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 B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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

How about adding a list of attendees every year section? Or even better, giving it it's own page with a link to it on the bottom of this one?--Hodeken (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have something like that at List of Bilderberg participants and the group has its own website with that information. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could have found that one out without much dedication, sorry for wasting your time, thanks for the quick answer! :) Added a link to the page under "See Also". --Hodeken (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that myself, no worries. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit which I reverted, the BBC reference does indeed state:

Meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while an opposition MP

Source: BBC reference

So, the line in the article Meetings are closed to the public and often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. is indeed an accurate reflection of what the source says. However, I do think it needs to be reparaphrased because it is nearly a verbatim line from the source and we should do better to avoid WP:COPYVIO. Perhaps Meetings are closed to the public and are often attended by future political leaders before they gain popularity, such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. or something of the like would be better? John Shandy` • talk 18:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the sentence because it was making a large claim based on an assumption. The 1991 bilderburg meeting had several US governors and senators attending which is often the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants#United_States . Clinton was already prominent in 1991 and I think it is speculative to attribute his popularity to bilderburg without further evidence. Clintons name recognition remained the same when comparing polls before and after bilderburg http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/a-brief-history-of-primary-polling-part-ii/ in 1991. It is clear that was only after the primary field narrowed that Clintons name recognition jumped, which is very difficult to attribute to bilderburg. A similar story can be told of Tony Blair, but the assumption is even larger, his attendance as a full 4 years before becoming the prime minister of the UK. British MPs are a fixture at these meetings and it may be a coincidence that powerful MPs/governors/senators later rise to higher prominence.

Unless another source can be found which can show bliderburg influence on rises to prominence, I think my edit should be used because it doesn't rely on speculation or assumptions. Perhaps the assumed connection could be moved to lower sections of the article and elaborated on?

Searine (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Searine. 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. --Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, that really isn't a strong enough source to be in the lead. I'm with Searine here. Two people a long time ago do not a summer make. Nor is a sidebar. I don't even think 'often' is accurate. Yes, verifiability is the threshold, but we don't have to say things that are wrong just because one magazine said them. This definitely doesn't belong in the lead and I don't think it belongs anywhere without something verifiable that actually has more evidence. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to reconcile Searine's edit summary with the fact that the reference does indeed say what he removed. His talk page response clarifies his edit for me now. So it's a question of adequate reliable sources rather than what a particular source says. I haven't combed through the majority of the references this article uses, so I'm indifferent for now, but if others deem that the source is too weak on its own to support that statement in the article or be heavily relied on in the lead, then I understand. Happy new year to all, by the way. John Shandy` • talk 22:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think the source is good enough and that the claim should remain in the lead. --Loremaster (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem including this information is another part of the article, because both the persons did attend at least one meeting. However, as Doughweller said, attributing their success to bilderburg doesn't belong in the lead because it is in the least an assumption with no evidence from the BBC authors besides his opinion. If it agreeable I could shift the statement about Clinton and Blair to the Participants section and revert the lead to my original change. Searine (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loremaster, please read WP:LEAD. The nutshell version is "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." It carries on to say "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

If we had a paragraph or section with several sources making the point, then the lead could include it. But we don't, and it shouldn't. Find some more sources if you think you can, without that it's just something in a magazine article (and perhaps not even added by the author of the article but by an editor). Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence doesn't attribute the success of politicians to Bilderberg. That is nothing more than Searine's misinterpretation. We could have a debate about what is fact and what is opinion but there are no rules that prevent opinion that is sourced (to a mainstream news organization) from being in the lead of an article or any other section. That being said, I have no problem including a sentence somewhere in the body of the article that discusses this note-worthy claim to justify it's presence in the lead. I will work on this in the coming days. This nonsensical dispute has to stop. --Loremaster (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Searine and Dougweller (I think) - the examples provided are interesting and should be probably be noted in the body of the article, but their importantance should not be overstated by putting the information in the lead. Dougweller's point that a couple examples is not 'often' and that we don't have to repeat a news sources exaggeration is well-put. II | (t - c) 08:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]