Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:45, 27 February 2009

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.

Template:Comment Guidelines

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

United States Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Fascism

Archives

Talk:Business Plot/archive1 Talk:Business Plot/archive 2 Talk:Business Plot/archive 3

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)

Prescott Bush

Whether or not the Hamburg-America line was investigated by the McCormack-Dickstein committee is irrelevant to this article; the committee investigated all sorts of radicals, and not all of them were related to the plot. Even our very paranoid picture of The Intricate Structure of Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy doesn't list Prescott Bush. Huon (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I jsut noticed that this very topic was debated in the past, with consensus favoring inclusion. I'm still dubious. We don't mention that the BBC also reports on "alleged" involvement by the "owners of Heinz" (which would probably include a relative of Teresa Heinz-Kerry) or several others. There seems to be no reason to single out Prescott Bush, especially if the more detailed BBC program (in contrast to the short summary) does not link Bush to the Business Plot, but to other activities investigated by the Committee. Huon (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

alleged

Per lede -- this was an "alleged" conspiracy. No proof was ever given other than allegations before a Congressional committee. No findings were ever made by any finder of fact in a legal sense. There has been, in fact, considerable doubt placed upon the more sensational allegations involved. Collect (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The committe concluded that there was evidence to back up Butlers claims. That was the official verdict. Even the people who criticize the allegations admit that Gerald MacGuire problably did approach Butler. The debate isn't over whether there were people who talked about a coup, the debate is over how serious they were implementing it. No historian has said Butler outright lied. So whether they were serious or not you can't say it was "alleged". annoynmous 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Allegation" does not mean nor imply that Smedley lied -- only that no proof was made of the charges. "Probably" is a far cry from "proof" and your apparent desire to editwar is not shared by me. If you grant that there was no legal proof, please reinstate "alleged." Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for thinking an official congressional report counts as proof. I'm not saying that what congress says is always right, but you can't say it was "alleged". So no, I don't accept there was no legal proof. If you want to give voice to those who criticize the idea of the plot thats fine, but you can't it was an "Alleged" plot. annoynmous 15:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Um -- Congressional reports that LaGuardia was a Fascist did not make him into one. The report basically recounts Smedley's testimony, but no "proof" ever was forthcoming. At all. Hence, it was, and remains, an "allegation." Note also the police use of "alleged perpetrator" unless and until a court of law has made a finding of fact. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If there report had said "Allegations remain unconfirmed" or "There might have been a conspiracy" than you would be right, but they say they found evidence to confirm it an several other people like Van Zandt confirmed butlers story so the term "alleged" is not appopriate. annoynmous 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)]

I am using the commonly accepted definition of "alleged." You apparently feel that once a Congressional committee says something that is automatically "fact." An interesting position to be sure. Note the lede has "alleged plotters", et seq. The word "alleged" is in the body of the article, unless you remove it. No proof was ever entered into evidence. No crime was prosecuted. No indictments were made. It meets the textbook ideal for "alleged." Collect (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well call me crazy, but if a committe concludes that it found evidence that there was plot than why is it "Alleged". I'm not saying they were right, but that's like calling someone an alleged murder after they have been convicted. True, they may be innocent, but legally there guilty. Also they did find evidence that macguire talked to the people butler said he did.annoynmous 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Legally they are NOT guilty, thank you very much. No court. No trial. No indictment. Alleged. Collect (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there was no trial because the plot was never carried out. However, say what you will about congressional committees they tend to be careful and delicate in there words and I doubt they would have issued the conclusion they issued if they didn't believe in it. I'm not saying they were right, maybe they got it wrong, but you can't erase there findings from the public record. They found evidence that corrobated butlers claims so therefore it cannot be called an alleged plot. annoynmous 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is a crime. No one was charged with conspiracy or any other cirme in connection with the alleged plot. And the committee was UNABLE to prove Butler's claims. Now as to committee reports ... which found comic books caused juvenile deliquency. Would you use "alleged"? <g> Sorry -- congressional reports do not convey guilt on anyone. And the allegations made remain allegations. Collect (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It was Consiracy that was never carried out because Butler blew the whistle on it. You say the committe failed to prove anything, but they said they found evidence that corrobated butlers accusations. That was there official position. The fact that charges weren't brought is irrelevant, there official conclusion is that there was a plot.

