Misplaced Pages

Talk:Business Plot: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:10, 2 March 2009 editIkip (talk | contribs)59,234 edits →Talk:Business Plot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:55, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,219 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(577 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{Comment Guidelines}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
{{oldafdfull|date=December 20, 2005}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
{{WikiProject United States}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views}} {{WikiProject Alternative Views}}
}}
{{Old AfD multi|date=December 20, 2005}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Business Plot/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 6
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
}} }}


== Prescott Bush Nazi Involvement Allegation ==
{{Archive box|
* ]
* ]
* ]}}
__TOC__ <!--forces table of contents above sign your posts-->

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=] ] | volume= | issue= | pages= | url= http://web.archive.org/web/20010225132240/http://american_almanac.tripod.com/morgan1.htm }} Very caustic and one-sided but informative.

*{{cite online journal | author=Wolfe, L. | title=The Morgan Fascist Coup and How FDR Defeated It | journal=Executive Intelligence Review | date=August 11, 2006| url=http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3332morgan_coup_plot.html | accessdate=2006-08-24| volume=33 | issue=32 }}

Best wishes, ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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". ] 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! ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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." ] (]) 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.] 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


:::Legally they are NOT guilty, thank you very much. No court. No trial. No indictment. Alleged. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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.] 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. ] (]) 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". ] 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:Try "Congressional committee report" as being precisely accurate. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Appears "annoynmoous" thinks "alleged" means "wild speculation" when it only means "not proven." ] (]) 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.] 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Made a new try. And "alleged" does not mean "speculated" it only means "claimed but not proven." ] (]) 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. ] 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

21:05, 20:52, 20:40 all by ]
Note that one editor has now reached "3RR" on this page today. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:Here is my response:
::Editor ] is removing large portions of well referenced text. ] was also involved with ] in the ] case, ] tenaciously deleted hundreds of words of well referenced text, resulting in several page protections. ] is now beginning the same process on ]. Like ], ] has added no material or references to this page, his only purpose seems to be to remove other editors well referenced contributions. ] on the other hand has added about 90% of the material, including 95% of the 64 references on the page. ] 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 ]. Edit war with ].
::] then began deleting alternate names for the ], which is when ] got involved. Anyone vaguely familar with this incident would know about these alternative names, but not ] ] then added 7 references to get ] to stop deleting these alternative names.
::February 22 ] then deleted several sections of text.
:] (]) 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 ] 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 . ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 04:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Please note that ] If this were reported to the 3rr board, both of you would receive a temporary block. ] (]) 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

===Deleted material of ]===

{{hidden begin|title=Ikip chart of Collect's deletions|titlestyle = background:pink;}}
{{Talk:Business Plot/Ikip's chart of Collect's deletions}}
{{hidden end}}

] references thus far to the article: 0

] word contributions to the article: 1, the word, "alleged".

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

] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. 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 low, 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. I will actively pursue third party intervention. ] (]) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

===Deleted material of ]===
{{hidden begin|title=Ikip chart of THF's deletions|titlestyle = background:pink;}}
;Cramer is an amateur historian ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|<nowiki><!--</nowiki> ]. Cramer is an amateur historian. Find a better source.
|valign=top width=40%|.
|valign=top width=20%| RS 14:01, 26 February 2009

"RS" stands for ], ] is a historian. ] is probably the world’s oldest illustrated history magazine, published monthly in London since January 1951. See:].
|}

;Per talk page; ] ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|.
|valign=top width=40%|
<font color="red">
<nowiki>===Committee members===</nowiki>

