilevel as say coordination. To each factor an envelop mixture is needed, making stress on qualities and disposable rights effective to each basic person. On the peaks of rights the equivalence is obvious, between partners the robotization of the congress gives a shaft of methafors to dispatch each topic or scene. Ad hoc, in a metadata file is intended to read the conflictivity, but not from the conscious yes from the inner x-file about, a black box remanent every day. In short, each step on the fluid of a metric movement of costume involves not always human understanding, but shadowed citizenship former "factors" More than it, jajaja, critical resolutions have to be ended from several points of view, better, lots of views in congress, doing relevant the technic execution of demostrative experience as usual decision making. Now, be sure the views of youth, children, women, "oldies" jaja, homeless, identities above all, amongst men we claim the ashes of our tobacco discomformity (I smoke, by the moon) to decir "Hey you all, you are not workin' you are havin a coffee" César Castro GMT 0:00 Santiago de Compostela

Conspiracy Theory

This group ("Bildenbergers") was (from about fifteen until ten years ago especially) the subject of constant clamouring on American right wing talk radio about how it was nothing less than a cabal which secretly ruled the world. In recent years, this seems to have diminshed as a topic for discussion, at least on programmes that I have heard. (Perhaps because much of the discussion seemed so patently ridiculous, perhaps because its most ardent opponents also seemed rife with Anti-Semitism – it was all the worse because it was somehow a Jewish cabal.) I don't know how to incorporate this within the body of the article without it seeming hopelessly POV, even though the fact is not that these sort of charges have merit, but that they were relentlessly discussed is undeniable. I would like to see someone try to handle this.

Rlquall 12:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually I’m a little surprised that nobody has tackled this yet. The Bilderberg group was a topic of discussion of last night’s Coast to Coast AM show. The guests Alex Jones (radio), Jim Marrs, Daniel Estulin all had a roundtable discussion with the show's host George Noory, and brought a lot of interesting ideas to light. Many of them being POV, but some interesting ideas none the less. I’m going to try and get something together this weekend that is post worthy.

--TheReverendDoom 17:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bilderberg would necessarily be anti-conspiracy because it is known. Much is known about this group and the fact that it has a name at all shows that it isn't secret. By contrast, a group that sought secrecy would have no formal organization. My guess is that Bilderberg meets at hotels because its members would like the freedom to speak their minds without offending their weekend host. The price they pay is some media attention, but we would all be remiss if we believed that this known group was somehow more harmful than the potentially thousands of groups not known to the American and European publics. Watch "Remains of the Day" again and you will see everything that's right with Bilderberg.

I italized the above paragraph the author is unknown, and I don't know whether it's WP policy to remove unsigned discussion items. It is, however, quite annoying that attempts to put more detailed information (like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_Bilderberg_Meeting&oldid=164953437 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_Bilderberg_Meeting&oldid=164954386) about this group are reverted for unclear reasons. As their official aims remain unknown, naming participants should not be an issue at all. However, I congratulate the censors for their efforts to demotivate potential contributors. --Lord Chao (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First, it seems that no criticisms of the Bilderberg Group have been allowed to appear in this article unless labeled as "conspiracy theories". There are plenty of publicly aired criticisms that cannot fairly be labeled as such, but apparently no discussion of them is to be allowed here. Further, it is irresponsible to classify something as a "conspiracy theory" unless it is verifiable that it is such. By common understanding, a "conspiracy theory" is not merely a theory that postulates a nefarious conspiracy, but one that has no objective grounding. Personally, I am not a fan of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theories", but the presentation here is biased, not only with respect to the examples mentioned but in the way that all criticism of Bilderberg is excluded.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

    • They're called conspiracy theories because there is no evidence, or dubious evidence to say otherwise. If you have a video of them all sitting around a table saying "Gentlemen. To Evil!", then by all means, post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.231.253 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

POV edits

Here are the problems that I have with your (Event Horizion's) edits:

  • Changing "influential" to "powerful". Powerful is more of a loaded word. Not a serious problem, but it was unneeded.
  • Changing "but the meetings themselves are shrouded in secrecy." to "but the meetings themselves are kept from the "common people"." "Common people" is a very loaded term, and it insinuates that the reason for the secrecy is because of class. This is inherently POV.
  • Removing "Of course, the classification is made on the basis of residence and nationality, rather than ethnicity." The "of course" was kind of POV, but this is an important distinction to make.
  • Finally, not in the article itself, but your edit summary ("to fight evil, we must know it... some corrections") really calls into question your intentions in editing this article. Attempting to write an NPOV article about something you consider "evil" is difficult, and should be avoided.