As I've said the committe could have been wrong, but can't erase there official findings from the record.

Also it isn't just the committe. Everyone agrees there was some kinda plot, the controversy is over how big it was and whether or not macguire embellished parts of it to Butler. Whether it was a serious threat or not can be debated, but there isn't any historian who disputes there was some sorta plot.annoynmous 17:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone agrees"? Not so much. Even the committee clearly didn't buy Butler's key points. The testimony talks about a variety persons' efforts and goals.(None Realized): 1. To get the extant veterans organizations to publicly back the gold standard. 2. To create a veterans group like that then active in France. 3. To create an armed paramiltary force to "defend" Roosevelt". 4. To attempt a coup against the president. There was no "conclusion that there was a coup plot" by the committee, there was a conclusion that SOME of Butler's testimony could be corroborated. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I have made an edit to the page as a compromise. It says "according to an congressional investigation", how is that. It doesn't imply absolute guilt, but it also doesn't use the word "alleged". annoynmous 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Try "Congressional committee report" as being precisely accurate. Collect (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a compromise. It in non-factual. The committee did not say that businessmen and corporations plotted a coup. The committee report is available to read online; read it. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears "annoynmoous" thinks "alleged" means "wild speculation" when it only means "not proven." Collect (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Lee Harvey Oswald page. He was never tried with anything and yet the page says "according to congressional investigations", that was the model I used.annoynmous 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Made a new try. And "alleged" does not mean "speculated" it only means "claimed but not proven." Collect (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your using the word alleged in the strictly criminal sense, but in this case there was no crime because the crime was averted before the crime could be carried out. Plus there are other official bodys besides a court, like the U.S. Congress. When they determine something it shouldn't be dismissed as alleged simply because nobody was ever prosecuted in court.

Nobody, the committe, historians have ever accused Butler of lying, so if you except that Butler was telling the truth of what he witnessed than at the very least you have to except there was some sorta plot. Whether it was just Gerald Macquire embellishing to Butler on the size of the plot or not doesn't matter, to say the plot is alleged is innacurate. Alleged implies that nothing Butler said was ever confirmed and that simply isn't true.

Plus I thought we had reached a compromise why are you going back on it because capitalismojo made an edit. annoynmous 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

21:05, 20:52, 20:40 all by User talk:Annoynmous Note that one editor has now reached "3RR" on this page today. Collect (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a child, I am aware of that. I learned about 3rr the hard way when I first joined Wiki, so to issue this statement in a threatening way is very immature. annoynmous 21:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I did not post to an admin board, it is odd that you regard the simple statement as "threatening." Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to impugn your motives. You seem like a perfectly reasonable person to me. I'm just frustated because I thought we had both reached a compromise and now because capitalismojo made an edit you changed your mind. annoynmous 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

other names

Checking on other names, the large majority of hit rerace back to this very page -- which is a real danger of using WP as a source for WP. With fewer than 300 hits for either minus wikipedia, they do not appear to be common usage at all. Particularly the word "putsch" with its images of Hitler has been used by those pushing conspiracy theories. Collect (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

unrelated material in article

WP articles are not catch-alls for bibliographies. The only cites needed are those for the statements made in the article -- WP is proudly a "tertiary source" outlet. I am also unsure about listing the allegations about the "participants" which they denied, and which are not furnished with cites at this point. Also the use of cites about Nazis do not belong as there was no evidence that "Nazis" had anything at all to do with the "plot". Lastly, WP practice does not allow "emphasis added" in articles as a matter of style. Collect (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is my response:

Editor User:Collect is removing large portions of well referenced text. User:Ikip was also involved with User:Collect in the Joe the Plumber case, User:Collect tenaciously deleted hundreds of words of well referenced text, resulting in several page protections. User:Collect is now beginning the same process on Business Plot. Like Joe the Plumber, User:Collect has added no material or references to this page, his only purpose seems to be to remove other editors well referenced contributions. User:Ikip on the other hand has added about 90% of the material, including 95% of the 64 references on the page. User:Collect began on this page by spending weeks with a couple of other editors in a piety edit war deleting text in the first sentence of Business Plot. Edit war with User:Annoynmous.

User:Collect then began deleting alternate names for the Business Plot, which is when User:Ikip got involved. Anyone vaguely familar with this incident would know about these alternative names, but not User:Collect User:Ikip then added 7 references to get User:Collect to stop deleting these alternative names.

February 22 User:Collect then deleted several sections of text.

Ikip (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You edited this article on 19 November 2008, then not again until 21 Feb 2009. I edited from 17 Dec 2008 onwards sans hiatus. I did not "follow" anyone at all. I came here from Prescott Bush and not from worrying about you or any other editor on the face of the earth. I delete material which is unrelated to an article or which is blatantly POV (such as referring to "media spin" as you do in the current article.) I consider weeding out unrelated or potentially libellous material to be in the best interest of WP. You will also note that I cordial in my posts to you, and even took your side in an MfD. And note again -- a huge percentage of the "references" have nothing to do with WP:V . Collect (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Ikip has removed his charge that I "followed" him here, and the fact is that we had very few interactions on JtP as a matter of fact, and have certainly had many positive interactions on other pages which he elides). Collect (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3PO Both Ikip and Collect are past 3rr, and should not edit the article until a resolution is reached. Also, a third editor is involved already, so 3PO is not the proper forum. Please refer to RFC, or if this is a disruption rather than content issue refer to a noticeboard. NJGW (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I counted two more-or-less reverts on my part, and two cases where I actually tried finding compromises in the edits. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." If this were reported to the 3rr board, both of you would receive a temporary block. NJGW (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material of User:Collect

User:Collect references thus far to the article: 0

User:Collect word contributions to the article: 1, the word, "alleged".

User:Collect deletions to the article: 1,184 well referenced words, 3 pages of text.

User:Collect understanding of this incident based on his comments thus far: Low to none.

Ikip (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikips's use of personal attacks including a claim of wikistalking on my part -- excessive. Talk pages are for improving articles, and I have found articles can often be improved by making them focussed on the topic. Adding refs on every conspiracy theory out there and every book which says "Nazi" out there is not helpful ion making an encyclopedia article. WP is NOT a place for extensive bibliographies. "When to use. As described in the When to cite sources section of this guideline, sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image." Most of the "new material" duplicates material in other WP rticles, hence blurs the concept of "encyclopedia" as opposed to "OR and SYN essay" which is where this article is now. One might also note that Ikip used a sock on this article last year, making the same sort of charges against others and using his sock to edit making the SAME edits Ikip is now making again . may also be of interest. Collect (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What claim of wikistalking? I never said you wikistalked. I suspected you "followed" me here. I removed that claim and I apologize for saying "following".

The sock is a legitamate one, which I widely acknowledge is my own, and have stopped using. The reason you may have found it so easily, is because I still use many of the templates created by that sock on my archive page. I added a sock templates on the RWV page. I mention the sock on my list of 100 articles created, and I openly state that this is an alternative account. I would just as soon have the account deleted.

I will not get in long drawn out debates with you tediously twisting wikipolicy. That has led to many articles being protected for months on other pages. Instead, I am actively pursuing third party intervention. The bottom line is that it appears like your understanding of this incident is minimal at best, your one actual contribution to this article is one word "alleged", you have deleted 3 pages of well referenced text, you have a rich history of edit warring and deleting well reference material and you haven't added a single reference. For this reasons, I find this argument for all intensive purposes over, and will actively pursue third party intervention. Ikip (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material of User:THF

Compromise

This is the same name as above, hopefully it will work better.

