Talk:Bilderberg Meeting/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Gerard Batten MEP, UKIP (London), Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD & Why don't the mainstream media report on Bilderberg meetings?

Speaker: Gerard Batten MEP, UKIP (London), Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group informed the mainstream media about the Bilderberg Group event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A5jNylGgds

On Thursday 6th June I attended the press area outside the Bilderberg conference adjacent to the grounds of the Grove Hotel in Watford. It was encouraging to see that representatives of the mainstream media were present for the first time in the 59 years that these meetings have been taking place annually. This included the BBC and Channel 4

I was interviewed by many news stations, national and international, and by independent film makers. Most enjoyably of all I was inteviewed by Alex Jones of ‘Info Wars’ fame in the USA. You can see it by cliking on this link, and here I give my perspective on the Bilderberg Group.

The existence of the Bilderberg Group can no longer be kept as a secret because of the internet, and they have decided to adopt a PR strategy. The media are participating in that, and it will be interesting to see how these meetings are represented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBfrf-qqE3w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.93.113 (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten expands on his May 20 Bilderberg speech in the European Paliament

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korRypDeTT0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.93.113 (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If the YouTube videos were authenticated copies of reliable sources (such as news footage), they could be relevant. However, I would go so far as to say that anyone who "enjoyably ... was interviewed by Alex Jones" cannot possibly be a reliable source, even for his own statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

'Secret societies'?

This article is currently tagged with {{WikiProject Secret Societies}}. This seems odd to me: the Bilderberg Group may be many things, but it is not secret. The existence of the group is not a secret; the locations and dates of its conferences are public information; this year even the list of attendees has been released. Reading the 'Scope' section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies, I don't think it fits - that page makes clear the WikiProject is for private membership organisations with some sort of oath or rite of initiation, which doesn't describe the Bilderberg. The WikiProject template should be removed. Robofish (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Exactly...I removed it...it's a conspiracy theory to believe this is a secret group or society.--MONGO 11:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes protection requested

I've requested that this page be granted Pending changes protection, at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I hope I've done this correctly.

A series of edits by unregistered users with Australian IP addresses have been used to attempt to insert unsourced or irrelevant information, and repeatedly tag the page as POV when these edits are rejected. - Crosbie 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

security and private measures

It must be added after the "private" group meets, that the ". Despite this meeting are secured like in public G8 case, where police and other public forces blockade neighborhood which risen controversy over the years. Usual private groups business meetings are not secured from taxpayer money".

This important because for 1) it is not the "mythic theory" but fact. 2) Bilderberg Group states that they are more transparent that other business meetings, because they publish info and guest list, however as private they don't need to info public opinion. However ways of security are similar to government meetings(which are published) and raises controversy why for example business meetings, which thousands take part in hotels, etc. don't have similar policy secure, and why usual people, tourists must be affected by usual business meetings. 3) This is also the thing, which real in fact are base for mythical questions and other theories, especially about "power group leading world", one of the reasons about this questions is way of public showing, police force usage etc..

I have closed this edit request only because the article is not currently semi-protected. I have no comment on the merits of the above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

niewiarygodne.pl (unbelievable.pl) doesn't look like a reliable source by our criteria in any case. "We help all those drowning in the depths of everyday life, looking for thrills. We describe all that unusual, bizarre, sometimes terrifying - the mysterious phenomenon, controversial research and unexplained episodes of history". Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please notice: About JFK and 9/11: "There wasn't effective security to prevent it, it must be a conspiracy." About this: "There is heavy security, it must be a conspiracy." :-( -BayShrimp (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Ben Bernanke

I personally believe that the picture does show Mr. Bernanke at the Bilderberg conference, just as it says. However I checked the picture out and there is no evidence to show that's true. By WP's policies on living persons (poorly cited potentally negative material should be removed at once) I feel that I should take it off the page. Besides it does not illustrate the topic of the article. BayShrimp (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I was also wondering what message the picture was sending: "Bernanke, exausted from conspiring world domination, falls asleep as he leaves Bilderberg conference." Or: "Bernanke finds conference so boring he falls asleep." :-) BayShrimp (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2013 (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)

This is because the conspiracy theories about September 11 have their own page. Conspiracy theories about Bilderberg do not, as far as I can see, have their own page and so are covered in this one, justifying the tag. Mezigue (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Secrets always attract speculation, why should the Bilderbergers be an exception. There is, however, a peculiar pattern, i.e. François Hollande was at the Bilderberg Conference before he moved up the ladder, as were Bill Clinton, Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl, and Tony Blair. It does look like the candidates need to show their face if they're acceptable for the top jobs. Just use a search engine with the respective name and Bilderberg and see what you find. Unfortunately it's not all in English. I once related the German Chancellors' names and when they took office to their Bilderberg partcipation, and ideally, a table should exist with leaders of several nations and their Bilderberg attendence. That does not mean there's a conspiracy, but it does look odd and smells of some kind of collusion, expenses paid by the taxpayer? 121.209.56.202 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently, a link from the DrudgeReport.com goes to the website of Alex Joneswww.infowarscom/bilderberg-2015-full-attendee-list-agenda/ where it says they support Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton. FYI. -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Where's the positive progress?

The article seems negative to me. Where is the positive? I'm guessing the answer lies in their position of secrecy, (no minutes, no reports, and lack of reporting -- as noted in the article here.) -- Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and no, and yes. Yes, the only (and large) section/paragraph is entitled "Criticism"; however, No, the bottom of the 'external links' promises to cover annual notes (which I don't have time to read); and Yes, there is nothing later than year 2002, more than a decade ago. What does that tell you? -- AstroU (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Bilderberg 2015

It is said on their official website[1] (hat-tip, Alex Joneswww.infowarscom/bilderberg-2015-full-attendee-list-agenda/ ) that topic this year are:
"The key topics for discussion this year include": Artificial Intelligence; Cybersecurity; Chemical Weapons Threats; Current Economic Issues; European Strategy; Globalisation; Greece; Iran; Middle East; NATO; Russia; Terrorism; United Kingdom; USA; US Elections;
Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Another 2015 article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/big-business-set-to-lobby-politicians-on-the-future-of-the-eu-at-bilderberg-group-meeting-10307364.html -- (Some good info) FYI, Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Flüstern" {whisper} Another 2015 article: (jamming communication/reporting)::

www.infowarscom/exclusive-bilderberg-deploys-hi-tech-jamming-to-shut-down-communications/ 

-- FYI, Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We never use Infowars, a highly untrustworthy source. Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit to the criticism section

Made it look as though this was typical, leaving out for some reason (why, User:Gareth E Kegg?) "I remember at the Watford conference in 2013, we had a relationship with the Hertfordshire constabulary that was every bit as open and tolerant as Will Smith’s marriage. In fact, our presence wasn’t just tolerated, it was actively supported. They had a team of liaison officers. They even gave us portable toilets, for goodness sake. The same in Copenhagen last year: the cops allowed us right up to the edge of the hotel. They made a genuine (if not always successful) effort to communicate with us, and meet our needs."

It's too early to add much material on the current conference in this article. And most material specific to this conference should go in its own article when the conference is over - if the article is kept, we don't have many on each conference. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please correct your grammar so that we can understand what, if anything, you are trying to say. Please check your future contributions to be sure they are coherent and grammatical. ---Dagme (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor I was responding to understood me perfectly well. I did miss a word out after "It's too early", "add", but that doesn't seem to have mattered to him. As for "if anything", not sure what that was meant to imply, but again my post was clear enough for the respondent. Doug Weller (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, You're quite right in retrospect. The passage should certainly be balanced with Skelton's earlier comments. I'll remove it then add it with balance in a few days. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. One problem I have is that unless we are careful, we are suggesting cause and effect. I'd blame the Austrian government and police, they don't have the best reputation. Others will blame Bilderberg - although I doubt that they instructed the police or the government to behave badly. Doug Weller (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

removal of sentence about police behavior

I was the one who originally [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilderberg_Group&diff=next&oldid=666364906 added the sentence] "Reporters have written about police harrassment at Bilderberg compared to the G7 summit security, provided by the same personnel."Charlie Skelton (10 June 2015). "At the G7, we journalists were pampered – at Bilderberg we're harassed by police". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 June 2015. I stand behind this sentence and cannot see how it is not undue and not "too early",Doug Weller. I think better reasons for removal of sourced content need to be launched.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an article about the 2015 conference, this is about the group itself. A trivial mention about one conference doesn't belong in this article. Even in an article about this meeting, "balancing aspects" WP:BALASPS relates to the sentence, and says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Doug Weller (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr Weller, you are getting off topic here (removal of sourced content). i am not a conspiracy person, as you should see by my edits and quality of my edits (and by the way i havent seen you work or clean up here). your argument is self-serving. if not, you'll need to grind your axe and take a whole lot of statements "about a single conference" out. rest assured, I will not put the sentence back in, because I can sense your political agenda and am certainly not interested in any argument with you.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Where did I suggest you are a conspiracy person? Why are you making this personal? I've got no political agenda here and have edited the page 158 times, although not a lot recently. You can also see my posts in the archives of this page. I doubt very much that you believe in conspiracies. When I buy a paper it's the Guardian or the Observer (owned by the Guardian). I don't see any statements about a single conference comparable to the sentence you refer to (about the behaviour of the Austrian policie). And finally, what I said wasn't off-topic. It was about what kind of sourced content belongs in the article and what does not. Doug Weller (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bilderberg Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101008183742/http://www.trutv.com:80/shows/conspiracy_theory/episodes/season1.html to http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/episodes/season1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bilderberg Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130615031248/http://www.newstatesman.com:80/2013/06/my-brush-bilderberg to http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/06/my-brush-bilderberg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bilderberg Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828210925/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html to http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants_2011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Criminals invited for the 2015 Bilderberg meeting.

I suggest adding content related to the invitation of criminals for the 2015 Bilderberg meeting. It has been covered by reliable sources, such as The Guardian [2]. Dornicke (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

(Source read) Very amusing account by the Guardian's reporter, but not a foundation for encyclopedic content. I was hoping for something really dramatic based on your earlier pronouncements. Once again, we don't call people "criminals" in the encyclopedia even if the Guardian's reporters like to do that for effect. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see:

David Petraeus - sentenced 2 years probation and fined 100K for sharing classified files with his mistress. Convicted criminal.

René Benko - sentenced 1 year for bribery of a judge. Convicted criminal.

Douglas Flint, Rona Fairhead, and Stuart Levey - under investigation for HSBC criminal activities in Switzerland.

Except for the last three ones whose personal responsabilites over HSBC crimes are still under investigation, the others are, indeed, convicted criminals. The fact that they are powerful and rich individuals doesn't make them any less criminal. Dornicke (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

One reporter's dramatic account of an encounter with security is not a foundation upon which to erect an accusation of criminal association, and we do not describe individuals as "criminals" unless it's their career. Al Capone and Ottis Toole would fairly fit that description. By your criteria an invitation to Daniel Berrigan would support your point of view about Bilderberg. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies here. This is one reporter's account, widely publicised on conspiracy websites. But we aren't a conspiracy website. If this becomes an important talking point in the mainstream media, then perhaps it would belong in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The fine of 100,000 U.S. dollars imposed on Petraeus was larger than expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.69.201 (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, make sure we reference exactly who said they committed crimes and exactly what crimes they were to avoid POV or undue. Endercase (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bilderberg Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726214724/http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html to http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

This is a standard term and of course we have an article with that name. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but it does also have a certain connotation. In addition the current Conspiracy theory article states "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant." Whereas the late Rockefeller did actually admit into record to one of the reported "conspiracy theories" as seen here: "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Also per Conspiracy theory the term is "derogatory" and should be avoided. Endercase (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No, he didn't, that's misreading him. We also call people Holocaust deniers, Anti-semites, racists etc. Doug Weller talk 05:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm dropping this. Not worth it. Endercase (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The word conspiracy always sounds like smoke filled backrooms with the Godfather presiding. We should see Conspiracy theories more like attempts to find answers to inconsistencies in what we are told about events. Secrecy, incomplete info, and no explanations for something not 'normal' lead us to speculate. So yes, the secrecy of the Bilderberg Conferences leads us to speculate they conspire about wars, economic policies, and all the rest under the sun. Diana's death in Paris has inconsistencies as had JFK's and Olaf Palme's assassinations - so people speculated that it wasn't a random event. Anyway the German article is quite elaborate. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg-Konferenz

2001:8003:A928:800:F91B:5BF:4D78:4BDE (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

In Media

These meetings were used a plot device in the British Television show Utopia S02E01 where two of the shows main characters (an MI6 Officer and a biochemist) meet and discuss the population management of Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Experts

The word "experts" is taken from the Bilderberg website and would normally be deleted as spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.15 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone interested in editing a really secret group that's more like the fantasies about this one?

See Le Cercle - I've worked on it but it needs to be brought uptodate. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge from Bilderberg Hotel

The hotel does not appear to have stand alone notability per WP:NCOMPANY, I suggest redirecting here after merging the one or so useful sentence from the lead (which can fit well in the history section here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Captainllama (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, strongly, a merge or redirect of Bilderberg Hotel simply because this article is about the group of politicians and business executives that meet generally annually at the hotel. Moreover, the hotel should get its dues at AfD, ideally, or through a PROD (if not previously PRODded). Alternatively, I would support a draftification of Bilderberg Hotel, but that's it. Doug Mehus T·C 17:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, they do not meet annually at this hotel. The hotel was the location of the first of these meetings, and gave its name to them, but they are held in different venues each time (and I remember the traffic disruption when it was held in my home town). Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose a merge, but support deletion of hotel page. It doesn't merit more than a sentence mention in meeting article. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The reason is that the hotel and group are two different things. I think it is known as builderberg group so instead of calling it a meeting, the name of the article should be builderberg group. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but note that this article is about a yearly conference, not a group. It has a steering committee but no members, which is why we have a List of Bilderberg participants, not a list of members. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The hotel gave its name to the meetings, as they started there, (it was a Dutch affair, not to attract too much attention), but since then the participants have gathered annually in a diversity of places like Davos Switzerland or Watford in the UK.--Po Mieczu (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support merge as described by the nominator. It is not clear to me if others voting here read the nominator's proposal. Daask (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I, as Daask, am rather puzzled by the opposes. This hotel does not seem to be be independently notable. There are many sources that mention it but they all seem to be in the context of the eponymous meeting. That looks to me like a very clear case for redirection. I don't think there's anything not mentioned here that needs merging, but if there is then why not do it? Redirects are cheap. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC) And arguments about whether this is a meeting, or a group of lizards from Saturn creating a new world order, are irrelevant to this particular discussion.
  • Support As part of history of the original meeting and group.Djflem (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)