Please respond within a day or two, or I will revert it again. -- Scott eiπ 23:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Influential" is fuzzy. We can agree that George W. Bush is extremely powerful. Is he "influential"? Depends. He doesn't exert any positive (some negative) soft influence on the 49% who hate his guts. He has less cultural influence even than some people I know. "Influential" begs the question "influential over whom"? I'm not powerful, have never held political or high corporate office, but I have done some things that would qualify me as "influential"... but lots of people can so the term's not terribly meaningful. I find the word "influential", in this case, more problematic than "powerful", which is neutral. To say someone's "powerful" isn't inherently negative or positive.
  • Social class is the reason the BG and other secret societies keep themselves in secrecy. Same with "Tiger 21", "Skull and Bones", and other similar groups. Why are "big decisions" made on $150-300k/membership golf courses? To keep people out. It's that simple. It's a fact that there's a group (or maybe multiple groups) of people trying to consolidate wealth and power... and exclusivist "high society" groups like the BG are how they do it. These groups are designed to keep the "common people" out of "big decisions". They'd much rather put their sons (some deserving, some worthless) into overpaid positions of privilege running smooth machines than open what they have to the "undesirables". Now, this extremist exclusivity certainly doesn't characterize all of the "upper class", and these "society" people may turn out to be a bunch of fools, fencing themselves in while becoming ironically less relevant in an internationalizing, democratizing, decentralizing world... but for now they're very powerful. They got us an elitist oil war, after all. Quite frankly, I believe that these elitist sub-societies pose a far greater threat to the United States, the American way of life, and the nation's stability in the next 20 years than any foreign threat, including terrorism. Terrorism took a few thousand lives in the past five years, quite dramatically, while millions of Americans got laid off to fund a party for increasingly-rich, out-of-touch execs running smooth machines, who get handsomely rewarded even if they get fired.
  • Third point: Fair enough.
  • I agree that my edit summary betrays my political bias. I actually consider all these elitist secret societies evil; however, Skull and Bones is just a bunch of weird, underachieving rich kids masturbating in coffins (and their reason for secrecy is that the stuff they did was so damn embarrassing it would make every S&B alum in the country a laughing-stock) while the Bilderberg group got an oil war on. It makes the latter a much more pressing evil. I'll raise S&B awareness when I'm aware of them doing something truly sinister. EventHorizon talk 04:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I take that back. S&B has done quite enough that's sinister. Future project. EventHorizon talk 06:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Re: "influential" v. "powerful": I guess that makes sense.
  • The secrecy may very well be due to class, and it probably is a major factor. If such is the case, why not just say it in the article? Saying that the meetings are "kept from the 'common people'" is sneaky and inherently POV. An encyclopedia is to supposed be neutral and present the facts in an objective manner. While those facts may reveal unpleasant truths about their subject, they should not be mixed with value judgements. For example, the sentence "Hitler believed that jews were an inferior race, and he killed 6 million of them." is preferable to "Hitler was a racist bigot, and he brutally murdered 6 million jews." -- Scott eiπ 20:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I yanked the reference to "common people". EventHorizon talk 21:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

many sites that you can find google, tell that bilderberg group was born in Oosterbeeck, in Oland, in Hotel Bildeberg: a very different information. the last meeting of bildeberg group took place two years ago at stresa, in italy. prince of netherland was the president untill 1976, when he must leave the president because of the Lockheed scandal. the same year david rockefeller, member of trilateral commission, became the president of bildeberg group.those are the information that everyone can find in google.

the second half of this article seems very un-neutral Vroman

worse than that, it is unverifiable - if there were no reporters, who knows what was said? Who said it? Where they there? Also, what does the banker's religion have to do with anything? Does he have a name? Who are the European Elite's minions? dml
And this disadvantage I meant to partially fix by adding those links later deemed useless by Mikkalai. I'm going to put them back. You can trust European Commission, couldn't you?


The External liks section is out of control. Just because a piece of text mentions the Bildeberger Group does not mean we should include it here. This list needs to be culled and formatted into a readable, usable resource. — Ringbang 13:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)



Stupid question, but

If the Bilderberg Group does not formally exist, has no letterhead, bank account, office depot account et cetera, how can it have a chairman? I understand that there is some kind of organization and the best name for it is the "Bilderberg Group," but forgive my obviousness when I say that the article is less than fully explanatory. Paul 04:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as you acknowledge that it's a stupid question. :) (jk) The only thing 'the public' knows for sure is *that* these people meet, *where* they do it, and *when* the meetings take place. The name is derived from the location of the first meeting. Everything else is secret. As for the article being 'explanatory', fully or otherwise, you can do us all (the whole world, I mean) a favour if you're interested, and try to get into one of the meetings. Then, come back and write in the article (do it from your laptop while you're there, if you like) what you learn. We can, after all, *only* publish the information that is available. Should the article be deleted until we know for sure what our leaders and the business elite are discussing without telling their constituencies? I'm inclined to say no. The existence of this 'group', whatever you might choose to call it, is not a 'crackpot theory', just an observation of something the world's leaders do every year that they don't tell anyone about the results of. *If* there's a political concern, it ought to be nonpartisan: Democratically elected leaders in discussion with industry and the banking class in secret, beyond public scrutiny and (presumably) accountability may be making decisions in concert, without the involvement of the public or the free media. That, if that's what's happening, is antidemocratic and potentially illegal. Sigma-6
I couldn't begin to count the number of grassroots grouplets I've been involved with that didn't get as far as letterheads, bank accouunts etc. There was one we called a "supper club", another called the Quadrilateral Commission (one step beyond the Trilateral one) which had a letterhead but nothing else, and so on. Some of these grouplets actually did get quite a lot done, after a fashion. Probably the best way to understand this Bilderbergers thing, is as the same kind of ad hoc informal network that doesn't get too hung up on organizational details but just wants to share ideas and concoct strategies, and maybe pull off some behind-the-scenes actions. What's wrong with that? They just happen to be billionaires and their political puppets, dedicated to controlling the rest of us, but hey, they have freedom of association too, right? I think the argument is with the content, rather than the style. As for what the content is, you can pretty well deduce it without having to have it spelled out. If you accept the existence of this class of folks, you should probably accept their agenda too, or at least try to argue it out with them mano a mano if you can detain one long enough for good chat. If you don't accept their existence, then whether they meet or not is beside the point. (By "existence as a class" I'm resorting to the old commie trick of implying that you can eliminate a category without eliminating its (human) contents. I like to think that's actually true - and that these benighted perverse victims of their own hubris can be liberated. I'm so neive... but it sure beats the alternative.)

