Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:22, 25 September 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on December 20, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Talk:Business Plot/archive1

Template:Comment Guidelines

Keep this article

Keep this article. Let each reader decide for him- or herself whether or not what is written is true. Do not delete it because some people don't believe it. Just leave it as it is, and keep the disclaimer that it is disputed. But do not delete it. Also, to the doubtful Rjensen, Spivak indicated that he believed that certain Jewish financiers, as well as Gentile financiers (the Gentiles being the majority) were connected in some way. You would do yourself a favor by doing more research than just reading Spivak's article; he also wrote a book that has two chapters devoted to the plot. Also, just because Dickstein's credibility was no good doesn't mean that Butler's credibility was no good. Dickstein's committee didn't do much with the evidence provided; if anything, they tried to suppress it from the public by pooh-poohing it and releasing an eviscerated report on the committee's hearings on the matter. Travb 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is nothing but an anti-Semitic attack on Jewish groups and Jewish financiers. Contrary to what you stated, the majority of financiers were not non-Jewish but were almost exclusively Jewish in their backgrounds. Spivak's article is replete with references to Jewish people doing "this" and doing "that". I'm wondering if anyone one of the Jewish editors has come across this article. This is nothing more than a modern day Protocols of Zion. And the attempt to "sweep this under the rug" is in keeping with anti-Semitic claims that this would be the standard operating procredure of Jewish groups once found out. Totally ridiculous. This article should be deleted. Jtpaladin 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article clearly states "The main backers were the Du Pont family, as well as leaders of U.S. Steel, General Motors, Standard Oil, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company" I fail to see an anti-semitic slant. There is information in the article that indicates some of the later principles (i.e., Spivak) are taking an anti-semitic slant, but I see that more of an expression of the attitudes of the day and not a validation of anti-semitism in the present sense. My wife's Jewish grandfather had to "pass" as a gentile in the 1920's in order to work for the phone company. Anti-semitism was, and is, real. However, I'm trying to wrap my brain around how accusing the Du Pont family, hardly scions of Jewish industry, would figure in to all this. Spivak anti-semitic? Likely. This article? I'm not convinced yet. -- Quartermaster 06:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just going by Spivak's info which is in fact tied into the hearings, it is claimed that the American Jewish Committee and financiers, Warburg, Kuhn, Loeb, etc., all of Jewish backgrounds were working towards creating a fascist dictatorship. While there were certainly non-Jewish "front men" in this plot, clearly the backing of this coup would be by powerful Jewish interests. And, to make it worse, a Jewish Congresman, Dickstein, who turned out to be a Soviet agent, did his best to hide these facts and kill this whole episode. Lastly, I don't know if Spivak is anti-Semitic. I don't think so. I think his concerns were regarding the truth behind these events and how the Committee was trying to steer anti-Semitism towards Communism. I honestly don't know how to frame this article in a way that doesn't give proper credit to the evidence presented that Jewish power brokers were using non-Jewish front men in an attempt to take control of the U.S. govt. Personally, I would like to see this article disappear because if this is all false info, it can be used by anti-Semites to attack wealthy and powerful Jews as conspirators who tried to pull off a coup. Jtpaladin 17:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. I'm still in favor of keeping even if it is totally bogus - in THAT case it should be clearly flagged as fakery and anti-semitism similar to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion entry. Rabid anti-semites won't let little things like the truth get in the way of their propaganda. However, a well-written wikipedia article including contextual information about "Jewish conspiracies" can serve to address and debunk some of the absurd claims about the whole thing. Unlike The Protocols of the Elders of Zion this is not quite so cut and dried a situation. I can understand you wanting this to go away, but I think it's a little late for that. Best to present it in a light that makes it clear there was no great Jewish conspiracy. I'm still mulling a lot about and want to assure you I'm not really emotionally invested in this article (that's a good thing). -Quartermaster 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous Hoax

Nearly every historian, journalist and public official who investigated this spectacular story has concluded it was a hoax.

Wow. Great. Thats all cleared up then. And the sources for this are? Wich historians? which journalists investigated this you say? I mean: could you please supply the sources that can substantiate this statement you've made here?213.172.204.59 03:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The only "evidence" ever presented was the testimony of General Butler. He admitted that at the time he did not bother reporting to authorities that a conspiracy was underway to overthrow the United States Government. I suggest that Misplaced Pages should report the outline of the story, and indicate that the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that it is a hoax. Since the 1980s historians have had access to the letters of the major figures supposedly involved, and not a shred of evidence has surfaced that they ever planned a coup. The Russian archives, opened after the fall of Communism, show that Congressman Dickstein, the main person arguing there was a fascist plot, was on the Soviet payroll as a spy. That shoots his credibility. The only journalist who believed the story was John Spivak; he saw it as a Jewish plot. If anyone still thinks it's a legit story better read the Spivak 1935 article online at . Rjensen 00:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) ]

Could you cite sources on this supposed overwhelming agreement among scholars? --Aquillion 03:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure: look at Graham, Franklin D Roosevelt (1985) or studies by George Wolfskill, David Kennedy (Freedom from Fear) and William Leuchtenberg. Which historians endorse the theory??? Any?? The only journalist who supported the plot theory was this wild man Spivak-- you really have to read him to see how fantastic his conspiracy theory was. You also have to explain why the richest men in America tried to make that oddball Butler a dictator (at a time when he was a leading spokesman against the DuPonts who supposedly were behind the plot. This is what hoaxes look like.

You didn't supply any sources here that substantiated your claim. you just started telling us how stupid the other side was. How is "Butler was an oddball" any serious argument at all?? He was taken seriously enough to make him a general major and in charge of US military operations conducted for US corporations and "big business". 213.172.204.59 03:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The plot theory has to explain why the FBI, Secret Service, etc all rejected it, alomg with every newspaper and magazine, every Senator, every Congressman (except one), every governor. Big coverup? If the plotters were so good that they could cover it up so well, then why did the plot not work? Did 500,000 men take over Washington. Well no, not one did. Isn't that odd--I just saw the "Rome" episode on plotting to kill Caesar. If you plot to kill a king you really have to go all the way or flee the country. The plot theory never caught on, so Butler stopped talking about it. Only Spivak tried to keep it alive. Rjensen 03:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Rjensen Where does William Leuchtenberg mention Smedley? In his book "Franklin D Roosevelt And The New Deal" there seems to be no mention of the plot, or are you talking about another book? What chapter, what page?

"Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945" by David M. Kennedy also appears not to mention the plot, there is no mention of Smedley. What chapter, what page?

The George Wolfskill book: The All but the people: Franklin D. Roosevelt and his critics, 1933-39? Is this the book?

The Graham book: Franklin D. Roosevelt: His Life and Times : An Encyclopedic View by Otis Graham? Is this the book? Publisher: G K Hall (June, 1985)

On the other side, most historians that I have read on the plot felt that there was something to Smedley's story. I will provide those later today as time permits. Travb 17:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

When historians find evidence they report it when they spot a hoax they ignore it.

One historian to discuss it in detail was Schlesinmger, Age Upheaval, and he dismisses it.

There is ZERO EVIDENCE that DuPont, Raskob, Clark etc ever ebgaged in any plot.

Butler says a bond clerk MacGuire told him. MacGuire denied it. All the big names denied it. ::MacGuire died a few weeks later of brain fever.

The Congressional committee announced it had found no evidence re the big names and did not call any of them.

So that's what a hoax looks like. Rjensen 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There was something to Butlers story

I think you owe us both an apology, and a mea culpa, jingoist:

HISTORIANS WHICH SUPPORT BUTLER

HISTORIAN ONE:

Quotes from:

Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Hans Schmidt University Press of Kentucky; Reprint edition (September, 1998) (Schmidt is an established historian, I have read his book, The United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934)

"Even if Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt, there remains the unfathomable problem of MacGuire's motives and veracity. He may have been working both ends against the middle, as Butler at one point suspected. In any case, MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking. If he was acting as an intermediary in a genuine probe, or as agent provocateur sent to fool Butler, his employers were at least clever enough to keep their distance and see to it that he self-destructed on the witness stand." p. 228, 229

"MacGuire repeatedly purgered himself" p. 226

HUAC's final report to Congress: "There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." The committee had verified "all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization." p 245

WRITERS WHO BELIEVED BUTLER:

Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, Sara Diamond Doctorate in Sociology.

This fear drove a number of prominent businessmen to back fascist activities, including a plan to draft U.S. Marine Major General (Ret.) Smedley Butler to lead a military to lead a military coup d'etat against Roosevelt. Butler rejected the businessmen's financial offer and reported the plot to members of Congress. (From: Morris Schonbach, Native American Fascism During the 1930s and 1940s: A Study of Its Roots, Its Growth and Its Decline (New York: Garland Publishing, 1985) page 234-235)

The Plot to Seize the White House. Archer, Jules.

CONTEMPORARY ARTICLES CONFIRMING THE INFORMATION

Relevant section

(The NYT buries this in the article)

New York Times February 16, 1935. p. 1 Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators; Committee In Report To House Attacks Nazis As The Chief Propagandists In Nation. State Department Acts Checks Activities Of An Italian Consul -- Plan For March On Capital Is Held Proved. Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators

...Plan for “March” Recalled.

It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated.

The committee recalled testimony by General Butler, saying he had testified that Gerald C. MacGuire had tired to persuade him to accept the leadership of a Fascist army...

I typed up the entire first page of the 2 page article, which can be found here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bailey83221/47535.html

Time magazine, 25 Feb. 1935: "Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true."

Also mentioned in: Jules Archer, The plot to seize the White House 186-88, 218; Frank A. Warren, Liberals and Communism: The 'Red Decade' Revisited (Bloomington, 1966)

FALSE charges with zero evidence then or now

No evidence for the plot has ever been given by anyone--except what Butler said MacGuire told him. Van Zandt said all his information came from Butler and he (Van Zandt) never was in contact in any way with any plotter. Someone on the House staff did write up a few pages of a draft report that said the unspecified charges were true. The House Committee rejected that draft report and refused to publish or endorse it. (The draft was found in the files 30 years later.) Congressmen Dickstein said there was no evidence whatever regarding the big names (all of whom denied the story). The Committee decided to stop because it could find no evidence whatever, and it said so again in the official report that was published. And look at the "report" again: no names were named. So how does Misplaced Pages suddenly name names? Where do those names come from? Answer: it all comes from Spivak's article of 1935. It's a wild anti-semitic rant that says the Jews are plotting this coup. In fact there was a great deal of anti-semitism at the time. Henry Ford was involved in a similar hoax in 1920s re Protocols of Elders of Zion. People who are pushing this Butler hoax are basing their argument on Spivak's anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Please read Spivak and decide for yourself. The Schmidt book on Butler clearly says MacGuire was a liar & perjurer and cannot be trusted. So why trust him now? Let's gop over the historians who say the plot really existed: none. Hundreds of historians have worked over the material. The rule in history books is to ignore hoaxes, or (Schlesinger, Schmidt) to expose them. Now there were German-based Nazi activities in the US and the Committee turned its attention to the Bund and similar groups. Rjensen 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times paraphrased the report in a front-page story: "Definite proof has been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington , which was to have been led by Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at the hearing, was actually contemplated." p 246

• One more time: just what is this "definite proof"?????? Rjensen 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with Rjensen claims

Rjensen you are starting to sound like MacGuire, the same MacGuire who: "repeatedly purgered himself".

Rjensen wrote:

"Nearly every historian, journalist and public official who investigated this spectacular story has concluded it was a hoax." "Let's go over the historians who say the plot really existed: none."

NOT TRUE

See Hans Schmidt above.

Rjensen had wrote that four historians had mentioned that the plot was fake, when I looked up information from two of these books, guess what! NO MENTION OF THE PLOT. What page number Rjensen ? What page number Rjensen ?

Rjensen wrote: "The only journalist who believed the story was John Spivak."

NOT TRUE.

Um, you have Time magazine and also the New York Times reporting that the committee believed the report, although they buried it in their pages.

