This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
Remove the word 'alleged'. - Your assumption of his testimony as alleged is to state that General Butler perjured himself in front of Congress and as he was never taken to court for perjury, his statements stand as facts by way of witness oriented testimony. In addition, your assumption that he committed perjury is nothing more than a form of Judicial Activism along the same lines as President Clinton attempting to redefine the word 'is' or 'sex'. Formalism must be adhered to and using formalism brings us to a single prominent conclusion. General Butler spoke fact in front of Congress. Also, I might remind you that self evident truth, not government, is the ultimate authority. To ask factions of congress to self incriminate is silly. Lastly, it was and is not the task of the committee to prove or disprove anything whatsoever. General Butler gave his testimony without any form of perjury. The task of the committee was simply to investigate General Butlers testimony as fact. When facts were found to then act upon the testimony. The committee did so, the public release of the testimony was enough to thwart the coup. Although as we can see today (year 2009) the coup succeeded. I cannot believe that a vote was even considered as to keep or delete this article. Revisionist history is appalling. Eric George Nordstrom ( talk) 09:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
[2] 21:05, [3] 20:52, [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Reverted | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. <ref>Schlesinger, p. 85 McCormack was eager to avoid hit-and-run accusation and unsubstantiated testimony.</ref> In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot, [1] but no prosecutions or further investigations followed. | In March 1934, the House of Representatives authorized an investigation into "un-American" activities by a special committee headed by John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York. In the following months the McCormack-Dickstein Committee inquired into Nazi operations in America, exposed William Dudley Pelley and the Silver Shirts, looked into Smedley Butler's allegations, and called the Communist leaders up for testimony. Its manner of investigation commanded special respect. McCormack used competent investigators and employed as committee counsel a former Georgia senator with a good record on civil liberties. Most of the examination of witnesses was carried on in executive sessions. In public sessions, witnesses were free to consult counsel. Throughout, McCormack was eager to avoid hit-and-run accusation and unsubstantiated testimony. The result was an almost uniquely scrupulous investigation in a highly sensitive area." In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot,<ref>Schlesinger, p. 85 "As for McCormack's House committee, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."</ref> but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten. | Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[17] 03:03, 22 February 2009
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election.<ref name="support">Schmidt, p. 219 "Declaring himself a "Hoover-for-Ex-President Republican," Smedley used the bonus issue and the army's use of gas in routing the (Bonus Expeditionary Force) "</ref> | Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election.<ref name="support">Schmidt, p. 219 "Declaring himself a "Hoover-for-Ex-President Republican," Smedley used the bonus issue and the army's use of gas in routing the (Bonus Expeditionary Force) B.E.F -recalling infamous gas warfare during the Great War- to disparage Hoover during the 1932 general elections. He came out for the Democrats "despite the fact that my family for generations has been Republican," and shared the platform when Republican Senator George W. Norris opened a coast-to-coast stump for FDR in Philadelphia....Butler was pleased with the election results that saw Hoover defeated; although he admitted that he had exerted himself in the campaign more "to get rid of Hoover than to put in Roosevelt," and to "square a debt." FDR, his old Haiti ally, was a "nice fellow" and might make a good president, but Smedley did not expect much influence in the new administration."</ref> | Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[18]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Committee submits to Congress its final report.<ref name="plotx">Archer, p. x (Foreword)</ref><ref> National Archives: The Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized To Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities (73A-F30.1) </ref> | Committee submits to Congress its final report.<ref name="plotx">Archer, p. x (Foreword)</ref><ref>National Archives: The Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized To Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities (73A-F30.1) "The (McCormack-Dickstein Committee) conducted public and executive hearings intermittently between April 26 and December 29, 1934, in Washington, DC; New York; Chicago; Los Angeles; Newark; and Asheville, NC, examining hundreds of witnesses and accumulating more than 4,300 pages of testimony."</ref> | Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[19]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Butler stated that once the conspirators were in power, they would protect Roosevelt from other plotters.<ref>Beam, Alex (
May 25
2004). "A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark". The Boston Globe: E1. {{
cite journal}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help):
Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee</ref>
|
Butler stated that once the conspirators were in power, they would protect Roosevelt from other plotters.<ref>Beam, Alex (
May 25
2004). "A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark". The Boston Globe: E1. {{
cite journal}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help): "In his congressional testimony, Butler described Clark as being "known as the "millionaire lieutenant" and was sort of batty, sort of queer, did all sorts of extravagant things. He used to go exploring around China and wrote a book on it, on explorations. He was never taken seriously by anybody. But he had a lot of money." "Clark was certainly eccentric. One of the reasons he sited his fantastic art collection away from New York or Boston was that he feared it might be destroyed by a Soviet bomber attack during the Cold War..."(Clark) was pointed out to me during a trip to Paris," says one on his grandnieces. "He was known to be pro-fascist and on the enemy side. Nobody ever spoke to him."" Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee</ref> |
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article" [20] The reason this text was added was to stop edit wars with other POV editors in the past, who understood this incident as little as User:Collect does, and contributed just as little as User:Collect has. |
Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true." New York Times February 16 1935. p. 1, </ref> |
Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true." New York Times February 16 1935. p. 1, "Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators; Committee In Report To House Attacks Nazis As The Chief Propagandists In Nation. State Department Acts Checks Activities Of An Italian Consul -- Plan For March On Capital Is Held Proved. Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators, "Plan for “March” Recalled. It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated. The committee recalled testimony by General Butler, saying he had testified that Gerald C. MacGuire had tried to persuade him to accept the leadership of a Fascist army."</ref> |
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[21]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Veterans of Foreign Wars commander
James E. Van Zandt. "Less than two months" after General Butler warned him, he said, "he had been approached by ‘agents of Wall Street’ to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a ‘Veterans Organization’ ".<ref>Schlesinger, p 85; Wolfe, Part IV:
"Says Butler Described. Offer". New York Times: 3. 1934. {{
cite journal}} : |first= has generic name (
help); |first= missing |last= (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help) Archer, p.3, 5, 29, 32, 129, 176. </ref>
|
Veterans of Foreign Wars commander
James E. Van Zandt. "Less than two months" after General Butler warned him, he said, "he had been approached by ‘agents of Wall Street’ to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a ‘Veterans Organization’ ".<ref>Schlesinger, p 85; Wolfe, Part IV: "But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." "Zandt had been called immediately after the
August 22 meeting with MacGuire by Butler and warned that...he was going to be approached by the coup plotters for his support at an upcoming VFW convention. He said that, just as Butler had warned, he had been approached "by agents of Wall Street" who tried to enlist him in their plot."
"Says Butler Described. Offer". New York Times: 3. 1934. {{
cite journal}} : |first= has generic name (
help); |first= missing |last= (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help) Quoted material from the NYTSchmidt, p. 224 But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." Archer, p.3, 5, 29, 32, 129, 176. For more on Van Zandt, and the Archer quotes, see Unknown author. "James Edward Van Zandt". Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT). Retrieved 2006-03-28. {{
cite web}} : |author= has generic name (
help)</ref>
|
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[22]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Removed | *Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.<ref name="sutton" /><ref>[[s:McCormack-Dickstein Committee#Captain Glazier's testimony|Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee, Captain Glazier's testimony]]</ref>
*Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post.<ref>[[s:McCormack-Dickstein Committee#TESTIMONY OF PAUL COMLY FRENCH|Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee, testimony of Paul Comly French]]</ref> |
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[23]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Removed |
== Bibliography == *
Archer, Jules (1973, pub.2007). The Plot to Seize the White House. Skyhorse Publishing.
ISBN
1-60239-036-3. * Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-34087-4. *Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4. Excerpts of Schmidt's book dealing with the plot are available online.<ref>[http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler03-by_schmidt.html Maverick Marine: Excerpt] at coat.ncf.ca</ref> | |
Removed | * 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). | "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article" [24] |
Removed |
|
|
Removed |
|
Ridiculous reason:
WP is not in the business of giving extensive bibliographies - sorry [25] |
Removed |
=== 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. |
Reason: "cites not even related to the topic" [26] |
Removed |
== Further reading == *Archer, Jules (1973, pub.2007). The Plot to Seize the White House. Skyhorse Publishing. * Extensive list of links, books and video on the plot *[http://store.aetv.com/html/search/index.jhtml?search=The+Plot+to+Overthrow+FDR&itemType=All&x=15&y=10 The History Channel Video: In Search of History: The Plot to Overthrow FDR] "While The Plot To Overthrow FDR will astonish those who never learned about this story in school, in the end many viewers may feel as if they are trying to handcuff a shadow."<ref>Feran, Tim (
February 12
1999). "History Channel Looks At Plot to Oust FDR". Columbus Dispatch (Ohio): 1H. |
I am deeply troubled by Collects large misunderstanding of the subject matter based on this edit: "unrelated stuff -- sorry" An article about the Plot to overthrow FDR? Butler's censored testimony? and extensive links about the plot have nothing to do with the Business Plot page? |
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.
Ikip ( talk) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
<!-- WP:WEIGHT. Cramer is an amateur historian. Find a better source. | . | RS
[35] 14:01, 26 February 2009
"RS" stands for WP:Reliable sources, 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. |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
. |
===Committee members=== From the McCormack-Dickstein Committee files found at wikisource.
|
"Per talk page; WP:NOT#IINFO" [36] THF deleted four entries references from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress WP:NOT#IINFO is commonly abused by editors, as in this case. WP:NOT#IINFO has five categories:
This section, negotiated with several editors of opposing POV, and which has been on this main page for years, is not a WP:NOT#IINFO violation. |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
Butler said that Al Smith, Roosevelt's political foe and former governor of New York, and Irénée du Pont, a chemical industrialist, were the financial and organizational backbone of the plot.{{fact|date=February 2009}} ADDED: " dubious – discuss Butler testified that the pretext for the coup would be that the president's health was failing. [3]" to [[s:McCormack-Dickstein Committee#Page 2|Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee report, pg. 2]] downplayed --> rejected |
Butler said that Al Smith, Roosevelt's political foe and former governor of New York, and Irénée du Pont, a chemical industrialist, were the financial and organizational backbone of the plot.{{fact|date=February 2009}} The events testified to in the McCormack-Dickstein Committee happened between July and November 1933. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee was the precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC); its materials are archived with those of the HUAC.
