Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:56, 1 March 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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States 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 the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Fascism Alternative views This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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:

journal | author=Wolfe, L. | title=Franklin Delano Roosevelt vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated | journal=The American Almanac | year=June 27 1994 | volume= | issue= | pages= | url= http://web.archive.org/web/20010225132240/http://american_almanac.tripod.com/morgan1.htm }} 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

Talk:Business Plot/Ikip chart of Collect's deletions

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

Cramer is an amateur historian ====

Per talk page; WP:NOT#IINFO ====

Tighten; RS; NPOV ====

Section is incoherent, lacks RS, and is of questionable relevance to "Business Plot"====

NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory ====

conform lead to NPOV ====

Conform lead to text of article add cite ====

Tags ====

Added	Original	Reason given
	Adds tags: , This section is in list format but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (1), This section is in list format but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (2), This section is in list format but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (3), This article's use of external links may not follow Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (Learn how and when to remove this message) , This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Misplaced Pages's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions. (February 2009) , This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message) , This article contains a list of miscellaneous information. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles.

This obnoxious chart is neither an accurate characterization of my edits nor of my reasons for the edits. THF (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The undated update of the chart continues to misrepresent my stated reasons for the edits, as well as misrepresents the facts of the underlying committee report and historical record. I've responded to Ikip multiple times on this page, yet this chart does not even acknowledge that I have addressed his arguments, and he simply repeats them for what is now the eighth time without any recognition that multiple editors have refuted his citation to the subcommittee report or any attempt to address those refutations.

To take one obvious and egregious example, the deletion of the list of committee members was addressed on this page in a separate section initiated by me. In violation of WP:TALK, Ikip even copied and pasted it so that it was taking place in two different sections on this talk page (one of many ways he has made this talk-page unreadable). I gave extensive reasoning, backed by policy. Two other editors agreed with me. Ikip has made no effort to respond to those three editors' defense of the deletion, and instead repeats his complaint: this is now the eighth time he has asked the exact same question on the article talk page (as well as several times on my talk page and I think once on someone else's talk page), without any acknowledgement of the list of reasons I (or other editors) gave for deletion. I question why I bother responding to Ikip at all: he has given no indication that he has read a single word I have written. For someone so fond of quoting the tendentious editing definition, Ikip is doing a lot of it. THF (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

please strike or remove (refactor) out the word "obnoxious", as it is uncivil. And please remove the hidden tag, as I have asked you personally on your talk page, thank you. I quoted you verbatium on the reasons why you deleted these sections. I then asked five neutral questions in an attempt to understand why you deleted these sections, which you refuse to answer in violation of Misplaced Pages:TEDIOUS and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". Ikip (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was wrong, THF didn't delete 1400 words THF only deleted 1368 words, indicated in red, all in the space of an hour and 14 minutes, with no prior discussion on the talk page before. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

The compromise has nothing to do with my edits, and reflects ownership of the page. THF (talk) 15:23, 27 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)

In particular, see WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." THF (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, How does the committe section violate WP:IINFO? That was the reason you deleted the section, wasn't it?

And by the way, hiding other editors contributions on talk pages is against talk page policy, please remove this. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a show/hide choice is standard for verrrry long stuff. MEGO is the other option. Collect (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I too tend to agree that, unless the names of the members of the committee can be shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the article, which to date they haven't been, there is no real reason to list them in the article, as the names haven't yet been particularly well established as being particularly relevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 27 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

In the past week, two editors have deleted, deleting 1,184 words of well referenced material and 1400+ words of material, each, no discussion until after the deletion. This continues a two year edit war over this article, where editors have deleted nearly every word at least once, the faces have changed, but the deletion remains the same. I encourage editors to help make this artice NPOV with their own and references, not deleting other editors contributions.

• Support as creator of RfC. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad faith RfC. Discussion has been ample. Accusations made about editors have been made inappropriately. RfC is not neutrally worded in any sense of the word. Editing includes removing material which clearly does not belong in an article. "Counting words" is irrelevant. A few other objections, but this is a start. Collect (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has only occured after edit warring, instigated by user Collect and THF. Collect had deleted those 1,184 well referenced words, which had been on the cite for years, and only afterwards posted a reason for the mass deletions on this talk page. The page was protected after Collect started the first edit war. This is the same pattern of behavior as on other pages, including Joe the Plumber. THF, tactics were exactly the same. Are these good faith edits, is this the way to help build consensus and find comprimise?

