Talk:Business Plot/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Untitled

The following two sources were removed from this article because they were Larouche related:

• Wolfe, L. (June 27 1994). "Franklin Delano Roosevelt vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated". The American Almanac. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Very caustic and one-sided but informative.

• Wolfe, L. (August 11, 2006). "The Morgan Fascist Coup and How FDR Defeated It". Executive Intelligence Review. 33 (32). Retrieved 2006-08-24.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"paradoxically Jewish"

I think this is a misusage of the word "paradoxically." I had tried to address this in a previous post, which was somehow deleted. The sentence itself seemed to be extraneous, so I deleted it. I meant to post it here for the consideration of everyone else, but I appear to have made a slight mistake. 24.184.52.69 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The article was anti-Jewish. I changed the sentence slightly. Travb (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? The whole story of this "plot" accuses Jewish financiers and a Jewish organization of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. govt. How much more anti-Jewish can you get? And apparently these are the same people who helped the Nazis and the Bolsheviks take power. Obviously I'm not in tune with this subject as you guys are but Spivak's (Spivak claims to be working against anti-Semitism) account[1] is blatant when it accuses Jewish financiers and a Jewish organization of being behind such an immense conspiracy. Why don't you guys call this insane story what you're reallying trying to say it is, "The Jewish Business Plot"? This is ridiculous. Jtpaladin 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Prescott Bush wasn't Jewish, the DuPonts where French, I'm sure some people involved might have been but it was overwhelmingly more Gentile, besides it was inherently Pro Fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC history program

There is a BBC radio program on this topic that might help with sourcing. Link. Hope this helps. Tim Vickers 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Prescott Bush

I'm reproducing the quote from "The Whitehouse Coup" (23 July 2007) that I also entered on the Talk:Prescott_Bush#Failed_Coup Prescott Bush page.

Later in the McCormack-Dickstein report, a shipping company called Hamburg-America Line was accused of providing free passage to Germany to American journalists willing to write favorable copy on Hitler's rise to power. The company is also alleged to have brought Nazi spies and pro-fascist sympathizers into America. John Buchanan has studied this latest section of the report and has discovered that one of the company's managers came from a very famous family. "The thing that surprised me most was to discover in the documents of this company that Hamburg-America Lines had, in fact, been managed on the U. S. side at the executive level by Prescott Bush as part of a web of Nazi business interests that were all seized in late 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act by the U. S. Congress and Prescott Bush is the grandfather of the sitting President of the United States." [John Buchanan]

Of course, at the time it was perfectly legal to have dealings with Hitler's Germany. Prescott Bush was not called to account for this until America entered the war.

The McCormack-Dickstein report is "Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities." United States Congress, House of Representatives. Special Committee on Un-American Activities.Dec 29, 1934. (73rd Congress, 2nd session. Hearings No. 73-D. C.-6). (Washington, Government Printing Office; 1935)

Some people are claiming that this does say that Prescott Bush was involved with the Business Plot, despite the fact that it is clearly talking about completely separate activities. My only guess as to how people are arriving at this conclusion is that they are assuming that the Business Plot is the only subject of the McCormack-Dickstein report. If that were true, then there might be some connection, but this assumption is false. The committee looked into many different activities, not just the Business Plot. Hence the name of the report, "Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities."

The committee held hearings in six cities and took testimony from hundreds of witnesses. The Business Plot was not its only or even its primary focus of investigation. Notice how it says "Nazi Propaganda Activities". The Business Plot was not a Nazi (that is German government) operation. The BBC report is saying that Hamburg-America Lines was involved in Nazi activities, not the Business Plot.

If there is some other possible interpretation of this, or there is some other information, then explain it here in plain words before you change the main page to say that Prescott Bush was involved. There is simply no evidence for that.

Ken Hirsch 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement you deleted regarding Prescott Bush says: "A BBC documentary claims Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected." Following that statement is a link to the documentary which I listened to in its entirety. The statement you deleted is 100 percent accurate. The brief documentary (less than 30 minutes) is all about the "Business Plot" and underscores the fact that the individuals involved are hard to identify. In that context, they bring up Prescott Bush as a possible participant based on his background and activities. Given that the BBC is an authoritative source, stating that a) this documentary claims a possible connection to Prescott Bush and, b) the source (BBC audio) is linked to, why delete this section? It doesn't say Bush WAS connected, it cites a source that claims a connection, and links to that source. It is not an opinion or a personal point of view. By deleting that section readers are no longer allowed to determine for themselves as to the strength or weakness of the claim. Deleting the BBC claim and subsequent link obscures potentially useful information for the end reader. -- Quartermaster 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me the sentences that link Bush to the Business Plot. I've explained myself above. The BBC program quotes John Buchanan as to Bush's links to the Nazis. Buchanan's research is discussed on the Prescott Bush page and is on the web elsewhere. Nowhere does he claim that Bush was connected to the Business Plot, only that we was connected to Nazi business interests. The only link is that the Business Plot and Nazi propaganda activities were both investigated by the McCormack-Dickstein committee. The BBC program is called "Document" and the idea is that "The award-winning investigative series returns, in which Mike Thomson takes a document as a starting-point to shed new light on past events." So the program investigated the archives of the McCormack-Dickstein committee. As far as I can tell from the language they used (quoted above) and from all the other sources, the bit about Prescott Bush was included because it's a very interesting tidbit, not because it's connected to the business plot. I sent a message to the Document program from their web page (on 26 July) asking for a clarification. If they reply to me, I'll post it here, but hopefully they'll have something on their web site. But, seriously, look at the words they used. Bush is connected to Hamburg-America Lines which has Nazi ties. There is nothing in the program that links Bush to the Business Plot or Hamburg-America Lines to the Business Plot. In everything published about the Business Plot, it's always a native plot, cooked up by Wall Street interests. There's never been any hint of Nazi involvment. -- Ken Hirsch 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire BBC piece was about the Business Plot. The mention of Prescott Bush and his activities in the context of such a piece seems to me a de facto implication of his possible involvement, and I find it plausible, intriguing, albeit not particularly damning. By totally deleting the mention of the BBC piece as well as the link to that same piece, you're set up as the sole arbiter of its importance and veracity. I trust most wikipedia readers to make up their own minds based on what's presented in an article, which is exactly what you've done. That's perfectly all right and I would like to have the article continue to extend that same courtesy to other readers. Debating about the BBC's veracity isn't the point. I can disagree with you (I do) but, again, that isn't the point. Your interpretation may have some validity, but your approach to the subject (deleting it) doesn't give anyone else the same chance to decide one way or the other. -- Quartermaster 18:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that the BBC's own web page suggests that they intend the interpretation to be that Prescot Bush was involved:

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.

The added emphasis is mine. The quote is the BBC's summary. It is not unreasonable to ask them for clarification, but absent that, their summary would seem to be plausible evidence of editorial intent. I have no particular opinion on the veracity or accuracy of their story, but they do appear to have made the allegation. --Brons 17:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you finalize this point. I've restored the mention of Prescott Bush and the supporting link. Let the readers decide the veracity of the claim. The BBC claims the link, the restored statement merely reports that. -- Quartermaster 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree here, I was the one who first worded it that way to begin with before Ken removed it. It only claims a link and that's exactly what the sentence says. It is factual and NPOV. pschemp | talk 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The following statement does not stand by itself, and should either be qualified or removed: The 2007 BBC radio documentary The White House Coup[3] alleged that Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected with companies owned by Fritz Thyssen. I'm no fan of anything Bushy, but unless there is some place where Thyssen is connected to something in this article, it just looks silly. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Misguided Ref removal

I moved this to talk:

Thomson, Mike (2007-07-23). "The Whitehouse Coup". BBC. Retrieved 2007-07-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I have no idea what it has to do with the plot. It is two pargraphs. 66.142.90.225 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Its a reference, that includes the author of the work. Please refrain from removing refs in the future. It has everything to do with this article. pschemp | talk 22:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the business plot.

Here is the text of the BBC webpage:

Mike Thomson investigates claims that British colonial officials helped rig Nigeria’s pre-independence elections to ensure that a pro-UK party won.

The allegations centre on the cold war days of 1960 when fears were growing that communism was gaining ground in Nigeria, a country where oil had only recently been discovered. Two top secret files from the time are being kept closed for one hundred years.

Documents calls for them to be released on the FOI Act. Could it be that Britain taught Nigeria all it knows today about fixing the polls?

What does Nigeria's pre-independence elections have to do with the 1930's business plot?

I think you have the wrong link. Was this the link you wanted? : http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

If so, this link is already correctly formated in footnote number 3. Which I just fixed with a web cite.

In addition, the Nigeria link is located in the wrong spot. In the ref section. [2] 66.142.90.225 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewording

"Some of Roosevelt's advisors were in on the plot, and downplayed it when it was exposed to prevent their dirty laundry from being aired in public."

Shouldn't this be reworded so it doesn't use a cliche?

Kazuko 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've killed the little bastard stone dead. That and "sweep it under the rug". -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoax

Unless the article is amended, the current text purports that events are factual without evidence. The article summary states

"The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch, was a conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933."

This is not an undisputed fact of history but a proposition made foremost by Jules Archer (who, note, serves as a preponderance of the references.) This article needs to address Wikipedia's guidelines for Fringe theories, which it currently does not.

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Unless the article is changed to foremost reflect that the scholarly consensus is that this is a conspiracy theory, then the article itself is part of that conspiracy theory, and the status of the article must be questioned. Quoting James Sargent "it is plausible to conclude that the honest and straightforward, but intellectually and politically unsophisticated, Butler perceived in simplistic terms what were in fact complex trends and events. Thus he [Jules Archer] leaped to the simplistic conclusion that the President and the Republic were in mortal danger." The wikipedia community is doing just what Archer did here unless this article is rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk • contribs)

First of all, sign your posts please, using ~~~~. Second of all, it appears like you have not read the entire article, particulalry the congressional findings on record. Your conclusion is without evidence, the text is factually supported. Travb (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Second of all, it appears like you have not read the entire article, particulalry the congressional findings"

'It appears like' your education is limited; this topic is likely out of your depth. 'Paticulalry', urk. Say hello to all of them at www.democraticunderground for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.147.8 (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The more I read about this bit of history the less pleased I am with this page. Congressional testimony is not proof, particulary when it is contradicted in the same hearing transcript. Furthermore, Butler is perhaps the least credible source I have ever heard of. He make most conspiracy theorists look stable. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors sometimes come to this talk page and argue a belief with no supporting evidence to back up their claims, what is that commonly called? A conspiracy theory. I warmly welcome sourced information in this article to support unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. travb (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seven decades - and no added material to prove anything about any plot. Seems a tad indicative that maybe no such proof ever existed? Collect (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Congressional reports do not scholarly evidence make.

Congressional reports can be wrong. As this is a highly controversial subject, it requires the evidence and the peer review of the subject be quite thorough. (The evidence is so weak that this congressional report was even disregarded in Washington at the time, hence the lack of 'cause celebre') For instance, the Bush administration has created numerous committees which have concluded that global warming is not occurring. It does not follow, however, that simply because a government agency makes a public statement, it is truth and fact itself. The overwhelming peer review and analysis of the subject have NOT supported the claims of the conspiracy. If they have, and these sources can be sited, I will rescind my objections to this article. As of yet, none has been presented, and instead name calling, inflamed point of view editing, and fringe and conspiracy theories are implicated. What is generally accepted, is that this is a conspiracy theory. If wikipedians wish to demonstrate otherwise, which I fully support, please offer ample evidence. Until that time, please correct the article to indicate this is not a generally accepted historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You have added nothing to this article except a {{hoax}} tag. Don't make up requirements for wikiarticles. Lets be honest there is no hurdle high enough that other wikiauthors can jump which would make you change your tune. Fortunatly, several wikiauthors disagree with you. If needs be, you can request an RfC so we can finally find out how discredited your views and unfair standards for articles are.

What peer analysis? What peer review? Again, you have added nothing to this article, so your words seem a little empty. Go ahead and quote some of the ditractors in this article, detractors which, by the way, I proably added. And I can clearly show that those detractors credentials are not as solid as a large congressional committee which spent dozens if not hundreds of hours weighing all the evidence. Travb (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, I am not claiming that the event was a hoax, I am claiming that the article, by purposefully being misleading, falls under the definition of a hoax.

Secondly, you're correct that I have not added anything to this article, other than the hoax tag, primarily because I do not have the time to do this article justice, but felt, nonetheless, that it was the responsible thing to do to bring some recognition to what I believe are it's gross inadequacies. Secondly, after reviewing the edits made previously to the article, I noticed an ongoing attempt to censor editors. For instance, the word "alleged" was added and removed from the initial article description several times, and the word was claimed a weasel word (which I disagree with; "alleged" clearly delineates that the conspiracy is not unquestioned fact). Under those circumstances, I felt similar edits would simply be censored.

Also, I did not make up the requirements for wikiarticles. They are clearly stated on numerous guideline pages. For example see WP:REDFLAG. Given these circumstances, and the history of this article, I'd like follow your suggestion and open the article to RfC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RE a RfC, power too you. Again, what peer analysis and peer review? You wrote: "overwhelming peer review and analysis of the subject have NOT supported the claims of the conspiracy." Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. Your own words. You continue to put down the dozens of references in this article, but you have not shown any knowledge of this topic at all. It is really easy to criticize a group of people's work, as you have done, it is harder to actually add some work of your own. Again, what overwhelming peer review and analysis?

Allegedly: Weasel_word#Generalization_using_weasel_words. I find that there are a couple of editors in less known articles like this one which substantally contribute to the article, and then there are a larger group of editors who add tags to the article and try to add their own spin to the article in the opening paragraph. The "allegedy" argument I gave up on a long time ago, it is a minor argument fought against minor contributors to this article. I could care less about whether the word is in the article. Travb (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

Does the article portray the accepted historical view? How do other history and encyclopedic text treat this subject, and what scholarly evidence supports claims to the contrary of these texts. If this article does not support the general accepted view, does the article make that standpoint clear enough?

A set of guidelines I find helpful in matters such as these, is Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit. I've noticed this article shows numerous fallacies outlined in the kit. For example: "Ad hominem, attacking the arguer and not the argument" - the talk page is replete with numerous such occurrences ; "Arguments from 'authority'" - References are based primarily on a congressional committee, and Archer's book; "Lack of independent confirmation of the facts" - self explanatory; "Argument from adverse consequences" - feelings that the article must be kept as is, because not to do so would be a coverup of some sort, etc.

Given such red flags and the lack of agreement on the subject, I believe that the article lacks the proper skepticism. A suggested introduction paragaph might state, "The Business Plot, The Plot Against FDR, or The White House Putsch, is a theorized conspiracy involving several wealthy businessmen to overthrow the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Although generally not accepted by mainstream historical sources, there has been much debate and research attempting to discern if such a conspiracy ever actually occured. 65.96.188.197 18:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is 'the accepted historical view' in some way related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines? I thought articles were supposed to adhere to a WP:NPOV, not 'the accepted historical view'. Please explain. Dlabtot 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"The accepted historical view" as I understand it means "from NPOV sources". In other words, an article which primarily source POV texts, cannot itself be considered, NPOV. 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon, thus far all you have shown is an ability to add tags (hoax, controversial, and RFChist) and a understanding of wikipolicy.

Thus far, your "overwhelming peer reviewed articles" is nonexistent.

I love Sagan, and he would probably cringe at your abuse of his baloney detection kit. Sagan was first and foremost a scientist, meaning that views had to be supported by evidence and facts.

This article cites over 25 sources, 23 footnotes, including a congressional hearing and several historians, pro and con to the existence of the plot. In the Business_Plot#Historical_treatment section, four historians are listed.

And to support your opinion? Three tags.

Where is the documents which support your view? The peer review artiles which overwhelmingly consider it a hoax?

It appears all you are interested in is the first paragraph, changing the introduction to meet your own POV with no citations or references. Travb (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Travb, please note the subject of your first sentence is "you". The above comment is the definition of Ad hominem. But, I do not want to fall into the same trap, so I'll make no further personal comments. Also, I think the point of this RfC is not for the two of us to go at each other. Clearly we disagree, hence the need for outside insight.

My edits (or lack thereof), does not mean that the above questions are not worthy of answers. It is my honest understanding that the subject is not treated in other encyclopedias such as Britannica, as it has been in Wikipedia, because it is not an accepted historical fact that a conspiracy to mount a coup occurred as portrayed here. Also, I have previously stated that the sources and footnotes cited, in my understanding of verifiability requirements that make a good article, are not sufficient. The four historians listed in the section you mention all doubt the veracity of the story. I see no other non-bias historians in the pro. Archer and Schmidt are book authors and are not viewed as scholars in the field.

Also, it is not my duty to add citations with opposite viewpoints. I could for example create a page on the existence of UFOs, followed by hundreds of citations from various authors, news, and media reports, etc stating the the UFOs are alien vessels. Does that mean the page should be allowed to indicate that UFOs are truly spaceships from other planets, simply because someone does not cite references in the opposite? The verifiability requirements are set precisely to avoid such situations. This is an encyclopedia first, and should not aim to cover all points of view. Sources need to come primarily from neutral points of view.

I support whatever edits to this article would portray the events as they are portrayed in other respected historical and encyclopedic texts. 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon editor, please read WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and especially WP:V. Your opinion that the article is not 'historically accurate' is irrelevant. Dlabtot 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is relevent, and I have read those pages. To quote the fringe theory guidlines WP:FRINGE:

"We propose these guidelines in the belief that an appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion, and because other mainstream sources often view our project as a contender for mainstream status, it is important that Wikipedia itself not become the notability-validating source for these non-mainstream theories. If another, adequately well-known source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to notability. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks mainstream discussion. If all available sources are not neutral but instead put forward a point of view, an article on the subject may risk violating the No original research policy.

Mainstream here refers to ideas which are accepted or at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications. This should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream", which may well be impossible. We leave the finer distinctions to the philosophers (see demarcation problem). Fortunately, the authors of non-mainstream theories often explicitly proclaim their non-mainstream status in one form or another (for example, by arguing that they are ignored because of some great conspiracy, because other practitioners aren't ready to accept their truths, or other similar arguments)." 16:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, that as an editor who has not provided any citations from reliable sources, you appear to be the one pushing a fringe theory. Dlabtot 17:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll keep repeating myself. There is no responsibility to provide citations to indicate that an article itself does not have the proper citations for the given content. It would be nice if someone could address the questions posed by the RfC, or explain without personal attacks, why the questions do not have merit.17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.188.197 (talk)

The 'questions posed by the RfC' are without merit because The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' Whether or not the article is in your opinion 'historically accurate' is indeed completely irrelevant. Additionally, please do not remove signatures on this talk page that have been added by SineBot, as you did here. Rather, please do follow talk page guidelines by signing your posts with four tildes. Dlabtot 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I was cleaning up my accidental clicking submit without a sig, then hitting the back button and adding a sig and minor edit, not attempting to "cover up" anything. Sorry, I'm human.

And the questions of historical accuracy is relevant precisely because the article in question attempts to portray history. If the article is not historically accurate, in that it does not contain reliable mainstream sources to corroborate it's statements, then how can we allow the article to portray something as historical fact? How can you argue that it's unimportant for an article on an historical event to be historically accurate?? When Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability talk about articles being verifiable and not "truth", it's making the point that it's nearly impossible to make the case that anything is "truth". When I check my reliable source, Britannica, I find no similar treatment of the events.

I am not asking for the truth here, only for reliable, NPOV, mainstream sources, all requirements dictated by Wikipedia's own guidelines, and lacking in this article. 65.96.188.197 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dlabtot, I suggest we ignore the anon. Over the past year wikipedians come to the talk page and voice their opinion. I usually ignore it. I should have ignored it here to.

65.96.188.197 claim that "overwhelming peer review and analysis of the subject have NOT supported the claims of the conspiracy." is a complete fabrication, he obviously knows little or nothing about the plot.

There are several people here who have protected this wikipage from users like 65.96.188.197. Travb (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He requested comments, I commented. Dlabtot 19:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. Travb (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the need to protect this page from contributions and open discussions, there's nothing more I can say to you. I have been open, and attempted to engage insightful discussion, not vandalize, disparage, or otherwise be harmful/hateful. If my editing as anon is your only issue, I have created an account, which I will use for all my contributions in the future. I hope that other well meaning Wikipedia readers and editors can post something helpful here. CandleInTheDark 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome officially to Wikipedia your handle is my favorite non-fiction book ever. I have a copy in the car, and I sent another one to my religious parents. Travb (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the UFO analogy. If you were the only one who'd ever written this UFO wiki you hypothetically speak of, and no opposing viewpoint references are ever given, and there are many pro viewpoint references, why wouldn't that wiki have the right to implicitly take a pro-alien UFO stance through its simple lack of participation by others? It might need a tag at the top saying it’s incomplete and needs more participation, but the whole existence of Wikipedia arises from diverse user participation and continued development of all wikis according to simple standards. You're not to give your personal opinion on whether you think UFOs are alien spacecraft but are neither obligated to state what percentage of the articles in a particular field's mainstream scholarly journals agree.

Seems to me the "alleged" wording is an attempt at a viewpoint in and of itself. Everything is alleged. You’re quoting Sagan and mentioning science, but forgetting the obligation of the listener/reader to remain objective and test things for themselves. They are not tools for determining the real gospel verses the fake gospel. It’s an exercise, after which it is everyone’s job to figure it out, empirically validate it themselves, or simply choose not to conclude anything. Science and objectivity rejects the validity of dogma and gospel truth outright. You are better off wording the first paragraph in a completely neutral way that neither implies controversy nor mainstreamness. It should first simply summarize and inform what this topic is. Nothing more.

The conservative historical viewpoints belong in the body, alongside all the other viewpoints. Wikipedia welcomes both the outdated academic curmudgeons, modern journalists, and wacko theorists references, all. Neither should be influencing the top paragraph’s general slant nor informing as to the controversiality of the subject. The controversy should be apparent in the substance and diverse, cited arguments themselves, rather than generalized as a warning or proviso against one side or the other in the beginning.

If the article is incomplete & one-sided or has lacked diverse participants, then there are tags that can be put up top for that. But if you are complaining about that and there is a large group of participants already, I would think you should probably be adding the opposing points to the body rather than trying to essentially change the tone of the article. ~Reticuli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.144.4 (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bush American Liberty League member?

I removed the phrase describing Prescott Bush as an "A.L.L. member". No reference was given and I doubt any exists since I know that John Buchanan was trying to to find out if Bush was a member. I have an email from Buchanan from 30 July 2007 which says "I spoke to thge DuPont museum that has the ALL documents. Their verdict was they can neither confirm nor deny Prescott's involvement in ALL." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Hirsch (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and balance

This article states as plain fact events which are greatly disputed by many historians.--Pharos 07:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, you should have no trouble citing reliable sources to that effect. So please do so. Tell us who these historians are, and cite those reliable sources in which they present their views. Dlabtot 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a list of events in this article "Stated as plain fact" which are disputed? This article cites testimoy of Butler, and states that it is only his testimony. This article mentions historians who believe Butler, and those who do not. No one argues that Butler testified in a congressional hearing. Travb (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, since you aren't discussing the issue, I'm gonna go ahead and remove the tag you placed. Please refrain from placing tags on articles unless you are willing to discuss the issue and reach consensus. (Cross-posted on User talk:Pharos) Dlabtot 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

which Morgan?

J. P. Morgan links to someone who died in 1913. Was it J. P. Morgan, Jr. who was accused in the plot? —Tamfang 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

J.P. Morgan & Co. - not a person, a company. I changed it. Dlabtot 10:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Extremist site is asking folks to visit this article

Fyi, This extremist hate site www.democraticunderground is soliciting visitors to this article. You can read the whole thread here. [3] Just something to be aware of in case there are "unusual edits". 64.102.254.33 (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as editors follow WP:FIVE they are welcome to edit Wikipedia. Even if in your opinion they have visited a 'hate site', lol. Dlabtot (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you figure Democratic Underground is an extremist website? Hate website? Pretty odd standards. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blortock (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 December 2007

Thanks for the "heads up" 64.102.254.33 (talk). As an avid defender of wikipedia culture and neutrality I was pleased to see some wikipedia haters weighing in directly on the DU thread you pointed to. They are appropriately pointing out the risks of organized editing by outside groups, something the extreme haters from Free Republic and Little Green Footballs should keep in mind as well. -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I find those who yell extremist the loudest are often extremists themselves. User:64.102.254.33 I wouldn't worry about the DU posting, the person's message is muddled and incomprehensible. Trav (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion edits

These edits of Lao Wai are bad. [5] I have reverted to an earlier version before this vandal removed well sourced, cited material. IKIP (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no vandalism and what sourced cited material are you referring to? Lao Wai (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the citations you deleted is this one, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml among others. You also keep inserting the comment " The House Un-American Activities Committee found no evidence of this. " which is obviously your personal opinion and not even related to this article, as the committee wasn't even called HUAAC till years later. Or, assuming good faith, maybe you actually do have a source that says that the House Un-American Activities Committee found no evidence of this - please provide it or stop inserting your personal opinion into this article. Dlabtot (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted an irrelevant claim that should not have been in the article as it had nothing to do with it. Regardless of how it was sourced. I will agree that the HUAC did not then exist, but that is a minor quibble best addressed, I'd think, with a name change. The committee that evolved into the HUAC found precisely zero evidence and that is kind of important. Any other problems with the changes? Lao Wai (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In your reply, you seem to have neglected to provide a source. The unavoidable conclusion is that it is indeed your personal opinion that you are attempting to insert into the article. Please provide a source or stop using this article as a soapbox for your own views. Dlabtot (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that I needed a source. If I remember correctly, the BBC programme claimed that the Committee found no evidence. Which it didn't. I am not sure how you would expect a reference to the entire Committee's deliberations. It happens to be my opinion, but that is beside the point. I am hardly using this article as a soapbox. What I am trying to do is maintain an encyclopedic tone and given there is no evidence this plot existed, the article ought to say that there is no evidence this plot existed. I will go off and find a source if you like, but can we agree this is the only point on which we disagree? Lao Wai (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that you were not aware that you need sources for material added to Wikipedia strains credibility and makes it very difficult for me to assume good faith. Yes, you do need sources - see verifiability. You may very well believe that the Committee found no evidence. But your beliefs are completely irrelevant. Any such conclusion would have to be based on a source - not your opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know I needed evidence for this claim as it is true, no one was disputing it, the BBC actually says it. The line between what is disputable and hence needs proof and what is not, is not always clear. The Committee found no evidence and said so. But I removed the sentence. Lao Wai (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions like this are the biggest reason Wikipedia sucks

Deletions like this are the reason why Wikipedia sucks. Several dozen editors can work hours and hours and hours on an article, adding dozens, sometimes hundreds of references, and some one editor, who pushes their view not by adding anything of any value to an article, but simply delete well referenced sections they disagree with. Editors should not have to spend hours policing well referenced content against editors who add nothing to Wikipedia.

This editor deleted the following repeatedly:

==Background== Shacks, put up by the Bonus Army on the Anacostia flats, Washington, D.C., burning after the battle with the military (1932). On July 17, 1932, thousands of World War I veterans converged on Washington, D.C., set up tent camps, and demanded immediate payment of bonuses due them according to the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924. This "Bonus Army" was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The Army was encouraged by an appearance from retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, who had considerable influence over the veterans, being one of the most popular military figures of the time. A few days after Butler's arrival, President Herbert Hoover ordered the marchers removed, and their camps were destroyed by US Army cavalry troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Butler, although a prominent Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election. In a 1995 History Today article Clayton Cramer argued that the devastation of the Great Depression had caused many Americans to question the foundations of liberal democracy. "Many traditionalists, here and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism; many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism." Cramer argues that this explains why some American business leaders viewed fascism as a viable system to both preserve their interests and end the economic woes of the Depression. Daily Kos: "Attempted Coup Against the President of the USA" The committee deleted extensive excerpts from the report relating to Wall Street financiers including J.P. Morgan & Co., the Du Pont interests, Remington Arms, and others allegedly involved in the plot attempt. As of 1975, a full transcript of the hearings had yet to be traced. == John Spivak == The Intricate Structure of Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy, from the February 5, 1935 issue of New Masses magazine. Excerpts, unless noted, are from "The Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, ISBN 1-60239-036-3, page 194-220 Reporter "John L. Spivak had been tipped off earlier by a fellow Washington correspondent that some of Butler's testimony had been deleted in the committee's November 26, 1934 report to the House of Representatives..." "Other newsmen joined (Spivak) in pressing for a copy of the (McCormack-Dickstein Committee report). It was then that the defunct McCormack-Dickstein Committee...decided to publish a 125-page document containing the testimony of Butler, McGuire, and others, on February 15, 1935. It was marked "Extracts"...  "A veteran Washington correspondent told Spivak that he had heard the deletions had been made at the request of a member of the President's Cabinet..." Spivak "had been tipped-off earlier that the House of Representatives intended to let the McCormack-Dickstein Committee expire on January 3, 1935, rather than renew it as the committee had asked in order to continue its investigations." "About a week later, seeking to do a story on its accomplishments in exposing Nazi and anti-Semitic activities in the United States, Spivak won permission from Dickstein to examine the committee's official exhibits and make photostatic copies of those that had been made public. Dickstein wrote a letter to this effect to the committee's secretary, Frank P. Randolph, and added, "If necessary consult John [McCormack] about it." "Randolph, flooded with work involved in closing the committee's files and records, gave Spivak stacks of documents, exhibits, and transcripts of testimony that were being sent to the Government Printing Office. To Spivak's amazement, he found among these records a full transcript of the executive session hearings in the Butler affair." Spivak "compared it with the official extract of the hearings and found a number of startling omissions made from the testimony of both Butler and French" Journalist John L. Spivak wrote a two part article. Historian Schmidt explains: "Journalist John L. Spivak, researching Nazism and anti-Semitism for New Masses magazine, got permission from Dickstein to examine HUAC's public documents and was (it seems unwittingly) given the unexpurgated testimony amid stacks of other papers. Spivak's two-part feature "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy" appeared in early 1935, a month after the hearings closed. He cogently developed a case for taking the suppressed testimony seriously. But this relevant material was embellished with overblown aspersions against "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups" -- a mishmash of guilt-by-association that connected Morgan interests with Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee. Spivak was intent upon grinding his own axes, and elucidation of the plot was obscured. The suppressed Butler-MacGuire conversations could hardly support all this. Moreover New Masses possessed a limited readership; the scoop was stigmatized as "red" propaganda and generally not cited elsewhere." After being told about the deletions by Spivak, in Butler's "broadcast over WCAU on February 17, 1935, Butler revealed that some of the "most important" portions of his testimony had been suppressed in the McCormack-Dickstein report to Congress. The committee, he growled, had "stopped dead in its tracks when it got near the top." He added angrily: "Like most committees, it has slaughtered the little and allowed the big to escape. The big shots weren't even called to testify. Why wasn't Colonel Grayson M.-P. Murphy, New York broker ... called? Why wasn't Louis Howe, Secretary to the President of the United States, called? ... Why wasn't Al Smith called? And why wasn't Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, called? And why wasn't Hanford MacNider, former American Legion commander, called? They were all mentioned in the testimony. And why was all mention of these names suppressed from the committee report?" In 1934, as they are today, newspapers were controlled by a relatively small elite — according to then-Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes, 82% of all dailies had monopolies in their communities. Proponents of the theory thus suggest that the media downplayed Butler's testimony based on the interests of their advertisers and owners. The 2007 BBC radio documentary The White House Coup alleged that Prescott Bush, father and grandfather to the 41st and 43rd US Presidents respectively, was also connected with the plot. Even though the Senate committee did take the threat seriously and did verify that a fascist coup was indeed well past the planning stage, the Senate committee expired. [[Category:Attempted coups]]

IKIP (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well IKIP, alas Wikipedia is a Wiki. That is, a collective, collaborative effort. If you think that material has been deleted unfairly the sensible thing to do is discuss it. Not throw insults - and by the way violate the Assume Good Faith policy. What do you think has been deleted unfairly and why? Lao Wai (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You've already been told what you deleted and why it was inappropriate. Pretending WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not helpful. Dlabtot (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have explained precisely, and repeatedly, why I removed what I did. No one has pointed out what was inappropriate in what I did. Perhaps you might like to now? If not, perhaps you would like to point out which bits in what I appropriately deleted you think ought to be included? What do you think has been deleted unfairly and why? Lao Wai (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You have already been told. I guess I just don't have the patience for this: you win. As far as I am concerned, you can rewrite history to your heart's content. This quote unquote encyclopedia is a joke. Dlabtot (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This editor has contributed nothing to this article. Not one of the dozens of sources has been added by this editor, to the contrary several key citations have been deleted. This editor set the tone by removing huge sections of referenced material, with no discussion.

The editor has been repeatedly reverted by four editors (User:Huon, User:Dlabtot, User:Samuel Pepys and myself) yet these editor continues to edit out this information IKIP (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

I hate to legitimize or even acknowledge the deletions of this editor. If there were better guidelines on wikipedia, I would have reported the editor to an uninvolved admin who would have sternly warned the editor to stop or face getting booted.

But since Wikipedia rules on "content disputes" and deletions are non-existent or cumbersome, I went ahead and reported this edits to Wikipedia:Third opinion.

IKIP (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel in this case that it is safe to assume good faith on the part of Lao Wai. Despite this, Lao Wai's actions are clearly contrary to WP:Consensus. If you decide large swathes of information need deleting you should justify that decision according to WP:Policies and guidelines, not your own personal morality.

Lao Wai please take the time to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Not only will it serve to prevent conflict in the future but it will help you understand what Wikipedia is all about. Respecting other editors is crucial to meeting an amicable consensus and Wikipedia cannot operate on the basis of 'who shouts longest, wins'.

I would also like to cite WP:Verifiability with particular attention to the line "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This is one of the basic tenants of Wikipedia editing.

If either party has any questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page! -Rushyo (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't see what violation of Consensus I have done. There are, or were, two posters who objected to my copy editing but they have consistently refused to discuss what they object to. Well IKIP, an anon more or less by the looks of it, has not done so. I have said, repeatedly, why I deleted what I deleted and I have pointed to the relevant policies. I am happy to talk about it. So far IKIP has responded only with threats and insults. I have spent time to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and I don't think I am in violation of any of them. The only person shouting - and issuing threats - is not me. My entire objection to the major of the material posted here is verifiability - we have vanity publishings, we have fringe publishers, we have unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. And they ought to go. I am happy for any credible material to remain. But unverifiable material ought to go. Lao Wai (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly an ongoing discussion and yet you have chosen to unilaterally make wide-ranging changes without respect to WP:PRESERVE. If you do not believe the material is verifiable, whilst others disagree, then I feel you ought to attempt to reach consensus rather than deliberately going against the wishes of other parties. At the risk of repeating myself I believe Wikipedia cannot operate on the basis of 'who shouts longest, wins'. If the weight of your arguments are strong then you should be able to build consensus without resorting to editing contrary to the wishes of others. Additionally, whether or not IKIP is '[more or less] an anon' is completely irrelevant. -Rushyo (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There was and is no on-going discussion except with Dlabtot. Who has now dropped out. There was and is no discussion with RVW because he won't talk. I have said from the start I am happy to discuss this article but he refuses to. I cannot arrive at a consensus if RVW won't talk. I agree that Wikipedia cannot work on the basis of who shouts the loudest wins although it seems to be working for others so far. My arguments are strong but as RVW flatly refuses to enter into any sort of discussion of the evidence, it does not matter does it? Actually it does matter if RVW is an anon because if he is, the next step is for me to ask an Administrator to protect this article and prevent anons from editing. We have a dispute here and if RVW won't discuss and only threatens and insults, I don't see what the sensible next step would be. Lao Wai (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick extra note - there is a simple solution here. It is for RVW to state which changes he objects to and why so that we can talk about it. For instance, there is a large amount of material from fringe publishers - vanity publishing or non-encyclopedic material like the Daily Kos. I propose to remove the reference to Daily Kos as non-encyclopedic and in no way whatsoever meeting the necessary criteria for inclusion and verifiability. Does anyone object? Lao Wai (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"There was and is no on-going discussion except with Dlabtot. Who has now dropped out." As you refused to discuss the points he had made and became frustrated.

"There was and is no discussion with RVW because he won't talk." I concur that he could have elaborated his argument better. At the same time, since you are aware he has an issue with your actions perhaps you should pro-actively provide a justification anyway.

"My arguments are strong but as RVW flatly refuses to enter into any sort of discussion of the evidence, it does not matter does it?" Then you would justify the strengths of your argument regardless. It makes no sense to drag people into a semantic argument over whether you should be expected to argue your case.

"Actually it does matter if RVW is an anon because if he is, the next step is for me to ask an Administrator to protect this article and prevent anons from editing." What? Protecting the article is unnecessary and will merely hinder other parties. -Rushyo (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I made my point perfectly clear with Dlabot and if he had stayed I would have been happy to discuss it with him further. I did actually delete the sentence he did not like so it wasn't as if I was refusing all compromise. I am not dragging anyone into a semantic argument. I have pointed out the basis of my deletions to RVW repeatedly and just as repeatedly asked him to talk about it. His response remains abuse and threats. Protecting an article does make sense when there is a deadlock and a revision war. I would prefer to avoid that, but if RVW insists on it, protection or mediation is the sensible response. It seems to me there are no other parties right now. I take it no one objects to the removal of the Daily Kos reference? I shall now remove it. Any objections? Lao Wai (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I now proposed to remove the Spivak article published in New Masses as equally non-encyclopedic and all references to it. As well as the obviously fringe references from www.reformation.org. Does anyone object or claim that these can pass as verifiable trustworthy sources? Lao Wai (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Protecting an article does make sense when there is a deadlock and a revision war." You cannot expect to demand another party is banned from editing simply because they disagree with your editing. It would make just as much sense, if not arguably more, to prevent you from editing this article and is hence a worthless gesture.

I would request that you postpone any changes until we receive a response from the other party or a reasonable amount of time (at least over 24 hours) elapses. Is there some kind of rush? -Rushyo (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not demanding someone else be banned. I am saying that protecting, or semi-protecting, an article is a reasonable response to edit wars. There is a reason that usually involves preventing anons from editing. Not that RVW is, I suppose, an anon as such. However I notice that you have not given any response to RVW's threats to have me banned.

I am waiting 24 hours before making any proposed changes. Given that RVW has been sitting on this article I assume he is reading my proposals but sees no need to respond yet. Clearly whatever is upsetting him was not the Daily Kos reference. There is no real rush. On the other hand, there is no point sitting around waiting indefinitely if RVW feels he does not want to respond or continue. As I said, the New Masses article and www.reformation.org are in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies and no one has objected so far. Any reason not to remove them? Lao Wai (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No complaints from moi regarding removing those sources.

"However I notice that you have not given any response to RVW's threats to have me banned." I'm not here to create conflict. If he wants to go beyond WP:Third opinion that's not really my business. I just hope to prevent an edit war between the parties here and achieve consensus. -Rushyo (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. Removed those sources. I have given over two days for any comments. There have been no objections. I would also like to remove Clayton Cramer's comments as irrelevant to the article. I actually like and admire the guy after a fashion but I don't see the point of them here. There are also a series of statements that are either POV - like alleging Du Pont funded the plot when that assumes it existed - or misrepresent what the sources cited actually say. I'd prefer to make them en masse and then discuss any of them that people object to but I am happy to discuss them one at a time. Anyone have any preferences? Lao Wai (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spivak and New Masses

Well I agree with Rushyo there is no point entering into a pointless revert war. Perhaps if he/she would be so kind, it is time for a Request for Mediation or something? Lao Wai (talk) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

editors lack of contributions

This editor has contributed nothing to the article. He deleted the following sources:

• http://www.claytoncramer.com/amcoup.html Clayton E. Cramer, "An American Coup d'État?" in History Today, November 1995
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/11/132114/270 Daily Kos: "Attempted Coup Against the President of the USA"
• Chapter 10, FDR; Man on the White Horse of Sutton, Antony C. (June, 1993). Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books. ISBN 0-89968-324-X. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link) Full book online.
• "The Plot to Seize the White House" by Jules Archer, ISBN 1-60239-036-3, page 194-220
• Schmidt, p. 229
  See also Archer (ISBN 1-60239-036-3), p. 194, Found on wikisource. Chapter summaries of Archer's book can be found here.
• BBC Radio 4 Document "The White House Coup - Greenham's Hidden Secret"

And now that four editors User:Huon, User:Dlabtot, User:Samuel Pepys and myself have reverted this editor.

The editor only decided to talk about his wide deletions when I brought them up here on the talk page. Only after I called him on his widespread deletions does the editor want to talk.

Why should wikipedians waste hours and hours policing and protecting well written, well sourced and cited articles from editors such as this? IKIP (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that deleting non-encyclopedic sources is contributing something. Something valuable. Every single one of those sources is non-encyclopedic. Daily Kos is a web-based chat bulletin board. It is not credible. It ought to go. www.reformation.org is a fringe web-based "source" of no value whatsoever. It too ought to go. Spivak is likewise, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who published in a fringe extremist media outlet. It ought to go. The BBC was, I think, misquoted rather than non-encyclopedic although it is that as well. I don't recall being reverted by Huon or Pepys. Just you and Dlabot. Dlabot did talk about it and in the end I agreed with him. You have refused to. This is not a well-written, well-sourced or well-cited article. It is POV and relies way too much on nonsense publications - if I can even call them that. Wikipedians ought to spend hours policing bad articles (such as this one, as I am doing) because discussion and co-operation produce a better article. I would really appreciate it if you stopped the insults too. Lao Wai (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick additional note: I got bored listing the number of policies and guidelines this article violates. It violates Verifiability. It violates Neutrality. It pushes a Fringe Theory which in turn requires even higher standards of proof than an ordinary Wikipedia article - and this has next to no third party peer reviewed credible source material. I make no apologies for trying to bring this article within spitting distance of those basic policies. Nor do I see why I should. Lao Wai (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem with Lao Wai (talk · contribs) was he was operating in opposition to WP:Consensus. Since then he has demonstrated good faith and attempted to discuss matters before making any changes and has cited plenty of policy to attempt to justify his actions. This is not vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism per WP:Vandalism.

With regards to "Only after I called him on his widespread deletions does the vandal want to talk.":

Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion is only needed if someone voices disagreement."

from WP:Editing policy -Rushyo (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits on this page is a classic text book case, the same pattern than all One editors follow:

1. Remove large portions of text they disagree with
2. Edit war with those editors who want to restore the text.
3. Attempt to justify their edits using acronym rules at the same time cherry pick the weakest references to justify their edits

(notice how the editor characteristically ignores the deletion of Schmidt's history book Schmidt, Hans (1998). Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0957-4., and the History Today reference [History Today is probably the world’s oldest illustrated history magazine, published monthly in London since January 1951.]).

This editor deleted the entire history section explaining what led up to the plot, he also removed the section on the person who uncovered the suppression of entire sections of congressional record. Except for the BBC section, which was added later, every word came from historians, mainstream historians. Several hundreds words deleted by some One editor.

I requested a third opinion simply because that is my only recourse.

Rushyo, your quote of WP:Editing policy is incorrect, because it does not involve editors who delete large sections of well referenced material.

Rushyo, what would happen if an editor repeatedly deleted an entire section of the history of what led up to World War 2 on the World War 2 page? He would be warned a couple of times, to discuss his radical changes on the talk page first, and if he didn't do this, then banned. Why isn't that kind of protection aforded this page?

Rushyo, I am well aware of WP:VAND, as I mentioned above, this is why wikipedia sucks. Editors like this one can remove huge portions of well referenced text with no repurcutions what so ever. When the editor's behavior is caught, they then play the acronym game: which is a thin mask for their narrow POV, arguing that the sections they delete don't meet the wikipepdia acronym rules.

Why should I begin a long dialogue with this vandal and legitimize his edits? Especially when I already know beforehand the weak parroted arguments he will use? Why do I have to waste my time policing articles? Why am I forced to pretend that this editor contributed anything to this article? IKIP (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw a bad article. I edited it. When it became clear that actually it was not a drive-by orphan article but people actually had opinions on the matter, I repeatedly asked to talk about it. I am still waiting to do so. You may well be describing a vandal. Unfortunately you are also describing what every editor does with bad material. Schmidt's book is still in the article isn't it? I would have to check why I deleted it but I am sure there was a reason. My problem with Clayton Crammer's article is not that the source is bad, although it is not very reputable, but that it is irrelevant to the article. I used to sort of know Mr Crammer as it happens but not well. I don't agree with him often but I have respect for his views and his work. I don't think his work is wrong, just not relevant. Otherwise this is not well-referenced material. It is a collection of unverifiable fringe publications pushing a conspiracy theory that even the sources used, often misquoted, do not say existed. You can avoid discussing Wikipedia policy by discussing the material. If there is any vandalism here, it is not by me. Lao Wai (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK Given the total lack of any objections to my edits apart from more insults, can I assume that no one will mind if I go ahead and revert IKIP's last reversion back to the edits I did before that no one has objected to? Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Still no objections? IKIP? You there? No minds if I revert his reversion of my edits back to the moderate one that deleted Spivak and ww.reformation.org? Lao Wai (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment removed) Inclusionist (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to spark another edit war at this rate. You're failing to respect WP:ATTACK, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You accuse him of not adding content but all you're been doing for weeks is making personal comments and repeated reversions. Why not treat his criticisms as legitimate and try finding better sources? -Rushyo (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist added the following statement, then retracted it (thank you). But I post it here for reference as to this comment I was in the process of writing.

Inclusionist wrote ":Your POV is clear: Talk:Business_Plot#Congressional reports do not scholarly evidence make., Talk:Business_Plot#Hoax when you were an anon here. Your POV mirrors Lai's, as your edit history on this page does. I am actively seeing if you two are one and the same. Inclusionist (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)"

My comment:

I can guarantee you we are not the same person. I have no idea who Loa is, all I know of him is his contributions to this page, and what I read on his User page. I am not out to get anyone, or delete the page. In fact this page is a boon to wikipedia. I do however, have some problems with it that I've attempted to voice.

I've held the same such opinions even since I was an anon. I came across the page, linked from another site, and assumed it was a hoax, because I had never heard of this treated in any other text books. (at the time it seemed like dubious sources where being used, making the article akin to an article on the existence of UFOs or other conspiracies, and I though a hoax tag appropriate) I apologize for my rashness as a new user, however, my actions were always taken in good faith in an attempt to improve wikipedia. I still feel that this article portrays the facts in a way, that in my opinion, are somewhat skewed. From the opening sentence, the article comes off sounding like a conspiracy theory. According to Arthur Schlesinger, a noted and celebrated historian, "No doubt MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable and it can hardly be supposed that the republic was in much danger" However, the tone of the article takes the opposite stance, and mostly based on a single book by Jules Archer. I think the facts presented here are an important part of history, but I simply can't understand the tone of this article in some places.

Again, I am not calling for deletion. I am not trying to smear or vandalize the article in bad faith. I'm just trying to help the community write an article that I would be proud to show existed in wikipedia, but treated in a professional, unbiased, critical, and open manner. I have not made large numbers of edits, and reverts (unlike other editors, who I will not call out and attack). I did open an RfC to invite comment, however, for some reason no one except the hardliners for this articles current state responded (perhaps because I don't know how to use the system well). When I revisited the page out of curiosity, I noticed another user calling out some of my same objections (which other users before me have done as can be seen in this page).

I'm asking you to step back and look at your actions. Are you too attached to this article? I can understand feeling like you need to defend it, but are you taking it too personally? When you realize Loa and I are not the same people, think about why paranoia has driven you to that assumption and assumption of bad faith on our part?

I am assuming good faith in your actions. I assume you are not here just to protect a conspiracy theory that you have. I assume that you are not here to attack people for your own egotistically purposes. I really do believe those things, and all I ask is that you please step back, and talk about issues of content, and in a reasoned manner. --CandleInTheDark (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Because IKIP does not object, I have reverted all his reverts. I have removed Spivak as non-encyclopedic and the Crammer quote as irrelevant. I have corrected a misquote in the HUAC testimony. I also intend to go through and change every single reference to the coup, as opposed to the alleged coup, as there is no evidence that it exists. For instance, there is an ambiguity in this article now that suggests Du Pont et al funded the coup. There is no evidence of that and I would like to change it to correctly point out they funded the American Liberty League. Anyone have any objections? Lao Wai (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lao Wai, thanks for taking the time to work on this in good faith. I've posted previously about this articles problems and lack of primary sources. When questions regarding the sources and the POV nature of the article are brought up, ad hominem attacks are made against the editor, such as users who immediately labeled you as a vandal. When tags are added to clarify to a visiting user that the article does not indicate fact, they are quickly removed.

There are a number of interesting quotes in the talk page, which indicate that some people think Wikipedia is a place to house differing view points. User Reticuli above says "Everything is alleged... it is everyone’s job to figure it out, empirically validate it themselves, or simply choose not to conclude anything." However Wikipedia does aim to be an Encyclopedia. An Encyclopedia is supposed to have empirically validated what it publishes, and that it is supported by the facts, hence the requirement that Encyclopedias cite primary sources. Wikipedia has similar requirements which I've mentioned and linked to earlier in the talk page. What happens when a school child visits this page for a history report, and assumes that it's historically accurate? Should that child "empirically validate" what wikipedia is telling her?

If primary sources do not support the fact that a conspiracy existed, then this article can at best "allege" that one may have occurred. That is not POV, that is fact. What is POV is publishing something as fact when primary sources do not support it, or using unverifiable and fringe sources as citations to support something as fact. Removing fringe source citations, and information based on those sources is not vandalism. Identifying parts of an article based on non-primary and fringe sources does not require additional citations. See Wikipedia:SOURCES

Again, Loa, thanks for the good faith work here. --CandleInTheDark (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Candle in the Dark has less than 20 edits, which makes his contirbutions questionable. IKIP (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RMV, read WP:AGF -Rushyo (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Why are the recent additions to this talk page all personal attacks? Can't we discuss the issues at hand and the merits of the edits? In WP:Personal_attack I read

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Why then are there comments on the fact that I am new, and that Lao has a "ridiculous grasp of history". I work a full time job, have a stressful life, and unfortunately, do not have time to contribute more to Wikipedia. However, when I came across something that I felt needed editing, I tried to do my part, that is all. I have read and tried to understand wiki policies as a new user so that I can participate in a positive and constructive manner.

Still no one has answered why removing fringe sources on an article marked controversial is wrong? Again, quoting WP:SOURCES "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" Is it possible to stop the Us versus Them here and actually reach some kind of consensus?--CandleInTheDark (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise

This slow revert war is getting us nowhere. In my opinion:

• The committee explicitly said that they could confirm all of Butler's statements except one point, and they considered that point sufficiently proven by other evidence. Thus, by the congressional committee, there was a conspiracy and not just an alleged conspiracy. Historians Schmidt and Schlesinger agree.
• The plot was not, as the article currently claims, "well past the planning stage". There were no arms assembled, there were no millions in funds, the veterans were not gathered. Again, Schmidt and Schlesinger agree: "MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking", says the one; "the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable", remarks the other. There was no proof whatsoever for the involvement of anybody besides MacGuire.
• Spivak and his conspiracy theories are overemphasized. There may be multiple reasons for the suppression of parts of the hearings, and Spivak is dismissed by Schmidt. On the other hand, Jules Archer, who is heavily cited there, seems to lack any scientific or historical credentials except a degree in advertizing, though he does seem to be something of an expert on this plot.

I'll write more later, and I'd ask all interested parties to join me in a discussion before doing further blanket reversals. Huon (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Huon, I really appreciate your civility and willingness to discuss this page intelligently.

I removed the sentence:

"Even though the Senate committee did take the threat seriously and did verify that a fascist coup was indeed well past the planning stage, the Senate committee expired."

This was a left over non-sourced edition, which should have been removed years ago. Thank you for pointing it out.

History of the "well past the planning stage" quote

The "well past the planning stage" quote originated on 00:35, 5 February 2006 by User:ReSearcher: Even though the Senate committee did take the threat seriously and did verify that a fascist coup was indeed well past a nascent planning stage, powerful financial interests made sure that the Commission's investigation stopped: it's time was allowed to run out and its appeal to renew and continue its investigations was denied. In other words, the Commission was allowed to expire. Next, the Department of Justice, though already with information to prosecute many of the involved, refused to do so. [6] The paragraph grew by User:24.61.103.220 at 22:45, 26 March 2006: In the aftermath however, at least one researchable event did take place. According to radio commentator Paul Harvey, who dedicates a show to this event every year on its anniversary, Butler declined the position of First American Dictator but told the plotters that this was all interesting to him and that he would like to be kept abreast of this event. All the while informing a subcommittee of the U.S. Congress of what was he was being told. A month later Butler was told by the plotters that a replacement had been found for him and that a General agreed to become the dictator. That General was Douglas MacArthur. There have been two opinions as to what happened to MacArthur after his role was revealed. One is that he was exiled out of the U.S. to the Philippines or that he was actually forced out of the U.S. Army and then commissioned as an officer in the Philippine Army. I believe that the first one is closer to the truth as the Philippine Islands were deeded to the U.S. after the War with Spain.[7] I moved all of these additions to talk, and cut the sentence down to one sentence:[8] Even though the Senate committee did take the threat seriously and did verify that a fascist coup was indeed well past the planning stage, the Senate committee expired.

As you can see in the "well past the planning stage" example, I vigorously make sure that every word in an article I work on is well sourced. Inclusionist (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but could you please explain what definition of the word "sourced" you are using here? What you have is what even your own source describes gossip rather than evidence. Added to which you seem to have an absurd radio commentator who does not even bother with evidence. The reasons for McA being exiled to the Philippines over his mistress are well known and there is no reason to build yet another conspiracy around it. This is bizarre. Lao Wai (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lao Wai sources added to this article: 0

Inclusionists sources added to this article: Over 40.

Since you have contributed nothing to this article, I find your criticism incredibly hypocritical.

Added to which you seem to have an absurd radio commentator who does not even bother with evidence.

What are you talking about?

The reasons for McA being exiled to the Philippines over his mistress are well known and there is no reason to build yet another conspiracy around it.

Can you please source your opinions? You seem very good and deleting other people's citations, but don't seem to know how to verify any of your own opinions. Inclusionist (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The number of sources I have added is irrelevant. Editing consisting of cutting out crap as well as adding good material. Wikipedia's worth is a result of the synthesis of both efforts. I find your criticism hypocritical as well but I try to maintain Good Faith. I have not added one single opinion to this article and hence I have no need whatsoever to add a single source. All I am doing is removing the non-encyclopedic material. As is not only my right, but is right. And please, if you're going to engage in a childish revert war please do not revert other people's work. Just mine. Lao Wai (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Committee deletions

Spivak and his conspiracy theories are overemphasized. There may be multiple reasons for the suppression of parts of the hearings, and Spivak is dismissed by Schmidt.

Spivak was a Anti-Semite communist who created conspiracies in the Business Plot which never existed, as Schmidt wrote:

But this relevant material was embellished with overblown aspersions against "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups" -- a mishmash of guilt-by-association that connected Morgan interests with Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee.

That said, there are no Spivak "conspiracy theories" discussed in this article, unless you mean the deletions of the congressional record. Every historian acknowledges that Spivak accidentally uncovered deletions of the congressional record which are incredibly significant to the story of the business plot.

The deletions are available on wikisource.

I am really touched that you are using some of the extensive quotes which I added to this article to downplay the significance of Spivak. I think this shows how balanced and nuanced this article is. This article never attempts to hide Spivak's unpopular beliefs or views.

Excerpts from Schmidt about the Committee deletions

Most of Butler's and French's testimony regarding MacGuire’s name-dropping and informed gossiping, crucial ploys in establishing his credibility as intermediary were omitted as hearsay from HUAC's published extracts of the hearings. The suppressed testimony was indeed hearsay, and defamatory insofar as it implicated leading Wall Street and government figures in the alleged plot. On the other hand, by the very conspiratorial nature of the undertaking, these circumstantial connections and innuendos provided the most important substantiation of a larger conspiracy. Most significant want the allusion in the published version to an unnamed "society to maintain the Constitution" with "big fellows in it" that, according to Butler quoting MacGuire, would be publicly announced in several weeks. This society was to be the "background" for the veterans plot, its members "the villages in the opera." ... The fact that the HUAC suppressed testimony dealing with the Liberty League and prominent personalities tended to magnify the significance of deleted passages and discredit the integrity of HUACs investigation. Circumstance of disclosure led to further distortion. Journalist John L. Spivak, researching Nazism and anti-Semitism for New Masses magazine, got permission from Dickstein to examine HUAC's public documents and was (it seems unwittingly) given the unexpunged testimony amid stacks of other papers. p. 228-230 available on Google Print

Inclusionist (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Spivak is not a credible source. I happen to think he is a loon and a horrible person too but that is not important. What matters is that nothing much he writes can come under Wikipedia's policies for Verifiable Sources. Not him, not his views, not his New Masses articles. The rest is interesting but unless there is some evidence of the plot even existing, much less that there was a massive cover-up, it has no place on Wikipedia as far as I can see. Now I have discussed all this before just above this. If someone wishes to revert my deletions could they please explain why they wish to do so before they do so? I assume no one is defending the credibility of Spivak's New Masses work so why is it back? Nor does the bizarre www.reformation.org belong here. Why it is back? Lao Wai (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is no evidence whatsoever that the HUAC, as it then wasn't, supressed a damn thing. Incoherent ramblings being left off the record is not suppression. It is a recognition that they have no factual basis or probative value whatsoever. Lao Wai (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me correct one of several misstatments that you have made repeatedly: the New Mass article is not quoted in this article. I would appreciate it if you would stop making such inaccurate claims, it only makes your own crediblity on this subject suspect.

Instead, historians such as Schmidt are quoted in this article. A historian, I might add, who exceeds all verifiablity policy issues, and which despite having been given several offers to question, you have not.

Despite this, you continue to remove historian Schmidt, despite 5 editors reverting your deletions, which begs the question: Is your true concern really verifiablity?

Every historian who studies the Business Plot in any depth mentions the committees deletions. Scmidt spent 3 pages explaining the deletions. The BBC report, which I encourage you to listen too, does also.

Then we have your unverifiable opinion:

"What matters is that nothing much he writes can come under Wikipedia's policies for Verifiable Sources. Not him, not his views, not his New Masses articles...By the way, there is no evidence whatsoever that the HUAC, as it then wasn't, supressed a damn thing."

I welcome your verifiable, cited additions to this article, which support this opinion. Major historians which have studied the business plot disagree with you.

You are welcome to post your opinions on the talk page, but the main page needs verifiable sources.Inclusionist (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New Masses is not included because I keep removing it. Please stop putting Spivak back in. Given that this entire article pushes the conspiracy theory - which Schmidt rejects - I find your use of his words comical. You are in fact twisting his work to say the exact opposite of what he thinks. That is unusual to say the least. I object to the word "deletions" and if you have anything relevant that Schmidt says about them I would be happy to see his comments included. I don't see the point as the obvious question is where is the evidence of what? I am all for verifiable sources. Indeed all my work has been removing non-verifiable ones despite your constant efforts to put them back. Please do not replace www.reformation.org again. It is neither credible nor verifiable. And I am getting bored or removing it. Lao Wai (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Inclusionist here. We heavily cite Archer, we don't cite Spivak at all. He is only mentioned in the references as a primary source for the two articles he wrote. Schmidt explicitly speaks of "suppressed testimony", see the quote above. What I don't like about our handling of Spivak is the picture of his conspiracy graph, where Spivak accuses everybody and his dog of being connected to the conspiracy. To the best of my knowledge, against quite a lot of the people named in that picture (including the committee itself) there was no proof. Historians don't take Spivak's claims seriously. Thus, the picture should not be used to illustrate the Business Plot.

I'm also unsure about the significance of the suppressed testimony. Schmidt seems to see the suppression as a well-intentioned attempt to keep people whose participation could not be proved out of the spotlight. We spend quite a lot of space discussing this suppression, and I fail to see why. Do we claim that the suppression is significantly related to the plot itself? That seems to be a conspiracy theory along the lines of Spivak. But if it is not, then why discuss it in such detail? Shouldn't we discuss all of Butler's and French's testimony in one place, with a passing mention that the unabridged testimony of Butler and French was published by a journalist after the committee's official report, maybe noting that said journalist used the suppression of names as a basis for a (unfounded) wider conspiracy theory, referring to Schmidt?

And now for something completely different: I suggest listing those books we cite heavily in a separate bibliography section, with the footnotes then only referring to author and page number. Effectively we already do that to a degree (eg "Archer, Jules (1973), p. 6"); we should do it consistently. Huon (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't like about our handling of Spivak is the picture of his conspiracy graph, where Spivak accuses everybody and his dog of being connected to the conspiracy.

Doesn't the graph strengthen the claim that Spivak has radical ideas? Anyone I have ever met who has graphs like this is a loon.

This graph appeared in the article with the suppressed congressional testimony.

To accomodate your concerns, I will change the caption below the picture, quoting Schmidt.

the picture should not be used to illustrate the Business Plot.

It is illustrating the magazine which Spivak wrote in.

Historians don't take Spivak's claims seriously.

Agreed, as Schmidt states. Spivak's only historical signifigance is that he was accidently found the supressed congressional record.

I'm also unsure about the significance of the suppressed testimony...why discuss it in such detail?

I defer to my statements above.

Do we claim that the suppression is significantly related to the plot itself?

The section:

1. States the facts behind Spivak finding the supressed tesimony.
2. Quotes Schmidt

I let readers make their own conclusions.

Shouldn't we discuss all of Butler's and French's testimony in one place, with a passing mention that the unabridged testimony of Butler and French was published by a journalist after the committee's official report, maybe noting that said journalist used the suppression of names as a basis for a (unfounded) wider conspiracy theory, referring to Schmidt?

1. Chronological order.
2. Historical coverage is similar.

Inclusionist (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionist, you do not "defer" to your opinions above. You nowhere state why we should devote two seconds to these editorial decisions by the Committee. Spivak has no historical interest at all as far as I can see, nor do these deletions. At best they are question begging given their relevance assumes the conspiracy. And by the way, given there is no evidence of an attempted coup - and even the HUAC did not claim there was - we should stop calling it such. That would be POV. Lao Wai (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the stuff removed by Lao Wai. We don't use Spivak's articles as sources for any facts except the fact that Spivak wrote them - that's permissible in my opinion. The reformation.org link is not itself a source; our source is the book by Antony C. Sutton, which happens to be available online at reformation.org. In my opinion that link is for the reader's convenience, who might find online access to the book easier than looking it up in a library.

In general, I think the current article's Timeline, Committee and Partial Corroboration sections should be broken up and rearranged:

1. First, immediately after the background section, we should state the facts about the plot: What happened, what was supposed to happen, who was claimed to be involved and by whom, and so on. There we should clearly distinguish between what people like Butler and French (who spoke to MacGuire, not just to Butler, by the way) witnessed, most of which we can take as ascertained by the committee, and what, according to Butler, MacGuire claimed - unless I miss something, there was no hard evidence linking anybody of the Morgans, Clarks, DuPonts and whoever else was named to the plot.
2. Then we should provide a section on the committee, probably just noting what the committee itself did and whom they did and didn't ask to testify (I think that listing its members is too much detail for this article).
3. Finally, we should shortly describe the revelation of the full testimony by Spivak and the conspiracy theories based thereon,
4. followed by the reception at the time (ie the dismissal in the New York Times, La Guardia's "Cocktail Putsch" etc). Maybe we should rearrange this the other way round and name Spivak as just one of the responses; the others are not based on Spivak, but on the committee itself.
5. Finally we should give the modern historical assessment that's currently found in the "Historical treatment" section. In that way we first report the facts of the case (though many of those facts are just the fact that A told B something), then the immediate reaction, then an interpretation by experts.

Thoughts? Huon (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I would go to what would have been my next proposal - that Archer be removed from the article as non-encyclopedic. It looks like a vanity book published by a political radical that is widely rejected by the mainstream - even the sources cited in this article reject his claims. He doesn't seem to have any evidence. I don't see it as much better than Spivak's article. Is there any criteria by which it meets Wikipedia's standards?

The problem with a website is that we don't know, and can't know, they cited it correctly. Not unless we check each and every reference. Wikipedia is not in the business of convenience but accuracy so I don't see that as relevant. I would propose that the link is removed but the text retained if someone can find the original book and check that it is correct. Is that unreasonable?

As far as I can see there is no evidence at all except Butler's claims - and so I think it was unfair to revert the NPOV-ing I did. It is an obvious violation to call it a coup attempt as there is no evidence of such. Moreover we are labelling as "corraboration" of Butler's story the fact that Butler told other people. That is not corroboration. Again that change was reverted without justification in my opinion.

I think Spivak and his theories are simply too marginal to be included. They lack notability. There are no real facts to report except that the HUAC found that someone may have talked to someone else about how good it would have been for a coup to take place. Anything else ought to, in my opinion, be removed. Lao Wai (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking Sutton and Archer up. I formally propose removing them and every single reference to them on the grounds that they are fringe sources. If that. They are not reliable. They are not verifiable. They are not mainstream. Indeed I also object to the entire tone of this article, as I may have pointed out, on the grounds that it does precisely what new editors are told not to do - it takes some sources and produces a synthesis that fundamentally misrepresents those sources, at least the credible ones. I suggest that every single mention of the word "coup" has the word "alleged" placed in front of it. That any POV conclusions, such as the obvious one that the coup actually existed beyond some conversations that may or may not have happened, are removed. If, as again the introduction says, these allegations have any basis in fact it ought to be easy for people to find reputable mainstream sources to support them. As every single mainstream source cited in this article, much less elsewhere, pretty much denies the coup existed, and even the HUAC said it did not get beyond conversations with Butler, I won't be holding my breath. Does anyone have any objections to this suggestion? Lao Wai (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lao Wai, I completely object to your fabrications and twisting of what verifiability is. You state that you have been "looking Sutton and Archer up". Why not provide some of that research, since you have provided none thus far. And you still continue to make bogus, unsubstaianted claims such as this one:

Lao Wai's opinion: It is an obvious violation to call it a coup attempt as there is no evidence of such.

Congressional Committee conclusion: In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

"All I am doing is removing the non-encyclopedic material."

Is Clayton and Schmidt unencyclopedic? You continue to remove them, when we revert you edits and call you on those edits, your circle of what you define as "unencyclopedic" becomes smaller and smaller.

As I mentioned before, every POV editor claims they have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart.

"I have not added one single opinion to this article and hence I have no need whatsoever to add a single source."

I have no need whatsoever to argue with an editor who continual makes false claims and unsubstanted opinions. You wasting our time. I will work with Huon and the other editors to build a consensus, ignoring your histrionics. Inclusionist (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars only strengthen this article

The original article at the time had five external links and no footnotes.

I started to edit this article almost three years ago on 04:04, 17 November 2005.

Shortly after I got in a several month edit war with one of the most established editors on wikipedia, who although I abhor his destructive POV deletions, at least he adds verifiable sources to wikipedia.

Ironically, if I never would have gotten into the edit war with this editor, the article would never had been as well cited, referenced and verifiable as it is now. Because of the edit war, the article went from 5 external links to 54 references (40+ which I added), and 27 external links, articles and books. Opposing dissenting views about the Business Plot were also added by me, giving the article more balance.

This latest edit war has only strengthened the article even more. Gone is the Daily Kos reference. More sentences are referenced, more paragraphs reference the original congressional record, a new small graph has been added, and the text has been tightened.[9]

Thanks Lao Wai, keep it up and this article will receive featured article status. Inclusionist (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As we can all see, this is not only how Wikipedia works, your criticism of me for not adding sources is hypocritical. And would it be too much to ask you to think about what you want to say before you say it so that you do not take twelve edits to get it right every single time? It looks so unprofessional and makes the job of following what you are saying difficult. Lao Wai (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Huon www.reformation.org and New Masses

As we all seem to be in agreement that www.reformation.org and New Masses are unencyclopedic may I ask Huon why he has reverted my removal of these sources? Or if he does not think they are unencyclopedic could he please explain to me why he thinks they are encyclopedic? I am actually getting bored of removing them repeatedly and having people putting them back while refusing to explain why. Is it too much to ask that changes are discussed before they are made? Lao Wai (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying a lie over and over doesn't make it true. New Masses is not quoted here, I advised you above not to say that anymore.

www.reformation.org is an online copy of a published book. I never have agreed that it is unencyclopedic, nor does Huon:

The reformation.org link is not itself a source; our source is the book by Antony C. Sutton, which happens to be available online at reformation.org. In my opinion that link is for the reader's convenience, who might find online access to the book easier than looking it up in a library. Inclusionist (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be working for this article. We have no idea if www.reformation.org is an on-line copy of the book or not. Nor do we know that it will remain as such if it is. As something that can be changed on a whim it is not encyclopedic. If it is a proper book, then we ought to cite the book - although Sutton is himself not credible and so Sutton's book ought to be removed as well. If you have not agreed, you certainly have not justified its inclusion despite many many chances to do so. The burden of proof is not on me to prove it is rubbish, as it is, but on you to prove it is worthy of inclusion. On what basis do you do so? We ought to remove the reference to the website even if we do not remove the text it refers to. As the guidelines say, if the claim is credible, a mainstream author will claim them - would it be too much to ask you find one? Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lao Wai claims vs verifiable, cited documents

Scmidt's opinion of the plot

Lao Wai's opinion:

Given that this entire article pushes the conspiracy theory - which Schmidt rejects - I find your use of his words comical.

Schmidts words:

"Even if Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt, there remains the unfathomable problem of MacGuire's motives and veracity. He may have been working both ends against the middle, as Butler at one point suspected. In any case, MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking. If he was acting as an intermediary in a genuine probe, or as agent provocateur sent to fool Butler, his employers were at least clever enough to keep their distance and see to it that he self-destructed on the witness stand...MacGuire repeatedly perjured himself...Butler may have blown the whistle on an incipient conspiracy..."

Which is to say the "conspiracy was real" that this article pushes is rejected by Schmidt. Much less claims about Wall Street involvement. This is a non-story with no evidence. And nowhere does the article actually reflect Schmidt's point of view - indeed it abuses Wikipedia's guidelines and the source material by selectively misusing Schmidt's words to produce a contrary impression. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of the plot

Lao Wai's opinion:

It is an obvious violation to call it a coup attempt as there is no evidence of such.

Congressional Committee conclusion:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

Actually I have been trying to find that quote - notice that the BBC quotes it as "fascist organisation" not "fascist government". However it does not matter because all the committee found is that perhaps at most two blow hards talked about something. Nothing more - and no evidence of a coup attempt. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This entire page revolves around the allegation of a plot. The man who made the allegation seems, upon close examination, to have been a kook. Whether he was a kook or not is actually inconsequential for our purposes. It is a fact that an allegation was made. Everything else is debateable, and highly problematic. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Supression of the committee

Lao Wai's opinion:

"...there is no evidence whatsoever that the HUAC, as it then wasn't, supressed a damn thing."

Schmidt's book:

The fact that the HUAC suppressed testimony dealing with the Liberty League and prominent personalities tended to magnify the significance of deleted passages and discredit the integrity of HUACs investigation. p. 230

Interesting choice of words on Schmidt's part. But again, no evidence of suppression at all. Just editing that removed anything that was both baseless and libellous. As a reasonable committee should have. Editing is not suppression - indeed the Committee handed over transcripts to Spivak when he asked for them so there was no supression anyway. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources is non-encyclopedic

User:Lao Wai[10]:

"Every single one of those sources is non-encyclopedic."

Refering to the deletion of the BBC, Historian: Clayton, Schmidt, and Archer.[11]

Evidence:

• BBC is reputible source.
• Clayton Cramer is a historian. History Today is probably the world’s oldest illustrated history magazine, published monthly in London since January 1951.
• Hans Schmidt, author of several history books published by the University of Kentucky and Rutgers University Press.
• Antony C. Sutton (reformation.org link) Regarding the book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Wikipedia states: "His books became classics in the study of covert politics and economics in the twentieth century."
• Jules Archer, historian. 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). Anthony Sutton mentions Archer three times (169[12],170[13],175[14]) and cites Archer once in the footnotes and once in the selected bibiography.

The BBC is not a reputable source. Nor was that program reputable either. Cramer is a historian? You mean he publishes historical materials sometimes. I don't object to his standing - despite you taking my words out of context. I have objected to his quote on grounds of relevance although I have accepted that there seems to be a demand to keep it and so I have not deleted it the last few times. I don't object to Schmidt. I object to abusing his work. Sutton is a fringe nutter - and the fact that someone has edited Wikipedia is not a sign of credibility. A man who considers Wall Street to be behind the Bolshevik coup. Again, if his views are mainstream then a mainstream author will repeat them. Do you have one? Archer is worse. The number of times that Schmidt cites Archer is irrelevant. His book is not encyclopedic. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how the BBC is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards? To my knowledge, BBC documentaries are among the best of their kind. Plus, I see no BBC interest in misrepresenting historical facts about a US plot without any British involvement. Cramer has a master's degree in history, that makes him a historian to me. What would you require? Concerning Sutton, we currently cite him for two statements: For the fact that until 1975 no full transcript of the hearings had been published, and for a piece of Glazier's evidence for which we have the committee report as another source. Do you think that Sutton, a former Stanford research fellow, is unreliable on either count? As to Archer, who indeed has no formal academic background in history, being cited by other historians does indeed look like an indication of those historians taking him at least somewhat serious. His book got a review in a scholarly journal, though that review is highly critical. Is there a specific statement which uses Archer as a reference and where you think Archer's bias makes him unreliable?

You have by now claimed that quite a lot of the sources are "not encyclopedic". Are there any better sources out there? If not, citing published sources seems to be the best we can do. I agree we should rely on the most reliable sources available, and I do have reservations about Archer, but Schmidt (the Hong Kong lecturer, who probably isn't the Florida revisionist) and Schlesinger seem to agree on the relevant points: MacGuire was up to something, but things were not as advanced as Butler believed. Huon (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To check

Lao Wai's claims added to the business plot page to check:

Major General Butler claimed that the American Liberty League was the plot's primary source of funding. The House Un-American Activities Committee found no evidence of this.

The BBC found no evidence of involvement by any leading American businessmen in any Fascist plots.[15]

Inclusionist (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to check. But in the meantime claims without evidence - that there was any funding for instance much less who it came from - ought to be removed. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from the following

1. back up your opinion with verifiable sources,
2. Stop repeatedly make false assertions:
   New Masses
   "As I said, the New Masses article...[is] in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies and no one has objected so far. Any reason not to remove them?"[16]
   "I now proposed to remove the Spivak article published in New Masses as equally non-encyclopedic"[17]
   "What matters is that nothing much [Spivak] writes can come under Wikipedia's policies for Verifiable Sources. Not him, not his views, not his New Masses articles...If someone wishes to revert my deletions could they please explain why they wish to do so before they do so? I assume no one is defending the credibility of Spivak's New Masses work so why is it back?"[18]
   I correct this false assetion.[19]
   Lao makes the same false assertion again: "As we all seem to be in agreement that www.reformation.org and New Masses are unencyclopedic may I ask Huon why he has reverted my removal of these sources?"[20]
3. please work towards consensus in developing this article.
   Lao Wai reverted by:
   User:130.156.31.150 over one word.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]
   User:Huon restored Schmidt reference which was deleted by Lao[29] Reverts Lao.[30]
   User:Kuralyov restored categories deleted by Lao[31]
   User:Quartermaster deleted word out of Lao's 06:51, 16 May 2008 addition.[32]
   User:SteveSims deletes Lao's uncited addition, stating, "The article does not say that they found no evidence."[33]
   User:Dlabtot deletes Lao's unsited sentence.[34]
   User:Samuel Pepys restores deleted references.[35][36]
   User:65.102.176.39 reverts Lao's added words.[37][38]
   User:AdultSwim twice restores www.reformation.org link to published book deleted by Lao twice.[39][40]
4. Please study the history of the business plot before arguing absurd claims. Inclusionist (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hans Schmidt and Jules Archer

I'd like to open discussion on the implications of using Hans Schmidt and Jules Archer as primary sources for this article. It seems to me that we have two authors here who COULD be considered POV, and that their viewpoint are the primary ones voiced by this article (as opposed to main stream media sources, such as Time Magazine, etc. I think one could be safe in classifying the two authors as Revisionists. In fact Hans Schmidt was even arrested for his radical views.

I think perhaps that the edit wars and controversy surrounding this article come from the fact that the article seems revisionist since it heavily cites these authors, and since the topic sentence derives from conclusions made by these authors. Now I don't think revisionist automatically equals bad history. Historical revisionism can play an important part of ensuring that our "History" is as objective as can be. However, until a revision is subsumed into what's considered mainstream history, should not the revisionist history be marked clearly as such?

Consider; if this article represents history accurately, yet is considered revisionist by most historical authorities, what is the best way to ensure that it is treated with respect, interest and criticism, thereby facilitating it's further research and possible inclusion into mainstream historical understanding, as opposed to being sidelined as a "conspiracy theory"?--CandleInTheDark (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I was not aware of that part of Schmidt's background. On the other hand, the book we cite was published by University Press of Kentucky, which sounds like an academic publisher, not someone to publish revisionist diatribes. Also, most of what he says seems to dismiss Spivak and his conspiracy theories, and I don't think he disagrees with any other sources we have: MacGuire was up to something, but not up to all that was later claimed. I'll try to find out more about Mr Schmidt and his academic background.

Archer's book seems indeed to be dismissed by historians (or, more precisely, by one historian), and he seems not to have any historical credentials himself. On the other hand, according to our article on him, he was employed as an expert on the plot by the History Channel. Huon (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Candle, nice job on doing research.

Maverick Marine Han'

I know that Hans Schmidt wrote two books:

1. Maverick Marine (hardcover, 1987, republished paperback 1998) (quoted here) and
2. the excellent book which I have read, The United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934 (1971) Republished in February 1995 paperback by Rugers University.

In the "About the Author" of the Haiti book, (which can be viewed on Amazon.com online reader) states:

Hans Schmidt graduated from the University of California at Berkley and secured his master's and doctorates degree at Rugers, The State University of New Jersey. At present he is senior lecturer of history at Hong Kong.

At the University of Hong Kong website I only found this article written by Hans Schmidt:

25 May 1995 Hans Schmidt, Department of History, HKU, “The Politcs of Inter-racial Rape: White Women and the Najing Incident, 1927”[41]

Amazon review:

"Hans Schmidt taught form many years at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He now teaches at the University of Hong Kong."[42]

University of Kentucky:

"Hans Schmidt is retired senior lecturer in history at the University of Hong Kong and author of United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915-34"[43]

Trivia:

There is an authors query in the NYT in November 30, 1975 for information on Smedley Butler.

Who is Hans Schmidt?

Even before Candle's post, I had difficulty finding information on Maverick Marine's Hans Schmidt personal life. There seems to be a lot of Hans Schmidt's on Amazon (293 search results),

Candle's Hans

Candle's Hans maybe another author. I found this on Wikipedia:

• German American National Political Action Committee
• SS Panzergrenadier: A True Story Of World War II published in 2001, was self published by Hans.

Associated Press: "A German-born Florida man who publishes an anti-Semitic newsletter distributed in Germany is on trial, charged with incitement and racism. But in a surprise move, the court ruled Thursday that Hans Schmidt of Pensacola, who has been jailed since his Aug. 9 arrest, could be freed on his own recognizance for the rest of the trial. Schmidt's lawyers said the 68-year-old defendant, who appeared in court Thursday but didn't testify, was too ill to withstand jail."[44]

Holocaust Of Mirrors - A Tour Of The Museum With Two Men Who Deny What They Can See

Washington Post - October 1, 1993, Author: Laurie Goodstein, found here: [45]

Inclusionist (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Schmidt is the problem yet. Sutton and Archer are. Notice neither is employed by a University although Sutton was before he was sacked for being so Far Right. Archer does not seems to have academic qualifications - or publications. Their books are not mainstream. Can anyone give me a good reason for including either author in this article? They need to go. I don't think being employed as a consultant on the History Channel - a non-historic sensationalist source - is evidence of much. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Inclusionist, would it be too much to ask you to think about what you want to sauy before taking up an entire page with piddling little edits. It makes you look like a High School student. Lao Wai (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a good reason for including either author in this article?

I already have above in the Lao Wai claims vs verifiable, cited documents section, see "Every single one of those sources is non-encyclopedic".

With absolutely no credibility here after this section, I don't see any reason why anyone here should entertain your circular arguments.

The one quality I love about Wikipedia is that research really matters. The person who is more diligent in researching can almost always come out on top. I think this edit war illustrates this point again.

As I wrote in #Edit wars only strengthen this article, thank you, Lao, as the editor before you did, you have inadvertently made this article even stronger and more impervious to future piety edit warring. Inclusionist (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's try not to swing back into baiting, attacks and edit wars. Lao Wai and Inclusionist, I'd ask you both to try and assume good faith on each others parts.

I don't think the authors should go. They are relevant to the topic at hand, and they have been influential on the understanding of the history involved. Encyclopedias can reference POV books in the field, and they most certainly belong in a bibliography. The difficult part, is in not allowing the POV to seep into the encyclopedic dealing of the topic. The question I have, is if we do find that these authors are biased against the mainstream understanding of this topic (POV), how would (should) the article be altered to reflect that.

A suggestion for comment. What if the topic sentence of the article were followed by something like "However, mainstream media and historical treatments have questioned the scope and viability of the 'conspiracy'" (then cite some of the periodical articles or historians quotes, which are much further down the page)

Also, it seems like we only have Spivak's word on the deletions from the congressional testimony. (Archer and Schmidt only write about it.) Should that not be stated at the beginning of the Deleted congressional testimony section? I don't have said books, but it would be nice to see who they cite, and perhaps pull the primary sources up into this article. For instance if there's proof that "A veteran Washington correspondent told Spivak that he had heard the deletions had been made at the request of a member of the President's Cabinet", other than Spivaks words, that would be great to have in the article.

All that said, I still have some quibbles about various other parts of the article, like whether or not the Cramer story (which to me seems simply like an OpEd that should go or be moved to a related links section), but I do think this article has been making progress, and I'd really like to thank Inclusionist for his time. The tension here between editors is what makes wiki great, as long as we can all keep civil about it.--CandleInTheDark (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points Candle, again I am not only impressed by your author choices (Sagan) but your above research.

The question I have, is if we do find that these authors are biased against the mainstream understanding of this topic (POV), how would (should) the article be altered to reflect that.

In an ideal wikipedia, there would be guidelines in place which would discourage editors from deleting large sections of referenced material, encouraging them to research their counter POV instead.

Unfortunately, deleting sections is extremely easy, researching is incredibly tedious and time consuming.

I encourage all editors to find alternative views (POV) and add them to the article. These alternative views strengthen the article, that is why I added Business_Plot#Historical_treatment.

Also, it seems like we only have Spivak's word on the deletions from the congressional testimony. (Archer and Schmidt only write about it.)

Actually, most authors/journalists who cover the Business Plot talk about the deletions of the congressional testimony. The BBC did too. I really don't want to research more on this, but will if needed.

I don't have said books, but it would be nice to see who they cite, and perhaps pull the primary sources up into this article.

I have found on wikipedia that if you want anything done, you must do the work yourself. I even made a template called If I had a nickel.

• Google print and Amazon book view are excellent.
• Google news is okay, depending on the topic.
• If you have access to Lexis Nexis if you are a univerisity student that is ideal.
• Historical NYT is also great, available through most local libraries on their website.

Inclusionist (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

collateral bickering between Ikip and THF unrelated to article discussion

collateral bickering between Ikip and THF unrelated to article discussion

(refactor) see the conclusion of the bi-partisan committee on the right. Ikip (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC) In other words, Ikip has no rebuttal for the fact that the page is incorrectly named other than to make false personal attacks. For all of his complaints about "removal of content", he removed four cites I added with his third revert of the day. THF (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, Ikip, as he has done repeatedly, changed his comment after someone has responded to it, by deleting and changing remarks instead of striking them out, all without changing the date, making others' responses a non sequitur and making the talk page unreadable. This is remarkably rude and uncivil. THF (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Unfortunatly, THF did is a common tactic of many disruptive editors, THF deleted massive amounts of well referenced content, then complains when the editor reverts and restore that content. THF I gladly welcome your tags, if you would stop removing well referenced content and moving the article with no discussion first. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Still waiting for a substantive rebuttal. I'm contributing bringing a very badly written article into line with Wikipedia policies: it's still a long way from there, but much closer than it was when I started. THF (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Response below. Once sentence: "it was confirmed by a bipartisan congressional committee" This is all that I will say on the subject. I am deeply concerned about not only your behavior, but also the depth of understanding that you have towards this subject. It is hard to take anything you have done seriously here, because the only contributions you have made, and the only references you cite, are the references myself and others already added to the article, and yet you call this article "very badly written" and POV. You do not build a good article by edit warring and removing well referenced material solely to support your own POV, this behavior does not in line with Wikipedia policies, and it never creates an article in line with Wikipedia policies. Ikip (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

collateral bickering between Ikip and THF unrelated to topic

You and Collect have worked together before. Your propostions would be taken more seriously if you edited with good faith, didn't start a major edit war by removing well referenced material, didn't start moving the article with no discussion before, etc. ""Business Plot" is not an accepted event in American history." Says who? The article quotes a congressional committee and several historians, do you have any references to back up your claim, or is this just your personal POV? Ikip (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I gave four cites in the text of the article to mainstream historians who dispute the existence of the plot. My one time dealing with Collect was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morton_Brilliant_(2nd_nomination), where we strongly disagreed with one another, and he agreed with you, so your perfect record for making accusations of conspiracies where none exist is intact. You've now made five personal attacks on this page in the last hour. WP:NOT#BATTLE, please; it is disruptive. THF (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you for deleting 1.25 of those 5 personal attacks. Of course, you've since made a sixth. THF (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Like many editors, I find your tedious edit warring counter productive. Moving a page to another name, without consulation, is edit warring, continally deleting other well referenced editors contibutions, is edit warring. Stating that the editor is edit warring is not a personal attack. Despite your denials, you and Collect both worked colaberatively on articles together. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Seven. And you seem to have an idiosyncratic definition of "edit-warring" in addition to your idiosyncratic views of RS, NPOV, NPA, TRIVIA, N, WEIGHT, and history. One single revert to restore sourced content and legitimate tags I added to the page is not "edit-warring." THF (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (outindent) Actually, the three sources you added were mine, which were already in the article. Thank you for confirming that this article is well referenced and balanced. You have not acted in good faith your behavior is that of a typical POV editor. Ikip (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Eight. THF (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)