''From the ] files found at wikisource.''
* ], Massachusetts, Chairman. McCormack served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1961 until 1971.
* ] New York, Vice Chairman.
* ], Michigan. Democratic Congressman from ], ]-January 3, 1935<nowiki>.<ref>{{CongBio|W000254|name=WEIDEMAN, Carl May|inline=1}}</ref></nowiki>
* ], California. Democratic Congressman from ], ]-January 3, 1943.<nowiki><ref>{{CongBio|K000321|name=KRAMER, Charles|inline=1}}</ref></nowiki>
* ], Ohio. Republican Congressman from ], ]-January 3, 1959.<ref>{{CongBio|J000088|name=JENKINS, Thomas Albert|inline=1}}</ref>
* ], Tennessee. Republican Congressman from ], ]-November 14, 1939.<nowiki><ref>{{CongBio|T000083|name=TAYLOR, James Willis|inline=1}}</ref>
* ], Kansas. Republican Congressman from ], ]-June 5, 1943.<ref>{{CongBio|G000538|name=GUYER, Ulysses Samuel|inline=1}}</ref></nowiki>
* ], Counsel.
</font>
|valign=top width=20%|
"Per talk page; ]"

THF deleted four entries references from the ]

] is commonly abused by editors, as in this case.

] has five categories:
# Frequently Asked Questions.
# Plot summaries.
# Lyrics databases.
# Statistics.
# News reports.

This section, negotiated with several editors of opposing POV, and which has been on this main page for years, is not a ] violation.
|}
;Tighten; RS; NPOV ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|

Butler said that ], Roosevelt's political foe and former ], and ], a chemical industrialist, were the financial and organizational backbone of the plot.<nowiki>{{fact|date=February 2009}}</nowiki>

'''ADDED''': "{{dubious|date=February 2009}} Butler testified that the pretext for the coup would be that the president's health was failing.<ref name="archerquote">Archer, p. 155.</ref>" to <nowiki>]</nowiki>

downplayed --> rejected

|valign=top width=40%|
Butler said that ], Roosevelt's political foe and former ], and ], a chemical industrialist, were the financial and organizational backbone of the plot.<nowiki>{{fact|date=February 2009}}</nowiki>


<font color="red">The events testified to in the McCormack-Dickstein Committee happened between July and November 1933.

The McCormack-Dickstein Committee was the precursor to the ] (HUAC); its materials are archived with those of the HUAC.

:'' I said, "The idea of this great group of soldiers, then, is to sort of frighten him, is it?"

:''"No, no, no; not to frighten him. This is to sustain him when others assault him."

:''I said, "Well, I do not know about that. How would the President explain it?"

:''He said: "He will not necessarily have to explain it, because we are going to help him out. Now, did it ever occur to you that the President is overworked? We might have an Assistant President, somebody to take the blame; and if things do not work out, he can drop him."

:''He went on to say that it did not take any constitutional change to authorize another Cabinet official, somebody to take over the details of the office-take them off the President's shoulders. He mentioned that the position would be a secretary of general affairs-a sort of a ].

:''CHAIRMAN: A secretary of general affairs?

:''BUTLER: That is the term used by him-or a secretary of general welfare-I cannot recall which. I came out of the interview with that name in my head. I got that idea from talking to both of them, you see . They had both talked about the same kind of relief that ought to be given the President, and he said: "You know, the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President's health is failing. Everybody can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second."''<nowiki><ref name="archerquote">Archer, p. 155.</ref></nowiki>

Butler said he spoke for thirty minutes with Gerald C. MacGuire. In attempting to recruit Butler, MacGuire may have played on the general's loyalty toward his fellow veterans. Knowing of an upcoming bonus in 1935 for World War I veterans, Butler said MacGuire told him, "We want to see the soldiers' bonus paid in gold. We do not want the soldier to have rubber money or paper money." Such names as ], Roosevelt's political foe and former ], and ], a chemical industrialist, were said to be the financial and organizational backbone of the plot. Butler stated that once the conspirators were in power, they would protect Roosevelt from other plotters.<nowiki><ref>{{cite journal | author=Beam, Alex| title=A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark | journal=The Boston Globe | date=] ] | volume= | issue= | pages=E1 | url= }}: <font size="1">"</nowiki>

The committee deleted extensive excerpts from the report relating to Wall Street financiers including ], the Du Pont interests, ], and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. ], a full transcript of the hearings had yet to be traced.<nowiki><ref name="sutton"> of {{cite book| author=Sutton, Antony C.| title=Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution| publisher=Buccaneer Books| month=June | year=1993| isbn=0-89968-324-X}} Full book .</ref></nowiki>
</font>
|valign=top width=20%|"Tighten; RS; NPOV"

THF removes large portions of text in the "Butler said he spoke..." section, then added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag, despite the <nowiki><ref>{{cite journal | author=Beam, Alex| title=A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark | journal=The Boston Globe | date=] ] | volume= | issue= | pages=E1 | url= }}: <font size="1">"</nowiki> tag at the end of this section.