Here are some contemporary journalist who also believe the plot:

Daily News (New York) October 17, 1999

Chicago Daily Herald January 29, 1999:

RJ: the newspapers recycle the same material we have been talking about and add nothing new. These were op-ed pieces by non-journalists. Rjensen 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is no Oliver Stone pipe dream. No less than Speaker of the House John McCormack (1961-69) saluted the general by saying "In peace or war, Gen. Smedley Butler was one of the outstanding Americans in our history. I cannot emphasize too strongly the part he played in exposing the fascist plot in the early 1930s backed by and planned by persons possessing tremendous wealth."

So I can beleive the speaker of the house for 8 years, or some jingoist on wikipedia. Tough choice.

No source is given for the supposed Speaker McCormick quote. The main investigator, Congressman Dickstein, was a Soviet spy. McCormick did not know that of course; he was certainly duped by Dickstein. Rjensen 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: "No evidence for the plot has ever been given by anyone--except what Butler said MacGuire told him."

So Butler's testimony does not count as evidence. I beg your pardon, but this is evidence, by the definition of the legal term.

So, lets see, how many times have been caught in half-truths, just like old MacGuire? Travb 20:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Butler testified regarding MacGuire's 20 minute conversation with him in a hotel room laying out the plot and inviting Butler to be dictator. Butler had no direct contacts or documents from Dupont and the other big names. All Butler had was MacGuire's story (which MacGuire denied telling). MacGuire himself knew only one "big" person (the millionaire Mr Clark who bought and sold bonds through MacGuire.) Clark vehemently denied any plot. Rjensen 21:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

New Tack

Let's try a new tack. Does anyone in this TALK circle actually believe that DuPont and other big names selected Smedley Butler as a dictator to seize Washington, backed by tens of millions of dollars and many big corporations? That is, is anyone here convinced that MacGuire was telling the truth to Butler? Rjensen 21:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, how about those book references? Travb 21:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Does Travb believe there was a plot or not? I say there was no plot. What does he say? I suggest that no scholars think there was a plot. It is true that there are people today, and in 1934, who believe in gigantic conspiracies. But they never seem to have much evidence. For example there is zero evidence linking the plot leader, DuPont, to the plot. So why does Misplaced Pages say DuPont was a plotter? Rjensen 22:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

All answer your question, and then you answer mine.

Does Travb believe there was a plot or not?

I believe what Butler said was true, so did the committee. Was there an actual plot linking all of those big finacers? There is not enough evidence to prove it. So based on the evidence, "no"--it was not as wide as MacGuire claimed.

You will be happy to note I typed up a scathing review of "The Plot to Seize the White House" and even quoted it on the page. I plan to add a critical footnote from Hans book about Spivak, John L. I am also deleting the "Alleged Conspirators" section, because there simply is not enough evidence to implicate these people. MacGuire probably did say those things to Butler, but there is no evidence to prove any of what he said. Happy? Now please answer my question.Travb 23:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

OK we're making progress. Travb says that Butler was telling the truth and that MacGuire was lying. OK, that's a respectable interpretation: Some loony (MacGuire) makes up a fantastic plot in a 20 minute conversation. Now I'm happy to answer (which question...the one about books? I said that historians have all looked over the plot evidence and they all decided it was a hoax. Some think Butler invented the hoax (including me) and others think MacGuire invented it. Close call. (I say Butler because he had a long record of wild and reckless exaggerations. His unfounded Mussolini gossip got him court martialed and forced out of the Marines, for example.) Usually historians do NOT mention hoaxes or rumors or gossip they consider to be false. So when a major scholarly book is blank on a story that hit all the newspapers, you can be sure he does not beieve it's true. Rjensen 23:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen wrote: "Travb says that Butler was telling the truth and that MacGuire was lying. "

No Hans, a respected historian says that Butler is telling the truth. MacGuire was caught purging himself several times. I think that MacGuire was hired by Clark. Clark possibly had the sponsorship of those big businessmen, but there is not enough evidence to prove it either way, because the committee never investigated further. Lack of knowlege, yes, lack of evidence yes. Not because the leads were not there, and the argument was weak, the argument was compeling and the argument was compeling, but because the investigation did not go as far as it could have, and should have.

I still await your sources you claim. Travb 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would right wingers select a popular left winger as a figurehead? One scenario: Use him to rally the troops, since he has name recognition among veterans and has no obvious links to fascism, then once the coup succeeds and the troops go home, replace him. There was a novel about a coup in the Soviet Union (I do not recall the title) where they used a distinguished Soviet General as the initial figurehead to replace the Communist leaders, then replaced him soon after. Makes sense.Edison 22:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New Tack - There was an almost hysterical mood in the country - rich and poor alike. The depression, Hitler and Commies had the rich in a funk/frenzy. FDR was suspected by the rich of being a little too commie for their welfare. A fascist dictatorship probably sounded better than a job. Who else would you recruit other than the most decorated soldier in the country to be front man in such a big operation? Really, who would you pick? I can't think of anyone else who would have been so instantly credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Something doesnt jibe...

Rjensen I just read the page 83: The Politics of Upheaval : 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt) by Jr., Arthur M. Schlesinger, what you had quoted on your edit. It confirms, more or less, what was already written, and contradicts your edit.

You wrote: "The Committee said it believed MacGuire had talked to Butler about a coup attempt, but the Committee could find no evidence that MacGuire was in league with anyone else. The Committee said it would not call any further witnesses because it had no evidence for a plot beyond MacGuire's disputed conversation with Butler. The Committee investigated MacGuire's finances in depth and found nothing amiss and no evidence of secret payments from conspirators. The multi-million dollar fund for the plot was never located and historians conclude it never existed. Whether Butler exaggerated or MacGuire invented everything is a puzzle, but historians agree with Arthur Schlesinger's conclusion that "it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in much danger."

Page 83 says:

"No one quite knew what to make of the Butler story. It seemed as ridiculous as Dr. Wirt's fantasies. MacGuire himself denied most of the statements attributed to him. Most people agreed with Mayor La Guardia of New York in dismissing it as a "cocktail putsch." But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman , corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." As for the House committee, headed by John McCormack of Massachusetts, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statments made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports. No doubt MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable and it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in much danger."

Statements which Rjensen pulled out of thin air:

• "Committee could find no evidence that MacGuire was in league with anyone else"

• "The Committee said it would not call any further witnesses because it had no evidence for a plot beyond MacGuire's disputed conversation with Butler."

• "The Committee investigated MacGuire's finances in depth and found nothing amiss and no evidence of secret payments from conspirators."

• "The multi-million dollar fund for the plot was never located and historians conclude it never existed."

James Van Zandt, who testified that he had been approached is confirmed by page 83:

• "But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman , corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street.""

NOT what you wrote:

• "Van Zandt told reporters he had no contact whatever with any plotter, and that all he knew came from Butler."

This statment DOES NOT EXIST ON PAGE 83 WHICH YOU QUOTE. How can you pick and choose what you want to accept from this historian? This page contradicts much of what you wrote. Maybe this was a innocent mistake. Travb 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

On Van Zandt. He gave an interview to Associated Press that was carried by the NY Times Nov 23, 1934 p 23. It's online through PROQUEST. He said Butler told him of the plot and that he (Van Z) "would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky, during the VFW convention. The commander said he informed Butler he 'would not be in when the envoys called.'" I read that as saying Van Zandt had not yet met with any plotters and he refused ever to meet them in the future. Who talked to van Zandt? apparently only Butler. Therefore Van Zandt does not provide any independent confirmation--he only repeated to the press what Butler told him. Schlesinger used the same NY Times source but misreads it. Van Zandt did not say that he had been approached directly by the plotters, he said he had been approached by Butler. Schlesinger thinks that Van Zandt met with plotters other than Butler, but Van Zandt never says that, saying instead he refused to meet with plotters. Rjensen 01:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the full sentence of Arthur M. Schlesinger quote to the page, with footnotes. I will read over the NYT article.Travb 01:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's the NY Times article: By The Associated Press.

New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3

Says Butler Described. Offer.

By The Associated Press.

HELENA, Mont., Nov. 22.—James E. Van Zandt of Altoona, Pa., National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reiterated here tonight that he had been approached by "agents of Wall Street" to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a “Veterans Organization.” The commander said General Butler informed him of the request to him less than two months ago. Butler told Van Zandt, the commander said, that Van Zandt had been selected to be one of the leaders of the organization, and that he would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky., during the V. F. W. convention. The commander said he informed Butler he would "not be in when the envoys called."

The V. F, W. chief said Butler then asked the agent what the purpose of the organization was. He was told it was to return the American dollar to the gold standard and to “get rid of this fellow in the White House.” Rjensen 01:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Rjensen did you type that yourself from the PDF, or did you get it somehow so you can cut and paste it? Travb 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I toned down my rhetoric in this post. Sorry for being such hot head. Travb 01:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I printed out the NY Times story (it's PDF from Proquest Historical Newspapers) scanned it and did OCR with Abbyy Finereader.

I think we're in broad agreement: either Butler or MacGuire concocted a hoax. Maybe MacGuire thought it up and Butler exaggerated it. Both I think were nut cases prone to wild exaggeration. Butler thought the war mongers and DuPonts were trying to start a war. New Dealers saw the American Liberty League as a very dangerous right-wing threat. There really were Nazis and Communists active in New York City. Dickstein soon volunteered his spying for Stalin. Add Spivak who sees a vast Jewish conspiracy and you have the grand, glorious Wall Street Plot. They should make a movie, but nobody would believe it. Actually they DID make a couple movies that mimick the plot: "Meet John Doe" is my favorite. Rjensen 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome, based on the article in the NYT to add the information back about James E. Van Zandt. I won't oppose it. I need to read the committee notes.

That book you quoted, The Politics of Upheaval : 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt), was really good, I added a section to the article from page 85.

From my reading, I think Clark probably hired MacGuire and MacGuire embelished his business contacts to Butler. I think it was a good choice to delete the conspirators.

Thanks for the suggestion about Abbyy Finereader, it will save me hours!Travb 01:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen edits

Rjensen, I am concerned with your edits that show that you haven't even read the article you are editing. You first state:

"Many historians treat it as a hoax."

Then, many becomes "All":

"All major historians have dismissed the "plot" because the only evidence came from one person, Gerlad McGuire, almost unanimously considered a trickster and perjurer."

This last statment is lazy editing. Read the section which has major historians supporting Butler.

In addition: "the only evidence came from one person, Gerlad McGuire" is completely untrue.

I STILL await your references on those books.

You have consistently shown that you will twist the facts and leave out relevant information to fit your narrow ideology, and blatantly twist what you references say. I thought you would be EMBARRASED to return to this page, but now your twisted, dishonest edits creep up again.Travb 09:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat: all major historians dismiss it. The article itself cites only one scholarly book, and it calls MacGuire a perjurer and trickster. Let's face it: this was a left wing hoax set up to promote Butler's speaking tours. The Congressman who promoted the story was a Soviet spy. DuPont and all the big capitalists wanted to be ruled by Butler--no historian EVER believed that. The closest you get is some historians say that Butler believed the story. That is possible, but keep in mind he got 100% of his informatioon from MacGuire. I Suppose several hundred scholars have worked over and rejected the hoax. I remember discussing it in graduate school at Yale in the 1960s as an example of how historians have to be able to spot hoaxes.

So let's go over YOUR list of major historian? You refuse to let the readers see any evidence that suggests Spivak was violently anti-semitic, that Dickstein was a Soviet spy. Why hide that?? Rjensen 09:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all Rjensen, use :: in your comments.

Here is the historians listed on the page, minus your entry:

*Historian Robert F. Burk: "At their core, the accusations probably consisted of a mixture of actual attempts at influence peddling by a small core of financiers with ties to veterans organizations and the self-serving accusations of Butler against the enemies the enemies of his pacifist and populist causes."

*Historian Hans Schmidt: "...Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt...".

*Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.: "Most people agreed with Mayor La Guardia of New York in dismissing it as a "cocktail putsch"...No doubt MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable and it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in much danger."