List of Bilderberg attendees

In an attempt to clean up this article, I've created a List of Bilderberg attendees page. The idea is to remove the long lists of attendees, and the attendent list of references, to a separate page. Thus far I have moved 'EU Commissioners'. In this way, I hope the main article can focus on the nature of the Group, and perhaps a few key members, leaving wrangling over detail to an auxiliary list. I guess there may have been up to a thousand attendees by now, many of who are notable in their particular field. However, we cannot list them all in the main article, or it will dwarf the descriptive part of the text. - Crosbiesmith 22:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

List of attendees I'm deleting altogether pending further evidence

List of references I'm deleting altogether

Paragraphs I'm deleting altogether

The group has been depicted as an international cabal of the influental and the affluent including politicians, financiers, and media and business moguls--the elite of the elite. Some believe that they have dictated national policies, rigged (or outright stolen) national elections, caused wars and recessions, and ordered murders and coups of world leaders.

"has been depicted" and "Some believe" are rather vague phrases which introduce opinion, without providing attrubution. I think suspicion of Bilderberg attendance is a valid subject for an encyclopedia, as that is the overwhelmingly popular opinion, but such opinions must be attributed to some notable source. Crosbiesmith 14:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Try Alex Jones. Sam Spade 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bilderberg.org

www.bilderberg.org is a partisan website. It's not particularly attractively presented. Particularly unfortunate is its use of a little animated swastika graphic. That looks bad. On the other hand, if someone is interested in the Bilderberg group, there's tons of information to interest them there. I don't think it's appropriate as a reference or a source, but I do think it's useful as an external link, for someone seeking further information. Particularly useful, are the annual lists of Bilderberg attendees. These aren't sourced, but based on the limited official sources available, they do seem to be accurate. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Partisan_websites does not rule out the use of partisan sources, but that's beside the point. I'm not proposing this as a source, only as a potential site of interest to the reader. I would like to restore this link after its removal by User:JJay. Does anyone have any other comments? - Crosbiesmith 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you make all kinds of great arguments for why we should not be linking to it, particularly the point about the unsourced lists. My feeling is that the slant of the site and its demented presentation harm our credibility. However, if you won't use it as a source and think there is some valuable info there that is not found anywhere else then put the link back. Given your sincere thinking on this I won't remove the link again. Sorry for the bother -- JJay 15:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
P.S. When you restore it, can you note that it is a partican website? That way at least we are not putting it on the same footing as the BBC. -- JJay 15:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Your point about credibility is well taken. I won't put it back until and unless I can think of some suitable disclaimer. Thanks for the reply - Crosbiesmith 16:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You might start a list of "criticism" links under which you could post Bilderberger.org --DanK 3:29, 4, March 2006

Article name

The 'Bilderberg Group' carries all kinds of conspiratorial connotations, and no-group self-identifies themselves as such. On the other hand, there is an annual event known as the 'Bilderberg Meeting', which even issues press releases on occasion [1]. In the interests of accuracy and credibility, I propose changing the title to Bilderberg Meeting. - Crosbiesmith 23:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the article should be renamed. Morton devonshire 23:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The current name "Bilderberg Group Conspiracy" is terrible, although it is not an official group, it is certainly not a conspiracy. Martin 22:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, "Conspiracy" should not have a capital C, however I think a different name is needed altogether. I am reverting back until we come up with something more sensible. Martin 22:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Martin - do you have any thoughts on the 'Bilderberg Meeting' name, or do you see a problem with that title? Thanks - Crosbiesmith 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it is most commonly referred to as the Bilderberg group, "meeting" is ok, but if you are keen on changing it then I think "conference" is slightly preferable to "meeting" (note lower casing). Martin 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I have moved it to "Bilderberg group", with a lower case g (unlike before), as it is not a proper noun. I have also changed the introduction slightly to reflect the fact that it is not an official entity. Martin 22:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I propose renaming this article the Bilderberg Meeting, as this is how they are described in the PR Newswire press release. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
See: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990507/text/90507w02.htm
The Prime Minister: "I am told that the Bilderberg Group usually invites a number of people from government, politics, industry, finance and education from a wide range of countries to its annual Conference" The Prime Minister was Tony Blair, who has acknowledged publicly he attended the meeting of 1993. (See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmstnprv/180iii/sp0304.htm)
I don't really care if the name is changed or not but to suggest it is somehow sinister and misleading is wrong. 195.188.138.38 (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"The location of their annual meeting is not secret"

In 'Declared purpose', it is write "The location of their annual meeting is not secret". So, where takes place the annual meeting ?

