Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory (1st nomination)

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Bush family conspiracy theory.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the page.

One listing
for all the rewrites this is still a ludicrously paranoid fantasist's dream article. It is neither encylopædic nor NPOV just some garbled wacky theories from those who believe the Bush family should really be renamed the 'Antichrist' family. The fact that after various attempts by competent contributors it is still bordering on the looney suggests this is an article that deserves the bin or its own page on the 'nutty conspiracies' website, not a page in a credible encyclopædia. (The fact that it has me defending the Bush family is indicative of how nutty the page is, for I am not exactly a fan of the political version of the Brady Bunch!) FearÉIREANN 02:33 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * As it stands now this article doesn't seem to me to be anything like as bad as you are making out, Jtdirl. These conspiracy theories certainly exist, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an article about them.  Maybe it needs some work, but then which articles don't?  I vote to keep it.  GrahamN 13:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Looks okay to me. I say keep it. -- Wapcaplet 13:44 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Not only is this a widely held and common theory, its also true. Keep it. Pizza Puzzle
 * It isn't widely held, it is not a common theory, stating it is true is POV and the article at present in paranoid rubbish. If it is worth keeping (and I very much doubt it is) then it needs a fundamental rewrite, major NPOVing and dramatic culling. As it stands it is a paranoid joke. FearÉIREANN 21:03 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is appropriate to infer that I am "paranoid" for believing such "rubbish". Just because you support Bush, doesn't mean everybody does. And yes, we have very "paranoid" reasons why we don't support him. Pizza Puzzle
 * If read anything of what I have contributed to wiki you would know that far from supporting Bush, I detest him, his politics and the people around him. And I have no problem with an article on this topic. But this article is unadultrated paranoid rubbush, a dubious anti-POV rant which even anti-Bush people find garbage. Stan is correct. If we can produce a good NPOV article then we should. But this article is so far from NPOV it is almost the personification bad agenda-laiden article writing at its worst. FearÉIREANN 21:48 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * As an actual US resident, I can state authoritatively that various conspiracy theories are indeed widespread among the Democrats, and it should be Wikipedia's duty to at least list the claims and the factual tidbits on which they're based, as well as the other facts tending to discredit. It's hard to find NPOV writeups on many of the theories, this is the kind of thing that would make Wikipedia stand out on the web.  For instance, my wife the Bush-hater hears some of these theories from her friends, and I'm always wishing for an objective source that explains the situation. Stan 21:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * I find myself in the unexpected position of agreeing with JTDirl (ie FearÉIREANN) on this matter. All else aside, these Bush allegations are POV theories, not fact, and so should not merit articles as such. These sorts of articles will in all probability serve as precedents for others to present their unproven beliefs as facts. Possibly a page could be set aside entitled "US conspiracy rumours and theories", but that's as far as it should go. Consideration should also be made in regard to possible defamation actions. Arno 09:38 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * See Talk:9-11_domestic_conspiracy_theory for an aricle that approaches this "objective source" and reprises the history of the article. The present Wikipedia version is crap due to repeated censorship and misguided removal of attributed allegations and undisputed facts. See also history of Bush Knew and Bush League here.  A credible version of the latter is at Disinfopedia 'Bush League'. Combining the two separate issues (oil-related conspiracy and direct knowledge of 9/11) is just more propadanda designed to make one who dismisses one, dismiss the other. You who have emotional reactions to this theory and idiom are in good company: No Brit accepted that Churchill knew about Coventry, many don't today. All good Germans believed Communists burnt the Reichstag, too. You are in good company. Many Russians even today believe Stalin did nothing nefarious.
 * Obviously there are a group of articles on wiki that are our equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle, but which we should call Paranoia Central, in which concepts like NPOV, objectivity, demonstrable facts, accuracy, etc cease to exist. Its like wiki's version of the X-Files, only not as well written. Weird. I could always suggest to keep taking the tablets but after we all know George W. is putting secret drugs in here to control the minds of wiki users. And there are hundreds of CIA agents busy reading everything written on wiki as part of some big government/CIA/FBI/Secret Service/Bush Family/New World Order/Left Wing/Right Wing/Catholic/fundamentalist/Jewish/Islamic/Russian/Communist/British/Saddam/Iraq/Iran/feminist/gay/liberal/New Conservative plot, all based on G.W.'s grandfather's secret seances where he plotted with the Fuhrer to launch a four reich just as soon as he could get a grandson who could spell 'Heil Hitler', with Barbara Bush as Adolf Hitler in a dress with facial hair. Jeez I better go and add that onto the page too! :-) FearÉIREANN 07:14 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * We have lots of articles about bogus theories; check out flat earth for example. As with other things, the cut line ought to be scope; if the only adherent of a theory is the lunatic on the street corner, then no, but if a million people believe it, then its existence is worth nothing.  For various reasons, conspiracy theories are running rife in the US these days. Stan 13:12 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * FearEIREANN- are you disagreeing with this?:
 * Businesses associated with Prescott Bush were confiscated during World War II under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
 * The article doesnt say, &quot;G.W.'s grandfather's secret seances where he plotted with the Fuhrer to launch a four reich just as soon as he could get a grandson who could spell 'Heil Hitler', with Barbara Bush as Adolf Hitler in a dress with facial hair&quot; which really isn't at all a reasonable or constructive comment. -- so Im not sure what you are referring to in your criticism of the article. Pizza Puzzle
 * But it doesn't say (a) why the businesses were confiscated, (b) was he the only one in this situation, (c) was it a technical or material breach, etc. The it throws in such rubbish about Pearle's nickname (so what!), that GHB was director of the CIA (so what!), that Cheney was in two cabinets (so what!) etc. The article throws one or two facts without explaining why they are relevant, dumps in a lot of irrelevant nonsense, and treats it as though together it means something. All it means in the current form is that some people are paranoid. If you are going to mention why Bush had his businesses seized, explain how, what, etc. Give details. For all we know, it could have been a mere technical breach. The prosecution could have been politically motivated (Democrats were in the White House, after all! Now there's another unproven conspiracy theory to add in!). He could have been one of three people, or one of three thousand people so prosecuted. A proper article would know that. Not state something with the implication of hint, hint, you know what that means!" This article could be properly written, properly sourced. It could explain why'' some people believe in the conspiracy theory and why others don't. Instead it reads like a bad sub- 'X Files' script. After all, it is said that some Texas oilmen may have been behind Kennedy's assassination. Texas - Bush country. Oilmen - the Bush people. How do we know that the Bush family weren't behind JFK's assassination too in that case. FearÉIREANN 02:17 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you wish to add to the article, I believe you should feel free to do so. This is a work in progress. Pizza Puzzle

