Talk:Council on Foreign Relations/Archive 1

Members list
I propose the "members list" be deleted, as it appears names have been arbitrarily added with NO source or proof that these people are members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.146.251 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say I agree with this. After reading the history, it seems the same names are being added again and again even though they do not appear on the CFR's own lists. I have half a mind to add Ron Paul's name just to make a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.49.150 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless sources can be provided, I think we should cut out the vast majority of the membership section. Any objections?Scharferimage (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, I just reverted a user who added a bunch of names without sourcing. IPs and new users do it constantly. Many of the names that remain on the list haven't even been verified.--Jersey Devil (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jersey, how do you want to proceed? Do you want to put missing reference marks, give people a week or so, and then delete all unsourced member names? Scharferimage (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just deleted all unsourced members, which was basically all of them except for a handful. Scharferimage (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

conspiracy theorists, my arse!
What a joke that the entry for the CFR is plain vanilla except for a mention of "conspiracy theorists"! THe entire CFR is a conspiracy of elites! How the heck else would one describe the CFR? I am going to edit the CFR entry, as soon as I have some of the so-called conspiracy theorist evidence summarized....

"one major channel by which business leaders influence foreign policy"
 * This page sounds like an advertisement for the Council on Foreign Relations, which is really what I've come to expect from Wikipedia. One sentence about it's opposition? I wonder if anti-globalist groups get that kind of leniency.12.150.117.30 16:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the prominence of the CFR among conspiracy theorists, I was disappointed that there is not a separate article detailing some of the CFR conspiracy theories. Plazak 12:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need for a separate article detailing conspiracy theories because most of the conspiracies are known as fact. Geekrecon 10:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply amazing how soft this article is on the elitist globalist CFR, not even a criticism section. Manic Hispanic 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to add this to the beginning of the scroll to make sure that there is at least a modicum of balance to the discussion at hand -certainly the article itself notes a lot of information on the subject and does not include after its "criticism" section a "rebuttal to criticisms." This silence appears to imply that the position of the "conspiracy theorist" critics is irrefutable which an article interested in a neutral POV should avoid the impression of giving even by implication.

I should also note in the interest of disclosure that I spent a few years in college obsessed with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, etc. I went so far as to track down a rare copy of Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as well as Dan Smoot's work The Invisible Government (both of which were in my college library at the time incidentally enough) along with several other stock texts, had several back issues of various "conspiracy" magazines, and even was fired from a job (indirectly) over my obsession with the stuff. This is noted at the outset because I am more than familiar with the stock "arguments" propounded and the proof-texts brought forward to sustain the "theory" (so-called) and therefore will not be swayed by those who try to throw them at me as if I am unaware of them. However, if we look at some of the fundamental elements of rational thought and how they present themselves amongst those commonly taken in by these "theories", some disturbing patterns present themselves.

Why does everyone presume that all members of any organization have the exact same views and no disagreements on policy or other factors are involved in the mix? Somehow we are to believe that all who belong to CFR all have the exact same views -find for me a single organization anywhere in the world where this happens! This factor alone would account for several of the stock proof texts from old issues of Foreign Affairs or wherever where one member's opinion is thereby not transmogrified into the collective viewpoint of the whole.

Furthermore, why do all those who harp on the CFR as some "big conspiracy organization" forget to point out all the blown predictions that the "gurus" propounding these conspiracy "theories" over the decades have made? The stock response to this stuff is that the CFR and their other "affiliates" (i.e. Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs, or whatever) found out what they (the "prophets of world conspiracy") were onto with regards to their "master plan" and then changed their tactics to avoid "detection" or whatever. Is it possible that countless blown predictions by these sorts over the decades being swept aside and other bold predictions being made is a sign not of a "Borg-like single mentality" of the members but instead that the "conspiracy theorists" themselves are operating wholly or at least in part from a defective operative presupposition? After all, the focus is almost always on only what the "theorist" believes will sustain their interpretation with potentially controverting evidences ignored or (if they are interacted with at all) caricatured in classic "straw man" fallacy and then dismissed as "refuted" or whatever.

It appears to me that the approach taken by the "conspiracy theorists" is no different than that taken by the flat earth activists who claim to offer a "reward" for anyone who can "prove" the earth is not flat or the holocaust deniers who offer "rewards" for "proof" of the holocaust happening. In all these cases, no degree of proof can satisfy the party in question because they have prejudged the matter as one that does not admit of them possibly being wrong. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "papists" or the "Jesuits"? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.

Now do not misunderstand me here, I am not going to claim that there are no members of CFR and other such groups past (or present) who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping. The charm of these "theories" is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata.

And for those who would complain about a lack of "balance" or whatever to the Wikipedia article itself, let us see if my comments remain in this discussion thread unedited or not. I have saved the text and I will check back periodically to see if this thread is truly one of "discussion" or if it is instead one long rant for a single viewpoint which seeks to censor or suppress the views of those who do not agree: ironically the same complaint the "conspiracy theorists" have about how they are treated! Those who would see another example of the violation of non-contradiction in such a "censoring" by world government advocates would be correct of course...time will tell if my note remains on this file in its unedited entirety or if by demonstration (read: editing or removing these comments in any respect whatsoever) my suspicions about the "ethics" of conspiracy theorist sorts as a rule will be confirmed.ShawnM (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Put down the thesaurus and back away slowly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that the longer thread is still up...time will tell if that will change. As for the person who presumes that I need a thesaurus to write the way they (presumably) to either write themselves or read what I wrote, some of us are not so limited. ShawnM (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I added to this article a clearly verifiable quote from a Columbia University law professor and former ambassador to Italy and Spain who was a member of the trilateral commission from 1974-2005. He has contributed a number of articles to Foreign Affairs over the years. Back in 1974 he wrote very unambigously of the goals and mission of the CFR and its Trilateral Commission. He writes:


 * ...an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

-Richard N. Gardner, in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974.

Someone immediately removed this quote.

THIS ARTICLE COULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED BY ADMITTING that an organization (with over 400 high ranking government officials and over 300 members who hold high high positions at the major media outlets) publishing an article which refers to how they plan to INCREMENTALLY overthrow the constitution including our unalienable rights might be seen by many as RELEVANT if not outright treason. It is no small matter that the "trilateral plan" to unite the world under one government plans to undermine our constitutional sovereignty including the FIRST AMENDMENT.

THIS ARTICLE COULD BE IMPROVED POINTING OUT THAT many PEOPLE feel we could simply invite Mexico and Canada into STATEHOOD and retain the constitution and our bill of rights IF THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE IN OUR AND THEIR COUNTRIES WANTED.

Instead, the investment banker elites & the oil and defense corporations they control have decided that "government for the people by the people" is OUTDATED and have decided to use secret meetings, where the public an press are not privy, to dicuss how to end our constitutional rights. With the death of habeus corpus, we are watching them succeed and someone with their hands on this article is helping them. This article DOES read like an AD for the CFR and for globalism sans the first amendment.

THIS ARTICLE would be much better if the majority who see eye to eye on this were allowed to contribute FACTS and references that point out that the CONSPIRACY is NOT A THEORY. With SO MUCH at stake it is abhorrent that this article is being denied a CRITICISMS section by the sycophant who maintains this page. The main defense of the neo-cons to the dismantling of our liberties and national sovereignty is that whoever points to these FACTS is a tin-foil wearing pot smoking living in his mother's basement bat-shit "conspiracy theorist" and should be treated as such. People have a right to know and this article would be improved if it stopped omitting the FACTS about this organization and it's aims. --Blahinhawaii 07:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)blahinhawaii 01:28 3 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahinhawaii (talk • contribs) 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added to this article a clearly verifiable quote from a Columbia University law professor and former ambassador to Italy and Spain who was a member of the trilateral commission from 1974-2005. He has contributed a number of articles to Foreign Affairs over the years. Back in 1974 he wrote very unambigously of the goals and mission of the CFR and its Trilateral Commission. He writes:
 * ...an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

-Richard N. Gardner, in "Foreign Affairs," April 1974.

Of course that is one small snippet (half of a sentence actually) taken from a twenty-two page article! Have you actually bothered to read the entire article to place that phrase in proper context? It is a near-certainty that you did not as "conspiracy theorists" by nature take these matters on faith from second and third hand (or worse) sources and do not check these matter for themselves. And as a text without context is a pre-text (for whatever interpretation you want to place upon it) you would be wise to do so along with considering what I said in the above paragraphs about one person's opinion editorial in a publication (be it Foreign Affairs or any other journal or periodical) being THE view of the CFR.ShawnM (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The particular quote by David Rockefeller: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. -- is highly disturbing.  He essentially confesses to his intentions to create a one world government AVKent882 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way is that quote disturbing? The core content of it seems to be the phrase "to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will."  I don't find anything inherently sinister in that.  In fact, it's a necessary aim for the future.  Of course, you can argue that David Rockefeller's vision of what a more integrated world should like is something that would not be in most people's interests, and that may well be true.  What I find silly is the way that people jump on such lame generic do-gooder phrases and cite them as if they were an admission to an evil plan.  If there is an evil Rockefeller plan going on somewhere, it's not seriously reflected in the general statement which you cite.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that there are some articles on Wikipedia where people have been allowed to post the facts without being called a conspiracy theorist and having it all deleted. Whoever it was that wrote the "conspiracy theories" section, I thank you. It's pretty comprehensive. 208.114.161.24 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Nalencer


 * I agree, there are some things that one would call "Conspiracy Theories" that indeed turned out to be accurate. One example would be Operation Northwoods, which essentially was a plan by the Joint Chiefs to create a pretext for invading Cuba.  The fact that they planned on murdering Cuban refugees on the high-seas, creating waves of shootings and terrorism within the United States, and staging the shoot-down of a commercial airliner, is even more disturbing.  Yet it is indeed true and is now acknowledged to be true.  AVKent882 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This article would be much more comprehensive if it didn't EXLUDE relevant FACTS. The CFR, working in tandem with the CCCE plans a common North American economic and security integration by 2010. Calling it a "theory" is ludicrous. It is good that there is a mention of Robert Pastor in this article. However there is no mention whatsoever of the Security and Prosperity Partnership aka the "SPP", the whitehouse initiative which has followed every recommendation of the CFR independent task force on North America. Cabinet level working groups are "harmonizing" the regulations of the 3 countries in North America as we speak. To omit any mention of the SPP is inexcusable, even if your IP says rockefeller.edu and you are being paid to sit on this page. If you merely google Pastor's catch phrase "dual-bilateralism" (he is the only human being to ever use it) you can see his quotes in some of his newer publications.

This article would be much improved if it included some more quotes from Professor Robert Pastor, the architect of the SPP, such as these: "The three governments remain zealous defenders of an aging conception of sovereignty. The U.S. needs to establish a White House Advisor to the President for North American Affairs. That person would need to bridge the National Security, Domestic Policy, and Homeland Security Councils and chair a cabinet-level Inter-Agency Task Force on North America. The weakest link in North America is the lack of credible institutions, and the three governments should begin to fix that by establishing a North American Commission (NAC). A second institution would represent a merging of two bilateral legislative groups into a North American Parliamentary Group. The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade and Investment. All three governments could negotiate a “North American Passport,”...For security reasons, all three governments need to...establish a single “North American Customs and Immigration Force.” Canada and Mexico have long organized their governments to give priority to bilateral issues with the U.S., and Canada has recently established a Director-General for North American Affairs. Only the U.S. is poorly organized to address North American issues. Mexico will have the most difficulty because its tariffs are the highest, but, fortunately, President Fox, the most visionary of North America’s leaders, proposed a customs union and more." -Robert Pastor, Council on Foreign Relations.

Former and future president of Mexico (he amended the constitution so he can run again) Vicente Fox came on Larry King and on the Daily show and in no uncertain terms stated that the long term plan is for a North American Union. You can LIE and call it a theory all you want, or you can watch Vicente Fox admit. Just watch the videos, as millions of others have. The plans for the NAU are FACT, and just like the EU, a trade agreement is the foundation. Also of note, the European Council on Foreign Relations opened on November 9th in Berlin, to "inform" and definitely not "guide" (just ignore the fact that ALL "assistant" secretaries of state and defense are ALWAYS CFR members) the foreign policy of the EU.

Marginalize those who bring facts like this to light as "conspiracy nuts" all you want. Truth has a way of coming out.--Blahinhawaii (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blahinhawaii...

Where is the evidence for this? Do you have a LINK to any article (outside of those wacko conspiracy theory websites) that substantiate your rumors? Do you have a YouTube link to this nonsense? If not, then how can we take this CONSPIRACY THEORY seriously? The CFR is simply a THINK TANK. The CFR has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. It is simply a gathering of individuals from various backgrounds and levels of expertise which discuss and debate the state of world affairs. If you have EVER attended a "closed meeting" (which I have), you will find that there is more arguments than debate -- and this organization as a whole is decidedly PRO-AMERICAN (with NO desire to merge into a sinister "one-world government"). Sadly, those who make such allegations tend to conclude their remarks with "everyone knows" and "everyone has seen" -- yet they suspiciously leave out any credible citations or links. *sigh* Some people are gullible enough to BELIEVE ANYTHING.

--Ccchhhrrriiisss (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

cchhhhrriis.... or chirs, whatever your real name may be. So, you have been in a "closed meeting" have you?? Let me be the first to offer my congratulations. The fact you have been in a so called "closed meeting" has no relevance to this whatsoever. Have you atteneded a meeting with these "individuals from various backgrounds"? No? Well, then your arguement is just as weak, if not weaker than the conspiracy theorists you try to mock so whole heartedly. By "Various backgrounds", I assume you are either highly misguided, or maybe just high? Even if the ALL of the unconfirmed members listed on the main page were in the CFR, there is a higher diversity of people at your local supermarket right now. No one has claimed at ANY point thethe CFR has authority, just mentioned that the members are people of authority in other positions. I may just end this by saying "Everyone knows.... and everyone has seen people like you try and aruge a point with well written, articulated language, but with no real point of evidence. Most of the time, they don't even require a rebuttal, but your highly incompetent paragraph above annoyed me enough to take 15 minutes out of work to own you."

I hope you liked that one as it had both of your favourite "conculsion remarks" xxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.119.59 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Where is the evidence for this? Do you have a LINK to any article (outside of those wacko conspiracy theory websites) that substantiate your rumors?  Do you have a YouTube link to this nonsense?"


 * http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf


 * http://www.amazon.com/Future-North-American-Integration-Beyond/dp/0815733992


 * http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/workingpaper6_rp.pdf


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYGrn0hZlCQ

LazyLaidBackEditor (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Ccchhhrrriiisss, some people see a conspiracy wherever they look.....WacoJacko (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Members?
Where does the list of members come from? They publish who their directors are, but not their membership.Secretlondon 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no source for them. Sometimes the CFR has these meetings where prominent leaders come out and speak but that does not neccessarily mean that they are members and there is no source to them. So I am going to remove them and ask that they be placed back if they can be verified.--Jersey Devil 00:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find it now, but in the past I remember reading that, for a fee, a person can write in and ask for a membership list which will be sent.

proper place for conspiracies to run free
trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 03:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Major Overhaul
Considering the importance of this organization, and the state that this article was in, I have decided to do a major overhaul of this article. Somethings may look odd currently, such as the very long table containing the board of directors for instance, but I can assure you that after I am through with this article that it will all fit together. Thank you for your patience.--Jersey Devil 01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * JD, its great that your are improving the article. Now, also add the prison planet critic that i added and you removed, the article needs to have a section about what people think of this group. --Striver 01:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're -- You Are --- You're -- You Are -- You're -- You are. Just keep repeating it to yourself until you can remember it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.112.210 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is not going to become a mouthpiece for your POV. No one cares what Alex Jones thinks about the Council on Foreign Relations, this article is about the CFR not Alex Jones.--Jersey Devil 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To other editors that care about this page, you may have noticed that there were three sub-sections in one "Board of Directors" section of the previous version. Those sections actually repeated in names of board members, so they were condensed, furthermore the section with "well-known members" of the CFR I removed because those were not verified.--Jersey Devil 01:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To exlude a pov is a direct violation of wikipedia policies. Are you sure you are insisting? --Striver 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read NPOV, excluding your aggressive need to place your POV in this article does not violate Wikipedia policy. Perhaps you should read the guidelines and policies before stating false policies. I am also done with this conversation on this matter, anything on this talk page that I will respond to will only be to that which is relevant to the article.--Jersey Devil 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked up Alex Jones and it seems like a lot of people would care what he thinks since he's a radio talk show host. I came here because I read about some sort of vague conspiracy with the CFR and Wikipedia can usually enlighten me about those things; I don't think the Wikipedia article, if you're done editing it, is complete in any way without at least a mention of this sort of thing, and I see below that you removed it from the "Conspiracy Theories" category.  Considering that there are 42,000 hits for the CFR and some sort of conspiracy theory, and apparently entire books written about it, it certainly seems like non-NPOV to completely exclude this information from the article.  And by the way-- talking about POV in an article IS actually related to the article, if not perhaps the most important aspect of a Wikipedia article.--Gloriamarie 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And there are many tens of thousands of people in this country who believe that black people are biologically inferior to whites, as evidenced by membership in stormfront.org &c. Just because a bunch of certifiable morons believe something to be true doesn't mean that it is true, or even that it should be reported.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.90.223 (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: I wrote a section on the controversy about the allegedly proposed "North American Union." There are probably others, but I think that's the main one right now.--Gloriamarie 21:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The user I was dealing with above had a history of using articles to push his own POV. With regards to your latest contributions, I think that they are generally quite well. They present the subject in a very neutral way and are free from those "soapboxing tones" which are sometimes found in such sections. The sourcing of the section is also well done. All in all, a good addition to the overall article but I should also point out that it should remain at the current size it is now and we should be careful not to expand on it because that would give undue weight to views held by a minority of people.--Jersey Devil 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your note before I posted. I don't plan on expanding the conspiracy section any further because I think it's good as it stands.  In the edit I just completed I added a bit back about some criticisms; I put them in the "Influence on Foreign Policy" section and balanced it out.  I tried to summarize it without going into detail, so there is more I could have added on direct connections to the CFR which I did not (the study that was commmissioned recommending regime change in Guatemala, for example, in which 15 of 22 committee members were members of the CFR and which was headed by the vice-president of the CFR).--Gloriamarie 22:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy???
Why exactly is this in the "Conspiracy Theories" category? There's absolutely no mention of conspiracy in the article...Tex 20:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll take it out. Thanks for noticing it.--Jersey Devil 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Over-zealously Purged?
I see that there has been a lot of discussion on talking about the CFR an conspiracy theories and that this stuff was removed to keep a NPOV. That said, I went to look this up here because I've only really heard of the CFR in conspiracy theories. With as prevalent as those are, it seems to me that not even mentioning them is a substantial error of omission. I'd almost parallel it with mentioning the JFK assassination without mentioning the "magic bullet." SP 23:25, 9 Sept 2006 (EDT)


 * I agree, in the controversy section as long as you keep it neutral the theories should be mentioned at least Mobus (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Partisanship?
Excluding the conspiracy theories, is CFR more aligned with the Dems or the GOP or is it fairly neutral? Kent Wang 23:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've responded to the above question in your talk page.--Jersey Devil 04:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what we discussed on our Talk pages. Kent Wang 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the CFR, it considers itself a "non-partisan organization" and people from both parties belong to it. I too wouldn't say that it has a stated political position, it really works as more of a forum if anything. You may want to try reading Foreign Affairs (a political journal published by the CFR) or seeing their website to see other works by the organization. You might also want to avoid using talk pages of articles to talk about these things, we have a pretty well-established policy that talk pages should be used only to talk about improvements to the article of which they belong. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your analysis. I think the comment on the Talk page was appropriate as this is information that should be added to the article. In fact, I hope you reword what you wrote to me and incorporate it into the article. Kent Wang 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, that would be interesting to put within the article, and I thought that talk pages were about discussing ways to improve the article, including information that readers may want to know that is excluded.--Gloriamarie 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

American Union
Can we get a reliable [i.e. non-conspiratorial] link to an article that details plans for an American Union which WASN'T written by someone who's batshit insane?--Baltech22 23:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? The Eagle Forum link in the external link section? Anyway, the original publication by the CFR is also in the external links section in pdf format.--Jersey Devil 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rick Warren
There was a recent report on World Net Daily mentioning that Purpose-Driven Life author Rick Warren said he was a member of CFR. This probably needs to be added somewhere.

WAVY 10 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Membership list
The Council is incorporated under New York State law, and a copy of its annual report can be obtained from the office of the Secretary of State in Albany, as can that of any corporation in the state. Full membership list can be found each year in the annual report. NY DOS-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.189.136 (talk • contribs) 18:20, January 28, 2007 (UTC)

Tags at top
This discussion page needs to follow talk page guidelines (just tagged): "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Council on Foreign Relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."

Also there are many, many living persons listed in this article. WP:BLP (and its linked guidelines/policies) applies. --NYScholar 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

World Net Daily (mentioned by someone above) is not a citable source in this article according to Reliable sources. Such self-published partisan websites and blogs are not notable and reliable sources of information for this article. If adding notable information, more reliable published news sources than that need to be cited as a source. --NYScholar 08:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of founding
Thanks for correcting it. I had checked the date on the site's history, but mistyped it as 1941 instead of 1921 when I actually put it in the article. Much appreciated. --NYScholar 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous
This was the most sterile and massaged rendition of what CFR is and has been. It should not be posted in its present format without making mention of the fact that CFR members have to be invited by existing members to join. This overview should also detail the sordid facts salient to CFR initiating virtually every war and every foreign policy fiasco attributable to the United States over the last 50+ years. If that weren't bad enough, omissions pertinent to the CFR memberships complicity in every other form of treason and treachery imaginable (NAFTA, CAFTA, the Patriot Act, etc.) over the last 50+ years are also conveniently overlooked.

The Iraq invasion has CFR's bloody fingerprints all over it. Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Tenet, etc. ALL CFR and ALL are deeply and directly responsible for this war!!!!!!

Yes, CFR is "bi-partisan," but so is treason and prostitution, and CFR is the most accomplished band of secretive, treasonous whores known to this hemisphere.

70.16.212.237 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)GoldSaber


 * Powell is also a member, and he was one of the biggest war proponents. Geekrecon 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This notion ("The Iraq invasion has CFR's bloody fingerprints all over it. Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Tenet, etc. ALL CFR and ALL are deeply and directly responsible for this war!!!!!!") is part of these wacko conspiracy theorists who have no evidence upon which to build their accusations. They simply repeat rumors, hoping that some uneducated, conspiracy-seeking mind might believe them. The CFR is simply a THINK TANK. They gather a great number of individuals from various backgrounds, political persuasions and professions into a forum into which the current state of world affairs is discussed. These individuals will point the finger of conspiracy at ANYTHING that is whispered about by fellow conspiracy theorists. Sadly, they can provide no evidence or facts to substantiate their allegations. Even the official website refutes such notions. There is no "secret agenda" to rule the world or subjegate the world into a one world government. These meetings often turn into debates, since there are individuals who hold to many different ideologies. They simply offer suggestions and opinions that are often contained in written form in the organization's peer reviewed journal, Foreign Affairs.

ccchhhrrriiisss 11:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ccchhhrrriiisss, while I want to make it clear I have not drawn the absolute conclusions both you and the conspiracy theorists appear to have drawn (yes, whether you realise it or not, you're also making grand assumptions about the real world influence, or lack thereof, of the organisation), I found your comment that "even the official website refutes such notions" laughably naive, since the official website would be the last place that any hidden agenda would be revealed and openly admitted, wouldn't it?


 * What I will say, and this is obviously just my opinion, is that in this world it is the movement of capital that does the talking as far as shaping world affairs goes, and if the CFR's most prominant members happened to have the most generous and aggressive financial backing, then that, by default, means their views and their personal agendas have more potential to be realised than those who merely "argue" during these closed meetings.


 * So yes, while many conspiracy theorists are misguided on many points of accusation, it's also worth actually looking at how ideas become reality in the world of politics, and how private finance cartels and political groups that make up the same individuals are intrinsically connected, whether we like it or not.


 * While the CFR may not be a tightly integrated entity of conspiratorial agenda setting itself, it surely not crazy to entertain the thought that it could be used as a vehicle for existing influence within this political-economic mesh. 194.221.40.3 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight
I am concerned with recent contributions to this article. In particular the recent contributions by User:Gloriamarie seem to involve a great deal of citation from lewrockwell.com and I believe that this is giving undue weight to one individuals particular view. This last edit which I reverted seems to be taken verbatim from an article written by Murray Rothbard on the site --Jersey Devil 06:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not taken verbatim; it is summarized. If you want to take out the paragraphs on the particular foreign policy actions of the Rockefeller-ites in Kennedy and Johnson's foreign policy, that's fine, they can be condensed, but there's no reason to remove the McCloy paragraph or the factual information of the Rockefeller/Morgan connections of these individuals.  All you have to do is ask for different citations and allow editors to find that.  I'm trying to improve the article, which as it was didn't tell a reader that much.--Gloriamarie 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

POV?
Due to the complete lack of criticism of CFR I've marked the article as POV. This is merely an advertisement for CFR. 80.167.218.195 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Signed, this article needs a REAL criticism section... Like about how members of the CFR have been instumental in causing quite a few armed conflicts around the world... And how elected officials sometimes use it as a caucus where they are not required to release minutes. --Electrostatic1 13:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would the CFR need to release minutes, it's a private organization. The only problem with this article currently is the overuse of sources from CFR self, instead of using secondary sources, like books. Intangible2.0 20:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it had to release it's minutes... As a matter of fact I said the complete opposite. That is precisely the problem. A lot of politicians use it as a place to talk behind closed doors between themselves and the media where the FOIA does not apply. This is a legitimate concern for informed voters, as it lowers transparency and obfustaces candidates real views on important issues. All but three Presidential contenders this time around are members, a fact which merits due critisism from many non conspiracy pundits as it basically creates a private Politician/Media lobby that does not report all of it's own actions to the people at large. --Electrostatic1 01:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

removed dulles paragraph
I've removed the following paragraph:

"It has been alleged that CFR members have used their positions on the Council and in government to influence foreign policy in other ways. The regime change of Jacob Arbenz of Guatemala occurred after he nationalized large tracts of land belonging to the United Fruit Company. Brothers John (Secretary of State) and Allen Dulles (head of the CIA) held financial interests in the company. However, it has been argued that Eisenhower would have intervened whether UFC was involved or not. The Dulles brothers had previously planned Operation Ajax, which encouraged a coup in Iran. After Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized British Petroleum, the CIA under the Eisenhower administration decided to encourage opposition to his regime. In his book Killing Hope, former State Department employee and author William Blum alleges that the Dulles brothers held ulterior motives in the coup; they had both previously been partners of prominent law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, which represented Standard Oil. After the change, 40% of Iranian oil was owned by US oil companies, including Standard Oil, when they had had none before."

The paragraph is problematic in that it is an attack that does not directly say anything about CFR. CFR is mentioned in the first sentence, but it is not clear what the organization had to with the events described. Given that John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State at the time, why would he need to use his "position on the Council" to influence foreign policy when he was largely responsible for crafting it himself? The second part of the paragraph doesn't mention CFR at all. There is no explanation as to why this is relevant to an encyclopedia article on Council on Foreign Relations. Without a reliable source elaborating on the connection, it is OR. It is definitely POV-pushing. GabrielF 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Elihu Root
Is it really NPOV to refer to Elihu Root as "JP Morgan's lawyer" in the section on the founding? While true, Root was also TR's Sec. State, which seems rather more explanatory and less inflammatory.Czrisher 20:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that seems a little ridiculous. Scharferimage 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * One would have to be biased that status as a lawyer is a universal evil instead of a simple fact. There exist honest lawyers.  Your own feelings about lawyers in general determines whether you consider correct identification of a lawyer's occupation inflammatery or not.  Secretary of State is a achievement as well.  Perhaps both should be mentioned here, or neither.  Both belong in an article on the man.  Ace Frahm 05:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree that simply saying someone is someone's lawyer is in any way "inflammatory." But yes, it could be good to say he was Secretary of State, although his early involvement with this organization is mentioned along with the Morgan family.--Gloriamarie 03:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Street protests outside CFR
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=98374244981945682 - Protests at CFR http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2985093417802026378 - CFR controls America http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=412617264635445048 - Dick Cheney works for CFR http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml - Mike Ruppet fingers Dick Cheney for 9/11

Powerful stuff. Go watch it now. I am amazed this page has no mention of the fact, that it has been publically alleged that the CFR was the planning organisaton behind the 9/11 attacks. That was a direct accusation leveled in the street protests linked above, outside the CFR offices. Notable? 79.74.163.247 08:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any substantiation to those accusations? Seems to tie in with the whole "CFR controls the world" conspiracy theory that's mentioned in the controversy section. Just because someone is accused of something publicly doesn't necessarily make it notable though. Scharferimage 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you had 10,000 people outside CFR protesting next year, it *MIGHT* become notable at some point. 79.74.163.247 08:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A few dozen (at the very most) is less than notable. An Alex Jones parade isn't notable, and Infowars.com is certainly not reliable. Maybe if CNN or Reuters or Associated Press or pretty much anything other than extremist right-wing websites, by all means put it on there. Until then, leave that garbage out of Wikipedia. IamMcLovin 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Granted that Alex Jones protests aren't necessarily notable, I think it is off-target to characterize him as "extremist right-wing" given that he has welcoming dialogue about and with views from the left (e.g.: Reps. Brad Sherman and Dennis Kucinich) and independents (e.g.: Jesse Ventura). The extreme right wing is usually characterized by talking points about abortion, school prayer, tougher crime laws, and support for the death penalty--which don't seem to play into his views in a major way. It would be more correct to characterize him as a conservative/libertarian. Moderately so, if you consider some of the more extreme ideas on the libertarian agenda. If you're going to denigrate the source, he self-describes as a "conspiracist" but to suggest that his views have much in common with George Bush (a hard core conservative) or even Bob Barr (still just a garden variety hard-core conservative) is simplistic flatlander thinking. Perhaps you think protection and defense of the Constitution and national sovereignty is in some way radicalization? Very interesting.


 * The unregistered user would do well to watch a little Lou Dobbs a little more closely if CNN is considered RS. As I understand it, the early goal of J.P. Morgan to control public policy through media and yield it to the CFR will create eyerolls on the behalf of conspiracists. Once again, self-description is an excellent way to start, and I notice Foreign Policy is published to the public. There are some interesting policies with regard to sovereignty which are sourceable. Remember also that these sources fall under self-pub rules of WP:RS. Sources related to Alex Jones do provide the direct source from time to time. One might use those rather than a source which can be characterized as extreme POV. Jones does have bias. Any journalist who has a banner under which protests are formed, we must concede, has limited use here. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncategorized Discussions
Who has his hands on this article? Or maybe more important why am I missing something like uh I dunno.. a substantial criticism article?

We ARE talking about a hell of a conspiracy theory here, that made quite a disturbance in the 1960's (well thats the impression im getting anyway, I wasnt around when it happened to be honest).

Nothing verifiable to find? Maybe someone has that book Quigley wrote about them?

82.92.111.48 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Quigley never wrote any books specifically devoted to the topic of the CFR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.25 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the alleged conspiracy theorists mislabel World Government, it should be called like they called themselves World Federalism, for most detractors of ideology of World Federalism (aka World Govervance) are nationalists and conservatives. I think editors do not understand clearly what Global Governance is....let's see... :-)

Please comment after reading the respective sites http://www.wfm.org/index.php/base/main http://www.globalsolutionsne.org/ http://www.wfanca.org/ --203.61.129.173 15:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the issues posed by national constitutions of the several United States and other governments, which I know good and well are I the eyes those we elect to protect them are worth nothing more than the parchment they're written on; a centralised world government would by its very nature be impossible to secede from should it become dictatorial (and it will, as all governments eventually do).I'd also imagine such a government would restrict or prohibit civilian possession of military ordinance and, being the only government in the world, would thus have a monopoly on them. That to me is a very scary thought. I’ve had some of my ancestors killed by my government, I’m not about to submit to the will of an even bigger, more distant, more inescapable and by necessity more brutal one. 12.150.117.30 16:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The CFR has a policy called Chatham House Rules on non-attribution for its members, be noted that the RIIA also uses this policy. I think the controvertiality of CFR stems from that policy-making process bypasess public representation and significantly that is seen as an undemocratic process by our conspiracy theorists, usually the time when foreign policy  comes into question is under a congressional inquiry following  an incident or scandal. So much for transparent foreign policy.

I believe most American don't vote either way, or don't run government as long as they don't get in their way. How many voters? Less that 50% vote in Presidential elections... It speaks for itself...pretty pathetic for the world's oldest democracy. --203.15.122.35 04:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The oldest democracy in the world is that of Switzerland. Before commenting on civic participation in the United States, it would behoove you to learn what type of government they're supposed to have.12.150.117.30 16:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Could someone elaborate. CFR doesn't seem like a particularly secret organization, and if they have a rule that records are to be opened after 25 years, they are far more open than most corporations or NGO's who never open their records.


 * The CFR is something like a sect in that it has strict rules regarding secrecy, and keeps its records secret for 25 years.

Power, money and politics. I hope they act in the best interest of the people and not only the elite wich the council is made up from. And I am sure that they sometimes do the opposite.

Enough is enough
I've begun purging this article of all the POV nonsense its been filled with as of late. --Hemlock Martinis 06:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent article split and removal of Conspiracy Theory section
I use this article regularly as part of education and research. IMO there is simply no reason to split the members from the main article. Further there is no NPOV reason for removal of the conspiracy section. Plenty of articles have a consiracy section where 'conspiracies' surround the subject. I am therefore returning the aricle to it's previous state. The current article is inferior. Vexorg 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I thought the article could benefit if we moved membership to a new article, since it is a large topic in the CFR. It would also aid in helping us assess which names on there are really members - I've noticed a lot of anon additions as of late and I'm concerned that not all of them are actual members.


 * Second, I'm uncomfortable with a section titled "Conspiracy Theories". It seems rather, although I hate this word, unencyclopedic. Perhaps if we shifted it more towards a proper criticism section? --Hemlock Martinis 18:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for conversing :) - The only problem I have with the list of members in the main article is that it's long visually. I think it could benefit from being displayed someway with slightly smaller text. The actual list of members is an important part of education about the CFR. Particuarly as these members play ( and have played ) a major role in the world for a number of various reasons. For this reason I highly disagree with marginalising the list onto a seperate page with a long title that's only portal is an entry in the See Also section. With respect a seperate article has no logical basis to help asses which members are really members. Regarding the Conspiracy Section. Encyclopedias are supposed to be comprehensive and although Conspiracy Theories are often controversial and whether one believes them or not there's no reason for readers nto learn that they exist for various subjects. It would be folly to remove the 911 comspiracy articles for Wikipedia for example and similarly there's no reason why the Conspiracy section should be removed from here. I would add that I don't like the term conspiracy theory as it's often used in a derogatory manner by those with certain political meanings. I wish there were a better term. Anyway as long as thes theories are described as NPOV surely they are simply educating people about them. thanks Vexorg 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we create a category then, something like Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations. We could populate all the members into there then condense the membership section into text, which would allow us to go over the more notable members such as Secretaries of State and Presidents without going into excessive detail or cluttering the page with a long list. --Hemlock Martinis 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * rather than creating more categories,I presonally feel the display of the members needs displaying in a manner where they remain accessible without further mouse clicking. Each member has enough notoriety to have their own wikipedia page so peopel can simply go ther for specific info on each member. Check out the 3 column table I've created for the Corporate members. this is what I have in mind. If we could diaply all the members in such a manner it would make the page a lt smaller without removing any info.


 * As for the conspiracy theories section, I agree with you wholeheartedly that popular culture has transformed that term into something more negative. What if we were to create a "Positions" section about the various stances on global issues held by the CFR? For example, for a "North American integration" subsection we could make one paragraph about what the CFR has writted, said or talked about, and then a second paragraph about reactions to the CFR's ideas. What do you think? --Hemlock Martinis 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I reiterate I'm not keen on the world conspiracy because of the negative connotations I can't think of a more appropriate term. Everyone knows what conspiracy means and shoudl we let the negative aspects beat us? I don't think there's anything wrong with the information in the section, it just needs tidying up in to sections. As you say a section on NAU, a section on NWO with the Rockerfeller quote, and so on. Vexorg 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page?
I stumbled upon this article in my wanderings, and I know that this a incredibly controversial topic (and speaking as a neutral party)m to prevent vandalism and maintain WP:NPOV, this article should be semi-protected, so that any enraged editor cannot alter the article while not logged in. Thoughts?

Tennekis (rant) 00:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tone
One very important way to remove the impression of bias from this article would be to delete all the superfluous adjectives. Some examples: "respected, bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs." "distinguished scholars" -- 76.105.140.218 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletions by Jersey Devil
I would like to request clarification why "Jersey Devil" feels he needs to systematically remove quotes from this article's "Controversy" section that are supported by external sources. Please do explain. --Hisio (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy of conspiracy theories and revert warring to insert them is not helpful to our process. Please refrain from continuing to do so and please see our following policy links WP:SOAP and WP:3RR. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this is a "conspiracy theory" and my view is supported by a sourced quote you're systematically trying to delete from this article. Please remember that Wikipedia is not your personal blog, thus refrain from removing evidence that contradicts your point of view. Since we differ in our opinions, Controversy (that is, "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views") is a good name for the section. --Hisio (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to WP:SOAP and WP:3RR policies please specify specifically which policy you're referring to. --Hisio (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hisio, Can you provide links to the sources that you wish to cite so others can comment? TIA --Tom 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the "Controversy" section, the quote by David Rockefeller, in an address to a meeting of the Trilateral Commission, in June 1991. If the quote is removed again, please see an earlier version in History. --Hisio (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So the cite is from lewrockwell.com? Do folks think this is a RS? --Tom 15:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think readers can form their own judgment regarding the sources used and don't need any self-appointed censors to make that decision for them, especially when the subject is controversial. I suggest you read the source article as it contains a note about the author who "holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University and is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers." --Hisio (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not how it works, Hisio. You can't just put something in an article because you think it's good; you have to get consensus on the talk page here, which you still haven't done.  You're working on an extended block for your continued pattern of disruptive behavior and unwillingness to work with other editors, so please stop or you may be subject to further restrictions.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find your accusation regarding my "unwillingness to work with other editors" to be ludicrous and hypocritical. First of all, I added a quote supported by an external source and written by an author with solid credentials, not "something." I also explained why Controversy is a better, neutral title for the section. Where are your reasons for renaming the section back? You're acting more like an arrogant, intolerant censor rather than an editor. It's a shame you somehow ended up with the right to block other people. --Hisio (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the Trilateral Commission publish minutes. As they don't, the source is not verifiable unless reported on by someone who was present.  This quote is not verifiable and must not be restored. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a weak argument. Mafia doesn't publish minutes of their meetings either, so I guess everything we know about the mafia is a "conspiracy theory." Anyway, the quote was published in Villemarest & Wolf's book, vol.2 and the book (vol. 1) is currently listed in the Books section of this article. Thus I feel strongly the quote must be restored and I have no problem linking both sources (the book and the article) to support it. --Hisio (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll: "Controversy" or "Conspiracy theories"
This poll is now closed. It was conducted to determine if a neutral title "Controversy" should be used instead of a rather biased "Conspiracy theories" as the section's name. RESULT: The section was renamed Controversy as per poll results.


 * Controversy should be used. Controversy means "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", which is a better, neutral title for the section. --Hisio (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy Theories no this has been discussed extensively. This is a wikipedia article not a soapbox for conspiracy theories. People who seriously want to help this article should also start by removing lewrockwell.com sources as it is clearly not a reliable source yet is used throughout the article.--Jersey Devil (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Renaming of the section has nothing to do with lewrockwell or any other sites. Those are separate issues. Why are you trying to confuse the issue? --Hisio (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy Theories I'm with Jersey Devil here. "Controversy" is itself biased, because it imputes equality to two viewpoints for which the sourcing is decidedly unequal. "Conspiracy Theories" is appropriate. Scharferimage (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you making your own judgment and trying to promote by using a derogatory name. Seano1 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy Theories per Jersey Devil and Scharferimage. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversy Controversy is strait forward and descriptive. Conspiracy theories is notheing be an Ad hominem attack on people who don't like the Council on Foreign Relations.Seano1 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories - the fact is that they are all easily discredited, so they are not legitimate controversies. MilesAgain (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to actually refute everything that is in the section instead of declaring it bad. Also how do plan to prove that all criticism of the CFR is easily discredited? Seano1 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Controversy should be used. As it is in every other article about a controversial topic. Even the JFK assassination page doesn't use the term 'conspiracy theory'.  What a ridiculous dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Controversy - This shouldn't need to be polled. Quoting from WP:NPOV, "...none of the views should be given undue weight..."  Read the table of contents from this article and see how ridiculous the section title "Conspiracy theories" looks.  Absolutely change it.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Controversy - Also, after reading the section above, I feel that Jersey Devil should have his administrative privileges revoked. He is clearly incapable of making rational, objective decisions, and is thus a danger to the Wikipedia project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think it's ridiculous that you would suggest that Jersey Devil deserves to have his admin privileges pulled just because his position on this split issue is different than yours. Secondly, you haven't justified your choice. All you've done is insulted a respected wikipedian. Care to clarify your position? I'll repeat my earlier point, if there was a "controversy" -- a reasonable dispute between reasonably equivalent but divergent sources -- then I would definitely be voting in the affirmative. The fact of the matter is, though, that we're looking at an extreme imbalance in the sourcing reliability of two viewpoints. The less-supported viewpoint, in this case that CFR is out to undermine the US, the Constitution, or democratic governance more generally, deserves inclusion in this article by virtue of the fact that it does have sourcing supporting it. I think that classing the dispute between the reliable sourcing we have for the mainstream view and the less reliable sourcing we have for the opposing view as a "controversey" is a violation of NPOV in that it promotes the latter view at the expense of the former despite them being unequal in terms that matter in the context of the Wikipedia project, namely neutral and verifiable sourcing. Scharferimage (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with 71.241.198.109, Jersey Devil should lose his administrative privileges because he violates Wikipedia policies (for example NPOV), makes false and misleading statements and conducts himself as an arrogant, intolerant censor. A Wikipedia member like that cannot hope to have the respect of the community. It's really a shame he ended up with the administrator rights and I strongly feel he should lose them. --Hisio (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, Hisio, you asked Jersey Devil earlier to specify a certain part of the policy section he was asking you to read. Can you point to a specific part of NPOV that he is breaking?  Also, while he did revert your edit with no apparent reason, it does take two to edit war, and the way to solve the problem is not reverting all of his reverts.  Another thing: I noticed you did indeed rename the section in the article "as per poll results."  If you are done with the poll, please remove the  tag at the top of this section.  Last but not least, if you and 71.241.198.109 have a problem with Jersey Devil, report it.  This talk page is for discussion of this article; there is no room here for editor-bashing.  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I used NPOV as an example and Jersey Devil broke it by violating the "none of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth'" clause when he aggressively protected an obvious bias and deleted a sourced and verifiable quote. He also violated WP:VAGUEWAVE when he reverted my edits without an explanation and, when I insisted on the explanation, he pointed me to a policy instead of giving a clear and specific reason. That's administrator abuse, plain and simple, Jersey Devil should have his administrator privileges revoked and I will certainly report him. --Hisio (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not accusing you of anything; I am just saying not to make this talk page a list of grievances against Jersey Devil. ;-)  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories per Scharferimage. There is a stench that hangs over "conspiracy theory", though. Regardless, they will remain theories, true or not. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversy should be used. It is a blatant attempt to dismiss the contents of the entire section as insane conjecture, when in reality, it is well documented. Much of the foundations of the controversy have come straight from the horse's mouth (Rockefeller, G.H.W. Bush, etc.)--Elred (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversy per Dlabtot. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it would be helpful if poll participants would vote either "controversy" or "conspiracy theories," instead of the more confusing "support" and "oppose." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed now! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Controversy. OptimistBen (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy Theories These conspiracy theories have not been proven. This is an encyclopedia not a discussion board.WacoJacko (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll: Is a published book AND an article written by a Ph.D. in Social and Political Sciences a reliable source?
This poll is now closed. It was conducted to determine if a quote that appears both in a published book AND an article written by a Ph.D. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University, who is also a former intelligence officer, can be considered a "reliable source" and thus be included in this article. The quote is in the 3rd paragraph of the "Controversy" section, it starts with "We are grateful to the Washington Post" and ends with "Essen, Germany". Please note that there are two (2) sources for the quote: a book and an article, see the respective [35] and [36] links at the end of the quote. Please also note that volume 1 of the book is currently listed as the first entry in the Books section of this article. RESULT: Inconclusive, not enough support for including the quote (4 - yes; 4 - no).

Yes, the quote should be included

 * 1) Yes, it should be included. The quote is sourced, verifiable and satisfies the Wikipedia's aspects of reliability. --Hisio (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Include. I think it goes without saying that such a source is competent, and I have no reason to think he's not credible. OptimistBen (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes, include, but only if the source is changed. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem adding your source to the list of references, and I wouldn't have a problem removing lewrockwell.com from the list of references if you can clearly, specifically explain how lewrockwell.com is less a reliable source than, say, The Fox News. Should there be different standards for different sources? --Hisio (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment Source seems to pass WP:V without issue, but I'm unclear how it is relevant to this article. BigK HeX (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the quote should not be included

 * 1) No, you're citing Lew Rockwell, who I think we've agreed is not a reliable source, and a book that's out of the mainstream -- why de villemarest is listed as the first book under references is a complete puzzle to me. Just because something has been published does not make it reliable by wikipedia standards. Similarly, just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't make them reliable. Scharferimage (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to confuse the issue? I'm not citing Lew Rockwell, the article was written by Richard Cummings, who's a Ph.D. and a former intelligence officer. lewrockwell.com is a publisher of the article. The quote was also published in the book. Besides,  please speak for yourself, not as "we", as I don't agree with you and your position seems to be biased, misleading and hypocritical.  --Hisio (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not trying to confuse the issue, but these are issues we've dealt with already. Lew Rockwell is the publisher, you're right. This article isn't syndicated anywhere else that I can find. Hence my complaint with citing a Lew Rockwell piece. "We" referred to the consensus of this talk board, which has consistently pushed for sourcing other than Lew Rockwell, infowars, and Alex Jones. Scharferimage (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If even one person is disagreeing with you, there is no consensus. Right here you've got three people disagreeing with you. OptimistBen (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Again please read WP:RS regarding what is a reliable source. We discourage the use of Alex Jones, lewrockwell.com, etc... type sources because it creates a situation where objective people reading the article will not take it seriously due to the sources used throughout it. Furthermore this is an example of where a user with a POV is misusing process in order to help push a POV in an article and hence this "process" is entirely without legitimacy.--Jersey Devil (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, speak for yourself, you don't have any authority to speak as "we", I don't agree with you. Moreover, you are a systematic abuser of Wikipedia policies who has repeatedly violated the "none of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth'" clause of NPOV and "quoting the specific parts of policy" clause of WP:VAGUEWAVE, you still have failed to explain specifically, as required by Wikipedia policies, why both sources must be discarded. You make vague, ambiguous, misleading, unsupported claims, speak in authoritarian "we" and launch a fallacy attack against the user and the "process" to cover your arrogant, intolerant bias and your lacking of concrete, valid arguments. I think you, Jersey Devil, are a disgrace to other administrators out there and you should lose your administrator privileges. --Hisio (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hisio, I already told you to stop using article talk pages to slam other editors with whom you disagree. Stating your position is fine, but you can do without "...you should lose your administrator privileges."  Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I've not had any involvement with this article in the past but do not think this source or quote can remain from what I can gather. None of the above comments address my main concern - where did that Rockefeller quote come from, i.e. what is the original source? The web article by Cummings certainly cannot be used, not because of the author or the web site, but because he does not explain his source for the quote. It's essentially second or third hand information. Given that the veracity of the quote is, on the face at least, questionable we need a very good source for it. I don't have the book in question so I don't know if it explains exactly how it was learned that Rockefeller said this in front of the Trilateral Commission. If the primary source for the quotation (a copy of the speech, an audio recording, etc.) is described in the book in footnote 35 then perhaps the quote could be used. Otherwise it really has to go. I would also point out that Hisio's tone (which includes blatant personal attacks) certainly does not predispose me well to that editor's position, however that's not why I'm opposed to including this quote. I would suggest that Hisio take it down a notch or five though.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 03:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) No, you shouldn't include the quote the way it was being presented there. The problem is that conclusions are being drawn off the back of that quote, as it's preceded by the sentence "Many organizations, such as the John Birch Society, believe that the CFR plans a one-world government:". If you changed that to " Richard Cummings believes that the CFR plans a one-world government..." (even though that's slightly dubious) it'd be along the right lines, I don't know what the book says sorry. The issue isn't whether the quote can be sourced or not, it's what the quote is being used for.  One Night In Hackney  303  13:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem here. I have no problem changing "Many organizations" to "Some organizations" or even "Some people," if you insist. --Hisio (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do see a problem here, if you're using a quote to support an argument that isn't made using the quote in the first place. You can't say people think this, and here's this quote that someone once said that proves it's all true. If they've said that in relation to the quote fine, if they haven't it's a non-starter. One Night In Hackney  303  13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your argument borders on delusional. Essentially you are saying that once an argument has been made no new evidence should be introduced to support it. Besides, it's not someone who said it, it was David Rockefeller. --Hisio (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I think you don't know how to make friends and influence people, or understand Wikipedia policy. You're not parachuting in out-of-context quotes to support the beliefs of other people - it's that simple. One Night In Hackney  303  14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy there, Mr. Freud and Mr. Carnegie. Maybe we should start with the question of the CFR's degree of influence and find some things upon which to agree. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

J. Bowyer Bell
What section would it be best to add him to? I've only seen him described as a "member", and didn't want to get the wrong section. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303  08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Early history
According to this section the CFR was created at one of the meetings at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. To be more precise this meeting took place on May 30 1919 and that one of the men attending this meeting was JP Morgan but Morgan died in 1913, so how can this be? Also for obvious reasons (one of the supposed participants being dead) the participants section is unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.230.149 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

current members
Angelina Jolie is the only notable current member of the CFR? That's absurd - we even list several current members in the "historical members" list. john k (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We deleted a large list of them because they were all unsourced. I don't have the time to dig up a members' list, but if can find one that meets Wikipedia's citation standards then that would be a huge help to the article Scharferimage (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why, then, do we allow the "historical" list, which is equally unsourced? What qualifies as a relevant source?  I think an unsourced list which is probably mostly accurate should not be deleted unless we have something to replace it with - just tag it and encourage people to source each of the names on the list.  NNDB, by the way, has a list, but it is unsourced and I'm not sure they qualify as a "reliable source".  All the names on it are plausible, though, and until we have something better, it would seem to me to make sense to include an imperfect list, rather than a list which only includes Angelina Jolie. john k (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not as though membership is something that people keep secret. john k (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Council on Global Affairs
I saw that the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations was established in 1922, one year after CFR. I also see that they are today called the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Is the Chicago Council affiliated with the CFR? 69.106.184.89 (talk)

Degree of Influence and sources
included in the 10 most influential think tanks on U.S. policy toward Japan Secure in Their Thoughts - Washington Post - Mar 27, 2001
 * Those who consider it to be one of the most influential (top 10)

"The most influential [of think tanks who argued against unilateralism] are three formidable institutions whose whispers in the ears of the powerful go unheeded at their peril... [The Soros Foundation, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and] the Council on Foreign Relations" Powell, Rice turn around US policy - Pakistan Dawn - Apr 8, 2002
 * Those who consider it to be one of the most influential (top 3)

listed first among three of the "most influential US think-tanks" South Africa: Long-Term Approach to African Investment - AllAfrica.com - Sep 2, 2003

"one of the nation's most influential private groups for the study of international affairs" Council on Foreign Relations appoints president - New York Times - Dec 24, 1985
 * Those who consider it to be one of the most influential (no ranking)

"unquestionably one of the world's most influential policy organizations" WND scrutinizes Council on Foreign Relations - WorldNetDaily - Jun 19, 2003

(Foreign Affairs) "one of the most influential periodicals in print" Hospitable World Host - TIME - Sep 21, 1962

"one of the most influential think-tanks on US foreign policy" PM might consider US using Turkey for Iraq exit - Turkish Daily News - Sep 29, 2007

"one of the nation's most influential think tanks" New Approach Awaited on Latin America, Cuba - Inter Press Service - Jul 23, 2008

"one of the nation's most influential think tanks" Washington should recognize that its dominance over the Americas has.... - NoticiasFinancieras - May 15, 2008

"arguably the most influential "brain trust" in the world" From Rhodesia to Zimbabwe - New American - Aug 20, 2007
 * Those who consider it to be arguably the most influential

(Foreign Affairs) "demurely advertises itself as the most influential journal in the world, and may very well be" Third World Relief Spelled Gold, Book Says - Washington Post - Apr 16, 2002

"arguably the nation's most influential foreign policy think tank" Emigre From State Dept., Haass Still a Partisan of Coalitions - Los Angeles Times - Jul 7, 2003

"most influential and prestigious think tank in America" New scramble for Africa Jamaica Gleaner - Jan 29, 2006
 * Those who consider it to be the most influential

(Foreign Affairs) "the most influential foreign policy journal" The United Nations strikes - George Bush eats crow - Jamaica Gleaner - Sep 28, 2003

(Foreign Affairs) "the most influential periodical in print" Bush's Wilsonian internationalism - New American (misquoting TIME) - Sep 9, 2002

"the most influential brain trust and the most visible command center of the organized movement for world government" Funding socialism for Latin America - New American - Sep 6, 2004

(Foreign Affairs) "the most influential foreign policy publication of its kind" Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs - Asia Times Daily - Feb 14, 2006

"the most influential of all private policy planning groups" Bush, Kerry, and the CFR, It's All In The Family - Collective Bellaciao - Feb 10, 2002

"the most influential US organisation in the field of foreign policy and security" Stepping ever closer to NATO - The Sofia Echo - Apr 17, 2003

"the most influential think tank in the U.S., a virtual shadow State Department" Pakistan's last great hope - Macleans - Nov 22, 2007

"the first and still most influential of the thinktanks" Connection: Wall Street recruits (part 3) - Guerrilla News Network - May 21, 2005

"the most influential foreign-policy think tank in the United States" Global risks, national solutions - New American - Oct 15, 2007

"the oldest and most influential establishment think-tank" They're Coming For Your Children - Lew Rockwell - Apr 13, 2005

"The nation's most influential foreign-policy think tank" Realists Rule? - Inter Press Service - Aug 22, 2005

Yeah, I listed New American four times. Hope this helps the dispute in the lead. ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of influence, prestige, leadership and other potential peacock terms
"Influential", "prestigious" and "leader" are on the peacock watchlist for style for good reason. It is not enough to say what is influential, one must demonstrate influence, preferably by citing reliable sources who explicitly draw the connection. I've cited an article to support the statement that CFR influences US foreign policy, yet aside from the statement about the power and influence the CFR is supposed to wield, it actually subverts its case in specifics (caution in entering an Iraq war, in this case). Surely, for the love of correlation between mere words and actual reality, there should be an exhaustive description of cases where CFR proscribed 'X' and 'X' became the actual policy of the USA.

It is well that prestige is minimally treated here. A good many news items talk about the "prestige" of the organization without specifics of what that means. There is seemingly no need to talk to the point, when the names dropped here carry their own weight.

I just corrected seeming vandalism in the Mission Statement. Hopefully the next generation of foreign-policy "losers" will represent themselves and revert if I am in error. It does seem a bit of a peacock to quote the Mission Statement about identifying foreign policy leaders and not qualify the process (e.g. how specifically Angelina Jolie was "identified" and Paul Jay was not). Again, I could conjecture, but it seems more apt that we seek good sources to find the answers found in a good article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Position of Sections
Either the sections “Early history” and “About the organization” should be switched or “Morgan and Rockefeller involvement” should become a subsection of “Early history”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaylockjam10 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)