Talk:Council on Foreign Relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

{{Press

Controversy vs. Conspiracy Theory[edit]

I've changed the title of the section "Controversy." There is no real controversy, first of all. The term controversy implies a level of broad public interest that this subject lacks. Second, the section formerly titled "Controversy" only concerned one subject: Conspiracy theory. Therefore, "Conspiracy Theory" is a much more appropriate title. If you'll forgive the political incorrectness of the expression, don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.90.223 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, actually. Rockefeller admits that he has specific political and economic goals in his involvement. People who disagree with those goals aren't necessarily "conspiracy theorists" in the loon sense of the term. They may very well be people with a different political outlook. Many, many people the world over disagree about politics--that is why it is an impolite topic at dinner parties. That alone doesn't make anyone a conspiracy theorist.

I'm not going to change the title but I have added a section and a link explaining a bit more in depth why the CFR is politically controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilderberger.porkchop (talkcontribs) 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This question was discussed at length (see above), and a poll taken. The result of the poll was that the section was titled Controversy. Given the history of discussion and the preponderance of editors who voted for controversy, the title should not have been changed unilaterally. Plazak (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the poll that Plazak is talking about is located in the talk archives: Talk:Council on Foreign Relations/archive 1#Poll:_.22Controversy.22_or_.22Conspiracy_theories.22--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Rockefeller quote. He doesn't mention the CFR in it.   Will Beback  talk  03:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you people kidding? The first people cited in the "controversy" section include Aaron Russo, who claimed - among other things - that tax is illegal, while personally owing millions to the US government. Whatever your personal views of Mr. Russo may be, it must be generally acknowledged that he represents rather fringe opinions in American politics, and remains a favorite source for citation by those (real) groups who believe the US is run by a conspiracy of devil-worshipers and/or aliens. (It used to be Communists and Jews). A criticism by Aaron Russo is hardly grounds for claiming the existence of undisputed controversy. (68.198.182.255 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC))
Aaron Russo said that the income tax wasn't law, and until the sixteenth amendment was unconstitutional. I don't agree with him on the former since the tax code was in fact passed through the legislative branch, but the latter is obviously correct. Saying that he claimed "tax is illegal" is a gross oversimplification. And despite who cites him, he never supported any theories about devil-worshipers, aliens, communists, or jews. (In fact, he was of jewish heritage, according to statements he made in Freedom to Fascism and his fluency in Yiddish) You're trying to lump Russo with Alex Jones and David Icke. Additionally, although unrelated to this discussion, the FAQ on the CFR website does not address any allegations and even states that the majority of their meetings are closed to the public and are kept "not-for-attribution", meeting all requirements necessary to claim their meetings are "secret". I don't see the point in why this FAQ is mentioned in the "controversy" section, and the mention is misleading and implies bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.154.199 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

CFR has advocated policies that have resulted in the deaths of literally millions of people. There clearly needs to be a controversy section. The current section only focuses on nonsense about one-world governments. That's really not the most common controversy about CFR at all. 24.207.135.48 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe in controversy sections, but as it exists and I don't have time to do all the work, I cleaned out all of the material that was cited incorrectly (dead links), repetetive of previous points (Wilson material), unnecessarily linking to conspiracy theory material (Zeitgeist, etc. under the guise of controversy and not conspiracy theory!), and unreliable sources (Marris! Rothbart!). It's all open for debate--but anything should be added, what removed was removed because it went against Wikipedia standards. Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This nonprofit of elitist bankers, lawyers, media types, etc. is definitely controversial in the true sense of the word. There are traceable connections to its globalism agendas and American foreign policy. Do the research and you will conclude that controversial is putting it mildly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.194.11 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is a pejorative. Shouldn't be used in a wikipedia article. If the only items listed under the Controversy section are termed "Conspiracy Theories", the whole section should be removed. 68.189.209.118 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support for Israel[edit]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the CFR has supported Israel in the past, or that it continues to defend Israeli policies to this day ? I have been reading several documents produced by the CFR and I got the impression was that it did have such pro-Israel sentiment. ADM (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Check out the names of many of the members and make that deduction for yourself (not being anti-semitic, just pointing out a fact).99.120.56.76 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Check out the bio of CFR member Elliott Abrams,convicted of withholding information to Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair investigation, who took a leading role in pushing the U.S. into the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Activist (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are referring to the names Zakaria and Whitman? Yeah, big Israel supporters! Sarcasm off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B16D:CC1:8434:6DA8:A2E8:9C9D (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Carroll Quigley[edit]

I have removed Carroll Quigley's name as someone who "vociferously" opposed the CFR. The link provided beside that claim is an article by the John Birch Society which does not mention Quigley at all. After reading his most famous and thickest book, Tragedy and Hope, I find it hard to believe he would oppose them at all. Although I'm sure many people reading this believe his book is proof that all conspiracy theories are true, I'm even more sure they're wrong. Quigley is one of the most misquoted people by the conspiracy community. Although there is a passage in his book which, read by itself, suggests that bankers are about to take over the world, he later describes in detail how bankers lost their power in the wake of The Great Depression. When read through the perspective of objectivity, the book fits with mainstream history very well and indeed disproves "bankster" related conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will McRoy (talkcontribs) 15:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually Quigley was a fan of the globalist bankers and other such people. His comments in his book, "Tragedy and Hope" regarding these globalists was actually a celebration of them and not a condemnation. The reason why organizations like the John Birch Society point to his writings is because he acknowledges the existence of these globalists and their desire to create a one world government. The section titled, "Controversy" should in all fairness explain his insight into the Council on Foreign Relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.37.34 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories[edit]

I am not opposed to including a section discussing CFR and conspiracy theories. I think it is notable enough. But it needs reliable sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. The Controversy section was deleted and restored multiple times in the last year but there was never a proper talk page discussion. While I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, I agree with you that the issue is notable enough to merit a section in the article. In fact, in 2008 there was a poll on the talk page on the name of the section, indicating that consensus exists that it should be included. I believe that the sources for the current section are satisfactory. When discussing fringe groups, there is nothing wrong with citing the groups in question (see WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") The section is not stating that the conspiracy theories are true, only that they exist and citing sources to show they exist, which is entirely appropriate. I therefore propose that we restore the Controversy section as-is. If you would like to add additional reliable sources to it, please do so. --Albany NY (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Since no one has responded, I have restored the section. --Albany NY (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://books.google.com/books?id=wX52Dh7f4O0C&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. PantsB (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Specifically "The CFR promotes globalization, free trade, reducing financial regulations on transnational corporations, and economic consolidation into regional blocs such as NAFTA or the European Union, and develops policy recommendations that reflect these goals." This was a questionable sentence anyway but was lifted from a book describing one particular Marxist viewpoint. Such a source is likely valuable but not as an introductory paragraph, especially if uncited and lifted wholesale PantsB (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)