It's in a different place every year. A few years ago, it was in a hotel near my ex-girlfriend's house in Kanata, Ontario, Canada (a suburb of Ottawa), and it was written up in the local community paper and in the Ottawa Citizen, because the Prime Minister and a bunch of other prominent Canadians went. It's well-known in advance every time. Sigma-6 (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Soz for me butting in

Soz for me butting in, but shouldnt we be worried about this???

Would you rather they chatted over the Internet? 24.91.16.229 04:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Illuminati?

Are they the well-known masters of deception that run and control world governments as we know it?

Nope. This really is pointless as well, because if they were so secretive how would we know about it? Also, are the Illuminati that well known? I once was asked if my title meant I was a member of the 'Illuminarti' (and that's no typo). TaylorSAllen 01:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What if they're just really bad at keeping secrets? Look, I'm not going to point out a conspiracy theory here. I'm not sure if there's any real significance to the Bilderberg Group, at least in terms of the New World Order and all that stuff. Doesn't it maybe just seem slightly awkward though that the contents of the meetings are kept entirely secret? I understand that there is tons of information which is kept classified that we don't know about. However, it's different when you have so many prominent figures attending the meeting. We don't know anything about their purpose and the attendees are told to keep quiet. It makes it seem even more suspicious when they get extremely pissed off for even stepping one inch onto the property outside of where the meeting is being held. What on earth are they afraid of? Why do they need so many police to keep guard when almost no one knows what's going on inside of the building? The meetings are not well known. It's not a well known huge event like the super bowl that should require tons of security. These are just things to think about. It doesn't mean "OMG THIS IS PROOF OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND AN AGENCY TO CONTROL GLOBAL DOMINATION." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.51.145 (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The annual meeting moves routinely

The annual meeting moves between Europe and North America routinely (in 2005, it was in Europe; this year, 2006 it is in North America, specifically Canada).

I did some editing to this article because I noticed then news item (today) that the meeting was being held this weekend.

Also, is there a "conspiracy" that some people are not signing their comments? *giggle* User:ProfessorPaul 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Full list

Please add this to the article --Striver 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The next meeting?

We can assume that the next meeting (2007) is in Europe.

Any ideas where? When?

Thanks - norm :| 

    How much 'r tickets?
They're free, all you do is sign here ... and hhere ... and here - in blood, but not yours of course 8-)

I have heard that the group might be meeting in North Africa, but I don't trust the Hobo who keeps on falling asleep in my backyard as a source. TaylorSAllen 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


The meeting is from May 31 till June 3 in the Ritz Carlton hotel in Istanbul, Turkey

Could you provide your source for this. Facts like these should really always be sourced. Martijn Hoekstra 18:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple chairpeople?

The "Attendees" section seems to indicate that there are three "chairman" for the Group. Is this the case (chairmen or chairs or chairpeople?) or is there an error? Don't know enough to fix it myself.

New introduction

User:GeorgeC - I think your changes to the article introduction have introduced point-of-view. In particular, the text states that Bilderberg is a group which circumvents democratic process. Unless this is the group's declared aim, this remains a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. I also think the text comes close to using weasel words. The text states 'Numerous theories abound', 'Allegedly, they have an office', and 'the meeting is said to have occurred', without stating who propounds these theories, who alleges, or who says. These claims require at least an attribution or, better still, a referenced attribution. I believe these changes cause the article to fall short of the required quality standards, and I will be reverting these shortly. Other people may wish to comment on these changes. Regards, Crosbiesmith 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. GeorgeC 18:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You've replaced the P.O.V. with another unattributed allegation, specifically, 'its alleged circumvention of democratic process'. Regarding the views of David Icke and Alex Jones, these may or may not be worthy of inclusion somewhere within Wikipedia, but they do not belong in the introduction to the article on Bilderberg. These are not particularly notable individuals, nor are they notable experts on the Bilderberg conferences. Their writings have a familar drawback which is that they do not cite their sources. - 20:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your introduction. If your really feel the views of Icke and Jones are noteworthy, please put these in the Bilderberg Group#Perspectives on the nature of the group section, avoiding point of view and unattributed opinion. The material added was far too long for an introductory section. For example, claims about Kissinger's accent do not belong in the 'Bilderberg' article, let alone its introduction. Crosbiesmith 09:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See also

