This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Secret Societies (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Secret SocietiesWikipedia:WikiProject Secret SocietiesTemplate:WikiProject Secret SocietiesSecret Societies

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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[1]. Andreas von Rétyi if even more fringe, see this author's book list here: [2]. I've raised these at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The questionable references (Wisnewski, Retyi) are still there. I'm sure we can find a better source for that, for example parts of this: [3]. 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)[reply]

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, [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I no longer have any reason to doubt that that is their official website, and I see the media is saying it is, eg [5] and [6]. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think we need a new section that focuses on the agenda 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7].
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)[reply]

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 ([8], [9]). If you do this again, you will be reported to Wikipedia administrators. Is this understood? --Loremaster (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [10]).
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [11]. And another online article by him here [12]Lung salad (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Originally published 1980: [13] - Crosbie 15:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here [14] Lung salad (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The lead is also over-long. We can cut the part: 'to better promote Atlantic free-market capitalism and its interests around the globe'. - Crosbie 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on both counts: 1) The current version of the lead is a conscise yet comprehensive summary of the article; and 2) in light of all the mystery surrounding the Bilderberg group which feeds conspiracy theories, this line helps demystify what the group is about. --Loremaster (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does explain how it actually has a purpose, unlike the $14b third-world talking shop. Nevard (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is sourced, I've removed the term “free-market” to make the sentence slightly shorter. --Loremaster (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[15]
  • 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)[reply]

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,[16] 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)[reply]

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

Hey, I posted in the references the YouTube videos in which I heard this speculation, and I put the times at which it was mentioned in each one. There actually was another mention in one of the videos which I had been meaning to add. Were you looking for a more mainstream media source? I dunno I guess I figured speculation is speculation...

User:Psychonaut25 3:36 PM EST, 22 June 2011

Oh my, I didn't realize my little message had actually been seen my anybody before I had decided to remove it hahaha. Apologies for coming off so harshly. Anyway, I am a stickler about grammar myself and I agree, I did not quite like the way I had worded it...and although I usually somehow manage to grammatically perfect everything I type, I was unable to do so in this case; let me post the paragraph here, and you tell me what you think needs to be changed, or simply re-post the paragraph the way you think it should be worded, if you don't mind. Thanks (also you must forgive me, I am relatively new to communicating with other members on Wikipedia...that is not to say I am new to the site, but mostly I either do research or edit little facts here and there, I haven't done much talking so bear with me I guess if I make a mistake or am unfamiliar with site etiquette, thanks)

One of the main issues surrounding the group (particularly in conspiracy circles) is that it has been speculated by some^[1][2] that for American elected officials and politicians to attend Bilderberg meetings is a violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments, and that their attending is thus treason against the United States (their interpretation of the Act being that it prohibits any citizen from secretly meeting/negotiating with politicians of foreign governments). However, these claims do not hold much weight, due to the ambiguity and broad nature of the text of the Act. Also, many would argue that the very nature of being an elected official qualifies one as an "authorized citizen" under the Act. There is no record of any convictions, or even prosecutions, under the Logan Act.^[3] "

Any ideas?

User:Psychonaut25 7:13 AM EST, 22 June 2011