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 Al Smith, Roosevelt's political foe and former governor of New York, and Irénée du Pont, 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.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Beam, Alex| title=A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark | journal=The Boston Globe | date=[[May 25]] [[2004]] | volume= | issue= | pages=E1 | url= }}: <font size="1">" The committee deleted extensive excerpts from the report relating to Wall Street financiers including J.P. Morgan & Co., the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. As of 1975, a full transcript of the hearings had yet to be traced.<ref name="sutton">[http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch10.html Chapter 10, FDR; Man on the White Horse] 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 [http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-rev.html online].</ref> |
"Tighten; RS; NPOV"
[37]
THF removes large portions of text in the "Butler said he spoke..." section, then added a {{fact}} tag, despite the <ref>{{cite journal | author=Beam, Alex| title=A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark | journal=The Boston Globe | date=[[May 25]] [[2004]] | volume= | issue= | pages=E1 | url= }}: <font size="1">" tag at the end of this section. THF removes Sutton, Antony C. Sutton is a historian, author of Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Wikipedia states: "His books became classics in the study of covert politics and economics in the twentieth century." |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
=== Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee=== [[Image:The intricate structure of wall streets facist conspiracy.JPG|right|thumb|''The Intricate Structure of Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy'', ''[[New Masses]]'' 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|[[s:McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Suppressed_testimony_of_the_McCormack-Dickstein_Committee|Suppressed testimony of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee]] on wikisource, showing all of the deleted text}} Reporter [[John L. Spivak]] had been tipped off earlier by a fellow Washington correspondent that some of Butler's testimony had been deleted in the committee's [[November 26]], [[1934]] 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’. . . . "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 [from] 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"/> Spivak wrote a two-part article revealing the Committee's deletions, <ref name="spivakarticle">* {{cite journal | author=[[John L. Spivak|Spivak, John L.]] | 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= [[January 29]] [[1935]]; [[February 5]] [[1935]] | volume= | issue= | pages= | url=http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/spivak-NewMasses.pdf |format=PDF}} [PDF file]</ref> historian Schmidt explains: :"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 [[American Jewish Committee]]. Spivak was intent upon grinding his own axes, and elucidation of the plot was obscured. The suppressed Butler-MacGuire conversations could hardly support all this. Moreover ‘New Masses’ [magazine] 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 [http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm here].</ref> 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:
|
Section is incoherent, lacks RS, and is of questionable relevance to "Business Plot"
[38]
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 Antony C. Sutton historian, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Wikipedia 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? |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
THF moves Business Plot to Business Plot conspiracy theory | "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."
[39]
Just one edit before, THF deletes the evidence of large section of testimony being deleted from the official testimony. [40] 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. |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) conspiracy theory alleges that there was a political conspiracy in 1933 where wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. | The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933 wherein wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. | "conform lead to NPOV"
[41]
THF adds this just two edits after removing "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee". |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution.<ref name=burk/><ref name=schmidt226/><ref name=schlesinger83/><ref name=sargent/>
Also: and contemporary journalists<ref name=time/> largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution. |
but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten. | "Conform lead to text of article" (other edit diff) "add cite"
[42] 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 ==Background== section: "Doubters of Gen. Butler's testimony claimed it lacked evidence" section. This shows that before THF disruptive edit warring:
|
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
Adds tags: {{Verify credibility|date=March 2009}}, {{Prose|section|date=March 2009}} (1), {{Prose|section|date=March 2009}} (2), {{Prose|section|date=March 2009}} (3), {{externallinks}}, {{Cleanup-rewrite|date=February 2009}}, {{Multiple issues|npov=February 2009|rewrite=February 2009|disputed=February 2009|in-universe=February 2009}}, {{Trivia|date=March 2009}} | ||
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)
This is the same name as above, hopefully it will work better.
I agree with the removal of:
=== Related subjects ===
|
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)
The compromise has nothing to do with my edits, and reflects ownership of the page. THF ( talk) 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first sentence read "an alleged political conspiracy"? THF ( talk) 00:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
RE this edit: [43]
Please explain what portion of Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO this section violates. Ikip ( talk) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 Wikipedia MOS is "Business Plot conspiracy theory". THF ( talk) 14:24, 26 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)
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)
I think the outside editor said it best:
No one else calls this "Business Plot conspiracy theory" except for you and THF. As per Wikipedia:MADEUPINONEDAY and WP:NOT#OR:
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 Wikipedia 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)
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:
Ikip ( talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
===Removal of members===
RE this edit: [51]
Please explain what portion of Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO this section violates. Ikip ( talk) 14:07, 26 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)
Question to THF Ikip ( talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | Response from THF Ikip ( talk) 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 WP:IINFO? | 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 "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details" is not in the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section. My bad. |
3. Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source? [53] | No response |
4. Why did you remove the "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee", [54] 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)
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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, which is the group which probably most directly treats such material, for their input. John Carter ( talk) 16:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
RE: [56], moved here, then refactored out by THF.
This is not a page for examining user conduct, but per WP:TPG "to discuss changes to its associated article". There is no need to prove whether someone has answered questions or not. If there are points that still need to be discussed, then start a new section and raise those outstanding issues. Ty 11:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I write regarding the following text:
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)
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)
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 questionable source." 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 WP:UNDUE. 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 WP:UNDUE.
The link is actually to a page where there is a full recording of the programme available. [58] 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 editorial opinions and look at how to represent the content of the source per WP:NPOV.
The source for "conspiracy theorist" relates to 9/11 so would not be valid for this subject per WP:SYNTH.
By arbitration, I presume you mean article WP:RFC, which is the next step. Ty 12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Prescott Bush wasn't involved. Not even Spivak's New Masses article claimed that. THF ( talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression." [60] Abbarocks ( talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Was added to the Talk page on 25 March 2008 by User:Wyldkat Collect ( talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned that relevence tags could clutter up the article. Would one of the more experienced editors please advise me what the appropriate way to deal with a relevance tag if,imo, the relevance is obvious? Can I mention my opinion here and then remove it pending consensus? Abbarocks ( talk) 14:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a post concerning this article at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Redux:_Is_.22Document.22_documentary_on_BBC4_radio_RS.3F. THF, please post on this page about such actions in future and provide a link. Ty 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think my earlier post was interpreted as being more anti-Prescott Bush than I had intended. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that he _was_ involved in the Business Plot, or even that a reliable source has said he was. I don't know either of those things to be true.
I do know, however, that there is a semi-widespread allegation that he was involved, and that allegation does need to be discussed on this page, if only to refute it.
A simple google search [62] shows oodles of information claiming that Prescott Bush was involved. One such claim was featured on the Digg homepage, it seems another such claim was featured on some BBC piece, another on the Huffington Post.
Now, none of that means that the allegation is true-- but it does mean the allegation is quite widespread and notable, if only to refute.
I came here because I heard the allegation and was skeptical that it was true-- the Bush family has been in the brightest spotlight on the planet for twenty years-- if this were true, why would I only be hearing about this now? I come to the relevant Wikipedia article expecting to find an explanation, discussion, and probably a prompt refutation, and instead I find-- nothing.
If it's false, the way to fight that falsehood is to discuss it, not ignore it. If it's indeterminate, discuss that. But saying, in essence, the allegation aren't true so we shouldn't discuss it-- that misses the point. If there's a semi-widespread bit of myth about somebody, all the more reason to discuss it. In some cases, we have entire articles dedicated to this purpose, eg Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories.
-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree not a BLP issue. Note, however, that Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories acknowledges that it is describing conspiracy theories, while this article purports to be describing a historical event. I suggested we rename this article Business Plot conspiracy theory to accurately characterize the COATRACK of unproven Spivak and Buchanan and Butler allegations, but others objected. If we're not going to have that title, then we need to restrict ourselves to the factual historical events, and the conspiracy theories don't belong in the article, just as they don't belong in Apollo Moon Landing. THF ( talk) 13:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)HP is a collection mainly of opinion blogs -- RS only in the sense that they can be reported as the opinions of their writers. The BBC used the Buchanan book -- so any problems with the book devolve on the BBC program as well. [63] connects Bush with the American Liberty League but not in any way directly with the "plot." Note one of the main founders was Al Smith. The connection of Al Smith to the "plot" is therefore exactly the same as that of Bush and 125,000 others. This cite is the only one in googlebooks making any connection at all between Bush and the plot, and makes no actual connection even then. Collect ( talk) 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Synthesis "puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." I think I have accurately characterized the Shlaes book; I don't think this particular claim of Shlaes is controversial. The section is about a claim that "Business leaders accepted the New Deal as part of the Business Plot" so it's not synthesis to include the mainstream POV about business leaders' attitudes towards the New Deal. (The problem here only arises because we are including the non-RS of Buchanan's fictional claims in violation of WP:UNDUE, but that's discussed above.) THF ( talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ty refuses to discuss and continues to revert even though I added the cite he asked for. The passage is this:
THF ( talk) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) :It's synthesis because you are constructing a novel argument, namely that the court case you cite is relevant to the explanation given about names being dropped in exchange for acceptance of the New Deal, with the implied conclusion that the explanation is therefore invalid. Unless you have a ref that links the two, your doing so is novel as is the implication from it. There is an implied connection between the two obviously (otherwise there is no reason to juxtapose them), but there is no proof there is any connection. There are all manner of explanations for the court case. It could be that the people who brought it were not "part of the plot", hence not bound by the purported arrangement to drop any charges against them. It could be they renaged on the arrangement. It would be equally WP:SYNTH to start putting in information saying, for example, X, Y and Z, who were suggested as plotters, never spoke against the New Deal, implying therefore that they were honouring the arrangement that allowed them to escape being punished. I presume you would not consider that to be acceptable. Ty 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please AGF that editors mean to comply with policy when they add material to the page. Before simply reverting edits by editors actively participating on the page that add material, let us strive to tag the edits with the tag that indicates the problem you think merits deletion, and then discuss on the talk page. THF ( talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think its destructive and POV to use diminishing labels on people (AS IF THE LABEL IS AN ACCEPTED FACT) who are quoted in any article. Obviously almost any person who is notable enouigh to be quoted in a RS has detractors who might call them "right wing": or "left wing" or "fascist" or "conspiracy theorist". I'd like to remove that label from Buchanan. It only serves to put his comments into a negative POV context for most readers. Are we going to use the label "racist" in the Henry Ford bio because some RS used it? Would we say "racist Henry Ford" ? Let's get a bit more encyclopedic please. Abbarocks ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"Controversial editor fired He plans new newspaper in Union County Pay-Per-View - Atlanta Journal-Constitution - NewsBank - Jan 14, 2006 John Buchanan, a journalist, conspiracy theorist and author who ran in the 2004 New Hampshire primary as the "9/11 truth candidate" against President Bush, ... " appears to me to call Mr. Buchanan a "conspiracy theorist." Collect ( talk) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My research and the reading I did in working on this article gave me an idea for a short piece about the 75th anniversary of the Business Plot; I wrote it this weekend, and this afternoon, I successfully shopped it, and it will be published soon. My most recent edit to the article was on 6 March; I had the idea on 7 March, and wrote it 8 March. So long as I do not make a self-promotional edit, I do not believe it would create a WP:COI problem for me to continue improving the article (a point of view is not a conflict of interest), but, in the interests of minimizing wikidrama, I am withdrawing from editing the mainspace version of this article. Whether others see fit to include the piece I wrote in this and related articles is up to them. THF ( talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of this before reading this article. Is it possible that some of the passion behind this article could be because of the parallells between the time this took place and the current economic crisis? Putting the facts that are in disupute aside, is it possible that a proxy idiological war is taking place? Just a thought. Since the aticle is locked it might be an worth discussing. 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine ( talk • contribs)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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)
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)
Remove the word 'alleged'. - Your assumption of his testimony as alleged is to state that General Butler perjured himself in front of Congress and as he was never taken to court for perjury, his statements stand as facts by way of witness oriented testimony. In addition, your assumption that he committed perjury is nothing more than a form of Judicial Activism along the same lines as President Clinton attempting to redefine the word 'is' or 'sex'. Formalism must be adhered to and using formalism brings us to a single prominent conclusion. General Butler spoke fact in front of Congress. Also, I might remind you that self evident truth, not government, is the ultimate authority. To ask factions of congress to self incriminate is silly. Lastly, it was and is not the task of the committee to prove or disprove anything whatsoever. General Butler gave his testimony without any form of perjury. The task of the committee was simply to investigate General Butlers testimony as fact. When facts were found to then act upon the testimony. The committee did so, the public release of the testimony was enough to thwart the coup. Although as we can see today (year 2009) the coup succeeded. I cannot believe that a vote was even considered as to keep or delete this article. Revisionist history is appalling. Eric George Nordstrom ( talk) 09:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
[2] 21:05, [3] 20:52, [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Reverted | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. <ref>Schlesinger, p. 85 McCormack was eager to avoid hit-and-run accusation and unsubstantiated testimony.</ref> In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot, [1] but no prosecutions or further investigations followed. | In March 1934, the House of Representatives authorized an investigation into "un-American" activities by a special committee headed by John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York. In the following months the McCormack-Dickstein Committee inquired into Nazi operations in America, exposed William Dudley Pelley and the Silver Shirts, looked into Smedley Butler's allegations, and called the Communist leaders up for testimony. Its manner of investigation commanded special respect. McCormack used competent investigators and employed as committee counsel a former Georgia senator with a good record on civil liberties. Most of the examination of witnesses was carried on in executive sessions. In public sessions, witnesses were free to consult counsel. Throughout, McCormack was eager to avoid hit-and-run accusation and unsubstantiated testimony. The result was an almost uniquely scrupulous investigation in a highly sensitive area." In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot,<ref>Schlesinger, p. 85 "As for McCormack's House committee, it declared itself "able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" except for MacGuire's direct proposal to him, and it considered this more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports."</ref> but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten. | Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[17] 03:03, 22 February 2009
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election.<ref name="support">Schmidt, p. 219 "Declaring himself a "Hoover-for-Ex-President Republican," Smedley used the bonus issue and the army's use of gas in routing the (Bonus Expeditionary Force) "</ref> | Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election.<ref name="support">Schmidt, p. 219 "Declaring himself a "Hoover-for-Ex-President Republican," Smedley used the bonus issue and the army's use of gas in routing the (Bonus Expeditionary Force) B.E.F -recalling infamous gas warfare during the Great War- to disparage Hoover during the 1932 general elections. He came out for the Democrats "despite the fact that my family for generations has been Republican," and shared the platform when Republican Senator George W. Norris opened a coast-to-coast stump for FDR in Philadelphia....Butler was pleased with the election results that saw Hoover defeated; although he admitted that he had exerted himself in the campaign more "to get rid of Hoover than to put in Roosevelt," and to "square a debt." FDR, his old Haiti ally, was a "nice fellow" and might make a good president, but Smedley did not expect much influence in the new administration."</ref> | Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[18]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Committee submits to Congress its final report.<ref name="plotx">Archer, p. x (Foreword)</ref><ref> National Archives: The Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized To Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities (73A-F30.1) </ref> | Committee submits to Congress its final report.<ref name="plotx">Archer, p. x (Foreword)</ref><ref>National Archives: The Special Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized To Investigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other Propaganda Activities (73A-F30.1) "The (McCormack-Dickstein Committee) conducted public and executive hearings intermittently between April 26 and December 29, 1934, in Washington, DC; New York; Chicago; Los Angeles; Newark; and Asheville, NC, examining hundreds of witnesses and accumulating more than 4,300 pages of testimony."</ref> | Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[19]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Butler stated that once the conspirators were in power, they would protect Roosevelt from other plotters.<ref>Beam, Alex (
May 25
2004). "A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark". The Boston Globe: E1. {{
cite journal}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help):
Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee</ref>
|
Butler stated that once the conspirators were in power, they would protect Roosevelt from other plotters.<ref>Beam, Alex (
May 25
2004). "A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark". The Boston Globe: E1. {{
cite journal}} : Check date values in: |date= (
help): "In his congressional testimony, Butler described Clark as being "known as the "millionaire lieutenant" and was sort of batty, sort of queer, did all sorts of extravagant things. He used to go exploring around China and wrote a book on it, on explorations. He was never taken seriously by anybody. But he had a lot of money." "Clark was certainly eccentric. One of the reasons he sited his fantastic art collection away from New York or Boston was that he feared it might be destroyed by a Soviet bomber attack during the Cold War..."(Clark) was pointed out to me during a trip to Paris," says one on his grandnieces. "He was known to be pro-fascist and on the enemy side. Nobody ever spoke to him."" Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee</ref> |
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article" [20] The reason this text was added was to stop edit wars with other POV editors in the past, who understood this incident as little as User:Collect does, and contributed just as little as User:Collect has. |
Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true." New York Times February 16 1935. p. 1, </ref> |
Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true." New York Times February 16 1935. p. 1, "Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators; Committee In Report To House Attacks Nazis As The Chief Propagandists In Nation. State Department Acts Checks Activities Of An Italian Consul -- Plan For March On Capital Is Held Proved. Asks Laws To Curb Foreign Agitators, "Plan for “March” Recalled. It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated. The committee recalled testimony by General Butler, saying he had testified that Gerald C. MacGuire had tried to persuade him to accept the leadership of a Fascist army."</ref> |
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[21]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Veterans of Foreign Wars commander
James E. Van Zandt. "Less than two months" after General Butler warned him, he said, "he had been approached by ‘agents of Wall Street’ to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a ‘Veterans Organization’ ".<ref>Schlesinger, p 85; Wolfe, Part IV:
"Says Butler Described. Offer". New York Times: 3. 1934. {{
cite journal}} : |first= has generic name (
help); |first= missing |last= (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help) Archer, p.3, 5, 29, 32, 129, 176. </ref>
|
Veterans of Foreign Wars commander
James E. Van Zandt. "Less than two months" after General Butler warned him, he said, "he had been approached by ‘agents of Wall Street’ to lead a Fascist dictatorship in the United States under the guise of a ‘Veterans Organization’ ".<ref>Schlesinger, p 85; Wolfe, Part IV: "But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." "Zandt had been called immediately after the
August 22 meeting with MacGuire by Butler and warned that...he was going to be approached by the coup plotters for his support at an upcoming VFW convention. He said that, just as Butler had warned, he had been approached "by agents of Wall Street" who tried to enlist him in their plot."
"Says Butler Described. Offer". New York Times: 3. 1934. {{
cite journal}} : |first= has generic name (
help); |first= missing |last= (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (
help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (
help) Quoted material from the NYTSchmidt, p. 224 But James E. Van Zandt, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and subsequently a Republican congressman, corroborated Butler's story and said that he, too, had been approached by "agents of Wall Street." Archer, p.3, 5, 29, 32, 129, 176. For more on Van Zandt, and the Archer quotes, see Unknown author. "James Edward Van Zandt". Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT). Retrieved 2006-03-28. {{
cite web}} : |author= has generic name (
help)</ref>
|
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[22]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Removed | *Captain Samuel Glazier—testifying under oath about plans of a plot to install a dictatorship in the United States.<ref name="sutton" /><ref>[[s:McCormack-Dickstein Committee#Captain Glazier's testimony|Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee, Captain Glazier's testimony]]</ref>
*Reporter Paul Comly French, reporter for the Philadelphia Record and the New York Evening Post.<ref>[[s:McCormack-Dickstein Committee#TESTIMONY OF PAUL COMLY FRENCH|Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee, testimony of Paul Comly French]]</ref> |
Reason: "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article"
[23]
The reason this text was added was as a comprmise with other editors in the past. |
Removed |
== Bibliography == *
Archer, Jules (1973, pub.2007). The Plot to Seize the White House. Skyhorse Publishing.
ISBN
1-60239-036-3. * Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (2003). The Politics of Upheaval: 1935-1936, The Age of Roosevelt, Volume III (The Age of Roosevelt). Mariner Books. ISBN 0-618-34087-4. *Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4. Excerpts of Schmidt's book dealing with the plot are available online.<ref>[http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/butler03-by_schmidt.html Maverick Marine: Excerpt] at coat.ncf.ca</ref> | |
Removed | * 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). | "refs are not for interpolating large amounts of text - also totally unrelated issues do not belong in the Butler Plot article" [24] |
Removed |
|
|
Removed |
|
Ridiculous reason:
WP is not in the business of giving extensive bibliographies - sorry [25] |
Removed |
=== 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. |
Reason: "cites not even related to the topic" [26] |
Removed |
== Further reading == *Archer, Jules (1973, pub.2007). The Plot to Seize the White House. Skyhorse Publishing. * Extensive list of links, books and video on the plot *[http://store.aetv.com/html/search/index.jhtml?search=The+Plot+to+Overthrow+FDR&itemType=All&x=15&y=10 The History Channel Video: In Search of History: The Plot to Overthrow FDR] "While The Plot To Overthrow FDR will astonish those who never learned about this story in school, in the end many viewers may feel as if they are trying to handcuff a shadow."<ref>Feran, Tim (
February 12
1999). "History Channel Looks At Plot to Oust FDR". Columbus Dispatch (Ohio): 1H. |
I am deeply troubled by Collects large misunderstanding of the subject matter based on this edit: "unrelated stuff -- sorry" An article about the Plot to overthrow FDR? Butler's censored testimony? and extensive links about the plot have nothing to do with the Business Plot page? |
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.
Ikip ( talk) 04:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
<!-- WP:WEIGHT. Cramer is an amateur historian. Find a better source. | . | RS
[35] 14:01, 26 February 2009
"RS" stands for WP:Reliable sources, 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. |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
. |
===Committee members=== From the McCormack-Dickstein Committee files found at wikisource.
|
"Per talk page; WP:NOT#IINFO" [36] THF deleted four entries references from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress WP:NOT#IINFO is commonly abused by editors, as in this case. WP:NOT#IINFO has five categories:
This section, negotiated with several editors of opposing POV, and which has been on this main page for years, is not a WP:NOT#IINFO violation. |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
Butler said that Al Smith, Roosevelt's political foe and former governor of New York, and Irénée du Pont, a chemical industrialist, were the financial and organizational backbone of the plot.{{fact|date=February 2009}} ADDED: " dubious – discuss Butler testified that the pretext for the coup would be that the president's health was failing. [3]" to [[s:McCormack-Dickstein Committee#Page 2|Wikisource: McCormack-Dickstein Committee report, pg. 2]] downplayed --> rejected |
Butler said that Al Smith, Roosevelt's political foe and former governor of New York, and Irénée du Pont, a chemical industrialist, were the financial and organizational backbone of the plot.{{fact|date=February 2009}} The events testified to in the McCormack-Dickstein Committee happened between July and November 1933. The McCormack-Dickstein Committee was the precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC); its materials are archived with those of the HUAC.
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 Al Smith, Roosevelt's political foe and former governor of New York, and Irénée du Pont, 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.<ref>{{cite journal | author=Beam, Alex| title=A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark | journal=The Boston Globe | date=[[May 25]] [[2004]] | volume= | issue= | pages=E1 | url= }}: <font size="1">" The committee deleted extensive excerpts from the report relating to Wall Street financiers including J.P. Morgan & Co., the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. As of 1975, a full transcript of the hearings had yet to be traced.<ref name="sutton">[http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch10.html Chapter 10, FDR; Man on the White Horse] 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 [http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-rev.html online].</ref> |
"Tighten; RS; NPOV"
[37]
THF removes large portions of text in the "Butler said he spoke..." section, then added a {{fact}} tag, despite the <ref>{{cite journal | author=Beam, Alex| title=A Blemish Behind Beauty at The Clark | journal=The Boston Globe | date=[[May 25]] [[2004]] | volume= | issue= | pages=E1 | url= }}: <font size="1">" tag at the end of this section. THF removes Sutton, Antony C. Sutton is a historian, author of Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Wikipedia states: "His books became classics in the study of covert politics and economics in the twentieth century." |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
=== Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee=== [[Image:The intricate structure of wall streets facist conspiracy.JPG|right|thumb|''The Intricate Structure of Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy'', ''[[New Masses]]'' 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|[[s:McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Suppressed_testimony_of_the_McCormack-Dickstein_Committee|Suppressed testimony of the McCormack-Dickstein Committee]] on wikisource, showing all of the deleted text}} Reporter [[John L. Spivak]] had been tipped off earlier by a fellow Washington correspondent that some of Butler's testimony had been deleted in the committee's [[November 26]], [[1934]] 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’. . . . "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 [from] 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"/> Spivak wrote a two-part article revealing the Committee's deletions, <ref name="spivakarticle">* {{cite journal | author=[[John L. Spivak|Spivak, John L.]] | 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= [[January 29]] [[1935]]; [[February 5]] [[1935]] | volume= | issue= | pages= | url=http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/spivak-NewMasses.pdf |format=PDF}} [PDF file]</ref> historian Schmidt explains: :"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 [[American Jewish Committee]]. Spivak was intent upon grinding his own axes, and elucidation of the plot was obscured. The suppressed Butler-MacGuire conversations could hardly support all this. Moreover ‘New Masses’ [magazine] 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 [http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm here].</ref> 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:
|
Section is incoherent, lacks RS, and is of questionable relevance to "Business Plot"
[38]
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 Antony C. Sutton historian, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Wikipedia 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? |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
THF moves Business Plot to Business Plot conspiracy theory | "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."
[39]
Just one edit before, THF deletes the evidence of large section of testimony being deleted from the official testimony. [40] 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. |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) conspiracy theory alleges that there was a political conspiracy in 1933 where wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. | The Business Plot (also the Plot Against FDR and the White House Putsch) was an alleged political conspiracy in 1933 wherein wealthy businessmen and corporations plotted a coup d’état to overthrow United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. | "conform lead to NPOV"
[41]
THF adds this just two edits after removing "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee". |
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution.<ref name=burk/><ref name=schmidt226/><ref name=schlesinger83/><ref name=sargent/>
Also: and contemporary journalists<ref name=time/> largely rejected the idea that any such plan was near execution. |
but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten. | "Conform lead to text of article" (other edit diff) "add cite"
[42] 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 ==Background== section: "Doubters of Gen. Butler's testimony claimed it lacked evidence" section. This shows that before THF disruptive edit warring:
|
Added | Original | Reason given |
---|---|---|
Adds tags: {{Verify credibility|date=March 2009}}, {{Prose|section|date=March 2009}} (1), {{Prose|section|date=March 2009}} (2), {{Prose|section|date=March 2009}} (3), {{externallinks}}, {{Cleanup-rewrite|date=February 2009}}, {{Multiple issues|npov=February 2009|rewrite=February 2009|disputed=February 2009|in-universe=February 2009}}, {{Trivia|date=March 2009}} | ||
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)
This is the same name as above, hopefully it will work better.
I agree with the removal of:
=== Related subjects ===
|
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)
The compromise has nothing to do with my edits, and reflects ownership of the page. THF ( talk) 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first sentence read "an alleged political conspiracy"? THF ( talk) 00:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
RE this edit: [43]
Please explain what portion of Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO this section violates. Ikip ( talk) 14:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 Wikipedia MOS is "Business Plot conspiracy theory". THF ( talk) 14:24, 26 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)
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)
I think the outside editor said it best:
No one else calls this "Business Plot conspiracy theory" except for you and THF. As per Wikipedia:MADEUPINONEDAY and WP:NOT#OR:
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 Wikipedia 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)
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:
Ikip ( talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
===Removal of members===
RE this edit: [51]
Please explain what portion of Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO this section violates. Ikip ( talk) 14:07, 26 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)
Question to THF Ikip ( talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | Response from THF Ikip ( talk) 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 WP:IINFO? | 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 "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details" is not in the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section. My bad. |
3. Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source? [53] | No response |
4. Why did you remove the "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee", [54] 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)
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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views, which is the group which probably most directly treats such material, for their input. John Carter ( talk) 16:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
RE: [56], moved here, then refactored out by THF.
This is not a page for examining user conduct, but per WP:TPG "to discuss changes to its associated article". There is no need to prove whether someone has answered questions or not. If there are points that still need to be discussed, then start a new section and raise those outstanding issues. Ty 11:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I write regarding the following text:
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)
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)
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 questionable source." 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 WP:UNDUE. 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 WP:UNDUE.
The link is actually to a page where there is a full recording of the programme available. [58] 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 editorial opinions and look at how to represent the content of the source per WP:NPOV.
The source for "conspiracy theorist" relates to 9/11 so would not be valid for this subject per WP:SYNTH.
By arbitration, I presume you mean article WP:RFC, which is the next step. Ty 12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
Prescott Bush wasn't involved. Not even Spivak's New Masses article claimed that. THF ( talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression." [60] Abbarocks ( talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Was added to the Talk page on 25 March 2008 by User:Wyldkat Collect ( talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned that relevence tags could clutter up the article. Would one of the more experienced editors please advise me what the appropriate way to deal with a relevance tag if,imo, the relevance is obvious? Can I mention my opinion here and then remove it pending consensus? Abbarocks ( talk) 14:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a post concerning this article at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Redux:_Is_.22Document.22_documentary_on_BBC4_radio_RS.3F. THF, please post on this page about such actions in future and provide a link. Ty 23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think my earlier post was interpreted as being more anti-Prescott Bush than I had intended. I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that he _was_ involved in the Business Plot, or even that a reliable source has said he was. I don't know either of those things to be true.
I do know, however, that there is a semi-widespread allegation that he was involved, and that allegation does need to be discussed on this page, if only to refute it.
A simple google search [62] shows oodles of information claiming that Prescott Bush was involved. One such claim was featured on the Digg homepage, it seems another such claim was featured on some BBC piece, another on the Huffington Post.
Now, none of that means that the allegation is true-- but it does mean the allegation is quite widespread and notable, if only to refute.
I came here because I heard the allegation and was skeptical that it was true-- the Bush family has been in the brightest spotlight on the planet for twenty years-- if this were true, why would I only be hearing about this now? I come to the relevant Wikipedia article expecting to find an explanation, discussion, and probably a prompt refutation, and instead I find-- nothing.
If it's false, the way to fight that falsehood is to discuss it, not ignore it. If it's indeterminate, discuss that. But saying, in essence, the allegation aren't true so we shouldn't discuss it-- that misses the point. If there's a semi-widespread bit of myth about somebody, all the more reason to discuss it. In some cases, we have entire articles dedicated to this purpose, eg Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories.
-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree not a BLP issue. Note, however, that Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories acknowledges that it is describing conspiracy theories, while this article purports to be describing a historical event. I suggested we rename this article Business Plot conspiracy theory to accurately characterize the COATRACK of unproven Spivak and Buchanan and Butler allegations, but others objected. If we're not going to have that title, then we need to restrict ourselves to the factual historical events, and the conspiracy theories don't belong in the article, just as they don't belong in Apollo Moon Landing. THF ( talk) 13:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)HP is a collection mainly of opinion blogs -- RS only in the sense that they can be reported as the opinions of their writers. The BBC used the Buchanan book -- so any problems with the book devolve on the BBC program as well. [63] connects Bush with the American Liberty League but not in any way directly with the "plot." Note one of the main founders was Al Smith. The connection of Al Smith to the "plot" is therefore exactly the same as that of Bush and 125,000 others. This cite is the only one in googlebooks making any connection at all between Bush and the plot, and makes no actual connection even then. Collect ( talk) 13:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Synthesis "puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." I think I have accurately characterized the Shlaes book; I don't think this particular claim of Shlaes is controversial. The section is about a claim that "Business leaders accepted the New Deal as part of the Business Plot" so it's not synthesis to include the mainstream POV about business leaders' attitudes towards the New Deal. (The problem here only arises because we are including the non-RS of Buchanan's fictional claims in violation of WP:UNDUE, but that's discussed above.) THF ( talk) 15:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Ty refuses to discuss and continues to revert even though I added the cite he asked for. The passage is this:
THF ( talk) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) :It's synthesis because you are constructing a novel argument, namely that the court case you cite is relevant to the explanation given about names being dropped in exchange for acceptance of the New Deal, with the implied conclusion that the explanation is therefore invalid. Unless you have a ref that links the two, your doing so is novel as is the implication from it. There is an implied connection between the two obviously (otherwise there is no reason to juxtapose them), but there is no proof there is any connection. There are all manner of explanations for the court case. It could be that the people who brought it were not "part of the plot", hence not bound by the purported arrangement to drop any charges against them. It could be they renaged on the arrangement. It would be equally WP:SYNTH to start putting in information saying, for example, X, Y and Z, who were suggested as plotters, never spoke against the New Deal, implying therefore that they were honouring the arrangement that allowed them to escape being punished. I presume you would not consider that to be acceptable. Ty 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please AGF that editors mean to comply with policy when they add material to the page. Before simply reverting edits by editors actively participating on the page that add material, let us strive to tag the edits with the tag that indicates the problem you think merits deletion, and then discuss on the talk page. THF ( talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think its destructive and POV to use diminishing labels on people (AS IF THE LABEL IS AN ACCEPTED FACT) who are quoted in any article. Obviously almost any person who is notable enouigh to be quoted in a RS has detractors who might call them "right wing": or "left wing" or "fascist" or "conspiracy theorist". I'd like to remove that label from Buchanan. It only serves to put his comments into a negative POV context for most readers. Are we going to use the label "racist" in the Henry Ford bio because some RS used it? Would we say "racist Henry Ford" ? Let's get a bit more encyclopedic please. Abbarocks ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
"Controversial editor fired He plans new newspaper in Union County Pay-Per-View - Atlanta Journal-Constitution - NewsBank - Jan 14, 2006 John Buchanan, a journalist, conspiracy theorist and author who ran in the 2004 New Hampshire primary as the "9/11 truth candidate" against President Bush, ... " appears to me to call Mr. Buchanan a "conspiracy theorist." Collect ( talk) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My research and the reading I did in working on this article gave me an idea for a short piece about the 75th anniversary of the Business Plot; I wrote it this weekend, and this afternoon, I successfully shopped it, and it will be published soon. My most recent edit to the article was on 6 March; I had the idea on 7 March, and wrote it 8 March. So long as I do not make a self-promotional edit, I do not believe it would create a WP:COI problem for me to continue improving the article (a point of view is not a conflict of interest), but, in the interests of minimizing wikidrama, I am withdrawing from editing the mainspace version of this article. Whether others see fit to include the piece I wrote in this and related articles is up to them. THF ( talk) 18:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I had never heard of this before reading this article. Is it possible that some of the passion behind this article could be because of the parallells between the time this took place and the current economic crisis? Putting the facts that are in disupute aside, is it possible that a proxy idiological war is taking place? Just a thought. Since the aticle is locked it might be an worth discussing. 03:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmmapleoakpine ( talk • contribs)