Talk:Business Plot/Archive 4

Prescott Bush
Whether or not the Hamburg-America line was investigated by the McCormack-Dickstein committee is irrelevant to this article; the committee investigated all sorts of radicals, and not all of them were related to the plot. Even our very paranoid picture of The Intricate Structure of Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy doesn't list Prescott Bush. Huon (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I jsut noticed that this very topic was debated in the past, with consensus favoring inclusion. I'm still dubious. We don't mention that the BBC also reports on "alleged" involvement by the "owners of Heinz" (which would probably include a relative of Teresa Heinz-Kerry) or several others. There seems to be no reason to single out Prescott Bush, especially if the more detailed BBC program (in contrast to the short summary) does not link Bush to the Business Plot, but to other activities investigated by the Committee. Huon (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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)

Compromise
I have made an edit to the page as a compromise. It says "according to an congressional investigation", how is that. It doesn't imply absolute guilt, but it also doesn't use the word "alleged". annoynmous 17:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Try "Congressional committee report" as being precisely accurate. Collect (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a compromise. It in non-factual. The committee did not say that businessmen and corporations plotted a coup. The committee report is available to read online; read it. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears "annoynmoous" thinks "alleged" means "wild speculation" when it only means "not proven." Collect (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the Lee Harvey Oswald page. He was never tried with anything and yet the page says "according to congressional investigations", that was the model I used.annoynmous 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Made a new try. And "alleged" does not mean "speculated" it only means "claimed but not proven." Collect (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Want proof? Please take a look at our current government and it's relation to the business/banking interest. Proof? It right in front of your face. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


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


 * Nobody, the committe, historians have ever accused Butler of lying, so if you except that Butler was telling the truth of what he witnessed than at the very least you have to except there was some sorta plot. Whether it was just Gerald Macquire embellishing to Butler on the size of the plot or not doesn't matter, to say the plot is alleged is innacurate. Alleged implies that nothing Butler said was ever confirmed and that simply isn't true.
 * Plus I thought we had reached a compromise why are you going back on it because capitalismojo made an edit. annoynmous 21:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

unrelated material in article
WP articles are not catch-alls for bibliographies. The only cites needed are those for the statements made in the article -- WP is proudly a "tertiary source" outlet. I am also unsure about listing the allegations about the "participants" which they denied, and which are not furnished with cites at this point. Also the use of cites about Nazis do not belong as there was no evidence that "Nazis" had anything at all to do with the "plot". Lastly, WP practice does not allow "emphasis added" in articles as a matter of style. Collect (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is my response:
 * Editor User:Collect is removing large portions of well referenced text. User:Ikip was also involved with User:Collect in the Joe the Plumber case, User:Collect tenaciously deleted hundreds of words of well referenced text, resulting in several page protections. User:Collect is now beginning the same process on Business Plot. Like Joe the Plumber, User:Collect has added no material or references to this page, his only purpose seems to be to remove other editors well referenced contributions. User:Ikip on the other hand has added about 90% of the material, including 95% of the 64 references on the page. User:Collect began on this page by spending weeks with a couple of other editors in a piety edit war deleting text in the first sentence of Business Plot. Edit war with User:Annoynmous.
 * User:Collect then began deleting alternate names for the Business Plot, which is when User:Ikip got involved. Anyone vaguely familar with this incident would know about these alternative names, but not User:Collect User:Ikip then added 7 references to get User:Collect to stop deleting these alternative names.
 * February 22 User:Collect then deleted several sections of text.
 * Ikip (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

Deleted material of User:Collect
User:Collect references thus far to the article: 0

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

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

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


 * Ikips's use of personal attacks including a claim of wikistalking on my part -- excessive.  Talk pages are for improving articles, and I have found articles can often be improved by making them focussed on the topic. Adding refs on every conspiracy theory out there and every book which says "Nazi" out there is not helpful ion making an encyclopedia article. WP is NOT a place for extensive bibliographies.  "When to use. As described in the When to cite sources section of this guideline, sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image."  Most of the "new material" duplicates material in other WP rticles, hence blurs the concept of "encyclopedia" as opposed to "OR and SYN essay" which is where this article is now.  One might also note that Ikip used a sock on this article last year, making the same sort of charges against others  and using his sock to edit making the SAME edits Ikip is now making again .   may also be of interest.   Collect (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What claim of wikistalking? I never said you wikistalked. I suspected you "followed" me here. I removed that claim and I apologize for saying "following".
 * The sock is a legitamate one, which I widely acknowledge is my own, and have stopped using. The reason you may have found it so easily, is because I still use many of the templates created by that sock on my archive page. I added a sock templates on the RWV page. I mention the sock on my list of 100 articles created, and I openly state that this is an alternative account. I would just as soon have the account deleted.
 * I will not get in long drawn out debates. That has led to many articles being protected for months on other pages. Instead, I am actively pursuing third party intervention. The bottom line is that it appears like your understanding of this incident is low, your one actual contribution to this article is one word "alleged", you have deleted 3 pages of well referenced text, you have a rich history of edit warring and deleting well reference material and you haven't added a single reference. I will actively pursue third party intervention. Ikip (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material of User:THF

 * Cramer is an amateur historian ====


 * Per talk page; WP:NOT ====
 * Tighten; RS; NPOV ====


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


 * conform lead to NPOV ====
 * Conform lead to text of article add cite ====


 * Tags ====

This obnoxious chart is neither an accurate characterization of my edits nor of my reasons for the edits. THF (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The undated update of the chart continues to misrepresent my stated reasons for the edits, as well as misrepresents the facts of the underlying committee report and historical record. I've responded to Ikip multiple times on this page, yet this chart does not even acknowledge that I have addressed his arguments, and he simply repeats them for what is now the eighth time without any recognition that multiple editors have refuted his citation to the subcommittee report or any attempt to address those refutations.
 * To take one obvious and egregious example, the deletion of the list of committee members was addressed on this page in a separate section initiated by me. In violation of WP:TALK, Ikip even copied and pasted it so that it was taking place in two different sections on this talk page (one of many ways he has made this talk-page unreadable).  I gave extensive reasoning, backed by policy.  Two other editors agreed with me.  Ikip has made no effort to respond to those three editors' defense of the deletion, and instead repeats his complaint: this is now the eighth time he has asked the exact same question on the article talk page (as well as several times on my talk page and I think once on someone else's talk page), without any acknowledgement of the list of reasons I (or other editors) gave for deletion.  I question why I bother responding to Ikip at all: he has given no indication that he has read a single word I have written.  For someone so fond of quoting the tendentious editing definition, Ikip is doing a lot of it.  THF (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * please strike or remove (refactor) out the word "obnoxious", as it is uncivil. And please remove the hidden tag, as I have asked you personally on your talk page, thank you. I quoted you verbatium on the reasons why you deleted these sections.  I then asked five neutral questions in an attempt to understand why you deleted these sections, which you refuse to answer in violation of TEDIOUS and Disruptive_editing: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".  Ikip (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I was wrong, THF didn't delete 1400 words THF only deleted 1368 words, indicated in red, all in the space of an hour and 14 minutes, with no prior discussion on the talk page before. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I agree with the removal of:




 * U.S. House of Representatives, Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities, Hearings 73-D.C.-6, Part 1, 73rd Congress, 2nd session, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1935).
 * Some of President Roosevelt's advisors were plotters, and downplayed the matter, avoiding exposure. Note: I kind find several sources for this speculation
 * In 1934, newspapers were controlled by an élite — according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82 per cent of daily newspapers monopolised their communities; the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners. Note: I kind find several sources for this speculation
 * In 1934, newspapers were controlled by an élite — according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82 per cent of daily newspapers monopolised their communities; the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners. Note: I kind find several sources for this speculation

=== Related subjects ===


 * Goodman, Walter (1968). The Committee: The Extraordinary Career of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Farrar Straus & Giroux. ISBN 0-374-12688-7.


