Talk:Council on Foreign Relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
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)
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.
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.
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.
Contents |
[edit] 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] Conspiracy???
Why exactly is this in the "Conspiracy Theories" category? There's absolutely no mention of conspiracy in the article...Sgtraiderred 20:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll take it out. Thanks for noticing it.--Jersey Devil 23:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.189.136 (talk • contribs) 18:20, January 28, 2007 (UTC).
[edit] External links
Have revised the notes, references, external links, after checking and verifying what they are; a few do not seem to be notable reliable sources according to WP:Cite and W:Reliable sources: I have removed them; they are from self-published partisan sites, message board forums, blogs; not acceptable sources in Wikipedia; if more reliable sources publishing them can be found (bonafide newspaper organizations), the citations need to be converted into proper full citations before being included in the References section:
They are:
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (from the John Birch Society)
- CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
- Cuba and the Council on Foreign Relations
What are needed for full citations are authors, titles, publications, dates of publication, dates accessed: see WP:Cite and current prevailing format of this article as revised today. These items do not belong in a section called "External links"; they are commentaries, essays, editorials presented as if they were news articles, but the sites may not be reliable. They do not appear to be reliable news sites. They appear to be partisan websites advocating partisan politics and not in keeping with Wikipedia:NPOV. They need full citations/annotations as well as checking content of articles for what they actually say and how they might be relevant to this subject. Just linking and listing them w/o indicating their pertinence and notability to this subject is not acceptable format. They need to be verified, read and evaluated as to their notability and reliability.--NYScholar 08:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you recent contributions. On a side note, you might want to change the raw sig you have.--Jersey Devil 08:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. (I want my sig. as is; it's my Wikipedia preference for a variety of reasons. Editing history has links.) --NYScholar 08:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)
[edit] 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)