THF removes Sutton, ] is a historian, author of ''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."
|}

;Section is incoherent, lacks RS, and is of questionable relevance to "Business Plot"====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=40%|
<font color="red">
<nowiki>=== Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee===</nowiki>

<nowiki>]'' magazine, 5 Feb. 1933. Historian Schmidt said Spivak's wider claims were: "overblown aspersions against ‘Jewish financiers working with fascist groups’ — a mishmash of guilt-by-association. . . . <ref name="spivak"/> ]]
{{Further|] on wikisource, showing all of the deleted text}}

Reporter ] had been tipped off earlier by a fellow Washington correspondent that some of Butler's testimony had been deleted in the committee's ], ] report to the House of Representatives. . . . "<ref name="julesquote">Archer, page 194-220</ref>

"Other newsmen joined (Spivak) in pressing for a copy of the (McCormack-Dickstein Committee report). It was then that the defunct McCormack-Dickstein Committee . . . decided to publish a 125-page document containing the testimony of Butler, MacGuire, and others, on 15 February 1933. It was marked ‘Extracts’. . . . &nbsp;

"A veteran Washington correspondent told Spivak that he had heard the deletions had been made at the request of a member of the President's Cabinet..."<ref name="julesquote"/>

Spivak "had been tipped-off earlier that the House of Representatives intended to let the McCormack-Dickstein Committee expire on January 3, 1935, rather than renew it as the Committee had asked in order to continue its investigations."<ref name="julesquote"/>

"About a week later . . . Spivak won permission from Dickstein to examine the Committee's official exhibits and make photo . . . copies of those that had been made public the Committee's secretary, Frank P. Randolph."<ref name="julesquote"/>

"Randolph, flooded with work involved in closing the Committee's files and records, gave Spivak stacks of documents, exhibits, and transcripts of testimony that were being sent to the Government Printing Office. To Spivak's amazement, he found among these records a full transcript of the executive session hearings in the Butler affair."<ref name="julesquote"/>

Spivak "compared it with the official extract of the hearings and found a number of startling omissions made from the testimony of both Butler and French."<ref name="julesquote"/></nowiki>

<nowiki>Spivak wrote a two-part article revealing the Committee's deletions, <ref name="spivakarticle">* {{cite journal | author=] | title= Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy: Testimony that the Dickstein MacCormack Committee Suppressed; Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy: Morgan Pulls the Strings | journal=New Masses | date= ] ]; ] ] | volume= | issue= | pages= | url=http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/spivak-NewMasses.pdf |format=PDF}} </ref> historian Schmidt explains:</nowiki>

<nowiki>:"Journalist John L. Spivak . . . two-part feature ‘Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy’ appeared in early 1935, a month after the hearings closed. He cogently developed a case for taking the suppressed testimony seriously. But this relevant material was embellished with overblown aspersions against ‘Jewish financiers working with fascist groups’ — a mishmash of guilt-by-association that connected Morgan interests with Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the ]. Spivak was intent upon grinding his own axes, and elucidation of the plot was obscured. The suppressed Butler-MacGuire conversations could hardly support all this. Moreover ‘New Masses’ possessed a limited readership; the scoop was stigmatized as ‘Red’ propaganda, and generally not cited elsewhere". <ref name="spivak">Schmidt, p. 229<br>See also Archer, p.194. Chapter summaries of Archer's book can be found .</ref></nowiki>