 * Helms, Harry (2003). Inside the Shadow Government: National Emergencies and the Cult of Secrecy. Feral House. ISBN 092291589X.


 * Higham, Charles (1982). Trading With the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot, 1933-1949. Doubleday. ISBN 0385290802.


 * Hougan, Jim (1978). Spooks: The Haunting of America: The Private Use of Secret Agents. William Morrow & Co. ISBN 0688033555.


 * Hopsicker, Daniel (2001). Barry & 'the Boys' : The CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History. Mad Cow Press. ISBN 0970659105.


 * Thomas, Kenn (2003). The Octopus: Secret Government and the Death of Danny Casolaro. Feral House. ISBN 0922915911.


 * Wolfskill, George (1962). The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League 1934-1940. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-8371-7251-9.


 * Wolfskill, George John A. Hudson (1969). All but the people: Franklin D. Roosevelt and His Critics, 1933-39. Macmillan. ASIN: B0006BYJJQ.
 * }

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


 * This is a matter for consensus, not for unilateral demands.  And please do cease making dozens of edits to this page (per history) -- it makes it quite difficult to see if anything substantive has been altered by all of your moves. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, I see no effort by you to compromise on this matter and I do see evidence of unilateral action on your part to radically edit this article even though there are editors who disagree with your approach. Now I"m getting back to my basement renovation (the reason for my multi-week absence from Wikipedia). Mattnad (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * That it what is was until the silliness of adding anything remotely Nazi-related got here. It was "alleged" per every cite I found, but I got 3RR warned for that insistence . Welcome!  Gllad to have another pair of eyes here. Collect (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this should say "alleged," and, as I have seen only one individual supporting its omission, am reinserting it. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Removal of members
RE this edit: 

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


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


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


 * Again, How does the committe section violate WP:IINFO? That was the reason you deleted the section, wasn't it?
 * And by the way, hiding other editors contributions on talk pages is against talk page policy, please remove this. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


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


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

"generous spin control"
It is extraordinarily implausible that Butler testified to an offer of "generous spin control" given that "spin" is a neologism that did not exist for another half-century. THF (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that piece must be removed. It is non-factual.Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC
In the past week, two editors have deleted, deleting 1,184 words of well referenced material and 1400+ words of material, each, no discussion until after the deletion. This continues a two year edit war over this article, where editors have deleted nearly every word at least once, the faces have changed, but the deletion remains the same. I encourage editors to help make this artice NPOV with their own and references, not deleting other editors contributions.
 * Support as creator of RfC. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bad faith RfC. Discussion has been ample. Accusations made about editors have been made inappropriately. RfC is not neutrally worded in any sense of the word.   Editing includes removing material which clearly does not belong in an article. "Counting words" is irrelevant.  A few other objections, but this is a start. Collect (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion has only occured after edit warring, instigated by user Collect and THF. Collect had deleted those 1,184 well referenced words, which had been on the cite for years, and only afterwards posted a reason for the mass deletions on this talk page. The page was protected after Collect started the first edit war. This is the same pattern of behavior as on other pages, including Joe the Plumber. THF, tactics were exactly the same.  Are these good faith edits, is this the way to help build consensus and find comprimise?
 * Editor THC repeatedly refuses to answer five questions I have asked him in violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions" and WP:TEDIOUS: "simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored."
 * During a heated edit war yesterday, User:THF changed the name of the article, when it was reverted, he only then posted a reason on the talk page. This is not consensus building behavior, this is not how you find comprimise. Ikip (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP guidelines, it is clear that this is not a valid RfC. Thanks for making it so clear. Collect (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I extensively rewrote the introduction in an attempt at comprimise, instead of calling the RfC bad faith, why not suggest alternative solutions to the RfC explanation please? What would you suggest? Ikip (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, I would suggest you read WP:RFC, and conform your request to the way an RFC should be phrased. I have no idea what your argument is, so I cannot propose a compromise; as best I can tell, your argument is that anything ever added to a page is sacrosanct and can never be edited again, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a "disruptive edit-warrior," which is neither the meaning of "disruptive" or edit-warring.  Since your argument is divorced from actual Wikipedia policy, I have no idea how to phrase your argument for further discussion.  All I've seen so far are personal attacks on other editors. THF (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That you rewrote the "introduction" does not mean my comments somehow disappear. As I find the entire topic of thinking that editors ought not "edit"  to not merit an RfC, that should suffice. Collect (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "I have no idea what your argument is, so I cannot propose a compromise"
 * WP:TEDIOUS:
 * "simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e.g."You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."
 * How would you suggest this RFC be worded Collect and THF?
 * "your argument is that anything ever added to a page is sacrosanct and can never be edited again, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a "disruptive edit-warrior," which is neither the meaning of "disruptive" or edit-warring."
 * I don't recall ever saying that in this RfC. Can you show me the edit diffs please?
 * "Since your argument is divorced from actual Wikipedia policy, I have no idea how to phrase your argument for further discussion. All I've seen so far are personal attacks on other editors."
 * Is asking 5 neutral questions a personal attack? I suggest that you please temper your blanket statment, as it is not correct. Ikip (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of the article: "Business Plot" or "Business Plot conspiracy theory"?
The title of the article violates NPOV. "Business Plot" falsely implies that there is a historical consensus that the plot exists, when in fact this is a fringe theory. The correct title of the article on the Wikipedia MOS is "Business Plot conspiracy theory". THF (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to Business Plot conspiracy theory. Wikipedia requires NPOV titles, and like other conspiracy theories and fringe theories, the title should reflect the fact that the "Business Plot" is not an accepted event in American history. THF (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename as being more accurate. To insist that a person with whom I notably disagreed is a cohort of mine is --- interesting . In this case, moreover, we agree. Accusing people who agree sometimes of being a "conspiracy" is even more --- interesting. Collect (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See !vote below Ikip (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The problem with referring to it as a conspiracy theory is this -- where is the 'theory?'  Who is making conspiracy theories here?  As I said ages back the last time this came up:  Butler's testimony (the fact that he gave it, not its accuracy) is fact, not conspiracy theory.  Whether he was telling the truth, telling an outright lie, or the situation was more complicated (i.e. an elaborate scam of some sort by MacGuire, one common theory), it was not a 'conspiracy theory' on his part -- he either believed what he was telling, or he was deliberately lying; he wasn't inventing speculative theories whole cloth.  The article should simply cover those events -- Butler's testimony, how people reacted to it, the more definite events leading up to it, the conclusions of historians and so on -- without trying to draw extraneous conclusions or convince the reader about anything else beyond the fact that the testimony happened.  Calling it a 'conspiracy theory' is out of line, since there is no theorizing here, just a Congressional investigation involving claims and counterclaims -- the article shouldn't consist of theories itself (beyond perhaps in a section on historical treatment), and if it does go out of line, those should be removed.  This is not an article about a conspiracy theory, though, or even (lead aside) about any plot itself; it's primarily an article about a congressional affair, about the events leading up to and following Butler's accusitions that there was a plot. (In fact, "The Butler Affair" or "The MacGuire Affair" would be possible titles, since their involvement with the ensuing Congressional brouhaha is something, at least, that can be said with certainty.  But neither seem to be used frequently enough to serve as the title.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the same reason the JFK assassination as prosecuted (the Clay Shaw Trial) is considered a conspiracy theory even though evidence was submitted under oath. If it is not clearly proven, it is a theory. And with the facts being presented to no one at all for a "finding of fact" -- that is where it is. Collect (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, what was the conclusion of the Clay Shaw Trial, what was the conclusion of the Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session ? Ikip (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Clay Shaw was actually indicted by a Grand Jury. No one was indicted here. And the report itself does not claim that the "plot" existed, only that (other than the claims about MacGuire) it believed it proved Butler's claims about times and places. Collect (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, some WP:TALK etiquette, please: we've read your argument the first three times. Repeating it word-for-word a fourth and fifth time, but putting it in bold, isn't going to make it any more persuasive. All it does is make the talk page impossible to read. The conclusion of the HUAC investigation was that there was nothing there to prosecute and nothing got prosecuted--even though the Roosevelt administration had no compunction about using the DOJ to hound innocent political opponents like Andrew Mellon. Taking a couple of sentences out of context from that historical reality doesn't change that fact. THF (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The theory is, inter alia, (1) in books like Archer's, where there is speculation and whatnot why someone as implausible as Butler was approached, and much speculation filling in the gigantic interstitial gaps in the facts; (2) speculations why Congress was "afraid" to call the Wall Street bankers who were "really" behind the conspiracy; and (3) in tendentious interpretations of the House Committee report to mean far more than it actually meant -- as seen in the obnoxious block quote that someone put at the top of this section. THF (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * THF, what was the conclusion of the conclusion of the Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session? You are welcome to use the own articles 64 references yet again to bolster your own POV, to ironically and unfairly show that this article is biased and NPOV. Ikip (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But the article is not primarily about the books like Archer's. They're peripheral to the actual subject.  This article is, if you read its text, primarily about Butler's accusations and the congressional investigation that followed.  The Trial of Clay Shaw article is not called the Trial of Clay Shaw Conspiracy Theory, and doesn't have a Conspiracy Theory tag on it or any silliness like that.  This article should not, either. --Aquillion (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is, with the exception of one section segregated out (and the lead, which I rewrote yesterday), entirely written from Archer's perspective, and assumes that the Plot happened, which is why there is an NPOV tag. Your Trial of Clay Shaw example supports my argument: it is prominently listed in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. THF (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The article is, with the exception of one section segregated out (and the lead, which I rewrote yesterday), entirely written from Archer's perspective"
 * Wow, as the guideline states, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So should we just delete everything, thousands of words of well referenced text, including the BBC, historian Schmidt, the House of Representatives text, because it doesn't have the same NPOV as the articles you cherry picked to put in the introduction? The BBC, historian Schmidt, the House of Representatives, are all writing from "Archer's perspective", that sounds like a classic conspiracy theory to me. Ikip (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my example; that was a response to Collect, who compared this article to that one. I agree that this article should not draw conclusions beyond what is in the testimony and an overview, near the end, of various historical perspectives, cited to the various authors whose perspectives they represent or who exemplify those perspectives. But where does the article say or imply that the plot happened? If you can point it out definitively, I would agree that it should be removed. I do not agree, though, that Butler's testimony is a conspiracy theory, or this article primarily covers conspiracy theories. It covers (and should cover) only what is definitely known, with speculation indicated at the end (and if you feel that some lines of speculation -- like Archer's -- amount to conspiracy theory, it might make sense to note that many/most people view it as such there in the section devoted to perspectives.) But I object to the implication that that the entire affair is purely conjecture; even the most skeptical of the voices quoted at the end generally do not assert that, and most agree that it was probably nothing more than idle talk. That isn't a plot that threatens an entire nation, no, but an article about it is not an article about 'conspiracy theory', either. --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be frank, the article is in much much better shape than it was two days ago, and my concerns perhaps anticipate the massive reversion to reinsert conspiracy theory that will happen as soon as we look the other way more than the existing article. But even under the current version the "Timeline of events" synthesis and the uncited original research incorrectly attributed to unnamed "historians" assumes a substantive plot. THF (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(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)
 * Support renaming to Business Plot conspiracy theory. It is obvious that this is a fringe theory, because it does not appear in any mainstream American history books. It isn't even mentioned in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".  Face, it.  It is fringe.--Paul (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming largely per Aquillion.The "Business Plot" title does not imply anything. We have plenty of articles on fictional characters, unrecognized states, etc.  "Conspiracy theory" is too pejorative and connotes more historical consensus than exists, and seems stronger than the sources.  IMHO, this is in essence a mostly forgotten chapter of history about which there is no real consensus, not much interest, and not much solid stuff for historians to write and base judgments on.  We shouldn't strongly imply that the allegations were true, false or whatever, just try to be neutral. Zinn may mention it in passing somewhere, IIRC. John Z (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming John Z pretty much speaks for me here, and I don't get why Collect keeps trying to compare this to the JFK assassination as the "definition" of what a conspiracy theory "is", at most Collect's argument is a red herring. The fact of the matter is (or should I say "was") that the JFK assassination entered into the publics imagination while the "Business Plot" did not.  The JFK assassination was thoroughly researched and studied, while even the "Business Plot"'s name is barely known.  Yet while every House study over there being a said "conspiracy" involved in the JFK assassination has turned up with no evidence but conflicting accounts as to how many shots were fired, the "Business Plot" was written into the House record with the testimony of two witnesses and the conflicting accounts of a suspect.--Waxsin (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Not a conspiracy as per: The Bipartisan United States House of Representatives Committee, Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington, D.C. p.8-114 D.C. 6 II conclusion:
 * "In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
 * I am concerned that there has been no effort to compromise on what another RfC should be about, as I invited other editors to do. Instead we now have two active RfCs on the same article. I suggest we merge this RfC into, with THF's wording intact. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One !vote per editor, please; you don't get to !vote repeatedly, so I've moved this with your earlier vote. The issue of whether the page should be renamed and whether the Category "conspiracy theory" should be applied to a conspiracy theory is an issue separate than the issue raised by your malformed RfC above, and requires a separate RfC. THF (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the word malformed really necessary? This RfC is distinctly, seperate from the informal straw poll. Lets have a moritorium on moving comments please, becuase it makes the conversations hard to follow. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ikip, if you are concerned about talk-page readability, then (1) stop repeating yourself word-for-word six times as you have done with the quote from the Committee, and (2) stop editing conversations that have already taken place. I now predict that you will continue to make the talk-page even more unreadable by insisting on having the WP:LASTWORD and repeating yourself an eighth time about a dispute unrelated to the title of the page section. THF (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC), updated to clarify 15:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Asking repeated questions is because of a refusal to answer repeated neutral questions about your edit history on this page, in an attempt to build a consensus and comprimise.
 * (2) Is removing your accusations of personal attacks, and to a lesser extent clarify my position.
 * I would strongly suggest everyone spend more time attempting to reach a consensus and comprise, then trying to hide the conversations with tags, and accusing other editors edits of being "obnoxious". Ikip (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I am sorry THF, but I responded first to this RfC. Please do not move:
 * === Title RFC ===