*Historian James E. Sargent reviewing "The Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer: "Thus, Butler (and Archer) assumed that the existence of a financially backed plot meant that fascism was imminent and that the planners represented a wide speared and coherent group, having both the intent and the capacity to execute their ideas. So when his testimony was criticized and even ridiculed in the media and ignored in Washington, Butler saw (and Archer sees) conspiracy everywhere. Instead, it is plausible to conclude that the honest and straightforward, but intellectually and politically unsophisticated, Butler perceived in simplistic terms what were in fact complex trends and events. Thus he leaped to the simplistic conclusion that the President and the Republic were in mortal danger. In essence, Archer swallowed his hero whole."

Rjensen wrote: "The article itself cites only one scholarly book, and it calls MacGuire a perjurer and trickster." --Yes, MacGuire was a perjurer and trickster, the author also says "...Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt..." You are selectively choosing what to use as evidence, AGAIN. As you have for weeks. Admitting that MacGuire was a perjurer and trickster only makes your views more dubious--MacGuire was lying under oath, and Butler's story convinced the congressmen that he was telling the truth. This makes your trustworthiness to talk about history questionable at best.

I am frustrated that i continue to have to waste time arguing with you.

Rjensen wrote: "Let's face it: this was a left wing hoax set up to promote Butler's speaking tours."

Prove it--you give no evidence at all--we are just supposed to take the word of someone who has been caught in half-truths on this chat board before. And don't quote a book that I will later find out actually contradicts your pet ideology--you have been shown on this web board to repeatedly give half-truthsabout your sources--twisting the facts to fit your own ideolgoy--and blatantly ignoring facts which contradict your view. I have caught you at least twice doing this. (see above)

Rjensen wrote: "The Congressman who promoted the story was a Soviet spy."

Again, you ignore the other 7 congressmen on the committee. You pick and choose what history to ignore, and what history to use for your view. If you want to list a biography of all the congressmen on the committe, so be it. But all of the other congressmen on the committee WERE NOT spies. In fact, one was the speaker of the house from 1961-1968. If you insist on listing information on Dickerson, it is only fair to list all of the other congressmen careers--this was not the Dickerson committee, with one sole congressman.

Here you go again, showing how weak your arguements are. Backed up against a wall, you justify. Lets show the history:

FIRST you edit:

"Many historians treat it as a hoax."

Then, "many" becomes "All":

"All major historians have dismissed the "plot" because the only evidence came from one person, Gerlad McGuire, almost unanimously considered a trickster and perjurer."

And now, when I call you on this mistake, you now say:

"The closest you get is some historians say that Butler believed the story."

Of course, predictibly you ignore the rest of the history:

Where did all of this money come from that MacGuire had? All of the deposits which conformed t

Missing the Point

Most if not all the folks here missed the point. SDB certainly believed it was true and that is the real story.He did testify and that testimony was filmed and those archives are available for public perusal. Whether or not any of the Plot actually happened is correctly stated in the article as never proven. So, FAMOUS? Yes. HOAX? Not proven. I was amused that anyone thought the article should be deleted because SDB never proved his case or that the government did not accept his story. That was never the point of the article. The facts are stated in the article and the difference between accusations and the facts is also plainly stated. This episode demonstrates once again that there are censors in WikiWorld who do not read what they want deleted or chose very fascile reasons to do so. This is a disservice to Misplaced Pages--disagreeing with someone ain't the point of constructive censorship. The point is did SDB testify that it happened? He most certainly did. Malangthon 18:03, 31, 12, 2005 (PST)

Excellent points Malangthon. Thanks Travb 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Question?

If we accept that Butler and Van Zandt were telling the truth as they were apprised of it, there would have to be either a plot or a hoax costing thousands of dollars either way. Given Butler's known and public sympathies, for American businesses to support such a plot would seem unthinkable. The possibility of such an expensive and dangerous hoax would seem even more unlikely. My question? Who would have been in a position at the time to have had thousands of dollars to dump into either destabilizing the USA, making American business look bad, causing apprehension and doubt in America, had a tin ear for American culture and the place of the military in it, and had agents operating in the US capable of such a stunt?

My vote, ever since the Venona Decrypts became public, has been Joseph Stalin, as he would benefit his interests no matter what happened, and throw blame on his enemies if it failed.

Just a thought. 129.93.205.213 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Dave Fitz

I doubt the business elite of America would chum up with Stalin.Travb 04:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs fixing

There never was a march on Washington--article has to say that. The key Congressman (Dickstein) was a Soviet spy--that needs to be said. Butler was chosen to rule America by Democrats/ wets/ capitalists even though Butler was a Republican/ a dry leader/ a strong opponent of capitalism and bankers. That paradox needs emphasis. The naming of Al Smith etc was all done by a fellow named Spivak who said they were part of a giant Jewish plot. Needs to be brought out. Rjensen 10:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

I hate to have to be pulled into this arguement again, and waste my time, but I fear you are not going to let this die until I debate you into a corner again, as I was forced to do before. Regarding your edits

You write:

The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch was a discussion between a retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler and a bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire about a plan to march on Washington and seize the government. The discussions supposedly happened in 1933...All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it.

It was so much more Rjensen, and your statment ignores this. Your edit makes it sound like the sole bit of evidence is a discussion between Butler and Gerald MacGuire. This is patently false. I am disturbed that you continue to present this view when I have exhastively shown that this is false. Why do you cling onto such ideas?

Your edits are littered with POV, in the form of weasel words, which are unenyclopedic and which I have reapeatedly (and consistently) argued in many articles not to include:

• "Of course there never was a march or a coup."
• "The discussions supposedly happened in 1933."
• "supposedly happened between July and November 1933."

Other milder unencyclopedic POV in your edits is present:

• You wrote: The official Congressional report was ambiguous, and did not name names beyong Butler and MacGuire. Definition of ambigous: Open to more than one interpretation: an ambiguous reply. Clearly many of Butler's accusations were confirmed, your edit ignores this. Your edit also ignores that the reason that the report did not name names, is because portions of the report were edited and suppressed. This is clearly written later in the article.
• "and the news media laughed it off"
• "and his reputation as a strong left-wing critic of capitalism"

True or untrue:

In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot , but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

You delete this sentence completely, and instead add:

However a prominent anti-Semite named ] claimed the plot was a Jewish plot to take over the country, and he named numerous prominent Democrats as plotters. The people mentioned such as Al Smith all issued vigorous denials and the news media laughed it off.

Using the old footnote to support your new view! Where in footnote does it mention ]? I talk in length about ] below, and add information about him. How is ] a marginalized anti-semite who wrote one article in a communist paper make him: "prominent"?

Dickstein

When the archives of the Societ Union were opened in 1991, it was revealed that Dickstein had been a spy for the Soviets, reporting on actions in Congress.

We have gone through this all before. Why are you opening up this argument again? If you want to list that Dickstein was a spy, you need to mention the members of the entire committee, REMEMBER its called the McCormack-Dickstein Committee committee. Why don't you mention that McCormack, the other half of the committee name, was a prominent democrat and leader of the house for several years? I made a laundry list of everyone on the committee, starting with McCormack, and I included that Dickstein was a Soviet spy (it appears like it was later erased by someone else). But this is not good enough for you--you want to completly discredit the entire article as a hoax, in the first paragraph, with highly POV, slanted points, some points which are clearly false.

More use of my footnotes

Smith and DuPont were leading opponents of prohibition and Butlker was a leading supporter of prohibition. Smith anmd DuPont were leading capitalists and Butler after 1932 made a living giving speeches to left-wing audiences denouncing bankers and capitalism.

Where in does it say such things? What does prohibition have to do with the plot? I mention Butler's speaking career later, why bring it up in this paragraph?

I am trying to appeal to reason here Rjensen. Your edits make this article a lot less encyclopedic. I didn't even mention the numerous spelling errors.Travb 11:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen: why?

Rjensen I read your edit and name again with both respect and dread.

I didn't realize you were the same Rjensen who I first argued with at Labor unions in the United States and later learned to respect highly was the same person who I argued with, and later completly discredited on Business Plot , then defended strongly against a liberal ideologue, User:Calton at Samuel Dickstein (congressman).

I don't know if you see the irony in your edits, and I don't know if I have pointed this out before, but let me point this out now. You are willing to accept the testimony of one man, Weinstein, that Samuel Dickstein (congressman) was a Soviet spy. ME TOO!

Here are your own words on the subject: "Rather odd here that people will have total faith in the weirdest stories (Butler-as-dictator) and yet distrust the Archivist of the United States, who was confirmed by the Senate last year." I agree, fervently. But lets turn this statment of your around, so you can see the irony (and hypocricy) in your statment:

"Rather odd here that people will have total faith in the weirdest stories (Dicksen-as-Soviet Spy) and yet distrust a two time medal of honor winner, whose testimony was confirmed in the house, and who had not only himself as a witness, (unlike Weinstein, and despite your repeated misleading edits), but also had three witnesses who collaberated his story:

• Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt, who told reporters that Butler had approached him to lead the 500,000-man march on Washington, but that he had refused.
• Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.
• Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post

This are contributions to the article which you repeatedly ignore, because they do not match your own POV, edits which are also footnoted heavily. You continue to be misleading Rjensen. It is really annoying.

My view on the Business Plot and Samuel Dickstein (congressman) is clearly consistent. Rjensen, User:Calton and your view is clearly inconsistent. Your edits continue to be misleading and flat out wrong. Your are wrong. The evidence does not support your views. I cannot say this enough. I have shown repeatedly above how you are either accidently, or worse intentionally wrong and misleading. This statment is a lie, Rjensen: "All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it. " Why do you continue to repeat such statments when you know they are incorrect and have no basis in fact?

If you want to start an edit war, I will be forced to start arbitration proceedings. It is in your best interest to back down on this, because as I have shown repeatedly above, your statments are inconsitent and flat out wrong.

In addition, your edits are highly POV. Using weasel words such as "supposedly" etc. is against wikipedia policy. How would you feel if someone changed Samuel Dickstein (congressman) and added the word "supposedly" throughout the paper.

I respect your edits and input to Labor unions in the United States but you are wrong here Rjensen. I fear you are simply too stubborn and bull headed to admit your mistakes, that you were wrong, that I now know more about the subject of the Business Plot then you do. I pray that you have the humility to admit that you are incorrect. I admit that I am wrong all the time. There is an unwritten rule on the internet chat boards that a person can never admit they are wrong. This is the achilles heel of so many macho bull headed men, which I exploit with glee all the time.

I agree with you on Samuel Dickstein (congressman) and Labor unions in the United States, but the historical evidence clearly does not support your views here at Business Plot.

On another note, I apologize for my agressive and caustic behavior. I need to remember that it is easier to get bees with honey than vinegar. 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't want a fight but I don't want hoaxes here either. This is the most outlandish "plot" ever. Doi you honestly believe that America's richest bankers picked a far-left man with a wild reputation to be their boss? (He was forced out of the Marines after publicly telling nasty stories about Mussolini that he overheard at a dinner party.)

• The Dickstein evidence comes from the Soviet archives --as reported by Weinstein who is the Archivist of the United States--how much better authority than that?
• Was there a coup? no. Was there an army funded and readied to march on Washington? no. Was there millions of dollars involved? no.
• Were rich businessmen involved? very unlikely that they would have picked general Butler to be their leaser, don't you agree? The "evidence" comes from Spivak--have you read his Nation stories? He says Jews are taking over, Pretty raw anti-semitism!
• Did Butler believe MacGuire's stories about a plot? probably--but he waited a year to reveal it, which seems odd.
• Did MacGuire invent the stories? well yes I think so and so do the academic historians who have looked into the matter.
• Did Dickstein have a motive to spread the hoax? yes if indeed he was closely associated with Communists who were trying to discredit capitalists.
• Were any New Dealers involved? Not a shred of evidence has turned up.
• Were any businessmen --besides Clark-- involved? Not a shred of evidence has turned up. The Clark evidence does not show any interest in a coup.
• Verifiable evidence of a plot? Not enough for McCormick to take to Congress or the FBI. Rjensen 11:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple extra points. Van Zandt only talked to Butler. Reporter French tralked to MacGuire. I can't recall who Captain Samuel Glazier talked to. Everything turns on two people, Butler and MacGuire. Nobody else was in the plot. Did Butler play along for a year in hopes of becoming a dictator? maybe. Rjensen 11:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So this is your new edit:

The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch was a discussion between a retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler and a bond salesman named Gerald MacGuire about a plan to march on Washington and seize the government.

Would you agree with this statment then, please explain fully:

The allegations of the plot came to light when Marine Corps General Smedley Butler testified to the existence of the plot before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee in 1933.

Travb 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You ignore my question

You ignore my question Rjensen, and try to cover it up with a barage of questions which I will not answer until you answer these two questions:

• Question 1:

Why accept the word of one man, Weinstein, and yet disregard the word of four men:

• Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt, who told reporters that Butler had approached him to lead the 500,000-man march on Washington, but that he had refused.
• Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.
• Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post

Weinstein had no evidence but his word. Butler had evidence showing that Gerald MacGuire was a liar, including bank statments, etc. You also deleted this sentence: In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, and added your own words, but left the footnote, which has nothing to do with this footnote!

IS ACCEPTING Weinstein's words with no supporting evidence, but disregarding Butler's testimony, which had supporing evidence INCONSISTENT, YES OR NO. EXPLAIN FULLY.

Question 2:

• You also ignore your blatantly false statments. This statment is a lie, Rjensen: "All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it. " Why do you continue to repeat such statments when you know they are incorrect and have no basis in fact?

Rjensen my respect for your intellect, which you earned at Samuel Dickstein (congressman) and Labor unions in the United States is quickly disapating. You are starting to look no different than User:Calton and many of the other stubborn, irrational wikiusers here. I was hoping for more. Travb 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Weinstein has photocopies of the Soviet documents. Butler apparently did not keep any paperwork.

• Van Zandt says he only talked to Butler, no one else.
• Medals of honor are given for heroism. Butler was drummed out of the Marines for wild exaggerated stroies about Mussolini that he heard from someone at a party. Weinstein was confirmed by the Senate for Archivist of the US.
• Bank statements for how many millions of dollars? Answer just $20,000--how many men will that pay for at say $20 a day for 100 days? Answer: a ten-man march on Washington.
• Captain Glazier ran a CCC camp. He did not implicate any of the American Liberty league people--maybe there was a second coup underway?
• French talked only to MacGuire and says he got the same story Butler got. could well be true.
• I did read all the documents. All the info on the coup comes from 2 men (Butler and MacGuire). MacGuire was a con man from day 1 I agree. Butler--was he fooled or did he see himself as dictator? that I don't know. Rjensen 12:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of two men: Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it."

So, let me edit your edit, based on your acknowledgements, using your own statments above, and the sentence which you deleted (but kept the footnote):

"All of the inofrmation comes from testimony of five men, Van Zandt who said he was approached by leaders of the coup*, Captain Glazier testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States, and French who talked only to MacGuire and says he got the same story Butler got, Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it. Bank statements for $20,000 confirmed Butler story. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot , but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten."

Would you agree with this edit, if so, this is exactly what the article said before your edit.

True or false: all of the information came from Butler and MacGuire. TRUE OR FALSE. By your own acknowlegement, the word "all" really doesn't mean "all" does it? The majority, but not "all". Would you agree that the sentence "all of the information came from Butler and MacGuire"? Yes or no? Simple question.

*"Van Zandt says he only talked to Butler, no one else" your facts are incorrect, please go back and read the footnotes I provide. I await your retracation.

Travb 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who was getting $20 a day during the Depression?? The Bonus Marchers who were evicted by MacArthur camped in Washington DC without even a dollar a day in their posession.Edison 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Weinstein vs. Butler

Rjesen wrote: Weinstein has photocopies of the Soviet documents. Butler apparently did not keep any paperwork.

User:Calton appeared to disagree: "Allen Weinstein's word, that the material he looked at -- and which he doesn't have copies of to allow comparisons." Butler had no paperwork, correct. Butler did have four people who corroborated there was some kind of plot. As I discuss fully in the article, I feel in a very even handed manner, that many historians scoff at the idea of the plot. What we do know is that MacGuire approached Butler, it was coroberated by French, a reporter. That Van Zandt and Glazier were also approached. Glazier was approached indepently. Glazier may not even have known Butler. We know that MacGuire was a liar and perged himself several times, and that the bank statments confirmed some portions of Butler's testimony. We know that the case was dropped and powerful names from the Congressional testimony were secretly deleted from the final report, and never called to testify which McCormick confirmed later to Spivak. This is all in the article already.

Now, if I were practicing law, and I had to choose between both cases, I would think that Butler's case is stronger. There is hard evidence supporting Butler's story--4 testimonies (in a court of law, testimonies are evidence)--one testimony which is completly independent of Butlers. There is very strong circumstantial evidence which supports Butlers claims about the money. In addition, MacGuire is a liar, and purges himself. There was a very strong case here, but it was dropped and clearly buried by the committee. Whereas you have the testimony of one man, Allen Weinstein, with no cooberation, and, unless you can document your assertion, no photocopies.

Ad homenien attacks on Weinstein and Butler prove nothing. In Butler's case, you not only have to destroy Butler's credibility, you have to destroy four people's credibility--one person who never even knew Butler. Thus far you have attempted to destroy Butler's credibility with evidence which shows that he was an outspoken person who told people how he felt--no matter how uncomfortable it is. Hardly daming evidence that he was lying.Travb 13:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

MacGuire, as a rich banker

"One of Wall Street's richest bankers and stockbrokers," This may be wrong, I need to check my notes, until then, I will keep it out of the article.Travb 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Answers

Ok let's me go through them.

• 1. Van Zandt. I have read his statement to reporters. He said that Butler talked to him, and no one else had approached him. Have you read his statement?

Note 9: Schlesinger, p 85; Wolfe, Part IV: "But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman , corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." "Zandt had been called immediately after the August 22 meeting with MacGuire by Butler and warned that...he was going to be approached by the coup plotters for his support at an upcoming VFW convention. He said that, just as Butler had warned, he had been approached "by agents of Wall Street" who tried to enlist him in their plot." I can find the newspaper clipping, I have it somewhere. Or you can admit that you are wrong. Your choice.

• 2. Glazier had zero contact direct or indirect with Butler, MacGuire, Clark or any Am Liberty League person. He was talking about someone quite separate.

Yes or no: Captain Samuel Glazier testified under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.

• 3. French got his information from MacGuire & Butler.

Yes or no: French cooberated what Butler said.

• 4. Bank statements don't say anything about a plot, do they? We know that MacGuire was buying and selling municipal bonds for Clark--several million dollars worth. Having $20,000 in a bank account seems consistent with this. How does having the $ indicate there was a coup? Butler said there was millions of dollars involved--as surely there would have to be. Congress found $20k with no indication one penny went for nefarious expenses (like buying uniforms or guns). Odd coup with no guns, I guess.

It showed that MacGuire lied, repeatedly.

• 5. MacGuire was on salary of about $5000 a year. -- rather like $100,000 today. Nice but not rich on Wall Street.

Okay, my apologies. You are probably right. Good catch.

• • So let's say: ""All of the information comes from testimony of two men, Butler and MacGuire. Butler said MacGuire was organizing a coup that Butler was to lead; MacGuire denied it. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's story that MacGuire said there was a plot, but said it could not confirm MacGuire's role or the role of anyone else. No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten. Historians dismiss MacGuire as a con man and perjurer." Rjensen 12:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"All of the information?" All? What is your definition of all? All means everything. That is not true Rjensen, as you admit yourself in a round about way, but never can actually come out and say.

In addition, you didn't really address how you can beleive the testimony against Dicksten, which has less evidence, and disregard the testimony of Butler. I guess it is ultimatly a matter of opinion on whether you are being hypocritical, but I think the average ordinary person would say "yes" you are, just as Claton was.Travb 12:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

1, Van Zandt's story:

New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3

Says Butler Described. Offer.

By The Associated Press.

HELENA, Mont., Nov. 22.—James E. Van Zandt of Altoona, Pa., National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reiterated here tonight that he had been approached by "agents of Wall Street" to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a “Veterans Organization.” The commander said General Butler informed him of the request to him less than two months ago. Butler told Van Zandt, the commander said, that Van Zandt had been selected to be one of the leaders of the organization, and that he would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky., during the V. F. W. convention. The commander said he informed Butler he would "not be in when the envoys called."

The V. F, W. chief said Butler then asked the agent what the purpose of the organization was. He was told it was to return the American dollar to the gold standard and to “get rid of this fellow in the White House.”

I read that: Van Zandt only talked to Butler and refused top talk to any plotter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

"James E. Van Zandt of Altoona, Pa., National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reiterated here tonight that he had been approached by "agents of Wall Street" to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a “Veterans Organization.”"

Butler had warned him two months before. He was then approached by the “Veterans Organization.”Travb 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Captain Samuel Glazier

• Yes or no: Captain Samuel Glazier testified under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States. Glazier said nothing about Butler, MacGuire, Clark, Smith, Raskob etc. There was no connection--must be some other plot.

This actually boolsters the case, it doesnt weaken it. In any case, if I have a witness who independently confirms an allegation, this strengthens my case.Travb 13:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

French corroborated what Butler said

• Yes or no: French cooberated what Butler said . No. French had no information apart from his interviews with Butler and French (correction: Macquire). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

That wasn't the question. I didn't ask if French had any information apart from his interviews with Butler and Macquire. I ask it French cooberated what Butler said. Yes or no? Travb 13:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually almost all of the info comes from Butler

• Actually almost all of the info comes from Butler. MacGuire denied everything to the committee so it did not come directly from him EXCEPT French did say (I think) that MacGuire said something similar to French as Butler reported. So French may be a second source regarding MacGuire. MacGuire was a con man and perjurer and it's very hard to figure out what he said to Butler. It's hard to see why Butler waited a year--surely a patriot would go to the FBI immediately?? Rjensen 13:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Almost all"---Thank you, sir.

Yes, I agree with what you said: French confirmed what Butler said. French was a second source regarding MacGurie. MacGuire was a perjurer.

Butler explained that he waited because he wanted to get more evidence. If he went to the feds (precusers to the FBI)--with no evidence, they would think he was a nut case. There were rumors of a plot, and so he felt like he couldn't wait any longer. He took what he got--his testimony and the testimony of three others, and broke the story. Glazier, to my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong) was completly independent but supported the idea of a plot. I need to study and take my son to school. I enjoy debating you Rjensen. Travb 13:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted text by Rjensen

Rjensen in your last edit, can you explain why you deleted this entire paragraph, which is heavily footnoted?

Portions of Butler's story were corroborated by:

• Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt, who told reporters that he had been approached to lead the 500,000-man march on Washington.
• Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.
• Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post. Travb 14:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

I meant Richard, not Robert. At any rate, a more respectful tone toward User:Rjensen is in order here, given his professional expertise on the period. 172 | Talk 14:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, 172 for pointing this out. You are correct. My apologies User:Rjensen, as I mentioned on your talk page, you seem like a really intellegent person and have taught me a lot about the Business Plot.

172, please see my response on your user page, unless you have deleted this message too. Again User:Rjensen, sorry, my apologies. Travb 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the change of tone. I look forward to taking a closer look at the article shortly. 172 | Talk 17:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to your contributions, User:Rjensen taught me a lot about the Business plot, maybe you can teach me more. Best of luck.Travb 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

New and old contibutions

powerful financial interests made sure that the Commission's investigation stopped: its time was allowed to run out and its appeal to renew and continue its investigations was denied. In other words, the Commission was allowed to expire.

Next, the Department of Justice, though already with information to prosecute many of the involved, refused to do so. In the aftermath however, at least one researchable event did take place. According to radio commentator Paul Harvey, who dedicates a show to this event every year on its anniversary, Butler declined the position of First American Dictator but told the plotters that this was all interesting to him and that he would like to be kept abreast of this event. All the while informing a subcommittee of the U.S. Congress of what was he was being told. A month later Butler was told by the plotters that a replacement had been found for him and that a General agreed to become the dictator. That General was Douglas MacArthur. There have been two opinions as to what happened to MacArthur after his role was revealed. One is that he was exiled out of the U.S. to the Philippines or that he was actually forced out of the U.S. Army and then commissioned as an officer in the Philippine Army. I believe that the first one is closer to the truth as the Philippine Islands were deeded to the U.S. after the War with Spain.

First the old information:

powerful financial interests made sure that the Commission's investigation stopped: its time was allowed to run out and its appeal to renew and continue its investigations was denied. In other words, the Commission was allowed to expire.

there is no evidence that "powerful financial interests made sure that the Commission's investigation stopped",

"its time was allowed to run out and its appeal to renew and continue its investigations was denied." is partially correct. The committee did run out, but I don't know of anyone who denied it.

"In other words, the Commission was allowed to expire." That is true, and is reflect in the new edit.

Next, the Department of Justice, though already with information to prosecute many of the involved, refused to do so. In the aftermath however, at least one researchable event did take place. According to radio commentator Paul Harvey, who dedicates a show to this event every year on its anniversary, Butler declined the position of First American Dictator but told the plotters that this was all interesting to him and that he would like to be kept abreast of this event. All the while informing a subcommittee of the U.S. Congress of what was he was being told. A month later Butler was told by the plotters that a replacement had been found for him and that a General agreed to become the dictator. That General was Douglas MacArthur. There have been two opinions as to what happened to MacArthur after his role was revealed. One is that he was exiled out of the U.S. to the Philippines or that he was actually forced out of the U.S. Army and then commissioned as an officer in the Philippine Army. I believe that the first one is closer to the truth as the Philippine Islands were deeded to the U.S. after the War with Spain.

"Next, the Department of Justice, though already with information to prosecute many of the involved, refused to do so." This is probably refering to Spivak going to the government and asking the government to prosecute Macguire. Hardly "many".

"According to radio commentator Paul Harvey, who dedicates a show to this event every year on its anniversary, Butler declined the position of First American Dictator but told the plotters that this was all interesting to him and that he would like to be kept abreast of this event. All the while informing a subcommittee of the U.S. Congress of what was he was being told. A month later Butler was told by the plotters that a replacement had been found for him and that a General agreed to become the dictator. That General was Douglas MacArthur. There have been two opinions as to what happened to MacArthur after his role was revealed. One is that he was exiled out of the U.S. to the Philippines or that he was actually forced out of the U.S. Army and then commissioned as an officer in the Philippine Army. I believe that the first one is closer to the truth as the Philippine Islands were deeded to the U.S. after the War with Spain."

Really interesting, but unverifable. Content must ...be verifiable. I went to the Paul Harvey site and I could not find the archives.

In addition, what anyone believes is irrelevant and shouldn't appear in the article.

Also who had those two opinions? You mention no names. Again, Content must ...be verifiable.

Here is what Butler claims MacGuire said, found in the book the Plot to seize the white house. Full book downloadable here, these are the deleted sections from the congressional report, that Spivak found, and Congressman McCormick confirmed:

The Conspiracy Explodes 158-159

BUTLER: "They are for Douglas MacArthur as the head of it. Douglas MacArthur's term expires in November, and if he is not reappointed it is to be presumed that he will be disappointed and sore and they are for getting him to head it."

I said, "I do not think that you will get the soldiers to follow him, Jerry. . . . He is in bad odor, because he put on a uniform with medals to march down the street in Washington, I know the soldiers."

"Well, then, we will get Hanford MacNider. They want either MacArthur or MacNider. . . ."

I said, "MacNider won't do either. He will not get the soldiers to follow him, because he has been opposed to the bonus."

"Yes, but we will have him in change ." And it is interesting to note that three weeks later after this conversation 'MacNider changed and turned around for the bonus. It is interesting to note that.

He said, "There is going to be a big quarrel over the reappointment of MacArthur . . . you watch the President reappoint him. He is going to go right and if he does not reappoint him, he is going to go left."

I have been watching with a great deal of interest this quarrel over his reappointment to see how it comes out. He said, "You know as well as I do that MacArthur is Stotesbury's son in law in Philadelphia- Morgan's representative in Philadelphia. You just see how it goes and if I am not telling the truth."

I noticed that MacNider turned around for the bonus, and that there is a row over the reappointment of MacArthur.

Anon, you have all your facts muddled. Butler went public about the allegations, he was not secretly infomring the subcommittee while speaking with MacGuire. This makes all of the rest of the information you provide, to my knowlege, incorrect.

Signed:Travb 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the anon is refering to this:

"The New York Times added rumors, heatedly denied by Butler, that he had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson was slated to be dictator and that J.P. Morgan & Company was involved." p. 224 Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Hans Schmidt

Deleted some info from timeline

I deleted:

"arguing plot is part of Jewish conspiracy to take over USA; he alleges names of big business leaders, reveals deleted portions of congressional committee"

...which is partially Rjsens edit, partially my own.

Why? space issues. Rjsen, if you want to add this all back, you can, or better yet, you can write more about Spivak in the article. The only reason that Spivak is important is not because of his hair brained conspiracy plots, but because he was unwittingly given the full congressional report, which he published.

As Historian Schmidt said:

"Journalist John L. Spivak, researching Nazism and anti-Semitism for New Masses magazine, got permission from Dickstein to examine HUAC's public documents and was (it seems unwittingly) given the unexpurgated testimony amid stacks of other papers. Spivak's two-part feature "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy" appeared in early 1935, a month after the hearings closed. He cogently developed a case for taking the suppressed testimony seriously. But this relevant material was embellished with overblown aspersions against "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups"-a mishmash of guilt by association that connected Morgan interests with Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee. Spivak was intent upon grinding his own axes, and elucidation of the plot was obscured. The suppressed Butler-MacGuire conversations could hardly support all this. Moreover New Masses was left-wing with a limited readership; the scoop was stigmatized as "red" propaganda and generally not cited elsewhere." --From Schmidt, Hans Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History University Press of Kentucky(1998) ID=ISBN 0813109574 p. 229.

Again, please add back this info if you wish, I just want to keep the timeline short and succeint. (sp?) I added that Spivak wrote in a communist magazine, I figured that was a good comprimise: i didn't include his hair brain plots, but I didn't include the most important part either: he was unwittingly given the full congressional report. If McCormick hadn't had given him the full report, his article would have been forgotten. (its was ignored by the mainstream press anyway, as author schmidt states above)Travb 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Spivak is the main reason the issue was not forgotten. Nobody cares about Butler--they care about Al Smith & DuPont. So let's get it back in. Rjensen 07:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

General Hugh Johnson (head of NRA) had just been fired by FDR in summer 1934-- Secretary of Labor Perkins said he had recently gone around praising Mussolini. Siunds like a likely person for Butler to ask. Rjensen 07:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just lost a good amount of data I typed in because of an edit conflict. God dammnit.Travb 07:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Van Zandt

Van Zandt was approached by the plotters.

I am going to kill this Van Zandt argument, once and for all.Travb 08:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What Rjensen wrote

Rjensen has repeatedly argued that Van Zandt was not approached by anyone.

21 November 2005 Rjensen wrote:

Van Zandt said all his information came from Butler and he (Van Zandt) never was in contact in any way with any plotter.

21 November 2005 Rjensen's edit: Butler told Veterans of Foreign Wars commander James Van Zandt that he, Van Zandt, had been suggested as a leader of the march on Washington. Van Zandt told reporters he had no contact whatever with any plotter, and that all he knew came from Butler.

22 November 2005 Rjensen wrote:

On Van Zandt. He gave an interview to Associated Press that was carried by the NY Times Nov 23, 1934 p 23. It's online through PROQUEST. He said Butler told him of the plot and that he (Van Z) "would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky, during the VFW convention. The commander said he informed Butler he 'would not be in when the envoys called.'" I read that as saying Van Zandt had not yet met with any plotters and he refused ever to meet them in the future. Who talked to van Zandt? apparently only Butler. Therefore Van Zandt does not provide any independent confirmation--he only repeated to the press what Butler told him. Schlesinger used the same NY Times source but misreads it. Van Zandt did not say that he had been approached directly by the plotters, he said he had been approached by Butler. Schlesinger thinks that Van Zandt met with plotters other than Butler, but Van Zandt never says that, saying instead he refused to meet with plotters.

Rjensen wrote 23 March 2006:

A couple extra points. Van Zandt only talked to Butler.

Rjensen wrote 23 March 2006:

Van Zandt says he only talked to Butler, no one else. 23 March 2006

Rjensenwrote 23 March 2006:

Van Zandt. I have read his statement to reporters. He said that Butler talked to him, and no one else had approached him. Have you read his statement?

23 March 2006 Rjensen wrote:

1, Van Zandt's story:

New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3

Says Butler Described. Offer.

By The Associated Press.

HELENA, Mont., Nov. 22.—James E. Van Zandt of Altoona, Pa., National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reiterated here tonight that he had been approached by "agents of Wall Street" to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a “Veterans Organization.” The commander said General Butler informed him of the request to him less than two months ago. Butler told Van Zandt, the commander said, that Van Zandt had been selected to be one of the leaders of the organization, and that he would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky., during the V. F. W. convention. The commander said he informed Butler he would "not be in when the envoys called."

The V. F, W. chief said Butler then asked the agent what the purpose of the organization was. He was told it was to return the American dollar to the gold standard and to “get rid of this fellow in the White House.”

I read that: Van Zandt only talked to Butler and refused top talk to any plotter.

Signed:Travb 08:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What historians and contemporary newspapers wrote

One newspaper (possibly two) and two historians had been approached by "agents of Wall Street."

New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3 (Provided by Rjesen)

Says Butler Described. Offer.

By The Associated Press.

HELENA, Mont., Nov. 22.—James E. Van Zandt of Altoona, Pa., National Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, reiterated here tonight that he had been approached by "agents of Wall Street" to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a “Veterans Organization.” The commander said General Butler informed him of the request to him less than two months ago. Butler told Van Zandt, the commander said, that Van Zandt had been selected to be one of the leaders of the organization, and that he would be approached by envoys at Louisville, Ky., during the V. F. W. convention. The commander said he informed Butler he would "not be in when the envoys called."

The V. F, W. chief said Butler then asked the agent what the purpose of the organization was. He was told it was to return the American dollar to the gold standard and to “get rid of this fellow in the White House.”

The Politics of Upheaval by Jr., Arthur M. Schlesinger (Provided by Rjesen)

Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval : 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0618340874. p. 83:

"But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman , corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street."

Footnote 7 of this entire paragraph (I only cited one sentence) states (emphasis my own):

7. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Lobbying Activities, Investigation Hearings, 74 Cong., 2 Sess. (1936), 2070, 2073; New York Times, April 18, 1936; House Committee on Un- American Activities, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Hearings, 73 Cong., 2 Sess. (1934), especially 17-23, 113; Com. on Un- American Activities, Investigation of Nazi and Other Propaganda, House Report No. 153, 74 Cong., 1 Sess. (1935), 10; New York Times, Nov. 23, Dec. 30,1934; Walter Wilson, "Where Smedley Butler Stands," New Masses, Nov. 12, 1935

Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Schmidt, Hans

Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813109574. p. 224.

"On the other hand, Van Zandt, head of VFW, stated in Helena that Butler had told him about the plot two months previously, and that he had also been approached."

Footnote 25 of this entire paragraph (I only cited one sentence) states (emphasis my own):

25. New York Times and Philadelphia Record, 21 and 22 Nov. 1934; Clark quoted in Times, 3 Dec. 1934; Time, 3 Dec. 1934; Van Zandt in ibid. and Philadelphia Record, 23 Nov. 1934.

Conclusion

Re: The Politics of Upheaval by Jr., Arthur M. Schlesinger

This exact page was brought to my attention by Rjensen. The sentence about Van Zandt was ignored. When I looked up The Politics of Upheaval by Jr., Arthur M. Schlesinger, which Rjensen was using to support his argument, it actually contradicted several things Rjensen had claimed that the article said. See evidence of this above.

