Talk:Bilderberg Meeting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Daniel Estulin's address to European Parliament

Daniel Estulin gave an address to parliament a few months ago (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IM-PRESS+20102300AGD00000+BY-DAY+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#day2 European Parliament Tuesday 01/06/2010]). Sort of interesting; the clips are on Youtube. I haven't seen any press coverage of this - it may exist in foreign media, but I searched the Spiegel and there's no results for Bilderberg or Estulin. II | (t - c) 01:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this. It was a press conference in a room of the European Parliament. Eg see [1] "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 [2] "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) 04:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

David Frum's "inside look" at the National Post

In June 2010, David Frum, an attendee, discussed a bit of what happens at Bilderberg. I'd like to mention his article; however, this article is fairly tongue-in-cheek similar to Skelton's articles. Frum makes some interesting points: (1) he says that everything said is recorded in volumes which are available to read - although he says "you can read", I doubt these are available to the public, and (2) he makes the point that Bilderberg is a member organization, which distinguishes it a bit from WEF at Davos. II | (t - c) 03:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Loremaster - The new reference for the views of the JBS on Bilderberg only tells us what Phyllis Schlafly thinks of Bilderberg. If you can't find a reference, don't add it to Wikipedia, and don't add a 'good enough' reference that won't support your claim. Please don't hide my comment by 'archiving' it. This issue is relevant to the article, and will not be closed until you find a reference. 'Guilty by association' referencing isn't good enough. Start with the sources, take what you find there of interest, and add it to the Encyclopaedia. That you aren't doing this is evidenced by the fact that you add first, and reference only when a claim is challenged. Please reference everything. Your additions don't stand up and require rework by other editors. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Anyone who has studied the John Birch Society knows that this group were pioneers in promoting New World Order conspiracy theories implicating the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg group, and other elite think tanks and social clubs. Phyllis Schlafly was a member of the JBS which, as an organization, heavily promoted her books even when she was no longer one of their members. I therefore consider this reference more than good enough and that it does stand up.
2. I have never archived your comments in order to “hide” them. This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Bilderberg Group article. Creating a thread to snidely lecture me about edit summary guidelines when you already have done so on my personal talk page was unnecessary and irrelevant to discussions on how to improve this article. Furthermore, since I read this personal message intented only for me, there is no value in keeping such a comment on the talk page so archiving it (rather than simply deleting it) is quite appriopriate. By the way, did I archive the 'Gentleman's club' thread you created on October 2nd? No. So stop bringing this up.
3. That being said, I find this current dispute bizarre. For several months, the Claims of political conspiracy section had a pagagraph which listed a number of people as being proponents of Bilderberg conspiracy theories. Except for Jesse Ventura and Fidel Castro, this paragraph has never had first-, second- or third-party sources that confirm these people are in fact Bilderberg conspiracy theorists. The only reason why the mention of the John Birch Society had a source was because of a dispute that arose many months ago regarding whether or not my adding the word “producerist” to describe this group was fair and accurate. I simply added a source to confirm this description. You, however, interpreted this as a bad source for the claim that the JBS promotes Bilderberg conspiracy theories when it wasn't meant to be so you first deleted the source and then deleted the mention of the JBS altogether. Although I have now provided what I consider a good source for the fact that the JBS promotes Bilderberg conspiracy theories, my question is this: Excluding Ventura and Castro, why did you not delete the mention of all the people listed as Bilderberg conspiracy theorists when there are no first-, second- or third-party sources to support the mention?
4. As for your lecture about what I do wrong, (except for the Domhoff quote) almost all the claims made in the Claims of political conspiracy section were added by other people either in the distant past or recently. I simply added the few existing sources available online to support these claims since over the years I have read many reliable sources that do in fact support them better. However, due to my limited time and resources, it's hard for me to track them down quickly and read them to find the key sentence.
5. The only addition I've made whose source you were right to challenge was the line regarding right-wingers and New World Order conspiracies about the Bilderberg group. However, everyone knows that the Bilderberg group is accused by the people listed as Bilderberg conspiracy theorists as building a New World Order in the form of a socialist one-world government. Although I understand the importance of providing a citation for every claim, why would this particular claim need a source more than other unsourced claims you have ignored?
6. Your problem is that, in your zeal to rework this article, you seem to ignore the fact that we can and should be summarizing and paraphrasing content from sources rather than copying their exact words.

--Loremaster (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it is the most reliable source, The People's Almanac (1975-1981) confirms the fact that it has been common knowledge for a long time that Birchers (members of the John Birch Society) are Bilderberg conspiracy theorists:

Both right-wing and left-wing groups have alleged that Bilderberg leaders meet secretly to plan events that later appear to just happen. The John Birch Society has frequently claimed that the group is part of an international conspiracy, with the ultimate goal of founding a totally planned world economy and political system ruled by members of the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. Birchers say the Bilderberg Group was responsible for the liberation of oil-rich Algeria and other oil-laden countries, and point out that the Algerian revolt in 1954 began a mere six months after the first Bilderberg Group meeting. Apparently members within the group control the sources of energy for the major industries of France and West Germany. The Treaty of Rome, which brought the Common Market into existence, is also said to have been nurtured at Bilderberg meetings, as is the formation of an international corporation to finance industrial development in the Near East. At least one tangible result can be traced to a Bilderberg meeting, And that is the formation of the Trilateral Commission, sometimes referred to as the "child of Bilderberg." For it was at a Bilderberg meeting that American financier David Rockefeller first broached the subject of forming a group of private individuals to work at strengthening an economic partnership involving North America, Europe, and Japan.

URL: http://www.trivia-library.com/c/most-powerful-in-the-world-the-bilderberg-group-part-2.htm

So I've added it as a source and I have reworked the paragraph. --Loremaster (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Berlet source does not support the JBS claim. Your argument is that Schlafly believed in a Bilderberg conspiracy theory, the JBS promoted her books, therefore the JBS belived in a Bilderberg conspiracy theory. If we want to speak of the views of the JBS, we must use sources which speak directly of the views of the JBS. 'Everyone knows this', or 'I don't have time to find the good source' aren't reasons to add a bad source, but that should go without saying. Please don't re-add this. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My argument is that both the JBS and Schlafly believe in a Bilderberg conspiracy theory. The fact that the JBS promoted Schlafly's books in which she claims to expose the Bilderberg conspiracy theory reinforces the fact that the JBS believe in a Bilderberg conspiracy theory. Therefore, the Berlet source simply reinforces the better source (The People's Almanac) we now have which explicitly states that the JBS believe in a Bilderberg conspiracy theory. So will continue to re-add what it a good source. By the way, when I argued that “everyone knows this”, I was actually implying that even you know that the people listed in the Claims of political conspiracy section are conspiracy theorists who believe that the Bilderberg group is conspiring to create a New World Order in the form of a socialist one-world government otherwise you wouldn't have been comfortable with them being mentioned without a first-, second- or third-party source for so long... ;) --Loremaster (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If 'reinforces' means 'supports the claim', then this is incorrect. The citation does not support the claim. If 'reinforces' means something other than 'supports the claim', then it is beside the point. The only test for a citation to a claim is 'does is support the claim'. It does not. I have removed the Berlet reference. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I continue to argue that it does support the claim so I will restore it. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Official website and Skelton

Recently, I made an edit which was quickly reverted by Arthur Rubin. The edit summarized some comments from Charlie Skelton, who has a Bilderberg column at the Guardian, and added a link to the new official website Bilderberg Meetings. The former stuff is not really important; it basically repeats stuff that's already in the article. The official website is interesting. It appears to be legitimate (Skelton says it was confirmed by a member in the article) and it has been up for several months now - I would not expect Bilderberg to allow a fake website for that long. I requested that Arthur explain the reversion, and he's said he doesn't regard The Guardian as reliable in this case, but Wikipedia:SPS#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs suggests it is reliable. I've also raised a Wikiquette alert about Arthur due to his response to my edit, particularly rolling it back (therefore marking it WP:MINOR) as if it were vandalism. II | (t - c) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be an "official" blog; it appears to be a blog by the columnist. Furthermore, if you read the blog entry, you'll see it says someone said he was in MI-6. That doesn't seem likely, although it's non-falsifiable. Perhaps things read differently in the UK, but in the US, the logical assumption on seeing that in a newspaper (even a printed newspaper) would be that it's a "non-fact" column; it's not intended to be taken literally.

I lean toward including the web site in external links and possibly in the infobox, but without comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hosted in the "World News" section of The Guardian; clearly it's not a personal blog. I'm not sure what you mean by official but it appears to be as official as any blog hosted by paper. Newspaper-hosted blogs often adopt a more casual tone - for example, see one of the NYT's blogs such as Economix. The articles are fairly narrative and tongue-in-cheek in spots, but it also seems possible to distinguish between the sarcasm and the true stuff. I'm not sold on the idea that a bit of sarcasm suddenly renders a source unusable. With that said, most of the content of that article isn't important, including its observation on the lack of media coverage as this is already well-covered. However, it does establish approximately when the official website came online and Skelton states that it has been confirmed as genuine. Since Bilderberg has been known for not having a website, this seems important. I'm not sure I'd agree that the website should be posted without corroboration of some sort and preferably some indication of when it came online. II | (t - c) 02:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I and others have been a bit leery about the website. I did try to make a phone call and email to confirm it, but with no luck. I'd be much happier to use it if there were other sources confirming it. Dougweller (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

II - what is your proposed change? Do you propose that we link to www.bilderbergmeetings.org, indicating that this is the official site of the Bilderberg conference, and that we use Skelton's article [3] as our source for this claim? I would oppose such a change, as I agree with Arthur Rubin that Skelton's blog is not a reliable source. However, that is not my point here. I write only to ask which change you wish to make. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly my proposed change. It's not clear exactly why Skelton is unreliable, and why there's so much skepticism that the site is indeed official. Why would Bilderberg allow a website to misrepresent itself as official for this many months? II | (t - c) 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The tone of Skelton's piece is not that of a news article but that of a comment piece, or rant. Regarding Skelton's internal consistency, note that he claims Olaf Scholz confirmed the site as genuine [4]. My German is scant but it seems to me Scholz has not done this, merely pointed to bilderbergmeetings.org as a source of publicity and information on the Bilderberg group. Also note that Skelton claims David Cameron as a 2008 attendee, but he is not listed as such on bilderbergmeetings.org. So which is wrong? Skelton or bilderbergmeetings.org? If Skelton is wrong, why should we trust him? If bilderbergmeetings.org is wrong, why should we trust it? Regarding the site itself, it provides no contact details, nor has its authenticity been confirmed by any group official in person or in any press release. If Skelton is not reliable we have no other source. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Google first results defame wikipedia

'Wikipedia hides nazi roots of bilderberg' or something like that on first results on 'bilderberg'. Is there any source at least mentioning it? I'd enjoy finding the word 'nazi' - after being legitimately sourced of course - to silence those pre-wikipedia era trolls. --Leladax (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia 'editors' censor Bilderberg's Nazi roots --Loremaster (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