I agree with the removal of:

U.S. House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities, Hearings 73-D.C.-6, Part 1, 73rd Congress, 2nd session, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935). Some of President Roosevelt's advisors were plotters, and downplayed the matter, avoiding exposure. Note: I kind find several sources for this speculation In 1934, newspapers were controlled by an élite — according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82 per cent of daily newspapers monopolised their communities; the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners. Note: I kind find several sources for this speculation === Related subjects === Goodman, Walter (1968). The Committee: The Extraordinary Career of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0-374-12688-7. Helms, Harry (2003). Inside the Shadow Government: National Emergencies and the Cult of Secrecy. Feral House. ISBN 092291589X. Higham, Charles (1982). Trading With the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1949. Doubleday. ISBN 0385290802. Hougan, Jim (1978). Spooks: The Haunting of America: The Private Use of Secret Agents. William Morrow & Co. ISBN 0688033555. Hopsicker, Daniel (2001). Barry & 'the Boys' : The CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History. Mad Cow Press. ISBN 0970659105. Thomas, Kenn (2003). The Octopus: Secret Government and the Death of Danny Casolaro. Feral House. ISBN 0922915911. Wolfskill, George (1962). The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League 1934-1940. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-8371-7251-9. Wolfskill, George John A. Hudson (1969). All but the people: Franklin D. Roosevelt and His Critics, 1933-39. Macmillan. ASIN: B0006BYJJQ.

If the other well referenced material stays, and you discuss all potential deletions on the talk page first. This is a final offer. Ikip (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter for consensus, not for unilateral demands. And please do cease making dozens of edits to this page (per history) -- it makes it quite difficult to see if anything substantive has been altered by all of your moves. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I see no effort by you to compromise on this matter and I do see evidence of unilateral action on your part to radically edit this article even though there are editors who disagree with your approach. Now I"m getting back to my basement renovation (the reason for my multi-week absence from Misplaced Pages). Mattnad (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? The "radical edit" was a massive addition of COATRACK -- and you came here because of being canvassed to do so. Have a nice day. Collect (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Shouldn't the first sentence read "an alleged political conspiracy"? THF (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That it what is was until the silliness of adding anything remotely Nazi-related got here. It was "alleged" per every cite I found, but I got 3RR warned for that insistence <g>. Welcome! Gllad to have another pair of eyes here. Collect (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this should say "alleged," and, as I have seen only one individual supporting its omission, am reinserting it. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolving the issues

This case is complex, with a lot of little pieces and more anger than we need in these discussions. Because of that, resolution will absolutely not come all at once. I've made the change mentioned above regarding the intro because it looks there's consensus for it, and will try to work through the disputed edits above to see whether there's a consensus that can be reached on those as well. Consensus does not mean unanimity; it means that that's the dominant, prevailing, and most sensible belief.

The content above seems well-referenced; the only real question is whether it's relevant to the article. My first readthrough of it is that some of it (most of it content in the footnotes themselves) may warrant keeping, but there's a good amount of content that should be either removed to its own article, or simply removed. I know that can be frustrating if you've spent time researching this subject, but if that's what's best for the article, that's what we should do.

If content is removed, meanwhile, it doesn't matter whether the person removing it has added content to the page or not. Each edit should be judged on its own merits; there's no ASCII Mass Conservation Law. JDoorjam JDiscourse 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that the "timeline" reaches the limits of WP:SYN as it is presented, and that much of the material in footnotes would not be tolerated in the body of the article -- pushing WP:CITE to its limits. Lastly, I am unsure what need there is of listing the members of a committee when the list of members is already in the references given. WP is meant for important information on a topic, not every iota or scintilla available. Collect (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of members

RE this edit:

Please explain what portion of Misplaced Pages:NOT#IINFO this section violates. Ikip (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with Collect's 22:50 25 Feb comment that the inclusion of the list of committee members was irrelevant trivia. THF (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"generous spin control"

It is extraordinarily implausible that Butler testified to an offer of "generous spin control" given that "spin" is a neologism that did not exist for another half-century. THF (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Template:RFChist

For the past two months, POV editors have been deleting 1,184 words of well referenced material from this article, using a variety of questionable reasons for these deletions. This continues a two year edit war over this article, where POV editors have deleted nearly every word at least once, the faces have changed, but the same POV tactics remain the same:

1. Editors add no contributions to the article, unless deletion is considered a "contribution",
2. Editors add no references to the article

As a result, this article has become an incredibly well referenced articles, with 64 footnotes, and dozens of books, congressional testimony and journals.

I encourage editors to back up their own POV with research and adding well referenced material. Based on the past two years, and the type of editor this article attracts, I know this invitation will fall on deaf ears. Most of these editors have little or no understanding of this incident, as shown by their statments, so it is hard to imagine what they could actually contribute to this article. Ikip (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of the article: "Business Plot" or "Business Plot conspiracy theory"?

The title of the article violates NPOV. "Business Plot" falsely implies that there is a historical consensus that the plot exists, when in fact this is a fringe theory. The correct title of the article on the Misplaced Pages MOS is "Business Plot conspiracy theory". THF (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(refactor) see the conclusion of the bi-partisan committee on the right. Ikip (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Ikip has no rebuttal for the fact that the page is incorrectly named other than to make false personal attacks. For all of his complaints about "removal of content", he removed four cites I added with his third revert of the day. THF (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, THF did is a common tactic of many disruptive editors, THF deleted massive amounts of well referenced content, then complains when the editor reverts and restore that content. THF I gladly welcome your tags, if you would stop removing well referenced content and moving the article with no discussion first. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for a substantive rebuttal. I'm contributing bringing a very badly written article into line with Misplaced Pages policies: it's still a long way from there, but much closer than it was when I started. THF (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Response below. Once sentence: "it was confirmed by a bipartisan congressional committee" This is all that I will say on the subject. I am deeply concerned about not only your behavior, but also the depth of understanding that you have towards this subject. It is hard to take anything you have done seriously here, because the only contributions you have made, and the only references you cite, are the references myself and others already added to the article, and yet you call this article "very badly written" and POV.

You do not build a good article by edit warring and removing well referenced material solely to support your own POV, this behavior does not in line with Misplaced Pages policies, and it never creates an article in line with Misplaced Pages policies. Ikip (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Business Plot conspiracy theory. Misplaced Pages requires NPOV titles, and like other conspiracy theories and fringe theories, the title should reflect the fact that the "Business Plot" is not an accepted event in American history. THF (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You and Collect have worked together before. Your propostions would be taken more seriously if you edited with good faith, didn't start a major edit war by removing well referenced material, didn't start moving the article with no discussion before, etc. ""Business Plot" is not an accepted event in American history." Says who? The article quotes a congressional committee and several historians, do you have any references to back up your claim, or is this just your personal POV? Ikip (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave four cites in the text of the article to mainstream historians who dispute the existence of the plot. My one time dealing with Collect was Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Morton_Brilliant_(2nd_nomination), where we strongly disagreed with one another, and he agreed with you, so your perfect record for making accusations of conspiracies where none exist is intact. You've now made five personal attacks on this page in the last hour. WP:NOT#BATTLE, please; it is disruptive. THF (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting 1.25 of those 5 personal attacks. Of course, you've since made a sixth. THF (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Like many editors, I find your tedious edit warring counter productive. Moving a page to another name, without consulation, is edit warring, continally deleting other well referenced editors contibutions, is edit warring. Stating that the editor is edit warring is not a personal attack. Despite your denials, you and Collect both worked colaberatively on articles together. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seven. And you seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of "edit-warring" in addition to your idiosyncratic views of RS, NPOV, NPA, TRIVIA, N, WEIGHT, and history. One single revert to restore sourced content and legitimate tags I added to the page is not "edit-warring." THF (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outindent) Actually, the three sources you added were mine, which were already in the article. Thank you for confirming that this article is well referenced and balanced. You have not acted in good faith your behavior is that of a typical POV editor. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support rename as being more accurate. To insist that a person with whom I notably disagreed is a cohort of mine is --- interesting <g>. In this case, moreover, we agree. Accusing people who agree sometimes of being a "conspiracy" is even more --- interesting. Collect (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose it was confirmed by a bi-partisan congressional committee. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with referring to it as a conspiracy theory is this -- where is the 'theory?' Who is making conspiracy theories here? As I said ages back the last time this came up: Butler's testimony (the fact that he gave it, not its accuracy) is fact, not conspiracy theory. Whether he was telling the truth, telling an outright lie, or the situation was more complicated (i.e. an elaborate scam of some sort by MacGuire, one common theory), it was not a 'conspiracy theory' on his part -- he either believed what he was telling, or he was deliberately lying; he wasn't inventing speculative theories whole cloth. The article should simply cover those events -- Butler's testimony, how people reacted to it, the more definite events leading up to it, the conclusions of historians and so on -- without trying to draw extraneous conclusions or convince the reader about anything else beyond the fact that the testimony happened. Calling it a 'conspiracy theory' is out of line, since there is no theorizing here, just a Congressional investigation involving claims and counterclaims -- the article shouldn't consist of theories itself (beyond perhaps in a section on historical treatment), and if it does go out of line, those should be removed. This is not an article about a conspiracy theory, though, or even (lead aside) about any plot itself; it's primarily an article about a congressional affair, about the events leading up to and following Butler's accusitions that there was a plot. (In fact, "The Butler Affair" or "The MacGuire Affair" would be possible titles, since their involvement with the ensuing Congressional brouhaha is something, at least, that can be said with certainty. But neither seem to be used frequently enough to serve as the title.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