I think the list of links in see also is way to long. However, I don't want to remove any of infoavour of others before we've discussed it here. So thats the question I pose: which should stay, which can go? Martijn Hoekstra 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I've said elsewhere that I'm against 'See also' lists almost all the time. If a link is relevant, I feel it should be mentioned in the text. By that criteria, I would remove 'see also' altogether. If we are to keep the list, we need to answer the question, 'What is the purpose of the See Also' list? How does it assist the reader? Then we can decide which links to keep.
I suspect the See Also list is often used to imply a connection between two topics where none can be proved. - Crosbiesmith 08:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone is Messing with the Article

People seem to be using this article to show their own opinions of the controversial figures associated with the organisation. Prince Bernhard was shown as an 'ex-SS officer' (he was in the RAF, never the SS). It wasn't the only disagreement between this page and even other Wikipedia Biography pages. Alot of these people are living persons, so maybe we should be more careful with it. TaylorSAllen 01:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the wiki article on Prince Bernhard, he was part of the "honorary German Reiter SS Corps" and his brother supported the Nazi's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.195.190 (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy Laundering

Surely the point is this;

it is not just a discussion, an agenda is set and a truth created. There is thus a coordinated programme of dissemination between the media, business, science and politics.

The necessity of a programme, the truth of an idea is created by it's iteration.

Political policies (like the identity registration programme) are justified by the international inevitability. The policy is laundered.

It is discussed at Bilderburg, agreed at the G8. Each of the governments says that they must have it because the other ones are having it. They are 'powerless' the future is inevitable, it is 'progress', there is no scope for democratic debate.

The 'perception management' has already been created, the rebuttals of oponents have already been anticipated and rejoinders created, the financial opportunities have been analysed and aportioned.

The idea that we are supposed to take these disccusions on trust is clearly ridiculous. But, the notion is spread that it would be ridiculous to question that these powerful people could even be considering creating situations to their profit and circumventing democracy, procedural rules, corporate compliance or even the most basic form of oversight.

It is the creation of a Guild of International Governance. It is an example of an elite democratic method in which an oligarchy rules for the benefit of all (in their minds) which just happens to be in their own interests (as they - the best of the best can tell that they are the best of the best, everyone else must be inferior and do what they are told).

194.112.59.242 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So basically, it's nothing new.
Perhaps all of our leaders should be saints; I know I would prefer it. You want to get on top of that for us? Sigma-6 20:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

? English source ?

I have a Dutch reliable source for the claim/fact that the CIA heavily funded the Group. Author: Gerard Aalders. Anyone got an English one ? — Xiutwel (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about the source material? Not just the writer, but the actual work.Martijn Hoekstra 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources

Damian Thorne,

Your contributions to the Bilderberg Group and List of Bilderberg attendees articles may prove to be very useful. However, you have not provided any sources. Without reliable sources, your contributions may need to be deleted. Can you provide sources please? Thanks, - Crosbiesmith 18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Bilderberg Attendees

Hillary Clinton did indeed attend the Bilderberg conference and the year she attended was in fact 1997. She didn't appear on the official press release but she was at the meeting. At the bottom of the External links on the Bilberberg attendees list, the link to the article Pataki Joins Bilderberg's Conclave mentions that Hillary Clinton attended a past Bilderberg conference. That specific conference was held in 1997. Therefore, her name should be added to the list of attendees.Damian Thorne 10:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided says nothing about 1997. Why are you certain of the year? - Crosbiesmith 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That particular link omits the exact year for some reason. It does say Hillary Clinton attended a previous Bilderberg meeting.

For confirmation of the year 1997, a much better link is at [2] The article mentioning her attendance is "Bilderberg Meets in Georgia-Parascope Article" by Charles Overbeck -Damian Thorne 12:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out First lady exits early; Bilderberg begins from the Gainsville Times by Charles Duncan. The article makes clear that Clinton greeted the guests but left on Friday. She was not herself an attendee.
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton left early this morning, after welcoming the world's power brokers visiting Lake Lanier Islands for a weekend of secret meetings.
It's Bilderberg Meeting tradition for the host country's head of state or its representative to greet participants.
This is in itself interesting. I don't think Clinton can be classed simply as an 'attendee' however. - Crosbiesmith 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Whether or not Clinton was actually in attendance, many prominent

politicians who have attended past meetings were also never on the official attendee list. Yet, they were at the conferences. Case in point-Dominique de Villepin at the 2003 conference. The same can be said of Hillary Clinton. She still merits inclusion on the list of Bilderberg attendees. -Damian Thorne 12:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe there is a reliable source for this or not? If there isn't, I will delete it. - Crosbiesmith 12:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


The only other sources I could come up with is from the book "Rule By Secrecy" by Jim Marrs. On page 40 it states the following "Hillary Clinton attended in 1997, becoming the first American First Lady to do so. Thereafter, talk steadily grew concerning her future role in politics." Another good link is at [3]. There it lists Hillary Clinton as attending the Bilderberg meeting at PineIsle Resort in 1997. -Damian Thorne 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Hotels