People's Almanac

The People's Almanac reference does not include page numbers. I will remove it unless these are provided. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Irving (1975). The People's Almanac. Doubleday. ISBN 0385040601.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Also, the online People's Almanac entry for Bilderberg does not include the term 'New World Order'. [5] I think the source is bad. It is possible I suppose that the print edition does mention a 'New World Order' but unless this is confirmed I will remove it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Although I don't understand why you keep obsessively going over every minute detail of this short and boring article, I think the source is good so I will restore it. --Loremaster (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No page number supplied. - removed. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Page number will be supplied later since we do have an online source that confirms the content in the book. --Loremaster (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Url added to an excerpt from it on the web. The wording there is "founding a totally planned world economy and political system". Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed the page to reflect the source. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the Berlet source, as this supported neither the previous claim, nor the new claim supported by the People's Almanac source. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* I've better things to do than fight with you over these trivialities. However, I've edited the sentence and added an internal link for the sake of clarity. --Loremaster (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

1. “world government and planned economy” is an appropriate paraphrasing of the source. A “world political system” obviously means “world government”. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles don't have to repeat word for what a source says otherwise we are simply copy-and-pasting instead using the leeway we have as editors to process information from a source in order to summarize and paraphrase it in a way that is accessible for the average Wikipedia reader.
2. It is almost universally known that the term “New World Order” is used by right-wing conspiracy theorists to describe a "planned world economy and political system" or "world government and planned economy". Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to internally link that the phrase "world government and planned economy" to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article.
3. I can respect your (selective) demand that some sentences in this article be sourced. However, your weekly obsession with going over this short and boring article and deleting sentences that have had consensus for weeks if not months in order for this article to conform to your overzealous standards is getting tiresome and annoying. Get a life, dude.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil, this has become a slow edit war. I removed the wikilink to the new world order page as I believe it is inappropriate in this context. The phrase "new world order" is loaded, and does not reflect the source neutrally. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the wikilink because the context is a paragraph which discusses the conspiracy theories of right-wingers who are universally known for believing that the Bilderberg group is conspiring to create a “New World Order” in the form of a one-world government and planned economy. --Loremaster (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

From PublicEye.org:

Robert Welch introduced the idea of the John Birch Society at an Indianapolis meeting he convened on December 9, 1958 of 12 "patriotic and public-spirited" men. The first chapter was founded a few months later in February 1959. The core thesis of the society was contained Welch's initial Indianapolis presentation, transcribed almost verbatim in The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, and subsequently given to each new member. According to Welch, both the US and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the US government would betray the country's sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist new world order managed by a "one-world socialist government." The Birch Society incorporated many themes from pre-WWII rightist groups opposed to the New Deal, and had its base in the business nationalist sector discussed earlier.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If that passage contained any references to Bilderberg, it would be relevant here. It does not, and I think you may be crossing the line into original research. We don't need a wikilink at all for this, but if we have one, it should be neutral and reflect the source. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I will forever disagree with you on what this article needs since it extremely important for readers to understand what right-wing conspiracy theorists are talking about. That being said, the source later mentions the Bilderberg group. Furthermore, all the conspiracy theorists listed in the Claims of political conspiracy section are known for accussing the Bilderberg group of plotting to impose a “New World Order” in the form of a world government and planned economy. Do you really want me to quote them in the article to prove this point? --Loremaster (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have a source that characterizes a view of the Bilderberg group as a conspiracy to impose a “New World Order” using that term, yes, by all means, quote it here and we'll discuss it. The People's Almanac doesn't, from what I've seen. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. From MediaMatters.org:

The film captures this growing anti-New World Order movement as it targets the annual Bilderberg conference, and the 9/11 attacks as focal points in the alleged global conspiracy."

Part of the New World Order conspiracy is the meeting of the Bilderberg Group. Every year, according to Jones' website PrisonPlanet.com, "traitorous government officials go to Bilderberg to get their marching orders" to help enact global "serfdom and dictatorship."

--Loremaster (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you're quoting from a source that is quoting from The Independent Film Channel, which I do not think can be considered a reliable source, about views of Alex Jones. That's one person's view and falls in the fringe category, and is no more an appropriate source for using "New World Order" as a link than the people's almanac . The article should remain neutral, and the conspiracy theory section is beginning to have undue weight, and I think you're pushing your pov. Also, I believe that you have crossed the three revert line, I would consider it an act of good faith if you reverted yourself. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I wasn't necessarily planning on using this source in the article. I was simply pointing to it to support my argument in this debate. However, the issue is whether the third-party source is reliable not the second-party or first-party source it quotes. That being said, I will find other sources to add to the article.
2. Alex Jones is widely known as one of most prominent conspiracy theorists. He is increasingly being known for his conspiracy theories which accuse the Bilderberg group of plotting to impose a New World Order in the form of a one-world government. The Claims of political conspiracy section is about what people like him think of the Bilderberg group. Therefore, it would be un-neutral to try to hide these views (however fringe they may be) that have been embraced by millions.
3. I will not revert myself.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen, I understand that contributors like Crosbiesmith, Nuujinn and others who dutifully watch over the Bilderberg Group article want to make sure that it doesn't get hijacked by conspiracy theorists who want to use it to promote paranoid conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group. However, anyone who is familiar with my contributions on Wikipedia knows that this isn't my goal. A comprehensive encyclopedic article on the Bilderberg Group must mention what notable conspiracy theorists think of the Bilderberg Group and what is great about a Wikipedia article is that it gives us an opportunity — with the help of academics — to properly contextualize these conspiracy theories for the benefit of readers. --Loremaster (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster, we're talking about the People's Almanac as a source, and it's just not working for several reasons. One is that the People's Almanac is a tertiary source, and should only to provide an overview. That's bad enough, but the online version has "Both right-wing and left-wing groups have alleged that Bilderberg leaders meet secretly to plan events that later appear to just happen. The John Birch Society has frequently claimed that the group is part of an international conspiracy, with the ultimate goal of founding a totally planned world economy and political system ruled by members of the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations". You're using that to source "...while right-wingers accuse the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy." The PA article is specific to the John Birch Society, it does not characterize what folks on the right do in general. You're also insisting that we wiki link the phrase "world government and planned economy" to the New World Order (conspiracy theory) instead of World government. We really don't need a wikilink there in the first place, but if we have one, it should be neutral. I think this is a case of WP:SYNTH, and that the text in the article is not adequately supported by the source. Also, I am concerned that you are willing to step across the 3rr line so easily. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

1. That statement that is being sourced with the People's Almanac is in fact an overview of what right-wing conspiracy theorists believe about the Bilderberg Group.
2. The People's Almanac article is implying that Birchers are representative of what right-wing conspiracists believe and do. They in fact are.
3. In light of the fact that is universally known that right-wing conspiracy theorists use the term “New World Order” to refer to a world government AND planned economy, we do need to wikilink to the article on that subject to better inform readers as to exactly what these people believe.
4. Although I hated doing it, I stepped across the 3rr line because Crosbiesmith refused to abide by my request that we stop edit warring until this dispute is resolved. So I restored the article to the version that existed before I made this request.
5. Anyone familiar with the history of all my contributions to Wikipedia knows that I am of good faith.

--Loremaster (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your goals are. What I see you doing is documenting a particularly bonkers conspiracy, then claiming that 'right-wingers' who believe in the existence of any other specific conspiracy theories must by implication believe in the particularly bonkers 'New World Order' conspiracy theory, and that this is what they *really* believe, regardless of the actual words they have used. The effect is to imply that the JBS, Phyllis Schlafly, Lyndon LaRouche, and Jesse Ventura are all completely bonkers. Maybe they are. I don't know. It's not clear to me that they are actually bonkers enough to believe in the existence of a sinister, non-existent 'New World Order' and I have yet to see a source to demonstrate that they do. It seems to me you sincerely believe that these people *are* that bonkers. and that it is your duty to expose them. However, Wikiepedia is not really the place for exposure. I've said this before but it's worth repeating: start with the sources, take what is relevant, and add it to Wikipedia. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I did find it sad when I learned that Chip Berlet stopped editing Wikipedia articles in general and the Bilderberg Group article in particular because he had to constantly fight with paranoid conspiracy theorists, I don't think it is my duty to expose them nor do I think Wikipedia should be used to exposed them. However, I do think Wikipedia is a place where conspiracy theories about XYZ can and should be contextualized in order for readers to understand them. Nothing more. Nothing less. As for your advice, that's exactly what I am doing. --Loremaster (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The only "contextualizing" we should be engaged in is accurately reflecting what is said in reliable sources, and I do not think you are doing that in this case. We do not rely on "implications" we draw from sources. We do not rely on what is "universally known". This article is not about conspiracy theories in general, and the focus should be considerably narrower than the version you are advocating. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In light of the secrecy of the Bilderberg group, it has created a void in which the vast majority of discussion about this group can be found in the work of conspiracy theorists or scholarly and journalistic critics of their conspiracy theories. Therefore, the Claims of political conspiracy section of an article on the Bilderberg group should be comprehensive rather than brief. However, the thing that shouldn't be given undue weight in such a section are the views of people who are not notable Bilderberg conspiracy theorists.

That being said, when I talk of “implications” and what is “universally known”, I am directly or indirectly referring to the fact that all the notable Bilderberg conspiracy theorists currently listed in the Claims of political conspiracy section have written articles and books or done radio shows and video documentaries in which they explicitly accused the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose a “New World Order” in the form of a one-world government. However, Crosbiesmith and you want to hide this fact probably in a well-meaning but misguided attempt to make sure this article doesn't unintentionally becoming a vehicle for the promotion of paranoid Bilderberg conspiracy theories. Regardless, I found a reliable source that explains that conspiracy theorists do in fact believe that the Bilderberg group is conspiring to impose a new world order. I will therefore update this article with this important information. So this dispute is now over. --Loremaster (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Politico article on the Bilderberg Group

This is the only paragraph from the source referenced which mentions a 'New World Order'. Are you basing your claim on this?

The fulminating is aggravated by Obama's preference for surrounding himself with well-credentialed, well-connected, and well-traveled elites. His personnel choices have touched a populist, even paranoid nerve among those who are convinced powerful elites and secret societies are moving the planet toward a new world order.

