Talk:Prescott Bush/Archive 1

G.H.W. Bush's motivation to join the Navy contested

How accurate is this statement: However the treason investigation did inspire Prescott's eldest son, George Herbert Walker Bush, to flee the family and join the U.S. Navy.? -- Zoe

Hard to say what is meant by 'inspire' here - maybe 'scare' ? Maybe 'convince'? Who knows. Some think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Not sure if 'accurate' is the right criterion for this kind of decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.82.88 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2003

This is a contentious statement. According to the biographies I have read, he joined the Navy on June 12, 1942. This was his 18th birthday and also the day he graduated from Philips Academy. It was common practice at the beginning of World War II for young men to enlist on their 18th birthdays. Chadloder 02:49 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I just researched this a bit more. First, the timing of his entry into the armed services, compared to the timing of the treason investigation, makes this disparaging statement quite unlikely to be true. Second, why would a high school student put himself into certain mortal danger in order to "flee" an investigation into his father's business (with which he had NO involvement)?

Here is a quote:

In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.

Chadloder 02:53 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

disgusted with his family's business

As I recall biographical data on the Vice President from the 1980s, patriotism was widely proffered as an explanation for his becoming disgusted with his family's business—which of course he was not directly involved with but one would not be surprised if he were being groomed to inherit—and over their strenuous objections to join the military, where indeed his life was at risk. I didn't see this as and fail to see how it could be a slur. I suppose a more direct statement evoking patriotism would have been appropriate. Obviously the timing of the Congressional Union Bank investigation and GHWBs enlistment are wrong; now I'll have to do research off-line. The Horror! Of course recent non-rant biographical material seem to omit Prescott's NAZI peccadillos entirely; such is the way of history.

June 12th would have been about the time is father was front page news at the NYTribune. Without going to New York I have had no luck finding a copy of the original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.225.6 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 26 January 2003

I know the article you're talking about. I think you are right about the timing of the "Hitler's Angel" Tribune article, but that article referred to Fritz Thyssen, not Bush. I don't think the Prescott Bush scandal broke until October, after his son was already in the Navy. Like I said, it doesn't make sense that he would "flee" a scandal that he didn't even know about and put himself in harm's way as a pilot in WWII. Unless you have some evidence (diaries or letters maybe...?) to back up the contentious statement "He fled into the Navy", I would advise you not to include it. Chadloder 04:47 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

It's currently not included. I merely state that I read this in 1987 in biographical material discussing the Vice-president and presidential candidate. My memory could be faulty (though I can't imagine how I could have invented that) or the report could have been false. The timing appears to be incorrect: the article seems to have apppeared in July, and you appear to be right that it was Thyssen labelled “Hitler’s Angel” , and Prescott was his banker. I would like to find a source with an accurate reproduction of the article if you know of any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.225.6 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 January 2003

We were right to remove this interpretation of private motivation. Wetman 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The 'slave labor' remark

The statement regarding slave labor in Poland STRONGLY needs some kind of documentation. Pizza Puzzle 14:36, 8 July 2003

I agree. Indeed, it is specifically denied in the 'Straight Dope' article to which we link. I'm doing more research now, to see what else I can find out about Prescott Bush's activities in Poland in the 1930s. Quite possibly, there is an accurate story to be told here, but it seems that the way it was written was highly misleading.

Good call, Pizza Puzzle. Jimbo Wales 17:40 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

'Tis as if God himself had stepped out of the clouds to reward me, oh, delightful day this! Pizza Puzzle

Good edit, PP. FearÉIREANN 23:25 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The world hath truly turned upside-down! Pizza Puzzle

The connection between later slave labor and Bush the New york banker is extremely strained and NPOV. It's out. Wetman 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seizures under the 'Trading with the Enemy' Act, 1942

Article phrasing seems contradictory. First it says the companies were seized, then it says there is no evidence that they were seized. Which is it? Daniel Quinlan 02:27 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course the companies were siezed. It is common knowledge and it is well documented. I'm going to revert that disclaimer. Chadloder 16:45, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Now, there's no context at all to the seizures. I don't think you have improved the article with your last edit. Prescott Bush was not a Nazi collaborator, sympathizer, or anything of the sort, but it sure seems that way now. I merely wanted the phrasing to be cleaned up by someone more familiar with this — it's not really common knowledge. Daniel Quinlan 04:33, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

The seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act are matters of public record. I've added some innocuous biographical material. I've removed "overseeing" Nazi slave camps: let's not get carried away here. But "patriarch of the Bush family' seems a little fatuous for the man who was the son of a rich steel manufacturer who married a rich wife... User:Wetman

Deletion of New Hampshire Gazette external link

Daniel, I'm curious: why did you delete the external link to the recent New Hampshire Gazette article[1]? Harris7 04:16, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the link is not NPOV (especially given the completely non-NPOV and one-sided quotes from the "article" as well as the authorship) and the 1940s involvement and the 1951 profits are already covered in other articles. The Snopes article presents the same information about the Nazi-Bush relationship far more NPOV. Daniel Quinlan 04:21, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I'm reinstating the link Daniel Quinlan deleted because it has information in it that is not presented in the "straight dope" article (I believe that is what you mean when you say "snopes"). Mind you, the article is not particularly good, because it is not particularly specific about its sources, but the "straight dope" article is actually worse. I hope there are better researched sources out there. --snoyes 04:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you agree the article is not particularly good, then there's no good reason to include it. The extra information it has consists of people making unverifiable and speculative statements. In contrast, the Straight Dope (yes, that's what I meant) article is specific about its sources and conspiracies that it presents material neutrally. It remains a good external document. Daniel Quinlan 11:31, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with the reason given for the deletion of the New Hampshire Gazette external link.

(http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2 )

This report was serious journalism by the Nation's Oldest Newspaper. It was the culmination of original investigative research of documents in the National Archive-- which was compiled after the 'Straight Dope' piece (and was thus is more up-to-date). It added authoritative detail to the story, and was written under higher journalistic standards.

The entry was not improved by removing this additional source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.123.204 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 22 November 2003.

consistent pattern here of suppression of material

There is a consistent pattern here of suppression of material. The honest Wikipedian, faced with factuaslly correct material that gives a false impression, provides authentic context for that material. Suppression of information is not part of preserving NPOV, and reflects poorly on the rest of us. At a certain point, suppression of material needs to be noted in the article itself. Wetman 03:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

False history is not Neutral Voice

A number of inflamatory statements implying persecution of Bush have been embedded as truth. THEY are not neutral voice, but advocacy for false history.

The counter story, better documented with evidence is this:

War seizures controversy

:Harriman Bank was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen, who had been an early financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938, but who by 1939 had fled Germany and was bitterly denouncing Hitler. Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act. On October 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City. Prescott Bush's business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included: Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman) Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman) the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman) Silesian-American Corporation (with Walker) Bush's interest in UBC consisted of one share. For it, he was reimbursed $1,500,000. These assets were later used to launch Bush family investments in the Texas energy industry. If one share was worth $1.5 million, than Harriman's 3,991 shares were worth $5.987 billion, not a bad return for managing somebody else's money for a few years. Two Bush associates also held one share, Harold D.Pennington and Ray Morris, plus two identified nazi party members, Cornelis Lievense (4 shares) and Hendrick J. Kouwenhoven (1 share). Toby Rogers has claimed that Bush's connections to the Silesian-American Corporation makes him complicit with the corporation's mining operations in Poland which used slave labor out of Oswiecim, where the Auschwitz concentration camp was later constructed. Allegations that Prescott Bush profited from slave labor or the Auschwitz concentration camp remain unsubstantiated in the minds of those whom have not reviewed the evidence. In 1939 Thyssen sold his interests in Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation to Harriman, and Union Bank Corporation. [2] From 1939 until stopped by the Trading With The Enemy Act in 1942, Prescott Bush was manager of Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation, renamed Silesian-American Corporation, associated with Auschwitz slave labor and nazi money laundering through late 1942, almost a year after Pearl Harbor. The Silesian-American Corporation was one-third owned by Harriman, and two-thirds by Frederich Flick who was a Himmler advisor. There are conflicting stories concerning Prescott Bush's associations with the Nazi party. The Anti-Defamation League has stated, "Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated." [3] Evidently some people don't like nazi politics and are motivated to oppose its ongoing stealth tactics of whitwashing history. The rumors began on George H.W. Bush during his 1980 presidential run and were renewed during his 1988 run. New interest in 2004 came from declassified documents never available before. However, Max Warburg,[4] of the B'nai Brith, parent of the ADL, was a nazi collaborator. "1933 March 7 Prescott Bush's American Ship and Commerce Corporation notifies Max Warburg that Warburg is now the corporation's officially designated representative on the board of Hamburg-Amerika Line." From 1926 Max Warburg was involved in American I.G. founded as a holding company controlling I.G. Farben assets in the United States. Three other members of the Board of Governors for American I.G. were later tried and convicted as German war criminals.[5] I.G. Farben was the reason they put Auschwitz there, to make synthetic aviation fuel and synthetic gasoline from Thyssen's nearby coal operations. I.G. Farben made the Zyklon B cyanide gas used at Auschwitz, and Warburg was I.G.'s banker in the USA. He was also a partner with Prescott Bush, hardly a disinterested party to be trusted about Bush integrity. In 1920 Averell Harriman and George Herbert Walker gained control of the German Hamburg-Amerika shipping line. The deal, arranged through the chief executive of German Hamburg-Amerika, William Cuno, and through one of the shipping line's bankers, M. M. 'Max' Warburg. The name of the firm was changed to American Ship & Commerce Corporation. After being involved in the deal, Samuel F. Pryor of Remington Arms is named to serve on the board of the renamed corporation. William Cuno later becomes a heavy contributor to Nazi Party funds.[6] The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush only as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The label was ironic, since by the time the Tribune article appeared, Hitler had turned on Thyssen and imprisoned him. The Union Bank Corporation run by Prescott Bush sold over $50,000,000 of German bonds in three years. Thyssen wrote a book published in 1941 titled "I Paid Hitler". At a critical moment Thyssen funded the Storm Troopers, Hitler's SA, and Thyssen bought the Nazi Party headquarters as a gift for Hitler. Both Thyssen and Bush were Hitler's Angels regardless of which one the Tribune was referring to. [7], [8], [9], [10]}} It is improper to falsify history in a Wiki. Warburg was a nazi collaborator who used the B'nai Brith and Anti-Defamation League to quell US jewish protests against the Nazis. It might seem strange that a jew would be against a jew, but Hitler Purged Ernst Roelm and 200 other top Nazis in the Night of the Long Knives. Yes German can be against Germans, Jews against Jews, and American's against Americans -- it happens, grow up! Why do you think they have police and locks on your door. A jew's word that Bush was not connected is not more believable because he is a jew. Warburg was Bush's partner in business, and financed the Nazi party rise. So did George Herbert Walker, Prescott's father-in-law. So did Prescott. This is not "controversial" -- it is documented history. Bush-controlled assets were seized under TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT. These assets were laundering nazi money until the day they were seized. Not one word about Prescott's eugenics philospohy, yet he lost his first election attempt because of that. Eugenics was the nazi party line -- 'Master race', 'inferior races'. Why do you find it hard to believe Prescott was as bad as he was? Do you think that Warburg didn't know that the Hamberg-America Line brought nazi agents into the country? He owned it eventually. Of course he knew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.178.201 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 February 2005

Deleted by 143.117.78.169 restored by Dhartung Inclusionist (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible information to add to Wikipedia

This information comes from investigative journalist John Buchanan, but I am not familiar enough with this person to trust him completely. (He co-authored the New Hampshire Gazette article referenced on this discussion page.) Can Wikipedia users with the knowledge and know how look into this and update Wiki's site if appropriate? Buchanan says articles at the National Archives and Library Of Congress prove that Prescott Bush tried to overthrow the US Constitution, assassinate FDR, and turn the US into a Nazi camp. If this infomation is correct, it should definitely be added to Wikipedia so people can learn about it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/290904buchanantranscript.htm http://hnn.us/articles/1810.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/keeping-it-in-the-family.wmv

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.252.36 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved this off the main page, where it had no business being

Someone has appended the parenthesis that "The Guardian" in England is roughly the equivalent of "The National Enquirer" in America. Are you kidding. Whatever troll managed to get that posted to this page is obviously hoping to exploit the total ignorance Americans have of other cultures, even our Anglophones to the East. "The Guardian" has top level journalists of highly literate levels of skill and comparing the two publications, both for quality and style, is like comparing The Royal Shakespeare schools of acting to vaudeville. You've got to be kidding. And here when I was just about to promote wikipedia to everyone I know, far and wide. What a disappointment. Please remove such an absurdist commentary, parenthesis or no.

~~John Ervin

Nota bene: The person who "corrected" the reference to the "Gaurdian" appended severely incorrect partisan claptrap. Since the article was put in place without any copyright notices, it ought to be removed in its entirety. Wikipedia has enough believability issues without reference to the ADL agreeing with "anti-Jewish claptrap" and the claim that Ariel Sharon is somehow a "maximalist" (whatever that may happen to mean). And a lot of the National Enquirer staff is British <g>.

You're welcome. -jowfair 12 October 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.139 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 12 October 2005.

Also removed:

(The following is an example of yellow journalism by "The Guardian", a British newspaper considered to have the same rough validity as the American "National Enquirer." Copyright notices were not furnished for this article by the person appending it.) - This statement alone shows how whoever edited this is himself guilty of "yellow journalism" and partisan claptrap. The Guardian is an extremely well-respected newspaper, winning numerous international awards for its reporting, as anyone who wants to viist the wikipedia article on The Guardian can see. As for the Anti-Defamation League's support for Bush, that doesn't prove anything. While the ADL supposedly fights anti-Jewish propaganda, it openly allies itself with Christian evangelicals who "support" Israel, i.e. support Sharon's maximalist policies. These "pro-Sharon" evangilicals also happen to believe in the Rapture which has a central tenent that Jews (and others) who don't accept Jesus are doomed to eternal hell. Such beliefs are the most basic form of traditional anti-Jewish claptrap, so the ADL's ties to such groups make a mockery of its mission. Abe Foxman, head of the ADL is a Jewish partisan supporter of Bush. Hence his organization is hardly representative of American Jews, the overwhelming majority of whom voted against Bush in the 2004 election. Citing the ADl to clear Prescott Bush is about as useful as citing Karl Rove. (Quod erat demonstrandum)

As this adds nothing to the actual discussion.

For the record, my thoughts are that the Guardian is a paper of record, but often - especially as regards the Bushes - blatantly biased and too frequently in error. The article deserves an actual fact-check, not more snarking. Comparison with the Enquirer are infelicitous, inasmuch as the Enquirer publishes its inaccurate stories for entertainment value. -jowfair 12 October 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.139 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 12 October 2005

Text moved from article

The following may be a copyvio from The Guardian, but at least it isn't really on for our purposes. Someone may be able to glean some usable info from the mass of confusingly formatted text, and if so, all the better. It didn't seem a good idea to leave it in its present form:

From 'The Guardian':

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradeos Graphon (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 October 2005

((copyvio text deleted -- source --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

The cleanup needed is to remove an embedded copyrighted article, and to restore questions about the accuracy of the charges made in it.

Good luck! --Fire Star 15:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Corporate Success

The "Corporate Success" section contains the following:

In the 1980s, he was hired as an advisor by Susumu Ishii, Godfather of Japan's Inagawa-kai yakuza gang. Bush later denied having knowledge of his client's criminal background.

How can this be, when he died in 1972? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.46.27 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 8 November 2005

That portion now seems to have migrated out of the article when another portion, subjected to vandalism, was reverted. David Hoag 06:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More anti-Bush stuff has been sneaking in

More anti-Bush stuff has been sneaking in -- including the bit about "Geronimo's Skull" which Cecil Adams demolishes. Also claims of not cooperating with the government etc. all of which is on the ragged edge of what the Graudian would dare to print <g>. In short -- anything which is not absolutely *factual* ought to be at least labeled, and preferably effaced. And then this page ought to be locked tighter than a drum. Gosh -- the stuff which defends Bush gets deleted regularly -- does any Editor drop in here to make sure that the defamatory stuff is kept under some sort of control? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.2.144 (talk • contribs) 29 November 2005

Unbalanced the other way

It seems while we have gotten away from "Prescott Bush killed and ate little babies" this page has gotten out of control the other way. Now it's only "historians" that "allege" he may have had dealings with Adolf Hitler. The federal government seizing assets is a lot more than simply people in retrospect saying "hey maybe..." And no matter what Bush's intentions were, it is not an allegation that his companies were dealing with Nazi Germany, it is a well-documented fact. This article is now reading like a bio on a campaign site, not an honest-broker that Wikipedia should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.138.89 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 January 2006

stop hating our freedom! There's no way to actually verify this information, the federal government might simply be a liberal conspiracy to make someone with the last name "bush" look bad, 000000000ooooooo00000h, LOL--172.160.151.140 17:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

so if there were sources verifying it would you still be so smarmy

--Howmee 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"and Nazi ties" - type language in a header when nothing of the sort is proved is decidely far from NPOV. 65.1.8.15 20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

I notice that the this phrase has be removed from the biograpy without comment, "In 1942 he was the treasurer of Planned Parenthood's Capital Campaign, . . . . " Can anyone explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvbrown (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 February 2006

Cecil Adams' doubts about the Harrimans receiving $4 billion

It is reasonable to mention Cecil Adams' doubts about the Harrimans receiving $4 billion for their lion's share of Union Banking Corporation. Removal of that mention verges on being, in itself, not NPOV. 67.35.150.227 19:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

ADL quote was cut off by the prior edit

The ADL quote was cut off by the prior edit -- without proper closing quotation marks, and without the link to the ADL page in question. If people really want to lop off half a quotation, they should make sure that the quotation is correctly terminated, and that links for the benefit of Wiki users are retained. This is not a matter of POV, but of intellectual honesty. 70.152.31.242 13:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

changed some parts related to Silesian-American Corporation

I have changed some parts related to Silesian-American Corporation, which were very inaccurate and one (quoting words of Toby Rogers) was completely false. I wonder how such an unrelible author may be cited in a - by definition - neutral source as Wiki. PR, 1st May 2006

Checkers/Nixon

I removed this paragraph:

Future president Richard Nixon considered Prescott Bush to be his political mentor and consulted him before his famous 1952 "Checkers speech", in which Nixon, then the vice-presidential candidate, addressed his exoneration of receiving $18,000 in illegal campaign contributions. However, Nixon admitted accepting a cocker spaniel pup from a supporter. Nixon was defiant, stating: "the kids, like all kids, love the dog and I just want to say this right now: that regardless of what they say about it, we're gonna keep it."

This is repeated elsewhere along with another dubious assertion, that Prescott was among the Republicans who recruited Nixon to run for Congress (in fact he auditioned for the nomination before the Orange County Republican club). In Nixon's memoirs, he does not mention Prescott Bush once (he does mention George H.W.). [11] --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A reminder that Nixon does not mention Prescott in his memoirs, which seems unlikely if he considered Bush a friend or mentor. I'm going to look for a citation about their relationship that we can use, since this apocryphal story keeps getting put back in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Geronimo skull

For some reason, the claim that Bush stole Geronimo's skull keeps wending its way into this page. Reputable sources (such as Cecil Adams) have pretty much demolished the anti-Bush speculations. Placing an article which does admit the story may be fake, but using that article to allow placing of the charge in the Wiki article, is intellectually dishonest. One might as well simply place all the Weekly World News articles in Wiki. 65.1.23.58 09:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that since Cecil wrote that column, a researcher found a letter in the Yale archives which confirmed some of the story? Before that letter surfaced I would have agreed with you. I agree it remains uncertain whether an actual grave robbery took place, and less certain that it's actually Geronimo's skull, but again, there have been recent developments in this story including a widely-reported letter to President Bush. Are you seriously comparing the Yale Alumni magazine to the Weekly World News? --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the TALK page -- the fact was, is, and shall be -- that there is zero credible evidence for the canard that Prescott Bush stole Gerinomo's skull! Removing material from the Talk page is quite absurd, by the way! Collect 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not weighing the evidence of whether Bush took the skull. We are reporting that he has been said to have taken the skull, in notable sources (most recently, in a private letter dating from near the time of the alleged deed). Please see citation and verifiability policy for why this is correct. I am also unaware of information removed from this Talk page; could you be more specific? --Dhartung | Talk 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"We are reporting the allegation" is not an excuse for excising the comments in the Talk page <g>. The fact is that the allegations are found ONLY on highly partisan sites, and that a non-partisan reviewer has found the allegations to be baseless. Kindly retain this comment no matter how you feel about reporting an :"allegation" -- which is on the level of someone putting on JFKs page that hois dad was a bootlegger who killed thousands of people with "bad booze" in Prohibition, or similar "allegations." "Allegations" which are scurrilous do not belong in Wiki, as has been made clear in the past. Now KEEP this part of the TALK page here. Thanks!!Collect 12:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, please keep your conversation in the appropriate place (the top of the page is a mess). You state the allegations are found ONLY on highly partisan sites, but the source used in the article is the Yale Alumni Magazine. Are you giving that publication that characterization? The May 2006 article -- written many months after the Cecil Adams examination you're so fond of -- includes a primary source, a letter which names Prescott Bush and makes the claim that the crime took place. There are two possible refutations at this point: 1, the grave robbery was a concocted story, and the bones were obtained from e.g. medical sources; 2. the bones were stolen from a grave at Ft. Sill but are not Geronimo's. Seriously, please read the sources before commenting. --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The way i heard it bush's lawyers (on meeting with geronimos descendants) denied the documents that they had in their possesion were authentic..... and then asked that they be returned to the russel trust (aka skull and bones). Admittedly i've got nothing more to back up the factual nature of this published claim than the lack of evidence of any litigation that the author of the book in question provoked when he published the claim, but i think at the very least there should be a mention the INDISPUTABLE FACT that prescott bush has had allegations made about his alleged tendency to graverob body parts of famous american indians should be worthy of a mention. If only to stimulate further research into the validity of the claims. ashnbell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.121.21 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet again someone tries inserting trash. Geronimo's skull has no connection with the Bush family at all. Collect (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(prior statements repeatedly and wrongly removed by Dhartung -- who wanted cites for the claim that a scurrilous claim is, indeed, scurrilous -- here are the cites which would certainly appear to imply that a statement that the charges are not supported is in order. If that person has any dignity at all, that is.) ) http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051111.html http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06128/688443-84.stm

"Even so, there is no indication the letter writer or the recipient, F. Trubee Davison -- who went on to become director of personnel at the CIA and who died in 1974 -- took part in any grave robbery. Many historians maintain that, if there is a skull at The Tomb, it is unlikely to be Geronimo's since there is no evidence that his grave was ever disturbed.

David H. Miller, a history professor at Cameron University, in Lawton, Okla., says Fort Sill records indicate that until 1920 -- two years after the purported robbery -- Geronimo's grave was unmarked and covered by thick brush. "I don't think Prescott Bush dug up the bones," he says, "because I don't think he could have found the grave."

Towana Spivey, director of the Fort Sill museum, has researched the story for 20 years and thinks it's a hoax. One piece of evidence he has gathered is an 1878 photograph showing several members of Skull and Bones standing around a skull on a pedestal. Mr. Spivey, an archaeologist, says the same photo appeared in a publication after Geronimo's death with a caption indicating that the skull belonged to the Apache warrior." http://chronicle.com/news/article/387/letter-suggests-yale-club-stole-indian-leaders-remains "The allegation is not new, but the letter is. Even so, some scholars regard the story as an elaborate hoax."

All that is known for sure is that the famed photo was not of Skull and Bones, and that the only photos of any skull at Skull and Bones is definitely not Geronimo's. This is sufficient for Wiki to indicate doubt about the tale -- and not to keep re-editiing the Talk page in order to conceal the dispute :( Collect 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DEFENITELY? That's DEFENITE, as in 100% - no possibility of an error. Wich I have a hard time swallowing. I take it someone has contemporary DNA samples of Geronimo that they can compare to any skull then? Maybe an eyewitness that buried Geronimo and then uhm wrote a letter detailing his grave? Some archeologist that wants 15 minutes of fame, claims something maybe?

The only question at hand is what reliable sources say about the topic, not what could be done with e.g. unlimited funds and unlimited access to the skull and descendants/relatives of Geronimo and so forth. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller Republicans

This artice says "Later he would be identified with the Rockefeller Republicans". Since Prescott Bush was an opponent of Nelson Rockefeller politically that is an absurd statement. FDR | Talk 11:30 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It was a pejorative term for the Eastern Establishment GOP. It wasn't a club run by Nelson or something, it was just a way to lump them all together. His politics prior to 1964 were very closely aligned with Rocky and other liberal Republicans from the region. Whether Barry's book gave him an ideological change of heart, though, it's difficult to tell.--Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His politics were not closely aligned with Rockefeller's at all. True, Bush was less conservative than most Republicans. But he still held conservative views on many issues. Rockefeller was more liberal than the Democratic Party is today. If Bush was part of the liberal establishment then why did he support Goldwater. And the term Rockefeller Republican is named after Nelson Rockefeller. So to call Bush that is very misleading since he was an opponent of Rockefeller and supporter of Goldwater. And besides the term Rockefeller Republican is perjoritave and therefore not NPOV. So we should change the sentence from Rockefeller Republican to moderate Republican. FDR | Talk 14:26, 25 July 2006

Then provide a better citation than the Chicago Tribune. That's WP:V and WP:RS compliant.--Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What does the Chicago Tribune have to do with it. I never cited it as my source in this article. FDR | Talk 16:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I had added a citation for the Chicago Tribune using the term "Rockefeller Republican" to refer to Prescott Bush and others. You deleted that citation. I'm asking why. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had deleted the citation was because I had deleted the reference to Prescott Bush as a Rockefeller Republican, since the reference was deleted the citation was no longer needed. FDR | Talk 21:31, 25 July, 2006

Just because some people called Prescott Bush a Rockefeller Republican does not make it apropriate to call him that. It is not accurate to call him that. Since he was an opponent of Rockefeller. And Bush was a moderate conservative, whereas Rockefeller was an extreme liberal. The sentence should call Bush a moderate Republican instead. FDR | Talk 20:13 30 July, 2006 (UTC)

FDR, please learn how to show preview. You can check your formatting and spelling before you save your comments. Also, you are completely missing the point of a citation in these circumstances. It is entirely encyclopedic and appropriate for us to communicate to readers of this article how Bush was perceived. Since you persist in deleting my citations, I am going to insist that you supply your own rather than substituting general and subjective wording. --Dhartung | Talk 07:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As a concession to you, I have decided to put back in the article that Bush had been identified with the Rockefeller Republicans, but I still pointed out that the identification was incorrect. FDR | Talk 11:28, 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

I also put back in the citation. FDR | Talk 12:19, 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

Tarpley & Chaitkin

I wish to make a case here that the book Chaitkin & Tarpley book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography is not a reliable source. The book is fond of drive-by guilt-by-association claims of the "Bush was a close friend of ..." variety that simply do not check out in other sources, and don't believe we should use it in the article, although it may have things in it that are worth finding better sources for. In general, I think this is a good idea for any source, of course, but it's even more important when there are conspiratorial claims swirling around a subject.--Dhartung | Talk 17:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Tarpley and Chaitkin may say many things that are correct, but they also say many things that are clearly incorrect, poorly researched, not footnoted, or just speculative and POV. Chaitkin is the editor of Executive Intelligence Review, a Lyndon LaRouche organ, and Tarpley is peddling 9/11 "alternate realities". Anyway, I can't even find where they say that Pres and Barry were "close friends". If they did, I would check it with other sources first. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right that their book is very POV against Bush and many of their claims are inaccurate. But the claim that Goldwater was a close friend of Prescott is accurate. And you say cannot find where they say that in their so I will provide a link to where they say it. They it in George Bush:The Unauthorized Biography Chapter XIII Bush Attempts the Vice Presidency,1974 [[12]]. The specific quotation is "The big break came when Barry Goldwater, speaking in Columbia,South Carolina, told a Republican fund-raiser that he had a "gut feeling", that Ford was going to select Bush for the vice presidency,Barry, we recall, had been very cozy with father Prescott in the old days." FDR | Talk 11:50 7 Augsust 2006 (UTC)

"they also say many things that are clearly incorrect" Really? Don't suppose there's any chance of you supplying link(s) to article(s) about the people you think the authors said things that were "clearly incorrect" about suing the authors for libel? I'd love to believe that they were just making it all up (I really would prefer to live in a world in which they were verifiably full of sh*t) but they make a lot of allegations about a lot of very rich people (the majority of whom have lawyers on their staff) amd as far as i can tell, none of these people seem to have fancied their chances of clearing-their-good-names-of-any-suspician-of-wrong-doing/getting--some-free-money by proving their innocehce (on the balance of probability at least) in a court of law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.121.21 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Sentence

I removed a sentence that talked about Prescott Bush's alleged Nazi links because the allegations are not credible and are POV against Bush and therefore violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. FDR | Talk 23:37 30 July, 2006 (UTC)

That was an unsourced statement and I'm OK with it being out of the article until cited, but the point of the sentence you removed was who was linking him with the Nazis and eugenics. For Prescott, it was the extreme right wing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contribution

I should clarify that I made a contribution to the article while I was not logged on so the article's history does not mention that I made it. The contribution was the sentence how Rockefeller's second wife was twenty years younger than him and that he had been having an adulterous relationship with. Sorry for forgetting to log on. FDR | Talk 12:14 31 July, 2006 (UTC)

Bush censorship

It appears some individuals are intent on censoring certain facts pertaining to Prescott Bush's wartime dealings. I fail to see how the paragraph below is an issue, if presented in conjunction with the already strong denial of inappropriate business dealings evidenced in the Wartime controversy item. It should be assumed, if this entry is removed, yet again, that there is a partisan agenda at play; therefore the objectivity of this section should be considered compromised.

However, despite attempts to divert attention away from allegations of having business dealings with the Nazis, it is noteworthy that on November 7, 2003, John Buchanan and Stacey Michael published an article in the New Hampshire Gazette titled "'Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951' - Federal Documents."[3] The article chronicles Prescott Bush's dealings with Thyssen through Brown Brothers Harriman and is based entirely on factual information derived from records at the National Archives and Records Administration. The Associated Press and The London Guardian reported and confirmed these findings.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 August 2006

I warned you against deleting parts of Talk pages; I hope you won't do that anymore. As a courtesy for your coming to Talk and discussing the issue, I converted your references to a usable statement with citation form. The major problem with this paragraph was that it essentially says "an article was published" and nothing more. My own reading of the article is that it's touted as explosive but reveals very little not previously known, and we already had that information in the article. (The Guardian article is slightly more useful.) The other paragraph, again, repeated information already in the article. In both cases the wording was in violation of neutral point-of-view policy. As a rule, it may not be helpful to drop highly biased bits of text into an article and expect it to remain. --Dhartung | Talk 12:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also included the lawsuit because the Guardian claims it has been filed against "the US government and the Bush family" but I can't find where they are really suing the Bushes. The U.S. lawsuit makes no mention of them. PDF Thus the relationship to the Prescott Bush investments is dubious. --Dhartung | Talk 13:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why link "Merchants of Death" to larger "Military Industrial Complex"?

The section that discusses inter-war munitions businesses has an external link in the sources section to an article on a U.S. Senate page about what are called "Merchants of Death" operating between the wars. That's fine, but the hotlink on the phrase itself links to the Wikipedia article on the Military Industrial Complex. If "Merchants of Death" was a neutral and widely used term, the Wikipedia article would be titled Merchants of Death, not Military Industrial Complex. The hotlink thus comes across, whether intended or not, as a political argument. I know some people think you can't write any history without making some kind of political argument, but perhaps some are more blatant than others? This seems to go against the norms of Wikipedia.

(Jeez, why don't I have anything better to do than criticize a Wikipedia article. Somebody help me.)

Possibly this could also be added

In 1942 Prescott Bush was charged with running Nazi front groups and those assets were siezed.13 from http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/ratlines.htm cited source 13 13. The Secret War, p358-361.--Howmee 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See the section titled Prescott Bush#War seizures controversy. Bush was never charged with any crime, but the assets of a private bank for which he was a director and shareholder were seized for the duration of the war. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)¶

Please read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It is unacceptable to edit (or remove) comments by other editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

also found this next piece
[13] Read More
[14] also found in that article And a little Bonus
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html Timeline of events --Howmee 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the War seizures controversy section already covers this ground. There are numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the Bush family and many of the online sources about this information are highly biased, thus caution is warranted when examining them. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be biased but the names and companies siezed should be in public records somewhere. --Howmee 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just found this site if you want another source [15]
--Howmee 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

union bank associating with nazism from http://www.archives.gov AKA "The National Archives" -Holocaust Era Assets; Bibliography: Nazi Gold [16]--Howmee 01:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Howmee, here is the text in our article:

The Harriman business interests seized under the act in October and November 1942 included:

* Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman)

* Holland-American Trading Corporation (with Harriman)

* the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation (with Harriman)

* Silesian-American Corporation (this company was partially owned by German entity; during the war the Germans tried to take the full control of Silesian-American. In response to that, American government seized German owned minority shares in the company, leaving the U.S. partners to carry on the business.)

As I said, we already cover this, and those facts are not really in question. I appreciate your eagerness, but just be aware that this isn't "news". --Dhartung | Talk 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I recognize it is not news that's why I looked for and found it in the national archives. as you can see it is a bibliography of all that applies to the seizures--Howmee 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Some extra stuff From The Only Magazine At Yale About Stuff At Yale[17]

Howmee, the NARA link leads to a list of records relating to Nazi gold, which has nothing to do with Bush. The "Union Bank" listed on that page is in Switzerland. The Rumpus link is a student humor magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung, you deleted the following on the grounds that this info is already in the article: Even after America had entered WWII, Prescott Bush worked for and profited from companies closely involved with German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power (The Guardian, September 25, 2004, http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html last visited 8/30/06). I don't see in the article, the facts that: (1) Even after America had entered WWII, Prescott Bush worked for and profited ...; (2) ...companies closely involved with German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. Correct me if these are already included and explain where, or revert your deletion, please.--NYCJosh 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The first three paragraphs of the section, NYCJosh, discuss the Harriman businesses that were seized ("after America had entered WWII"), and how Bush "worked for" these businesses. I don't think that a redundant and POV pullquote is the best way to enhance this section. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Dhartung, "seized" after American entered WWII is quite different from Prescott working for...after US entry into WWII. The latter may say something about his concerns and lack thereof, and his priorities (possibly loyalties or lack thereof). Further, the close association between those German businesses and the Nazi rise to power is also quite significant, I think. These were not any old German businesses. I am not sure what you mean by "pull" quotes; in the interest of not wanting to seem like I am making up facts, I "pulled" the information from the source I cited. Would you be more comfortable with a looser paraphrase? It's a little like catch-22. If I paraphrase, I am accused of not being supported by the source, if I paraphrase very closely I am told it's a "pull" quote. As to the POV accusation, I am not sure what you mean. I am adding fully-sourced facts without adding an opinion. You and others are welcome to add other facts for "balance" if desired.--NYCJosh 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So what about the ADL?

So the article states that The Anti-Defamation League has said, "rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated"

But, this ADL statement is most obviously politically motivated. The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy

Criticism of the ADL:

"Some critics, especially on the left, allege the ADL willfully exaggerates the prevalence of anti-Semitism, especially among Muslims. The critics also claim that the ADL defines legitimate criticism so narrowly that even moderate analysis of Israel could be categorized as anti-Semitic.

For example, linguist and activist Noam Chomsky wrote in his 1989 book Necessary Illusions:

"The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming 'one of the main pillars' of Israeli propaganda in the U.S.… These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel's refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement."

Michael Lerner, a prominent left-wing rabbi, has criticized the ADL on similar grounds:

"The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern)."

The ADL has also drawn fire from some Orthodox Jewish leaders who charge it is more interested in promoting a dogmatic form of secularism than in promoting religious tolerance and in the process promoting anti-Christian bigotry and hatred. Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin has charged:

"The most deeply held values of the ADL are a hatred of Judaism and Christianity—and a secularization of society." [18] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.117.78.169 (talk • contribs) .

Under Wikipedia neutral point-of-view policy, attribution and citation of a biased claim is necessary. It is not for Wikipedia to say whether the original claim, or the rebuttal, is valid. There is probably a better source for a similar quote, though possibly not one as forceful. Basically the claims about the Bush family are so extreme that few sources with any salt actually reply to them directly. --Dhartung | Talk 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to add to my comment again, but the more I try to suss this out the more it confuses me. Are we to believe that the strict Zionism of the ADL means that they're covering for the Nazi conspiracy in the US? Is that the angle? (Which of course is the unasked question in all of the charges: how come these alleged Nazis are some of the most pro-Israel US ruling politicians in history?) But if this is just some kind of "ZOMG the source has POV" objection, then, well, every source has a presumed POV. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look it, I have no interest in the Zionism debate, the influence of the Israeli lobby, and the collusion that exists between this force, the Neo-Conservatives, and American Christian Zionists, can not be disputed. This Wiki entry is biased in favour of conservative political interests. The allegations are not "extreme" as you suggest, business is business, and the Bush business is war, look at the record. Are conservatives (the ones who try to paint the POV rosey picture here) nieve enough to think that there is something exceptional about an American profitting from war, irrespective of where that war happens to be and the political persuaisions of those invloved? They tell you its conspiracy, that it's un-American, that these men were patriots and would never be engaged in such activities, hello! wake up and smell the coffee, this is business, there is no right or wrong as far as this goes, profit is the bottom line, and the American economy has benefitted from war for quite a long time, there is no disputing this, and there is no disputing that American industry has for years profitted from military-industrial contracts with its "enemies". Only a fool could go on believeing that things are any other way. Anthony C. Sutton, a Hoover Institute scholar (Stanford University) has plenty of details in his three volume series Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (published by The Hoover Institute). He also wrote Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler which can be viewed in it's totality here: Anthony C. Suttons Wall Street and The Rise Of Hitler

That's quite a rant, but it doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand. Keep in mind that this was not a criminal case, and most historians consider it an insignificant episode in Bush's life. Per undue weight rule it should not be the focus of the article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, "most historians"? that's a little vague, besides, historical records, particularly when they relate to the activities of people who are well positioned in society, will not always present the facts; rather, a particular version of events is presented, a version that attempts to preserve the "moral integrity" of the individual under scrutiny. I hardly think the average person would agree that it is insignificant that an American - particularly one who was as well placed in American society as Prescott Bush - had business dealings with the Nazis while America was at war with Germany. This is a fact. What's the problem? The problem is it's George Bush's grandfather, that's why this is all hush hush, it's bad for his image, but lets be objective, lets present the facts as they actually are rather than trying to spin them one way or another. That's something that will never happen in America, becasue the country is swimming in bullshit, so much so that when truths are presented, nobody wants to know, it makes them too uncomfortable to know how deep the rot goes. All this wiki, impartial, impirical, objective this, that, and the other, amounts to nothing, if ultimately wiki cowers from the truth; becasue it happens to offend the beliefs of one individual or another. That's weak. POV my ass the entire P. Bush "war conspiracy" entry tends to stink of POV - depending on who was last to edit it. When someone presents something sensitive there is a revert, or a claim of vandalism, or some ADL nonsense - like suddenly the ADL is a voice of authority in America? Like gee, I wonder who asked them to say that? Again this is weak. It really shows wiki up for what it is, and what it always will be, until genuine impiricism is utilised throughout.

Changes to the talkpage?

It seems this page is being vandalized --Howmee 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything that looks like vandalism. Could you be more specific? --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Hitler declared war on the US / Trading With the Enemy Act

This statement was added by User:TDC:

"Dealing with Nazi Germany wasn't illegal when Hitler declared war on the US, but, six days after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt signed the Trading With the Enemy Act."

Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. The Trading With the Enemy Act was passed in 1917. What gives? 207.69.139.140 23:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed Coup

I removed the reference to the "Failed coup" Business Plot. The only source given is to the BBC 4 series Document's "The Whitehouse Coup" (23 July 2007).

The program does not in any way state or imply that Prescott Bush was involved in the plot. What the program says (starting at 20:24) is

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)

Ken Hirsch 03:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was from the summary, which clearly states that he was allegedly 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."

--66.170.16.130 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

LACK OF NEUTRALITY I'm not sure how to phrase this criticism yet, but this section: "The facts presented here must be known, and their implications reflected upon, for a proper understanding of President George Herbert Walker Bush and of the danger to mankind that he represents. The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project. The powerful Anglo-American family associations, which later boosted him into the Central Intelligence Agency and up to the White House, were his father's partners in the Hitler project."

seems to lack sources, and to be preaching rather than factually stating something. If the fortune comes from the dealings with Nazi Germany, it should be known and cited. Saying someone is a "danger to mankind" is biased.

no username yet - 141.217.44.176 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The "plot" is back on the main page. Was there a consensus that it belonged? Or ought someone with clout consign it to the depths? Collect (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"The program does not in any way state or imply that Prescott Bush was involved in the plot." is now inserted. Collect (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, the entire Plot section sho9uld be deled. I did dele unreferenced claims which made their way into other sections. Collect (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Five days should be enough for comments. Plot is deled shortly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

John Buchanan (quoted above) explicitly states that Prescott Bush was involved in the coup attempt at 4:28 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4-TL5AGHFY Should the plot section be restored? Sp7383 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Two major problems -- Buchanan is refuted even by the Guardian, and secondly videos do not meet WP:RS. Collect (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

At present, the article says

On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the Business Plot and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. The program made no allegations about Prescott Bush.

It's actively ridiculous to have a passage, ex nihilo, about some program making no allegations about Prescott Bush. —SlamDiego_←T 12:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What was his degree in?

The article says he graduated but doesn't say with what degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.10.7 (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

need help - nazi medal to bush is real?

Hi, first of all excuse me for my english. I write from it.wikipedia.org In the italian voice of Prescott Bush, someone wrote "Il 7 marzo 1938 gli fu conferita la croce al merito dell'Ordine dell'Aquila germanica, terza classe (Verdienstkreuz des Ordens vom Deutschen Adler, dritter Stufe).[19][20]

It sounds as "On march 7, 1938, Bush receveid a distinguished cross of the German Eagle Order, third class"

Is it a real stuff? Please help us! --TheDRaKKaR (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No verification for it. Prescott Bush was not a major player as far as the Nazis were concerned. I understand Henry Ford might have gotten a medal well before WW II, but Bush was not quite as important. Collect (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --TheDRaKKaR (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlink years

From Wikipedia Manual of style MOS:UNLINKYEARS "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations."

references and notes duplicate

Any reason to keep both when they have the same material? Collect (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Guardian/Hitler article has been debunked?

84.30.88.83 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) By Cecil Adams? And since when has Cecil Adams' myth-busting site become a 'reliable' news source?

Wikipedia becomes more laughable by the minute.

Certainly true of the political BLPs, thanks to thinkpol comedians scripting the articles and their talk pages 24/7 now. — Writegeist (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually debunked by a number of sources. This Guardian article was previously discussed here, and has no place in this article on Bush. Collect (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect - list your sources so we can validate their credibility. Cecil Adams alone is not enough of an accurate source, sorry.84.30.88.83 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First -- NO suit against Bush was made. Second NO one has found the US giving the Harrimans $4 BILLION for UBC. Even the Guardian, by the way, admits "although it is not clear if he and UBC were still involved in the company when Thyssen's American assets were seized in 1942. " The claim "The first set of files, the Harriman papers in the Library of Congress, show that Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of a number of companies involved with Thyssen. " is overstated since the ONLY record is of his havinf a single share in UBC. "By November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush's ventures, had also been seized. : Unfortunately, there is no record of him OWNING any of that company. "A report issued by the Office of Alien Property Custodian in 1942 stated of the companies that "since 1939, these (steel and mining) properties have been in possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country's war effort". But these were wrt I.G. Farben, with which Buush had no connection. "The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's most powerful industrial family. " Ascribes a very high level of power to Mr. Walker, and seems to lower the power of the real owners -- the Harrimans. "He joined the Nazi party in December 1931 and admits backing Hitler in his autobiography, I Paid Hitler, when the National Socialists were still a radical fringe party." Fine -- except that book was NOT his autobiography. See WP for "The book was in fact written by a journalist called Emery Reves, based partly on memoirs dictated by Thyssen, but containing much material invented or exaggerated by Reves. This book is the source of views about Thyssen, including the view that the German industrialists as a class supported and funded Hitler and put him into power. After the war Thyssen disputed the authenticity of this book, and this was upheld by the postwar denazification tribunal." Thyssen's complete break with Hitler came in Septermber 1939, long before the US was invovled in WW II. The Guardian story in fact rests on this particular claim. "The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel." Actually contradicts the earlier claim of Bush "owning" these companies. Usually, though, a single share helb by a nominee is a sign that the nominee has no real financial stake in a corporation. "Thyssen's partner in United Steel Works, which had coal mines and steel plants across the region, was Friedrich Flick, another steel magnate who also owned part of IG Farben, the powerful German chemical company. " is "coatrack" by WP standards as no allegation has been made by anyone that Bush or the Harrimans had anything at all to do with I.G. Farben.

So what we have is an "autobiography" found to be false in German courts and stated to be fake in WP. "Coatracking" to link Bush to I.G. Farbem without a scintilla of evidence other than assertion in the Guardian, CONTRADICTORY remarks as to whether Bush actually owned ANY of the company involved, and so on.

Cecil Adams states the facts -- that business with Germany before WW II was common for all major businesses, including ones in the UK, US, France and more. His statement is dispassionate and accurate.

It is further interesting that the ONLY "National Archives" document ever furnished has been the one showing the single share of UBC. NO other documents have been furnished in ANY form to back the outlandish claims.

So all that is left is that Bush was a director of a company which did business with Hitler when it was common to do so, that it was owned by a person who was CLEARED of WW II Nazi ties in court, and, by inference, of having been a Nazi when his assets were seized in the US, and whose family is prominent in Germany still. Collect (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And why should we put stock in anything Fritz Thyssen says? Admitting that he was enabling Hitler would not look pretty on his resume after the war was over, so of course he would break his ties with him at some point.

Secondly, the Wikipedia article on 'I Paid Hitler' states that it contains material invented or exaggerated by the author. What source do you base this on?

Third, I asked for the sources, not your fact-gathering evidence. I am now supposed to take your word for it, but can not verify your claims. That Wikipedia states something to be 'fake' proves nothing if the source is faulty.84.30.88.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

And lastly, you mention the denazification tribunals. I take it you're referring to the Nuremburg trials. Recent evidence points to it being a farce/a whitewash/a dog and pony show.84.30.88.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

Collect, I see you're also trying to put the genie into the bottle when it comes to the Geronimo story, while Dhartung pointed out to you numerous times that you did not accurately read or address the sources, and instead brush it off as 'oh, that's only on highly partisan sites', when the comments have appeared in the Yale Alumni magazine. You never replied either.

Are you covering up the truth? Do you have a vested interest in making this page look like a PR campaign article for the Bushes? Trying to put stuff in the 'memory hole' like Winston Smith did in 1984? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks as if the family history is being sanitized in preparation for some attention when Bush 41 shuffles off his mortal coil and Bush 43 minces off into the sunset. (Though not necessarily in that order.) And this is a theory I might be inclined to consider if I were not already super-confident that WP's code geeks will surely have built-in an infallible top-secret high-tech defense against such abuses. I rather fancy it could be some kind of new-fangled Ray Detector like I once saw on The Twilight Zone. (The stuff they can do these days!) But I must say, the more you look at it, the more it looks a snow job. Gosh darn it, it really does! It's uncanny! — Writegeist (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You again? Kindly deal with facts here, not personal attacks on editors. Collect (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no "vested interest" and I would suggest you think twice before attacking editors here. The trials of Thyssen were not a farce, and your accusation that somehow a man who had his property seized by Hitler was an active contributor to WW II is outre. If you have FACTUAL references, by all means show them here in the Talk page. Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"[P]ersonal attacks on editors"? This from someone who attacks another editor with an accusation of "stalking" him, just for having the temerity to post a comment to a discussion about an article you happened to be involved in. And from someone who, instead of apologizing, defends the accusation on the nonsensical grounds that (1) the article was vandalized on the same day (so?) and (2) the accusation arose from an overriding concern for NPOV! You people make me laugh.

Does it look as if the PB BLP is being sanitized? As Caribou Barbie would say, goshdarn it you betcha! Even if it isn't! (And hey, who knows?) Darn it, wouldn't you agree? — Writegeist (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns are noted. All references are dealt with approriately, and ones which conflict with court cases are given proper weight. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What does Cecil Adams really debunk?

Cecil Adams, in his The Straight Dope article from February 14, 2003, does a reasonably good job of refuting claims that Prescott Bush was a Nazi, and supports his analysis with references and sources.

Adams does acknowledge that companies that Bush was affiliated with had ties to the Nazis and did business with them ("So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company.")

I don't think Cecil Adams debunks the article "Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed" by John Buchanan of The New Hampshire Gazette [21] that was published on Oct. 10, 2003. In "Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler," Jonathan Salant, then working for Associated Press, confirmed most of what John Buchanan wrote in his article. [22] Both of these articles do not claim Bush was a Nazi, but add more details of the business dealings between Bush-related companies and the Germans.

The Guardian article by Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell [23] which came out Sept. 25, 2004 (more than 18 months after Adam's The Straight Dope piece) also does not claim that Bush was a Nazi, but provides more context and details of the business relations with German- or German-controlled entities. Wayfinder650 (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article by Adams has not been superceded. The Guardian has now backed far away from its most sensational claims. Note particularly how far the Guardian is running from Buchanan. "Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth". " Not precisely a ringing endorsement, is it? Result: The Guardian says Bush had a share in at least one company connected to Thyssen. Stated, and cited in this article. Collect (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The light-hearted--not to say lightweight--columnist and blogger Cecil Adams is not a reliable source. As he has no credibility his babbling does not warrant serious consideration in any discussion about Prescott Bush. Or about anyone else with links to the Nazis, for that matter. — Writegeist (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you think Cecil Adams is of no weight at all. However, his opinion is given weight by others, ad that is important here, not just your own distaste for him. His column, by the way, is not considered a "blog" as you appear to imply. Therefore, I look at the German court case -- absent a reason to pretend I am the Supreme Court of Germany, I tend to give court decisions quite a bit of weight. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no--thank you most kindly. Really. Cecil Adams is of "no weight at all" because he does not exist. Cecil Adams is not even a deceased parrot. There is no Cecil Adams, human or avian. "Cecil Adams" is a fiction, a made-up byline used by several babbling lightweight columnists and bloggers. Goshdarn it, how you make me laugh. Yes, really, thank you most kindly for the entertainment! — Writegeist (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Final total evidence is a piece of paper showing PB with one share of a company which was not owned by a Nazi when it was seized. Right? Collect (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Myfro (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) nice to see the illuminati deleting all of bush's ww2 and fdr articles,hey it now looks like ole prescott is mother theresaMyfro (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Find solid facts. Anything not solidly backed up is not valid for a biography. Especially the "Geronimo's Skull" stuff. Collect (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC does not state Bush knew of Nazi WW II activities

See Cecil Adams' debunking. The BBC show, in fact, is of minimal relavance to the biography at hand. All major US corporations did business with Nazis, including at least five in which FDR held stock. Collect (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Cecil Adams is a two-bit punk. A nobody.

Either include it or show us why this supreme and mighty creature Cecil Adams is more valid than the BBC, the Guardian or any other 'reputable' source for that matter.

You're in violation of Wikipedia's own standards by continuing to uphold this Cecil Adams guy over the BBC, Guardian and any other 'credible' source according to WP's own guidelines.

Huh? The BBC show is mentioned. The Guardian itself recognizes Buchanan as being unreliable, hence no valid points are made by his allegations. If you want Buchanan in, you will also see his character pretty well demolished here. So it is easier to just abide by WP standards for biographies. By the way, using an unsigned comment that an editor is "in violation" of anything pretty well harms your position. Collect (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And again folks -- please do not try adding unsupported material, material not directly relevant to Bush in a biographical article, or material actually contrary to what a cite says. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Former Federal Prosecutor John Loftus confirms the Bush-Nazi scandal. [24] Somehow, something tells me that our dear friend Collect, the little commissar in charge of protecting the ever-so-respectable Bush family against (perceived) 'smears', doesnt' deem that noteworthy - only Cecil Adams and Snopes tell the truth in Wikipedia-land, where 2 plus 2 always equals a 5.

John Loftus provided no evidence for a "Bush-Nazi scandal." The Guardian claimed that Prescott stole Geronimo's skull, which has been quite thoroughly debunked. The famed material from the National Archives is -- the file here that Bush owned one single share of UBC. The actual seizure of UBC was not done on the basis of "Trading with the enemy" but on "enemy alien ownership" of UBC. All fully cited. The Guardian even had to distance itself from Buchanan's rants. John Loftus' main claim to fame is his bid to be the successor to Madalyn Murray-O'Hair. Nor does the yndon Larouche connection make the tales any more believable. Now let us look at Loftus's books ...

[25] " Mr. Loftus mars his account with some inaccuracies and overstatements. "

Also staunchly anti-Papist, etc. An eccentric person whose main claim to fame is writing a book used in Kojak.

So what we have is two cites from the National Archives, both cited in the article. Collect (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk)I love how you conveniently resort to character assassination (first Guardian, then Buchanan, now Loftus) everytime I point you towards anyone confirming/corroborating on the Bush-Nazi scandal.

That you take a book review dating back to 1982 (an opinion piece, at that) to build your case that John Loftus is not reliable says it all.

It's all rather ironic and rather sad. Even worse is that Wikipedia actually LINKS to an unauthorized biography of George HW Bush that ELABORATES on the Prescott Bush-Nazi connection, while at the same time denying here it ever happened.

I ask you, what EVIDENCE does Cecil Adams PROVIDE, eh? About the Geronimo skull (I was not even talking about that, but whatever - you like to bring it up time and time again), about the Bush-Nazi angle, about anything in particular? How come you take the ramblings of a writer(s) hiding behind a pseudonym more seriously than a former Federal Prosecutor?

Really, I think you're getting paid by the minute to built strawmans and misdirect readers.

Dear me, you are in a snit? Accusing editors of anything is really a bad idea. Accusing them of being paid is an extraordinarily bad idea. Loftus is a writer of fiction at this point in his life. And not very good fiction either. Collect (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Oh dear me, I'm shivering in my boots. Can't wait to see what you're going to do, Mr Thought Police.

By the way, I don't think it was a good idea to remind you that this article was still linking to Webster G Tarpley's 'George HW Bush The Unauthorized Biography'. Guess that's the next thing to disappear from the page in Wikipedia's pursuit for doubleplus truth.

The cite is used for a fairly well-known fact about the medal story. The author is a well-known and accepted author. Might I ask what you would find objectionable in that book? Collect (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Collect: I find absolutely nothing objectionable in that book, but that's not the point I was trying to make. I just find it peculiar, since Tarpley in Bush's unofficial biography seems to go into the exact same Nazi-Bush connections that you seem to find so highly objectionable and are so eager to dismiss out of hand.

Might I ask if you actually read his book first? Are you now going to tar Tarpley with the same brush now that you know he implicated Prescott in dealing with the Nazis as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.88.83 (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The book is not being used for such a claim. I note the Lyndon Larouche connection and would suggest that the book likely has problems. I trust you are not a Larouche-ite. Collect (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)The book IS being used for such a claim, or else you might not have read further than the introductory page.

This one is rich though. Before, he was a well-known and accepted author. Now upon learning that he too is a subscriber to the Prescott Bush-Nazi story, 'the book likely has problems', presumably because it isn't in accordance with your personal doctrine of what really happened. I would really like to know why it is that you purport to have the absolute last word on what happened. Were you there by any chance, or were you privy to some records we are not aware of?

Furthermore, if the Prescott Bush-Nazi angle is so established that it even pops up in unofficial biographies that Wikipedia links to, shouldn't the article at least have a section on it, if only to dispell what you deem to be mere rumours or lies? Either whitewash it (like the Reichstag article, where the age-old myth is still being promulgated that Van Der Lubbe did it, even though he was exonerated recently) or try to debunk it in the article, but don't just pretend there's no connection when there clearly is one - where there's smoke, there's fire.

84.30.88.83 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)BTW, you seem to have an obsession with Lyndon Larouche, since you namecheck him every so often. For the record, I had never even heard of the guy. What he has to do with the subject is my guess. I see in his Wikipedia article that he is being accused of being an 'anti-semite' amongst other things, so I suspect the ADL had some fun with him already and wants to make an example out of him.

Lyndon Larouche is a colorful figure from the fringes of American politics. [26] "It is probably safe to assume that Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche Jr. is the only person who has ever campaigned for President with a platform that included his own version of quantum theory. The currently accepted view, you see, was foisted upon the world by that archconspirator Werner Heisenberg, whose notorious uncertainty principle - a cornerstone of modern physics - was an evil ploy to demoralize the world with the notion that at the roots of reality everything happens at random. " [27] "The indictment charged that the defendants conspired to obtain loans from the public to three LaRouche-related organizations through promissory notes they never intended to repay. LaRouche Denounces Charges Mr. LaRouche was not named in the indictment, which a LaRouche spokesman, Melvin Klenetsky, described as a political witch hunt. The indictment was the third recent criminal action involving fraud brought against LaRouche followers and related organizations. Mr. Abrams estimated that about 140 New Yorkers, most of them elderly, lent $850,000 to the three organizations in the past eight years. He said only $4,000 has been repaid, and estimated that similar frauds elsewhere total $30 million. " [28] "Lyndon LaRouche, the political extremist running for President as a Democrat, said on network television tonight that the AIDS virus was transmitted much like any other virus, including through casual contact, and that most medical warnings about how it is spread are an outright lie. Mr. LaRouche spoke on a 30-minute taped program televised nationally on CBS, from which his campaign bought air time." He started off as far-left, and moved to wierdness soon after. I trust you do not consider him a reliable source on much <g>. Collect (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Like I said, I had never even heard of the guy, but I still fail to see the correlation between Prescott Bush and Lyndon Larouche. Just sounds like political witchhunting to me on your part - if you don't think he is reputable, why namecheck him every so often?

Read up on Larouche. When he finds a subject he wants to trash, he goes full steam ahead. And not "witchhunting" on my part -- this is a widely acknowledged fact. And I do not "namecheck" the fellow. Collect (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

84.30.88.83 (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Like I said, I was not even aware who the guy was before you went on and on about him. You are inadvertently drawing attention to him - it works counterproductively if you want people to steer clear of the guy - it's reminiscent of the way Alan Dershowitz draws people to Noam Chomsky when he goes on and on about 'Chomsky this' or 'Chomsky that'.

Secondly, what does this Lyndon Larouche fellow have to do with Prescott Bush and his Nazi dealings?

Thirdly, are you politically biased? On the right by any chance? Do you still believe that there's one iota of difference between left and right, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary?

Oh well, I guess we can debate this thing on and on, but it's all rather pointless, really. Just some admin trying to keep a perfectly valid section from re-entering the main article because of his political beliefs and hiding behind skewed 'facts' that make sense only to him.

I have even met Chomsky <g>. My political position wrt any encyclopedia article is absolutely none. My personal politics, such as they are, are plain vanilla middle of the road. My position on facts is solid -- if something is a fact with proper cites, then it is a fact. Then if it is proper for a BLP, it can be in the BLP. If it does not have a solid cite, then it does not belong in a BLP. If you wish to see how I view WP, look at User:Collect/thoughts Collect (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Current state of this Wikipedia article

At this point, this hardly constitutes an encyclopedia entry on Prescott Bush. Anything remotely politically sensitive has vanished without a trace (um... the man was a politician, among other things).

How is it even possible that the lack of consensus over how to represent the Union Banking Corporation / Trading with the Enemy Act matter has led to an article that completely fails to mention the matter (much less to differentiate historical record from speculation). I refuse to believe that expunging the record entirely is any sort of consensus solution! Get sourcing, Wikipedia writers, and let's make this article something worth bothering to read! 67.183.223.38 (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The only verifiable fact about UBC is in the first paragraph. The archive mentioned in the Guardian article is fully cited. It was not expunged from the article at all. Surmise from people whose purpose appears to be political rather than biographical is not relevant to biography. And for some strsnge reason, I think it more important to use facts than to make something "worth bothering to read." If that is the main reason for an encyclopedia, then the National Enquirer should be an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of your views on this article: It is not supposed to be an "entertaining" read, but I do think that this article needs to have at least a paragraph explaining the controversy about Bush/Nazi ties. It is unfortunate that there is so much misinformation circulating around, but I think it is important for a Wiki article to answer the questions people have when they look up Prescott Bush. In the case of this article, my guess would be that at least 50% of the people who view this page are interested in discovering the truth about these allegations. I think it is important for a Wiki page to address popular misconceptions. Not addressing this controversy means that people will find another source that does address the controversy, and that most likely means a biased and poorly referenced article. The debate should be settled here, and not on someone's personal blog. Mediokerman (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mediokerman, for your well-expressed distillation of the problem at hand. As for User:Collect's assertion that "the only verifiable fact about UBC is in the first paragraph," well that's simply incorrect. All the first paragraph says about UBC is that Bush was "a director of Union Banking Corp." That's it. Nothing whatsoever about the fate of Union Bank Corp. So I suppose every reader of this page should be expected to follow the link to Union Bank Corp.'s own page to learn anything at all -- those for whom this bank's name means nothing already (no incentive to follow link) will therefore learn nothing about this scandal to which Bush was, in one way or another, connected! The next sentence does explain that "his involvement with that bank, of which he owned exactly 1 share," didn't cut short his political career. So that sort of implies, in a non-specific, weaselly way, that the bank has negative implications, but with no further information... unless you count the blatantly defensive language about him "owning exactly 1 share" (read: "1 measly share"). Again, someone might have to look elsewhere to discover that the 1 measly share has been rumored to have been reimbursed to the tune of over a million dollars. This is a pretty shabby approach to the topic, and what is there is hardly as neutral as User:Collect would like to suggest.24.18.223.55 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Prescott Bush. Hence it must have facts about Prescott Bush. The "scandal" has been shown to have nothing in particular to do with Prescott Bush. The cite given shows exactly "1 share" which means that "measly" might be POV, but "esactly" is not POV. If that one share was worth 1 million dollars, then Harriman was given 4 BILLION dollars. No evidence whatsoever for that claim. And incase you did not know it, WP policy is that rumors do not belong in articles. OK? Collect (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Collect, but here's how the first sentence (as you defend it) reads: "Prescott Bush was some guy who had a role in running some banks." You suggest that it would be out-of-bounds to add any clause that would say anything about else about those banks in the context of a biographical article -- that's just ridiculous! For your information, the biographical article on Kenneth Lay doesn't just mention Enron in the first sentence; it mentions Enron's downfall. I'm going to add such a clause, including citations. Don't even think about reverting unless you can challenge the citations themselves.24.18.223.55 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reread WP standards for the lede in a biographical article. If you have solid cites from a RS, place it in an appropriate section. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deled two duplicate refs for one single actual document (the "vesting order"). Deled claim he was a "founding partner" of BBH as I culd find no RS for that claim (and I likked hard). Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, User:Collect, I must admit that I am struggling to maintain my composure. Are you really so blinded by your own ideology that you fear any potential wording of the article that would provide any actual information to the reader. You have seen fit to "allow" the "Executive Order No. 9095" to remain, yet have removed the reference to the Trading with the Enemy Act, calling it "excess words." Seriously? Here's the difference: the numerical identifier assigned to the executive order tells the reader NOTHING about its content. That this executive order established the Office of Alien Property Custodian, and that it explicitly referenced "authority vested in me by the Constitution, by the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, by the First War Powers Act, 1941," is very telling information for the reader. I am therefore including that very information, clearly stated and sourced, in the text of the article.24.18.223.55 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As for this "1 share" matter: despite your attempts to present it as mere fact, the context in which it is used in the article simply doesn't represent neutral POV. It is written so as to imply a detachment from the fate of UBC, an erroneous implication. He was a member of the Board of Directors, a position in which he bore a share of responsibility for the actions of the company, and a position for which he presumably received a salary; the value of his 1 share is therefore entirely irrelevant. I have therefore replaced this "factoid" with TRULY neutral language.24.18.223.55 (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

First - the lede is not designed to contain every factoid available. It is meant to provide only an overview so that a reader can decide whether to procede. Second -- the actual cite given specifically shows him with 1 share. When cites are given, they can be used only to affirm what is in the cite. If all the cite says is that he owned one share, then that is what can reference the cite. Third -- if you want an article on the Alien Property Custodian, go there. This is an article on Prescott Bush, and only cites which directly reference this person are valid cites in an article on this person. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:LEAD et al. My function is to edit, not to show any POV. And my belief is that all assetions in any article need sources. This, in fact, is official WP policy. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would have no objection to the explanation of the UBC/Trading With the Enemy matter being moved to the body of the article and further expanded. I don't think it necessarily needs to be presented in the lead/lede. (Of course, there used to be an entire body paragraph on the subject, which disappeared in an edit war before I got here.) What was entirely objectionable to me was an article on Prescott Bush that was scared to use the words "Trading With the Enemy" at all, despite his being a Director of UBC and the reason for UBC's seizure being well-documented. Any article missing that information would be de facto revisionist history. Furthermore, there has been a disturbing trend lately on Wikipedia wherein editors with strong feelings on a given subject find "Wikipedia policy" excuses to simply delete things with which they disagree (rather than attempting to improve the reader's understanding of a controversial matter through better writing/sourcing). There have increasingly been gaping holes in Wikipedia as a result. Lastly, while I DO, in fact, appreciate your dedication to a well-sourced Wikipedia, I think that your approach, if carried too far, could lead to an encyclopedia that is no more than a list of sourced tidbits with no explanation, no context, and no interrelationship with other articles... when, in fact, the very purpose of an encyclopedia is to distill disparate information into an explanatory whole, and the very purpose of an online encyclopedia is to increase access to interrelated information.24.18.223.55 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No revisionist history. All that is in the archives is the piece of paper listing the shareholders. Find solid reliable sources, and we can add factual material. And choose "Exec. Order" or "TWEA" for the lede -- but not both. You will find I am quite determined that WP be sourced accurately, as comments outside WP have generally poked fun at it. For what its worth, you should note that much of what you think should be here, really should be in the appropriate other articles. For example, if we are not careful, all the seizures could be linked here to show context, and there are a whole bunch which people would not have known was under TWEA. Collect (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The way the lead paragraph reads now, it looks like people think his directorship of UBC is the single most important fact of his business career, despite the fact that there's nothing about it in the 'Business Career' paragraph. Look at the leads of other articles on businessmen John Jacob Astor, Warren Buffett, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J. Paul Getty, Henry Flagler - not a whole lot of detail about companies they founded (or sat on the boards of). The E. Roland Harriman article doesn't even mention UBC. The only reason people want to put UBC in the lead is because his son & grandson sat in the White House - if he were Prescott Jones, businessman, if a specific company was mentioned in the lead paragraph (rather than the more typical 'US banker & businessman') the company mentioned would be the far more famous Brown Brothers Harriman. For another businessman with legal problems, take a look at how things are handled in Samuel Insull - despite the fact that he fled the country to avoid prosecution, it's not mentioned in the lead. So let's drop the politics & attempts to besmirch the guy & put the UBC stuff in the main body of the article where it belongs. CruiserBob (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading your thoughts/reactions to my initial post, I have modified the article to something I think we can all agree on. The lead is now a proper summary, and the involvement with Union Banking is listed under the business section. I also noted that it was "not uncommon" for banks to be involved in Germany prior to the war, which I think puts the seizure into context to show that he was not part of some sort of grand conspiracy. I realize this last statement is not sourced, but I think everyone here can agree that it is an accurate statement. If anyone objects to it I would ask that they find a source that would either confirm or deny the statement instead of just deleting it. If a sentence containing "Bush" and "Enemy" is not put into context readers will likely take this to mean he was involved with the Nazis, which is precisely what we are trying to avoid. Mediokerman (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediokerman, I think you did an excellent job of presenting the distinction between doing business with Germany prior to the declaration of war and continuing to do business while the war proceeded. Personally, I might argue that, since it became an act of ideological stubbornness to continue such business after it was declared illegal (and became far, far rarer), that Bush's involvement in such a business is highly telling. But the text as you have written it is admirably neutral as well as informative.24.18.223.55 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As Hitler had already seized Thyssen;s assets in Germany, it is possible that UBC thought they were owned by an opponent of Hitler. And Harriman had several thousand times the involvement that Bush did. Collect (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Trading With The Enemy Act is a blanket prohibition against doing business with any entity in a hostile country. So conjectures about what they UBC's board "thought" are irrelevant. Also, Harriman had several thousand times the investment (i.e. shares) that Bush did. But the votes (and liability) of Board Members are generally weighted equally. Sorry, Collect, but your non-neutral point-of-view is showing again.24.18.223.55 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Added cites for the really outrageous point (?) that "many companies did business with Germany before WWII." Also included names of such outrageous offenders as Ford, GM and IBM. Also pointed out that the US and UK seized property of enemy nationals who were Jewish as well. And I would point out that the one who owns the shares controls the board. Bush was an employee of Harriman, not a "free agent." Lastly, I suggest you not make personal attacks, even anonymously. All absolutely NPOV, thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I honestly, honestly didn't intend for my above comment to be interpreted as a personal attack. I apologize. However, it is my opinion that you have made more than a few logical errors here, have misinterpreted most of my assertions, and may have a clouded sense of the historical timeline.

1) No one ever claimed that it is "outrageous" to suggest that many companies had business dealings with Germany prior to the declaration of war. Therefore, your newly added sentences about GM, IBM, etc. are irrelevant (and come across as a kind of weaselly and indirect "character defense" of UBC).

2) Despite Mediokerman's well-written distinction between trading with Germany before versus after the declaration of war, you seem unable to discern the differences between the two -- the most significant difference being that the vast majority of American businesses broke off relations following the declaration of war, and especially following Executive Order 9095 (issued March 11, 1942, months after the declaration). This put UBC in a small, ideologically stubborn minority.

3) I am, sadly, not surprised to read that German Jews wound up being considered "enemy nationals" in this matter. The American record of willful ignorance of the ongoing Holocaust, and of policies hostile to its potential refugees and asylum-seekers, is abhorrent. It would have taken extra effort to specifically exempt one group of German nationals (the one being actively persecuted and murdered by its own state) from policies that would generally apply to all nationals of the enemy state -- that effort would have been morally right but was tragically not forthcoming. Nevertheless, I do not see the relevance to the UBC matter of addressing German Jews, as UBC's dealings are widely understood to have involved entities in the mainstream of Nazi-era Germany. Moreover, your unsourced statement that "many companies 'owned by enemy nationals' were later determined not to have been properly seized" carries the implication that this might have been the case for UBC as well. In fact, no one has ever suggested that the seizure of UBC was improper.

4) Lastly, "the one who owns the shares controls the board" is simply an inaccurate statement, especially if you are suggesting (as you seem to be) that the Board's votes are weighted in proportion to their stake as shareholders (not generally the case). Indeed, one of the very functions of a Board of Directors is to provide a counterbalance to the whims of the majority shareholder(s). And while the shareholders do have the power to elect different Directors, that is a long and involved process. So, inasmuch as maintaining the health and prospects of the corporation would have figured into the Directors' job descriptions somehow, one must infer that the preponderance of them (and not just Harriman), chose for some reason (again, likely ideology and stubbornness) to continue the conduct that eventually got UBC seized.24.18.223.55 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, please note that I have not yet made any reverts to the article, although per my criticisms in sections 1 & 3 above, I think that certain sentences are irrelevant and should be removed. There seem to have been a number of vandalism attempts since I was last here, so I will wait to take any action on the body of the article until my prior comments have been read.24.18.223.55 (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The official reason for the UBC seizure was ownership by an "enemy alien." Per the actual documents cited. Thus statements as to who the US and UK governments considered "enemy aliens" are directly pertinent. As to how directors votes are weighted, all I can say is that a person who controls 99.9% of shares generally has the only real voice, as any other director could be voted off the board in a flash. And when the other director is an "at will" employee of yours, I suggest that he has a great deal of control. Remember that rules about Boards of Directors were substantially different back then, and a director could be removed by a majority vote of shareholders <g>. And as for "contact" that got UBC seized, again the official basis was the ownership by an enemy alien."

Since there is nothing in the Vesting Order (the specific seizure document) suggesting enemy alien "ownership," and since all of the listed shareholders were either Americans or Dutch (no enemy aliens), and since you yourself have been insisting that Harriman (an American) exercised nearly total control and rights of ownership, I fear that you may be severely misinterpreting the nature of the Alien Property Custodian and the language establishing it (which is what you are presumably "citing"). Simply put, if your business acquires (or deals primarily in) funds belonging to those considered enemy aliens, or if your business's assets exist as the result of dealings with an enemy-alien entity, those funds and assets can and will be seized. There is no prerequisite that your business itself be "owned" by enemy aliens, as you imply -- the assets themselves are the enemy "property" residing in the U.S., and are thus subject to seizure. Even more simply put, if you make your money by "trading with the enemy," that money is "alien property," and will be seized. 24.18.223.55 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the businesses named did NOT "break off" with Germany. IBM, GM, Ford and other companies for example. per cites given in the article. And, again, UBC was not seized for "doing business" with anyone. It was seized due to its ownership. Collect (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since your cites are so difficult to reference ("whole book" is not terribly specific), I cannot speak to them directly. I do know that IBM has claimed, continually (and controversially), to have had no control over its German subsidiaries from the time that Hitler took power (a decade before the war). But as you yourself have written it, UBC are lumped in with other corporations who dealt with Germany before the war, when the only relevant matter is who had documented dealings after the declaration.24.18.223.55 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to let you know that when I wrote the above comment, I had noticed your new citations #7&8 but hadn't noticed the more specific and easily referenced cites #4,5,&6. I've read those now -- The GM cite (a major newspaper) is reputable and reliable, the Ford one is slightly less so, and the IBM one much less so (the ACSA appears to be a pretty conspiracy-happy organization). In the GM article, it is quite clear that GM continued, with profit as its motive, to involve itself in Opel long after it had publicly declared otherwise, and that its executives' statements about the war reflected a moral vacuum. But I must direct you to this sentence: "After Germany declared war on America, all American corporate interests in Germany or under German control were systematically placed under the jurisdiction of a Reich-appointed "custodian" for enemy-owned property" -- analogous to our Alien Property Custodian. So with the war underway, Opel was under Nazi oversight, not GM's, and profits and assets were seized and held through the duration of the war. This directly undermines your parallel with UBC, which continued to freely operate with enemy-owned assets as a private enterprise run by private American citizens up until the point when it was seized (well into the war).24.18.223.55 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found references to memo of investigator at the Office of Alien Property Custodian's who recommended the seizure. It is very clear that at issue is the provenance of the assets of UBC, rather than the provenance of the shareholders themselves. An interesting side-note: Harriman was described as having little interest in dictating the actions of UBC -- he was the money/connections that brought UBC into existence, but Bush and the other Directors were the "brains." The utter opposite of your assertion that, as primary shareholder, Harriman called all the shots!24.18.223.55 (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT; PLEASE READ: Regarding neutral POV: Neutral POV is not simply a matter of careful word-choice, or of individual sentences aiming for a neutral tone. The inclusion/exclusive of certain information, and how information is presented to the reader (order, relative importance, explicit and implicit connections) has a palpable effect on whether a reader encountering the subject for the first time comes away informed or unfairly biased.

So while I take no pleasure, Collect, in impugning your neutrality, I beg of you to step back and consider why you choose to make some of the edits that you do. Because from where I sit, it appears that every move you make intends to persuade future Wikipedia readers that "Prescott Bush didn't do anything wrong." Either because, your edits suggest, he didn't have that much control over UBC's actions, or because UBC didn't actually do anything that wrong or out-of-the-ordinary, or because sometimes seizures were unfounded (not this time, but sometimes). You have been quick to remove even the most basic information as "poorly sourced" when it reflected poorly on Bush; you have been less dogmatic about sourcing when a passage reflected well on him. You have, at times, suggested that this article should say nothing about UBC other than that it existed. Without exception, your efforts have served to nudge the article in the direction of a favorable portrayal of Prescott Bush, sometimes doing significant collateral damage to the clarity and readability of the article in addition to its thoroughness. So I want you to seriously consider why it is so important to you that readers who come here find favorable text.

Here is my motivation (it's only fair that I answer my own question as well) for engaging in this protracted discussion: At the time that I first happened upon Prescott Bush's Wikipedia entry, the UBC matter wasn't presented here at all, and I found that abhorrent. A scandal that was not insignificant in its own time, and which has been the subject of much controversy and discussion on many occasions since, simply didn't exist here. Whitewashed. Expunged. Revisionism incarnate. I have no interest in making Prescott Bush out to be evil, or suggesting responsibility for all the crimes of the Nazis, or indulging the kind of hyperbole that clearly existed in prior debates about this article. But I feel passionately that, in an encyclopedia article that is widely read and will continue to be widely read as long as his family remains prominent, the accepted facts -- in his business affairs, he was involved with an entity that did, in fact, "trade with the enemy" -- be presented to readers neutrally, plainly, and lacking caveats and weaselly defenses. (Ideally, it should be presented as well that the extent of the involvement remains controversial; the controversy should be discussed as a controversy and should not be played out anywhere in the article aside from the discussion of the controversy.) Readers can then do more research if they are so inclined, but they should leave Wikipedia with no predisposition to consider Bush evil or blameless.24.18.223.55 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now read more than 600 pages of WP guidelines and talk on guidelines. My position is absolutely neutral. Else why allow the archive cites showing the ownership of UBC and its seizure? The "trading with the enemy" accusation lies entirely on the Thyssen connection. Period. UBC had absolutely no control over the assets already seized by Hitler. None. The timeline is exceedingly clear on that. Rather it is those who seek to add contentious material without providing solid facts which are a problem in BLPs. If you can give a specific cite for a specific UBC action taken after the declaration of war on Germany (well -- by more than enough time to wind up something, of course) then present it and I will be the first to accept it. I will be happy to have it in the article. Claims like Harriman being paid $4 billion after the war for UBC, however, have not been found in any archives. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My word, man! It's not about "600 pages of guidelines." And it's not about citing every sentence (citations are so easily cherry-picked anyway, and cited statements frequently misrepresent and misinterpret the very articles they cite). And it's not about adherence to the letter of neutrality rules. It's about adherence to the spirit of neutrality rules! It's about whether the final result of all this debate -- the body of the Wikipedia article -- reads "this was a matter in which Bush was involved, and these are the facts as known, and there are some additional matters that remain the subject of debate" or reads "this was a matter in which Bush was involved, but hey, it wasn't so bad anyways, and everybody was doing it, and maybe, just maybe, Bush's involvement was less direct than the evidence suggests, so let's all forget about it and have a big bowl of strawberry ice cream." The former is neutral; the latter is not!! 24.18.223.55 (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ALL the "evidence" is presented. And it does not add up to much at all. If you have some solid cites, present them. Bush, an employee of Harriman, owned 1/4000 of the shares of a bank which was taken over by the Alien Property Custodian because it was owned by an "enemy alien." So far no one has presented concrete cites otherwise. All the material now in the article has solid cites. Collect (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir, do you read anything that anyone else writes, or do you just wait for an opportunity to repeat yourself? "It does not add up to much at all" in your opinion. Which is why you insist on the "strawberry ice cream" dismissal of it. Which is why your text comes across as lacking neutrality. I have addressed, above, your misinterpretation of the Alien Property Custodian -- at issue is the ownership of the assets (in this case misrepresented as Harriman's but not truly, foreshadowing the financial sleights-of-hand that birthed out current economic crisis), not of the corporate entity. I have addressed your assertion that Bush was just Harriman's employee (you horribly misconstrue corporate governance). I even mentioned, with some levity, having read about Harriman's disinterest in the decision-making process, which he left to Bush and others. It's really upsetting that all you ever return with is "Collect feels neutral; thus Collect is neutral."24.18.223.55 (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The material in the National Archives, cited here, is clear. If you find a different item in the National Archives about UBC, cite it. The material currently furnished (and these were the only ones found) do not support anything more than what they say as they are "primary sources" by WP standards. (see WP:OR) If you find a cite, again -- post it. I want more cites. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Collect, I'm having trouble comprehending the tangle of prior discussions about the (Manchester) Guardian's article and its validity. The Guardian, on the whole, is well-respected for the high quality of its investigative reporting, one of the last such bastions of journalism in a country where many of the newspapers have long since been bought out by Rupert Murdoch and his admittedly meddlesome approach to content. Was the hubbub caused by this particular article just the stuff of partisan grumbling, or was this article truly proven below their normal standards? I ask because most of the Guardian would be considered a far more trustworthy source than, say, an "American Computer Scientists Association" blog.24.18.223.55 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is not unbiased about the Bush family - which was pointed out by several people. Thus, the need to back extraordinary claims requires at least one separate high quality reliable source. WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP (I know Prescott Bush is dead, but the extension to relatives of notable living people is common) abd so on. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." So find a "high quality reliable source" and you are in business. The Guardian does not "cut the mustard" on anything about the Bush family. Collect (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here... but have any of the claims that the "The Guardian is not unbiased about the Bush family" come from high-quality sources in their own right? Or have Murdoch-owned publications and pro-Bush spin-machines just made a habit of claiming that, thus "poisoning the well" and implicitly discrediting anything that comes from the Guardian, no matter how well-researched?24.18.223.55 (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And Collect, as an expert on Wikipedia guidelines, you MUST understand that you cannot revert legitimate edits without addressing the rationale behind those edits. As I explicitly stated in my edit log, I removed those statements because the language strongly implied that the UBC seizure might have been "determined not to have been proper," AND THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. It is irrelevant whether the sentences have citations, if they are included only to imply (by association) something that is inaccurate. Please do not ever ignore the stated reasons for an edit when choosing to revert.24.18.223.55 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean, come on -- you have 2 sentences in a row talking about German Jews, which, with no context whatsoever, serve to imply that perhaps UBC had been carrying out some kind of noble mission. Come on! Thyssen, to whom the funds are understood to have had some relation, was a Nazi-connected industrialist who very belatedly broke with the Nazi party. Your completely irrelevant statements attempt to imply otherwise, and neither suggest NPOV nor have any business being here!! 24.18.223.55 (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What if I added three random sentences about the existence of full-fledged, convicted Nazi collaborators, and sourced them really, really well? They still wouldn't be relevant to the UBC case, would they? 24.18.223.55 (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The material about "alien property" is directly on point about what the nature of the "alien property custodian" was. If you find a statement about "convicted Nazi collaborators" related to Prescott Bush and sourced it really well, then I would look at it. UBC was seized by the "Alien Property Custodian." Thus material relating to what sort of material was seized (and no evidence of UBC having Nazi ties when WWII started has been shown) is directly relevant tot he article. Heck, show your cites. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you feel compelled to exercise "final say" over article content, despite your utter ignorance about the basic nature of the Alien Property Custodian. Your edit log suggests that because the assets were "denationalized" after the war, the seizures must have been "improper." Guess what? ALL ASSETS WERE "DENATIONALIZED" AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER. That's why it was a "custodian" of alien property during wartime, and not a simple absorption of alien property. USING THIS MISINTERPRETATION TO SUGGEST THAT THE WARTIME SEIZURE WAS SOMEHOW FOUND "IN ERROR" IS JUST WRONG. And Thyssen's earstwhile involvement with the Nazi Party is not even subject to debate -- it is well established that he had pre-war Nazi connections. Besides, he was a German National, and thus his assets were under the jurisdiction of the Alien Property Custodian regardless of Nazi involvement or whether he was acquitted of any war crimes. YOU CANNOT INCLUDE TEXT THAT IMPLIES OTHERWISE. 24.18.223.55 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Vide Bayer which ended up having its German parent not able to use the Bayer trademark in the US. Bosch which also lost its trademarks. American companies bought the alien enemy "assets" and they were not "denationalized." Thyssen was tried after the war -- you ought to look at the fact he was substantially exonerated for anything about the war. At the time he-is assets here were seized, Hitler had already seized his German assets <g>. As for insisting "YOU CANNOT" -- that seems to indicate that you alone are "consensus" which is an improper attitude. Thanks! Examples: GAF [29] Only a few companies were returned to stockholders before that case, so much for "denationalized." Collect (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you had actually read my comment, you would know that I had said that his assets were subject to seizure simply because they were the assets of a German National being held in the U.S. -- regardless of hypothetical Nazi activities -- and that it is therefore improper to include text suggesting that the seizure was unwarranted when the criterion for seizure is so basic and clear-cut. We agree (!) that Thyssen was exonerated of any wartime activities, but you have yet to grasp (and/or admit) that it is irrelevant to the seizure order. (You also downplay his pre-war Nazi involvement, but as per above, I know that too is irrelevant to the seizure order.) As for the redistribution of German assets to American companies -- it is my impression that that was far more prevalent during WWI (Bayer was even relieved of its patents under the Treaty of Versailles) than during WWII. 24.18.223.55 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the seizures, there was a legitimate question as to whether Thyssen was a "German national." Many seizures were not returned after WWII, but the UBC aooarently was returned, and not as a general "denationalization" as you stated. And the sheer number of seizures during WWII was huge. You did not like the material about seizures of Jewish assets, so that is now out. Collect (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Quagmire

To all readers/editors: It's becoming clear that Collect and I are at something of an impasse (as evidenced by the dozens of paragraphs of back-and-forth below). I am also extremely frustrated that, after writing volumes on this Discussion page on why Collect's citations (sometimes reliable, other times cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted) still leave the article with an implicit non-neutral bent, I made one cautious attempt to nudge the article in the direction of neutrality and clarity, only to have my edit immediately reverted based one a pretty bald misinterpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. I would very much appreciate a third party reading through the "Current state of this Wikipedia article" discussion, and reviewing the last few edits to the article itself, because I am clearly unable to convince Collect alone that there are any neutrality/clarity problems whatsoever with his approach to the article.24.18.223.55 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

24.18.223.55, newer comments belong at the bottom of the page, not the top. Thank you. Inclusionist (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Every cite here is solid -- I wonder which one you feel is not? Collect (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I see collect is somewhat incorrect, the item as reported in The Guardian, can be legitimately covered in the article, and I see nothing written above that changes this. The Guardian Newspaper is a verifiable secondary source and conforms to WP:RS.and remember that the "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." There is clearly some controversy surrounding this issue, so, as a controversial aspect of the subjects life, why is it being excluded? To do so is only going to bring allegations of editorial bias. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

can we avoid editting the Talk page, please?

The huge number of edits to this page concerns me. Are the edits really needed? Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about those too, but it appears that Inclusionist has been putting psotings into chronological order and fixing signatures. If that's the case, it's helpful in the long run. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

With well over fifty edits in sequence, it makes one (unfortunately) wonder ... Collect (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

blogs as sources

Blogs are not, in general, considered "reliable sources." Also please do not use a ref for material not covered in the cite. All it does is cause material to be deleted as unsourced. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"socially liberal"

The article states:

Bush held many positions that would today be considered socially liberal. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. Bush was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951. (italics added)

Looking specifically at "that would today be considered socially liberal": this is ambiguous in its meaning, and appears to be OR anyway. Is the reader meant to infer that Bush was "socially liberal" for a republican, or that republicans were more socially liberal then?

I am removing the first sentence because of the OR nature and ambiguity, but if the idea behind it can be clarified and supported by a citation or two, it would be worth exploring a little further. Trishm (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Without editorializing, the split between liberal and conserative was defined quite differently back then. Roughly half the Democrats were in the south - segrationist, and Democrat by virtue of the Civil War and Reconstruction and the massive spending programs of the New Deal under FDR. The North (outside of some major cites) was heavily Republican, Abolitionist, Civil War, and taxed heavily enough to pay for the New Deal. Thus a "Democrat liberal" was mainly defined as a spender, but unwilling to deal with social issues which would rend their party in two. The major shift came under Eisenhower -- a Republican who did what Democrats had been loath to do -- he enforced the SCOTUS desegregation of schools. Northern Democrats knew that their acts to keep their party united were now doomed, and basically moved into a more liberal social attitude, and setting the stage for the subsequent realignment of the parties geographically and philosophically. Collect (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I suspect we agree that it is too complex for this article. I think the changes in policy positions of the parties over time is very interesting, and worthy of its own article, which I don't think is written yet. The republican article covers history with a focus on events, rather than policy, and you certainly don't get the sense of policy shifts. What I envisage is an article outlining the debating points of each election, which should provide a snapshot of how the country has moved over time. What do you think? Trishm (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Too many people have "vested interests" in not seeing how, for example, FDR ran as a conservative against Hoover as a liberal, etc. And too many editors seem to think that by writing their version of history that somehow histroy is changed. Collect (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Some regular editors of this article are displaying pretty blatant POV editing by excluding RS info and misrepresenting RS info in such a way as to give the impression that Prescott Bush's involvement with companies seized by the US government 10 months after Pearl Harbor under the Trading with the Enemy Act was commonplace and benign. Recent example is labeling a Washington Post article as not RS. [30] Abbarocks (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"fleshingoutskullandbones.com" is not a RS, and its use of a copyright story from WaPo is contrary to WP guidelines. Link to tha actual story, and show its connection ot BUSH who is the subject of the biography. Otherwise it becomes "Hitler Coatrack" time. Collect (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This is not a book review and there is no reason given to claim the book is not RS. The claim to exclude the book and the Wash Post article seems to betray the desire to simply exclude the information within them. Abbarocks (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see what others have to say about this. Abbarocks (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS --- 'nuff siad. FIND the actual WaPo link if you need the article from a wartime press release. "fleshingout" does NOT hold a copyright, and using it violates WP WP:COPYRIGHT as we;;. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is sold on Amazon.com and everywhere else and it does hold a copyright. If you have some kind of issue with the book, take it up with the publishers and not here. Thank you. Abbarocks (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your link is NOT to the book, but to a photocopy of a copyright article from 1942. It is NOT a book, and is not exempt from copyright law. Period. Please find a correct cite, or remove this one. Thanks. I am willing to post this on the RS/N board if you wish. Collect (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a wiki: if the link needs fixing, the person(you) who discovers it should fix it,I think. Yes, please post it for a broader discussion. Abbarocks (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have politely asked several times for a "real source" which does not violate copyright. If you wish to keep the claim in, I humbly suggest you find a source which does not violate copyright. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I am willing to post this on the RS/N board if you wish. Collect (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC))" my answer is: "Yes, please post it for a broader discussion." Abbarocks (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I had thought you agreed that it could use a non copyvio cite. No? Collect (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current cite is fine and is definitely not a copvio. If you feel a better cite should be added, then go ahead and do it. In the meantime, unless you are ready to drop your unilateral claim of copyvio which has thus far not found any community support, I am waiting for you to post this on the RS/N board as you offered to do yesterday at 00:27 at this talk page. Abbarocks (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The cite you insisted on was a PHOTOCOPY of a copyright article, and presented without a copyright notice for the Washington Post. As such it was in itelf a copyright violation. I suggest you find an actual proper cite for the article if you wish to use it. At that point I shall also ad material indicating that the article was a wartime press release, and add the material clearing Thyssen in German courts after WWII. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not get into whitewashing historical events(you say above that Thyssen was "clear"ed); especially when our Wikipedia article states that "Thyssen agreed to pay 500,000 Deutschmarks as compensation to those who suffered as a result of his actions." You've already offered to "post this on the RS/N board"; if you've changed your mind then please just say so. I can't force you to follow through on your offer; I just felt that maybe that would be a way to satisfy your concerns since you,yourself, suggested it. Abbarocks (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not "reliable sources" as I am sure you are aware. Thyssen was cleared of complicity in planning of WWII, and the WaPo article you give says they thought his fight with Hitler was a fake. History disproved the WaPo article. Collect (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fleshing Out: please direct me to RS/N. I have not posted there before but I'll give it a try since you offered to do it but changed your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbarocks (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy: WP:RS/N works. Please to be sure to note the actual issues raised -- that the WaPo cite is to a photocopy of a WaPo article without a general copyright release for it, and the names of the site you used, etc. And also be sure to note that the salient facts were already cited in the article and that these are "added cites." Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post article certainly meets RS. The link to a website which is quite likely a copyright violation is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Fortunately, this conundrum that people have been dancing around for quite a while has a simple solution. We can cite the Washington Post article without linking to the infringing material - while it is preferable to link to web-based material, that preference doesn't override WP:COPYLINK. I've edited the cite, but expect that the formatting leaves a bit to be desired. I'll let editors who are better at that sort of thing fix the formatting, but the information is all there. CruiserBob (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what the original citer ought to have done when I called his attention to it. <g>. Collect (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks for doing what the complainer apparently knew how to do but chose not to do it. Abbarocks (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Watch the POV re: Geronimo lawsuit

Collect's recent article edits [31]are POV pushing by deleting all reference to this major (NYTimes) news story. Abbarocks (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent news reports show that the S&B bones are not Geronimos. And that they never were his. Collect (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just your POV. A former AG of the USA would not be bringing forth this lawsuit if he agreed with you so it is beyond POV Pushing for you to state your POV as being the undisputable "truth" of the matter. Abbarocks (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The same lawsuit has named Barack Obama as a co-defendant--I look forward to you inserting that information there. It's not a credible lawsuit, and Ramsey Clark may have been an AG 40 years ago, but the fact that he has sued someone in 2009 is meaningless. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, out it goes. THF (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that Obama and Gates are mentioned as a technicality because the alleged theft happened at Fort Sill on federal military land. So, what I am saying, is that despite Clark's reputation, the inclusion of Obama and Gates should not,imo, be seen as an indication of the lawsuit being frivolous. Abbarocks (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not a "technicality," and that's still not a legally valid reason for naming Obama or Gates. (If the claim is that Geronimo is still buried at Ft. Sill, that might be a reason to name Gates, but not Obama -- and then that refutes the claim that the lawsuit is relevant to the question whether Bush stole the bones.) Regardless, WP:UNDUE comes into play: this is a minor incident in a Senator's career, and we don't need to get into the collateral details and charges and counterarguments. One sentence with a wikilink to the longer discussion is all that is appropriate, and also avoids the problem of parallel articles contradicting each other. THF (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ramsey Clark, a former United States attorney general who is representing Geronimo’s family, acknowledged he had no hard proof that the story was true." Does not seem on its face to show that he believes the story is true. All he is, is the lawyer. Collect (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Let's put it bluntly here, Collect: you're either a shill or you have some vested interest in trying to whitewash Prescott Bush's article. Either way, you can clearly not be trusted to keep reverting edits. All I've seen you doing so far is building strawman arguments, stretching quotes out of context to support your view, digging up NYT stories from days of yore where a writer gives his PERSONAL viewpoint of someone ('he is a nut', 'he is not reliable') and takes that as gospel, and basically pushing yourself as this all-knowing oracle that purports to hold the real truth of the matter.

It's a nice little charade you have going on here.84.28.82.149 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This sort of unWP:CIVIL personal attack is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please assume good faith. THF (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

THF: You must have your blinders on if you can still assume good faith on Collect's behalf after having read this entire discussion page and the amount of opposition he has received. Besides, it is also Wikipedia's policy NOT to revert to edits too hastily unless it concerns notable vandalism, which is clearly not the case here. Hence, it is not only I that should be wary of the rules here, but Collect as well. But, I'm sure it's always nice and boosting to the ego to assume the moral high ground.84.28.82.149 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Still no excuse. Even if Collect is violating WP:EW (which I don't see evidence of), "you're either a shill or you have some vested interest in trying to whitewash" is not acceptable discourse. Separately, adhering to the WP:BRD cycle is acceptable editing behavior. THF (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto THF. We have to AGF in order to do anything constructive here. Collect earlier today said this "He is a SPA sock of someone" about me, which is about the worse thing to do if he really wants to have constructive dialogue. Abbarocks (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you point me to that diff, I'll warn Collect as well. I don't see it on this page. THF (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When a cite is used, the statements by the attorney involved clearly quoted in the cite are relevant. Clark has no faith in the claim. Collect (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That "Clark has no faith in the claim" is just your opinion Collect. It's better if you not state them as being fact if we are to reach any kind of consensus. Abbarocks (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual quote from the NYT is what was placed in the article. Do you find the NYT has a POV on this? Collect (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes much more sense to put the NY Times quote in Obama's article than this one. This biography's subject wasn't named in the suit and it has no bearing on our biographical understanding of this individual. Rklawton (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So I corrected the line describing the Geronimo lawsuit, and my edit was reverted with the comment "cite supports the names - this has been discussed in Talk if you wish to opine". This is as close as I can find to a discussion related to my edit. The sentence before I edited it said that the lawsuit was filed by Ramsey. It is conventional usage to say that lawsuits were filed by the plaintiffs, not the lawyer. So I changed it to say it was filed by the Geronimo descendants. One could alternatively say it was filed by Harlyn Geronimo et al. The original sentence omitted one of the defendants, Yale University. I corrected that. The original sentence also listed as defendants Barack Obama and Robert Gates, but omits Pete Geren. But all three are marked on the complaint as "in his official capacity" as President, Sec. of Defense, and Sec. of the Army resp. This is the way one files a lawsuit against components of the government. The original sentence, in just naming Obama and Gates without further qualification, creates the misimpression that Obama and Gates are personally defendants. So I corrected it to say a plaintiff was the federal government. One could more specifically say the executive branch, the DoD, and the Army. So that's why I think my corrected version was, well, correct. Please comment here why you think this is incorrect. Dcottingham (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrections are different from removing cited material. The person filing the suit was the attorney, who issued a press release for it. Blame him if you must for having his name at the top of the stories in the AP. The plaintiff is not the Federal government. Did you read the cite? Did you read where the defendants are named? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Removing cited material"? I did not remove anything, I reworded a sentence to improve its correctness. Thank you for pointing out a misstatement I made in my talk page entry above, the federal govt is indeed a defendant, not a plaintiff. This was correct in the statement I put on the page, which you reverted to the original incorrect statement. The fact remains that conventional usage is to say that lawsuits are filed by the plaintiff, not the lawyer. It's ok to also mention who the lawyer is if there is some importance to that. The lawyer seems irrelevant in this case but perhaps there's some reason you want him mentioned, if so that's fine with me. You still haven't said anything about why you reverted my edit, and you haven't addressed most of the points I made above. Dcottingham (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It had appeared to me that you removed names which were in the cite. Was that an error imn my perception? Where the cite mentions Clark as the person filing the suit, it is proper to use the cite as it was made in the RS. And the problem yo have is what is written in the RS -- but it is not up to us to rewrite sources, is it? Collect (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

---

discussion unrelated to Geronimo about guilt by association

Lastly, in response to Collect's attempts to 'whitewash' Fritz Thyssen by claiming he was acquitted of all charges, here is a nice little quote from a little book called Tragedy & Hope by a little guy called Carrol Quigley: "To this was added various other enterprises: those already in government control (which were thus shifted from a socialized to a profit-seeking basis), those taken from newly annexed areas, and those confiscated from Thyssen when he became a traitor." Pay particular attention to that word in bold. You proclaim to know better than the man who had access to the secret records of the various Inner Roundtable Groups of England and the US? Here's another quote: "The industrialists were taken into camp by Hitler during a three-hour speech which he made at the Industrial Club of Dusseldorf at the invitation of Fritz Thyssen (January 27, 1932)." Here's another: "In the period 1924-1930 the party continued, without any real growth, as a "lunatic fringe," subsidized by the industrialists. Among the chief contributors to the party in this period were Carl Bechstein (Berlin piano manufacturer), August Borsig (Berlin locomotive manufacturer), Emil Kirdorf (general manager of the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate), Fritz Thyssen (owner of the United Steel Works and president of the German Industrial Council) and Albert Vögler (general manager of the Gelsenkirchen Iron and Steel Company and formerly general manager of United Steel Works)." You can cry wolf about this until the cows come home, but fact is that Thyssen was, on the basis of the information available, guilty as sin, regardless if he was exonerated of all charges in a dog-and-pony trial court hearing. This will be my last post in this Talk page, since I can sense that it's useless talking to a brick wall. Wikipedia is very much like the Politburo - so many layers of bureaucracies and procedures to go through that the 'collective' hive-like mind eventually takes precedence over anything that could even be considered factual. I can at least take solace in the fact that this laughing stock of an encyclopedia will probably not outlast the upcoming Depression. Looks like futures trader Jimmy Wales will soon find himself but a temporary footnote in a history book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.82.149 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Talk pages are best used for discussing improvements to articles. Collect (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC) [32] I take it this article by Morgan Strong, from Al Jazeera, is wrong too, Collect? "Brown Brothers Harriman supplied Thyssen with financing and other banking services that allowed the Nazis to build up their war machine. After Thyssen broke with Hitler in 1939, Thyssen’s banking empire came under control of the Nazi government, with Prescott Bush continuing as a behind-the-scenes force in the relationship." Let me guess - Buchanan is wrong, The Guardian backed off their claims and distanced themselves from Buchanan, now the Prosecutor has no faith in the Geronimo claim, and now a Middle-East reporter from Al-Jazeera, undoubtedly, is also wrong-headed about Prescott Bush resuming business with the Nazi's in Thyssen's absence, right? And yet I go too far by insinuating you must have some reason or another for continuining to keep this from reaching the main page?84.28.82.149 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Al Jazeera is not a reliable source for controversial claims in 20th-century American history. What does this have to do with Geronimo? THF (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Mymy, very selective are we. You know what: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything in particular. Where is your press badge? Who does the quantifying of 'truthfulness' here? You do realize how Orwellian you lot all sound, right? So everybody in the press reporting on the Bush-Nazi dealings (Guardian, Al-Jazeera, BBC) is wrong, and you (a bunch of Janes and Joes sitting in front of a computer with no particular expertise) are right? I am willing to bet you haven't even read the bloody article. Continue patting each other on the back, and just deny it's there. Then hide behind some Wikipedia guideline where you conveniently decipher some meaning from, and continue the game. The problem here is that you guys want to uphold the Just War myth - you don't want to acknowledge any wrongdoing on your own country's part. You have invested so much emotionally into that pipedream that it's too painful to revise it now.84.28.82.149 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Specifically, WHERE IS IT WRITTEN on Wikipedia that Al-Jazeera is not a reliable source 'for controversial claims in 20th-century American history'? I'm betting you just made that up, because I had a look at the Reliable Sources section and I couldn't find it. Of course, that doesn't prevent you from adding it there, I'm willing to bet. And since when is a foreign country's views on another country's (ie. a Middle-Eastern country's views on America, the great, mystical country that never did any wrongdoing) 'not reliable'?84.28.82.149 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guardian article

A Guardian article is now cited in the article which had been ruled non-RS before. A quote from it regarding its source is now also included "Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as 'traitors to the truth.'" I think this rather shows the RS-ness of the claims made. Collect (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

All things considered, it makes more sense to remove this drivel in its entirety given that the story is really about a quack and his delusions than about Prescott Bush, the subject of this article. Rklawton (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It was in the Guardian, for better or worse. It just needs to be neutrally presented. Identifying Buchanan as a conspiracy theorist and including the ADL refutation does that. THF (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pancho Villa

Voz de Aztlan is a fringe antisemitic conspiracy theory proponent; it is not a reliable source for anything about Prescott Bush. (NB that Villa was alive when Bush was at Yale.) THF (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Voz de Aztlan is a fringe source. Even if it weren't, this is not the right article for this factoid. It doesn't really concern Bush at all.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

co-operation with germans?

why this article doesn't even mention his dealings with germany during the war? or should i be more precise, this article treats the matter in a too gentle way.

Kevin Phillips (political commentator) for example writes on the topic in his book:

American dynasty: Aristocracy, fortune, and the politics of deceit in the house of Bush

87.116.161.138 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As he had no such dealings, trying to add them would be odd. See the ADL statement. Collect (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

hmm, that's one source. there are also other sources.... 79.101.174.192 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See Cecil Adams then. The recent partisan attacks on one of the more liberal GOP figures of the 50s are pretty much founded in bad faith misrepresentation. Collect (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

i don't understand what you are saying. is it that we should consider only sources that represent one view? what about V, NPOV, and making a balanced article? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Making a balanced article - some seem to have no intention of doing that whatsoever (except if by 'balanced' they mean - anything that doesn't portray Prescott Bush in a less-than-favorable light). It's basically a couple of political ideologues wrapping themselves in the almighty cloak of 'impartiality' to get away with the fact that they feel passionate about clearing their favourite surrogate father, Prescott Bush, of any wrongdoings.

They would make for fine lawyers, I'm sure.

And of course, there's the problem with the sources - what Wikipedia deems a 'Reliable source', such as the ADL, could by itself have little meaning in the real world because of prior actions and clear ties to certain 'fringe' elements that they employ at times to bolster themselves and give the impression there is 'widespread anti-semitism' out there. The ADL is basically a political organization and any comment they make on an issue should not be taken as the last word on anything - that is, by anyone serious that is. The ADL has enough problems of its own as it stands - the head son of the ADL, Adam Gadahm, for instance, dressing up as an Al Qaeda member.

BTW, any basic retort from Collect is going to involve 'Cecil Adams' (this mythical creature that supposedly speaks for God) at some point. Just leave it alone - any effort on your part is going to fail because his 'appeal to establishment authority' is going to win out in the end because it serves Wikipedia's clout with the politicians.84.28.82.149 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The ADL is an absolute source for the opinions and statements of the ADL -- which is what is presented. And the positions here are based on consensus -- not on IP anonymous edits. If you wish to be taken more seriously, you ought to register on WP and use your registered name. It sounds like you ought to propose edits to the aDL article, moreover, if you have evidence that it is in some way acting improperly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in engaging in any more 'back-and-forths'/fights with you people, especially when the 'deck is purposely stacked against' the common person - I'm simply passing judgement on the way articles like these are scrubbed and 'censored' - by a tiny minority.

The ADL acting improperly? Oh, too many examples to list - I could keep you up all night. How about that they now have the power to censor anything they want on Youtube?84.28.82.149 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you edited their article? I think you will find it enlightening. Collect (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)