Schlesinger sites a follow up New Masses article, and two articles in the NYT. Rjensen brought the Nov 23, 1934 article to my attention, and I can't find the Nov 30 article (maybe you can Rjensen?). The New masses article is not online, Schmidt mentions it in his book here.

Re: New York Times Nov 23, 1934; Pg-3

This article was brought to my attention by Rjensen. In fairness, we both missed the sentence which said he was approached, until this week.

Re: Maverick Marine: by Schmidt, Hans

Schmidt states mention of Van Zandt is in the Philadelphia Record, 23 Nov. 1934, and somewhere in the NYT, I am not quite sure where. He cites completly different dates for the NYT article than Schlesinger and Rjensen.

Conclusion

Van Zandt was obviously approached. Rjensen says now that "Were there OTHERS in addition to Butler who approached Van Z? Maybe." I think this is the closest I will ever get to an admission that Rjensen was wrong.

Rhetorical Question for Rjensen

Do you ever come out and say you are wrong Rjensen? I do all the time, even in this article.

My concern I am concerned about many of your edits, particularly your March 23 edits, in which you deleted a lot of content which contradicted your point of view. You state that you were "cleaning out the speculation", your speculation included four footnoted entries from four different sources, including:

• the actual testimon of The House Un-American Committee,
• two historians, and
• a journalist.

In addition you deleted a photo, and two of the categories that this article is in. If I wasn't around to guard the article against such deletions, what else would you delete?

I have attempted really hard to assume good faith from the beginning.

I also admit. particularly later I was particularly .

I am concerned because some of the ways you source information on this article has been shown to be questionable.

I repeatedly have rebutted a lot of your information, but you continue to argue and edit in partially and sometimes completely incorrect statments. It is a lot of work for me to go back and refine your broad, incorrect statments. I guess the article has expanded as a result of this dispute between the two of us.

I have to try to assume good faith. That said maybe you simply don't know that much about the business plot as I first assumed. This is my good faith assumption. My bad faith assumption we won't go into here, although in the heat of the moment, I have expressed my bad faith assuptions above.

Every single fact I am going to have to prove to you beyond a resonable doubt that it is correct. And even when I prove beyond a resonable doubt that you were incorrect. Cornered you will you ask rhetorical questions, such as this gem today: Were there OTHERS in addition to Butler who approached Van Z? Maybe. Would it be to much to admit that you were wrong on this one point?

There is an unspoken rule on web blogs that a person can never admit they are wrong. I argue this is people's weakness, their Achilles' heel, not a strength. I ruthlessly exploit this weakness all the time.

Again, are you wrong on Van Van Zandt? By my lack of diplomacy, have I made it such a "face saving" issue that you can never admit that you are wrong? Travb 10:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

well Schlesinger and I relied on the exact same news report from AP, printed in NY Times. It clearly says Butler approached Van Zandt about joining the plot in Sept 1934. Were there OTHERS in addition to Butler who approached Van Z? Maybe. I read headline as yes but the actual quotes as saying no. It certainly sounds like Butler was recruiting people as late as Sept 1934--why else did he approach Van Z? Rjensen 08:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

article has to be about the plot

The article is about Butler's plot. Therefore it has to be main focus of the summery. Rjensen 06:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Rjensen, there was a committee formed about the plot. Quit deleting background on the plot, and deleting such sentences as:

"In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten."

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/Business_Plot#Final_resolution if you have any doubts about the final conclusion of the committee.

I honestly can't remember the last time you contributed any footnoted information on this article. All I have seen you do is delete sentences you don't agree with, despite the sentences being very well referenced, and pushing your own POV.

• Dickstien as spy is in the article,
• the reference to the cocktail puscht is in the article,
• negative historical treatment is in the article...

....The last two I added in detail, with footnoted references...and yet you still continue to delete information that doesn't fit your POV. Travb 07:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

This page was listed on Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion. I'm not entirely sure what the point of the argument is, but based on the last few edits, it seems there's a disagreement over whether to, among other things, refer to this as an "alleged" plot or not. I would probably use the word, unless it has been proven in some court that this has happened. Similarly, it makes more sense to say someone testified that something is the case than to simply say it is true. It doesn't take away from the usefulness of the article, but does clarify where the story comes from. That said, attacks on those who testified in this case should be referenced. Fagstein 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be useful to look at a similar situation with Jennifer Fitzgerald. Please remember that it is not up to a Wiki editor to decide what the truth of any situation is - that would be barred under NOR. It is up to a Wiki editor to report what the different sources say about something and to reference it. If Fred says there were Martians in his back garden and it is reported in the paper, it is not the Wiki editors's job to decide whether there really were Martians in the back garden. It is the editor's job to say that Fred said there were and to give the reference where this happened.

Obviously there will be many occasions when people do agree on a fact. There is no need to cite a reference for the fact that World War II happened, because there is an overwhelming consensus. However, when dealing with a situation where there is not such a concensus, then there is only one solution, which is simply that if something is referenced it can be used, and, under Wiki rules, if something isn't referenced, then any editor is entitled to delete it.

The discussion on this page is not valid, because the Wiki editors are discussing whether the plot is true or not. The editors' job is to report on other people's discussions about whether it is true or not.

It is certainly out of order to delete properly referenced material without a discussion and consensus.

I suggest also that the discussion is switched from the use of the second person to objective language, i.e. not "your edits", but "the edits", and also that expressions such as "your POV" are not used, as they make an assumption, which is in itself a POV (maybe justified, maybe not - that is irrelevant). The edits, at the end of the day, are not the property of any individual. They are the property of the community.

I hope this helps. Contact me on my talk page if you want. Good luck - and look, at least you both care about it.

Tyrenius 17:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fagstein for your input

Thank you Fagstein for your input.

The word alleged

Fagstein wrote: I'm not entirely sure what the point of the argument is, but based on the last few edits, it seems there's a disagreement over whether to, among other things, refer to this as an "alleged" plot or not.

Yes and no. I accept the idea that this is an "alleged" plot. And currently have no problems with this plot being called "alleged", within reason. Some people use "alleged" and "claimed" as weapons, in this case they can be weasel words there is a fine line. I have no problem in the first paragraph using the word "alleged". I think the word "testified" is more accurate than claimed when Butler and others are testifying in court. "Claimed" is okay when Van_Zandt speaks to the newspaper. As long as those words are used in moderation, and not as weasel words.

Sorry I was not clearer. I would have written more about the debate on Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion, except that the rules on Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion forbid no more than a sentence.

The underlying problem

The problem is really between myself and Rjensen. Rjensen has argued that their is no merit to this plot. His stand has remained consistent over the months. I have gone from a skeptic leaning toward believing the plot, to believing that their was a plot, based on my extensive research, forced upon me by Rjensen edits. That is the one good point from this debate, I have learned so much, and the article is much better and much more detailed.

• Rjensen has quoted books out of context to support his view (the books actually contradict what he states). When I look up the books and bring up this contradiction, I am ignored. See Talk:Business_Plot#Something_doesnt_jibe... above.

• He has gotten several key points wrong about the alleged plot, (see the ongoing Talk:Business_Plot#Van_Zandt argument) above. And when I call him on this, he uses verbal atrobatics to try and save face. See Talk:Business_Plot#Van_Zandt above for the most egregious example.

• Lately he has deleted large footnoted portions of the article, which contradict his view of the plot.

My contributions and my compromise

• Since I started editing this article, I have added every single footnoted refrence, added the table, added 3-5 entire new sections, and increased the size of the article by 2 to 3 times.

• I have comprimised with Rjensen and added the following information:

• Dickstien as spy is in the article,
• the reference to the cocktail puscht is in the article,
• negative historical treatment is in the article...

....The last two sections I added in detail, with footnoted references...

In regards to Dickstien being a Soviet spy, I even fought someone on Talk:Samuel Dickstein (congressman) defending the allegations, on Rjensen's side. And I created the huge footnote section on the Samuel Dickstein (congressman) wikipage.

deletions in the first paragraph

But my comprimises have not been enough for Rjensen, he continues to delete footnoted sections of the article, and continues to want to include all of the negative information, and only the negative information in the first paragraph. He has repeatedly erased this footnoted sentence:

In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations on the existence of the plot,

...despite the Congressional committees footnoted final findings later in the article. Business_Plot#Final_resolution

This sentence is actually a quote from a book which Rjensen actually first brought up on the talk page, and actually contrdicted what he was claiming ):

Here is the footnote I added: Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval : 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt), Mariner Books. ISBN 0618340874. p. 85 "As for the House committee, headed by John McCormack of Massachusetts, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statments made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."

So Rjensen is deleting his own referenced books, which he first brought up on the talk page, which dont fit his view of the plot.

Since I caught him in his contradiction months ago, he has not referenced anything he has written on this page. He has not added a single footnote that I recall. His edits increasing consist of deleting my footnoted work, and changing the wording of the article, deleting anything which does not fit his view of the plot, particularly in the first paragraph. On the other hand, everything that I have written I have backed up with sources, footnoted sources, sometimes even several sources for the same footnote.

proven in some court

Fagstein wrote: I would probably use the word (alleged), unless it has been proven in some court that this has happened.

I am happy with using the word "alleged". Please see Congressional McCormack-Dickstein Committee on the Business_Plot#Final_resolution final resolution. These are quotes from the actual committee. Only the last and first sentence are not quotes from the congressional committee. The committee stated:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country.

No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

the word testify

Fagstein wrote: Similarly, it makes more sense to say someone testified that something is the case than to simply say it is true. It doesn't take away from the usefulness of the article, but does clarify where the story comes from.

I am happy to use the word "testify". I agree 100% with your recommendations Fagstein.

Signed: Travb 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tyrenius for your input

Tyrenius wrote:

Please remember that it is not up to a Wiki editor to decide what the truth of any situation is - that would be barred under NOR.

In a perfect world, that is true. We would all be impartial and rational. Unfortunatly, we all have biases. So although the ideal is something we should all aspire to, it is something that none of us have reached.

Tyrenius wrote:

It is up to a Wiki editor to report what the different sources say about something and to reference it. If Fred says there were Martians in his back garden and it is reported in the paper, it is not the Wiki editors's job to decide whether there really were Martians in the back garden. It is the editor's job to say that Fred said there were and to give the reference where this happened.

I couldn't agree more. That is why I have built a huge footnoted section on this page, and attempt to footnote everything that I write.

Tyrenius wrote:

The discussion on this page is not valid, because the Wiki editors are discussing whether the plot is true or not. The editors' job is to report on other people's discussions about whether it is true or not.

I agree. We are supposed to argue what the evidence says, not whether the evidence is "true" or not. I don't think you should dismiss all of my contributions to this talk page. I am arguing facts. see the Talk:Business_Plot#Van_Zandt for an excellent example of what the facts say, and what my opponent says.

Tyrenius wrote:

It is certainly out of order to delete properly referenced material without a discussion and consensus.

I agree, 100%.

Tyrenius wrote:

I suggest also that the discussion is switched from the use of the second person to objective language, i.e. not "your edits", but "the edits", and also that expressions such as "your POV" are not used, as they make an assumption, which is in itself a POV (maybe justified, maybe not - that is irrelevant). The edits, at the end of the day, are not the property of any individual. They are the property of the community.

I agree. I will attempt to do this. Sorry, I was wrong.

Tyrenius wrote:

It might be useful to look at a similar situation with Jennifer Fitzgerald.

How is this article written differently than Jennifer Fitzgerald? It is, important to draw a distiction between Jennifer Fitzgerald and Business Plot. To my knowledge no congressional committee investigated the charges in Jennifer Fitzgerald and confirmed that:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country.