This doesn't support the claim. It says nothing about the Bilderberg group or its relation to a supposed New World Order - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course if you take that paragraph out of context you are right but if you read it along with the preceding and following paragraphs (or the entire article for that matter) it clearly does to the extent that it discusses the worldview of Bilderberg conspiracy theorists. --Loremaster (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading. I believe your new additions are not supported by the new source. Hopefully some way may be found to reach consensus on this section. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Crosbiesmith, solely for the sake of creating a climate of cooperation, I am willing to concede you were right in our previous debates. However, on the issue of whether or not the Politico article supports my new additions, I think you are not only dead wrong but acting in bad faith at this point. Furthermore, as I said before, all the notable Bilderberg conspiracy theorists currently listed in the Claims of political conspiracy section have written articles and books or done radio shows and video documentaries in which they explicitly accused the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose a “New World Order” in the form of a one-world government. Why the denialism? --Loremaster (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Call me Crosbie. My concern is that we do not attribute crazy views to individuals and organizations who do not demonstrably hold them. This is the reason I have removed your claims from the article. You asked above if Nuujinn wanted you to quote each conspiracy theorist accusing the Bilderberg group of plotting to impose a “New World Order” . Like Nuujin, I would like you to quote them here in the talk page, with references. Then we would not have to rely on the your claims of 'universal knowledge' and could proceed on the basis of agreed statements of fact. I will note the following: A writer by the name of Paul Joseph Watson makes exactly the claim you attribute to other parties in his article The Bilderberg Group - Planning on a New World Order. This is the kind of evidence we need to say a particular writer holds a particular belief. Should it be non-obvious, this article does *not* provide evidence that the John Birch society, or any other right-wing organization agrees with his view. If you feel it important that it be noted that there exist theorists who believe in a Bilderberg - 'New World Order' connection, mention Paul Joseph Watson and use this article as evidence for his belief. I would note that Watson's opinions may not actually be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I personally am not going to dispute a brief mention of his belief for the purpose of illustrating a belief in some type of Bilderberg-'NWO' link.

Are you happy to see a version of the article which notes that *some* conspiracy theorists believe in the existence of a Bilderberg-NWO link, but which does not believe that *all* conspiracy theorists believe this, or even that all *right-wing* conspiracy theorists believe this? I am personally happy to see such a version. My only concern is that we do not attribute crazy beliefs to people who do not actually hold them. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As my last contribution demonstrated, I am no longer interested in proving that all *right-wing* conspiracy theorists believe in the existence of a Bilderberg-NWO link, I am satisfied with simply mentioning that there is an international network of conspiracy theorists who do believe in such a link. Not only is the Politico article (on how the Bilderberg group is viewed by conspiracy theorists in general) a reliable source for this statement of fact but I simply summarized what it stated in black and white (!) so any argument that it isn't is simply absurd and indicates bad faith on the part of an editor who clearly wants to censor information for well-intentioned but misguided reasons. --Loremaster (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the removal. Politoco is a source and can be directly verified [as to claims by made by others anyways) through [[6]]. It is a interesting viewpoint to say the least but it covers those points from the paragraph. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a careful look at that source to see exactly how much of the paragraph you've restored can be sourced to that article. It is my feeling not all of it can be, I'm curious about the opinions of other editors. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Hell In A Bucket. It is good to know that there are more reasonable editors interested in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"...there is an international network of conspiracy theorists who do believe in such a link" and from the article "...an international network of conspiracists..." What sentence(s) in the politico article are the source for the claim that there is a network of "conspiricists"? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, the entire Politico article is about how the Bilderberg is viewed by conspiracy theorists in general. I am summarized several sentences that talk about the same group of people (that is conpiracists):

It is precisely that exclusive roster of globally influential figures that has captured the interest of an international network of conspiracists, who for decades have viewed the Bilderberg conference as a devious corporate-globalist scheme. The fulminating is aggravated by Obama's preference for surrounding himself with well-credentialed, well-connected, and well-traveled elites. His personnel choices have touched a populist, even paranoid nerve among those who are convinced powerful elites and secret societies are moving the planet toward a new world order. Their worldview, characterized by a deep and angry suspicion of the ruling class rather than any prevailing partisan or ideological affiliation, is widely articulated on overnight AM radio shows and a collection of Internet websites. The video sharing website YouTube alone is home to thousands of Bilderberg-related videos.

To argue that "those who are convinced powerful elites and secret societies are moving the planet toward a new world order" are not the "international network of conspiracists" nor the people who produce the thousands of Bilderberg-related videos is disingenuous and taking source-checking to a fundamentalist extreme especially when we all know what these people believe. Enough already. Can we please move on? --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Again, I'm not in the least interested in what we all know. What we know is not relevant. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What we all know is relevant when there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of a source... --Loremaster (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral means we report most everything. I think even just this preview is enough to close arguments here. It should be made clear this is conspiracy and not "known" fact. [[7]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks HIAB. However, in Wikipedia, the best is to always have second-party or third-party sources (mainstream scholars and journalists) to close an argument because without them we have no way of proving (according to Wikipedia standards) that a YouTube video is notable and representative of what conspiracy theorists believe in general. That being said, I think this dispute has been resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That was just a sample found on youtube. This is a fil buy Alex Jones (radio host). You can go to his website prisonplanet.org for more films by him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Trust me when I tell you that I have been familiar with his work for a long time. However, it doesn't change the fact that we need sources that talk about Alex Jones and his views as well as those of other prominent conspiracy theorists like him to describe them properly and confirm their notability. --Loremaster (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/

Recently an editor added this as the bilderberg website, and that addition was reverted. Does anyone have any information on whether or not the web site is legit? If it is, we should link to it. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You probably saw this, but my thoughts on this are here: Talk:Bilderberg_Group/Archive_4#Official_website_and_Skelton. My view is that there is no good information on its legitimacy and as such it shouldn't be included. I also suspect it's fake but likewise, this is unproven. - Crosbie 02:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What do Wikipedia guidelines on external links suggest we do in a case like this? --Loremaster (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the whois report:

• http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=bilderbergmeetings.org&type=domain

It looks like a serious website. If it's genuine, and I don't know that it is, it's very informative, but without any confirmation of its authenticity we can't even use it as a source. I suspect the two correspondents for The Economist who attended the meetings might be sources of information if we can find any writings by them. They are mentioned at the bottom here:

• Participants 2010

• Rapporteurs
• GBR Bredow, Vendeline von - Business Correspondent, The Economist
• GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. - Business Correspondent, The Economist

Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is this report from the Guardian, which I would regard as reliable. It's a news blog, at the newspaper's site, by one of their reporters, and those are generally considered reliable. I see no reason not to put up the link to the site--there's nothing controversial on the site that I can see, and we're not using it as a source for any information in the article (although we could use it as a source for what they claim or for non-controversial data). My german's pretty good, I read the referenced link and it appears ok as well. Are there any sources that refute that it's an official website? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You've convinced me. We have a reliable source stating it's their website. Now those links need to be added to the article, since the creation of a website is a very notable event. Who would like to do it? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Wikileaks article cite:

Bilderberg Group meeting reports Since May 2009, WikiLeaks has made available reports of several meetings of the Bilderberg Group. It includes the group's history and meeting reports from the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1963 and 1980.

Some confirmations ? Yug (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC) (wikileaks http domain is moving recently, the links may be death)

Besides the domain problem, I don't see how we can use them unless there's an official statement from the Bilderberg group confirming their authenticity. At least. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we need a third-party reliable source, such as a New Work Times article, which states that Wikileaks has released Bilderberg group meeting reports, whose authenticity has neither been confirmed or denied by the group. --Loremaster (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a middle path. If they are the real deal, they are still primary sources, so we should avoid them to avoid OR. I think putting in a line or two that it has been reported that wikileaks has published the minutes, with the ref to whatever reliable source reported that, and then perhaps also an external link to the wikileaks docs. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. --Loremaster (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph on Estulin

Dougweller recently deleted a paragraph in the Claims of political conspiracy section of the article arguing that it was “pov and promotional para about Estulin”. I reverted his edit because I strongly disagree for two reasons:

1. That fact that a sentence or paragraph makes readers aware of Estulin's views doesn't automatically mean that the Wikipedia article on the Bilderberg Group is promoting his views. The paragraph in question is not an arbitrary and uncritical presentation of Estulin's views. On the contrary, his views are presented within a critical context.
2. The fact that a historically important president of a communist country like Fidel Castro would promote the paranoid conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg group of a right-wing populist like Estulin is note-worthy. The fact that Castro's promotion of Estulin would attract international media attention is also note-worthy. The fact that Marxists are concerned about the negative effect this media attention might have on socialist movements is also note-worthy.

Therefore, I think anyone who wants to delete this paragraph again must explain himself here before doing it. --Loremaster (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Estulin's or Castro's views provide us with no information on the Bilderberg group. The 'conspiracy' section is already hugely over-long. If this information belongs in Wikipedia anywhere, it belongs in the Daniel Estulin or Fidel Castro articles. - Crosbie 20:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of the purpose of this section, the issue is not whether Estulin's or Castro's views provide us with information on the Bilderberg Group (BG). It is that the Estulin-Castro bromance has caused the Bilderberg group and conspiracy theories about its real purpose to be featured in international news. It would be a form of obscurantism to argue that this fact is not note-worthy in a section on BG conspiracy theories... --Loremaster (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Crosbie is right. Put it in Estulin's article, but not here. The statement "This coverage has, in turn, been picked up by media outlets worldwide." while technically true perhaps (wouldn't 2 'media outlets', ie web pages in two very different parts of the world be 'media outlets worldwide' but is at best confusing and at worst misleading. And it certainly is promoting the Party for Socialism and Liberation - (and there's an article that's pretty promotional with some SPA editors). It doesn't belong in this article. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Although I agree we should add more sources to confirm that many media outlets worldwide have picked up on the coverage by the Cuban press, I have one question: Are we promoting Chip Berlet and his Political Research Associates simply because we mention them in this article? --Loremaster (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this at WP:FTN#Bilderberg Group and Daniel Estulin. I haven't changed my mind and you are aware that two of us don't think it should be there - replacing it at this point was not very cooperative, but we'll see if anyone else has any comments. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I added my comments to the noticeboard. That being said, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that “replacing it at this point was not very cooperative” when I justified the restoration of this content (which has some consensus for months) with an explanation on this talk page thereby opening the door for discussion. --Loremaster (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph on Estulin's visit to Cuba can be cut in half. The part explaining Castro's and Marxists reactions to Estulin better belongs in Estulin's article. Cla68 (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion of an uninvolved editor who saw this being discussed at WP:FTN: Estulin's views are not remotely close to the mainstream (i.e., they are 'fringe'), so they are being given undue weight in this article. Those views should be at his own article. If there was widespread and mainstream coverage of his visit to Cuba, then one or two sentences, at most, would be due weight—more because of Castro than Estulin. First Light (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course Estulin's views about the Bilderberg Group are fringe... No one is arguing that they aren't! The issue is whether or not it is noteworthy in a section about fringe views on the Bilderberg group to mention that Estulin's fringe views have garnered international media attention because of Cuban President Castro's endorsement of them. I would argue yes. --Loremaster (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The question is how noteworthy a fringe view really is, even if it has some coverage as a fringe view. A closer of reading WP:DUE ("in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint"...."the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", etc.) makes a convincing argument that "one or two sentences, at most, would be due weight—more because of Castro than Estulin." The only reason there was coverage was because Castro is noteworthy, certainly not Estulin and his views. First Light (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're focusing on the wrong question. --Loremaster (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to move all of this discussion to WP:FTN#Bilderberg Group and Daniel Estulin, so as to keep all of the discussion together. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting beyond the internet information

Has anyone here read a lot beyond what's available on the internet? I haven't read much and I notice there a non-online sources such as Aubourg, Hatch, and Domhoff, but there could be a lot more information out there. Searches of scholarly databases don't seem to have a ton of information, but I did notice Wilford's 2003 article CIA plot, socialist conspiracy, or new world order? the origins of the Bilderberg group, 1952-55, which seems likely to be at least somewhat reliable. There's also a 1972 article None dare call it a conspiracy, and a 2005 article By invitation only: Lord Mountbatten, Prince Philip, and the attempt to create a Commonwealth 'Bilderberg group', 1964-66, and Multiple Perspectives on Economic Rationalism.... Page 60 of Sinclair's Global governance: critical concepts in political science has a lot of sources with Bilderberg in the title.

I believe that I read The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin and found it pretty terrible. II | (t - c) 05:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you II! These are great sources that could be definitely use to improve and expand the article. As for Estulin, the consensus is that he is a conspiracy theorist with no credibility regardless of the number of people who take him seriously... --Loremaster (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Socialist or Capitalist

Since user Nuujinn seems to think it is vandalism to call the Bilderbergs Socialist perhaps we could better define the terms and aims of the group meetings. World government is an aim of the Socialists while Capitalists are Nationalist. Come now, how do you explain your backward article if not aplogotic for the the Socialist World Revolution? There seems to be a great deal of this at Wikipedia. --69.179.106.171 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to define the terms. If you want to characterize the Bilderbergs as socialists, you'll need to find a reliable source to back up the assertion. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:69.179.106.171:

1. The first part of the sentence you are disputing actually comes from the following Christian Science Monitor article: Fidel Castro fascinated by Bilderberg Club conspiracy theory.. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to modify this sentence to say something contrary to what the article explicity states. That being said, I don't understand why you felt it was necessary do so such a thing when the last part of that sentence stated “some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy”? In case you didn't know, a planned economy is state socialism.
2. Although it is true that most socialists and communists are in a favor of a world revolution, throughout the 20th century, there have been several ideologies and movements that synthesized nationalism with either socialism or communism: “Socialism in One Country”, National communism, and National Bolshevism are the best examples.
3. There has always been two kinds of capitalists: On one hand, there are Corporate Internationalists (better known as Neoliberals) who believe nations should control the flow of people across borders, but not the flow of goods, capital, and profit in order to allow “free trade”. They therefore support globalization on behalf of transnational corporate interests. On the other hand, there are Business Nationalists who believe multinational corporations erode national sovereignty and that nations should enforce borders for people, but also for goods, capital, and profit through trade restrictions. They are therefore anti-globalists who are generally protectionists and isolationists.
4. Obviously the late 20th century and early 21st centuries have seen the globalization of capitalism which has produced a transnational capitalist class (see Joe Licentia's 2005 essay The American Empire and the Emergence of a Global Ruling Class) and it is the erudite opinion of notable mainstream scholars that the Bilderberg is a group that serves the interests of this class. Therefore, it is simply absurd for anyone to define the aims of Bilderberg Group meetings as the advancement of a “world socialist agenda” unless one deliberately or ignorantly confuses liberalism with socialism.
5. The article is not “backward” nor does it have a pro-socialist bias. It is simply reporting a diversity of views from reliable sources. That being said, doesn't it make you pause and think when you read that real socialists denonce the Bilderberg Group as capitalist conspirators?

--Loremaster (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points, Loremaster, especially the fact that they are uber rich Plutonomists/Capitalists. See the leaked 2005 Plutonomy Report, which is cited in these articles: Criticism of capitalism and Capitalism: A Love Story. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias of the Article

To improve this article, the bias should be removed.

The author is evidently biased toward the side of the Bilderberg Group. The author calls anyone who does not agree with the Builderberg Group "conspiracy theorists."

I came to this article to recieve an unbiased account of what the Group is. I had no previous knowledge of the Builderberg Group, but I could tell almost immediately that the author was presenting a biased view.

I myself have no opinion on the subject. I merely came looking for information, only to discover a bias.

Would someone who has intimate familiarity on this subject but no bias make edits on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.214.254 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

All those that have been reported to question the Bilderberg Group are, unquestionably, conspiracists. If you can find credible criticism of the group, it should be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective - there is no single "author" for this page any more than there is for any other. Also, for you to claim that you consider the page to be "biased" inherently contradicts your claim to have, "no opinion on the matter." Nick Cooper (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article never states that anyone who disagrees with the goals of the Bilderberg group is automatically a “conspiracy theorist”. It simply reports that, according to reliable sources, many people accuse the Bilderberg group of being involved in a grand conspiracy which makes it fair and accurate to describe them as “conspiracy theorists”. As Arthur Rubin explained, if you can find a rational critic of the Bilderberg Group who criticizes its secrecy and the real (as opposed to imagined) policies it promotes, we will be more than happy to create a (rational) Criticism section to report his opinion. --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So if a mainline Television interview points out that U.S. Citizens attending the meeting are in violation of the Logan Act of 1799 WHICH WAS WRITTEN TO PREVENT CONSPIRACIES that's not a credible source? Is the U.S. code of the Logan Act credible enough? If so WHY WHERE MY EDITS DELETED!? Furthermore, the puff pieces from the discredited media organs who actually attend this meeting are biased and unreliable. Of course they would say there is nothing fishy going on at a group they are a participant in! Most people in America don't believe these corporate media organs any more, why do you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.244.247 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so there's been massive violations of the Logan Act and none of the right-wing Bilderberg haters have managed to mount a court case? Either pathetic or recognising the fact that not only have there never been any prosecutions under the Logan Act but that attendees aren't negotiating with foreign governments. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is a shameful whitewash, a testament that when people have something to hide, they do, but apparently they might do so blatantly. 82.21.26.60 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to hide. You can change the article by bringing reliable sources up for discussion. Now stop soapboxing, please. Yours, SK (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I also find this article very biased. Its following the current trend to call free-thinking people "Conspiracy Theorists" to mark them as being stupid. Just my Opinion... 95.114.185.69 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we can't use opinions for content unless they are backed up by sources. If you have any, please help us with the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Just my opinion". See, there's your problem. Wikipedia is not about opinions, but about verifiable information. You are most definitely entitled to your own opinion, but without reliable, verifiable sources your opinion does not matter to wikipedia. And without evidence no source. In this regard we could say, "free-thinking people" quite often tend to be "evidence-free-thinking people". SK (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I quote you on that? "Evidence-free-thinking people"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To overcome accusations that this article is biased, I found some interesting content for the Claims of conspiracy section in this 7 June 2011 BBC News piece: Bilderberg mystery: Why do people believe in cabals --Loremaster (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Loremaster (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Secrecy section

Some of the references don't look reliable for the statements made, eg Wisnewski (correct spelling) is a conspiracy theorist who believes that the US moon landing was a hoax[8]. Andreas von Rétyi if even more fringe, see this author's book list here: [9]. I've raised these at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the section from Secrecy to Privacy and restructured the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You might have left edit summaries. - Crosbie 16:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The questionable references (Wisnewski, Retyi) are still there. I'm sure we can find a better source for that, for example parts of this: [10]. Specifically these quotes:

"The belief in secret cabals running the world is a hardy perennial. And on Thursday perhaps the most controversial clandestine organisation of our times - the Bilderberg Group - is meeting behind closed doors."

"Part of the reason for alarm is the group's secretive working methods. Names of attendees are not usually released before the conference, meetings are closed to the public and the media, and no press releases are issued."

SK (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

European Union section

Pretty dire. The first bit says "In a European Parliament session in Brussels, Mario Borghezio, an Italian member of the European Parliament, questioned the nominations of Bilderberg and Trilateralattendees for the posts of EU President and EU foreign minister." One reaction is 'so what, why should it be here - it's just a typical political statement'. Then checking the sources, [11] says "It is not too bright MEP Mario Borghezio (Lega Nord) pointed out last week that Prime Minister Balkenende is a Bilderberger."

We move from the trivial to the ridiculous then, "In 2009 the group had a dinner meeting at Castle of the Valley of the Duchess in Brussels on 12 November with the participation of Herman Van Rompuy, who later became the President of the European Council". They had dinner and one of the guests was someone who became President of the EC? How does that belong here? Looks like trying to make an argument by inuendo. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the Borghezio incident as trivial. I replaced the Van Rompuy argument by inuendo by the claim from the Telegraph that the dinner was hosted specifically to promote his candidacy. That alone does not merit a separate subsection, so I removed the European Union subsection header - Crosbie 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Press releases and lists of attendees

The group's policy on this seems to have changed, whatever the BBC may say. We can't say they don't issue press releases when there's one on their website. Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree for now but I wonder if Wikipedia has guidelines to resolve such a problem... --Loremaster (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, I don't see that bilderbergmeetings.org is genuine or reliable. Having said that, Bilderberg Meeting of 1997 Assembles is a press release. Having said that, the release is not attributed to anyone. Anyway, the BBC piece looks more like an entertainment piece not a reliable news source. I support removing the claim that Bilderberg 'don't issue press releases' as poorly sourced and probably untrue. - Crosbie 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It would only be your opinion that the BBC piece is an entertainment piece but not a reliable news source since 1) BBC News is considered a mainstream news organization, 2) the piece is an article rather than a blog post, and 3) some respected scholars and writers were interviewed and quoted in this piece. --Loremaster (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I no longer have any reason to doubt that that is their official website, and I see the media is saying it is, eg [12] and [13]. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the same link twice. Were there supposed to be two? Not for the sake of argument - I'm just curious. Thanks - Crosbie

Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting occasionally contains errors. --Loremaster (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

James McConnachie

Now the article ends with a quote by James McConnachie. McConnachie is of no note himself, and the quote itself is nonsense - "Occasionally you have to give credit to conspiracy theorists who raise issues that the mainstream press has ignored. It's only recently that the media has picked up on the Bilderbergers." Right below that we have a reference, to a Times article from 1977, 'An exclusive club, perhaps without power, but certainly with influence' that deals with the group at far greater length and detail than anything published nowadays. - Crosbie 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

James McConnachie is an author who was nominated for Sunday Times Young Writer of the Year 2008 and has reviewed non-fiction for the Sunday Times ever since. He has presented TV programmes for the BBC and Channel 4, and has given talks and lectures at the V&A, Cambridge Wordfest and Southampton University, among other venues. I would therefore argue that not only does that make him notable but the BBC News article itself adds to his notability. That being said, I think McConnachie is arguing that, despite the 1977 Times article, it is only recently that the mainstream media has been increasingly reporting on it. Regardless, as you should know, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors or other reliable sources think it is true. --Loremaster (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've therefore restored the quote (but I apologize for not including an edit summary when I did). --Loremaster (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, that paragraph is likely a copyright violation as it is basically a cut and past from the BBC article, so that part definitely has to change or be removed. McConnachie's notability is not an issue, I think, since we don't require that authors of reliable sources be notable themselves. The BBC is reliable, so I think the reference itself is ok. But my suggestion would be to trim it back a bit so we do not put too much weight on what is basically just the opinion of one journalist. If there is no objection, I can take a crack at it. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph is not a copyright violation because it mostly paraphrases content from the BBC article, which is perfectly appropriate. They are already significant differences but I'm willing to improve and even slighly trim it if necessary. However, I would object to any attempt to radically trim it back since this paragraph is useful in countering the accusation that the article is biased toward a pro-Bilderberg point of view. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect, no, it is a clear violation of both copyvio and plagiarism.

BBC: "The Bilderberg Group matches up to how a global conspiracy would work - a secretive body attempting to shape the direction of the world, he suggests."

The article: "The Bilderberg group matches up to how a global conspiracy would work - a secretive body attempting to shape the direction of the world."

That's a direct copy, and thus copyvio.

BBC: "For all the tales of lizards running the world, we all owe a debt to conspiracy theorists, McConnachie argues."

The article: "...such as the notion of reptilians ruling the world, McConnachie concludes that we all owe a debt to conspiracy theorists"

Changing words like lizards to reptilians isn't sufficient, as close paraphrasing is plagiarism, see WP:plagiarism. We can bring it up on a noticeboard if you like, but I'd rather not as that can get a bit involved for something simple like this.

And I confess, I'm not enthused about including information as a counter to accusations of bias--we should write the best articles we can using the sources we have and let the chips fall where they may. I'd like to hear what others think. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that I've already made some changes and will continue to make some, feel free to bring up this issue on a noticeboard if you like to settle this one and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I'd rather not, as it's an easy thing to fix, and I can take a pass at it once you're done. We won't finish WP today. I confess this is a pet peeve, it's the old academic in me--those are the kinds of things that make for honor court trials at US unis, and these days it is a growing problem. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak it now. I'll revert your edits if I think they go too far. --Loremaster (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I recast it, easier that way, but I think I preserved the meaning. Also, I commented out the bit that begins "Despite all the irrational or deliberately fabricated conspiracy theories put forward by the more extreme proponents", as I think that violates SYNTH. If McConnachie doesn't refer to the theories referenced, we should not do so either, but if I missed something in the BBC article, please let me know. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You should know better than anyone that McConnachie referenced these conspiracy theories when you quoted the sentence “For all the tales of lizards running the world”. That being said, I'm fine with your edits. Moving on. --Loremaster (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

political conspiracy and conspiracy theory

There seems to be a big difference between political conspiracy (power politics) and conspiracy theory that involves New World Order, Reptilians and the Illuminati. Does the view of the Bilderberg Group by the John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly, Jim Tucker, Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones, Daniel Estulin et al include the Illuminati etc or do the latter mentioned simply believe the Bilderberg Group is part of the abuse of political power? The article needs to be substantially modified Lung salad (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Although you are right that there is a big difference between power politics and conspiracy theories, the section previously named 'Claims of political conspiracy' now renamed 'Conspiracy theories' has always focuced on conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly, Jim Tucker, Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones, Daniel Estulin, and Davic Icke all believe that the Bilderberg group is part of the abuse of political power but also a vast conspiracy, involving the Illuminati, to impose a new world order in the form of a totalitarian one world governement. Icke is the only among them who holds the lunatic notion that reptilians are behind it. It is important to note that the belief in reptilians alone isn't a conspiracy theory. It is the belief that reptilians secretly rule the world that is a conspiracy theory. --Loremaster (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Icke is not the only one holding such views - Jim Marrs, John Coleman and Mark Dice have been cited as other examples. Can you provide citations where the John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly, Jim Tucker, Lyndon LaRouche, Alex Jones, or Daniel Estulin believe in the Illuminati, Reptilians, and other such extreme beliefs? It simply is not factually accurate to include Icke in the same category as the John Birch Society Lung salad (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that there are other people besides Icke who hold the lunatic notion of reptilians secretly ruling the world. However, Jim Marrs, John Coleman and Mark Dice were not mentioned in the article nor the list you made above. That being said, most mainstream scholars and journalists (such as Michael Barkun and Chip Berlet) who study the phenomenon of conspiracy theories do in fact put all these people in the general category of “conspiracy theorists”. However, they are careful to specify who among them hold views that are more extreme. Ultimately, the only thing that matters in an article about the Bilderberg group is that all these conspiracy theorists implicate the Bilderberg group in their respective conspiracy theories regardless of their degree of extremism. --Loremaster (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, individuals specifying extreme views - that's what I was trying to do. To outline and differentiate between run-of-the-mill political conspiracies and way-out views involving the Illuminati and Reptilians - do we agree on that? Lung salad (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No. The article is ultimately about the Bilderberg group. We are already being generous to allow a large section dedicated to Bilderberg conspiracy theories. We should not overburden this article with disgressive content. The only thing worth noting here is commonality: all these people, whether they are left-wing or right-wing, implicate the Bilderberg Group in a conspiracy to rule the world, which is not a “run-of-the-mill” political conspiracy since you seem to not realize that this mere suggestion is already “way out there”. --Loremaster (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia guidelines, you cannot restore disputed new content or substantial changes that has been reverted until the dispute is resolved. So let's try to avoid an edit war that could get the both of us in trouble. --Loremaster (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

'international network of conspiracy theorists'

I support the removal of the term 'international network of conspiracy theorists' from the article. While the term does appear verbatim in the Politico article, it was used here in combination with other passages from that same article to make stronger claims than are supported by that article. We cannot weld together innuendo from tongue-in-cheek articles into something more robust. We cannot produce content from content-free sources. - Crosbie 13:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is nothing more than your mischaracterization of a perfectly appropriate summarizing of content from a reliable source. And let's not forget that the real reason why you often object to this kind of content is because you dislike the very mention and discussion of Bilderberg conspiracy theories in this article out of a well-intentioned but misguided obscurantism. Ultimately, the real issue is that the only reason why Lung salad‎ (who seems to have a poor understanding of some Wikipedia guidelines) keeps wanting to remove the term 'international network of conspiracy theorists' from the article is because he believes that 'the conspiracy theorists do not necessarily know each other, therefore no "network"'. As I explained to him on his talk page:

I've restored the expression “an international network of conspiracy theorists” to the Bilderberg Group article because it is sourced to a 2009 Politico article. Furthermore, you seem unaware that many conspiracy theorists belong to offline and online social networks and participate in conventions such as Conspiracy Con. That being said, one thing you seem to not understand about Wikipedia is that your opinion or the truth doesn't matter. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

So all these objections have no merit. --Loremaster (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a revised response - The Politico Article uses material from the Prison Planet website that represents Bilderberg Conspiracy Theorists who embrace subject matters like Skull and Bones, Freemasonry and 9/11 cover-ups, as well as more sober Political conspiracy theories. So it's a mix between the more sober and the more eccentric on that website. Some of those theories belong to New World Order Conspiracy Theory and others to New World Order Politics - and Wikipedia has two seperate articles devoted to these two very different and very distinct subject matters - so generalisation on this subject matter is impossible. The definition of the sentence 'international network of conspiracy theorists' would require some clarification, bearing in mind the combination of different kinds of fish who swim in the Bilderberger Conspiracy Theory Pond. Conspiracy Con is a good example of how different these Bilderberger conspiracy theorists are - Most who subscribe to the Prison Planet website viewpoints are unlikely to want to be connected with beliefs involving Reptilians and the Illuminati. The Wikipedia article on the Illuminati does have entries for the various offshoot beliefs of that society and the same could be used for this article - it need not be longer than a couple of sentences, but clarification is important Lung salad (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that the mix of sober and eccentric conspiracy theories on the Prison Planet website proves that the line you seek to draw between sober and eccentric conspiracy theorists is hardly clear, I simply disagree with you that generalization on this subject matter is impossible since both the Politico article and Conspiracy theories section of the Wikipedia article on the Bilderberg Group have been able to do just that by arguing that, regardless of their differences or degree of extremism, all these conspiracy theorists believe the Bilderberg group is conspiring to impose a world governement. The fact some of them believe the forces that control the Bilderberg group are agents of the Illuminati while others believe they are reptilian overlords is not note-worthy in this article. So there is no need for any clarification with content that is superfluous, regardless of the number of sentences. If people want to know the differences between these conspiracy theorists and their respective theories, they can easily go to related articles on Wikipedia or do research online. Ultimately, even if we did add a clarification (which has to be based on content from a reliable source rather than simply your personal opinion), the expression 'international network of conspiracy theorists' will remain since it is from a reliable source (regardless of whether you think it is true). As for using the Illuminati article as an templace for your proposed changes, I would argue that the Bilderberg Group is an existing organization composed of living participants rather than some obscure brotherhood which ceased to exist centuries ago. We need to be careful to not overburden the Bilderberg Group article with content that is potentially defamatory, especially when they are the fringe views of paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe in the Illuminati or reptilians. --Loremaster (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest you read Daniel Pipes 2004 article, [Michael Barkun on] Old Conspiracies, New Beliefs. You might learn something about the erosion in the divisions between the two groups you are talking about... --Loremaster (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The various Bilderberg Group conspiracy theorists fall into several different categories, some of which are so different from each other it makes sweeping generalisations impossible, thus requiring clarification of the subject matter. The quote (that is never referenced on the Wikipedia article) "international network of conspiracy theorists" belongs to one context, related to the Prison Planet com website in a Politico article that uses that website as its sole source on the subject matter - it is not a quote relating to ALL Bilderberg Conspiracy theorists, events, radio shows, and conferences - the quote is a reference to one, only one, faction of conspiracy theorists. There is nothing wrong to include clarification, and these inclusions need not be more than a couple of sentences long Lung salad (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

1. All scholars and journalists who have studied and written on the subject of conspiracy theories have been able to make “sweeping generalizations”. The fact that we've been able to cite these generalisations from reliable sources in this article proves it.
2. Whatever clarification you want to add in this article must be based on content from a reliable source. For example, you need to a find a scholar or journalist that explicitly states that some of these conspiracy theorists are reasonable while others are paranoid cranks because you can't simply insert your opinion (regardless of how reasonable and true it may be) into the article.
3. The expression "international network of conspiracy theorists" has always been referenced to the Politico article [14].
4. The Politico article was not basing this expression solely on the existence of the Prison Planet website since it also discussed conspiracy radio talk shows and YouTube.
5. It is nothing more than your opinion that the Politico article is referring to only one faction of conspiracy theorists. Regardless, it isn't necessary for us to discuss what every single Bilderberg conspiracy theorist in the world believes. We simply go by what reliable sources tell us some or most Bilberberg conspiracy theorists believe or what all Bilderberg conspiracy theorists COMMONLY believe.
6. I repeat: Any clarification you want to add to this article, regardless of the number of sentences, must be based on content from reliable sources. If you don't understand and respect this principle, you have no business editing this article or any other Wikipedia article for that matter.

--Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad, it is serious violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines to delete the comments of other contributors on the talk page of an article simply because you don't like what they have to say ([15], [16]). If you do this again, you will be reported to Wikipedia administrators. Is this understood? --Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputes

The article has been protected as an alternative to looking at 3RR violations. There are other ways to resolve this, either an RfC and one of the notice boards, possibly WP:NOR. I don't think anyone wants more involvement by Administrators acting as Administrators. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it a bad thing to ask for clarification in Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia has devoted two seperate articles to New World Order (conspiracy theory) and New World Order (politics) and the Bilderberg Group conspiracy theorists fall into these two categories Lung salad (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lung salad, we can only resolve this dispute if you actually engaged my arguments on this issue instead of blindly repeating the same demand as if it hasn't been replied to in the section above. That being said, you need to find a reliable source (a notable mainstream scholar or journalist) who explicitly says that the more reasonable Bilderberg conspiracy theorists simply criticize it for being an unduly influential cabal in world power politics while the more extreme Bilderberg conspiracy theorists accuse it of being a tool of reptilian overlords or agents of the Illuminati who secretly rule the world otherwise such a clarification is nothing more than original research, which Wikipedia forbids. Do you understand and accept this? --Loremaster (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone here is trying to improve the article. It can be very hard to grasp the concept of original research, but Loremaster is right about the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Doug. For the record, I think Lung salad is well-intentioned but that he would benefit from spending some time familiarizing himself more with Wikipedia's guidelines before trying to improve this article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And there's no original research involved in reading the books by, and on, the various conspiracy theorists - whether political conspiracy or secret society conspiracy Lung salad (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually reading the books of various conspiracy theorists you selected out of the many that exist and writing statements in a Wikipedia article based solely on your interpretation of these books is the definition of original research! Our job as contributors is to 1) read the essays and books of notable maintream scholars and journalists who have, among other things, not only analyzed the books of conpiracy theorists (including many you have never heard of) but actually interviewed some of them, and 2) summarize their erudite opinions into easily-understandable statements. In other words, Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think because we are not experts on this topic and our interpretation could be way-off. Do you understand? --Loremaster (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned interpretations? Wikipedia doesn't care what you or I think because we are not experts in this topic and our interpretation could be way-off. Do you understand? Lung salad (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned “interpretations” because when you, for example, declare that the views of conspiracy theorist X are “run-of-the-mill” or “sober” while conspiracy theorist Y are “way-out-there” or “extreme” that's nothing more that your interpretation since we could easily find sources that interpret the views of conspiracy theorist X as loony and the views of conspiracy theorist Z as not so far from the truth. Get it? --Loremaster (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The same applies to your interpretations. Get it? Lung salad (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah but that's where you are wrong since I don't interpret anything. I simply report what reliable sources have to say on this topic. Unlike you, I don't inject my personal opinion (what I think the truth is) into the process. --Loremaster (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't contributed any POV into any article. Read David Icke and he's New World Order conspiracy theory and likewise read Daniel Estulin and he's New World Order political conspiracy. This is neutral fact, "not opinion" Lung salad (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And if I have used personal biased opinions that fall outside of guidelines in any contribution to any article you are more than welcome to point it out and to rectify it, I am open to improvement Lung salad (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1. You added your POV in the article when you described David Icke, Jim Marrs, John Coleman and Mark Dice has “extreme proponents” based solely on your reading of their books rather than basing such a description on a reliable source.
2. It is nothing more than your opinion rather than a neutral fact that Estulin is strictly a “politically disaffected” New Word Order conpiracy theorist as opposed to a “culturally suspicious” New Word Order conspiracy theorist (to use Michael Barkun's terminology [17]).
3. David Icke and Daniel Estulin are not considered reliable sources. Therefore, you need to find a reliable source that (critically) discusses the fringe views of Icke or Estulin before mentioning and describing either of them in any article.

--Loremaster (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Various reviews of Estulin's book exist online that can be added to Barkun's assessment, and Icke and Estulin are reliable sources as far as outlining their respective positions (NB - not reliable sources for the Bilderberg Group). And I used the term "extreme" because that is the word you used when stating that Barkun was "careful to specify who among them hold views that are more extreme" (above).Lung salad (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Reviews on Amazon.com are not considered reliable sources. So only reviews from notable mainstream writers are usable.
2. Wikipedia guidelines do not consider Icke or Estulin as reliable sources even for outlining their respective positions in an article that is not about them.
3. Although I did use term "extreme" when stating that Barkun was careful to specify which conspiracy theorists hold views that are more “extreme” than those held by others, I never stated that Barkun used that term nor that he identified Icke has holding “extreme” views. Therefore, you shouldn't have decided to use that term without first verifying what Barkun has said exactly.
4. By the way, how do you know for sure that Estulin is strictly a “politically disaffected” New Word Order conpiracy theorist? For example, although Estulin may have never mentioned the Illuminati or reptilians in his book, he could have confessed to having a belief in such things in an interview you have never read. Only a scholar or a journalist might have found that out. --Loremaster (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned Amazon? I suggest you read Estulin's book to find out that he is a political conspiracist. Lung salad (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we have to have reliable sources using the phrase to describe him. That's the way Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

'No' what Doug? User L.S. appears to be simply recommending reading for L-M. - Crosbie 09:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide the Wikipedia Guideline for that. I ask because here is a complete synopsis of Pierre Boulle's novel La Planète des singes that originated solely from Wikipedia editors - and here's Frazer's The Golden Bough. Thank you. Lung salad (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You might start with WP:BLP, we are stricter regarding reliability when we characterize living persons. Also see WP:OR--we're not allowed to make judgments regarding how to characterize someone based on our analysis of their work. What we require is that such characterizations be sourced to independent and reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I presume that references to contents within books can be made to present an author's position as long as it is made within an objective framework, it's on Wikipedia everywhere Lung salad (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that many Wikipedia articles violate some Wikipedia guidelines and therefore shouldn't be used as examples to validate a violation, references to contents within books can be made to present an author's position as long as the notability of this author has been established. Most conspiracy theorists only become notable when scholars and journalists mention them in their own books. In other words, just because some paranoid crank publishes a book to disseminate his Bilderberg conspiracy theory doesn't automatically mean that we can or should report his position in an encyclopedica article about the Bilderberg group otherwise this article would give undue weight and exposure to the most fringe of views out there. --Loremaster (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply reading David Estulin's book doesn't qualify me to judge whether or not he is a “political conspiracy theorist” even if it is obvious. Some right-wing critics accuse a dissident academic like Noam Chomsky of being a conspiracy theorist so we are dealing here with opinions not facts. Therefore, although we are free to think of some writer as a conspiracy theorist, we can only describe him as a conspiracy theorist in a Wikipedia when a mainstream scholar or journalist has described him as such. --Loremaster (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but to be clear, Lung Salad is correct in that we can use a primary source (the book written by Estulin) for any non-controversial claims about himself. So if, for example, he claims to be a conspiracy theorist, we can say that, per WP:SPS --Nuujinn (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. So the question for Lung salad is: Does Estulin describe himself stricly as a “political conspiracy theorist” (as opposed to a “culturally suspicious conspiracy theorist” like Icke)? That being asked, the real issue is that Lung salad wants to describe people like Icke as “extreme proponents” to differentiate them from people like Estulin. --Loremaster (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Estulin would ever describe himself as a political conspiracist since his claims appear to be based on his interest in Russian history and the mistrust of the West, and the Bilderberg Group appears to be the focus of his negative suspicions about the West. That being said, external evidence indicates that he is widely interpreted as a political conspiracist and his actions are tracked by those involved in the David Icke website. Apart from his books, there is this online article by him that appeared in 2004 edition of Mississippi Review [18]. And another online article by him here [19]Lung salad (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No one disputes that Estulin is a conspiracy theorist. The problem has always been your desire to describe some Bilderberg conspiracy theorists as “political” or “run-of-the-mill” or “sober” and other Bilderberg conspiracy theorists as “way-out-there” or “extreme”. Again, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly says that about them otherwise you cannot add such a clarification. By the way, I hope you know that, even if Estulin doesn't believe in the Illuminati or reptilians, he is not considered “run-of-the-mill” or “sober” by any serious scholar or journalist. --Loremaster (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Estulin is a political conspiracist, not a conspiracy theorist. There are two different articles on Wikipedia on these two different subject matters, and therefore describing these two different aspects does not constitute original research. Quoting material by, or about Daniel Estulin to describe him as a political conspiracist (using perhaps the Castro meeting as an example) as opposed to his being a conspiracy theorist would not constitute original research, any more than referencing an article about Erich Von Daniken to describe him as a proponent of ancient astronauts, and not being an archaeologist. Anyway, there is a lot of sanctioned and approved articles containing original research found in Wikipedia articles, despite guidelines (a different subject matter). Lung salad (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are aware of OR issues in other articles, by all means, go fix them. If we have sources that describe Estulin as a political conspiracist, we can call him such. But we cannot use that information to make a statement about Bilderberg or how Bilderberg is generally viewed, or even viewed by some, or even how Estulin himself views Bilderberg. If you want to contrast or categorize various Bilderberg conspiracy theorists, we need a source that does so. Linking statements from various sources to form a chain is synth. But I think we're too far off into theory, and need to talk about a particular statement. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Estulin's position relating to the Bilderberg Group cannot be too different from those living in Eastern Europe that have always been suspicious of the West, hence the reason for the Castro meeting, Castro would have found Estulin's book interesting from that perspective. Therefore Estulin cannot be described as another run-of-the-mill "conspiracy theorist". Estulin's works are politically orientated, not fantasy gobbledygook. He may be wrong, but let's not describe him as something he is not. Lung salad (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is is nothing more than your opinion that Estulin's views about the Bilderberg group are shared by many people living in Eastern Europe. The fact that Castro found Estulin's book interesting proves that he has become a senile old man since Estulin is an anti-Communist and their meeting has been denounced by a number of communist organizations (I suggest you read ‘Daniel Estulin and the phony ‘Bilderberg conspiracy). Estulin can and will be described as a conspiracy theorist if reliable sources describe him in such a way. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This notion that there is a difference between a “political conspiracist” and a “conspiracy theorist” is nothing more than your opinion but also a fuzzy distinction that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. A conspiracy theory is commonly defined as a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end. According to this definition, both Estulin and Icke are conspiracy theorists. Even if Estulin doesn't believe the Illuminati or the Antichrist or reptilians are behind the conspiracy he seeks to expose in his writings, it doesn't change the fact that he believes in, and promotes, a conspiratorial view of history rejected by mainstream historians. In other words, you really need to understand that a belief in the Illuminati or the Antichrist or reptilians secretly ruling the world is not a defining characteristic of a conspiracy theory. Simply believing that a group of powerful yet normal humans beings, such as the Bilderbergers, is conspiring to impose a totalitarian world governement is more than enough to be categorized as a conspiracy theory. By the way, the term you should be using instead of “political conspiracist” is “power structure researcher”. However, Estulin has never described himself or been described by any reliable source as a power structure researcher but he has been described as a conspiracy theorist by numerous reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest again that we talk about actual wording of statements editors wish to add to the article. There's no need for us to argue about "common" definitions or points of view. What we believe is not important. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I hear you but, at the same time, I know from experience that the reason why some editors continuously disrupt an article is because no one has ever taken time to explain to them some basic facts that help them understand the topic of the article to seek to edit... --Loremaster (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has two different articles on Political Conspiracy and Conspiracy Theory, because they are two different things. Some people refuse to address that distinction. And placing Estulin alongside Icke is like placing Daniken alongside Leaky. Here's another naff Wikipedia article. Oh well. Lung salad (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there are two different articles on political conspiracy and conspiracy theory doesn't change the fact that reliable sources describe Estulin as a conspiracy theorist as opposed to a notable mainstream journalist who has exposed an actual political conspiracy.

The Conspiracy theories section of the Bilderberg Group article does not currently place Estulin along side Icke (since any direct or indirect mention of Icke in this article was deleted). However, this section could do that IF reliable sources place them along side each other and, in fact, some reliable sources do. The fact that you personally think that Estulin and Icke should never be placed along side each DOES NOT MATTER. They only thing that matters is what reliable sources do and say. Do you understand?

--Loremaster (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You have just expressed a subjective opinion. Do you understand? Lung salad (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I am reporting facts and explaining to you Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter, which you seem to refuse to acknowledge. (Off-topic: In case you missed it from a conversation above, I suggest you read ‘Daniel Estulin and the phony ‘Bilderberg conspiracy). --Loremaster (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an opinion - Estulin is a conspiracist, he hasn't "exposed" anything. Lung salad (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that, according to reliable sources, “conspiracist” and “conspiracy theorist” are synonymous words. They are often used interchangeably. --Loremaster (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that, according to all the evidence, this encompasses a broad spectrum of players, and that generalisations obfuscate rather than enlighten. Lung salad (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If reliable sources are able and do make generalizations on this topic, we have to report them, regardless of whether it obfuscates or enlightens. Your attempts at clarification must also be based on content from reliable sources. That being said, there is no need for clarification if Icke is no longer mentioned in this article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One last thing about Estulin: Please read one of the sources we use in the article: That Bilderberg Book. --Loremaster (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Brainstorming

Where is brainstorming mentioned in the sources? I can't find it in any of the three given. - Crosbie 17:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that, as long as they are not loaded nor they cannot be easily minterpreted, not every word we use when paraphrasing content from a source needs to found verbatim in that content otherwise we could be accused of copyright violations, right?

That being said, here are the sources:

New Internationalist Magazine: “If thought of this way, then the role of a CFR as a place to try to hear new ideas and reach consensus is more readily understood, as is the function of a social club as a place that creates social cohesion.”

BBC News Magazine: “The agenda the group has is to bring together the political elites on both right and left, let them mix in relaxed, luxurious surroundings with business leaders, and let the ideas fizz.”

--Loremaster (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've undone Crosbie's edits and restored the previous version of the lead but, in the spirit of compromise, I've replaced the word 'brainstorm' with the sourced statement 'share ideas'. --Loremaster (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New dispute

Lung salad has decided to edit the article to put part of a sentence in quotation marks specifically "captured the interest of an international network of conspiracy theorists". Although there is nothing wrong with this, the problem is that he is being highly selective since almost the entire sentence could be put in quotations marks but, more importantly, the commentary he wrote in the reference tag is inappropriate:

Verbatim quote sourced from Bilderbergers excite conspiracists, an online article that used the Planet website as its source on this subject matter.

Beyond the fact that his commentary doesn't follow Wikipedian norm, he mentions the Planet website to imply that the article is not trust-worthy, which is ridiculous. Therefore, I've undone his edits. --Loremaster (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear: The notion that there is an international network of conspiracy theorists is not an opinion but a statement of fact. Furthermore, this statement of fact doesn't come from the Prison Planet website. It comes a Politico article, which mentions Prison Planet as an example of a popular conspiracy theory website (which is part of that network) and uses it a source for comments from a conspiracist perspective. So let's not get confused here. --Loremaster (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, so we attribute it to politico. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK but I think it is better to attribute to Politico journalist Kenneth P. Vogel. --Loremaster (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a style issue, but I've been told it is best to do that unless the journalist is notable (in the WP sense). Which makes sense to me, people who are interested can read the footnote which names the journalist (ideally). --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche and Bilderberg conspiracism

We need a reliable source (the book of a scholar or an article by a journalist) which discusses Lyndon LaRouche and/or the LaRouche movement as dissimenators of Bilderberg conspiracy theories. As anyone come across any? --Loremaster (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added one. King is an expert on the Larouche cult, with one of the few books that exclusively covers it. Nevard (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. :) However, are Dennis King and his watchdog website considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines? --Loremaster (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed your commentary in the ref tag to effect that King is journalist who wrote a piece on LaRouche for the Manhattan weekly Our Town in 1979. Not bad but I think we need an article published in a national newspaper. --Loremaster (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

King is an expert on the subject of the LaRouche cult, having written what I believe is the only independent book on the subject. From looking at their websites, it certainly doesn't look like they've dropped their fixation on the Bilderberg group in more recent times. Nevard (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an extraordinary claim. We don't need especially high-quality sources to show that LaRouche has spread a conspiracy theory. Our Town is sufficient. However I've found another source, below.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I searched in Proquest and found this:

• The Trilateral Commission, like its precursor, the Europe-based Bilderberg group,... One of the TC's main critics is the Marxist-turned-whacked out right wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche, who claimed the TC conspired to assassinate leaders of his American Labor Party.
  • The Trilateral Commission The elite think-tank inspires many a conspiracy theory Rafael Tammariello. Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Jun 27, 1993. pg. 1.c

That isn't quite saying that LaRouche has a conspiracy theory about Bilderberg. On Google I found this:

• But people like Jones, Jesse Ventura, Phyllis Schlafley and all-purpose wingnut Lyndon LaRouche have been convinced that the so-called New World Order is being flow-charted at these annual meetings.[20]
  • The Bilderbergs. News. Roger Gray, Reporter/Anchor. June 10, 2011 ketknbc.com

That seems closer, and is probably sufficient for this article.   Will Beback  talk  08:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New content in the Participants section

Sklar claims

The reference to the Sklar book has no page number and so is effectively unverifiable. - Crosbie 13:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's from page 172 of the book. Lung salad (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! - Crosbie 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This need to be updated to indicate that the frustrations and upset felt were felt over thirty years ago! Right now it reads like these concerns are current. - Crosbie 14:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Sklar's from 1999, and I don't have. Can you provide a summary or quote? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Originally published 1980: [21] - Crosbie 15:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Here [22] Lung salad (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's from the chapter "Bilderberg and the West" by Peter Thompson, comments by Holly Sklar in a footnote Lung salad (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first a general thing. When we reference, we say where we got it. For example, if the Moorehead quote was originally found in Sklar's footnote to Thompson's article, it should have been referenced there. The reference is pointed to a 1999 edition of Sklar's work, does anyone have access to that?

In regard to the dates, Moorehead establishes the concern in 1977, and Sklar reiterates it in 1980 in the footnote. If there is a 1999 revision edition that keeps that same data, it carries to 1999. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong. Even clicking on the 'Look Inside!' like on Amazon, it can be seen from the title page the date is 1980. - Crosbie 17:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It was my intention to update the Sklar sentence to indicate the frustrations of the Western elites were felt since the 1950s while Moorehead indicates that these frustrations were still felt in 1977 but I got distracted by my disputes with Lung salad and then the article was blocked. That being said, as Nuujinn explained, Sklar's use of the present tense seems to imply that these frustrations are still felt today. --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, this claim does not belong in the 'Participants' section. - Crosbie 17:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree since it explains the mindset that guides the Bilderberg participant selection process. --Loremaster (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Moorehead quotes

The material taken from the Moorehead article is a mess. It starts 'Caroline Moorehead observes' but then includes quotes from attendees. So these are not observations from Moorehead. Also, we shouldn't have the words 'And more revealingly'. We don't need Mooreheads's commentary on the quotation. Also, the quotes themselves add almost nothing to the article. They are not attributed to anyone. - Crosbie

Do you have access to the source? I can't find it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's available on the Times digital archive. - Crosbie 13:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Got a link? NY Times? Washington Times? Sunday Times? Irish Times? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Times of London. I'll try to get a link, but I'm not sure they make it easy. - Crosbie 14:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They don't but I have it now. The quote is accurate for what that's worth. The paragraph in which it appears is about the exclusivity of the membership, that it is "no accident or coincidence that 95 per cent of those that attend are from what is loosely termed 'the establishment'", and that failures to broaden membership have failed. One or more bilderbergers is quoted, claiming the only way to attract the powerful is with the powerful and that including representatives from the 3rd world would turn them into a mini UN. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence "No invitation go out to representatives of the developing countries" is actually Moorehead's observation. Regardless, you need to explain why we don't need Moorehead's commentary. Just because you say so isn't good enough. As for your opinion that the quotes themselves add almost nothing to the article, I strongly disagree. The quotes reveal the elitist and imperialist (if not racist) mindset that guides the Bilderberg participant selection process but also its anti-U.N. position (which would surprise many right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe both the Bilderberg group and the UN are involved in a New World Order conspiracy). The fact that these quotes are attributed to anonymous Bilberbergers is obviously not a valid reason to exclude them from this article. The only that matters is that they are reported by a reliable journalist. --Loremaster (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Moorehead is quoted, and part of what she quotes are quotes. All usable under our guidelines. Have any of you all read the entire article by Moorehead? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it. I took the entire Moorehead sentence from Sklar's book. --Loremaster (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't pass the entire thing to you since that's verboten by my library, but I'll try to work in some of the material and can answer questions about it, pass some quotes on. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant page , indicating why the Bilderberg Group is actually functional, is readily available on Google Books. Nevard (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Google can be capricious, that page is blocked from preview to me. Can you pass along some of the relevant bits? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, linked the wrong page. This is the right one. Nevard (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Same same, I've seen this before, not all books show the same bits to different users. If you think it's a good source, I might be able to get it from the library. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Length

Claims of political conspiracy

The 'Claims of political conspiracy' section is growing absurdly long again. - Crosbie 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree because, unlike the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Bilderberg group is mostly discussed by journalists and scholars in the context of refuting or confirming conspiracy theories. It is therefore logical that a section on conspiracy theories in this article could and would be long. --Loremaster (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've change the format of quotes in the article since the previous one contributed to making the section look longer. --Loremaster (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Logan Act

I'm looking for any reliable sources which mention the possibility that US attendees of these meetings could be in violation of the Logan Act. This is apparently an issue being mentioned on talk radio or blogs. I searched the Proquest newspaper archive and all I found were a couple of letters to the editor. It's possible that mainstream reporters haven't taken up the story because no one has ever been convicted of violating the act since it was passed in 1799, and because it isn't clear what sort of negotiating is going on. A webpage belonging to John Birch Society publication has an article about it,[23] but they are a fringe group and not a suitable source. Can anyone find anything that would meet WP:V?   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Copying from my talk page: Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube videos I posted in the references in which I heard this speculation; I put the times at which it was mentioned in each one. There actually was another, second mention in one of the videos which I had been meaning to add the time for as well. Were you looking for a more mainstream media source? They are reporters for the Alex Jones channel, which I know lies on the conspiracy side of things, but I did, after all, post it under the "conspiracy theories" heading...besides, we aren't talking about whether it's a verified fact that the attending American politicians are violating the Logan Act, rather we are talking about whether or not there is speculation of this (and it was pointed out that this speculation held little weight, and why this is so). Thus, any source whom is speculating seems to me a reliable one, whether they are mainstream media or not, because the question is whether there is speculation or not. But what do you think, are they too out there? Psychonaut25 4:34 PM EST, 22 June 2011

Thanks for posting here. I understand where you're coming from. But people like Alex Jones speculate about a bunch of things every day, and their mere speculations don't belong in a serious encyclopedia. If these speculations become significant enough that they're mentioned by other people then we'd have the sources necessary for coverage. In other words, for this speculation to be notable someone else has to have noted it.   Will Beback  talk  21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Psychonaut25, those Internet videos cannot be used as references and the Alex Jones channel is a not a reliable source of information even to support conspiracy claims. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's three core content policies: "No original research", "Neutral point of view", and "Verifiability". --Loremaster (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(to Loremaster) Wait, seriously? I can understand if you don't consider Alex Jones a reliable source of information (even under a "Conspiracy Theory" heading), not to say I entirely agree with the decision. But that's irrelevant; YouTube videos seriously can't be used as references?! What if the YouTube video meets all three core content requirements (which I am already familiar with; the information I edited the Bilderberg page with met all three; it wasn't original research, it was verifiable in & of itself, and it was of a neutral point of view because I had stated that the claims did not hold much weight, but were just claims). But in any case, many people use YouTube videos as references because they'll contain, for instance an interview with somebody famous...if the article is on that very famous person, how is using a YouTube video with an interview from that very person not meeting the three requirements?. I realize this no longer applies to this article, but you caught my attention. Many, many people here on Wikipedia use YouTube videos as their references; but that's because they work. They are verifiable (that isn't to say any old video would do); if I'm editing the page for, say, Bill Gates, and it says Bill Gates believes/claims such & such to be true...and I go to YouTube and see an interview with Bill Gates where he states that he in fact does not believe such & such to be true but in fact claims the opposite...isn't that verifiable information which needs to be edited (and referenced as such)? Psychonaut25 8:55 PM EST, 28 June 2011

Youtube is tricky. Take your example, an interview with Bill Gates, and let's say the PBS did the interview. PBS would hold the copyright, and unless they posted it to youtube, we couldn't like to it since it might violate copyright. And if we don't know who did the interview, we can't really verify it. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn, so just because we can't verify who did the interview, all content in said interview (even if we're talking about all content stated by the "Bill Gates" and none of what the interviewer themself said) by the person being interviewed is null & void for purposes of Wikipedia? Also, would this rule not apply if the video were uploaded by the organization/corporation who filmed & produced the program themselves (rather than by a third-party)?

Psychonaut25 9:28 PM EST, 28 June 2011

According to Wikipedia guidelines, “audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source”. However, the Alex Jones channel obviously doesn't fall in this category. --Loremaster (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster, what do you mean "obviously"? I don't see how he doesn't fall into that category, except perhaps being not a "reliable" source...and I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't like Alex Jones myself, nor his show, nor much of anything else to do with him really. But his YouTube channel was basically the only source of steady information regarding the 2011 Bilderberg meeting, which is a topic I do pay attention to as much as I can. In the absence of any other material, Alex Jones was really the only source I had (He is not the most reliable of sources, but I certainly wouldn't consider him "unreliable," especially not under a heading titled Conspiracy Theories...). In any case, I'm not sure I understand your statement. How is he "obviously" not in that category? Psychonaut25 9:30 PM EST, 28 June 2011

Alex Jones is systematically dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist by an overwhelming majority of mainstream scholars and journalists. He doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wikipedia, therefore, doesn't consider him nor his radio show, videos and websites as reliable sources of information. By the way, someone providing us with the only source of steady information regarding an event doesn't guarantee that the information is provided in a fair and accurate manner. In Jones' case, it never is because his virulently anti-Bilderbeg bias taints his reporting of the facts. P.S. You don't need to internal-link the name of the people you are talking to. --Loremaster (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster just to annoy you (obviously I don't have to). Of course he's a conspiracy theorist, the heading was called Conspiracy Claims. In any case, the claim didn't come from him anyway, it just happened to be on his YouTube channel. Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether or not he is "anti-Bilderberg" because, first of all, probably anybody in their right mind is pretty "anti-Bilderberg" anyway, but furthermore I had made the statement quite neutral by stating that the claims held little weight and why they held such little weight. However, it is still noteworthy that such claims were made, particularly under the Conspiracy heading, and people reading Wikipedia should have access to that information. Psychonaut25 11:53 PM EST, 28 June 2011

P.S. Ya don't need to be a dick about it (also P.S. means post-script, not prior-to)

We cannot directly quote the conspiracy claims of an unreliable source like Alex Jones even in a section about conspiracy claims. It is better to quote a journalist or scholar who discussed conspiracy claims made by Jones and his ilk. Why? To avoid arbitrarily giving undue weight and exposure to the most fringe of views out there. --Loremaster (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what scholar or journalist is going to discuss Alex Jones, let alone any conspiracy claims? Claiming that U.S. elected officials attending Bilderberg meetings is a violation of the Logan Act is not a "fringe view," let alone the "most of fringe views out there" (while most of Alex Jones's claims are pretty fringe ideas, this particular one is not; in fact, as I stated before, it wasn't even Jones himself making this claim, but rather just some people who were uploaded to his YouTube channel and/or loosely affiliated with him). While it may not be entirely true, it is not an unreasonable thing to be speculating about. I'm not demanding that you change it dude, but that is kind of a ridiculous policy. Whilst you seem far more uptight than most of the moderators on here, I think most people would admit that Wikipedia's verifiability standards are pretty uptight and sometimes downright unreasonable. You can't use a YouTube video as a reference even if that video features an interview with the subject of an article? Unless the video is uploaded by the same company who filmed/produced it? I mean, it's pretty much impossible to fake an entire interview using CGI or something...YouTube videos should be perfectly reasonable to use as a source. I am finished arguing here, I will simply take this up with the people running the site. But I don't see why you need to be so much more uptight than any of the other moderators, whom, mind you, did agree that this claim (about the Logan Act) should be included in the article, just not in the way which I had worded it. Psychonaut25 1:06 AM EST, June 29 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

1. Several journalists and scholars have discussed Alex Jones and his conspiracy theories in articles, essays and books (which can be found online through a Google search). However, until one of these journalists and/or scholars specifically mention that Alex Jones or one his associates is convinced that U.S. elected officials attending Bilderberg meetings is a violation of the Logan Act, we simply cannot report such a view in an encyclopedic article (especially not in its lead section).
2. The term “fringe view” doesn't necessarily mean “kooky”, it simply means that it isn't a view held or, at the very least, discussed by most mainstream journalists and scholars.
3. The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. There is no evidence that any “negotiations” are occuring at Bilderberg meetings. It's simply people hearing lectures and debating issues. This is probably the reason why the speculation of conspiracy theorists on this matter is not taken seriously.
4. Please provides us a link the talk page where Wikipedia administrators/moderators agree with you that claims about the Logan Act by conspiracy theorists should be included in this article.

That being said, I'm just a regular Wikipedia contributor. I don't make or change Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding reliable sources. I just follow them. If you can't understand, accept and follow the rules, go start a blog to report the speculation you think is so important for the world to know. --Loremaster (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry that was unreasonable and ignorant of me. However I wasn't arguing to change the policies, I was arguing that not allowing YouTube video references is a misinterpretation of the policy. Also it is relatively obvious that negotiations go on there every year; the issue is whether the government officials who make them are authorized to do so (which, it appears, they are...so yeah I was wrong there). Although I do stand by my original interpretation of the three guidelines. Psychonaut25 4:55 PM EST, 29 June 2011

Apologies accepted but you are still confused: As I clearly explained earlier, according to Wikipedia guidelines, “audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source”. However, the Alex Jones channel is not considered a reputable third-party, regardless of the fact that he may be the only source of steady information on some event.

That being said, regardless of whether they are authorized or not, there is no evidence that “negociations” taking place at Bilderberg meetings are done with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of some foreign government, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States. Regardless, if you are now aware of information that confirms that U.S. government officials were and are authorized to attend Bilderberg meetings, all of this becomes a non-issue not worth mentioning in this article unless a journalist or a scholar reports that conspiracy theorists are obsessed with this non-issue.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

New section suggestion: Role

I think we need a new section that focuses on the role of the Bildeberger group, which has evolved over the years since its foundation. This would greatly help demystify what they are up to. For example, most right-wing conspiracy theorists (who are convinced Bildebergers are crypt-communists) are ignorant of the fact that the May 1956 Bilderberg meeting devoted itself to the causes of the growth of anti-Western blocs, particularly in the United Nations, and countering the Communist campaign for political subversion and control of the newly anticipated countries of Asia. --Loremaster (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The second edition of McConnachie's book Rough Guide To Conspiracy Theories seems to have dropped references to reptilians and refers to the more sober interpretation of the conspiracies involving the Bilderberg Group Lung salad (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We would not be discussing Bilderberg conspiracy theories in the Role section but what mainstream scholars and journalists like Holly Sklar think the actual role is based on their study of the group. --Loremaster (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that Lung salad (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote Peter Thompson's essay The Bilderberg and the West:

Bilderberg itself is not an executive agency. However, when Bilderberg participants reach a form of consensus about what is to be done, they have at their disposal powerful transnational and national instruments for bringing about what it is they want to come to pass. That their consensus design is not always achieved is a reflection of the strength of competing resisting forces-outside the ruling capitalist class and within it. Bilderberg is not the only means of Western collective management of the world order; it is part of an increasingly dense system of transnational coordination. The foreign policies of nation-states, particularly economic and monetary policies, have always been a highly elitist matter. Policy options are proposed, reviewed, and executed within the context of a broad bipartisan consensus that is painstakingly managed by very small circles of public and private elites. Democratic interference in foreign policy is avoided, in so far as possible, throughout the Western capitalist democracies. Where necessary, a consensus is engineered on issues which must get congressional/parliamentary approval, but wherever possible executive agreements between governments are used to avoid the democratic process altogether.

How do we best intergrate it? --Loremaster (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)