<nowiki>After Spivak told Gen. Butler about the deletions from the transcript of his testimony, in his broadcast over WCAU on February 17, 1935, Butler revealed that some of the “most important” portions of his testimony had been suppressed in the McCormack-Dickstein report to Congress. “The Committee”, he growled, “stopped dead in its tracks when it got near the top”. <ref name="julesquote"/> He added angrily:</nowiki>

:"Like most committees, it has slaughtered the little and allowed the big to escape. The big shots weren't even called to testify. Why wasn't Col. ], New York broker . . . called? Why wasn't ], Secretary to the President of the United States, called? . . . Why wasn't Al Smith called? And why wasn't Gen. ], Chief of Staff of the United States Army, called? And why wasn't ], former American Legion commander, called? They were all mentioned in the testimony. And why was all mention of these names suppressed from the committee report?" <nowiki><ref name="julesquote"/><ref name = "coup"></ref></nowiki>
</font>
|valign=top width=20%|Section is incoherent, lacks RS, and is of questionable relevance to "Business Plot"

Removes historian Scmidt, Hans Schmidt is the author of several history books published by the University of Kentucky and Rutgers University Press. And the BBC.

Again removes ] 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."

Why does THF repeatedly claim that there is no conspiracy theory, then delete the well established suppression of congressional testimony?
|}

;NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=40%|THF moves Business Plot to Business Plot conspiracy theory
|valign=top width=20%| "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."

Just one edit before, THF deletes the evidence of large section of testimony being deleted from the official testimony.

THF read, but ignored, the final congressional conclusion about this incident:

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.
|}

;conform lead to NPOV ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%| The '''Business Plot''' (also the '''Plot Against FDR''' and the '''White House Putsch''') '''conspiracy theory''' alleges that there was a ] in 1933 where wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a '']'' to overthrow ] ] ].
|valign=top width=40%|The '''Business Plot''' (also the '''Plot Against FDR''' and the '''White House Putsch''') was an alleged ] in 1933 wherein wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a '']'' to overthrow ] ] ].
|valign=top width=20%|"conform lead to NPOV"

THF adds this just two edits after removing "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee".
|}
;Conform lead to text of article add cite ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution.<nowiki><ref name=burk/><ref name=schmidt226/><ref name=schlesinger83/><ref name=sargent/></nowiki>

Also:

and contemporary journalists<nowiki><ref name=time/></nowiki> largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution.
|valign=top width=40%|but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, <font color="red">and the matter was mostly forgotten.</font>
|valign=top width=20%|"Conform lead to text of article" '''(other edit diff)''' "add cite" 15:15, 26 February 2009

After I ask him to provide references for his claim that " "Business Plot" is not an accepted event in American history." THF adds my own 5 references which I added to the <nowiki>==Background==</nowiki> section: "Doubters of Gen. Butler's testimony claimed it lacked evidence" section.

This shows that before THF disruptive edit warring:

:(1) that this was a well referenced article, and

:(2) it is an unbiased article, with all perspectives covered, even THF's own POV is covered in this article.
|}

;Tags ====
{|cellpadding=5 border=1 width=100%
!Added !! Original !! Reason given
|-
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=40%|Adds tags: {{verify credibility}}, {{prose|section}} (1), {{prose|section}} (2), {{prose|section}} (3), {{externallinks}}, {{rewrite|date=February 2009}}, {{articleissues|npov=February 2009|rewrite=February 2009|disputed=February 2009|in-universe=February 2009}}, {{trivia}}
|valign=top width=20%|
|-
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=20%|
|-
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=40%|
|valign=top width=20%|
|}
{{hidden end}}
This obnoxious chart is neither an accurate characterization of my edits nor of my reasons for the edits. ] (]) 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 ]. In violation of ], Ikip even copied and pasted it so that it was taking place in ] (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 ], Ikip is doing a lot of it. ] (]) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:please strike or remove (refactor) out the word "obnoxious", as it is ]. 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 ], which you refuse to answer in violation of ] and ]: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". ] (]) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::I am sorry, I was wrong, THF didn't delete 1400 words THF only deleted 1368 words, <font color="red">indicated in red</font>, all in the space of an hour and 14 minutes, with no prior discussion on the talk page before. ] (]) 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'''

<nowiki>=== Related subjects ===</nowiki>

*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. ] (]) 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! ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The compromise has nothing to do with my edits, and reflects ] of the page. ] (]) 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

== Lead ==

Shouldn't the first sentence read "an ''alleged'' political conspiracy"? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ''']''' <small>]</small> 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. ''']''' <small>]</small> 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


::I am concerned that the "timeline" reaches the limits of ] as it is presented, and that much of the material in footnotes would not be tolerated in the body of the article -- pushing ] 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. ] (]) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

===Removal of members===
RE this edit:

Please explain what portion of ] this section violates. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

:In particular, see ]: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Using a show/hide choice is standard for verrrry long stuff. MEGO is the other option. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

==RfC==
{{RFChist| section=RfC !! reason=Deletion of thousands of words of text in the article !! time= 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC) }}

In the past week, two editors have deleted, ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::Discussion has only occured after edit warring, instigated by user Collect and THF. ], 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 ]. THF, ]. Are these good faith edits, is this the way to help build consensus and find comprimise?
::Editor ] in violation of ]: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions" and ]: "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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 14:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Ikip, I would suggest you read ], 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::"I have no idea what your argument is, so I cannot propose a compromise"
:::::::]:
::::::::"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 ]."
:::::::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 ] a personal attack? I suggest that you please temper your blanket statment, as it is not correct. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support renaming to ]'''. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
* ] ] (]) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
{|align=right width=200px
{|
|-
|<table style="margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 10px; border: #3333FF solid 1px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: #EEEEEE; align=center">
<tr><td><div style="padding: 8px;">
;Bipartisan ] Committee 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.

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" width=180px
!Source
|-
|
# 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
# Schmidt, p. 245 "HUAC's final report to Congress: "There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." The committee had verified "all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization.""
|}
|}
|}</div>
* '''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.) --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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'' '''? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Ikip, some ] 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 ]. Taking a couple of sentences out of context from that historical reality doesn't change that fact. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], to ironically and unfairly show that this article is biased and NPOV. ] (]) 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 ] article is not called the ], and doesn't have a Conspiracy Theory tag on it or any silliness like that. This article should not, either. --] (]) 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 ] example supports my argument: it is prominently listed in ]. ] (]) 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 BBC, historian Schmidt, the House of Representatives, are all writing from "Archer's perspective", that sounds like a classic conspiracy theory to me. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support renaming to ]'''. 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 "]". Face, it. It is fringe.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 16:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

=== 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)}}

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 . ] (]) 16:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

*'''Not a conspiracy''' as per: The ] United States ] 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 ], 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 ], with THF's wording intact. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] and repeating yourself an eighth time about a dispute unrelated to the title of the <s>page</s> section. ] (]) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC), updated to clarify 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::(1) Asking repeated questions is because of a ], 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 <nowiki>{{hidden}}</nowiki> tags, and accusing other editors edits of being "obnoxious". ] (]) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::(ec) I am sorry THF, but I responded first to this RfC. Please do not move:
:::::::<nowiki>=== 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) }}</nowiki>
::::::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. ] (]) 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

====Views of outside editors====

'''Business Plot''' is the manner in which this incident is commonly referenced, that should be the title of the article. ] (]) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

== Reliable source issue ==

*], who has a degree in advertising, and whose book about this subject is strongly criticized by historians, is a ], 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 ], and not enough on mainstream historians. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

*] is also questionable as a source. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

::Cramer has a page because of his notable work exposing ]'s fraud. He probably shouldn't have a page, since it's essentially ]. 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 ]. ] (]) 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.
:::] (]) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
===Clayton Cramer===
*] is a historian. ] is probably the world’s oldest illustrated history magazine, published monthly in London since January 1951. See:] ] (]) 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).
*] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:then instead of deleting them, causing edit wars, find better web pages with the same content. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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:

# 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?
# How does the committe setion violate ]?
# Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source?
# 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 ] stating "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."?
# Why didn't you discuss the page move to ], before? You were aware of the edit war going on.
] (]) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:looking forward to that response, THF. ] (]) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::When you can adhere to ], 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 ] 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. ] (]) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Per ]:
::::''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. ] (]) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::"Why did you disruptively edit war?" is not a civil "clarifying question." The answer is ]. ] (]) 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.] (])
I did answer: ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::<S>For Christ's sake</s> By the hammer of Grabthar, Ikip, I ], 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. ] (]) 16:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

<nowiki>===Removal of members===</nowiki>

RE this edit:

Please explain what portion of ] this section violates. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

:::And I see by a closer look at ] that I should have said ] or just ] rather than ]. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Using a show/hide choice is standard for verrrry long stuff. MEGO is the other option. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::THF, how does the committe section violate WP:IINFO, per this edit? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Edit diffs please. ] (]) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


{|border=1 cellpadding=5
!Question to THF ] (]) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
!Response from THF ] (]) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
|-
|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 ]?
|No direct response. Never brings up ] 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 ] stating "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."?
|] No response
|-
|5. Why didn't you discuss the page move to ], before? You were aware of the edit war going on.
|] No response
|}

::This chart is a violation of ] and ] by Ikip that falsely misrepresents my positions. ] (]) 05:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


So I can deduce from the lack of response for #2, despite repeated requests, that the committe section did in fact not violate ], 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?" ] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

===Relevance of Committee information?===
I have yet to see clearly the reason why the list of the members of the committee is so important that it must be included. It certainly would be relevant to mention any individual members who are in some way notably involved with the subject as members of the committee, but I haven't directly seen anything that leads me to think that any were specifically involved. But I think that it might make most sense to limit the information to those individuals who are otherwise mentioned in the article, at least initially. I have also contacted the ], which is the group which probably most directly treats such material, for their input. ] (]) 16:33, 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! ] (]) 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 ] with no discussion before hand on the main space page? I am confused. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Where did you talk about the ] before you deleted them? Edit diffs please. I appreciate you striking the palpable falsehood claim, as you did, in fact, delete 1,184 words with no prior discussion. 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==
RE: , moved here, then refactored out by THF.
:I am truly saddened that we cannot reach a comprimise. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The post is copy and pasted here is on topic, he is talking about the busines plot in that message. I asked THF to stop posting on my talk page, I would like to keep the conversation here, instead of it expanding to other pages.
:::THF also said in that post that he was no longer going to edit this article, which, obviously is not the case.
:::I am used to the vivid acronyms that both you and THF use, "grossly improper", "reprehensible". Calling me "delusional", my edits "obnoxious", "wikistalking", "harrassment", "bad faith", "fake edit summaries", "badger", "hounding", "heckler's veto", "false allegations", "WP:HOUND". If you noticed, I have since removed all of my comments like this from this page, and will continue to do so, and have stopped saying such things.
:::But despite repeated requests for THF to do the same, he has refused. Because of THF's tone, several people have commented on the ]
::::"This thread is just more effort focused on "tattle tale" antics than encyclopedia writing."
::::"I find User:THC behavior toward the new editor Abbarocks and some other editors awkward "
:::Where is the outrage about THF hiding my comments several times, some as long as 50+ words, THF's refusal to delete personal attacks? Your righteous condemnation of my actions would be more sympathetic if you didn't have such a blind eye to the actions of THF. ] (]) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Some historians" ==

I write regarding the following text:

:::* Some historians{{specify}} argue that the story embarrassed politically influential business people, who felt it best to deflect attention from themselves.{{fact}}
:::* In 1934, newspapers were controlled by an élite &mdash; according to then-Interior Secretary ], 82 per cent of daily newspapers monopolised their communities; some historians{{specify}} argue that the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners.{{fact}}
:::* Some historians{{specify}} speculate that some of President Roosevelt's advisors were plotters, and downplayed the matter to avoid exposure.{{fact}}
:::* In the BBC Radio Document program, ''The Whitehouse Coup'', ] 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 ] 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". <ref name = "coup"></ref>''