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


 * Note To quote THF in the MFD at Redirects_for_discussion but which apply here:
 * "Improbable POV redirect; orphan; doesn't meet WP:MOS anyway...The phrase "Wall Street Fascist Conspiracy" does not appear once in that 70-year-old article, which suggests that the phrase that the article did use is not remotely memorable."
 * So "Business Plot conspiracy theory" is okay but Wall Street Fascist Conspiracy isn't? Hmm...
 * There are no sources for the title "Business Plot conspiracy theory" either:
 * Google books: "No results found for "Business Plot conspiracy theory".
 * Google scholar: "Your search - "Business Plot conspiracy theory" - did not match any articles."
 * Google news, archive: "Your search - "Business Plot conspiracy theory" - did not match any documents."
 * Google: No results but the two results of which THF created on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a "conspiracy theory." It was called at the time "Business Plot" hence the combination (note that capital letters would assert it is a proper name) is "Business Plot conspiracy theory" not asserting that "conspiracy theory" is part of a proper name.  UFO conspiracy theory,  Global warmoing conspiracy theory,  Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories,  New World Order (conspiracy theory), Chemtrail conspiracy theory,  and that was just at the start of thousands of WP article name hits. Collect (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a "conspiracy theory." It was called at the time "Business Plot" hence the combination (note that capital letters would assert it is a proper name) is "Business Plot conspiracy theory" not asserting that "conspiracy theory" is part of a proper name.  UFO conspiracy theory,  Global warmoing conspiracy theory,  Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories,  New World Order (conspiracy theory), Chemtrail conspiracy theory,  and that was just at the start of thousands of WP article name hits. Collect (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the outside editor said it best:
 * "Per WP:NAME the most common name should be employed; no judgement as to the subject's status as real or fictional should be inferred from the title."

No one else calls this "Business Plot conspiracy theory" except for you and THF. As per MADEUPINONEDAY and WP:NOT:
 * Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. "If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead."
 * So you and your friend, THF, shouldn't invite a word then expect Wikipedia to take your new term seriously. Ikip (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Views of outside editors

 * Business Plot is the manner in which this incident is commonly referenced, that should be the title of the article. Dlabtot (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NAME the most common name should be employed; no judgement as to the subject's status as real or fictional should be inferred from the title - see eg Peter Pan, to pick an example at random. From a quick look at sources the most common name seems to be Business Plot but I'm not really familiar with the subject. Rd232 talk 15:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Business Plot - it's the common name, for those who know about it. 'Nuff said. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source issue

 * Jules Archer, who has a degree in advertising, and whose book about this subject is strongly criticized by historians, is a questionable source, and the text of the article needs to acknowledge that when it cites to him. The article as a whole relies too heavily on Archer and quote-mining from primary sources, and not enough on mainstream historians. THF (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * THF, quoting the own sources that I added. Why not add this to the article. This is a tired retreated of an argument which has gone on at least twice before. Ikip (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clayton Cramer is also questionable as a source. THF (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * why don't you quote my own sources to confirm this? Ironically, thus far you have only used my own references to back up your POV: this shows that, (1) this is a well referenced article, and (2) it is an unbiased article,
 * Clayton Cramer has been argued ad nasium before. If he is so questionable why does he have a wikipedia site? Ikip (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cramer has a page because of his notable work exposing Michael Bellesiles's fraud. He probably shouldn't have a page, since it's essentially WP:ONEEVENT. Again, if you expect me to acknowledge previous discussions, you need to link to them. I'm not slogging through your hundreds of personal attacks against editors who challenged your ownership of the page. THF (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting bad faith edit warring, including moving the page to a POV title, with no discussion, is not ownership. I welcome your well referenced additions to this article that support your own POV, but no one should tolerate crude, disruptive edit warring to support your own POV.
 * Not only are you using the same rehashed arguments, I find it so ironic that you use the existing references in the article, to bolster your own POV. This clearly shows that this article is actually quite balanced.
 * Ikip (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Clayton Cramer

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

Jules Archer

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

Livejournal links
I gather a historian has been reprinting contemporaneous materials on his livejournal, but, as helpful as that is for otherwise inaccessible seventy-year-old sources, it doesn't seem appropriate for 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)
 * then instead of deleting them, causing edit wars, find better web pages with the same content. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How do I "cause" you to edit-war to include material that does not belong in Wikipedia? If I had that kind of mind-control over you, I'd have you send me money rather than violate Wikipedia policies. THF (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Ikip (talk) 09:45, 27 February 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?
 * 2) How does the committe setion violate WP:IINFO?
 * 3) Why is historain Hans Schmidt not a reliable source?
 * 4) Why did you remove the "Deleted testimony to the Congressional Committee", showing that damaging congessional testimony was deleted from the official record, and in the very next edit, move the page to Business Plot conspiracy theory stating "NPOV. The existence of the Business Plot is a fringe theory."?
 * 5) Why didn't you discuss the page move to Business Plot conspiracy theory, before? You were aware of the edit war going on.
 * looking forward to that response, THF. Ikip (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you can adhere to WP:CIVIL, stop the personal attacks and "When did you stop beating your wife" interrogation, accurately characterize my stated reasons for the edits I've made, retract your false accusation of "edit warring," and surrender your ownership of the page, I might consider repeating what I've already said about my edits above. The only disruption on this page is your confrontational style, and your refusal to acknowledge consensus.  THF (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per TEDIOUS:
 * No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor, but simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e.g."You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?") Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors.
 * I have removed many of the edit you disagree with and I am sorry and apologize for making you upset. I will happily refactor out any comments you find distressing. I would ask in return that you restore the 1,400 words you deleted yesterday, until real consensus is reached here.
 * I look forward to your response. Ikip (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why did you disruptively edit war?" is not a civil "clarifying question." The answer is Mu. THF (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five questions directly above do not state this, this is your own words. I would appreciate an answer please. I would like to understand the reasoning and logic behind your 1400 deletions yesterday of exhastively researched content, in the hope of reaching consensus and comprimise.Ikip (talk)

I did answer: I dispute the premise behind your questions, which do not accurately characterize my edits or stated reasons. And you continue to do so, since I did not make "1400 deletions." Stop being disruptive. THF (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question 2: How does the committe section violate WP:IINFO?
 * How is this question negative?
 * please answer instead of hiding the detailed history of your deletions.
 * If you didn't delete 1400 words yesterday, how many words did you delete yesterday THF? i cut and pasted all of your deletions into word, and came up with just over 1400. Collect's was even more. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For Christ's sake By the hammer of Grabthar, Ikip, I explained the deletion of the committee yesterday, and you still haven't responded to my answer, even as you have added over 20k to this page. If you weren't busy making the talk page unreadable with personal attacks, you would have seen my response. THF (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

===Removal of members===

RE this edit: 

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


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


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


 * And I see by a closer look at WP:NOT that I should have said WP:NOTDIR or just WP:NOT rather than WP:NOT. 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, though my 26 Feb explanation more than made up for it. THF (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, How does the committe section violate WP:IINFO? That was the reason you deleted the section, wasn't it?
 * And by the way, hiding other editors contributions on talk pages is against talk page policy, please remove this. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Using a show/hide choice is standard for verrrry long stuff. MEGO is the other option. Collect (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too tend to agree that, unless the names of the members of the committee can be shown to be directly relevant to the subject matter of the article, which to date they haven't been, there is no real reason to list them in the article, as the names haven't yet been particularly well established as being particularly relevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * THF, how does the committe section violate WP:IINFO, per this edit? Ikip (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, why did you (1) copy and paste a section that already exists, and (2) reask a question for the seventh time that I have already answered twice and that two other editors have stated they agree with me about? What are you trying to accomplish by making the talk-page so unreadable? THF (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit diffs please. Ikip (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * This is now the ninth time you've raised the exact question that I've previously answered without fully acknowledging the answer I had previously given. It is hard to see a good-faith reason for you doing this, since you clearly don't care what I answer, since you have repeatedly ignored it. THF (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * you never answered the question your silence leads me to deduce, that this list has nothing to do with IINFO at all. The trivia issue will be addressed later. Ikip (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is now the tenth time you've raised the exact question that I've previously answered without fully acknowledging the answer I had previously given. It is hard to see a good-faith reason for you doing this, since you clearly don't care what I answer, since you have repeatedly ignored it. THF (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I am glad we agree that IINFO was a mistake. Ikip (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Committee information?
I have yet to see clearly the reason why the list of the members of the committee is so important that it must be included. It certainly would be relevant to mention any individual members who are in some way notably involved with the subject as members of the committee, but I haven't directly seen anything that leads me to think that any were specifically involved. But I think that it might make most sense to limit the information to those individuals who are otherwise mentioned in the article, at least initially. I have also contacted the 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)
 * You want the edit history, this list was added as a comprimise, because the head of the committee was a communist spy. The communist spy section was deleted by other editors, but the list remains.
 * This "Relevance of Committee information" is like saying a list of 9/11 hijackers is not relevant to 9/11.
 * 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.
 * These members were a part of the committee which drafted and created the congressional report.
 * Does this answer your question clearly? 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent example, Ikip. There is no list of hijackers in the September 11 attacks article.  (There is a separate Hijackers in the September 11 attacks article, but that reflects that subject's independent notability.) THF (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please calm down THF. I am shocked that my answer is not satisfactory to you, but considering someone who thinks BBC is not a valid source, because BBC doesn't share your POV....
 * How many articles would you like me to show which havesimilar lists inside them, 100? 200? Want to bet you will not be satisfied with this list? I am not asking to split off the article THF. can we all agree that this the members of the committee were actually those people who created the document about the plot?
 * Is this clear enough John Carter? All committee members have their own main page, they were congressional members in this committee. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is now the fourth time in 24 hours you have violated WP:TALK by falsely misrepresenting my position on the BBC, and that doesn't include your other violations of WP:TALK. First, why do you find it necessary to make the talk-page unreadable by repeating the same personal attack over and over?  Second, why do you do so in a subject completely unrelated to the Buchanan quote? THF (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

avoid editing talk page please
Please avoid refactors and deletions here -- I find it very hard to follow to see if somewhint was "deleted-deleted" or not, and it may misrepresent the sequences of threads. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, you object to refactoring comments on this talk page, what you call "deletions" but you support deleting 1,184 well referenced words with no discussion before hand on the main space page? I am confused. Ikip (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading the guidelines about Talk pages. "Refactoring" is not the end result of some of your actions.  Talk pages are for (oh my gosh!) TALK about improving the article.  As for claims that I do not discuss edits here, that is a palpable falsehood and does not belong on ANY page of WP. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you talk about the 1,184 well referenced words before you deleted them? Edit diffs please. I appreciate you striking the palpable falsehood claim, as you did, in fact, delete 1,184 words with no prior discussion. 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Business Plot
RE:, moved here, then refactored out by THF.
 * I am truly saddened that we cannot reach a comprimise. Ikip (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving posts from User Talk pages and posting them AS THOUGH THEY HAD BEEN POSTED HERE is grossly improper.  If one is citing a user talk page, one must make it extremely clear, and even then, wrenched from context, such actions are reprehensible.  THF has not only a  right to remove such a post placed as though he had written it here, he has an obligation to do so. Collect (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The post is copy and pasted here is on topic, he is talking about the busines plot in that message. I asked THF to stop posting on my talk page, I would like to keep the conversation here, instead of it expanding to other pages.
 * THF also said in that post that he was no longer going to edit this article, which, obviously is not the case.
 * I am used to the vivid acronyms that both you and THF use, "grossly improper", "reprehensible". Calling me "delusional", my edits "obnoxious", "wikistalking", "harrassment", "bad faith", "fake edit summaries", "badger", "hounding", "heckler's veto", "false allegations", "WP:HOUND". If you noticed, I have since removed all of my comments like this from this page, and will continue to do so, and have stopped saying such things.
 * But despite repeated requests for THF to do the same, he has refused. Because of THF's tone, several people have commented on the Wikiquette alerts‎
 * "This thread is just more effort focused on "tattle tale" antics than encyclopedia writing."
 * "I find User:THC behavior toward the new editor Abbarocks and some other editors awkward "
 * Where is the outrage about THF hiding my comments several times, some as long as 50+ words, THF's refusal to delete personal attacks? Your righteous condemnation of my actions would be more sympathetic if you didn't have no problem with the actions of THF. Ikip (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is yet another Ikip violation of Talk_page_guidelines. It is also refuted by this inconvenient fact. THF (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry me pointing out your repeated personal attacks is a personal attack? Please explain, I am facinated. Ikip (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

"Some historians"
I write regarding the following text:


 * Some historians argue that the story embarrassed politically influential business people, who felt it best to deflect attention from themselves.
 * In 1934, newspapers were controlled by an élite &mdash; according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82 per cent of daily newspapers monopolised their communities; some historians argue that the media down-played Gen. Butler's testimony to protect the interests of advertisers and their owners.
 * Some historians speculate that some of President Roosevelt's advisors were plotters, and downplayed the matter to avoid exposure.
 * In the BBC Radio Document program, The Whitehouse Coup, John Buchanan suggests President Roosevelt stopped the investigation for a political deal: "The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted".


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

I propose deleting all four bullet points, though I'm willing to keep the first three if they're sourced to a credible historian. THF (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC is not a credible source? Ikip (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess not: "And any news program that quotes him is by definition a questionable source." Maybe we should start a third RfC, and see how few people actually agree with you. Wow, lets take this a step further, does this mean that any article which mentions that the plot as happening is not a reliable source? The history channel is not a reliabile source? The congressional committee is not a reliable source?
 * It seems from your edit history that you cherry pick only sources which support your own POV. Ikip (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF Collect (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Buchanan
Although I don't doubt their good intentions, it seems as if some editors have a strong personal POV regarding the nature of this article because they use biased words like "sensationalist" and "baseless invented conspiracy theory". Is it reasonable for those with such strong POV to be editing the article aggressively? Abbarocks (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I also object to religious references like "For ...ist's sake" being used here; it's inappropriate in several ways. Abbarocks (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at John Buchanan (American politician)? If he's not a conspiracy theorist, who is?  And any news program that quotes him is by definition a questionable source.  I've removed the religious reference; apologies for the inadvertent offense. THF (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's legitimate to quote Buchanan if the source given is the BBC, and Radio 4. It is a reliable source for wikipedia requirements, and NPOV demands that such sources be represented, regardless of editors' opinions. We present the viewpoints and let  readers make up their own minds. The argument that any news program that quotes him is therefore invalid as a source is not in accord with NPOV.  As Buchanan seems to be a journalist, not a historian, his inclusion in a section titled "historians" would not appear to be accurate. Unless there are reliable sources to validate putting Buchanan in a "fringe conspiracy theory" section, then there are no grounds for doing so. It would be better to weave all historians' and others' comments into the main narrative. If Arthur Schlesinger is not adequately represented, the solution is to increase his representation.  Ty  03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your position contradicts WP:UNDUE. And here is a reliable source for "conspiracy theorist," though I would think that would be self-obvious without the reliable source. THF (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your link is to a precis ("teaser" in media parlance) of the show which is not, in and of itself, much of a source. The actual show as edited is far less lurid as to what it claims than the precis is.    Collect (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC is not much of a source? The BBC? Ikip (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The first issue to determine is whether the BBC is a reliable source. THF says it is not: "And any news program that quotes him is by definition a 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. 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.

 Ty  14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Who else holds Buchanan's views. The BBC did not endorse Buchanan's opinion, merely gave him a soapbox; the BBC broadcasts Uri Geller, also, and Geller is still treated as a QS.  Buchanan is not a "historian," and his speculative theory does not have credibility, and is not based on any historical facts.  It doesn't belong in the article. THF (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what Buchanan's views are. That is irrelevant, as is whether the BBC endorsed his views or not. The BBC does not endorse anyone's views: it gives attention (or soapbox in your pejorative subjective term) to what it considers relevant. As it is a reliable source of considerable weight, then wikipedia follows that. We are not discussing whether Buchanan is a reliable source; we are discussing whether the BBC is a reliable source, which is it. If it chooses to give exposure to something, which may be a speculative theory, then that should be mentioned in the way in which the BBC presents it, as opinion, statement, speculative theory or whatever. This is basis wikipedia policy.  Ty  15:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)Recordings are "primary sources" and hence only valid as a statement of what the recording says, not as to fact. WP:PRIMARY The transcript would be valid as a cite for what the program said. And the link given was, in fact, to the precis. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A recording is no different to any other source per se. It is simply information presented in aurally recorded format as opposed to a visually recorded format. As to what it is valid for, that depends on what its content is and how it is cast. I am not suggesting that the programme validates the content of Buchanan's views as fact, but it validates the fact that he has certain views, and that is how the content should be presented in the article. I don't think you can give a direct link to the recording; you have to click the link on the page. That should be specified in the ref. Per WP:TPG, please avoid bolding posts, as it is considered raising your voice.  Ty  15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IOW that the program itself is only RS as far as what Buchanan's views are -- which means that his published views are a more accurate source for that -- correct?  The BBC link shows the "teaser" which is about as accurate  as the teasers done for yout 11 o'clock news ...  and I still think a transcript is verifiable, while characterizing the program itself does not lend itself to being verified, and a general statement as to what is in the program is certainly a matter of interpretation rather than of quoting from the program itself (as most RS cites require).  Collect (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "published views". The program is a RS source for them, as other sources may be. The BBC has given its authority to publishing the "teaser" text, so it is valid. It would probably be better to use content from the program itself. The content of the program is verifiable, as there is a link to listen to it, so anyone can do that.  A general statement about the program could well be problematic, as you say, so specific points/quotes would be the best use of it.  Ty  11:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC is a reliable source for what Buchanan's views are, and could be cited in Buchanan's article. Buchanan's views themselves are WP:FRINGE, held by no one credible, and it would violate WP:UNDUE (which explicitly requires exclusion of them) to include them in a history article, and unquestionably violates WP:POV to include them in a "historians" section that misleadingly implies that they are on a par with Schlesinger and other mainstream historians, and is an even worse violation to put it at the top of the section.  There is a slightly better argument for creating an "In conspiracy theories" section where a sentence (but only a sentence) on Buchanan could be included.  THF (talk) 11:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a historians' section now, but a "later reactions" one. I've already pointed out above that WP:UNDUE allows Buchanan per his exposure by the BBC, so you need to drop that. Buchanan is now at the bottom of the section. There is one quote from Buchanan, and a quote from the BBC site after it. Readers now have information published by a major source, so they can make their own minds up, which is in accord with NPOV.  Ty  12:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with
 * the renaming of the section, which violates NPOV by minimizing the viewpoint of mainstream historians;
 * your application of WP:UNDUE given that you have not identified a single person who agrees with Buchanan, merely one source that reported his viewpoint;
 * providing more than a single sentence on Buchanan;
 * with including fringe conspiracy theorists in a section about later reactions by mainstream historians;
 * giving Buchanan's views more prominence than views by mainstream historians;
 * falsely attributing Buchanan's views to "the BBC" and "their documentary" rather than to one particular program broadcast by the BBC. It's Document's documentary, not the BBC's, and it's BBC4 Radio, not the main BBC.  By including both Buchanan and the BBC precis the article effectively double-counts this fringe theory, a double-violation.
 * I'll leave it at that, since this is apparently going to arbitration. THF (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (updated with the sixth point 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

By arbitration, I presume you mean article WP:RFC, which is the next step.  Ty  12:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Historians are not the only people whom it is valid to include. Other commentators can also be cited. In fact NPOV demands that they are. There is no priority for historians.
 * 2) WP:UNDUE allows for minority viewpoints, as I've pointed out before. If Buchanan were published in a blog it would not be valid. Publication by the BBC makes it valid.
 * 3) There is only one sentence on Buchanan. The next sentence is on the BBC web site statement. I have clarified the distinction now.
 * 4) It's actually including a mainstream broadcaster, the BBC, in the section. That is what gives validity.
 * 5) Buchanan is last in the section only as part of the BBC programme.
 * Not to belabor the point but it is precisely the truth-value of There is no priority for historians. that is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that WP:WEIGHT does say that mainstream historians get priority over conspiracy theorists with no historical basis for their claims. THF (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter epithet is your characterisation and hence WP:OR and discountable, unless you have a reliable source to verify it. We don't determine content by what editors think but by the content of sources defined by wikipedia as reliable. As I've pointed out before, WP:NPOV demands that such content should be represented without prejudice.  Ty  23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, OR applies to mainspace, not to talk-page discussion over the reliability or weight to be given to a source. Second of all, "conspiracy theorist" is reliably sourced to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  And, again, you misread NPOV, which simply does not say that fringe conspiracy theorists who hold idiosyncratic views are to be given equal weight with mainstream historians, and you can not quote a single line from that policy that supports that proposition. THF (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And the BBC is RS for what is in a show, not for "facts" presented in a show. Lots of dicsussion about channels being RS in the RS/N -- with the general opinion that the RSness is not a function of the broadcaster at all (see recent discussions on DiscoveryChannel etc.).  "Some are very good history (or science in the case of the Science channel), some are filled with pseudohistorical crap." (blueboar's post) Collect (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar's post does not trump WP:V and WP:NPOV and isn't even about the BBC at all. However, your argument is fallacious. You might just as well say The New York Times is a RS for what is in the paper, not for "facts" presented in the paper. That is a complete misreading of policy. NPOV demands that material in a reliable source should be represented in the way that the source represents it.  Ty  23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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


 * We could easily have Category:People not proven to have been involved in the Business Plot. As far as I can tell, that is everyone who has ever lived, minus one.--Paul (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


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


 * I agree with Alecmconroy and don't find sarcasm helpful (although it is entertaining in a slapstick sort of way) but the edit warriors here have made so many changes I can not find where Prescott's involvement was included before. Was it in and reverted? Abbarocks (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The BBC show makes no allegations about Prescott Bush. Now if nothing shows him to be involved, mentioning him here would be one of the worst COATRACK examples around, no?   Collect (talk) 15:22, 2 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)


 * Unless a reliable source says someone wasn't involved or hasn't been mentioned in connection with something, then that person should not be referred to at all in the article in connection with the subject. If a reliable source addresses the issue, then it is valid.  Ty  15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I see where ay one point this was in the article "The 2007 BBC radio documentary The White House Coup argued that Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected with the plot.[43]" and it was condensed to "The 2007 BBC radio documentary The White House Coup reported on the Business Plot.[47]" Collect, I will listen to the BBC radio program and see what it says. Are you saying it does not mention Prescott Bush or are you saying something else? Abbarocks (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good faith questions should not be met with so much sarcasim:
 * Perhaps we can have a section that lists everybody in the United States who was not involved in the Business Plot. Or we can create Category:People not involved in the Business Plot.
 * The editor was asking an honest question.
 * Maybe it is time we all took a break. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the RS Ty, I think, right from the main BBC page for this show: Why are 2 editors insisting "The BBC show makes no allegations about Prescott Bush"? Am I missing something?

"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." Abbarocks (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinion piece at best -- can be added to with contrary opinions. Collect (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous wording "The 2007 BBC radio documentary The White House Coup argued... etc" seems rather dubious. It is better to be accurate about exactly who said what.  Ty  10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if I am missing the obvious, but I simply can not reconcile the content of the front page of the RS link (which was already in the article references) with Collect's and THF's assertions that the BBC show makes no allegations about Prescott. Was it a mistake by you two, which of course is no big deal at all (not being sarcastic, we all make them), or am I misunderstanding the meaning of your words or the words in the source? Also,Collect, has your position now shifted to downgrading the BBC show to an opinion piece which has little value? I'm really trying to communicate clearly and objectively in moving towards a better article through consensus, but it is hard for me to figure out if the communication lines are clear: I am,admittedly confused about the status of the question as to whether or not the BBC made any mention of Prescott. T o me, that is the case; do others see something different? Abbarocks (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about what was in or wasn't in the BBC show. I simply said that Prescott Bush wasn't involved and wasn't alleged to be involved at the time, and that no one credible says otherwise.  I stand by that, since Buchanan isn't credible.  NB that I'm not Collect, and just because he says something doesn't mean I agree; please don't attribute his arguments to me. THF (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response,THF, and if anything I say would indicate some kind of sarcasm or TRUTH, please just AGF when I tell you I am not ever sarcastic becausE comminication,for me, is hard enough without it. Now, I think that I just need to understand more how talk pages work. From what you just said, I take it that talk pages are the place for editors to express their opinions, so is it reasonable for me to read much of what you say as simply your expressing of your own opinions in the affirmative sense? E.g. How could you know that Prescott Bush wasn't involved? How could you know he wasn't alleged to be involved at the time, and how could you know that no one credible says otherwise. Those 3 statements are simply 3 of your opinions, correct? Now what I am having trouble figuring out is, how does your stating those 3 opinions lead to any type of consensus building here. Is it reasonable for me to respond with opinions of my own? And then others can see and respond to our varying opinions? Is that the way it works?Abbarocks (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it works is WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, using WP:RS, i.e. find reliable sources and represent their position. See also WP:TPG.  Ty  09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascism tag
Was added to the Talk page on 25 March 2008 by User:Wyldkat Collect (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably because Wall Street Fascist Conspiracy is a redirect to this page. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch!--Paul (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it at RfD. Totally improper redirect. THF (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevence tags
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)


 * Consensus first, removal after. See WP:TAGGING for an opinion which I think makes it clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abbarocks is partially correct. The relevance tag is the wrong tag if your complaint is unreliability. If the source is reliable, the information is relevant.  Use verify credibility to indicate the dispute on the talk page.  THF (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Replace it with a more proper tag -- rather than simple removal. Right? Collect (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, remove the relevance tag, but I agree the other tag needs to be added until WP:RS/N decides whether Buchanan is a reliable source. THF (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I am reading TAGGING and can see that a preceding note on the talk page is a crucial ingredient of Constructive Tagging and that then discussion on the talk page precedes tag removal (assuming the note was placed there before tagging). Abbarocks (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

RS/N concerning this article
There is a post concerning this article at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. THF, please post on this page about such actions in future and provide a link.  Ty  23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I thought I had, but I see that I only did so in the edit summary in mainspace. THF (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I accept this was an inadvertent oversight.  Ty  23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually mentioned it at 15:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC) on the talk page, but clearly not prominently enough. Of course, the talk page is a bit of a mess... THF (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I looked on RS/N. Yes, the talk page is a bit of a mess and the article is a bit of a mess. I think the best procedure would be to construct a narrative where there is agreement and isolate the points where there is not, so they can be put on the talk page and worked through. If the article has a strong structure it will make it a lot easier all round.  Ty  00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Redux
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 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)


 * Under WP:BLP because it does connect to living people (sone and grandson are named) it must hold to a very strict standard.  "John Doe, father of John Doe junior was alleged to be the assassin of Abraham Lincoln, although this was considered a hoax"  would not be BLP-proper if junior were alive.  Once the falsehood is uttered, a lot of people will cite that part, and not the rebuttals. Collect (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical that BLP concerns are "inheritable" in the way you suggest, but it's moot in this particular case.  Even if Prescott Bush were still living, I would still argue the issue needs to be addressed.  The BBC and the Huffington Post _are_ reliable sources, in the sense that "reliable sources have mentioned the existence of this allegation".


 * Let me reverse the question-- are there any reliable sources that say the allegation is false?  If the allegation has gone undisputed, then the article should simply include it as a non-controversial fact.  If the allegation is universally disputed, then we have plenty of reliable sources to quote in order to debunk the allegation.   If reliable sources are about evenly split, then we cover it that way.


 * For my part, I don't know which case we're dealing with-- but in none of those cases should Wikipedia simply be silent on the issue. Certainly, there is a time and a place to not discuss non-notable allegations-- but when the allegations have hit places like BBC, Huffington Post, and Digg frontpage, the damage is already done, and honest, factual Wikipedia coverage can only help provide the facts.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:51, 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)


 * Can't comment on that one way or the other. If consensus is indeed that the business plot was 100% fringe lunacy, existing only in lies or imagination, then absolutely, calling a spade a spade would make sense. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:17, 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. 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)


 * For my purposes, that's exactly what I cite the BBC and the Huffington Post for-- not to show the things they say are necessarily factual, but to show that the claims have indeed reached a level of notability that they merit discussion on Wikipedia, one way or the other. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The alleged "involvement" consists of Butler making an unproven and generally scoffed-at allegation about the Liberty League in 1934; Bush, like many Democrats and Republicans (including a future Truman cabinet member), was one of 125,000 members of the Liberty League; ergo [sic], Bush was part of a fascist conspiracy. THF (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Main problem here,imo, is that assertive and controlling editors profess to know the contents of RSs when actually they have not read them (this is if we AGF). Collect insisted that "The BBC show makes no allegations about Prescott Bush." and THF insisted that " Prescott Bush wasn't involved. Not even Spivak's New Masses article claimed that." While most typical editors who are less dedicated to controlling this article's content will come and go, the controllers can continue with the charade that keeping notable (albeit controversial) stuff out of an article is in someway a good thing. It's not that anyone is good or bad, its just that some people are more dedicated, pushy, put more time into the article, and as someone else said, are able to "game" the system. That's life. Abbarocks (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Prescott Bush wasn't involved, and no credible source says otherwise, and no one has shown me a credible source that says he was involved. Was I wrong about Spivak?  I didn't see Prescott Bush's name in there.  Can you restrict talk-page comments on this page to comments about the article, rather than about editors, please?  Repeating your complaint about Collect's incorrect statement about the BBC doesn't help anything. THF (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

SYN claim
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:


 * Buchanan did not release any documents supporting this claim, and business interests continued to agitate against the New Deal in politics and in court, successfully striking down the National Recovery Administration and National Industrial Recovery Act in 1935.

THF (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might like to strike your statement "Ty refuses to discuss and continues to revert even though I added the cite he asked for". I was composing the post below. It doesn't happen in two seconds. You have to allow people time before you start making accusations. Furthermore, I made it quite clear I was not reverting because it was unreferenced, but because it was WP:SYNTH.  Ty  15:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Buchanan did not release any documents supporting this claim" isn't SYNTH, and it's cited. THF (talk) 15:50, 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)


 * The conclusion "business interests continued to agitate against the New Deal in politics and in court" is not novel. It is the central theme of that chapter of the book I cite, and I have accurately characterized that author's position.  Certainly, if the mainspace text accurately concluded "therefore, Buchanan is a liar", that would be impermissible synthesis, but that conclusion is the reader's, not the text's.  We can avoid this problem if we simply remove the unreliable source of Buchanan. THF (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's novel because the book doesn't relate it to Buchanan's position. You are the only person doing that, so you are doing something new, i.e. novel. As I've pointed out above, you are joining two things together with an implication; otherwise there would be no reason to join them together. There is not necessarily any connection between the "business interests" mentioned in the book and the business people referred to by Buchanan.  Ty  15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding edit-warring
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 would prefer to follow WP:BRD, but if you prefer the protocol you have mentioned we can try that.  Ty  15:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" label
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)


 * WP:FRINGE requires that fringe points of view be identified as fringe points of view; "conspiracy theorist" is thus qualitatively different than "racist." (And, incidentally, there is a section in Henry Ford about his anti-Semitism.)  Quite frankly, under WP:UNDUE and WP:QS, Buchanan doesn't belong at all in a legitimate history article, just as we don't include conspiracy theories about the Moon Landing in the Apollo moon landing article.  If we rename the article to Business Plot conspiracy theory, as I originally suggested, then it would make more sense to include various conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact. THF (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But you are not identifying a point of view; you are giving an attribute to an individual. Something that was said about him in January 2006 in a specific context is not something which can be assumed to be automatically applicable thereafter, and particularly in a different context and relating to a different subject in July 2007. You might like to check out WP:TEND, "the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors", regarding your continued resistance to the consensus established at WP:RS/N that it is valid to include Buchanan's view per his inclusion in the BBC program. Business Plot is not analogous to Apollo moon landing, which has Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories; as Business Plot inherently contains conspiracy, but the Moon Landings do not.  Ty  00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is possible you assert a concensus not actually present in the RSN discussions. "If Buchanan has a reputation as an unreliable expert on political matters, especially one who has many fringe views on this or other somewhat related subjects, then that should also be taken into account in terms of how his views are reported. " does not, for example, seem to fit your position, but it is part of the discussion. And "The BBC documetary is an RS that the conspiracy theory exists." is a statement of still another independent editor.  Both appear to agree that stating Buchanan's qualifications on the matter is relevant, which means that sources depicting him as a "conspiracy theorist" are certainly proper at that point.  Collect (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree: there's no consensus at RSN that says Buchanan shouldn't be identified as a conspiracy theorist. It's clearly relevant in this case, because he's propounding a conspiracy theory that contradicts historical fact. I have a good faith reading of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS that says we don't insert clearly fictional material into a non-fictional historical article without identifying it as fictional. I don't think that's tendentious, and enough other editors agree with me that I don't think I'm resisting consensus, especially as I've offered multiple compromise edits, but you're welcome to escalate DR if you think differently, and we can get a formal Wikipedia ruling whether fiction belongs in history articles. I think it's far more tendentious to insist contrary to guidelines, as editors here have in editing today, that a fringe conspiracy theorist get more space than several mainstream historians who have written reliably sourced material on the topic: the Buchanan documentary has six footnotes in the article, while Schlesinger has five. I think there will be another possible solution in a week or two. I don't know what the acronym is for the concept that Wikipedia doesn't have to be fixed right this second, but it exists. THF (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that says it's fiction, then you are welcome to include that statement in the article. If you don't, then your opinion is not of great import. I don't see anyone insisting "that a fringe conspiracy theorist get more space than several mainstream historians." You're making it up. If Schlesinger is not sufficiently well represented, then add more content. Easy.  Ty  01:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) (To Collect) Please read my post properly. I made the point that the consensus is: "it is valid to include Buchanan's view". THF is still insisting: "Quite frankly, under WP:UNDUE and WP:QS, Buchanan doesn't belong at all in a legitimate history article." That is tendentious as it violates the consensus. It was also consensus that it should be shown as his opinion and not as a fact, and this has been adhered to, as it is in quoted speech. There is no consensus to term him a conspiracy theorist, nor not to. This is now being discussed.  Ty  01:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly thought I was reading your post as it was written. And the consensus appears to be that if there is a source for labelling hin a "conspiracy theorist" then it should be allowed in. I agree with THF that there is not a clear reason to include Buchanan at all, so calling it "tendentious" is inapt. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see here a consensus that "if there is a source for labelling hin a "conspiracy theorist" then it should be allowed in." Abbarocks (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, readers who are interested in Buchanan's pov can go to Buchanan's bio and its sources to assess his pov and then make up their own mind as to what he is, without us telling them here as if we are an authority on the correctness and relevance of that label being attached to him in relation to this article about the Business Plot. Abbarocks (talk) 15:17, 5 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)


 * Collect, your comment is a non-sequitor because the topic is whether or not the label should be part of this article on the Business Plott. Abbarocks (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT says that a conspiracy theorist needs to be identified as a conspiracy theorist if he is to be included at all. It violates NPOV to treat a fringe opinion as if it is mainstream.  The cite is there only because editors mysteriously disputed whether Buchanan was a conspiracy theorist. You have edit-warred and complained about this, but not once have you made any acknowledgment of the relevant policy.  THF (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur? The issue is whether we can describe Buchanan as a "conspiracy theorist." Clearly we have at least one RS which calls him that.  Collect (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a 'Conspiracy Theory', there is either a conspiracy or there is not. More likely a scientific measure to be coined as theory is 'Coincidence Theory'. Uneducated individuals who see patterns of occurrence, behavior or even factual evidence of a conspiracy tend to unscientifically theorize that such facts, patters and occurrences are mere coincidence. However when the laws of probabilities are introduced, coincidence is reduced to a factual probability. I would like to know one time in history when men in power were not conspiring. Theory? I wouldn't bet my child's life on it. I have zero respect for Mr. Buchanan, I would not call him a 'Conspiracy Theorist', I would simply call him a liar or at best a propagandist. Concerning General Butler, certainly he was not verbalizing a theory, he was testifying about a conspiracy. Please confer with a good dictionary, preferable Blacks Law. I would also urge you all to understand the root words. A good example is the word government. The latin root words used to form the current word government are Gubernus and Mente. Gubernus means 'to guide or control' and mente means 'mind'. Government root definition is 'mind control'. So when speaking about 'Conspiracy Theory' it is important to understand the history of words and how through misdirection of information or through psychological operations or judicial activism, words are now used to diminish, for example, the testimony of one hell of a gutsy American. Lexicons may change through time but the formal meanings of words do not. Gay certainly is no longer used to convey happy, yet the formal meaning remains happy. For all of the 'Coincidence Theorists' out there, I highly recommend you consider the possibility there there is far less coincidence than you realize. The horrid, inaccurate, misleading, and otherwise deviant use of the word 'alleged' is shameful. With so many voices on the talk page here agreeing that the use of the word 'alleged' is highly improper, one could almost begin to think that the minority who desire to use the word 'alleged' are conspiring to render General Butler's testimony as his theory of conspiracy versus fact. - Must be mere coincidence. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of COI
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)

Parallells to 2009
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)
 * Not sure what you mean by "a proxy idiological war".  Also, what facts do you believe are in dispute? There are people edit-warring over the article, but as far as I can tell, they aren't disputing facts, just characterizations. Dlabtot (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)