No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

From the footnoted McCormack-Dickstein Committee final report. Business_Plot#Final_resolution

Signed:Travb 22:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Travb

I was only citing Jennifer Fitzgerald because it was a deadlock between two editors. I went through, took out anything that was an editorial opinion or not referenced, and stored it on the talk page so it could be reinserted if/when a reference was found. All that was left was referenced material. Any editor challenging that would be in a weak position and would not get wider sympathy. As with this article, there is not a consensus either between editors or in the wider world as to the truth of the situation. The only solution is to represent the different/opposing points of view (I don't mean the editors' points of view, but the points of view "out there" in the world). I think the main problem is when there is a deadlock between editors, both get frustrated and act in a way that they wouldn't normally. It becomes a personal battle and wastes a lot of energy. I was in the beginnings of this with the Saatchi Gallery, but as soon as it became apparent what was happening, I went to a third party Solipsist for a neutral opinion, followed that advice re. editing and said so on the talk page. Fortunately this resolved it. I have put this on my watch list. I'm glad you've called for help and let's hope things calm down.

Tyrenius 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Referenced edits and caution

I would like to suggest that this article is edited with extreme caution in the near future. I request that any new information is only inserted in the article with a tight reference. Furthermore, I request that any editor who has inserted unreferenced material which is in any way a source of dispute removes that information themselves, and stores it in the section below for the time being, and that if unreferenced material is removed by any other editor, they accept that editor's right to do so under wiki rules.

If there is a difference of opinion as to how to reach any concluding statement, and two opposing sources are cited, the simple solution is to include both sources. If there is a conflict over which word(s) to use, again words should be taken from sources, and editors not attempt to make their own summary, unless a consensus can be reached.

Tyrenius 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

sounds reasonable. If you wish, Please take out any parts of the article that you see are unrefrenced.Travb 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm completely overloaded with work at the moment, but I hope this will provide a neutral framework to work within. Your positive response is appreciated, and I hope any other editors on this article will put previous difficulties to one side and start afresh.

Best Tyrenius 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced material from main article

Please store here any material removed from article which has not got a reference, until such time (if ever) as a reference can be found for it. Thanks Tyrenius 02:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Tyrenius. I suggest adding {{fact}} first, metioning this on the talk page, then removing after a week if no one corrects. This avoid revert wars.Travb (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged"

I have to agree with User:Tyrenius. Although I wrote the majority of this article, and believe the plot was real, using the word "alleged" at the beginning of the article does not weaken the article at all. Unfortunatly no one was convicted of these crimes, so throughout history it will always be an "alleged" crime. That is not me "downplaying" the plot, because I have "up-played" the plot more than anyone on wikipedia. That is simply me being realistic. No convictions=alleged. Travb (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits

I think that this article is needed and that any effort to delete it is a mistake. The fact that there were actually congressional hearings held about the topic, and there undeniably were, makes it indisputably encyclopedic IMO. Whether these hearings revealed anything over and above Gen. Butler having an overactive imagination is a different issue. (I believe that they did, but it seems to be true that the "proof" regarding the plot centers around Gen. Butler's on the record testimony, and not much else.) What we don't need, though, is a bunch of self-referential links back to this article. There are facts in dispute here, and what we need is links to outside sources showing the dispute in legitimate published sources. My effort has centered around removing links that just take one back to this article, as the link to the McCormick-Dickstein committee did.Rlquall 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture reference

The Business Plot was alluded to in an episode of the now-obscure short-run 1976 NBC television series City of Angels (a 1930s-set private eye show starring Wayne Rogers and obviously inspired by Chinatown, not the more-prominent 2000 hospital-set series starring Blair Underwood). I don't know if this actually belongs in the article, but it definitely belongs here, at least. Rlquall 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Add it to the article, at the end, where Popular culture references usually go. If you don't add it no one will. I find asking people to do things on talk page 99.9% of the time never works.Travb (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The word alleged

As per Weasel_words#Generalization_using_weasel_words:

There are some forms of generalization which are considered unacceptable in standard writing. This category embraces what is termed a semantic cop-out, represented by the term allegedly. This phrase, which became something of a catch-phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated.

No more use of the word alleged. I supported it before on this article, but no more. Travb (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that alleged is a weasel word in this context. It can be a weasel word, certainly, if it's used without saying where the allegations originate; but in the intro, that information was contained in the very next paragraph. --Aquillion 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree in principal with you User:Aquillion but I am trying to be consistent. My big pet peeve are weasel words, and I figure that if I harp on them on other pages I watch and start to edit, I should be consistent here too. I used to defend the word alleged here, but then I realized I was being inconsistent by defending its use here, and harping on others for using it on other wikipages. Travb (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the version now

I like the version now. I would have liked to see some broader perspective on American business leaders attraction to and support of Fascism, perhaps something from one of American Ambassador Dodd's letters to FDR.

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . . "

"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there."

- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937

70.120.166.202 19:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Gary Denton

As I have said a million times before, asking for others to do something on a talk page is a waste of time, 99% of the time. so WP:BB be bold, and make the changes you want to the page. Travb (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded Conspiracy Theory

Face it, this is a fairy tale. Why this article is written as if it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.30.103 (talk • contribs)

It isn't so simple. Butler's allegations, his meeting with MacGuire (although not what they discussed), the testomony before the Congressional committee and its conclusions are all straightforward, undisputed historical facts and matters public record. The accuracy and interpretation of those conclusions, the existance and extent of the conspiracy, and the actual threat (if any) that existed are up for debate, but the article's subject isn't something that was just pulled out of thin air. --Aquillion 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is questionable

I think somebady made it all up. I have honestly never heard of some plot by a bunch of businessmen against Roosevelt before. There was a plot against Reagen that is mentioned in history, but this is questionable. I don't see any believeable evidence in this article, either. If people were trying to murder the president in the 1930s, wouldn't they have been executed in jail in a famous news story? It is ludicrous to suggest that a plot on a president's life in that time period would happen with no references in a history book. 205.166.61.142 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this matter. Article talk pages, however, are for discussing article contents for the purpose of improvement. For future comments on this topic, please read the article throught, check the notes, external links and further reading sections, and base your arguments and critisism on avilable facts rather than merely your personal knowledge and feelings of what must be true. --Swift 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This story is in the Congressional record - noone in power wanted to pursue it. Many people in power were involved - what were you going to do with them, the US doesn't handle uppper-class crime very well. How did the name Prescott Bush not appear even once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs)

Removed from article page

James Sargent's review sounds interesting and suspiciouos at the same time. Any links to Sargent and his ideas on "complex trends and events" - you could hide a herd of elephants under that phrase. I read the review and Sargent certainly appeared to want you - his graduate students, etc - to not bother with this book or historical event. He offers several complaints but doesn't point the way to the good stuff - if Archer didn't footnote, it is hard to see how Sargent would know with his head so far into the sand.

Please provide sources for your entries, and avoid personal opinion on the article page. thank you. Travb (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

''The puzzle is why big business leaders would consider General Butler, known for his vehement attacks on bankers. Many of the alledged financial backers were all prominent "wet" Democrats--leaders of the movement to repeal prohibition. Butler was one of the most prominent "dry" Republicans who had fought these same figures for years.{{fact}} ''

For several months the {{fact}} tag has been on these two sentences. No one has unfortunatly provided any referenced sources, so I am moving it here to the talk page. Happy wishes fellow wikipedians. Travb (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Settle down!

Seems to me the mere fact there's so much debate about the issue is reason enough to keep. I first came across this in a syndicated broadcast of City of Angels & didn't even (really) believe Smedley Butler was real. (With a name like that?) Baseless? Maybe. Implausible? Certainly. Yet desperate people do odd things, & a lot of powerful people were almost certain FDR was a dangerous Socialist, if not a Communist. Might they have trusted Butler? Or thought they could manipulate him? German industrialists were sure they could manipulate Hitler... Trekphiler 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed

The following two sources were removed from this article because they were Larouche related:

• Wolfe, L. (June 27 1994). "Franklin Delano Roosevelt vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated". The American Almanac. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Very caustic and one-sided but informative.

• Template:Cite online journal

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"paradoxically Jewish"

I think this is a misusage of the word "paradoxically." I had tried to address this in a previous post, which was somehow deleted. The sentence itself seemed to be extraneous, so I deleted it. I meant to post it here for the consideration of everyone else, but I appear to have made a slight mistake. 24.184.52.69 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was anti-Jewish. I changed the sentence slightly. Travb (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? The whole story of this "plot" accuses Jewish financiers and a Jewish organization of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. govt. How much more anti-Jewish can you get? And apparently these are the same people who helped the Nazis and the Bolsheviks take power. Obviously I'm not in tune with this subject as you guys are but Spivak's (Spivak claims to be working against anti-Semitism) account is blatant when it accuses Jewish financiers and a Jewish organization of being behind such an immense conspiracy. Why don't you guys call this insane story what you're reallying trying to say it is, "The Jewish Business Plot"? This is ridiculous. Jtpaladin 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC history program

There is a BBC radio program on this topic that might help with sourcing. Link. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Prescott Bush

I'm reproducing the quote from "The Whitehouse Coup" (23 July 2007) that I also entered on the Talk:Prescott_Bush#Failed_Coup Prescott Bush page.

Later in the McCormack-Dickstein report, a shipping company called Hamburg-America Line was accused of providing free passage to Germany to American journalists willing to write favorable copy on Hitler's rise to power. The company is also alleged to have brought Nazi spies and pro-fascist sympathizers into America. John Buchanan has studied this latest section of the report and has discovered that one of the company's managers came from a very famous family. "The thing that surprised me most was to discover in the documents of this company that Hamburg-America Lines had, in fact, been managed on the U. S. side at the executive level by Prescott Bush as part of a web of Nazi business interests that were all seized in late 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act by the U. S. Congress and Prescott Bush is the grandfather of the sitting President of the United States."

Of course, at the time it was perfectly legal to have dealings with Hitler's Germany. Prescott Bush was not called to account for this until America entered the war.

The McCormack-Dickstein report is "Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities." United States Congress, House of Representatives. Special Committee on Un-American Activities.Dec 29, 1934. (73rd Congress, 2nd session. Hearings No. 73-D. C.-6). (Washington, Government Printing Office; 1935)

Some people are claiming that this does say that Prescott Bush was involved with the Business Plot, despite the fact that it is clearly talking about completely separate activities. My only guess as to how people are arriving at this conclusion is that they are assuming that the Business Plot is the only subject of the McCormack-Dickstein report. If that were true, then there might be some connection, but this assumption is false. The committee looked into many different activities, not just the Business Plot. Hence the name of the report, "Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities."

The committee held hearings in six cities and took testimony from hundreds of witnesses. The Business Plot was not its only or even its primary focus of investigation. Notice how it says "Nazi Propaganda Activities". The Business Plot was not a Nazi (that is German government) operation. The BBC report is saying that Hamburg-America Lines was involved in Nazi activities, not the Business Plot.

If there is some other possible interpretation of this, or there is some other information, then explain it here in plain words before you change the main page to say that Prescott Bush was involved. There is simply no evidence for that.