I think the list of Hotels is a bit much. It should either be merged with the list of locations, or removed. I'll remove it in due course. It isn't even sourced. - Crosbiesmith 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, hotels and cities need to be combined. Citations were purposefully removed, as I added a 2 citations for the 2002 meeting. No need to delete just yet, but it will need some considerable work. Zidel333 19:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


NWO Allegations

Undoubtely there are people that would call the Bilderberg Group leader of the NWO. However, The Group itself would not confirm this, yet its the conclusion of investigators like Daniel Estulin and others. With proper citations and attributions this fits very well in the article. An edit war doesn't help too much. As the meeting of this group is no conspiracy theory and has actually happened, references are very essential to improve the quality of the article and rebut allegations about conspiracy.--Lord Chao 16:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we deal with the fact that most claims about the group and the NWO are written by notorious crackpots and conspriacy theoriests?--Cberlet 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling someone crackpot is just an ad hominem attack, which is bad style for one and not helpful as well. However, if you have references for your crackpot allegations, it might fit. IMHO calling the existence of the Bildergroup group a conspiracy is a fallacy, but interpretations about the aims of the group are adequate when sourced and attributed.
If we must have a reference to the NWO, it shouldn't be in the introductory sentence. It should also be attributed to someone. I will remove this. - Crosbiesmith 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted back to an earlier version as well. If you want to talk about the various theories regarding the REAL reasons this group exists, please feel free to do so in a section called something like "Theories as to real motives of Bilderburg" or something. At least this would separate the documented information from the speculation. Skalchemist 19:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Although I agree with the interpretation that the bilderbergers work on the implementation of a NWO, but without sources (which are possibly available, yet not to me), this is just POV. If someone has the sources, he/she should rather make a subsection for this. The existence of the group is well documented, due to the obligation of secrecy for its members we can only speculate about its aims, but they certainly belong to the article.--Lord Chao 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think the Bilderbergers are implementing the NWO you have embraced a well known and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Many of the claims about the Bilderbergers originate in the American Free Press, which is not a reputable source of information, but a publication that spreads conspiracy theories, often tainted with a sly form of antisemitism. The American Free Press emerged from the network of groups controled by Willis Carto, who also ran the world's largest publisher of Holocaust Denial literature. The connection between the Bilderbergers and the alleged "NWO" type global plan is discussed as a (crackpot) conspiracy theory in a number of books:
Barkun, Michael. 2003. A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: Univ. of California.
Goldberg, Robert Alan. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Johnson, George. 1983. Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics. Los Angeles: Tarcher/Houghton Mifflin.
And there is long discussion of NWO conspiracy theories in:
Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
And yes, for disclosure, in real life I am that Berlet.--Cberlet 13:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice to meet you, CBerlet. And thanks for an example of an elaborately disguised ad hominem attack. The idea and term New World Order has been used by quite some participants of this conference. Calling the strive for a NWO a conspiracy theory misses the point, unless you would consider George H Bush or David Rockefeller "crackpots". I have no relations to AFP, nor have I used it as primary source. I don't care about religions either, and referring to Holocaust-deniers could be understood as personal attack.
As mentioned before, there are sources claiming the Bilderberg Group tries to implement a world government, yet without reference this does not really belong here. Deception is an evolutionary successful principle, and conspiracies have happened and happen so often, that the US even has set of laws dealing with it. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist (or crackpot) only discredits yourself. --Lord Chao 09:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The authors I cited above state quite clearly that the linkage of the Bilderbergers to the construction of an alleged "New World Order" is a conspiracy theory, and they also note where this type of view is most popular, and where it is peddled. You asked for sources, I merely cited sourcs that refute the contention posted above. It was not meant as a personal attack--or part of a plot.--Cberlet 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the authors you mentioned have less insight in the proceedings of the Bilderberg Group than those linking the group to plans to implement a world government. It is quite popular to discredit unpopular opinions/conclusions by finding pseudo-psychological explanations why people don't believe mainstream myths, yet this is a very unconvincing line of argumentation. I think it's naive to assume that the wealthiest and most influential people on this planet gather "just as a social event". However, obviously you have no sources linking the Bilderbergers to the NWO, just some to balance a sourced paragraph about such allegations. --Lord Chao 12:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how Wiki guidelines work. When you find cites in reputable published sources, please add them to the text. I can see that you take the idea of a global plot seriosuly. Alas, that is not enough.--Cberlet 12:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I did not read this whole discussion but I can see that it was unresolved at the last post. Personally I have no vested interest in the conspiracy theory but it does exist. I tried to post a link to a documentary I found about the link btw Bilderberg and NWO, but a user named Arthur Rubin continues to remove it without discussion or explaination. It is a little unnerving to be strong-armed on the Wiki, but alas what can one do? You can find it in the history under my name if you would like to repost it. I will try once more. If he removes it again without explanation I will consider it an edit war and ask for arbitration. I assume there might be a reason to remove it, but without giving an explanation I will just have to believe there is no good reason for removing it. Ciao. Saudade7 17:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The "documentary" would clearly fail WP:EL #2 and #5, and the trailer fails even more conditions. It must be removed under WP:BLP, as some of the members of the group are presumably living. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones video

2007-10-31T00:00:04 IamMcLovin (Talk | contribs) m (17,458 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Congruence; Google videos of some alex jones videos doesn't count as a "credible source". using TW) (undo)

The Alex Jones video is not supposed to be credible - it stands on its own. It's under the "critics" section. It is there to present an opposing view and ensure NPOV. Alex Jones also meets criteria for notability since he is a well-known conspiracy theorist. Also, most of the talk around Bilderberg revolves around conspiracy theories. Therefore the link is perfectly reasonable and called for. --Congruence 22:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It failes EL #2, and the "current" trailer link also fails EL #5, as I noted above. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli

What's the deal with Agostinelli? Why is 83.244.142.2 and Wallstreetjournaloutlook insistingly removing him from the paragraph on attendees? I checked the contributions made from 83.244.142.2. They seem to come from some kind of PR firm. --Congruence (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well since its in a puzzling place in the paragraph, in the middle of two related sentences, i'm going to move it to a more appropriate spot. Kevin (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That 83.244.142.2 is insistingly removing that material. I'd suggest blocking. --Congruence (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a source that he is/was a member/attendee. The anon may be vandalising the page, but I don't see a source at the present time. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I fell into the reftrap (see a ref, assume it's good). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

'Purpose' section

We currently have an 'Origin and purpose section' and a 'purpose' section. The Purpose section seems to repeat material from the 'Origin and purpose section'. Furthermore, it gives no references. I'm going to remove it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The article gives too much weight to individual conspiracy theories. It is worth mentioning the existence of theories - the fame of Bilderberg may be due to them. The views of particular individuals are not notable. The theories of Daniel Estulin get a whole paragraph. As they are unverifiable, they tell us nothing useful about Bilderberg. This material belongs in the Daniel Estulin article, not here. I will cut this down in due course - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely concur; in fact, all the fringe stuff that cannot be reliably sourced should probably go. --MCB (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I cut down the Estulin material slightly. There is more to do. Incidentally, I think the BBC News quote from Jonathan Duffy is also overlong. He goes on to say:

The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.

He doesn't attribute these claims to anyone. They don't add much to the article either. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it seems that no criticisms of the Bilderberg Group have been allowed to appear in this article unless labeled as "conspiracy theories". There are plenty of publicly aired criticisms that cannot fairly be labeled as such, but apparently no discussion of them is to be allowed here. Further, it is irresponsible to classify something as a "conspiracy theory" unless it is verifiable that it is such. By common understanding, a "conspiracy theory" is not merely a theory that postulates a nefarious conspiracy, but one that has no objective grounding. Personally, I am not a fan of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theories", but the presentation here is biased, not only with respect to the examples mentioned but in the way that all criticism of Bilderberg is excluded.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous - as I say below, please provide specific changes you wish to see made. For example, you say that there are criticisms of the Bilderberg group which cannot be fairly be called conspiracy theories. Please follow up by providing an example of such a criticism. The example should be a criticism which is in some way notable - for example, the critic should be someone who is in a position of responsibility, or is well known to the public. The example should also be well sourced. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

'We are grateful...' quote

The following quote is included in the article:

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government which will never again know war but only peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity.

This is not a verifiable quotation.

The reference given is: Grigg, William (2003-02-10). "Behind the Bias". The New American. 19 (3). Appleton, WI: American Opinion Publishing. Retrieved 2008-01-29.

The New American is the official publication of the John Birch Society. The author of the article, William Norman Grigg, describes the source of the quotation as follows:

Excerpts from Rockefeller’s opening address were leaked to two independent French publications. They then came to the attention of Hilaire du Berrier, an international correspondent living in Monaco, who published them in his newsletter, HduB Reports.

Bilderberg meetings do not publish their minutes. This quotation is necessarily unverifiable unless an attendee goes on record as having heard it spoken. As it is, the source here is based on two unnamed French publications, which must themselves rely on a necessarily unverifiable leak.

At the very least, the French publications should be named here. I will remove this quotation in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You will not remove it, as it comes from a creditable source. Rarelibra (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The creditable source being whom? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

'allegedly privately circulated'

User:Bombastus - I take your point that the front cover of the report cannot be verified. However adding 'allegedly' does not fix things as it does not explain who is making an allegation - see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The correct things to do would to either:

  • Remove the image completely, as it can't be verified
  • Find a reliable source
  • Keep the image, but explain who claims it is authentic

-Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculation about 2008 meeting

Please remember that Wikipedia is based on verifiable, reliable sources, and not original research. When reports about the 2008 meeting (before or after it occurs) appear in reliable sources, please feel free to add them to the article. Speculation from uninformed sources is not usable. I removed the most recent version, which was sourced to (1) a newspaper blog which merely reprinted a post from "Prison Planet", a fringe source, and (2) a press release from the Netherlands Embassy which does not mention the Bilderberg meeting at all (speculation about the purpose of the Dutch PM's visit is, of course, not appropriate for Wikipedia). --MCB (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This NONSENSE! The website of the Dutch Embassy itself mentions the date June 5 -8 2008 and the location Chantilly, Virginia USA! So this is RELIABLE INFORMATION! Added extra source 2008 meeting. This is RELIABLE information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.186.187 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Citation, please? The Dutch Embassy web site did have a page mentioning the PM's visit to the U.S., but there was nothing about the Bilderberg meeting in it. --MCB (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, since the Bilderberg Meetings are repressed in the regular press (esp. the US press), it's almost impossible to get info from established news sources like the NY Times etc. The so called "news media" are NOT mentioning anything related to the Bilderberg conferences. So, the only sources you have are foreign press and Bilderberg watchers (who ARE reliable, since the they have years of expertise in it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.186.187 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What you call "Bilderberg watchers" are really New World Order true believers, and cannot be trusted as to information about the object of their obsession(s). Foreign press is OK, and I'd be willing to accept one of the "Bilderberg" watchers as a source for the translation provided that the original source is available and readily verifiable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
...and that there was some indication that the report has been vetted by the (reliable) publication's editors. There is information about the Bilderberg meetings in established publications; sometimes it is necessary to just wait for it. Wikipedia is not a news source, and we can afford to take the time to get it right. --MCB (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural reference

The more I read the present article, the more I wonder whether it was an inspiration for the Council of Lincoln as portrayed in Icon (novel) by Frederick Forsyth. Has anyone heard of this possibility, and should it be mentioned? JFW | T@lk 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Conspiracy theories}} template

I restored the {{Conspiracy theories}} template that was removed in a recent edit. Looking at the template, this is clearly an appropriate article for it, in that like Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, and the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group is a common subject of New World Order conspiracy theories. --MCB (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the {{Conspiracy theories}} template? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hunt for Red Menace quote

The following quote currently appears in the 'Conspiracy Theories' section:

From "The Hunt for Red Menace:" "The views on intractable godless communism expressed by [Fred] Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly's A Choice, Not an Echo which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest. Schlafly's husband Fred had been a lecturer at Schwartz's local Christian Anti-communism Crusade conferences."

This lengthy quote appears without any context, rendering it incomprehensible. I will remove it in due course. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-formatted this and added an appropriate reference. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Criticism section

The 'Mainstream Criticism' section consists of the views of some unspecified critics and some unspecified attendees. This adds nothing to the article and should be removed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Jim Tucker

Why is there no mention of James P Tucker Jr. Big Jim Tucker who has spent over 30 years following and exposing this secretive group.

Also there is no mention of the huge state backed security operation, by the country hosting the meeting. This alone indicates the importance of attendees, and so their influence on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.219.185 (talk • contribs)

You're assuming that there is a "huge state backed security operation". As far as I can tell, belief in the existence of such security operations is rare, even among NWO true believers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Removal of list of conferences

I'm inclined to removed the 'Meetings' section from the article on the basis that Wikipedia is not a directory. I appreciate some editors have taken trouble formatting this list, but that doesn't affect its appropriateness here. As the policy says, 'an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject', and the details of all fifty-four conferences does not belong in a summary. There may be another appropriate place for this information within Wikipedia, though I cannot think of one myself. Very few readers can be interested to learn that the 1972 conference took place in Belgium, let alone that it was hosted at La Reserve di Knokke-Heist - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, respectfully. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Which part do you disagree with? My interpretation of Wikipedia policy? The lack of reader interest? Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Easy cowboy. Let's keep it friendly. This is Wikipedia. We're not corporate litigators. Wikipedia policy isn't carved in stone. The Space Shuttle articles have a long list flights, and ought to. I was interested in the list. I gather others are too. The article is quite small, so it isn't clogging up a fat article. Info in this topic is scarce, so why not include all we've got until more comes in. Then zap it. La Reserve di Knokke-Heist eh? That's it! I'm never staying there. Respectfully yours, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Just looking at the list, I must say, it is long. I'll give ya that one. Also, what do you think of my criticism criticism comment below below?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The Space Shuttle article lists less than a fifth of the total flights. It presents a summary. I suggest this article do the same, and list five to ten of the meetings. A long list of unengaging information saps readers' attention. This is as much an issue in a short article as in a long one. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The sourced meetings should be kept, and more should be added if sources appear. Coverage on Bilderberg is so limited that all decent sources, especially press releases coming from the meetings themselves, need to maintained. Otherwise, delete. In the future, I have no problem with a long list forked off into a separate page, if all meetings are sourced. Meetings do give a hint into the geopolitics and would be interesting to some researchers and for historical background. II | (t - c) 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a source in itself, so keeping the list in no way maintains sources. Any researchers must rely on sources other than Wikipedia, so it doesn't help them either. A small sample will give the reader a feel for the type of venues used just as well as the entire list. I suggest listing the most recent five to ten. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Wikipedia collects sources. Of course it's a resource for a researcher because the Wikipedia editors have already found the sources. II | (t - c) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I split the list to a separate page. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bilderberg_Meeting/Archive_1&oldid=1233838241"