Thanks, I did last night, and Mav made some changes too. What I did is add in some bullet points that raise questions about the interpretations some people put on issues. Hopefully the two alternative interpretations (for and against) of the points will NPOV the article. I have never had a problem with the existence of the article, just that it didn't provide a balance, though the idea of writing something positive about the Bush freaks me out as I am utterly opposed to Bush, his family, his world view, his policies, etc. But even in Bush's case we have to follow strict NPOV criteria, though where there are absolute facts they of course don't need qualification. But the issue was simply the interpretation being put to facts. FearÉIREANN 20:35 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)~


 * I have never had a problem with the existence of the article
 * I was under the impression that u had urged its deletion on Votes for Deletion Pizza Puzzle
 * I had a problem with the POV nature of the article and the fact that any time anyone tried to NPOV it their edits were removed amid accusations that they were Bush apologists, etc. If it was to survive, it had to be as an NPOVed version, not simply a devotee of conspiracy theories page.

Seems like pages needing attention or NPOV dispute would have been more appropriate. Can I remove this from VfD? Martin 11:17 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it is much more balanced and NPOV since Mav and I added in counter-arguments. Now it neither agrees with not disagrees with the topic, merely says some people believe this because of a.b.c. Others disagree because of d, e, and f. So I have no problem whatsoever with removing it from VfD. But that's just my view. I'll let others speak for themselves. FearÉIREANN 11:28 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * DELETE. It may have value for it's comic relief, but Wiki isn't intended to be a joke page. By publishing it, you're claiming it's factual, and you embarass all of us by associating Wikipedia with tripe like this. Wandering Star 21:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Another listing

 * Bush family conspiracy theory -- this article, it's existence, how it is written, etc. is hopelessly non-NPOV. Lists of accusations and unconnected facts can be compiled about nearly anyone and made to look suspicious.  Daniel Quinlan 04:48, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes, such facts can be compiled about anyone &mdash; and in Bush's case, they are. I've seen so many "analysts" throw together these scraps into frivolous allegations against the Bush family, that it seems we should have an entry on this recurring accusation, just as we do for the JFK conspiracy allegations.  I think the entry does now (and could more in the future) do a good job of laying out the whole, pathetic case and listing counterpoints. -- VV 05:58, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I just read my comment again and thought the tone sounded kind of harsh. Sorry if it seemed that way, I didn't mean it to.  I understand your concern but think this is a "real" conspiracy theory (so to speak). -- VV 06:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I strongly object. Yes at one time this article was really bad but several Wikipedians other than the original author have spent many hours working on improving this entry. Do not delete - it is a valid topic and given enough time it will be NPOV. --mav 08:32, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. non-NPOV isn't a reason to list it here anyway, and it seems a lot of work has gone in NPOVing it since it was created. Rewrite so it is about the theory, rather than looking like it is doing the theorising itself. Angela 08:44, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep, not only a widely held conspiracy theory; but a true one as well! Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Keep. The article is documenting a reasonably common belief. That the subject matter involves personal opinions and disputed arguments is irrelevant - I'm not going to propose Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory or creationism for deletion just because I happen to believe that those theories are false. Onebyone 15:21, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. The version I've read (and edited) is fairly NPOV. It states that their is a conspiracy and looks at both sides of the issue. Whether or not one beleives the conspiracy is not an issue. There is a theory and this article discusses it as NPOV as any such discussion can be. &mdash;Frecklefoot 18:25, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm still bugged by this article. Yes it is a topic we should have, but how the hell do you write it without either appearing to give the theory credibility by the very act of writing about it, or adopting a questioning tone that violates NPOV? That said, it is 100 times better than the original crackpot article that it started off as, which all but accused the Bush family of starting the Great Fire of London, shooting the Tsar and killing Princess Diana! It still needs a lot of work but as long as serious wikipedians keep an eye on it to control the nuttier elements who no doubt will target it (Doncha know that Barbara Bush was the mastermind behind the Kennedy assassination and is the head importer of cocaine into the US, type of thing!) I think it should be kept, if only because one article which just about embraces NPOV is better than a blank space which others would no doubt fill with POV rants on the topic. FearÉIREANN 19:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC) (who, incidentially worked on the article to try to NPOV it and is no lover whatsoever of the Bush brigade. Is it too POV for me to urge all Americans wikipedians to vote against Bush in 2004? :-) )
 * Keep. Michael Moore has a book on the matter coming out and readers might want to learn more about the theory on reference sites like Wikipedia. Kricxjo 23:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Still undecided, but I'll elaborate on why, at the very least, it's a highly deficient article. Graf #3 is simply too weasel for Wikipedia's standards. It has four sentences in a row starting with, "Many people...", "Many people...", "What many people believe or don't believe..." and "It should also be noted that many people...".  Later "facts" amount to an off-topic anti-Republican, anti-big business rant.  Example: "In addition, Halliburton's accounting firm was Arthur Andersen. This latter firm was conviced[sic] of obstruction of justice and, allegedly, commited fraud." On the other hand, respected members of the Wikipedia community have voted to keep, which leaves me scratching my head about the one. Fuzheado
 * It is noteworthy that Bush's vice-president's former accounting firm was engaged in illegal activity; this backs up allegations that Bush is involved in illegal corporate schemes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Given how many firms retained the services of Arthur Andersen, the "conspiracy" doesn't seem very compelling. Fuzheado
 * Its not our job to determine how "compelling" it is, we just report. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * This doesn't back up any allegations at all - that kind of lazy mud-slinger thinking will ruin any and all articles about Bush if allowed to stand. Onebyone 10:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existance of this page alone gives it too much credence. A selective list of quotes and facts can make almost any politician look back and the Bush pages already contain lots of anti-Bush material. This is not the sort of thing that normal encyclopedias would cover, and with good reason -- it is anti-someone rhetoric. Although the page has been "made more NPOV", this page will continue to attract POV. Maximus Rex 02:26, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Like many others, I'm very troubled by the current state of this article, and as it currently stands, Wikipedia would be better off without it. Having said that, the collection of obscure, disparate, and circumstantial allegations about Bush, et al., is a real phenomenon that should ultimately be tackled by Wikipedia.  While this article was initially just a dumping ground for anti-Bush POV, it can hopefully be turned into a page that also provides thorough counterarguments to debunk some of this dreck.  To that end, the page should have its two separate parts merged together into something that reads like an article instead of a laundry list of rants, and some things that don't belong at all should be removed. For instance, how does Richard Perle's nickname support a Bush conspiracy?  Some of these "allegations" have nothing to do with demonstrating "criminal conspiracies involving multinational corporations, government organizations, and dictators." -- Minesweeper 03:04, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * When there are people who see Bush as the anti-christ (or at least a neo-Hitler); the fact that his advisor, Perle, is nicknamed "Prince of Darkness" is something noteworthy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * That's as maybe, but it's nothing to do with conspiracy theories, it just means that someone doesn't like him. Onebyone 10:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * How can you think that allegations about the "Prince of Darkness" have nothing to do with a conspiracy theory that the Pope has secretely declared Bush to be the AntiChrist?
 * Because the father of a friend of mine was also nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness" in his business circle. However he has not been rumoured to be the antichrist. This leads me to believe that being nicknamed "Prince of Darkness" is independent of being rumoured to be the antichrist. In any case, if this kind of loosely-connected fact has to be documented in the name of representing all points of view, then should we also document the (not uncommon) point of view that anyone who reads much out of such loosely-connected facts is an idiot? And then the counter-view that people who think those people are idiots are Bush apologists who aren't thinking for themselves? And so on. There must come a level of pointlessness where it is no longer worth documenting this stuff unless there's a genuine point-to-point connection rather than pure speculation and opinion. Onebyone 15:48, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Steverapaport 00:07, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many articles about other politicians, past and present, are uncomplimentary.   This doesn't mean that "Wikipedia would be better off without them".  In fact I don't see anything in the Wikipedia guidelines saying that articles should be removed, except for vandalism.  This article is obviously not that.   I don't see anyone arguing to delete "McCarthyism" or "Saddam Hussein".  People upset about this article are probably not so neutral themselves.
 * Keep, keep, keep, keep. Wikipedia is not about non controversial topics. It is a fact that this conspiracy theory exists. It is a fact that there are a number allegations and controversies about Bush and family. It is a fact that a number of otherwise considered sensible people - Michael Mann, myself - consider some of these allegations to be true. By all means endeavour to make the article NPOV and improve its quality, but people who don't like the article and consider it silly have no right to delete it. : ChrisG 16:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. I respect Jtdirl's opinion (expressed in the prior listing), so am confident that a neutral article can be written under this topic. Martin 23:15, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * This article should be kept because the conspiracy theory exists. It doesn't say "There IS a massive conspiracy amongst the Bush family!"; it says that a conspiracy theory exists. We have an article on "conspiracy theories" themselves, and we have an article about the Illuminati that mentions Illuminati-related conspiracy theories, and an article about Fnord. Is anyone going to suggest that we delete our Illuminati or Fnord articles? There are some conspiracy theory topics out there that would leave blatant, gaping holes if they went completely unmentioned in Wikipedia, especially at the size Wikipedia is at now. The conspiracy theory about the many members of the Bush family conspiring to keep a hold on the White House is a conspiracy theory believed in, and come at independently, by a large number of different people. It's big enough that if Wikipedia continues to get bigger and bigger, eventually it will become a glaring omission, and the omission will become more and more glaring the bigger Wikipedia gets. Wiwaxia 00:24, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I've put the NPOV dispute label at the top of the main article. Fuzheado 00:33, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Keep this, but it still needs a major re-write - Michael Moore's new book does a much better job of joining up the dots on this (using only references to mainstream media) much of the content here is ridiculously tenuous - a much better case exists.2toise 15:16, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this article does need sourcing. Because it can so easily go off the rails with POV loppiness, we need to be able to say x says this, y says that. FearÉIREANN 19:23, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The problem is this article goes far beyond any widely held conjecture about the Bush family's influence and starts to go into original research, linking together facts and forming a trail of conspiracy, corporate intrigue and accuastions of cronyism unique to this Wikipedia article.  For this reason, sourcing is absolutely necessary.  Otherwise, it looks like a heavily biased, crackpot article that can drag down the reputation of Wikipedia. Fuzheado 03:05, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * That is the danger. That is why sourcing and careful use of language is the key. We don't want this article to turn into crackpot central, which it was originally. If this article can have any justification, it must be simply that it reports, factually, neutrally and objectively, that some people believe this stuff. It cannot simply be a list of every nutty theory that some paranoid lunatic believes. The Richard Pearle 'Prince of Darkness' is a classic example of this. That is a nickname he has, so what? What is its relevance? What sources read more into that than a nickname? Instead we have a 'Richard Pearle, Prince of Darkness' wink wink, nudge, nudge, we all know what that means' tone that even National Enquirer would throw out as 'stoopid'. Follow that logic, and we should interpret the 'something of the night about him' comment about Michael Howard as meaning that he turns into a vampire at midnight and sucks the blood of babies' bs. Believe that, and you would (rightly) end up sectioned in a mental hospital. If this article survives, it has to be as a credible, factual, NPOV article, not something written by paranoid dillusionists who live in a loopy world where Cheney's surname, and both Bush presidents' first names have six letters, the bible says the antichrist's number is 666, therefore the two Georges and Cheney together must be the collective antichrist! FearÉIREANN 19:02, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

'''This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on the article's talk page'''