Ken Hirsch 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement you deleted regarding Prescott Bush says: "A BBC documentary claims Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected." Following that statement is a link to the documentary which I listened to in its entirety. The statement you deleted is 100 percent accurate. The brief documentary (less than 30 minutes) is all about the "Business Plot" and underscores the fact that the individuals involved are hard to identify. In that context, they bring up Prescott Bush as a possible participant based on his background and activities. Given that the BBC is an authoritative source, stating that a) this documentary claims a possible connection to Prescott Bush and, b) the source (BBC audio) is linked to, why delete this section? It doesn't say Bush WAS connected, it cites a source that claims a connection, and links to that source. It is not an opinion or a personal point of view. By deleting that section readers are no longer allowed to determine for themselves as to the strength or weakness of the claim. Deleting the BBC claim and subsequent link obscures potentially useful information for the end reader. -- Quartermaster 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me the sentences that link Bush to the Business Plot. I've explained myself above. The BBC program quotes John Buchanan as to Bush's links to the Nazis. Buchanan's research is discussed on the Prescott Bush page and is on the web elsewhere. Nowhere does he claim that Bush was connected to the Business Plot, only that we was connected to Nazi business interests. The only link is that the Business Plot and Nazi propaganda activities were both investigated by the McCormack-Dickstein committee. The BBC program is called "Document" and the idea is that "The award-winning investigative series returns, in which Mike Thomson takes a document as a starting-point to shed new light on past events." So the program investigated the archives of the McCormack-Dickstein committee. As far as I can tell from the language they used (quoted above) and from all the other sources, the bit about Prescott Bush was included because it's a very interesting tidbit, not because it's connected to the business plot. I sent a message to the Document program from their web page (on 26 July) asking for a clarification. If they reply to me, I'll post it here, but hopefully they'll have something on their web site. But, seriously, look at the words they used. Bush is connected to Hamburg-America Lines which has Nazi ties. There is nothing in the program that links Bush to the Business Plot or Hamburg-America Lines to the Business Plot. In everything published about the Business Plot, it's always a native plot, cooked up by Wall Street interests. There's never been any hint of Nazi involvment. -- Ken Hirsch 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire BBC piece was about the Business Plot. The mention of Prescott Bush and his activities in the context of such a piece seems to me a de facto implication of his possible involvement, and I find it plausible, intriguing, albeit not particularly damning. By totally deleting the mention of the BBC piece as well as the link to that same piece, you're set up as the sole arbiter of its importance and veracity. I trust most wikipedia readers to make up their own minds based on what's presented in an article, which is exactly what you've done. That's perfectly all right and I would like to have the article continue to extend that same courtesy to other readers. Debating about the BBC's veracity isn't the point. I can disagree with you (I do) but, again, that isn't the point. Your interpretation may have some validity, but your approach to the subject (deleting it) doesn't give anyone else the same chance to decide one way or the other. -- Quartermaster 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the BBC's own web page suggests that they intend the interpretation to be that Prescot Bush was involved:

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

The added emphasis is mine. The quote is the BBC's summary. It is not unreasonable to ask them for clarification, but absent that, their summary would seem to be plausible evidence of editorial intent. I have no particular opinion on the veracity or accuracy of their story, but they do appear to have made the allegation. --Brons 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you finalize this point. I've restored the mention of Prescott Bush and the supporting link. Let the readers decide the veracity of the claim. The BBC claims the link, the restored statement merely reports that. -- Quartermaster 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, I was the one who first worded it that way to begin with before Ken removed it. It only claims a link and that's exactly what the sentence says. It is factual and NPOV. pschemp | talk 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Misguided Ref removal

I moved this to talk:

Thomson, Mike (2007-07-23). "The Whitehouse Coup". BBC. Retrieved 2007-07-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I have no idea what it has to do with the plot. It is two pargraphs. 66.142.90.225 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a reference, that includes the author of the work. Please refrain from removing refs in the future. It has everything to do with this article. pschemp | talk 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the business plot.

Here is the text of the BBC webpage:

Mike Thomson investigates claims that British colonial officials helped rig Nigeria’s pre-independence elections to ensure that a pro-UK party won.

The allegations centre on the cold war days of 1960 when fears were growing that communism was gaining ground in Nigeria, a country where oil had only recently been discovered. Two top secret files from the time are being kept closed for one hundred years.

Documents calls for them to be released on the FOI Act. Could it be that Britain taught Nigeria all it knows today about fixing the polls?

What does Nigeria's pre-independence elections have to do with the 1930's business plot?

I think you have the wrong link. Was this the link you wanted? : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

If so, this link is already correctly formated in footnote number 3. Which I just fixed with a web cite.

In addition, the Nigeria link is located in the wrong spot. In the ref section. 66.142.90.225 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewording

"Some of Roosevelt's advisors were in on the plot, and downplayed it when it was exposed to prevent their dirty laundry from being aired in public."

Shouldn't this be reworded so it doesn't use a cliche?

Kazuko 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

Unless the article is amended, the current text purports that events are factual without evidence. The article summary states

"The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch, was a conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933."

This is not an undisputed fact of history but a proposition made foremost by Jules Archer (who, note, serves as a preponderance of the references.) This article needs to address Misplaced Pages's guidelines for Fringe theories, which it currently does not.

Unless the article is changed to foremost reflect that the scholarly consensus is that this is a conspiracy theory, then the article itself is part of that conspiracy theory, and the status of the article must be questioned. Quoting James Sargent "it is plausible to conclude that the honest and straightforward, but intellectually and politically unsophisticated, Butler perceived in simplistic terms what were in fact complex trends and events. Thus he leaped to the simplistic conclusion that the President and the Republic were in mortal danger." The wikipedia community is doing just what Archer did here unless this article is rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk • contribs)

First of all, sign your posts please, using ~~~~. Second of all, it appears like you have not read the entire article, particulalry the congressional findings on record. Your conclusion is without evidence, the text is factually supported. Travb (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Congressional reports do not scholarly evidence make.

Congressional reports can be wrong. As this is a highly controversial subject, it requires the evidence and the peer review of the subject be quite thorough. (The evidence is so weak that this congressional report was even disregarded in Washington at the time, hence the lack of 'cause celebre') For instance, the Bush administration has created numerous committees which have concluded that global warming is not occurring. It does not follow, however, that simply because a government agency makes a public statement, it is truth and fact itself. The overwhelming peer review and analysis of the subject have NOT supported the claims of the conspiracy. If they have, and these sources can be sited, I will rescind my objections to this article. As of yet, none has been presented, and instead name calling, inflamed point of view editing, and fringe and conspiracy theories are implicated. What is generally accepted, is that this is a conspiracy theory. If wikipedians wish to demonstrate otherwise, which I fully support, please offer ample evidence. Until that time, please correct the article to indicate this is not a generally accepted historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have added nothing to this article except a {{hoax}} tag. Don't make up requirements for wikiarticles. Lets be honest there is no hurdle high enough that other wikiauthors can jump which would make you change your tune. Fortunatly, several wikiauthors disagree with you. If needs be, you can request an RfC so we can finally find out how discredited your views and unfair standards for articles are.

What peer analysis? What peer review? Again, you have added nothing to this article, so your words seem a little empty. Go ahead and quote some of the ditractors in this article, detractors which, by the way, I proably added. And I can clearly show that those detractors credentials are not as solid as a large congressional committee which spent dozens if not hundreds of hours weighing all the evidence. Travb (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not claiming that the event was a hoax, I am claiming that the article, by purposefully being misleading, falls under the definition of a hoax.

Secondly, you're correct that I have not added anything to this article, other than the hoax tag, primarily because I do not have the time to do this article justice, but felt, nonetheless, that it was the responsible thing to do to bring some recognition to what I believe are it's gross inadequacies. Secondly, after reviewing the edits made previously to the article, I noticed an ongoing attempt to censor editors. For instance, the word "alleged" was added and removed from the initial article description several times, and the word was claimed a weasel word (which I disagree with; "alleged" clearly delineates that the conspiracy is not unquestioned fact). Under those circumstances, I felt similar edits would simply be censored.

Also, I did not make up the requirements for wikiarticles. They are clearly stated on numerous guideline pages. For example see WP:REDFLAG. Given these circumstances, and the history of this article, I'd like follow your suggestion and open the article to RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RE a RfC, power too you. Again, what peer analysis and peer review? You wrote: "overwhelming peer review and analysis of the subject have NOT supported the claims of the conspiracy." Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Your own words. You continue to put down the dozens of references in this article, but you have not shown any knowledge of this topic at all. It is really easy to criticize a group of people's work, as you have done, it is harder to actually add some work of your own. Again, what overwhelming peer review and analysis?

Allegedly: Weasel_word#Generalization_using_weasel_words. I find that there are a couple of editors in less known articles like this one which substantally contribute to the article, and then there are a larger group of editors who add tags to the article and try to add their own spin to the article in the opening paragraph. The "allegedy" argument I gave up on a long time ago, it is a minor argument fought against minor contributors to this article. I could care less about whether the word is in the article. Travb (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

Template:RFChist Does the article portray the accepted historical view? How do other history and encyclopedic text treat this subject, and what scholarly evidence supports claims to the contrary of these texts. If this article does not support the general accepted view, does the article make that standpoint clear enough?

A set of guidelines I find helpful in matters such as these, is Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit. I've noticed this article shows numerous fallacies outlined in the kit. For example: "Ad hominem, attacking the arguer and not the argument" - the talk page is replete with numerous such occurrences ; "Arguments from 'authority'" - References are based primarily on a congressional committee, and Archer's book; "Lack of independent confirmation of the facts" - self explanatory; "Argument from adverse consequences" - feelings that the article must be kept as is, because not to do so would be a coverup of some sort, etc.

Given such red flags and the lack of agreement on the subject, I believe that the article lacks the proper skepticism. A suggested introduction paragaph might state, "The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch, is a theorized conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Although generally not accepted by mainstream historical sources, there has been much debate and research attempting to discern if such a conspiracy ever actually occured. 65.96.188.197 18:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is 'the accepted historical view' in some way related to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? I thought articles were supposed to adhere to a WP:NPOV, not 'the accepted historical view'. Please explain. Dlabtot 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"The accepted historical view" as I understand it means "from NPOV sources". In other words, an article which primarily source POV texts, cannot itself be considered, NPOV. 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, thus far all you have shown is an ability to add tags (hoax, controversial, and RFChist) and a understanding of wikipolicy.

Thus far, your "overwhelming peer reviewed articles" is nonexistent.

I love Sagan, and he would probably cringe at your abuse of his baloney detection kit. Sagan was first and foremost a scientist, meaning that views had to be supported by evidence and facts.

This article cites over 25 sources, 23 footnotes, including a congressional hearing and several historians, pro and con to the existence of the plot. In the Business_Plot#Historical_treatment section, four historians are listed.

And to support your opinion? Three tags.

Where is the documents which support your view? The peer review artiles which overwhelmingly consider it a hoax?

It appears all you are interested in is the first paragraph, changing the introduction to meet your own POV with no citations or references. Travb (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Travb, please note the subject of your first sentence is "you". The above comment is the definition of Ad hominem. But, I do not want to fall into the same trap, so I'll make no further personal comments. Also, I think the point of this RfC is not for the two of us to go at each other. Clearly we disagree, hence the need for outside insight.

My edits (or lack thereof), does not mean that the above questions are not worthy of answers. It is my honest understanding that the subject is not treated in other encyclopedias such as Britannica, as it has been in Misplaced Pages, because it is not an accepted historical fact that a conspiracy to mount a coup occurred as portrayed here. Also, I have previously stated that the sources and footnotes cited, in my understanding of verifiability requirements that make a good article, are not sufficient. The four historians listed in the section you mention all doubt the veracity of the story. I see no other non-bias historians in the pro. Archer and Schmidt are book authors and are not viewed as scholars in the field.

Also, it is not my duty to add citations with opposite viewpoints. I could for example create a page on the existence of UFOs, followed by hundreds of citations from various authors, news, and media reports, etc stating the the UFOs are alien vessels. Does that mean the page should be allowed to indicate that UFOs are truly spaceships from other planets, simply because someone does not cite references in the opposite? The verifiability requirements are set precisely to avoid such situations. This is an encyclopedia first, and should not aim to cover all points of view. Sources need to come primarily from neutral points of view.

I support whatever edits to this article would portray the events as they are portrayed in other respected historical and encyclopedic texts. 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon editor, please read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and especially WP:V. Your opinion that the article is not 'historically accurate' is irrelevant. Dlabtot 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is relevent, and I have read those pages. To quote the fringe theory guidlines WP:FRINGE:

"We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Misplaced Pages should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Misplaced Pages self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Misplaced Pages itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories. If another, adequately well-known source discusses the theory first, Misplaced Pages is no longer the primary witness to notability. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks mainstream discussion. If all available sources are not neutral but instead put forward a point of view, an article on the subject may risk violating the No original research policy.

Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. We leave the finer distinctions to the philosophers (see demarcation problem). Fortunately, the authors of non-mainstream theories often explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, or other similar arguments)." 16:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, that as an editor who has not provided any citations from reliable sources, you appear to be the one pushing a fringe theory. Dlabtot 17:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll keep repeating myself. There is no responsibility to provide citations to indicate that an article itself does not have the proper citations for the given content. It would be nice if someone could address the questions posed by the RfC, or explain without personal attacks, why the questions do not have merit. 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics