Talk:Bilderberg Meeting/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

European Union

I was listening to a radio show that contested that the European Union was founded (because of and) following the 1955 meeting and that this was confirmed in their own (Bilderberger's) documents. I tried pretty hard to find some verifiable sources for this and only came up with the Wikileaks place as being the site that 'housed' the supposed documents that 'verified the info' (which then generated many many reports on alternative media and blog sites). I couldn't find any mainstream news reporting that 'wikileaks had leaked docs that prove the EU is a Bilderberg plot'. The current 'conspiracies' section doesn't mention this surprisingly large but apparently very current notion of what 'they' have conspired to. It's an interesting enough notion that it merits includsion if reliable sources turn up to verify.--86.6.187.246 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Although we should have a comprehensive section dealing with Bilderberg conspiracy theories in this article, we should be always careful to avoid having this article overburdened with every Bilderberg conspiracy theory that has ever been expressed by a paranoid crank and making the Conspiracy theories section article too lengthy. That being said, you might want to check scholarly sources instead of journalistic ones to find what you are looking for. --Loremaster (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theories' overlong

The section of conspiracy theories is absurdly overlong. We get the opinions of Kenneth P. Vogel, Chip Berlet, William Domhoff, and James McConnachie on the subject of conspiracy theories. This is an article about the Bilderberg conference, not conspiracies about the Bilderberg conference. Conspiracies deserve a mention, no more. Three paragraphs, *tops*, I'd say. - Crosbie 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, looks fine to me. Other areas could use expansion, I'd suggest focussing on that. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. As I've already explained to Crosbie (in a debate that was archived), unlike the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Bilderberg group is mostly discussed by journalists and scholars in the context of refuting or confirming Bilberberg conspiracy theories. It is therefore logical that a section on conspiracy theories in this article could and would be long but I would resist an attempt to expand the current version of Conspiracy theories section. I think the solution is to expand other sections of the article to avoid the Conspiracy theories section looking disproportionately large since these sections should be expanded anyway even if the Conspiracy theories section was short or non-existent. That being said, it would be appreciated if Crosbie discussed changes to this section on this talk page to seek a consensus before making them in order to avoid a needless edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Moorehead

I've restored it, I think it's relevant and have access to the article in question. We can talk about phrasing, but it's a quote, and thus not copyvio, and I do not think the current representation is plagiarism. The article is pretty long and I could add addition material from it if that is desired. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn. When editors delete content because they think it is not relevant they need to convincingly explain why it is not relevant. Simply saying “it's not relevant” is not enough. --Loremaster (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I expanded the section a bit with a couple of additional quotes from Moorehead, feel free to recast (I'm using quotes since the article is not readily available). --Nuujinn (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! :) --Loremaster (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

'We are grateful' quote

The Rockefeller quote beginning 'We are grateful..' is sourced to the Hilaire du Berrier Report. This as far as I can tell was a self-published newsletter and I don't believe it is a reliable source. I understand the du Berrier source references Minute, but in that case we should reference Minute directly and skip the du Berrier report entirely. Furthermore, this should only be done by someone who has actually read the original Minute report, not just read about it somewhere. Given we are dealing with the reported actions of a living person, this should be removed at least until a solid reference can be found. - Crosbie 10:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe Dougweller took care of it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

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)

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)

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

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)

Crosbie, since I'm opposed to your removing that (arguably important) sentence from the lead, please seek consensus before deleting it again to avoid a needless edit war... --Loremaster (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced the contested sentence entirely with one based on content from Peter Thompson’s essay "Bilderberg and the West". --Loremaster (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Crosbie, in light of a dispute, it would be appreciated if you discussed changes to the lead on this talk page to seek a consensus before making them in order to avoid a needless edit war. That being said, I don't understand why you feel so strongly that the current version of the lead section is “over-long”, when it doesn't violate the guidelines in Wikipedia's manual of style concerning lead sections. Furthermore, in light of your bias, one would think you would appreciate current the last sentence of the lead section since it counters conspiracy theories and explains exactly what the Bilderberg group does in the least controversial manner. --Loremaster (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead now leans heavily on the opinion of one Peter Thompson. It's not obvious that he is in fact a critic of Bilderberg conspiracy theories. - Crosbie 18:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it's not obvious, I would argue that he is. Thompson wrote: "There is certainly room for disagreement about the role of the Bilderberg meetings in the flow of events since its founding in 1954. In my view, Bilderberg is neither a world super-government; nor is it merely a club where incidental shoptalk takes place, as some portray it." We all know that it is conspiracy theorists who portray the Bilderberg group as a “world super-government”. That being said, I will simply replace the expression “Critic of Bilderberg conspiracy theories” with “Scholars”. Do you approve of this change and does it resolve this dispute? --Loremaster (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I feel uneasy about using stuff 3 decades old in this way. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless current scholarship contradicts claims made by older scholarship that's not a problem. --Loremaster (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is we know nothing at all about Peter Thompson except that he identified with something called the 'London Collective' at some time during or before 1980. That's it. We know nothing else about him. - Crosbie 20:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have this 2005 quote from Etienne Davignon talking to the BBC, saying "What can come out of our meetings is that it is wrong not to try to deal with a problem. But a real consensus, an action plan containing points 1, 2 and 3? The answer is no. People are much too sensible to believe they can do that" [1] So despite the meeting chairman in 2005 explicitly denying that Bilderberg is about concensus, we lead with the 1980 view of one Peter Thompson of the 'London Collective' that Bilderberg is about reaching consensus. Total undue weight. - Crosbie 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe we are required to know much about Thompson, can you reference a policy or guideline? I have added some material from the Moorehead article to balance things a bit, but I also suggest that we consider taking the second paragraph in the lede and create of it a section, perhaps "Purpose", directly below the lede. Then we can expand that as we find sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside that I don't understand Crosbie's obsession with constantly scrutizing every sentence of this article to find something to complain about, his argument is absurd. Just because the leader of a group says something about the group doesn't mean that it's true nor does it mean that we should not report what critics (whether they be notable mainstream scholars/journalists or notable paranoid conspiracy theorists) say about the group. According to his logic, just because a Ku Klux Klan leader claims that there has never been and there is no discussion of engaging in acts of intimidation or violence against blacks and Jews at any KKK meeting, we should not report allegations by critics that they do.

Regarding the date of a criticism, virtually nothing has changed in the way the Bilderberg group operates or the way it is viewed by critics since 1980 or 1977 or 1954 so the criticism is still valid.

Regarding Thompson, Nuujinn is right. We are not required to know much about him. The fact that his essay was published in a reliable source is more than enough.

As for Nuujinn's addition of content to add some balance, I have no problem with that and I obviously support the idea of creating a “Purpose” section.

--Loremaster (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Nuujinn's new sentence beginning 'Such claims have been rejected..', which provides balance to the conspiracy accusations material. If we keep this, and lose the Thompson-sourced 'Some scholars..' sentence, the lead will be okay. - Crosbie 09:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to losing the Thompson-sourced sentence. --Loremaster (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead has been shortened by moving the second paragraph into the new Role section of the article. --Loremaster (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories - being specific

I suggest a general principle when we talk of people's views. If we say that some group of people hold a particular belief, it should always be possible for the reader to identify a particular person or organization who holds that belief. So if, for example, we say that 'conspiracists' believe that Bilderberg is a meeting ground for 'international Jewry', then it should be possible for the reader to identify a particular person or organisation who actually believes that. Otherwise, this is not a statement of fact but a suggestion that 'conspiracist = racist anti-semite'. Just because the papers do it doesn't mean we should. We can take facts from reliable sources, we we shouldn't take smears or innuendo from anywhere. - Crosbie 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What policy or guideline supports that principle? And it should be no surprise to anyone that some conspiracy theorists believe that 'international Jewry' are trying to take over the world, as absurd and offensive as that notion is. See, for example, The_International_Jew. That this accusation is leveled against the Bilderberg group is pretty well documented, see [2]. We could document that with a list of groups or people, but I personally think that would be undue weight. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I applaud your initiative, the Purpose section is seriously flawed. It mainly focuses on what conspiracy theorists think the purpose of the Bilderberg group is. We already have a section for that called “Conspiracy theories”! What I had in mind is a section that explains the purpose of the group as claimed by the group itself and what scholars think the purpose really is after critical study (see New section suggestion: Role). There should be no discussion of conspiracy theories in this section. I will therefore remove this section until we agree on it's content. --Loremaster (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fine approach, why don't you restore it and separate out the two kinds of content into the appropriate sections? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Working on it. --Loremaster (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Politico / Vogel

With regards to this Politico article, I (perhaps mistakenly) changed the verbiage attributing statements to Vogel from opines to reports (it used to say reports until the IP edited it). I felt that reports was more accurate as the article doesn't appear to me to be an opinion piece. Arthur Rubin kindly reverted my edit and posed the question of whether or not Politico is a reliable source for anything other than opinions.

Taking into consideration WP:RS#News organizations and WP:RS#Statements of opinion, I think that Kenneth Vogel's Politico article in particular is mostly channeling the views of conspiracists associated with PrisonPlanet and InfoWars content about Bilderberg, as well as the views of anonymous Bilderberg attendees and of Ron Paul. Even though Vogel's characterization of what captures the interests of conspiracy theorists, or of what suspicions their worldview derives from, represents a point of view and might constitute an opinion, it seems that merely attributing the quote to him is sufficient, and that we don't need to take it a step further by attributing it as his opinion rather than his reporting. I thought it is more accurate to use reports because he seems (to me at least) to be reporting a point of view rather than formulating his own point of view - in other words, though it may be an opinion, it doesn't necessarily seem to be his opinion as his article appears to be simply channeling the views of others.

Am I looking at this article the wrong way? I'm not particularly against a different verb than reports, but opines struck me as a bit dodgy. John Shandy` • talk 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully support your edit. I also think “reports” is more accurate than “opines”. Although it is important to distinguish statements of opinions and statements of fact, we should also be mindful that, under the guise of wanting more neutrality, some pro-conspiracy editors will often try to make statements of fact appear as statements of opinion in order to manipulate some readers into dismissing a statement as nothing more than an opinion rather than a fact... --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept your reasoning, although I have doubts about Politico, in general. (And, for what it's worth, I don't see any indication here that you consider me a "pro-conspiracy editor", although some at the 9/11 debate about including mention of the conspiracy theory in the main article have done so.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Arthur. I wasn't talking about you. I was making a general statement since the sentence was edited by an anonymous IP. --Loremaster (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand, Arthur? Lung salad (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So... can we add to the project guidelines that no criticism section is allowed in Bilderberg Group article and that every criticism must be labeled as a "conspiracy theory", even if they aren't theories and don't have anything to do with conspiracies? Funny article this one. It basically sums up everything that shouldn't be done in a neutral, impartial encyclopedia. Dornicke (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between rational/factual criticisms from notable mainstream scholars and journalists and paranoid/delusional conspiracy theories from cranks. In the Conspiracy theories section of the article, we have only included opinions that have been described as “conspiracy theories” by reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia encourages us to incorporate rational/factual criticisms in the body of the article rather than creating a Criticism section, we are in the process of doing just that especially in the Role section of the article (see New section suggestion: Role). So feel free to make concrete suggestions to improve the article instead of just making snide remarks. --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

So feel free to make concrete suggestions to improve the article instead of just making snide remarks

I've got an excellent suggestion to improve the article. How about you stop pretending to have any more rights to decide what can or can't be included in it than other users? I couldn't care less about your opinion on "cranks" and conspiracy theories, my problem with you is the fact that you've behaved like the owner of this article for months and this must stop. Dozens of users have stated in may occasions that they consider this article to be biased - me included - and all you've done is to sistematically revert their editions. Several users have pointed to the fact that mainstream criticism is not the same of conspiracy theories - you included - and even so, you've been able to prevent any user of adding a criticism section. Not to mention your terrible habit of trying to label users as lunatics or cranks every now and then, attacking editors instead of their arguments in order to discredit their editions. You don't have that right, you have absolutely no editorial privileges. How about respecting that fact? Dornicke (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you certain that the bias you perceive in the article is bias induced by Wikipedia contributors, rather than bias channeled from the sources from which the article is derived? Any article on Wikipedia will have some bias, and should feature either one or several points of view, each in proportion to the weights of the mainstream views and significant minority views. WP:NPOV often gets misinterpreted to mean "neutral to all sides," because people are unaware of or ignore its undue weight clause, which prescribes to editors a policy of neither increasing nor reducing the weights of each point of view. This is the guiding principle - not what Loremaster thinks (although in conversation with him I can say that he himself is critical of the Bilderberg Group, despite his skepticism of the paranoid fantasies conspiracists speculate to be the purposes and achievements of the group. I have seen a number of people accuse Loremaster of article ownership, here and on several other articles' talk pages. This is often their last resort, but sometimes their first course of action. This can easily be resolved if you will post an itemized list of your grievances with specific sections in which you believe Loremaster has actively worked to induce his own point of view or exert ownership. Further, "defeating Loremaster," if such is your goal, is extremely easy. You need only list reference information for reliable sources on this talk page, annotated with brief excerpts that provide enough context for Loremaster and other editors to understand the information they present. Then they can easily be included in the article, complete with references and citations. I can't really offer much help beyond addressing your allegations because you have not clarified your content disputes by pointing to visible examples in the article or specific edits you take issue with. John Shandy` • talk 03:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not as though Loremaster is the only other editor of this article. Let's see some specific examples. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

One New World Order

I am not a poliltical know all but I do have perspectives and opinions that have enough gravity to be recognized. I have no desire to see a communist elite dominating my life and the world. I do however want to see a united world with the same righteous goal. I want to see a world that has all the same respective god given rights as the next and with a fair health care plan and political and religious freedoms. I want this world to be united through peace instead of force and violence.

A one world government is fine to me for as long as it is democratic. I should not live in fear of my government and its infinite power and in fact I will use my right to bear arms to insure my freedoms and instill fear in my government. The naive idea that the rich 1% has is that they can roll right over the other 99% of the world is a far cry from reality. Too many free thinking individuals who are quite tired of bending over for the 1% just might snap and take this whole world back. But the hope of a democratic one world nation of peace and prosperity is worth taking a chance on. Clearly the worlds economy depends so much on international trade anyway it might as well be a one world economy and creating a singular currency might instill some stability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topsycrits (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I notice you appear to be a new user here on Wikipedia. I'd like to kindly point out that Wikipedia articles' talk pages are strictly for discussions directly related to improving the article at hand. Wikipedia maintains a general policy called What Wikipedia is not, and one of the key things listed in that policy is that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum (at least insofar as article or policy talk pages are concerned - you're welcome to hold discussions between yourself and other users on your own talk pages). If you have suggestions for improving this article, you may post them here on this talk page so we may discuss them. John Shandy` • talk 23:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave Emory?

I swear that I have heard Dave Emory talk about this Bilderberg thing on his radio show, but I forgot his take on it. Does anyone know?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It probably Alex Jones' radio show your talking about?--Hodeken (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Attendees?

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)

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)

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)

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

Future political leaders

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

It is your opinion that this is an "exaggeration". I'm reverting your edit until this dispute is resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop this Loremaster. You do a good job a lot of the time but you've got a reputation for edit-warring. I've reverted you and will take this now to WP:RSN. Please do not reinstate it until you have a clear consensus. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC).

My respect for you has greatly decreased because of this non-sense... Fine. Do whatever you want. Don't ever count on me for anything from now on. --Loremaster (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-sense? Loremaster, you've given no good arguments why it should be included, particularly in the lead. You haven't found any other sources. I've no idea what you mean by not counting on you. It sounds like but surely couldn't mean that you'd rather have problems with an article than support me in something, which is odd. How about just accepting that when others disagree with you you need to get their support or the support of others? I'm quite willing to be shown to be wrong at RSN, taking it there should be seen as a good faith move. The fact that it was in a BBC magazine article isn't enough to make it automatically an RS, although it helps. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Above now at WP:RSN#Can we make a claim that Bilderberg Group meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names

Can we please not reinstate this until whether it's a reliable source is resolved? Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Authenticity of "official" website

Seriously questionable. Topics of 2011 meeting do not square with data given post-meeting in other sources. Cheap design, spelling errors. The history of the site is also suspicious to put it mildly - it was set up shortly before the 2010 meeting and (if you browse the first versions) obviously in a hurry, providing a (badly prepared) scare list. It is really The Site To Confirm Your Worst Fears. The disclaimer is also oddly phrased:

In no way can any rights be derived from, or claims made, with regard to the content of this website. [...] Bilderberg Meetings does not give guarantees with regard to the nature and the content of this site information and is not responsible for the content of this information or for the usage thereof.

Compare the genuine http://www.trilateral.org/ - note especially the provision of contact information and the lack of a disclaimer.

The unprofessionality of the supposed "official Bilderberg Meetings website" speaks volumes. Even the site of that failure PNAC is way better: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

See also Talk:Bilderberg_Group/Archive_3#Link_to_website, Talk:Bilderberg_Group/Archive_4#Official_website_and_Skelton, Talk:Bilderberg_Group/Archive_4#http:.2F.2Fwww.bilderbergmeetings.org.2F - the "it is the real deal" claim rests on the testimony of Charlie Skelton, who hardly can be considered a credible source given he's a hack journalist and artist (Guardian nonwithstanding - Skelton has no formal qualifications in politics) who believes anything they tell him.

The claim of authenticity definitely requires verification. Presently it rests on the claim of one very NNPOV person who has "heard something" (and if you check the archive links, may have actually misheard something).

Some associates and me tried to verify the authenticity for another project; we failed. There is nothing firm to hold on here. IIRC, there was also something odd with the HTML code, a comment or snipped that was definitely out of place in style and language; we thought "a professional web designer wouldn't do this" but I forget what it was. Anyone enterprising enough need only browse the Internet Archive...

Our conclusions at that time were that it may have been set up by persons wanting to promote the "Climategate" hoax/paranoia. The "global cooling" bit on the supposed 2011 agenda tipped us off - if anyone funds such a claim in public, it's more likely the SVR than some mostly Western bigshots. "Global cooling" is as much of an issue in these circles as is alien invasions. The Russian hydrocarbon industry is a marked exception; just like "abiogenic petroleum" they try to peddle AGW denial to anyone who would listen, by any means at their disposal. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Times says it is.[3]. So does this book [4] published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, a scholarly publishing house. So we have reliable sources saying it is. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is a necessary requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, but it is not sufficient. As Dysmorodrepanis points out, the site is a fairly obvious hoax. We are not required to propagate errors, even those of the Washington Times. We must use multiple criteria for inclusion, one of which is good judgement. - Crosbie 19:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note the Washington Times is currently billing itself as 'The Official Newspaper of 2012' - whatever that means. I guess any site with 'Official' in the masthead must be reliable! Also, Ben Wolfgang has 'played guitar in several bands while still in Pennsylvania', which provides us some additional reassurance. Looks like a pretty marginal source. - Crosbie 21:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is in print does not automatically make it a reliable source. Why are you talking like a crazy person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2012‎

No one has shown it is a hoax. The agenda item was not "Global cooling", it was "Global Cooling: Implications of Slow Economic Growth" which is obviously not about the climate but about the global economy, eg [5] and [6]. If it were a hoax, I rather think the media would have spotted it. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a hoax. There are multiple sources corroborating its validity, and the only arguments for its invalidity are nothing other than unverifiable speculation through a certain lens.John Shandy` • talk 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of lens is that, John Shandy? Please be specific. - Crosbie 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that Dysmorodrepanis and his so-called associates' unpublished, speculative "investigation" of the website is evidence that it is a "fairly obvious hoax," then I most certainly do contend that the both of you are viewing this through a conspiratorial lens. Picking at the HTML looking for vague clues of web developer mishap and using that to cry hoax is heavily speculative and quite conspiratorial. Nevertheless, I can live with that. I'm instead concerned with what can be demonstrated, and Dougweller is spot-on in saying that it has not been shown to be a hoax. I even somewhat agree about the dubious nature of the Washington Times, especially after having looked up a few iffy conversations about it in the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. Even so, there is a scholarly publication that corroborates the validity of the website, and no - excluding/recharacterizing the website on the basis of Dysmorodrepanis's argument would not be "good judgment." John Shandy` • talk 08:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to say that when my folks lived just outside DC they would never have had the Washington Times let through their door, and that ad campaign about being the official newspaper is stupid (although playing the guitar has never, so far as I know, suggested that a journalist is a bad journalist). The Guardian is also a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A hoax doesn't require a conspiracy. It just requires a kid with a copy of Microsoft Word, and a card to pay for the hosting account - which is what it looks like. - Crosbie 11:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a hoax where there's no good reason to suspect one is bizarre if not conspiratorial. It is your mere opinion that the website looks fabricated by a kid. You have no evidence of such a thing. If you can't believe it is real in the face of sources and have no evidence demonstrating it to be a hoax, you're making an argument from personal incredulity (and wasting our time). Unverifiable speculation has no place on Wikipedia, but perhaps you might take a liking to starting your own blog or message board where you can tell the world of the great bilderbergmeetings.org hoax. Please keep responses in nested chronological order so it is easier to see who is responding to whom. John Shandy` • talk 19:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

John Shandy - Whose time am I wasting ? Please be specific. - Crosbie 05:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that you're not writing for my personal benefit, but either you mean to persuade myself and possibly others that the website is a hoax, or you need to note that Wikipedia is not a forum. If you mean to persuade, then persisting with your speculation as to the website's validity is a waste of time in general (and of your time in particular), since it has no place on Wikipedia. John Shandy` • talk 07:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dysmorodrepanis's main point is a good one. 'bilderbergmeetings.org' is not an official site as, as it claims to be, as it does not provide contact information. On the other hand, all we have by way of sources claiming it is are: i) Charlie Skelton, a comic writer ii) The Washington Times, no longer a serious publication, if it ever was one and iii) a footnote in the Backes book. - Crosbie 16:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Bilderberg conferences are closed to the public in general, closed to the media in particular, and only open to attendees, I see little need to have contact information. I would expect the website's validity to be in a footnote, especially in an academic publication, so I'm not surprised that it is. John Shandy` • talk 16:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Crosbiesmith, are you claiming that Skelton doesn't have editorial oversight from the Guardian? The Guardian is a solidly reliable source, and I doubt that they would let anyone write about major world figures without editorial oversight. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian has editorial oversight over Charlie Skelton's writing. I'm stating that Skelton's writing for the Guardian is light entertainment. It's not news coverage. We cannot place the same weight on Skelton's writing as we would on the paper's news coverage. - Crosbie 17:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Post, a reliable source, links to bilderbergmeetings.org, describing it as the Bilderberg meeting web site. As far as I can tell, this is an actual news piece. Is Bilderberg a conference on world affairs or a powerful global cabal? Depends on who you ask. - Crosbie 16:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this and for adding it to the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice find. Thanks. John Shandy` • talk 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Small mistake

This is being called a conspiracy theory. Can someone correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see the article is calling the Bilderberg Group a conspiracy theory. The article does contain a section titled Conspiracy theories which discusses some of the various conspiracy theories that hold the Bilderberg Group to be at the center of their plots. John Shandy` • talk 16:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

But the Bilderberg meetings have been held for years in clear violation of the Logan Act. Shouldn't the people of every government know about such meetings? Where are your sources from this and other countries that these meetings were permitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2012‎

There's no evidence that actions that would be covered by the Logan Act occur at Bilderberg meetings, so your questions are redundant. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

People don't understand either the Logan Act or the fact that no one at Bilderberg represents anyone. There's been one indictment under the Logan Act, and that was in 1803. This is just conspiracy theory stuff, so if you want to talk about it, please find a web forum somewhere. People can make all sorts of wild claims, but until there's an indictment and conviction, there's nothing illegal here. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"People don't understand either the Logan Act or the fact that no one at Bilderberg represents anyone."

Criticizing the Bilderberg meetings for its obscure nature and the involvement of powerful individuals is not "conspiracy theory stuff". It's just an argument the same group of editors keep repeating for years to mantain this article heavily biased, almost an institutional pamphlet of the Bilderberg Group, and censoring all kind of criticism. They always shout "conspiracy theory", "lunatics", "get out of here and go to web forum" every time someone points to the OBVIOUS mistakes addopted in this article. They don't understand (or pretend not to understand) that the Bilderberg Group is a highly controversial organization that attracts a lot of criticism that is NOT RELATED to any kind of conspiracy theory and that this article should be representative of this factual reality - and not the en rose reality that this article portrays, as if the Bilderberg Group had any kind of editorial privilege in this project not to have criticism shown in their article. Pathetic, really. Dornicke (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though there may be criticism not related to conspiracy theories, the section which editors keep renaming to Criticism from Conspiratorial interpretations of Bilderberg Group activities is one that actually discusses the conspiracy theories surrounding the Bilderberg Group. Furthermore, it's possible that the article feature criticisms without having a section explicitly named Criticism, but it would have to contain criticisms that fall outside of the conspiracy theories which are discussed by the reliable sources already cited in the article. (Also, see WP:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism which recommends that an ideal approach is to integrate criticism rather than feature it in a separate section). Nobody here has argued that criticisms don't exist, only that the ones present in the article are linked to conspiracy theories by reliable sources. But, it still stands that there is no evidence to support that any activity which would violate the Logan Act actually takes place at the Bilderberg conferences, which was the subject of this thread. John Shandy` • talk 08:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since both John Shandy and Dougweller are right, I would simply like to point out that both the Role section of the article as well as the last paragraph of the Participants section contain rational criticisms of the Bilderberg group from reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Article should mention of the undemocratic nature of group according to non-conspitorial critics

I pulled the following text from a much older version of this article:

Critics say the Bilderberg Group promotes the careers of politicians whose views are representative of the interests of multinational corporations, at the expense of democracy. Journalists who have been invited to attend the Bilderberg Conference as observers have been under a gag order that states that they are officially disallowed to report on what had been discussed or what they have seen. with "nothing different except for the influence of the participants."

I think the above criticisms expressed in it are legitimate non-conspiracy criticisms of the group that belong back in the article. Of course they will likely need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policy, especial regarding weasel words, but it is a legitimate criticism of the group that is currently missing from the article and thus should be added back in. --Cab88 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They seem like genuine non-conspiratorial criticisms to me. I notice that 2 of those sources are already used in the current revision of the article, but for different content. I don't have any objection to adding them back in, but I'm not sure why (or when) they were removed. FYI, I added the references to your post so readers can see them on the Talk page without clicking edit to view the citations. John Shandy` • talk 18:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Role section

I am rarely convinced that the age of a source is problematic unless newer sources contradict or update it. In this case, the argument about the group's role was attributed to Thompson. Does Thompson hold a different view today? Maybe. But, surely the source is still an accurate representation of his argument in 1980? Dougweller raised a good point about the source not being sufficient to say what the role of the group actually is. But, I thought the attribution was already doing the job of making it clear to the reader that this was one scholar's interpretation of the group's role? At any rate, I agree the Thompson source is not sufficient to use as a representation of the role. The part about Domhoff and Moore doesn't appear to be referenced at all, so it should definitely go. John Shandy` • talk 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was rather hasty in reverting Crosbie's removal, and for that I apologize. However, I disagree with Crosbie's edit summary for the original removal due to the argument being attributed to Thompson. John Shandy` • talk 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the Role section being deleted. If someone has a more up-to-date source for the role of the Bilderberg Group, they are more then welcome to add it. However, presenting a history of what the role of the Bilderberg Group has been seen to be by scholars is very informative. Knowing how it was viewed by scholars in 1960s is as important as knowing how it is viewed by scholars in 2010s. --Loremaster (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but we are discussing it and thus replacing it is not really the way to handle things. And I presume that you disagree with John about Domhoff and Moore as you relaced it, so I hope you can show that you are right and John is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

By way of context, the whole section is based on the essay Bilderberg and the West published by South End Press. They say of themselves: 'we have met the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change.' - Crosbie 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Or rather, the whole section except for the crashingly uninformative sentence 'The role of the Bilderberg meetings in the flow of events since its founding in 1954 is a matter of debate among scholars and journalists, such as G. William Domhoff and Caroline Moorehead.'. I have removed this sentence. - Crosbie 19:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed this mention of Domhoff, but Domhoff fans can still enjoy an entire paragraph on his views on the Bilderberg group later in the article, based on an entire paragraph of a transcript of a 2004 interview published on the Political Research Associates website. -Crosbie 19:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theories' category

This article should not be tagged with Category:Conspiracy theories. The Bilderberg Group is not a conspiracy theory. There are conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg group. There are conspiracy theories about 9/11, but we don't put the 9/11 article in 'Category:Conspiracy theories'. - Crosbie 18:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

'Criticism' section overlong

The 'criticism' section is too long. There are about one and a half paragraphs describing, basically, conspiracy theories, and a further five paragraphs telling us why the conspiracy theories are wrong. As it stands, the article protests too much against conspiracy theories. We don't need to hear why William Domhoff, Chip Berlet, Kenneth P. Vogel, and James McConnachie each think the conspiracy theories are wrong. Their views on this subject are not notable. A suitable length would be about two paragraphs, mentioning the existence of conspiracy theories, along with the existing quotes from Davignon and Healey. It should probably also be called 'Conspiracy theories', as that is what it's about. - Crosbie 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Vogel paragraph. - Crosbie 13:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Also the McConnachie paragraph. - Crosbie 13:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia and mainstream media conspire to keep the public uninformed of the Bilderberg group and its members

Wikipedia is known for its biast reporting. Just Google Wikipedia Bias for more info. The mainstream media and Wikipedia conspire to keep the public uninformed about the Bilderberg Group by not reporting the event and deleting information referring to the event. The proof is in the info targeted for deletion by Wikipedia. If the Bilderberg group wasn't a secret organization, why does Wikipedia hide info from the public? Undelete the names of all individuals who attend Bilderberg.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335440/Guest-list-secretive-Bilderberg-conference-shows-Osborne-Balls-join-Amazon-Google-chiefs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.213.177 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh? List of Bilderberg participants Mezigue (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Page " List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2013 " should be created

A " List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2013 " page should be created.

See the article: List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.145.39.187 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 2011 article should exist, but if a reliable source for the 2013 list can be found, it might not be a bad idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

The neutrality of this article is disputed, as information is deleted. Even info on this talk pages is deleted. Let the facts speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.220.145 (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

No reason yet presented for the tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• POV tag required because discussions in talk page is removed.
• Provide a list of all participants of 2013 Bilderberg Group Meeting at the Grove Hotel, near Watford, in Hertfordshire.

 Example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336847/Bilderberg-2013-Who-billionaires-politicians-arriving-secretive-conference-Watford-hotel.html

• Information is selectively deleted to hide the fact the 2013 Bilderberg Group meeting is currently being held at the Grove Hotel, near Watford, in Hertfordshire, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.220.145 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor, at 60.230.220.145 -

• Your unhappiness with what has happened in the talk page is not a reason to tag the article itself with a POV tag.
• The appropriate place for a list of participants is on the page List of Bilderberg participants
• The article currently gives the location of the ongoing 2013 meeting, with dates.

No good reason has been given for the current POV tag - Crosbie 11:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream media coverage of event

The lack of coverage of the event by the mainstream media needs to be discussed, as the accusations are valid. Most western countries have no coverage of this secretive event. Allegations were made by the same individuals whom attend Bilderberg meetings are responsible for the media black-out of the event by means of intimidation. CNN had a lame excuse the request for participation was lost in the mail. CNN will cover any other event - with or without the approval of organizers of other events. Coverage of Bilderberg wasn't on the front page of CNN, but hidden on the CNN website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.220.145 (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Which are the "countries" of which you speak? The current meeting is certainly being covered by the UK media, in so much as a private event can be covered. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

BILDERBERG CONFERENCE 2013: FULL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

The following names needs to be included on the proposed page of "List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2013" See: List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2011

List of participants

Castries, Henri de (chairman), Chairman and CEO, AXA Group Achleitner, Paul M. Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Board, Zurich Insurance Group Ltd Agius, Marcus Former Chairman, Barclays plc Alexander, Helen Chairman, UBM plc Altman, Roger C. Executive Chairman, Evercore Partners Apunen, Matti Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA Athey, Susan Professor of Economics, Stanford Graduate School of Business Aydıntaşbaş, Aslı Columnist, Milliyet Newspaper Babacan, Ali Deputy Prime Minister for Economic and Financial Affairs Balls, Edward M. Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA Barré, Nicolas Managing Editor, Les Echos Barroso, José M. Durão President, European Commission Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Bavinchove, Olivier de Commander, Eurocorps Bell, John Regius Professor of Medicine, University of Oxford Bernabè, Franco Chairman and CEO, Telecom Italia S.p.A. Bezos, Jeff Founder and CEO, Amazon.com Bildt, Carl Minister for Foreign Affairs Borg, Anders Minister for Finance Boxmeer, Jean François van Chairman of the Executive Board and CEO, Heineken N.V. Brandtzæg, Svein Richard President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA Bronner, Oscar Publisher, Der Standard Medienwelt Carrington, Peter Former Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings Cebrián, Juan Luis Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA Clark, W. Edmund President and CEO, TD Bank Group Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament Corydon, Bjarne Minister of Finance Cowper-Coles, Sherard Business Development Director, International, BAE Systems plc Cucchiani, Enrico Tommaso CEO, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA Davignon, Etienne Minister of State; Former Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings Davis, Ian Senior Partner Emeritus, McKinsey & Company Dijkgraaf, Robbert H. Director and Leon Levy Professor, Institute for Advanced Study Dinçer, Haluk President, Retail and Insurance Group, Sabancı Holding A.S. Dudley, Robert Group Chief Executive, BP plc Eberstadt, Nicholas N. Henry Wendt Chair in Political Economy, American Enterprise Institute Eide, Espen Barth Minister of Foreign Affairs Ekholm, Börje President and CEO, Investor AB Enders, Thomas CEO, EADS Evans, J. Michael Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs & Co. Federspiel, Ulrik Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S Feldstein, Martin S. Professor of Economics, Harvard University; President Emeritus, NBER Fillon, François Former Prime Minister Fishman, Mark C. President, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research Flint, Douglas J. Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc Gallagher, Paul Senior Counsel Geithner, Timothy F. Former Secretary of the Treasury Gfoeller, Michael Political Consultant Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company Grillo, Ulrich CEO, Grillo-Werke AG Gruber, Lilli Journalist - Anchorwoman, La 7 TV Guindos, Luis de Minister of Economy and Competitiveness Gulliver, Stuart Group Chief Executive, HSBC Holdings plc Gutzwiller, Felix Member of the Swiss Council of States Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University Heinonen, Olli Senior Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School Henry, Simon CFO, Royal Dutch Shell plc Hermelin, Paul Chairman and CEO, Capgemini Group Isla, Pablo Chairman and CEO, Inditex Group Jacobs, Kenneth M. Chairman and CEO, Lazard Johnson, James A. Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners Jordan, Thomas J. Chairman of the Governing Board, Swiss National Bank Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Managing Director, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC Kaplan, Robert D. Chief Geopolitical Analyst, Stratfor Karp, Alex Founder and CEO, Palantir Technologies Kerr, John Independent Member, House of Lords Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc. Kleinfeld, Klaus Chairman and CEO, Alcoa Knot, Klaas H.W. President, De Nederlandsche Bank Koç, Mustafa V. Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. Koch, Roland CEO, Bilfinger SE Kravis, Henry R. Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute Kudelski, André Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group Kyriacopoulos, Ulysses Chairman, S&B Industrial Minerals S.A. Lagarde, Christine Managing Director, International Monetary Fund Lauk, Kurt J. Chairman of the Economic Council to the CDU, Berlin Lessig, Lawrence Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership, Harvard Law School Leysen, Thomas Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group Lindner, Christian Party Leader, Free Democratic Party (FDP NRW) Löfven, Stefan Party Leader, Social Democratic Party (SAP) Löscher, Peter President and CEO, Siemens AG Mandelson, Peter Chairman, Global Counsel; Chairman, Lazard International Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace McKenna, Frank Chair, Brookfield Asset Management Micklethwait, John Editor-in-Chief, The Economist Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations Monti, Mario Former Prime Minister Mundie, Craig J. Senior Advisor to the CEO, Microsoft Corporation Nagel, Alberto CEO, Mediobanca Netherlands, H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of The Ng, Andrew Y. Co-Founder, Coursera Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell, plc Omand, David Visiting Professor, King's College London Osborne, George Chancellor of the Exchequer Ottolenghi, Emanuele Senior Fellow, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Özel, Soli Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has University; Columnist, Habertürk Newspaper Papahelas, Alexis Executive Editor, Kathimerini Newspaper Pavey, Şafak Member of Parliament (CHP) Pécresse, Valérie Member of Parliament (UMP) Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Petraeus, David H. General, U.S. Army (Retired) Portas, Paulo Minister of State and Foreign Affairs Prichard, J. Robert S. Chair, Torys LLP Reding, Viviane Vice President and Commissioner for Justice, European Commission Reisman, Heather M. CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. Rey, Hélène Professor of Economics, London Business School Robertson, Simon Partner, Robertson Robey Associates LLP; Deputy Chairman, HSBC Holdings Rocca, Gianfelice Chairman,Techint Group Rostowski, Jacek Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Rubin, Robert E. Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury Rutte, Mark Prime Minister Schieder, Andreas State Secretary of Finance Schmidt, Eric E. Executive Chairman, Google Inc. Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG Seguro, António José Secretary General, Socialist Party Senard, Jean-Dominique CEO, Michelin Group Skogen Lund, Kristin Director General, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise Slaughter, Anne-Marie Bert G. Kerstetter '66 University Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton Sutherland, Peter D. Chairman, Goldman Sachs International Taylor, Martin Former Chairman, Syngenta AG Thiam, Tidjane Group CEO, Prudential plc Thiel, Peter A. President, Thiel Capital Thompson, Craig B. President and CEO, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Topsøe, Jakob Haldor Partner, AMBROX Capital A/S Urpilainen, Jutta Minister of Finance Vasella, Daniel L. Honorary Chairman, Novartis AG Voser, Peter R. CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc Wall, Brad Premier of Saskatchewan Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB Warsh, Kevin Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University Weston, Galen G. Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Limited Williams of Crosby, Shirley Member, House of Lords Wolf, Martin H. Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company Wright, David Vice Chairman, Barclays plc Zoellick, Robert B. Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335440/Guest-list-secretive-Bilderberg-conference-shows-Osborne-Balls-join-Amazon-Google-chiefs.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.93.113 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Could be placed in List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2013 (or, since IPs can't create articles, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List of Bilderberg meeting participants of 2013), if there was a reliable source. (The Daily Mail is hardly ever a reliable source.) There's no reason for the list to be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The papers just copied it from the Bilderberg website. It's linked in 2013 Bilderberg Conference. Perhaps there's enough room in the latter article for the list. Horatio (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)