# 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 ]: "Not OR".
# And it's an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages that ] is getting more space than ]. 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 ]: ''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 ]?) 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. ] (]) 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

=== ] ===
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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
::Have you ''looked'' at ]? If he's not a conspiracy theorist, who is? And any news program that quotes him is by definition a ]. I've removed the religious reference; apologies for the inadvertent offense. ] (]) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::It's legitimate to quote Buchanan if the source given is the BBC, and Radio 4. It is a reliable source for wikipedia requirements, and ] demands that such sources be represented, regardless of editors' ]. We present the viewpoints and let readers make up their own minds. The argument that any news program that quotes him is therefore invalid as a source is not in accord with NPOV. As Buchanan seems to be a journalist, not a historian, his inclusion in a section titled "historians" would not appear to be accurate. Unless there are reliable sources to validate putting Buchanan in a "fringe conspiracy theory" section, then there are no grounds for doing so. It would be better to weave all historians' and others' comments into the main narrative. If ] is not adequately represented, the solution is to increase his representation. ''''']''''' 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Your position contradicts ]. And for "conspiracy theorist," though I would think that would be self-obvious without the reliable source. ] (]) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Your link is to a precis ("teaser" in media parlance) of the show which is not, in and of itself, much of a source. The actual show as edited is far less lurid as to what it claims than the precis is. ] (]) 12:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::BBC is not much of a source? The BBC? ] (]) 14:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The first issue to determine is whether the BBC is a reliable source. THF says it is not: "And any news program that quotes him is by definition a ]." This is incorrect. If someone whom an editor considers to be unreliable is used by a source normally considered reliable that does not invalidate the source. The direct opposite applies: the source gives weight to the individual cited.

The second point is ]. It is only "tiny minority" views that should be discounted altogether. Minority views as such, which I presume Buchanan's to be, should be included, but weighted accordingly, i.e. not given the space of a majority view. The fact that Buchanan's view has been included in a major international outlet gives it a status which demands inclusion per ].

The link is actually to a page where there is a full recording of the programme available. The text on the page is valid, as is the programme as a whole. It is best to avoid emotive and subjective evaluations such as "lurid" and "sensational", which are ] and look at how to represent the content of the source per ].

The source for "conspiracy theorist" relates to 9/11 so would not be valid for this subject per ].

''''']''''' 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:Who else holds Buchanan's views. The BBC did not endorse Buchanan's opinion, merely gave him a soapbox; the BBC broadcasts ], also, and Geller is still treated as a QS. Buchanan is not a "historian," and his speculative theory does not have credibility, and is not based on any historical facts. It doesn't belong in the article. ] (]) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::(ec)Recordings are "primary sources" and hence '''only valid as a statement of what the recording says,''' not as to fact. ] The transcript would be valid as a cite for what the program said. And the link given was, in fact, to the precis. ] (]) 14:58, 2 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). --] (]) 09:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:Perhaps we can have a section that lists everybody in the United States who was not involved in the Business Plot. Or we can create ]. ] (]) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

::We could easily have ]. As far as I can tell, that is everyone who has ever lived, minus one.--] (]) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Where were you in March 1933, Paul? ] (]) 17:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Does this bit really belong in the article? "According to Katz, "Prescott Bush was too involved with the actual Nazis to be involved with something that was so home grown as the business plot." ] (]) 12:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
== Fascism tag ==


Was added to the Talk page on 25 March 2008 by ] ] (]) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :Yes, it gives context to the situation. ] (]) 02:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
*Presumably because ] is a redirect to this page. ] (]) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
::*Good catch!--] (]) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:*I've nominated it at RfD. Totally improper redirect. ] (]) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:55, 17 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Business Plot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on December 20, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

Prescott Bush Nazi Involvement Allegation

Does this bit really belong in the article? "According to Katz, "Prescott Bush was too involved with the actual Nazis to be involved with something that was so home grown as the business plot." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it gives context to the situation. 2605:59C8:6163:6610:1AD0:DC27:5C82:6175 (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories: