Talk:Bilderberg Meeting/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Criticism

The last two points are not criticisms. I don't know how this fits into NPOV. Should criticism section contain rebuttals?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That looks better now you have deleted the Davignon and Healey quotes. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly there should be rebuttals, otherwise NPOV will be violated. That section should be retitled to conspiracy theories. II | (t - c) 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether NPOV requires rebuttals to every reported opinion, half the existing material was a quote from Chip Berlet who spends his time attempting to debunk conspiracy theories. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you comment on my post? Only when I edited the article did you comment and revert. Isn't this the purpose of the discussion page?

You wrote: "That looks better now you have deleted the Davignon and Healey quotes." Are you being sarcastic? Please be straightforward.

If two sides are to be presented in a criticism section, then shouldn't the section be entitled 'editorial' or 'commentary'? (I'm joking, of course. My point is, how can a criticism section be so entitled while containing rebuttals?)

Plus:

I'm not seeing two sides to these criticism sections:
Bank_for_International_Settlements#Criticism
World_Bank#Criticism
International_Monetary_Fund#Criticism
North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Criticism_and_controversies

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see. You've changed the section title to 'Conspiracy theories'. Hmmm. Kind of demeans the content. Also, there are differences between the two. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

AF - I'm not sure who your comments are directed too. Just to clarify, User:ImperfectlyInformed reverted your edit and changed the title. I was not being sarcastic. I think it is a good idea to remove the last two points. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The last two quotes are not really substantive, I'll admit, and so don't really add much. But I seriously don't think we can have a pure criticism section and use that as justification for removing balancing opinions. The criticism section was, as far as I could tell, about conspiracy theories, so I retitled it. I didn't intend for it to demean the content; however, where possible criticism sections could be avoided. I think this is one of those places. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise though. We could perhaps retitle the section "Secrecy". II | (t - c) 22:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments were directed to whomever put back the criticism bits I removed. I think, if they are still there, I will remove them again. They contain, as Chomsky would say, 'no valuable information'. They are as valuable as a liar stating he does not lie.

I agree with your distaste of criticism sections. I support the renaming of the section to 'Secrecy' or the like. I am not nuts about the term 'conspiracy theory', because the media seems to have mindwashed the public into perceiving the users of the term as 'crazies'. It sounds 'tabloid' and as such is not might not be NPOV. (This is ironic considering conspiracies exist in all circles of power, and the perpetrators get caught all the time - so it's no myth.) --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted unsourced, POV entry.

The entry is as follows:

Since many Bilderberg Group attendees were U.S. politicians when they attended, their attending of the Bilderberg Group meetings is in fact felonious by the Logan Act. This has sparked a great deal of controversy, especially in the alternative media, although this fact is not well known.

I really couldn't think of any way to dissect the heavy POV from this without it becoming meaningless. Specifically, my reasons for deleting this are:

• That the attendance of the conference by sitting politicians is felonious is a legal argument. Not only is the argument not explained, it is presented as fact.
• Several assertions that are either not cited ("...has sparked a great deal of controversy...") or unsupportable ("...this fact is not well known.").
• Weasel words, in this context, specifically "in fact" and "great deal."
• "alternative media" is not defined, even with an internal link. The article with this title describes a large variety of media and the term is not descriptive in this context.
• Stylistically, it's a sudden shift. The passage appeared to be added as an afterthought, having its own paragraph and possessing a different tone from the rest of the section.

Please let me know if anyone finds this edit objectionable. If the argument presented here is widely represented, then it should be in the article, but not presented as fact.--Thusled (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The text was reinserted with a reference to www.infowarscom/articles/nwo/bilderberg_perry_violation_of_logan_act.htm PrisonPlanet]. Several problems:

• PrisonPlanet is not a valid source.
• The article in question speculates that attendance may contravene the act, but does not provide conclusive evidence.
• The text retained the other problems outlined above regarding vagueness and stylistic problems.

I have therefore removed it. --Hot jalapeno (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Couple articles on the Logan Act connection:

• Bilderberg Group Meets, Protesters Charge Conspiracy Epoch Times - attributes it to Alex Jones.
• Largest gathering of wealth and power ever assembled on American soil off-limits to American media California Chronicle -- says the question should be raised in the media. Are these reliable? II | (t - c) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• No. The first one attributes it to Jones, and the California Chronical says that the writers are solely responsible for the content.

“ This website and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content. In addition, the views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the American Chronicle or its affiliates. All services and information provided on this website are provided as general information only. Any medical advice, home remedies and all other medical information on this website should not be treated as a substitute for the medical advice of your own doctor. We not responsible for any diagnosis of treatment made by anyone based on any of the content of this website. Always consult your own doctor if you are in any way concerned about your health. ”

• — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If the view becomes popular among conspiracy theorists like Jones, then perhaps it can be noted in the conspiracy theories section, but only while making it clear that it is a conspiracy theory. However, it seems that the view is currently fringe even among conspiracy theorists. Though I wouldn't consider it an absolute metric of relevance, a quick Google search for <"logan act" bilderberg> shows about 12,200 results compared to about 445,000 for <911 "false flag">. I hope this illustrates what I mean by relevance: I don't ask for evidence because I'm used to Jones offering none, just that it is a widely discussed concept.--Thusled (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Change "Theories" section back to "Conspiracy Theories."

It looks like this has been a contentious issue in this article, so rather than just making the edit, let's discuss it. I'm of the opinion that the "Theories" section should be once again named "Conspiracy Theories," mainly because that is how other articles with more prominent conspiracy theories (i.e. September 11 Attacks and John F. Kennedy assassination) handle the issue. It is also more clear, as the average reader may not understand why a gathering of business men would involve theories and may assume the group discusses economic theory or something.

I realize the term often has a pejorative connotation, but even though I am decidedly not a conspiracy theorist I assure you I do not intend any insult by this change. The fact is that the "Theories" section currently involves only conspiracy theories (that is, theories involving the cooperation of a group to gain at another's expense without the other knowing, though in the case of conspiracy theories themselves the scale is massive) and as such the current title is not descriptive. In fact, I find it to be deliberately misleading and deceptive.

If no one objects, I will make the change within three days.--Thusled (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

First, it seems that no criticisms of the Bilderberg Group have been allowed to appear in this article unless labeled as "conspiracy theories". There are plenty of publicly aired criticisms that cannot fairly be labeled as such, but apparently no discussion of them is to be allowed here. Further, it is irresponsible to classify something as a "conspiracy theory" unless it is verifiable that it is such. By common understanding, a "conspiracy theory" is not merely a theory that postulates a nefarious conspiracy, but one that has no objective grounding. Personally, I am not a fan of anti-Bilderberg "conspiracy theories", but the presentation here is biased, not only with respect to the examples mentioned but in the way that all criticism of Bilderberg is excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Every attempt to remove the obvious bias from this section has been censored. How can I get onto the Bilderberg payroll? I could use some cash.85.197.218.34 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The word conspiracy did not materialize from someone's paranoid mind, we have the word because there is such a thing as a conspiracy. The bias against the credibility of a theory labeled that of a conspiracy has become commonplace in the minds of Americans and other English speakers, and consequently has entered the American and other English speaking vernaculars as such. Therefore I believe that it is decidedly biased to refer to a theory as one of conspiracy in this neutral context of factual documentation.(Greg Sweet (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

Wikileaks

I'm not convinced that it's notable, but it's certainly not a reliable source for anything other than its own existance. It's a Wiki, after all. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is well sourced material there, it could be added to the article. The relevant Wikileaks page could be added as an external link. The fact the Wikileaks has material about the Bilderberg group is not in itself relevant to the Bilderberg group article. I have removed the section. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the link to Wikileaks to 'External links' - Crosbiesmith (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant to mention the reports int he main text. If it is with a separated section or together with the main text, it should be included as it is a prove that the meetings had resulted in changes in diplomacy and foreign policies. Echofloripa (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the mention of the reports at the main section. I added also the news about the guardian journalist. I think we should have a separated article for each meeting, what about that? There are loads of sources about each meeting, including the reports leaked at wikileaks. Echofloripa (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikileaks material you added is about Wikileaks, not about the Bilderberg Group. It tells us nothing about the Bilderberg group, just that Wikileaks has information about the Bilderberg Group. This material is appropriate to the Wikileaks article, not to the Bilderberg article. It does not belong in the Bilderberg article lead. The material you added does not prove that meetings resulted in changes in diplomacy and foreign policies. It does not even mention these things. Likewise, the material about Charlie Skelton tells us something about Charlie Skelton. It tells us nothing about the Bilderberg Group. I am removing all of it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks is not, of itself, a reliable source. It deals with primary material, with the hope that secondary sourcing will be forthcoming as journalists and investigators pick up what's available there. And an absolutely shameless plug: I've converted the entirety of the 1980 Bad Aachen conference pdf to wikitext, available here: [1]. Some analysis is on the talk page; more would be great (I was born after 1980, so no context there from me). Xavexgoem (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Who funds the current meetings?

Are there any sources that reveal who funds the meetings? It would be interesting as there is, in many contries, laws about what kind of private 'offerings' a politician in office can accept. Nunamiut (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone please look into this and provide references. - mike 68.28.105.226 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not notable

Dougweller removed the following bit from the reactios in section with the comment "(Lots of people send letters and write about it in their blogs. Not notable.)" :

Harry van Bommel, a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, sent a letter asking questions regarding the participation of members of the Dutch government and royalty on these meetings.

How a member of the parliament asking questions to the representatives is not notable? You removed this same bit twice already for different reasons.What's going on? This is really important, it's one of the few notable reactions. Can you explain why? 194.74.151.201 (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

by the way, can[2] be used as reference for a 2008 meeting?

Also your reasons for dismissing Daniel Estulin are nonsense. "tiny extremist press that asks for money from authors before publishing)". Rea search a little bit, he is very respected researcher and writer and his work has being recognized everywhere. 194.74.151.201 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources about Bommel are WP:Reliable sources, although the article about Bommel could quote his blog if it made clear that it was just stating what Bommel claimed. Why can't sources from the Dutch press be found? In any case, his call for an Intifada and his intention to attend the Auschwitz commemoration earlier this year show once again the sort of people that seem to feature so often in publicity about Bilderberg. Estulin's work is indeed recognised by other conspiracy theorists, but that's more or less it. Here's a link to his publisher [3] - tiny, extremist, and fringe seems to cover it. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are various TV programmes in Holland that covered the event. Here for example:[4]. His views against the genocide commited by Israel against the Palestines or the Intifada do not have any importance here. Why can't sources from the Dutch press be found? probably the same reason of the blackout media coverage about the Bilderberg as a whole. The point is there are sources about it on the Dutch TV: [5] and [6]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that a blackout would stop coverage in the Dutch parliament. Surely everything there is public and published in official reports? The views of any objectors to Bilderberg are clearly relevant to our understanding of Bilderberg, but I still maintain that looking at the very large numbers of meetings there have been, this is a trivial occurrence. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources

What sources are contentious please? I've just replaced one said to be SPS which was published by a reputable publisher. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reputable or not, we're dealing with authorised biography, the reference you've reinstalled violets WP:SPS and the fact that you may call upon it as some form of third party publication doesn't help us one bit. We will not find verifiable and reliable source that will allow us to state their purpose, we should say that their agenda is not publicly known. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There may be cases when an authorised biography violates SPS, but not in this case where it is being used to describe the formation of the Bilderberg group. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Formation is one thing, purpose another. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We should remove everything about purpose from 'Origin and purpose' section and state it is unknown, I will do it, unless you can provide a valid reason not to. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't unknown, it's described there as " the aim of promoting understanding between the cultures" of etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting Self-published source, we have a policy about it and we had a longish case about it. I will place appropriate warnings until we resolve this issue. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How does an authorized biography voilate WP:SPS?... a self published source is one that is written and published by the subject ... this does not seem to be the case with the source in question. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources (online and paper) TheFourFreedoms (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A biography being authorized does not make it self published. Neither Alden Hatch nor Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands are Harrap, so that policy is completely irrelevant.John Z (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite... some of what Harrap publishes is Self-published (they are a specialist publishing house that is especially noted for publishing memoirs and autobiographies). That said, an "authorized biography" is not the same as a memoir or an autobiography. Your typical authorized biography may have the subject's approval (or that of his family) and cooperation, but it is not "self-published" as we here at Wikipedia mean that term... the work is not authored by the subject, nor is he paying for for its publication. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources

A chapter on Retinger in Hugh Wilford, The CIA, the British Left and the Cold War: Calling the Tune?, London: Frank Cass 2003

two articles by Valérie Aubourg on the early years of the Bilderberg Group: Valérie Aubourg, “Organizing Atlanticism: The Bilderberg Group and the Atlantic Institute, 1952–1963”, in: Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam (eds.), The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, London: Frank Cass, 2003, pp. 92–105 and Valérie Aubourg, “Le groupe de Bilderberg et l’intégration européenne jusqu’au milieu des années 1960. Une influence complexe”, in: Michel Dumoulin (ed.), Réseaux économiques et construction européenne. Economic Networks and European Integration, Brussels: PIE Peter Lang, 2004, pp. 411- 430. The first article was also published in Intelligence and National Security, 1743-9019, Volume 18, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 92 – 105. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this is remarkable violation, we're using original Retinger's words in that section, basically it is a quote, it's eerie, who place that there? We're violating WP:OR and WP:SPS, heavily. I'd suggest we reinstate tags and bring more people and opinions in here. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Who placed what where? Are you saying that the biography actually reflects Retinger accurately? Interesting find though, we could in fact probably use that so long as we attribute it correctly. An article with 27 citations is an unusual one to tag the way you have, by the way. I'm removing your tags, you still have not made a case for anything self-published. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've brought the issue up here [7] Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Biography is authorised, therefore it is hardly acceptable, I will not engage in the edit warring with you or break any rules. I'd suggest you reinstate tags until we resolve this issue. Our section about purpose is excerpt of Retinger's self-published notes, could you kindly explain how is that acceptable or how can we use self-published source to improve factual accuracy of this article? The references already provided in the article dispute any reliable and verifiable 'knowledge about purpose' and this is not only contradiction in the article. We should take one step at the time though. I appreciate your move to seek third opinion, however I'd kindly suggest you restrain from unnecessary and unfounded allegations such as you've made at RSN. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like to AGF, but the fact is you do not appear to be a new editor and you do appear to be an SPA. Do you want to be a bit more transparent about your edits and let us know if you've had other accounts? Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've been here for what? Three days... pray tell, what sort of transparency do you seek, what is the single purpose of my account and what difference does it make? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Three days and you know about tags, a 'longish case', etc? Ok, I shouldn't have bothered asking. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You should have not, yet you did. Scientology case was all over the news and news said it was the longest ArbCom in history of Wiki, although I'd bet there are longer ones. Either way, your approach to the new account is… symptomatic, and I don't like it, but if you must, you must. Please hold no grudge for such remark, ok? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And that had nothing to do with authorised biographies, but with conflict of interest. 3 days doesn't seem enough for you to know much about our policies/guidelines and the Scientology case (although where in the news does it talk about authorised biographies?). Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it relevant... Can we ditch animosity, if there is any? Do tell, do you think we can use the Retinger's notes from August 1956 meeting? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Retinger file taken from? If we can cite its 'published' source, then yes, I think.Martinlc (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

'Document was housed by Dynbase, a subscription only biographical, genealogical, and organizational database, which became defunct in 2006.' It is already linked in the article via WikiLeaks reference. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So there is no way of establishing its authenticity. That's nwhy primary sources are so often problematic.Martinlc (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Trivial

It can be trivial for you, but this meeting was supposedly to not even exist. Calling everything as fringe, crook or tin-foil-hat will not help you here either. Please with reasoning, trying to dismiss the meeting as fringe illusionary won't make it less important. "(trivial, 'dozens' is hardly anything, all international meetings have some sort of fringe opposition, often much bigger than this". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course the meeting was supposed to exist, what in the world are you talking about? The existence of the meeting is no secret, even who attends is no secret. The meeting is not "fringe illusionary". Nor is it an attempt to take over the world. A tiny protest is trivial. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

David Rockefeller, today's honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group said to attendees of 1991 meeting held near Munich, Germany that 'the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries'. In his autobiography 'Memoires' he wrote that he is proud of 'one world' agenda. Bilderberg strikes again.

This is taken from the references already provided in the article, the intention is to add this info at the end of the section about origin and add purpose to the paragraph title. Since fellow editors may consider alternate wording or feel the need to water down this particular formulation I've placed it here so it may be 'peer reviewed'. Please share your thoughts, thanks. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

While the article itself is about Bilderberg, the quote does not mention Bilderberg, nor does the author claim the quote is about Bilderberg. He merely attributes it to Rockefeller. The source does not support the assertion that this statement was made to attendees of a Bilderberg conference. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked the reference? It has date and location attributed to the statement in question. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But the reference goes on to say that this quote is unattributable, and therefore may be fictional, innaccurate or out of context. The most it could be used for is a statement like "According to X, Y said that..."Martinlc (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's one more source to give a bit of structure and reliable sources to this article, that has been attacked day after day, removing things here and there, making it close to useless. Apparently there are too many people ensuring this article gets as crappy as possible.Echofloripa (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see why it seems to be going in the wrong direction, but there is a good reason. The Group has chosen to make little known about itself, and those who are convince it is part of a conspiracy have not made their case sufficiently strongly to be reported by reputable third-party sources. Inevitably, the result is that a properly-referenced NPOV wikipedia article is going to be brief and vague. Trying to gather a lot of unreliable, fringe or out-of-context sources in the hope that this will add up to a coherent and objective statement is wihful thinking.Martinlc (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that TheFourFreedoms has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he hasn't He has.Martinlc (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg 2009 page

Hi, regarding the Bilderberg 2009 page, which was just deleted, there were the same number of opinions for both side. The page was deleted without merging it to the main article, which was the initial proposal. I would ask politely for it to be reversed, as there were no discussion of the subject, only empty statements, which were all replied. If some people here think that delapidating the bilderberg pages will put it on obscurity, Iḿ sorry, but the truth will prevail.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_Bilderberg_Meeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.236 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search for truth. The decision was taken on policy/guideline grounds, it is not a vote. There was nothing in the article that isn't or hasn't been in this one except an unsourced and to me pointless list of people supposedly scheduled to attend. I see you've asked the deleting Admin anyway. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, what about a truth that is well sourced? policy/guideline grounds???? I answered all raised points why it should be removed. It was never replied. There was no discussion, there was no consensus. A lot of well sourced information was available there, that now is lost, well, almost. For whoever wants to see what was on there and to judge: * The discussion page for deletion of the 2009 meeting page in Greece: discussion page for deletion * The guy that deleted talk page * This was the original page: Echofloripa (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to appeal for reviewing of the deletion of the 2009 page. Anyone with more experience on this type of dispute and willing to have the article back wanting to help me?Echofloripa (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I've reported it here to XLinkBot [9]. Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Grim Predictions.

MINA (Macedonian international news agency) has stated the following prediction by Daniel Estulin even worse, a new US report on these secret Bilderberg meetings states: “Investigative journalist Daniel Estulin, whose information from inside Bilderberg has routinely proven accurate, states that the global elite’s plan to completely destroy the economy and ultimately lower global population by two thirds has stoked fears even within Bilderberg itself that the fallout from such chaos could ultimately result in the globalists losing their control over the world.” I hope the above prediction is not true :( but due to the fact that he is routinely right I am afraid it might be). The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) http://macedoniaonline.eu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=6807The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it, the article is by one 'Sorcha Faal ', not Estulin. It's rumour by someone suspected of hoaxes. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

publicintelligence.net

If it is RS enough to use about people i the List article, then obviously we can use it to describe the group, right? It says:

"What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern cspecially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. Tn short, Bildcrberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can bc expressed and mutual understanding enhanced, Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference." Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of group?

The article does not address why the Bilderberg group exists. Can someone with knowledge on the subject add this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.225 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

They get together and talk about whatever it is rich people talk about.Falcon8765 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it pretty obvious they exist to discuss important world issues. Last year they discussed "a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran". They don't have an official statement of purpose, so we can't put one in. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

it's about everything u can imagine, it's not about hiding stuff it's about talking about the world's problems and how we together can solve them. Markthemac (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

people should never stop talking, as that's how wars get started (avoiding general ignorance). Markthemac (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The porpose of the group is to mantain and gather control, over politics, organizations, corporations and media.Echofloripa (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Prove it. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to argue what the purpose is. I've commented above already about the issue. Unless they make a new statement or perhaps someone writes a reliable book about them, I don't see how we can get further with this. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the last events that the group has influenced the choice of the president of the EU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, where do the sources say that? It looks from the sources as though he was trying to influence the other people at the dinner. I'm not sure that the bit about Green Tax has any business in this article just because it was mentioned by a speaker at a dinner organised by Bilderberg. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This may not be a forum for an argument but i would like to see some evidence. I would like to see sources from a reliable book or website or even a press release ;) that says ,

"Last year they discussed "a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus2010 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Separated page for each meeting

It is clearly very important to hold a separated page for each meeting. The 2009 meeting was removed in a very totalitarian way, without even giving me a chance to get the very important content it had into the main page. This main page became a ridiculous bunch of mocking about the subject. It should clearly be re-written, with a focused approached. There is more attention on showing how fringe it is and the "conspiracy theory" than actually getting to the point, showing the documents that leaked and other sources.Echofloripa (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to release documents or synthesise sources. It is an encyclopedia that reflects what other published, secondary sources say about a topic. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted through the AfD process. There was no important content about the meeting, only about some minor events (in the context of events like G8, etc) and some small fringe protests. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"There was no important content about the meeting, only about some minor events (in the context of events like G8, etc) and some small fringe protests." That is your own opinion. For some people those were really important information, like putting f15 jets and the whole coast guard to protect the area, besides the guardian and other journalists being arrested and followed by the police. It seems you trying to twist what is important and what is not. You can't compare that with G8, in the light that the bilderberg are kept secret by the media itself, so obviously it won't have that much coverage. afD or not it took 2 days, and didn't give opportunity for anyone to give their opinion. How can we have all the x-factor and all trivial tv shows having their own per season page and the most important meeting in the world, done secretivelly, given no importance, this is absurd. I urge other people to give their opinion here to get the page back. We shouldn't let someone with a extremist view about the subjet to hijack this extremelly important article and turning it a bunch of litter.Echofloripa (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your last sentence. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally on board with preventing people with extremist views from hijacking any article. Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

So why you are trying to do that dear Dougweller?

Ok if 4 people think that having separated pages for each meeting isn't a good idea. However, we shouldn't allow important information to be lost because of that. I would like the text that was removed from the 2009 page so that I could add part of it to the main page.

Statement by italian minister

I added two other reliable sources, and italian and a Dutch newspaper. Echofloripa (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

But a section heading 'group influence' needs to have some very reliable sources discussing group influence. Otherwise it's just an editor's opinion. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Security

I think the way the lead describes the security arrangements may be misleading, in that it suggests that this is somehow unusual for a meeting including some of the world's leading political figures. So far as I know, all meetings of this kind have high security, and the type depends upon the country where the meeting takes place. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the security is very very relevant, as we are talking about a meeting that almost no main stream media refuses to cover whatsoever. The security during the Greece meeting was the highest ever seen. Another reason to have a separated article for each meeting, as it would be possible to detail the type of security for each one.Echofloripa (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the type of security and level of security is going to vary according to the attitudes of the country providing that security. Any country hosting a meeting with such high level attendees is going to provide the best security they can provide, so you will be hard pushed to say that this is particularly different from for instance the security provided for a G8 meeting (miles of new fencing, etc). Secrecy is a different issue. Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the bit about the Greek security from the lead. There is nothing unusual about the amount of security given to this meeting - virtually all meetings with this level of attendance, particularly heads of state, have similar security. The G8 meeting in Italy last year had "2,500 men from Italy's armed forces, and will use Predator drone aircraft, a NATO spy plane and a Hawk missile battery," "F16, Eurofighter and MB339 fighter jets, and HH3F helicopters equipped with radar capable of pinpointing targets at very low altitudes", a field hospital, etc. It's the privacy of this meeting that is unusual. Which raises another issue about the use of the word 'secrecy' versus 'privacy'. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura Program

I believe it is relevant to include on this page a reference to the Jesse Ventura's Episode 5 of the program "conspiracy theory", that covers very well the Bilderberg Group. See the playlist here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, the website says " you'll find out how both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are involved. Their current alleged sinister plot is to dramatically thin out the world's population. Ventura and his team will reveal the cunning methods, involving disease and vaccinations, The Bilderberg Group may use to enact their "soft kill" plan." So no would be the answer, serious BLP violations in that. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever was claimed on the show has to be mentioned in the article under the Conspiracy Theories section. It is another conspiracy theory and although whoever removed my edit probably doesn't like that theory, it's yet another theory presented in a TV show that was produced by a former governor, a show with high viewing ratings (highest ever in TruTV). Even if the claims of the episode are totally flase, that's what the show claimed within the scope of a conspiracy theory, and therefore my paragraph should be resored in that section. John Hyams (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a BLP issue. See [10]. Join in that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have stated my view over there and I call for others to participate. My reservation regarding "BLP issue": the Bilderberg is a group, it has no collective personal biography, some of the members may be more involved and some may be less involved, some of its members are dead, some are just occasionally invited, so I don't quite understand why this discussion is done on a BLP page and not here on this page. John Hyams (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As per the BLP discussion ([11]), I am suggesting the following text to be included in the Conspiracy Theories section, or on a separate page for Bilderberg-related conspiracies (I prefer to have it on a separate page):

In an episode of the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura TV series (TruTV), the Bilderberg group was accused of masterminding a mass (worldwide) sterilization and foodborne disease program via food additives (such as Aspartame) and water fluoridation. The episode also claimed that the group planned a world depopulation program via alleged long-term effects ("soft kill") of the H1N1 vaccine. The episode, first aired in December 2009, stated that the reason for these sinister plans is the Bilderbeg group's desire to have less people on the planet so that their utopic future could be achieved, as written on the Georgia Guidestones. John Hyams (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the discussion at the BLP board, involving 2 editors who opposed an inclusion like this (one of them me), and you, who want it, can be seen as suggesting something like that is ok. So still no. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* It's already bad enough that Americans are drowning in conspiracy theories. The last thing we needed is Jesse Ventura using his celebrity as a former wrestler and action movie star and his credibility as a former state governor to not only give credence to all this paranoia but further contaminate a new audience with it through a cable TV series... That being said, I'm not opposed to a very brief mention that the Bilderberg Group is accused of a population control conspiracy but we don't need to go into more details than than. --Loremaster (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, which of the living people are the ones that are supposedly going to carry out this population control, clearly it must be some living members? Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's going to be included, I'd like to see who specifically was making the claims. Overall, I don't see how the accusations are notable. If it's just from the JV show, that's not enough to me. Show me why this claim, from this source, is notable. Ravensfire (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, it is possible to mention just the fact that the episode dealt with the group, without presenting the accusations if they are not pointed specifically as you say. John Hyams (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, notability. Just the fact that someone mentioned the group isn't enough to merit adding it to the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I think it is unacceptable to associate such outrageous claims to living people. Furthermore, I agree with Ravensfire. If we are going to associate such claims to people, we need more reliable sources that the JV show... --Loremaster (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps,..to make myself clear, it is because of this that I strongly disagree with inserting this content. Off2riorob (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. My apologies. --Loremaster (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This content is not any different than what is already summarized here (living people included): List of conspiracy theories. Again I do support the creation of a separate page for the Bilderberg-related conspiracy theories, and I related to the fork issue on the BLP discussion page. John Hyams (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To see just how bad this program is, take a look at [12] and some of the reviews of his other programs. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Domhoff quote

The Domhoff quote is only tangentially about Bilderberg. It's about Domhoff's view of the relationship between progressives and Republicans. I will remove this shortly. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, not specifically about this group. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As the person who put that quote there (and who has interviewed him), I can tell you that the quote is not tangential. He was specifically responding to the problem of progressives embracing conspiracy theories about the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and the Bohemian Grove (which are three groups that conspiracy theories always lump together). --Loremaster (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take your word for that then, it goes a bit over my head but if you say it is of value then I will accept that, it is not controversial. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All the quote tells us is that Domhoff believes that the Bilderberg group is not an opponent of progressives. It is a long quote which tells us little or nothing about the Bilderberg group. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the source of the quote to better understand it: Interview: G. William Domhoff --Loremaster (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The interview tells us that Domhoff believes that the Bilderberg group is not an opponent of progressives. It tells us nothing more about the Bilderberg group. Unless there is an objection that there is additional information here about the Bilderberg group, I will remove this quote from the article. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It tells us that the Bilderberg group is nothing more than a social club that exists to create social cohesion for different factions within the power elite and that even members of this elite only see it as being nothing more than that. In other words, members of the Bilderberg Group don't think of it as being the “shadow government” conspiracy theorists speculate it is because even Bilderbergers know who really rules the world: multinational corporations. So get ready for an edit war because I will restore this quote every time you try to delete it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it going? Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Loremaster (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you ask, your threat to edit war. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was joking to make a point. --Loremaster (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Domhoff's 'social clubs' includes the Bilderberg group and therefore, as you say, he sees the Bilderberg group as a place that creates social cohesion. The quote is overlong and is not specifically or primarily about the Bilderberg group. It would be better to paraphrase the relevant points, or find a more specific quote. I do not intend to remove the quote until this can be done. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By social clubs, Domhoff is refering specifically to the Bilgerberg Group and the Bohemian Grove because those are the two social clubs conspiracy theorists focus on the most. I don't think the quote is overlong but I wouldn't opposed to a paraphrasing of relevant points or finding a more specific quote. However, I disagree with the argument that the quote is not about the Bildergroup Group since it is clearly about the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Bohemian Grove. That being said, I support quote being moved the way you did. --Loremaster (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This quote tells us a little about Domhoff's views of groups such as Bilderberg. As it tells us nothing about any Bilderberg conspiracy theories, it does not belong in this section. As it tells us nothing specific about Bilderberg other than Domhoff's personal view of the organisation, it does not belong in this article. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs in the Domhoff article. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be your opinion. I've already explained to you why it is relevant so I'm not sure what more I can say. However, I will say this: I will revert any attempt to delete this quote. --Loremaster (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained what this quote tells us about Bilderberg conspiracy theories. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have but you are either too obtuse or biased to understand so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself. By the way, why are you obsessed with this quote? --Loremaster (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of Crosbiesmith's paraphrasing of the Domhoff quote and my improvements, I consider this dispute resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Removed With Dispute Unsettled

The headline speaks for itself. 85.197.218.34 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, you didn't provide any time to settle the dispute before adding the tag. Where you believe an article to be POV, I suggest the following procedure:

• Raise your concerns on the talk page, as you have done
• Suggest specific improvements to the article
• Leave time for other editors to respond to your concerns, or to make improvements to the article
• If you are still unsatisfied, counter-respond to other editors
• Again, leave time for other editors to respond or make improvements
• If you are still unsatisfied, tag the article as POV

If you tag an article without first raising your concerns, there cannot be said to be a dispute as it is likely that no-one else is even aware of your position, let alone disputes it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 09:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now voiced my concerns. Anything perceived as reflecting negatively on the Bilderberg Group is removed, even if it is relevant and verifiable information. Explicit criticisms of Bilderberg are either not mentioned or are classified as "conspiracy theories" without their credentials being examined. Attempts at improvement are deleted without response or comment. I have now stated my dissatisfactions clearly and leave time for others to respond or make improvements. As it is, I am highly dissatisfied with the completeness or objectivity of this article.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.218.34 (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't specific enough. Look at WP:NPOV - what part of our policy there isn't being followed? It is very clear that there are conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg Group, do you want to discuss your attempt to change that? Or you addiiton of the claim " and the fact that it edits out relevant information from sources such as the Wikipedia,"? Or your addition of unrelated facts about Bernhard (which I've commented on above)? Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"What part of our policy isn't ... being followed?" - Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. ...Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. - Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view, and for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. - Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." - Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality. - Some words carry non-neutral implications. Is more needed?85.197.218.34 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't lose your time. If you have a strong argument, they'll just ignore everything that you say and pretend that theres's no criticism toward Bilderberg Group going on anywhere in the world. If you prove yourself to be right, they'll try to attack your credibility. This is probably the most pathetic and laughable article on the subject of all Wikipedia projects and the behavior of some administrators here is a shame. One just needs to read this page to see what's really going on here. Trully disgusting. Dornicke (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest specific changes you'd like to be made to the article, and remain civil. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the point? All suggestions are ignored. Just read this page to see that. Dornicke (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think so, why bother editing the talk page at all then? There hasn't been any discussion on article content for two months, feel free to suggest specific changes with reliable sourcing and I will edit them in myself. Falcon8765 (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not in the mood to look for sources to be treated later as a crazy conspiracy believer or being attacked by administrators pretending to be civil. So, I'll just repeat that:

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

This has been said by a user (IP 85.197.218.34) on 19 April 2010. This pretty much resumes all the problems with this article. And I entirely agree with him. Dornicke (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The whole argument that the terminology 'conspiracy theory' has negative connotations has been discussed at extreme length on dozens of pages. I'm not sure of the outcome but I think the consensus was that the term itself isn't biased. WP:FRINGE deals with it as well. I think the fact of the matter is that Bilderberg 'conspiracies' are indeed fringe, and should be treated in the way outlined in the fringe policy. If the New York Times ran an article about their nefarious goings on, I'd be inlined to think that it was a mainstream view, but it appears that reliable sourcing for that point of view doesn't exist as far as I can tell. If I'm wrong feel free to let me know. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material

I removed the following ' These conspiracy theorists generally speculate that the Bilderberg Group, in association with many other secretive organizations, works towards the creation of a "New World Order" in the form of bureaucratic collectivist one-world government', sourced to Barkun, Michael (2003). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press; 1 edition. p. 60-61. ISBN 0520238052.. [13]. These pages deal only with the writings of Milton Cooper, not any of the previously named individuals, nor anybody else. Furthermore, the referenced pages do not say anything about 'bureaucratic collectivist one-world government'. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How to?

How can I contact an executive officer in the Bilburg Group?

This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the Bilderberg Group article. --Loremaster (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Participants of Members of government

In the middle of the article is says: "...While serving members of government do not usually attend, prominent politicians from North America and Europe are past attendees. In recent years, board members from many large publicly-traded corporations have attended, including IBM, Xerox, Royal Dutch Shell, Nokia and Daimler.[12]" We see all the prime ministers and presidents having participated, like Blair, Bill Clinton, both Bush, and in this year, Matti Vanhanen, , prime-minister of Finland, Jyrki Katainen (Minister of Finance of Finland), Papathanasiou, Prime minister of Greece, among several others. Also, big public-traded corporations have been participating since its formation.[14] [15] [16]

Removal the legality of meetings section

Can we please discuss this here before going ahead and removing whole sections? The reason given was "dl - anything can be questioned, so what? And as we have a list of attendees,suggesting they are breaking the law without better sources probably breaches WP:BLP)". We are suggesting that there is a law that clearly states it's a crime for a member of the government to meet privately to foreign private corporations. The law is sourced, member of parliament are only asking for an investigation. In which way it can be considered WP:BLP(Biographies of living persons)?? Sorry you can't just go and delete the whole section. I will rephrase that then to make sure there is no direct judgement. 194.74.151.201 (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

here is the original text:

• Legality of the Meetings

The legality of such meetings can be questioned according to the United States law. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. In his website, Congressman Ron Paul says: "Are U.S. officials violating the 'Logan Act' if they attend the current Bilderberg meeting in Athens? Would the 'Freedom of Information Act' give reporters/citizens access to flights or cost associated with attending? Thereby proving any U.S official presence?"

I agree. I've just tried to rewrite the section to better show that it is a US Congressman raising this point rather than a general accusation that wiki editors/just some guy on a blog have put out there. 78.86.76.37 (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And you think it needs to be in the article twice because? Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Did this Congressman raise it in Congress, the appropriate place if he's serious? Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to have it duplicated. What I did now was get your re-written version under the reactions section. Let me know if you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, nice work. Having the reactions section will be useful to allow any future events to be slotted in there rather than new sections created every time. 78.86.76.37 (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a congressman, it's some guy on some conspiracy forum. Please be careful. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if the Logan Act wasn't the embarassing constitutional joke that it is (a single indictment, over two centuries ago, despite many clear breaches of the law), there is no case to answer because the Bildeberg Group is not a government, does not represent a government, and its attendees attend as private citizens, not on behalf of their government. The purpose of Logan is to prohibit US citizens from interfering in disputes between the US and other governments without the authority of the US government. US citizens do not attend in order to negotiate anything with anyone on behalf of anyone. Logan does not ban US citizens from meeting foreigners to discuss things as private individuals or as experts in their field, no matter how much the US' far right would want it to do so. 86.7.211.128 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)