Editor THC repeatedly refuses to answer five questions I have asked him in violation of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions" and WP:TEDIOUS: "simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored."

During a heated edit war yesterday, User:THF changed the name of the article, when it was reverted, he only then posted a reason on the talk page. This is not consensus building behavior, this is not how you find comprimise. Ikip (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP guidelines, it is clear that this is not a valid RfC. Thanks for making it so clear. Collect (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I extensively rewrote the introduction in an attempt at comprimise, instead of calling the RfC bad faith, why not suggest alternative solutions to the RfC explanation please? What would you suggest? Ikip (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I would suggest you read WP:RFC, and conform your request to the way an RFC should be phrased. I have no idea what your argument is, so I cannot propose a compromise; as best I can tell, your argument is that anything ever added to a page is sacrosanct and can never be edited again, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a "disruptive edit-warrior," which is neither the meaning of "disruptive" or edit-warring. Since your argument is divorced from actual Misplaced Pages policy, I have no idea how to phrase your argument for further discussion. All I've seen so far are personal attacks on other editors. THF (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That you rewrote the "introduction" does not mean my comments somehow disappear. As I find the entire topic of thinking that editors ought not "edit" to not merit an RfC, that should suffice. Collect (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea what your argument is, so I cannot propose a compromise"

WP:TEDIOUS:

"simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e.g."You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."

How would you suggest this RFC be worded Collect and THF?

"your argument is that anything ever added to a page is sacrosanct and can never be edited again, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a "disruptive edit-warrior," which is neither the meaning of "disruptive" or edit-warring."

I don't recall ever saying that in this RfC. Can you show me the edit diffs please?

"Since your argument is divorced from actual Misplaced Pages policy, I have no idea how to phrase your argument for further discussion. All I've seen so far are personal attacks on other editors."

Is asking 5 neutral questions a personal attack? I suggest that you please temper your blanket statment, as it is not correct. Ikip (talk) 15:54, 28 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• See !vote below Ikip (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. 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)

For the same reason the JFK assassination as prosecuted (the Clay Shaw Trial) is considered a conspiracy theory even though evidence was submitted under oath. If it is not clearly proven, it is a theory. And with the facts being presented to no one at all for a "finding of fact" -- that is where it is. Collect (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect, what was the conclusion of the Clay Shaw Trial, what was the conclusion of the Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session ? Ikip (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Clay Shaw was actually indicted by a Grand Jury. No one was indicted here. And the report itself does not claim that the "plot" existed, only that (other than the claims about MacGuire) it believed it proved Butler's claims about times and places. Collect (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, some WP:TALK etiquette, please: we've read your argument the first three times. Repeating it word-for-word a fourth and fifth time, but putting it in bold, isn't going to make it any more persuasive. All it does is make the talk page impossible to read. The conclusion of the HUAC investigation was that there was nothing there to prosecute and nothing got prosecuted--even though the Roosevelt administration had no compunction about using the DOJ to hound innocent political opponents like Andrew Mellon. Taking a couple of sentences out of context from that historical reality doesn't change that fact. THF (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory is, inter alia, (1) in books like Archer's, where there is speculation and whatnot why someone as implausible as Butler was approached, and much speculation filling in the gigantic interstitial gaps in the facts; (2) speculations why Congress was "afraid" to call the Wall Street bankers who were "really" behind the conspiracy; and (3) in tendentious interpretations of the House Committee report to mean far more than it actually meant -- as seen in the obnoxious block quote that someone put at the top of this section. THF (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, what was the conclusion of the conclusion of the Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session? You are welcome to use the own articles 64 references yet again to bolster your own POV, to ironically and unfairly show that this article is biased and NPOV. Ikip (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But the article is not primarily about the books like Archer's. They're peripheral to the actual subject. This article is, if you read its text, primarily about Butler's accusations and the congressional investigation that followed. The Trial of Clay Shaw article is not called the Trial of Clay Shaw Conspiracy Theory, and doesn't have a Conspiracy Theory tag on it or any silliness like that. This article should not, either. --Aquillion (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is, with the exception of one section segregated out (and the lead, which I rewrote yesterday), entirely written from Archer's perspective, and assumes that the Plot happened, which is why there is an NPOV tag. Your Trial of Clay Shaw example supports my argument: it is prominently listed in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. THF (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"The article is, with the exception of one section segregated out (and the lead, which I rewrote yesterday), entirely written from Archer's perspective"