+ == Reliable source issue ==

Reliable source issue

• Jules Archer, who has a degree in advertising, and whose book about this subject is strongly criticized by historians, is a questionable source, and the text of the article needs to acknowledge that when it cites to him. The article as a whole relies too heavily on Archer and quote-mining from primary sources, and not enough on mainstream historians. THF (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, quoting the own sources that I added. Why not add this to the article. This is a tired retreated of an argument which has gone on at least twice before. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Clayton Cramer is also questionable as a source. THF (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

why don't you quote my own sources to confirm this? Ironically, thus far you have only used my own references to back up your POV: this shows that, (1) this is a well referenced article, and (2) it is an unbiased article,

Clayton Cramer has been argued ad nasium before. If he is so questionable why does he have a wikipedia site? Ikip (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cramer has a page because of his notable work exposing Michael Bellesiles's fraud. He probably shouldn't have a page, since it's essentially WP:ONEEVENT. Again, if you expect me to acknowledge previous discussions, you need to link to them. I'm not slogging through your hundreds of personal attacks against editors who challenged your ownership of the page. THF (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting bad faith edit warring, including moving the page to a POV title, with no discussion, is not ownership. I welcome your well referenced additions to this article that support your own POV, but no one should tolerate crude, disruptive edit warring to support your own POV.

Not only are you using the same rehashed arguments, I find it so ironic that you use the existing references in the article, to bolster your own POV. This clearly shows that this article is actually quite balanced.

Ikip (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Clayton Cramer

• Clayton Cramer is a historian. History Today is probably the world’s oldest illustrated history magazine, published monthly in London since January 1951. See:Clayton_Cramer#Publications Ikip (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jules Archer

• Hans Schmidt is the author of several history books published by the University of Kentucky and Rutgers University Press. Hans Schmidt mentions Archer twice in his book (231,232) and cites Archer 4 times in the footnotes (257,277,278,280) and once in the bibiography (282).
• Antony C. Sutton historian, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Misplaced Pages states: "His books became classics in the study of covert politics and economics in the twentieth century." mentions Archer three times (169,170,175) and cites Archer once in the footnotes and once in the selected bibiography. Ikip (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Livejournal links

I gather a historian has been reprinting contemporaneous materials on his livejournal, but, as helpful as that is for otherwise inaccessible seventy-year-old sources, it doesn't seem appropriate for Misplaced Pages to be linking to them.

I have a similar problem with the links to coat.ncf.ca. THF (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

then instead of deleting them, causing edit wars, find better web pages with the same content. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Direct question for User:THF

User:THF, I have compiled a table of your thousands of disruptive edit warring deletions today. I have direct questions for you about these deletions:

1. How does the committe setion violate WP:IINFO?
2. Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source?

Ikip (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Schlesinger, p. 85
2. United States Congress. "WEIDEMAN, Carl May (id: W000254)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
3. United States Congress. "KRAMER, Charles (id: K000321)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
4. United States Congress. "JENKINS, Thomas Albert (id: J000088)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
5. United States Congress. "TAYLOR, James Willis (id: T000083)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
6. United States Congress. "GUYER, Ulysses Samuel (id: G000538)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
7. Archer, p. 155.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles