Talk:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

COI edit request
{tn|{request edit}} + Proposed Changes

Thanks for reviewing my prior request below. It looks like the decision on the delete consideration was to keep the page so I have deleted the "tld" part of the request edit form. For references for the first two points, please see the following link to our benefits at https://secure.www.cfr.org/about/corporate/corporate_benefits.html 1. Update membership levels to reflect new tiers and number of companies participating: Corporate membership (approximately 200 companies total) is divided into three membership tiers: "Premium" ($30,000), "President's Circle" ($60,000) and "Founders Level" ($100,000).

2. Update benefits: All corporate executive members have opportunities to attend events and meetings featuring distinguished speakers, such as overseas presidents and prime ministers, chairmen and CEOs of multinational corporations, and US officials and Congressmen. Presidents Circle and Founders Level members are also entitled to other benefits, including attendance at small, private dinners or receptions with senior American officials and world leaders and private briefings from CFR fellows or CFR president Richard N. Haass (Founders Level-only.)

I have an employee conflict of interest and, per this article ( WP:SCOIC ), am following Wikipedia's advice to avoid COI posts. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and will abide by them, but would like contribute information that will improve the accuracy of this page.

Changes: 1. Update membership levels to reflect new tiers and number of companies participating: Corporate membership (approximately 200 companies total) is divided into three membership tiers: "Premium" ($30,000), "President's Circle" ($60,000) and "Founders Level" ($100,000).

2. Update benefits: All corporate executive members have opportunities to attend events and meetings featuring distinguished speakers, such as overseas presidents and prime ministers, chairmen and CEOs of multinational corporations, and US officials and Congressmen. Presidents Circle and Founders Level members are also entitled to other benefits, including attendance at small, private dinners or receptions with senior American officials and world leaders and private briefings from CFR fellows or CFR president Richard N. Haass (Founders Level-only).

3. Update link to more recent brochure and about page: Updated brochure: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/images/CFRCorpBrochure.pdf About page: http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/corporate_about.html

4. Update Membership List: A full and frequently updated list is available here: http://www.cfr.org/about/corporate/roster.html

Thank You, 66.9.150.10 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)CFR Employee


 * Hi. Thanks you for wanting to edit Wikipedia and for respecting our guidelines. I don't believe I can add your first two points, as they do not have anything I can reference them by... but I'll see what I can do with the other two. -- Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count ) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 00:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this page is being considered for deletion. I'm going to decline your request unless the deletion is declines. in which case delete the 'tld|' part of the request edit template. -- Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count ) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done, because these are non-neutral claims lacking an independent reliable source - see WP:PRIMARY.  Chzz  ► 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Members of the Council on Foreign Relations. 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/20071012062131/http://www.cfr.org/about/history/ to http://www.cfr.org/about/history/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Epstein, Epstein, Epstein!
I started slogging through this article to edit its many inconsistencies, over-linking and whatnot. It is predominantly a list. Yet, one encounters an inordinate amount of notes about a singular subject, Jeffrey Epstein, sprinkled throughout the references. Looking closer, various other back-end notes appear as an extended WP:COATRACK. I counted three superfluous mentions of Epstein in the main content:
 * "Jeffrey Epstein confidant"
 * "Epstein associate"
 * "associate of Jeffrey Epstein".

Here are just three examples of coatraking, quickly pulled from sources:
 * 67. Intelligencer Dossier (July 22, 2019), "Jeffrey Epstein's High Society Contacts", New York magazine: "Edgar Brоnfman Jr. . . . found in Epstein's black book. The former Warner Music Group CEO is related to the NXIVM-sex-cult Bronfmans. His son [Benjamin] has a child [Ikhyd Edgar Arular Bronfman] with pop star M.I.A."
 * 71. Darragh Roche (June 2, 2021), "Fauci Said Masks 'Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,' Email Reveals", Newsweek: ". . . Fauci . . . replies to an email from Sylviа Burwell. . . . Fauci wrote: ' . . . The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep [sic] out gross droplets . . ."
 * 140. Felix Salmon (Sep. 12, 2019), "Exclusive: Reid Hoffman apologizes for role in Epstein-linked donations to MIT", Axios: "The abuse described by Jeffery Epstein's survivors is abhorrent, horrific, and disgusting. I am hopeful survivors can attain justice and support, and the communities damaged by these events can begin healing."

There are many other examples. Significant events ought to be on the subjects' pages, in my opinion. This page is a list. Any opinions on this coat-racking?? Lindenfall (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * - came here from Mel's talk page. This is absolutely COATRACK-ing, and these parts you quoted should be nuked.  starship .paint  (exalt) 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 81% of this article is written by . Mind explaining what are you trying to do by adding in quotes about Epstein (or quotes about other things) that simply do not relate to this topic of Members of the Council on Foreign Relations? This is serious enough to warrant attention by WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. Wikipedia is not your personal plaything or quotebook.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 13:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Epstein was “enthusiastic member” of CFR
When I started improving on this list article many, many months ago, it was much shorter, woefully out of date and out of order. Remember that Epstein was described as an “enthusiastic member” of the CFR in the 19-year-old (i.e., legal) magazine piece that was one of my refs. His connections still figure prominently with many current members, e.g., the Barclays CEO Jes Staley who just resigned after the revelation of his hundreds of e-mails to Epstein. He was also seen in the now-famous photo of Epstein with Bill Gates and Larry Summers.

Since you find my use of Epstein’s name excessive, you’re of course welcome to pare it down, although I would request that you “nuke” strategically, not apocalyptically, please.

As for deleting red-link members just because they don’t have their own article, there’s no reason the list shouldn’t include some red-link members for which I’ve made a conscientious effort to include refs to their various external bios where possible. The [Category:Members of the Council on Foreign Relations] page was greatly expanded by me to include hundreds of the members who do already have articles.

And you’re right — “and” looks better than the ampersands and forward slashes I was using to save a little space.

Thank you for your consideration.

Æthereal (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Æthereal


 * I'd still say it's a bulging coatrack. Highlighting Epstein throughout, in this back-ended way, on a mere list, is WP:COATRACKing. with almost all content beyond his own listing uncalled for. I see no 'baby to be thrown out with the bath water' here, just a lot of bathwater splashed way out from one subject. Why would you add such a wave to a list page, when nothing at all about him appears on the Council on Foreign Relations page? There may be a significant history that is worth adding there, and I was considering that (ie: "Council on Foreign Relations, another beneficiary of Epstein largesse, grapples with how to handle his donations" ), until I was distracted by this. (By the way, your MOS:CURLYs are showing.) Lindenfall (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * - after reviewing the article history in more detail, I am disturbed by many of 's edits at this article. As such, I have opened  a thread at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 09:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright. As I just mentioned in the ANI complaint, this article is choked with biographical crap all around that is properly dealt with in the individual articles for the respective subjects. This is not a proper venue for the CVs of the Council's members, and this flies in the face of the MOS. I'm going to start stripping it out.  What belongs here is what they do NOW, what they are most known for, and highly notable former positions like being a governor, Senator or Cabinet secretary.  What doesn't belong is, for instance, this curious passion for identifying anyone connected with the Aspen Strategy Group.  Or take the very first entry in the "Notable council members" list.  What we need to know about Abercrombie-Winstanley is that she's a high official in the State Department, not who appointed her and when -- one can click to her own article to learn that.  And so on. As far as some of the other issues raised here goes, red-link names do not belong in list articles, period, unless they are part of an all-inclusive list (such as the list of presidents of the organization, for instance).  Beyond that, I entirely agree regarding Epstein: his membership on the Council was unremarkable, barely mentioned in his own article, and no doubt he was no more "enthusiastic" about it than many a member.  He obviously belongs on this list, but no more than that.   Ravenswing      13:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Epstein could have been the most enthusiastic member on this Council ever and it wouldn't be a reason to implicate anyone else in this article. Links to Epstein can be fully discussed on the subject's BLP pages, they do not belong here.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, you already said that, and so did I. Was there any new issue that hadn't yet been raised?   Ravenswing      04:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD
I suggest AfD or to merge any important entries at Council on Foreign Relations per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, it would fail at AfD, and should fail at AfD. This is a perfectly appropriate list article, obviously comprised of notable entries, obviously of a discrete limited scope, obviously overwhelmingly long for the parent article.  It ticks all the boxes in WP:SAL.  Obviously the list article needs work to trim out the debris, but I'm doing that, and hopefully other eyes do so too.  Upon what basis do you fancy this isn't acceptable for a list article?   Ravenswing      13:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Add or delete category: Jeffrey Epstein?
The category of "Jeffrey Epstein" was added to another think tank, Santa Fe Institute, apparently based solely on the article's external link: "Jeffrey Epstein gave $275,000 to Santa Fe Institute", (Albuquerque Journal), which might prompt one to add it here, as well. However, I think it may be more appropriate to remove it from the other article, but I'm just not sure which choice is most appropriate in this context. Opinions invited. Lindenfall (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For categorization, is membership a "defining" characteristic?
It looks like there was previously a category for members, but it got deleted: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_28 - with the rationale "Membership in the Council on Foreign Relations is non-defining and trivial for the vast majority of those included in this category." I'm not sure that's true - membership is a significant part of many people's career histories, and it's listed in the intro section of some people's articles (like Fred Thompson).

Categorization says "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic." It looks like a fair number of third-party sources describe people as being members of CFR. Examples:
 * "A professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College, Mead is also a fellow of the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank; a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; co-founder of the New America Foundation; and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal. Jerusalem Post
 * "In his 15 years as a member of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, Jeffrey Epstein attended only two events — a dinner for big donors in 1998 and a 2002 conversation with Paul O’Neill when he was U.S. treasury secretary during the George W. Bush administration." Washington Post
 * "He serves as a board member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and on the Military and Veterans Advisory Council at JPMorgan Chase & Co." Homeland Security Today
 * "Edward Alden, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that we very much need these people, but our antiquated laws suggest otherwise." Houston Chronicle (opinion section)
 * "John R. Tyson is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank based in New York City." 4029 News (local news for Northwest Arkansas)

Also in lots of newspaper obituaries written by journalists:


 * "He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations at the time of his death." New York Times obituary
 * "After returning from Europe to live in New York, Mr. Grenier was a broadcaster on cultural issues for PBS and worked for about a year as a cultural correspondent for the New York Times. He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Harvard Club." Washington Post
 * "A native of Syracuse, Mr. Bristol attended Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. He was a Hamilton trustee and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations." New York Times
 * "Mr. Eccles was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations." New York Times
 * "Mr. Kellen was a director of the American Council on Germany, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a regent of the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine." New York Times
 * "He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of the self-published memoir “Covering the Cold War and Other Shadows in the Land of the Midnight Sun” (2010)." Washington Post
 * "Seaton served as a member of the Pulitzer Prize Board for nine years, including as its chairman. He was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations." The Junction City Union, Kan.
 * "Silver, who attended Columbia University’s Graduate School of International Affairs, also was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations" LA Times

I haven't gone through and exhaustively analyzed this. Do other folks have an analysis of whether this qualifies? Dreamyshade (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I do agree with your nomination for this as a category; it would be useful and relevant. RubyEmpress (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also agree that such a category is appropriate and relevant. I would support recreating it. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)