Wow, as the guideline states, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So should we just delete everything, thousands of words of well referenced text, including the BBC, historian Schmidt, the House of Representatives text, because it doesn't have the same NPOV as the articles you cherry picked to put in the introduction? The BBC, historian Schmidt, the House of Representatives, are all writing from "Archer's perspective", that sounds like a classic conspiracy theory to me. Ikip (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not my example; that was a response to Collect, who compared this article to that one. I agree that this article should not draw conclusions beyond what is in the testimony and an overview, near the end, of various historical perspectives, cited to the various authors whose perspectives they represent or who exemplify those perspectives. But where does the article say or imply that the plot happened? If you can point it out definitively, I would agree that it should be removed. I do not agree, though, that Butler's testimony is a conspiracy theory, or this article primarily covers conspiracy theories. It covers (and should cover) only what is definitely known, with speculation indicated at the end (and if you feel that some lines of speculation -- like Archer's -- amount to conspiracy theory, it might make sense to note that many/most people view it as such there in the section devoted to perspectives.) But I object to the implication that that the entire affair is purely conjecture; even the most skeptical of the voices quoted at the end generally do not assert that, and most agree that it was probably nothing more than idle talk. That isn't a plot that threatens an entire nation, no, but an article about it is not an article about 'conspiracy theory', either. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be frank, the article is in much much better shape than it was two days ago, and my concerns perhaps anticipate the massive reversion to reinsert conspiracy theory that will happen as soon as we look the other way more than the existing article. But even under the current version the "Timeline of events" synthesis and the uncited original research incorrectly attributed to unnamed "historians" assumes a substantive plot. THF (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Business Plot conspiracy theory. It is obvious that this is a fringe theory, because it does not appear in any mainstream American history books. It isn't even mentioned in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". Face, it. It is fringe.--Paul (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming largely per Aquillion.The "Business Plot" title does not imply anything. We have plenty of articles on fictional characters, unrecognized states, etc. "Conspiracy theory" is too pejorative and connotes more historical consensus than exists, and seems stronger than the sources. IMHO, this is in essence a mostly forgotten chapter of history about which there is no real consensus, not much interest, and not much solid stuff for historians to write and base judgments on. We shouldn't strongly imply that the allegations were true, false or whatever, just try to be neutral. Zinn may mention it in passing somewhere, IIRC. John Z (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) With no indictments of anyone, no charges filed against anyone etc. this theory falls short of the Clay Shaw and JFK "theory." I suppose page history will show who did a lot of moves of stuff on this page -- but at this point let's try to discuss the article? Collect (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Title RFC

Template:RFChist

Please note that there was substantial discussion above this point, but Ikip insists that he be the first to respond to the RfC, though the RfC is necessary because of his reversion. THF (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not a conspiracy as per: The Bipartisan United States House of Representatives Committee, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p.8-114 D.C. 6 II conclusion:

"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...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."

I am concerned that there has been no effort to compromise on what another RfC should be about, as I invited other editors to do. Instead we now have two active RfCs on the same article. I suggest we merge this RfC into #RFC, with THF's wording intact. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One !vote per editor, please; you don't get to !vote repeatedly, so I've moved this with your earlier vote. The issue of whether the page should be renamed and whether the Category "conspiracy theory" should be applied to a conspiracy theory is an issue separate than the issue raised by your malformed RfC above, and requires a separate RfC. THF (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the word malformed really necessary? This RfC is distinctly, seperate from the informal straw poll. Lets have a moritorium on moving comments please, becuase it makes the conversations hard to follow. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, if you are concerned about talk-page readability, then (1) stop repeating yourself word-for-word six times as you have done with the quote from the Committee, and (2) stop editing conversations that have already taken place. I now predict that you will continue to make the talk-page even more unreadable by insisting on having the WP:LASTWORD and repeating yourself an eighth time about a dispute unrelated to the title of the page section. THF (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC), updated to clarify 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Asking repeated questions is because of a refusal to answer repeated neutral questions about your edit history on this page, in an attempt to build a consensus and comprimise.

(2) Is removing your accusations of personal attacks, and to a lesser extent clarify my position.

I would strongly suggest everyone spend more time attempting to reach a consensus and comprise, then trying to hide the conversations with {{hidden}} tags, and accusing other editors edits of being "obnoxious". Ikip (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am sorry THF, but I responded first to this RfC. Please do not move:

=== Title RFC === {{RFChist| section=Title RfC !! reason=Is the "Business Plot," a purported conspiracy whose existence is disputed, a "conspiracy theory"? !! time= 15:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) }}

So I am not longer the first person to respond to the second RfC, which was a result of a lack of comprimise in the first RfC. Ikip (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Views of outside editors

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)

How do I "cause" you to edit-war to include material that does not belong in Misplaced Pages? If I had that kind of mind-control over you, I'd have you send me money rather than violate Misplaced Pages policies. THF (talk) 16:43, 27 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. Why did you add the references to the first paragraph which I had added years ago in the background section, to support your own POV?
2. How does the committe setion violate WP:IINFO?
3. Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source?
4. Why did you remove the "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee", showing that damaging congessional testimony was deleted from the official record, and in the very next edit, move the page to Business Plot conspiracy theory stating "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."?
5. Why didn't you discuss the page move to Business Plot conspiracy theory, before? You were aware of the edit war going on.

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

looking forward to that response, THF. Ikip (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

When you can adhere to WP:CIVIL, stop the personal attacks and "When did you stop beating your wife" interrogation, accurately characterize my stated reasons for the edits I've made, retract your false accusation of "edit warring," and surrender your ownership of the page, I might consider repeating what I've already said about my edits above. The only disruption on this page is your confrontational style, and your refusal to acknowledge consensus. THF (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:TEDIOUS:

No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e.g."You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.

I have removed many of the edit you disagree with and I am sorry and apologize for making you upset. I will happily refactor out any comments you find distressing. I would ask in return that you restore the 1,400 words you deleted yesterday, until real consensus is reached here.

I look forward to your response. Ikip (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Why did you disruptively edit war?" is not a civil "clarifying question." The answer is Mu. THF (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The five questions directly above do not state this, this is your own words. I would appreciate an answer please. I would like to understand the reasoning and logic behind your 1400 deletions yesterday of exhastively researched content, in the hope of reaching consensus and comprimise.Ikip (talk)

I did answer: I dispute the premise behind your questions, which do not accurately characterize my edits or stated reasons. And you continue to do so, since I did not make "1400 deletions." Stop being disruptive. THF (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Question 2: How does the committe section violate WP:IINFO?

How is this question negative?

please answer instead of hiding the detailed history of your deletions.

If you didn't delete 1400 words yesterday, how many words did you delete yesterday THF? i cut and pasted all of your deletions into word, and came up with just over 1400. Collect's was even more. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For Christ's sake By the hammer of Grabthar, Ikip, I explained the deletion of the committee yesterday, and you still haven't responded to my answer, even as you have added over 20k to this page. If you weren't busy making the talk page unreadable with personal attacks, you would have seen my response. THF (talk) 16:40, 27 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)

In particular, see WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." THF (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And I see by a closer look at WP:NOT that I should have said WP:NOTDIR or just WP:NOT rather than WP:NOT#IINFO. For some reason, the statement "Misplaced Pages is not a complete exposition of all possible details" is not in the "Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section. My bad, though my 26 Feb explanation more than made up for it. THF (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, How does the committe section violate WP:IINFO? That was the reason you deleted the section, wasn't it?

And by the way, hiding other editors contributions on talk pages is against talk page policy, please remove this. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a show/hide choice is standard for verrrry long stuff. MEGO is the other option. Collect (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I too tend to agree that, unless the names of the members of the committee can be shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the article, which to date they haven't been, there is no real reason to list them in the article, as the names haven't yet been particularly well established as being particularly relevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, how does the committe section violate WP:IINFO, per this edit? Ikip (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, why did you (1) copy and paste a section that already exists, and (2) reask a question for the seventh time that I have already answered twice and that two other editors have stated they agree with me about? What are you trying to accomplish by making the talk-page so unreadable? THF (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit diffs please. Ikip (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

this chart is a violation of WP:TALK by Ikip that falsely misrepresents my positions THF (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question to THF Response from THF 1. Why did you add the references to the first paragraph which I had added years ago in the background section, to support your own POV? No response 2. How does the committe setion violate WP:IINFO? No direct response. Never brings up WP:IINFO again in response. 3. Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source? No response 4. Why did you remove the "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee", showing that damaging congessional testimony was deleted from the official record, and in the very next edit, move the page to Business Plot conspiracy theory stating "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."? No response 5. Why didn't you discuss the page move to Business Plot conspiracy theory, before? You were aware of the edit war going on. No response

So I can deduce from the lack of response for #2, despite repeated requests, that the committe section did in fact not violate WP:IINFO, despite this being the reason it was deleted. Now THF changes his reason to "WP:TRIVIA".

So on to question 1, THF, please tell me: "Why did you add the references to the first paragraph which I had added years ago in the background section, to support your own POV?" Ikip (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is now the ninth time you've raised the exact question that I've previously answered without fully acknowledging the answer I had previously given. It is hard to see a good-faith reason for you doing this, since you clearly don't care what I answer, since you have repeatedly ignored it. THF (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

avoid editing talk page please

Please avoid refactors and deletions here -- I find it very hard to follow to see if somewhint was "deleted-deleted" or not, and it may misrepresent the sequences of threads. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, you object to refactoring comments on this talk page, what you call "deletions" but you support deleting 1,184 well referenced words with no discussion before hand on the main space page? I am confused. Ikip (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the guidelines about Talk pages. "Refactoring" is not the end result of some of your actions. Talk pages are for (oh my gosh!) TALK about improving the article. As for claims that I do not discuss edits here, that is a palpable falsehood and does not belong on ANY page of WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Business Plot

RE: , moved here, then refactored out by THF.

I am truly saddened that we cannot reach a comprimise. Ikip (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving posts from User Talk pages and posting them AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN POSTED HERE is grossly improper. If one is citing a user talk page, one must make it extremely clear, and even then, wrenched from context, such actions are reprehensible. THF has not only a right to remove such a post placed as though he had written it here, he has an obligation to do so. Collect (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Some historians"

I write regarding the following text:

• Some historians argue that the story embarrassed politically influential business people, who felt it best to deflect attention from themselves.
• 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; some historians argue that the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners.
• Some historians speculate that some of President Roosevelt's advisors were plotters, and downplayed the matter to avoid exposure.
• In the BBC Radio Document program, The Whitehouse Coup, John Buchanan suggests President Roosevelt stopped the investigation for a political deal: "The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted".

1. The first three bullet points seem to be made up original research. They are unsourced, and repeated requests to back up these claims have gone unanswered. The only response has been out of Argument Clinic: "Not OR".
2. And it's an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages that John Buchanan (American politician) is getting more space than Arthur Schlesinger. Go and read Buchanan's Misplaced Pages article, and then come back. Now explain to me why we aren't immediately deleting that bullet point under WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Being quoted by a sensationalistic radio show doesn't qualify for inclusion of an baseless invented conspiracy theory. (And you wonder why I want to rename this page to Business Plot conspiracy theory?) If it belongs in the article at all, it belongs in a fringe conspiracy theory section, not in a "historians" section.

I propose deleting all four bullet points, though I'm willing to keep the first three if they're sourced to a credible historian. THF (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

POV of Editors of this article

Although I don't doubt their good intentions, it seems as if some editors have a strong personal POV regarding the nature of this article because they use biased words like "sensationalist" and "baseless invented conspiracy theory". Is it reasonable for those with such strong POV to be editing the article aggressively? Abbarocks (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also object to religious references like "For ...ist's sake" being used here; it's inappropriate in several ways. Abbarocks (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at John Buchanan (American politician)? If he's not a conspiracy theorist, who is? And any news program that quotes him is by definition a questionable source. I've removed the religious reference; apologies for the inadvertent offense. THF (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Prescott Bush involved?

I haven't deeply investigated this, but I found my way to this article trying to figure out the status of the story that Prescott Bush was involved. I was surprised to see the article doesn't say either way. It may be hard to do, but I think the article probably should touch on this, if only to explain whether the status of the rumor is "it's true", "it's not true" or "it's unclear"-- (while still being NPOV and encyclopedic tone of course). --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

1. United States Congress. "JENKINS, Thomas Albert (id: J000088)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
2. Archer, p. 155.
3. BBC Radio 4 Document "The White House Coup - Greenham's Hidden Secret"

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed Alternative views articles
• Unknown-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles