Talk:Business Plot/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New Compromise Edit

Okay it's been 2 months and I have stayed away from this article Like I said I would. I have made a compromise edit that changes it from "alleged" to "In the opinion of". I have kept the New York Times article that called it a Hoax, but I have also added the follow up New York Times article that says "It also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated". The article doesn't state that there absolutely was a plot, just that it was the committes opinion. To use the word alleged when an official body of the U.S. Government confirmed is ahistorical and dishonest. I believe that certian editors are trying to rewrite history when they use that word. Most credible historians agree there was a plot, the disagrement is over how extensive it was and how close it came to being implemented. The article includes these criticisms and the committes findings. There is no serious historian who thinks Butler made up the events he witnessed, so to imply that it was a hoax is simply dishonest. I would appreciate it if people would seriously conisider this compromise offer and not just automatically revert it.annoynmous 02:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Still disagree -- and please do not make any edits until a consensus has formed. If you made the edit, please self-revert until a consensus is reached. "Alleged" is the common English word for material which has not been proven in a court of law. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made this edit as a compromise offer. There is no requirement at wikipedia that I have to self revert because you don't like my edit. What happens is we can discuss it on the talk page and attempt to reach a mutual compromise.

Once again a court is not the only official body in the world. A congressional committe issued a report that siad the plot existed. All I have done is stated what the plot as the committes opinion. Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, and yet we don't call him the "alleged" gangster.annoynmous 03:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" has been discussed many times -- and you use a site which uses that very word yourself <g>. Now if the NYT uses "alleged" after the report, then I would suggest that your dislike of it is not well-founded. Collect (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While I personally consider the use of "alleged" accurate (and the NYT seems to agree), I don't mind annoynmous's version. I certainly won't fight about the inclusion of a single word if we can provide the same amount of information without it. And no matter whether the plot was real or not, the committee seemed to believe so. I'll tweak the wording a little for better readability. Huon (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this proposed compromise lede should be self-reverted by annoynmous and hashed out here first. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the interim lets discuss it. Alleged should not be removed. However, the fact that the committee published its belief in the existence of some sort of plot is indeed notable. Whether it is notable enough to be included in the lede is my question. It is clear to me that the belief that there was a real plot is not mainstream view of historians. It is a minority view at best and a conspiracy theory at its worst. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My efforts (not yet uploaded) at wikisource have lead me to understand more of the contemporary disbelief in a plot. When the committee reports were added to wikisource, material that would tend to dismiss the seriousness of the plot were left out of the source material. I am (slowly) transcribing the original documents on my computer and will add the mssing material in August. An example of this is General Butler's testimony that he thought that perhaps this whole exercise was some sort of effort by MacGuire to extract money from Clark. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting bit from Butler's testimony: Butler refers to the fact that MacGuire was not just a 'wounded veteran', he had suffered a brain injury, was ill, had a plate in his brain, and apparently was scattered. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with the inclusion of the committee's assesment in the lede if we made it clear that the mainstream of historical view is that this was not much of a reality. I.E. if we eliminate "some historians" and replace it with "mainstream historians" Capitalismojo (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is one problem with the use of "alleged": It immediately raises the question "By whom?" Answering that question in the lede seems appropriate, and the committee surely is both among the first and the most prominent to allege this "coup". I also agree with Capitalismojo's concern that we should be clearer in stating what's the mainstream historical view. I think his suggested change of wording is a good idea. Huon (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand where this idea comes from that it wasn't much of a reality. All historians say that that there was a plot. This idea that Macquire was some sorta insane trickster who mas mentally ill is original research. Capatilismojo is free to believe that if he wants, but that most certianly is not the mainstream belief.

Arthur Schlesinger, who barely deals with this issue in his book, ackowledges the committes findings and James Zandts claim that he was also apporached.

Hans Schmidt ackowledges that Butler was probably telling the truth in everything he said. He's ambigous on Macquires motives and never says one way or the other whether what he believes those motives were.

Robert Burke is only one who seems to suggest that the plot didn't exist, although even he ackowledged that there was some influence peddling going on.

I also don't understand why this review of Jules Archers book from an obscure academic is considered so credible. Who is James E. Sargent and what makes him a qualified expert in this field? Archers book got rave reviews when it was released from Kirkus, Time Magazine, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times. Archer was a respected writer and journalist.

John McCormack certainly believed enough in the plot saying 40 years later "I Cannot emphasize enough too strongly the very important General Smedley Butler palyed in exposing the fascist plot in the early 30's backed by and planned by persons possessing tremendous wealth".

Now if Captilismojo has found some part of the testimony where Butler is doubtful of Macquires claims that I say by all means add them. I haven't seen anything that suggested that Butler was doubtful a plot existed, but I trust capatilismojos judgement that he has seen them. That doesn't change what the committes final conclusion that a plot did exist. That's how the article should be framed, as the committes opinion. "Alleged" implies that the committe never reached a conclusion.annoynmous 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The transcripts show the "doubt". Collect (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what transcripts your referring too. In the ones I read it seems both Butler and French believed the plot was real. Maybe captilismojo has this information, but he hasn't added it yet to the wikisource files.annoynmous 22:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The information is in the Committee transcript. Unfortunately for our discussions, it was oddly edited when put on wikisource. The original documents are available via the Clayton Cramer site. 70.226.128.150 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Capitalismojo (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged

The introduction completely misrepresents the historical consensus, not to mention quote-mining the committee report to make it seem like it was anything but a laughingstock. The article needs a rewrite to comply with NPOV, not to mention accuracy. Buchanan is not a reliable source, but the article treats a nonsense conspiracy theory as factual. Very sad to see how far this article has deterioriated. THF (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Clayton Cramer who agrees that there was a plot? You know THF seeing as how you wrote an article for a highly partisan organization about this issue after you edited this article you are perhaps are not the best person to decide what the historical consensus is. The historical consensus is that there was some sorta plot, the disagreement is over how big and close it came to completion. Your opinion about who is or is not a reliable source is yours alone. The fact continues to be that a congressional committe determined that there was a plot. The article as it is states the committe opinion, not fact.annoynmous 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to comment on THF's statement that the committes report was a laughingstock. First off every serious historians agrees that Butler told the truth about what he witnessed. Most historians also agree that Macquire perjured himself in his testimony. So that leaves us only with two possibilities.

Either the plot was real or Gerald Macquire was one of the greatest con men who ever lived. This means that he has able to fool both Butler and Paul French that there was a plot in some weird elaborate scheme to advocate for the Gold Standard. It also requires that we believe that his employers knew nothing about his rougue activities. This also requires that we believe that it was just a concidence that the American Liberty League was formed shortly after he mentioned such an organization to Butler.

Now I'm not saying that this theory has no merit whatsoever and I'm open to any evidence that can be provided to the wikisource page to prove it. However, in my personal opinion this theory seems much more absurd than the one Butler put forward.annoynmous 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to also say that my main concern is the word "alleged". I am not adverse to more information being added that casts doubt on the existence of a plot. Although I feel there is plenty evidence that there was a plot, even if I was convinced that the plot was just some scheme cooked up by Macquire I would still object to the word "alleged". Most historians ackownledge that Macquire was up to something nefarious.

To be honest I find any talk of a historical consensus to be dubious because there really isn't that much historical scholarship on the event. It's such an unkown event that theres very little literature on it. Most books that refer to it only consist of 3 or 4 paragraphs. The only two people who really deal with the incident in depth are Jules Archer and Hans Schmidt.

I know that some people on this talk page like to potray Archer as a conspiracy theorist, but the fact is that his book got good reviews when it was released and is considered the definitive account of the incident. He was considered credible enough to be interviewed by the History Channel for there documentary on the incident.

Hans Schmidt never doubts that there was some sorta plot, he simply questions what it's focus was and how large it was. He says clearily that Butler exposed a "incipent conspiracy". While he may doubt the size of the conspiracy as detailed by Butler, he doesn't deny that it existed.

That's why I feel that any talk of historical consensus is ultimately silly, given how undereported the incident is. The main piece of evidence is the committes report which stands as the only offical record of the plot. People can say that the committe is wrong, but the fact matter is that you are pretty much required to read it sense it is the only piece of hard evidence. I'm sure that 20 years from now that researchers will finds many mistakes made by the 9-11 commission, but the fact matter is that it will remain the primary source of information for anyone who wants to reasearch 9-11. There conclusion is the official line from which one preceeds and from that people can either confirm or contradict it. The official line for this matter is that there was a plot and that should be the starting point from which one proceeds.annoynmous 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of WP is not to be a crystal ball about the future -- but to represent known facts as they are currently known for readers. The facts are that major historians do not take the "plot" seriously, for what, to them, are sufficient and valid reasons. Just as von Daniken is not taken seriously, so some of the "plot theorists" are not taken seriously. Pushing such stuff in an encyclopedia article is unwise, as it lowers the value of the entire encyclopedia. Conspiracies which are totally unproven should be in Conspiracypedia - not here. BTW, the BBC has done shows on UFOs. Collect (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The known facts are based entirely on the committes documents. There is no historian who says that the story was entirely made up or a hoax. It's is just plain false to say that no serious historian takes the plot seriously. Arthur Schlesinger confirms the committes findings then says:

"No doubt, MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind, though the gap between contemplation and execution was considerable, and it can hardly be supposed that the Republic was in much danger".

Know where in that sentence does he deny there was plot, he simply questions the size and scope. So this idea that historians don't take the plot seriously is your interpretation and yours alone. Not to mention that the surviving co-chair of the committe John McCormack said:

"Smedley Butler was one of the outstanding Americans in our history. I cannot emphasize too strongly the very important part he played in exposing the Fascist plot in the early 1930s backed by and planned by persons possessing tremendous wealth."

You may not like the BBC or the History Channel, but they are considered reliable sources of information. The difference between this case an UFO's is that as far as I know no official investigation has ever confirmed UFO's as being from outer space.annoynmous 17:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC show was based on one author's book. Not on any research by the BBC. [1] a BBC transcript ...

NARRATOR (DILLY BARLOW): There are many mysteries about the past and how we journeyed from the Stone Age to civilisation. Now there is a controversial new theory. It claims that historians have ignored evidence of a lost civilisation of spectacular sophistication, the key to our past. If true, this forgotten episode would overturn all our ideas about the origins of civilisation. GRAHAM HANCOCK (Author): If I'm right and our whole conception of prehistory is wrong, then the foundations upon which we have built our idea of what our society is are crumbling. NARRATOR: Graham Hancock is determined to rewrite history. His books about the ancient past have sold in their millions making him a leading figure in a group of influential and radical authors. Hancock has a huge following who believe passionately in his controversial views that civilisation was invented by a god-like people ignored by orthodox historians. GRAHAM HANCOCK: It's possible we may have lost from the record an entire civilisation and I feel that the evidence for this lost episode in human history is mounting. NARRATOR: Hancock's theory is a challenge to orthodox archaeology. For over a century archaeologists have been investigating the origins of civilisation. Now they believe they've uncovered the true story of the past. According to this orthodox view, Stone Age peoples slowly evolved complex cultures at different times and in different parts of the world. 13,000 years ago groups of hunter/ gatherers began to settle and to farm. Over many thousands of years they developed writing, religions and astronomy. Eventually they built the great monuments of the Ancient World. But not everyone was satisfied with the archaeologists's explanation. For them there was a tantalising mystery. Ancient people in far-flung parts of the world who seemed to have had no contact with each other were doing very similar things - building pyramids and studying the stars. How could these puzzling resemblances be explained? One explanation for the puzzle was a fabulous and enduring myth about the past: Atlantis. The story goes that Atlantis was the home of an ancient civilisation of astonishing sophistication. When it was destroyed in a flood its survivors travelled the world bringing the gift of civilisation to less developed peoples. If Atlantis was the cradle of all other civilisations, as many believed, then there's no longer a mystery about all those strange resemblances. But the idea of Atlantis was scorned by historians.

And you were saying about the BBC being intrinsically a "reliable source"? Collect (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't say that it's true, just that it's Hancocks theory. It includes historians who refute his thesis like this:

DR KEN FEDER (Archaeologist): If Atlantis were true, if there was one source it would be very easy to test archaeologically and the evidence would be clear. The fact that it's not clear, the fact that that kind of evidence is not present is indicative of the fact that the cultures developed independently and were not derived from a single source.

It also ends with this statement from DR. ED KRUPP (Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles):

NARRATOR: Graham Hancock is still scouring the oceans of the world for his lost civilisation. He has also investigated pyramids and a giant stone face on the planet Mars, but he has yet to find any firm evidence that there really was a lost civilisation of god-like astronomers 12,000 years ago.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: I believe passionately that the past has been misrepresented and that people today have not been given the full picture and I don't think that my arguments are ever going to be successfully destroyed by nit-picking.

ED KRUPP: After having invested a lot of time doing what I think very few other people do which is saying OK, you've made this, this claim. Let's see if it holds up and, and so subjecting it to the rules of evidence and then coming to a conclusion. My conclusion is no, I don't think they're right and I don't think they're right because I don't think the evidence fits the hypothesis.

The BBC is considered by all rational people to be a reliable source. Just like the History Channel they sometimes do shows on stuff like Atlantis or UFO's, usually to refute them.annoynmous 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC

Which means their shows on UFOs and the like are reliable too? As for the snarky "all rational people" I suggest you redact that. Collect (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being snarky, I was simply stating that most people consider the BBC to be a reliable source.

My point above was that you misrepesented the source above. You falsely stated that the BBC believed in Atlantis. All the program in question did was report Hancocks accusations and then had on multiple experts to refute him.annoynmous 19:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the program ran a programme on Atlantis, and that I gave part of the transcript. Clearly a transcript of a RS is an RS. As for "multiple experts to refute him" - it relied chiefly on one. Now -- what does the actual transcript of the BBC show on the "plot" say? Collect (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You stated in your edit summary that the BBC believed in Atlantis. That is simply false, they were reporting Hancocks accusations and the multiple experts they interviwed said it was false. They actually have 4 experts who refute him. In addition to the two I quoted above there are these two:

ELEANOR MANNIKA (University of Michigan): This hypothesis is based on the fact that certain temples are placed in their position because they have to follow a pattern that evokes the constellation Draco, so if we look at this we see the beginning apparently is the head right here at Angkor Wat and the pattern goes from there up to Phnom Bakheng which is this enormous central mountain. Then it travels up here to Prah Bantei Thom and then it goes over here to (Preah) Pithu and from Ta Keo it goes to Preah Khan. Then it goes to Ta Prohm, then it goes to Pre Rup out here to Bantei Samre built in the 12th-century. I see a vague resemblance of course because it goes up and down and off, but actually the tail of Draco goes way up like this, it doesn't just go off like that.

PROF. ROBERT SCHOCH (Boston University): I went there in this case actually hoping that it was a totally man-made structure that was now submerged underwater, that dated maybe back to 6,000BC or more. When I got there and I got to dive on the structure I have to admit I was very, very disappointed because I was basically convinced after a few dives that this was primarily possibly totally a natural structure.

GRAHAM HANCOCK: I think that what Robert Schoch needs to do is, is a lot more diving. When I took him there in 1997, September of 1997, he did 4 dives at that time and then he went back again in July of 1998 and did a few more dives. I, I really feel that, that before anybody pronounces definitively on this monument they should put in a minimum of 50 dives.

NARRATOR: Professor Schoch has not changed his mind.

ROBERT SCHOCH: Isolated portions of it look like they're man-made, but when you look at it in context you look at the shore features etc and you see how, in this case, fine sandstones split along horizontal bedding plains that gives you these regular features. I'm convinced it's a natural structure.

That seems like more than one expert to me.annoynmous 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that you bring up the BBC radio documentary as I just listened to it again on youtube. A Georgetown Universtiy Professor called Michael Kasen is interviewed who seems to think that the accusations have some credibility. Tony Badger of Cambridge also seems to give the plot credence, although he says that he would be suprised if there was a lot of fine tune planning. They also interview a Professor William Becker of George Washington University who is skeptical of the plot. Trying to protray this BBC report as just a conspiracy theory based on John Buchanans work gives a distorted picture of what is a thorough and well rounded piece of journalism. annoynmous 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Might you then report on what it actually says about, say, Prescott Bush? Collect (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The report merely says that he was one of the directors of the Hamburg line. The report clearily states that there was nothing illegal about these type of business deals at the time. All the report says is that Prescott Bush was involved with a company associated with the plot. It doesn't directly say that he was involved. annoynmous 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The precis says " The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (the owners of Heinz, Birdseye, Goodtea, Maxwell House; and George Bush’s grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the Great Depression." Would you agree that the precis' claims do not represent the actual contents of the BBC program? Collect (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No because the documentary simply states that Prescott Bush was involved with a company that was implicated in the plot. I'm not even sure if Buchanan is claiming that Bush was involved in the plot, he's just saying that he found Bush's name on the board of directors of the company.annoynmous 01:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where the Hamburg Line was associated with any of Butler's testimony about the "plot" at all? Anywhere? Or any basis for the claim that Prescott Bush in any way "believed that the country should adopt" anything at all? (as claimed in the precis) Collect (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Precis simply states that the plotters were trying to overthrow the government and install a puppet regime. Whether or not it would have been exactly like Hitler or Mussolinis regime is irrelevant. Who knows what the specfic ideas the plotters had for the society they wanted to create, the point is they wanted to end the democratic system in the U.S. Again Buchanan simply states that he found Bush's name on the board of the company. He doesn't say anyhwere in the documentary that he thought Bush was involved in the plot, just that he felt it was interesting that he was on the board.annoynmous 01:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IOW, there is no reason at all for the gratuitous mention of Prescott Bush etc. in the precis as far as this article is concerned, and the show made no connection of them to any plot at all. Correct? (If he had nothing to do with the "plot" his name should not be in the article.) Collect (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well right now it's stated as Buchanan's accusation. I think the reference to the BBC documentary and Buchanan's statments on how the accusations melted away should stay. However I'm not overly attached to Prescott Bush's name being in the article and if his presence in the article really bothers you than go ahead and remove his name.annoynmous 01:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed Prescott Bush's name per the suggestion above. annoynmous 02:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And the other names also not connectd with the "plot" as well, please. Collect (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR applies here. You're effectively drowning out others discussion with these personal attacks and rambling defenses of indefensible edits. THF (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Who have I attacked personally? I simply pointed out some errors Collect made in regards to the documentary he cited above and said simply that most people consider the BBC a reliable source. I have given several detailed responses as to why I feel the word "alleged" is not appropriate. I also pointed out the fact that you wrote an article on this matter and even you admited several months ago that you had to recuse yourself because of a conflict of interest. Here is an excerpt from your talk page:

As I have published on the subject, I recuse myself. Feel free to use my publication as further evidence that reliable sources view this as a conspiracy theory. THF (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

When captilismojo later added your article it was reverted by Orangemike because of this conflict of interest.

In regards to the tags, what is the factual dispute? The dispute is over wording, not factual content. I'm fine with the NPOV tag, but the factual tag and the lead tag are innapropriate. annoynmous 01:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Consensus

This new lede does not meet any sort of measure of consensus. I propose that it be largely reverted to the stable lede, with the addition of the committee's conclusion.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Huon seems to agree with not using the word alleged. As he rightly put the problem with the word "alleged" is by whom is it being "alleged". It's not like it's a bunch of crazies making the allegations. The people making the allegations are a reporter, a highly decorated marine officer and a committe of the U.S. Congress.

I personally don't feel that any of the contemporary newspaper articles should be in the lead, but you insisted on the "gigantic hoax" line. That's fine, but if were going to have that editorial in the lead than we should also have the follow up report by the times after the committes report came out. annoynmous 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The NYT in your post-committee citation uses 'alleged'. They continued to scoff at this so-called plot after the committee came up with its conclusions:

"Also last week the House Committee on Un-American Activities purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true."
The New York Times February 16 1935. p. 1,

How can you continue to resist the use of 'alleged' when the very sources you have included and added use it (not to mention 'purported', and ignoring 'hoax')?Capitalismojo (talk)

I am planning on revising the lede including the committee's opinion and the term alleged. (As a side point I am not impressed with HUAC opinions on much.) Capitalismojo (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And I concur. Collect (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Was There Ever a Coup Plot?

Annonymous made some important points a long time ago that should be revisited. He asserted that there was some sort of plot. His points should be examined. He said at the time:

It's very odd to me how people ignore what's write in front of there eyes. Burke say's "At their core, the accusations probably consisted of a mixture of actual attempts at influence peddling by a small core of financiers with ties to veterans organizations.." meaning that there was some sorta plot. Schmidt say's clearily ""Even if Butler was telling the truth, as there seems little reason to doubt, there remains the unfathomable problem of MacGuire's motives and veracity" his argument isn't that there wasn't a plot, it's that it was only maquire and a few others and that MacGuire had made Butler think the plot was greater than it was. As for Schlesinger you failed to quote the passage right before the one you sighted where he said "No doubt, MacGuire did have some wild scheme in mind..." he doesn't deny there was a plot, just that it wasn't that close to implenetation.

None of this matters as the official position of the committe was that the plot was close to implementation. I think the official word trumps any later historical assessment. They especially trump the word of newspapers of time which reached conclusions before the committe reached theres.

Anyway the articles and historical assessments are in the article. However, by putting them in the lead they give the impression that there is controversy about whether there actually was a plot, which there isn't. An how dow 3 people count as "most Historians"?annoynmous 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The first quote (by Burke) suggests that this was not a coup but "influence peddling", i.e. lobbying. We would call this "astroturfing" in modern American politics. It is mildly annoying but hardly illegal even today.

2. The second historian (Schmidt) suggests the key unfathomable question is MacGuire's motives. This goes directly to General Butler's testimony that he believed MacGuire was trying to con money from Clark. This is illegal but again not a coup.

3. Schlessinger talks about a wild scheme of MacGuire's implying both the question of whether this was a con and probably an oblique reference to MacGuire's brain damage and unstable personality. This selection of Schlessinger's is not all he has to say about this matter. He is entirely dismissive.

So we have three prominent mainstream historians, one of which is the preeminent historian of the 1930s and FDR, all of which dismiss the plot. On the other side we have conspiracy theorists like Buchanan. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Butler was "anti-capitalist" which makes using him as a front for major capitalists a tad iffy. No one other than him asserted any first-hand knowledge of the "coup." The postcards which some find incriminating are not all that different from those of anyone travelling at the time -- how other governments handled the global depression was of some interest, for some reason. I rather think if I were travelling in China today that I might include some comments about the country, and in an authoritarian nation, one is unlikely to send really critical postcards <g>. As the American Legion is hinted at as the vehicle for the "Coup" it is also worth noting that no major Legion figures were involved at all <g> which also tends to reduce the probability of the coup being anything more than the stuff of bull sessions. And I would be amazed if there were no bull sessions about coups -- just the issue of whether any bull sessions reached a point of actually being able to initiate one. Collect (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Butler was more than anti-capital he was also one of the few (perhaps only) major military figure or retired general officer to endorse and campaign for FDR. Perhaps only an unstable or confused person would even think of approaching Butler to lead a coup against his friend....Or perhaps it was indeed just a hoax.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Official Position is that there was Coup

I must continue to insist that the word "alleged" not be used. Huon has agreed with me on this, so it can no longer be claimed I'm alone in this. Further more I still feel is is the wrong term to use to describe the plot. Th official position of the United States Congress was that the plot existed. Every Historian has acknowledged this report and despite what captilismojo says, none of them has outright dismissed the plot.

First off in regards to the New York Times article. Why is it that everyone seems to forget that the "gigantic hoax" line came from and editorial, not a piece of reporting. The Times official reporting reported what the committe found. Yes, they used the word "alleged", but they say that according to the committe there was a plot. I don't understand where you get this idea that they quote "scoff" at the allegations.

As for Arthur Schlesinger, once again it is outright false to say that he dismisses the plot. He devotes a total of 3 paragraphs to this issue and in the end he says that some people at the time dismissed the plot, but he goes on to say that the committe report said there was one. He does not doubt that there was some sorta plot, he just questions how close it was to implementation.

Hans Schmidt clearily says that Butler was most likely telling the truth and that Macquire was most likely lying. He raises the question of Macquires motives, but he never outright dismisses the plot. He say's of MacQuire, "If he was acting as an intermediary in a genuine probe, or as agent provocateur sent to fool Butler, his employers were at least clever enough to keep their distance and see to it that he self-destructed on the witness stand." This clearily implies that Macquire has some people behind him financing his scheme, so it couldn't have just been a scheme cooked up by Macquire.

Robert Burke is the only one who seems doubtful of the existence of the plot and even he admits that there was some influence peddling going on. Like Schlesinger, the section dealing with the plot is a minor part of his book consisting of only 8 paragraphs. Also keep in mind his book is a biography of the DuPont company and he has an interest in apologizing for them.

As I said above claiming a historical consensus is rather dubious as there really isn't much historical research on the subject. Hans Schmidt and Jules Archer are the only ones who deal with the subject in depth. Just about everyone who has ever written on the subject quotes the committes report and no parsing of words is going to get around what the committes final conclusion is. Capitilismojo is free to add any information he feels improves the article, but I must insist that the word "alleged" stay out. Huon agrees with my position and I know the user Ikip also agrees that "alleged" is the wrong word to use. annoynmous 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Huon said he did not actually care on the matter. At this point, it appears that of those wth a concrete opinion, you are in a minority here. "While I personally consider the use of "alleged" accurate (and the NYT seems to agree), I don't mind annoynmous's version. I certainly won't fight about the inclusion of a single word if we can provide the same amount of information without it. And no matter whether the plot was real or not, the committee seemed to believe so. I'll tweak the wording a little for better readability. Huon (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC) " was the actual post which to me sure looks like Huon said he considers the use of "alleged" to be accurate <g>. Collect (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He did not say he "didn't care" he said he didn't mind. He ackowledged that the committes conclusion was that there was a plot. His subsequent post to one you posted was:

"There is one problem with the use of "alleged": It immediately raises the question "By whom?" Answering that question in the lede seems appropriate, and the committee surely is both among the first and the most prominent to allege this "coup". I also agree with Capitalismojo's concern that we should be clearer in stating what's the mainstream historical view. I think his suggested change of wording is a good idea. Huon (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)"

I think that was a brilliant point, by whom is it being alleged. It's not being alleged by some obscure conspiracy organization, it's being alleged by a committe of the United States Congress. Now if the committe had said that it found no evidence of a plot or that it wasn't able to come to a conclusion either way, I would agree with the term "alleged". The problem is that the committe said "There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient". That is the official position on the plot and there is no getting around that.

Remember, the article as it stands now does not say definetively that there was a plot, it says "in the opinion of a committee report". It's stated clearily as the committes opinion, not absolute fact. annoynmous 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, I think "alleged" is quite appropriate, and we should also say by whom the plot was alleged. If we describe that the plot was alleged by the committe without actually using the word, I'm fine with that, too. If the committee had said that it found no evidence, or ambiguous evidence, then "alleged" would be too strong a word. Huon (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what the article currently says. It says it was the committes opinion that there was a plot. To call it the "alleged" plot implies that the committe was ambivalent about the existence of a plot when they weren't. As you said above you don't feel it's worth it to "fight about the inclusion of a single word if we can provide the same amount of information without it". I believe it's perfectly possible to provide the same amount of information without the word "alleged".

Would you agree that "In the opinion of committe report" is a good compromise between definetely saying there is a plot and using the word "alleged"? annoynmous 01:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Nicholas Fox Webers "The Clarks of Cooperstown" which deals with Robert Sertling Clark, seems to present the plot as credible. Here's a passage from the book:

"Butler's testimony to the House Committe , which was played down in the newspaper and magazine accounts at the time, and made to seem largely specious by influentional commentators, seems credible about the attempt to overthrow FDR, and Robert Sterling Clark's role in it. Butler's Claims, moreover, were supported by the committe's subsequent investigations and conclusions".

"The House Committe conducted hearings between April 26 and December, 29, 1934, in Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Neward, and Asheville, N.C. They examined hundreds of witnesses about the matter and accumulated over 4,300 pages of testimony. A lot of material was subsequently suppressed, with entire sequences of pages, and, to date no one has been able to obtain a complete record of the hearings, but the investigation, which seems balanced and objective, was quite conclusive".

Now Nicholas Weber is a graduate of Columbia and Yale. That sounds like a credible endorsement of the existence of the plot to me. annoynmous 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to once again address this issue of why there were no prosecutions after the committe submitted it's final report. I suggested a while back that the legal framework to prosecute the conspirators may not have existed in 1934. Treason is those days mostly meant passing information to the enemy during wartime. It wasn't until the Smith Act of 1940 that actually trying to subvert the government itself became something you could be prosecuted for. Captilismojo dismissed these points when I brought them up before.

Well I've been reading excerpts on google from a book by Curt Gentry called "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets". Gentry was the co-writer with Vincent Bugliosi of "Helter Skelter". In the book Gentry says that after French's meeting with Macquire, Butler initially went to Hoover who told Butler that since there was no evidence that a federal criminal statute had been violated that he did not have the authority to order an investigation. Gentry speculates that Hoover was afraid of alienating some of Americas biggest corporations. He also suggests that it was Hoover who suggested to Butler that he go before the committe. Gentry overall seems to view the plot as credible. annoynmous 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Armed opposition to the federal government is and always has been a crime in this nation. One of President Washington's first acts was to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. If the FBI couldn't proceed its because they only had one plotter MacGuire and no overt acts. Talking about a coup isn't a coup. Accumulating arms, supplies, bases, vehicles; these are the overt acts that indicate and proceed a coup and allow prosecution. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the uprising wasn't to overthrow the government, it was rebelling against a whiskey tax which the army made them pay. A few people were briefly jailed, but most were pardoned and set free after that. I'm just making the case that a legal framework to prosecute someone for trying to overthrow the government didn't exist then. annoynmous 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New Proposed Lede

I have put up a new lede. It includes 'alleged', annoynmous' 'opinion of the committee', a more nuanced historian's view of the plot, and annoynmous' post-report NYT quotes. I hope this compromise finds favor here. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to cover all of his wishes other than his desire to elide "alleged". Collect (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike has replaced the word "alleged" with the word "reported". Not wanting to argue over this article any further I feel this is an adequate compromise. Along with the edits made by Captilismojo I accept this version of the article. annoynmous 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I respect Orangemike a great deal and (while I think alleged is more appropriate) I can live with this. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, with one minor caveat: Probably due to some cutting and pasting, we have "In the opinion of a committee of the United States Congress ..." immediately after giving the precise name of the committee. I hope there's no objection to shortening that to "In the opinion of the committee ..." - more clarity without loss of information or change of meaning. Huon (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Final resolution

It is more important than ever that we find a source for the Committee's final statement. The reason is that George Seldes' (1947) book has a version of the final statement that does not match the article's quote. The article's (unsourced) quote has the committee saying:

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

Seldes' book quotes the Committee as saying:

"In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country. No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country. There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient." p290-292

This seems a significant change and, unless someone can identify where our first quote is from, we should change it to match the sourced material. I also wonder why that quote was massaged in our article... Capitalismojo (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To make it clear; this goes to the very heart of our disagreements on the talk page. We may well have been mislead by false quotes and improper citations for six months. If the committee was itself not asserting a coup attempt how can we?Capitalismojo (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a relevant difference, and in the middle of our dubiously sourced paragraph that's definitely not in the document and page range where it's claimed to be. "Organization" seems to be a better fit to the rest of that quote, for example two paragraphs later it says "... your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements ... with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization." Of course the creation of a fascist orgnaization is still an important step in influencing public policy, and according to Butler MacGuire suggested using that army in what amounts to a coup - but on the other hand, just creating what amounts to a mix between private army, veterans organization and political party is not yet a coup by a long shot. Anyway, if Seldes quotes "organization" and we don't have a source for "government", then "organization" is what the article should say. Huon (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why people continue to make this suggestion that final conclusion isn't real. Every credible historian refers to it, including Arthur Schlesinger. I made the point several times that there are pages missing from the online version of the committes report and that the conclusion is probably in those pages. I agree that we should continue to find another source for it, but I don't think it's credible to suggest that the conclusion is a hoax. annoynmous 00:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of a source for the present quote we should use Seldes'. Whether the present quote is an honest mistake or a hoax is something we are not presently equipped to examine.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here is something. Until July 8th of last year the quote was accurate. Then an apparent sockpuppet (????of Inclusionist????) changed it to make it appear that the Committee opinion was something it was not. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:23, 8 July 2008 (edit) (undo)

RWV (talk | contribs)

I don't understand what you mean by the quote was made to say something it didn't say? All that was taken out was the sentence saying no european government was involved in plot. To my knowledge, no one ever claimed that a european government was involved. From the beginning I think everyone, Butler included, said the plot was a homegrown affair. I have no objections to your putting it back in, but I don't get the implication your making that the omission of this sentence constitutes something sinister. It's denying something no one claimed in the first place. annoynmous 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the omission of the second line that is the problem. It is changing the words of the quote, changing the main thrust of what the committee found and what the efforts of the Business Plot were. The committee actually said they had discovered "an attempt to establish a fascist organization", we have been operating off the mis-information that the committee was of the opinion that the plot involved an attempt to establish a fascist government. It did not, at least not in the opinion of the committee. There is an enormous gulf between those two propositions. An undeniable one. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We can all agree that changing quotes is wrong. Especially when it derails months of honest effort to improve an article. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Final Committee Report (Citation per Seldes)

I will places Seldes' copy of the final committee report here for all to read Capitalismojo (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

74th Congress House of Representatives Report

1st Session No. 153

Investigation of Nazi And Other Propaganda

February 15, 1935 - Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. McCormack, from the committee appointed to investigate Nazi and other propaganda, submitted the following:

REPORT

(Pursuant to House Resolution No. 198, 73d Congress)

Fascism

There have been isolated cases of activity by organizations which seemed to be guided by the fascist principle, which the committee investigated and found that they had made no progress.

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country.

No evidence was presented and this committee had none to show a connection between this effort and any fascist activity of any European country.

There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.

This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler (p. 8-114 D.C. 6 II).

MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans' organizations of Fascist character (p. 111 D.C. 6 II).

The following is an excerpt from one of MacGuire's letters:

"I had a very interesting talk last evening with a man who is quite well up on affairs here and he seems to be of the opinion that the Croix de Feu will be very patriotic during this crisis and will take the cuts or be the moving spirit in the veterans to accept the cuts. Therefore they will, in all probability, be in opposition to the Socialists and functionaries. The general spirit among the functionaries seems to be that the correct way to regain recovery is to spend more money and increase wages, rather than to put more people out of work and cut salaries.

The Croix de Feu is getting a great number of new recruits, and I recently attended a meeting of this organization and was quite impressed with the type of men belonging. These fellows are interested only in the salvation of France, and I feel sure that the country could not be in better hands because they are not politicians, they are a cross-section of the best people of the country from all walks of life, people who gave their "all" between 1914 and 1918 that France might be saved, and I feel sure that if a crucial test ever comes to the Republic that these men will be the bulwark upon which France will be served.

There may be more uprisings, there may be more difficulties, but as is evidenced right now when the emergency arises and party difficulties are forgotten as far as France is concerned, and all become united in the one desire and purpose to keep this country as it is, the most democratic, and the country of the greatest freedom on the European Continent." (p.III D.C. 6 II).

This committee asserts that any efforts based on lies as suggested in the foregoing and leading off to the extreme right, are just as bad as efforts which would lead to the extreme left. Armed forces for the purpose of establishing a dictatorship by means of Fascism or a dictatorship through the instrumentality of the proletariat, or a dictatorship predicated in part on racial and religious hatreds, have no place in this country.

Source: George Seldes, 1000 Americans, 1947. (p.290-292)

Which seems to not show Macguire saying anything at all about the US, but saying that the politicians should not be ruling France ... and his specific belief that these folks wanted freedom in France. Hardly as incriminating of seeking a US dictatorship as some would wish <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide; we should just report what has been said. I've changed the footnote in the article to match this source. Huon (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Altered Quote/Altered History

I am disturbed about the falsification of the quote by RWV. I am unsure as how to proceed. From the history and diffs it seems that RWV, who altered the committee's opinion was the sockpuppet of some other frequent user. What should be done?Capitalismojo (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[2] OK, In our archive is a diff in which Ikip, a major contributors to this page, identifies himself as RWV. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, this is the edit. While I of course share Capitalismojo's concerns, given that it's a year old and that Ikip hasn't edited this article since February, I don't think something needs to be done right now. It might have been a mistake in the course of a larger edit, and we should assume good faith. If something were to be done, the first step should probably be asking Ikip on his talk page. Huon (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

His last visit to the talk page was in March. Collect (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe nothing need be done. It does disturb me, but we have caught it and fixed it. This misconception of what the committee actually said has driven our discussion for months, thats what is galling.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously don't get the big deal hear. So someone replaced "Organization" with "Government". What happened was that some annoynmous user changed it to "government" back in April 2006. Then it was changed back to "organization" in 2008 and then user RWV changed it back to government. I don't think RWV was doing anything sinister, he just decided to revert what he thought was a bias edit.

RWV is Travb is Inclunsionist is Ikip by his own statements. He is the single greatest contributor to this article in terms of edits. He also created the wikisource documents related to this article. I'll assume that the annon user was not a sock. He (RWV/Travb/Ikip) should have known better. He has apparently spent more time here than any other editor. He essentially rewrote the entire article on March 28, 2006 in a vast series of edits. Then he ignored a factual change to key evidence immediately afterwards, and later spent time reverting changes back to the improper quote. He should have known better. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I also don't get this "we've been operating under lie" argument everyones making. It's obvious the committe agrees with Butler that the organization was going to attempt to overthrow the government. It says organization in Archers book and in the BBC documentary. This seems a fairly trivial point to get overly worried about. annoynmous 06:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a real ans substantive difference between the words, and saying that it is "no big deal" is quite off-base. And using incorrect "quotations" is also a big deal. The aim is to get the article right, not to make misleading statements in it. Collect (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is non-trivial. There has been a strong argument made here using the "committee's opinion" to weaken the lede, strengthen alternative non-mainstream historical views, and generally change the tenor of the article. Now we find that the committee's key opinion was improperly altered. You, yourself, have made some strong and successful arguments based on the committee's opinion. This strikes at the base of those discussions. It means we have wasted months that could have been spent improving ths article. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How does this strike at the base of my conclusions? The committe is clearily referring to the "organization" as something that was trying to overthrow the government. "Organization" is the word Jules Archer uses in his book and it obviously didn't alter his perception of whether or not there was a conspiracy. Plus in my personal opinion it has been people here at wikipedia who have weakened the mainstream historical opinion, which is that there was a plot. In my opinion the work of certain people to cast doubt on this constitutes original research. Why would organizations like The Hsitory Channel and the BBC devote large programs to this incident if the consensus was it was hoax? The answer is that the consensus is that it wasn't hoax and that is what the committe found. So ikip made a mistake and reverted back to an edit by some anon editor who tried to bias the article. While I think ikip should be allowed to speak for himself I think it was just an honest mistake. I agree he should have shown better judgement, but I don't think it was malicious on his part. Anyway it doesn't really significantly alter the article that much anyway. The committe said "There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient", what attempts do you think they were referring too? In my opinion it's obvious there referring to the attempts outlined by Butler.

I say again I find this a trivial matter and I hope it isn't going to be used as excuse to go back on the consensus. It's been long road we've all traveled to finally reach a mutual agreement and I hope everyone will honor that agreement. annoynmous 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Plotters

I just reverted the lead sentence from "... which a retired general and a bond salesman plotting a coup d’état ..." to "... which involved wealthy businessmen plotting a coup d’état ...". I don't see how we can claim Butler as one of the plotters: He testified that others plotted, and I believe he did claim wealthy businessmen as backers. And whatever MacGuire's role, he certainly didn't plot Roosevelt's downfall by himself. If there actually was a plot, MacGuire must have had rich backers - he didn't have the means to carry out such plans on his own. On the other hand, if MacGuire was on his own, then there was no plot to begin with. Thus, saying that "a retired general and a bond salesman" were the plotters is saying either too much or too little.

Besides, we say that it's a reported conspiracy, and it was certainly reported to involve the wealthy businessmen, so I don't think our formulation is incorrect, and I don't see how we could improve upon it without either acknowledging that there was such a plot as reported by Butler, or acknowledging that there wasn't. Huon (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Butler testified that he "played along" with the plot in his talks with Maguire--that's conspiracy. We can't very well refer to businessmen when the Congfress explictly said there was no such evidence. Who "reported" that wealthy businessmen were involved?? Let's be specific: Spivak who said it was a Jewish conspiracy. Actually the plot was probably invented by the far left--people like Spivak, Butler himself and Congressman Dickstein (who went on the Soviet payroll as a spy for the USSR). Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems a rather strange reading of events, and I'd like to see a reliable source naming Butler one of the conspirators. Also, Butler was the one reporting that there were wealthy businessmen backing the plot. My reading of events was that according to Butler, MacGuire named these backers, but the committee considered that evidence hearsay and didn't investigate further. Time Magazine, while ridiculing the plot, named Morgan and Du Pont in connection with it. Spivak, who obviously is too much of a conspiracy theorist to be taken seriously, names lots of "wealthy backers". Whoever we take as "reporter" (and I'd take Butler, not Spivak), the backers were not "unspecified" as you now write.

Whether Dickstein was a Soviet spy seems debatable, but fortunately we don't need to care at all because Dickstein wasn't the one reporting, inventing or in any way furthering this plot. This piece of guilt-by-association doesn't belong in the article. By the way, Spivak claimed that the Dickstein committee was engaged in hushing up the plot, and in anti-communist activities. I can't see any kind of collaboration between Dickstein and Spivak here.

Finally, most historians agree that something was going on - probably not the planned coup Butler reported, but Schlesinger, Schmidt and Archer seem to agree that Butler didn't just invent the whole thing.

In summary, I don't think your edits are an improvement of the article. Huon (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

who were the conspirators? we have Maguire talking to Butler --and who were the other conspirators? Maguire says there were none, Butler says they existed but he did not name them and said he never met any of them. --extremely implausible if Butler was their choice to become dictator. Schmidt suggests that Maguire was the con man who invented everything and fooled Butler. That makes sense. The far left used the episode to attack capitalism (Spivak, Dickstein and indeed Butler himself made his money by touring the US denouncing banks and capitalism.) The article cannot use vague terms like "It was Reported". Who reported?. Who claimed what? which businessmen? Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Butler's and reporter Paul Comly French's testimony and MacGuire's correspondence, the plotters included Irenée Du Pont and Robert Sterling Clark. Butler spoke to Clark. The American Liberty League was also implicated; we should probably be more explicit in the article. Of course MacGuire denied the allegations - but if he had indeed been plotting the overthrow of the republic, would you expect him to acknowledge that? Schmidt says that if MacGuire "was acting as an intermediary in a genuine probe, or as agent provocateur sent to fool Butler, his employers were at least clever enough to keep their distance" - he doesn't say MacGuire invented everything. Dickstein seems not to have been on the far left at that point; the committee also investigated the communists. But Dickstein's political position is irrelevant; he was just the vice chairman of the relevant congressional committee. Butler may have been anti-capitalistic, but he was also among the most highly decorated soldiers of his time and would have had some appeal to the veterans. "Who reported?" - Butler and, independently, French, corroborated by James E. Van Zandt. "Who claimesd what?" - while that could be made clearer in the article, all relevant facts are there except the supposed involvement of the American Liberty League. "which businessmen?" - see above. Huon (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears Dickstein did happen to appear in KGB records ... see [3], and fifty more sources dating after release of the KGB records. [4] etc. And the NYT as well [5] "The files show that they even had an agent in Congress: Samuel Dickstein, who represented a swath of Manhattan's Lower East Side and was generally useless to his Soviet paymasters." The article now includes biographical information on the other protagonists, it appears that this is well-sourced contentious BDP for Dickstein, and likely should be included IMHO. He definitely was a protagonist, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like synthesis of published sources. Why is it relevant to the Business Plot that Dickstein would be taking Soviet money a few years after these committee hearings? And concerning Dickstein as a protagonist: What precisely did he do? We list several actions taken by the committee, but does any of our sources attribute one of those actions to Dickstein himself? If there's a source for a connection between Dickstein's actions on this committee and his later efforts as a paid informer (or whatever) of the KGB, sure, we should add it, but currently I don't see such a connection. Huon (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dickstein is now known to be a secret supporter of Communism and he was the cochair of the committee that took charge of the issue, so the idea that he was a disinterested Congressman searching for the truth has to be matched against the possibility he was trying to undermine capitalism by hinting there was a capitalist conspiracy. The article does not take sides but gives info for readers to decideRjensen (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. There is no indication that I'm aware of that Dickstein was a "secret supporter of Communism" at that time. And from Collect's quote above, I'd almost say that while he did take the communists' money, he didn't support them to any relevant degree... probably still illegal, maybe treasonous, but from the Business Plot point of view those are future events, and I'd like a source linking Dickstein's KGB dealings to the Plot before we add it to this article.
2. I'm not aware of any indication that Dickstein was anti-capitalistic - and if we may take Spivak as an indication of contemporary public sentiment, Dickstein was perceived as almost as fervently an anti-communist (and a tool of Wall Street!) as he was an anti-fascist. Again, are there sources to that effect? Or is anybody who is anti-fascist automatically supposed to be anti-capitalistic too?
3. I'm not aware of any specific action taken by Dickstein in connection with the Business Plot. What did he actually do? Does anybody know? Are there sources discussing Dickstein's role? Huon (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

well whwn a Congressman takes a secret $1000 a month from a foreign government to spy on the US government, that's about as serious as it gets.

--Dickstein co-chaired the House committee that did the investigation,. That makes him a central player in the story--it's common knowledge then and now that in Congress committee chairs control the work of the committee and decide on the the report. It's odd to easily assume treason by unnamed people, but when confronted with a paid Communist spy to demands much more proof of ill intent. Maybe if he was paid $5000 a month instead of $1000 it would make Dickstein look bad? Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I take that as an admission that there are no reliable sources linking Dickstein's KGB payments to the job he did four years earlier. Besides, if we assume that Dickstein controlled the committee's work and decided on the report, Dickstein becomes the one who didn't call the people denoted by Butler and French to testify before the committee and who removed parts of the testimony (including the mention of the Liberty League) from the committee's report. Sorry, but I fail to see that as undermining capitalism or hinting at a conspiracy. Huon (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

n dealing with conspiracy theories WP editors have to evaluate reliable sources; How trustworthy are they? Was there a secret agenda? Dickstein does not pass the RS test and that makes his committee report highly suspect. --add that it was leaked to a Communist magazine and to Spivak, who claimed it proved a Jewish banker conspiracy to take over America. As for creditibility --Let's add Butler, who made a living by denouncing bankers and capitalists on the lecture circuit. He was forced out of thde Marine Corps after making public statmments accusing Mussolini of murdering a pedestrian (he had heard the gossip at a party and repeated it to the press. President Hoover wanted a court martial --Butler was reprimanded and forced to retire.) The only identified businessman is McGuire, the $100 a week bond salesman with a vivid imagination. (Maguire denied everything--historians think he was a con artist.) Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely why we rely on the historians as secondary sources and treat the committee report as a primary source. But I don't see how we could improve the article by adding stuff that no secondary sources link to the Business Plot. Huon (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to tell the readers how reliable the main players were (using secondary sources). Basically the reader has to sort out the claims. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are secondary sources discussing the reliability of the "main players" in connection with the business plot, I'm all for it. Actually we already do so; the article mentions "the self-serving accusations of Butler against the enemies of his pacifist and populist causes" and that "MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking", both sourced to historians. But just adding random stuff not connected to the Business Plot seems to me a violation of WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

providing information on the integrity of the main players is indeed central to conspiracy articles. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I take objection to your recent edit where you simply added a "not" to turn a sourced statement into its opposite. That borders on vandalism. Also, the fascist organization Butler was supposed to head wasn't the VFW or the American Legion. If you prefer, we may follow the New York Times and call it a "fascist army" instead, but since the majority of members was supposed to consist of veterans, "fascist veterans organization" seems appropriate, and the committee report speaks of a "fascist organization" and "veterans organizations of Fascist character". Huon (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've just reverted 216.99.210.179's changes. Firstly, the only "documentation" concerning the Business Plot is Smedley Butler's testimony before the congressional committee (and a letter by MacGuire), significant parts of which were dismissed by that committee as hearsay. There's no documentary evidence whatsoever linking anybody but MacGuire to anything. Secondly, Prescott Bush worked for companies investigated by the same committee, but those investigations were separate from the Business Plot. He's not mentioned at all in Butler's testimony. Huon (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just semi prot this because of the revert warring by the ip editor Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerald MacGuire

How is it there is no bio on MacGuire? How did he gain the status he had with all the important business men? And at age 37, shortly after Butler exposed him and his co-conspirators, he dies? .... of natural causes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WithGLEE (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have been quite frankly unremarkable. Collect (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RE natural causes: In Butler's testimony the General refers to MacGuire's grave injuries in WW1. He refers to MacGuire having had brain injury and a metal plate put in his head. It is not surprising to learn he didn't have a long happy life. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The second fascist plot of Wall Street

I've listen some claims of the existence of a second attempt to create a fascist state in america. In the last comment of this article: http://www.presidencynews.com/white-house/the-plot-to-seize-the-white-house-the-shocking-true-story-of-the-conspiracy-to-overthrow-fdr a user called D.G. Porter says:

This attempt (Business plot) was in 1934, a second, less famous coup attempt in 1939, recorded in the New York Times, even if the court records went mysteriously lost in a fire. The New York Times, you have in your library, along with the Congressional Record.

So I tried to find some information about this in the New York Times archive, but because I am a free user i could not read the articles but only the titles. These are ones I found:

• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10F17FE385E10728DDDA80A94DD405B898FF1D3&scp=39&sq=fascist&st=p
• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B17FC3A58127A93C6AB178FD85F4D8385F9&scp=48&sq=fascist&st=p
• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB061FF73A5B177A93CAA81789D85F4D8385F9&scp=23&sq=fascist&st=p
• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20816FB3B5A167A93CBA81788D85F4D8385F9&scp=20&sq=fascist&st=p
• http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C11FA3E5A137A93C3A91782D85F4D8385F9&scp=18&sq=fascist&st=p

But no one of these talks about an explicit plot. If someone could find information about what D.G. Porter is saying it would be wonderfull. I'm not a English speaker so is difficoult to me do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No such "plot" is documented in any reliable sources, hence speculation about such is left to venues other than Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The first NYT article linked to above speaks of a "fantastic, though vague, plan to establish a ..." A Fascist organization, a Fascist state? I have no idea who that Moseley is who is mentioned as proposed dictator (a Google search only turns up Oswald Mosley in Britain), and I see no indication that Wall Street was involved. Digging up that issue of the NYT in a library may be helpful. In general, I would be rather sceptical about conspiracy claims for which the proof was destroyed in a suspiciously convenient fire. It's so convenient when you can claim absence of proof as proof for a conspiracy. Huon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's basically baloney. There were lots of two-bit players who thought only a strong man and central control could rescue the U.S. from its crisis in the later 1930s. Most of the links above are irrelevant except for the first. May 21, 1939: Testimony before House Un-American Activities Committee about "fantastic, though vague, plan to establish a Fascist regime to run the country from Atlanta under the leadership of Gen. George Van Horn Moseley, retired," a notorious anti-Semite whose wiki entry needs to be expanded. The Committee was investigating "this and other rumored schemes." The Committee eventually concluded its investigation and we read in the September 1, 1939 issue: "'Pee Wee' Hitlers Found in America". All about low-level and small scale, pseudo-Nazi organizations, around 50 in number. No one should refer to any of this as a "coup attempt". Nor is Wall Street or the business community implicated in any way.

This anti-Nazi aspect of the Committee's work is missing from the wiki entry for House Un-American Activities Committee, where the Committee's anti-Communist activities, and later work on behalf of McCarthyism and blacklisting, gets the most attention. I might add this anti-Nazi material sometime. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added that Moseley to our disambiguation page. Huon (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Spivak and Jews

I reverted Soz101, who claimed that Spivak "wrote nothing about Jews". That's not true. Spivak's "conspiracy diagram" prominently mentions the American Jewish Committee as co-conspirators. Also note the top left entry in that diagram: Spivak says the Dickstein committee "suppressed names of Je[wish] controlled business which contributed to American Vigilance Intelligence Federation." Spivak rather obviously sees "Jewish controlled" as significant in the context of the Business Plot. Huon (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Spivak was Jewish and spent much of his career in the 1930s exposing anti-Semites. For you to generalise in the article and imply that he claimed there was a Jewish plot completely misrepresents him. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I provided a link to Spivak's own diagram about the American Jewish Committee and "Je[wish] controlled business". He also mentions anti-semitic propaganda disseminated by the American Vigilance Intelligence Federation. I do not claim Spivak was an antisemite himself; his accusation of anti-semitism against his opponents make that unlikely. But since he included the American Jewish Committee in his conspiracy, he either had a bizarre opinion of that organization (for which I would like a source), or he did indeed see the premier Jewish advocacy organization in America as a significant part of the conspiracy, which imo could thus be called "a conspiracy of financiers and Jews". Huon (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleging that one organization is part of a conspiracy and that "Jews" in general [conspired] are two quite different things. In any case, neither of the two sources that are actually cited in the article appear to make that claim or use the language attributed to the sources.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We can instead make it "a conspiracy of financiers and the American Jewish Committee", and cite Spivak's New Masses article as a source. There, Spivak writes: "[T]his article, and succeding ones, will reveal Jewish financiers working with fascist groups [...]," and continues about "the American Jewish Committee, a powerful organization active in fighting the spread of anti-semitism. The American Jewish Committee is controlled by wealthy Jews." He goes on to detail the Committee's involvement in the conspiracy. Spivak seems to accuse these Jewish financiers of betraying the cause of anti-semitism, but for that he has to emphasize their Jewishness. How about "a fascist conspiracy of financiers and wealthy Jews to take over the U.S. government, betraying the cause of anti-semitism in the process"? The wording can be improved, but something along these lines should capture Spivak's true point. As an aside, a conspiracy of Jews is not a conspiracy of all, or just most Jews. As a further aside, I don't see why the National Archives source is relevant to that part of the article at all. Huon (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, we must read Spivak's article in the New Masses. I created the John L. Spivak article and there are two links to the actual article Spivak wrote. It is unfortunate but undeniable that Spivak asserts ( beginning in the 4th paragraph ) that his article does " reveal Jewish financiers working with Fascist groups". He goes on and on. He spends considerable time talking about the American Jewish Commitee and various wealthy Jews he asserts are involved. He talks of " capitalists, including Jews, making common cause with anti-semitic fascist and potentially fascist organizations, in an effort to crush labor." It gets worse but I think we get the idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As relates to Spivak's Jewish ethnicity, he was first and foremost a doctrinaire Marxist. That doctrine explicitly ( and Spivak mentions in this article) says that class and economic position trump ethnicity and religion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a ref. on this point. Hans Schmidt's Maverick Marine p 229. I hope that helps. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, using the formulation "financiers and Jews" is misleading and distorts Spivak's claim by implying a Jewish conspiracy. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Spivak does come very close to those anti-semitic comspiracy theories: He says wealthy Jews control the AJC and indirectly the Dickstein committee, subverting the organizations to their purposes, and that they aim at controlling the US government. Spivak himself probably was no anti-semite, but the conspiracy he proposes is still a conspiracy in which wealthy Jews figure prominently. How would you capture that part of Spivak's claims? Huon (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do reliable secondary sources say about this? Regarding Spivak's theories, do they use phrases like "financiers and Jews"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The source Huon Capitalismojo is trying to reference is here. I don't think "financiers and Jews" is an accurate representation of what Spivak said which was "Jewish finaciers working with fascist groups" and I also think that Schmidt's qualifications regarding Spivak's article need to be included ie that by "Jewish financiers" he was referring to "Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee" (rather than to "Jews" in general) allegedly colluding with J.P. Morgan and that this was "guilt by association" "overblown aspersions" and a case of Spivak "grinding his own axes" . Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually Capitalismojo's source, and it cites Spivak using the term "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups". I wouldn't mind using that literal quotation in our article, too: "[...] the plot was part of a conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups to take over the U.S. government." Huon (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the source. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked before: What do you think would be an accurate reflection of the source? Huon (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups to take over the U.S. government, but his accusations were overblown and influenced by Spivak's own agenda", citing Schmidt. Huon (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see what User:Jayjg thinks but I think a) when Spivak referred to "Jewish financiers" he was not referring to Jewish financiers as a whole but to specific individuals and that using his quote out of context is misleading. Tentatively, I'd prefer something along the lines of: "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a 'conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups', the former referring specifically to Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee in collusion with J.P. Morgan. Hans Schmidt argues that Spivak was engaging in guilt by association in regards to his claims about 'Jewish financiers' which were 'overblown aspersions' and not supported by the evidence" or "not supported by the Butler-MacGuire conversations". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well we have to add something. If Spivak's article is to be mentioned in the article at all we have to put in what he asserted. Spivak did assert both Jewish involvement in this supposed conspiracy and suggested jewish involvement in a coverup. Of course it is unfair and provocative; that was the whole point of Communist propaganda. As it stands we have a source that backs up the old formulation, if Vale has a different formulation let's give it a try. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

V of G's proposal "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a 'conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups', the former referring specifically to Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee in collusion with J.P. Morgan etc." seems to me to be an accurate and NPOV presentation of the source (Hans Schmidt). Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the wording along the lines suggested by Vale of Glamorgan. I believe the Committee at that time technically wasn't yet HUAC; I called it the McCormack-Dickstein committee. I also changed the wording a little for better readability (it could probably be improved even further), but did not intend to change the meaning. Huon (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems a good change.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I like Vale of Glamorgan's improvements; much better than my version. Huon (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Buchanan

I'm rather surprised to see that we quote John Buchanan. I remember a lenghty debate about him at Talk:Prescott Bush (now at Talk:Prescott Bush/Archive 3, I believe), and for all I can tell Buchanan is not a historian nor a reliable source unless backed up by secondary sources discussing his claims. Getting interviewed for a BBC documentary does not make him one, and that documentary was rather unreliable to begin with (for example it drew a connection between Prescott Bush and the Business Plot when in reality one of Bush's companies and the Plot were separately and unrelatedly investigated by the same congressional committee). For these reasons I would advocate removing the Buchanan quote altogether, or replacing it by a better source making the same point if available. Huon (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You should see what some editors tried to get in this "article." And Dickstein was a paid agent of the NKVD, of all things! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of Dickstein to whether or not we should quote Buchanan. Could you please elaborate? Huon (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Buchanan and Dickstein, who appear as the two chief accusers outside of Butler, both had colourful pasts. One as a conspiracry theorist and "interesting" newspaper editor, the other as the "fascist hunter" founder of HUAC who was actually in the NKVD payroll <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

From the perspective of the Business Plot, Dickstein has a colorful future. But that's rather irrelevant because a) we don't cite Dickstein except in committee reports he didn't sign off on his own, and b) this section was meant to discuss Buchanan, not Dickstein. Huon (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Wall Street Putsch"

What's the problem with have Wall Street Putsch as a redirect to this page?[6] I don't think anyone believes it deserves a standalone article?   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Found in a total of one newspaper in the archives in a single article, and in works by a single author - in short it was not, and is not, in any sense a "common term" anyone would look up. Cheers (add refs if you can find any for the term, Will). Collect (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. So then it appears that you think a single source is inadequate even for something as non-controversial as a name for an event over 70 years ago - is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea of "also known as" implies that it was also known as something. Where only a single source is found after searching through the news archives, there is a high likelihood that it "was also known as" means only the single source knew it. Else someone else would have uused the term. Where no one else used the term it is singularly unlikely that people knew it by that term. Suppose we had a single source, out of 20,000 sources mentioning George Gnarph saying he was known as "Loony Gnarph" and no other sources are found remotely saying the same thing - would you say the article on him should say "also known as 'Loony Gnarph' "? Or say there should be a redirect from "Loony Gnarph" based on that single, solitary source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if there were one good source for it out of 20,000 an alternate name may deserve mention. All sources are not the same. For example, a wire service article may be reprinted in 1000 newspapers, but it's still really only a single source. Is there any source which says that it was not called "Wall Street Putsch"? Here are additional citations:

• Although congressional hearings confirmed some of the plot's details, the so-called Wall Street Putsch was mocked by major newspapers and has been "mostly marginalized or ridiculed by historians," [Sally Denton] writes. From the vantage point of 2012, she makes a pretty convincing case about the dangers of alliances among big business, populist propaganda, and a lazy media.
  • Sizing up the challenges FDR faced after election Tuttle, Kate. Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 18 Jan 2012: G.4.
• She resurrects the so-called Wall Street putsch, in which wealthy businessmen supposedly plotted to overthrow the government. Although most historians have dismissed the "plot" as no more than wild talk, Denton provides some evidence that the plotters were quite serious.
  • The Plot against the President: FDR, a Nation in Crisis, and the Rise of the American Right Freeman, Jay. The Booklist108. 7 (Dec 1, 2011): 12.
• The failed assassin, an unemployed bricklayer, probably acted alone, and the "Wall Street Putsch" never went beyond preliminary plotting.
  • Nonfiction Reviews Publishers Weekly258. 40 (Oct 3, 2011).
• Ein neues Gesetz soll den Wall-Street-Putsch auf Dauer stellen. Der Legislative Proposal for Treasury Authority to Purchase Mortgage-Related Assets gäbe, einmal in Kraft gesetzt, dem Finanzminister praktisch unbegrenzte Vollmachten, zur Stützung der Märkte aufzukaufen, was immer ihm notwendig erscheint, zu jedem beliebigen Preis.
  • Der absolute Präsident Wefing, Heinrich. Die Zeit [Hamburg] 25 Sep 2008: 1.

Do book reviews count as sources?   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to establish anything more than that the single author used the term -- you know better, Will! When there is zero evidence that the term was widely used at any time in history, the use by a single author promoting her own book is not enough to use as a strong source! We know Denton has been actively promoting her book which uses the term, but all that means is that Denton has decided to use the term, and not that anyone else really used it widely at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you don't think book reviews are separate sources. As for it being widely used, I don't see anything about that in Wikipedia:Redirect. The closest i see it about "very obscure synonym". But since it was used in a mainstream book this does not seem to be "very obscure". Anyway, you've listed it at RFD so it can be settled there.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Book reviews are not a source for a term being in common usage - in fact they all make clear that the term is Ms. Denton's term - and make no claim that it was the common name for the "plot". We cannot use a source for anything the source does not say - and that is what appears to be happening here. Thousand fo cittes for other names - and only one article using the phrase more than seven decades ago, and a single book just out, and the reviews about that single book. And a brand new book with an author promoting a phrase does not make the phrase "notable" by a few miles, Will. The book could not even have a WP article on it - as it would absolutely fail the "notability" test. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Make your points at the RFD. This isn't the best place to discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that "Wall Street Putsch" has been accepted as a redirect. i have tried to include it in the reference line next to the title as an "AKA" and also tried to list Sally Denton's book in the Bibliography and the Further Reading sections. It is already listed in the Historians section and footnote. They have been deleted. What is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be spamming for this new book and this term, and to have no other interest in this encyclopedia project. I am inclined to suspect that you are either Denton or her agent. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Commercial book promotion does not belong in this or any article on Wikipedia. The repeated insertion by IPs is contrary to Wikipedia policy at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Butler's testimony in detail

This section of the article is almost entirely drawn from the original sources. That is to say that it is essentially original research. As it stands, it seems relatively accurate research but it is unenyclopedic. We are supposed to used secondary sources. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this as quite that much of a problem. While secondary sources are of course preferable, per WP:PRIMARY primary sources are acceptable as long as we do not analyze or interpret the sourced content ourselves, and I don't think we do so. Huon (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a terrific problem either especially in the light of the Haymarket Riot experience. The one thing that does trouble me is that the original source documents are at wikisource. That would be fine except someone has included Spivak's New Masses material into the source material. On wikisource it is in red font. It seems to me that the material is suspect and should be wikisourced as it's own document not threaded into the Congressional source material. Also the congressional material doesn't seem to be complete on wikisource. These things raise my antenna a little. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

pushing the book - again

The same editor who pushed Denton's book the last time is back -- including the link to the book review just to make sure people will buy the book. This book is the primary source for the "Putsch" wording in the lede, and is not a scholarly work, nor in a peer-reviewed journal, nor as far as I can tell cited by others. He is now at 3RR - and I suggest his threat to "take this to arbitration" is not helpful in the least if he wishes to abide by WP:CONSENSUS but that is up to everyone else here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that we need neither this book nor the "Wall Street Putsch" name. I just did a little Google search to fid the prevalence of the various names: While at Google Web the ratio of "Business Plot" to "Wall Street Putsch" is just 8:1, at Google Books it's 195:5 (and one of the five is Denton's book), and at Google Scholar it's 38:2 (and one of the two is Denton again). Yes, some people including Denton use that name, but it's anything but widespread, and the better the sources are, the rarer does it get. We need not mention every single name by which the plot has ever been called. Huon (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On further Googling, "White House Putsch" and "Plot against FDR" seem little more common than "Wall Street Putsch", and "plot against FDR" often seems to be just a description, not a name. Thus I also agree with the removal of those alternative names. Huon (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted to the long-time consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Alleged" once again

I just reverted some wording changes by Calton. Firstly, you don't charge a conspiracy. You may charge an enemy, or you charge someone with a crime. That was just bad grammar, not an improvement. Secondly, there is little agreement on whether there was a conspiracy, much less on whether there was the conspiracy Butler testified about - a claim that the Business Plot as described by Butler was real isn't be backed up by modern historians. Thus, "alleged" seems appropriate. Huon (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

McCormick Section--Primary Sources

This has been a problem section for some time. It relies heavily on one priamry source, the committee report. It has also been (properly) labelled synthesis. This should be addressed. The best would be to find RS that have the same information.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Section on reaction to Roosevelt contains factual inaccuracies.

Please see the 1932 Democratic Party Platform http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29595

Roosevelt's campaign did not "to re-evaluate America's commitment to the gold standard". According to the campaign platform, "we advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards". Yes, they did want to "consider the rehabilitation of silver and related questions", but this was not a re-evaluation of the commitment to the gold standard. This was something to be preserved!

Additionally, the promise that the campaign would "provide jobs for all the unemployed" must be cited as an opposition view - the Roosevelt campaign advocated "an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government." and that employment would be created by "a substantial reduction in the hours of labor, the encouragement of the shorter week by applying that principle in government service". This was a scheme to spread the existing work around more jobs, not to actually create new jobs.

The platform also called for "The removal of government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and natural resources in the common interest." - hardly a socialist or communist objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.113.238.4 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And that would matter if platforms meant anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As the article states, Roosevelt eliminated the "gold clause" from contracts and took the US off the gold standard. Those are the hard facts of history. The campaign platform of his party is deeply irrelevant. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I added a POV-section template to this section as it makes a variety of POV assumptions about the benefits and drawbacks of gold standard vis-a-vis the poor, about deflation, and about the way Big Business viewed F.D.R.; the section entirely ignores the fact that some people saw his programme as a shift toward the fascistic corporatism promoted by Mussolini.

Sincerely,
allixpeeke (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

See also (A) the works of John T. Flynn and (B) "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" by Murray N. Rothbard.

Please point out specific reliable sources that support your claims. The section mentions that Hoover called the abandonment of the gold standard the first step towards "communism, fascism, socialism, statism, planned economy", which explicitly includes fascism. Practically all of the other content cites reliable sources, for example Eichengreen on the end of deflation or Archer on conservative financiers' reactions. Huon (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think the section goes into more detail than is really necessary. Some overview of the cultural and economic background is useful to understand the context in which Butler, MacGuire, and the McCormack-Dickstein Committee were operating; but given that very few sources connect these things directly to the Business Plot affair (I count one, at least in that section), it could probably be pared down to a single paragraph. Remember, the extent to which the plot was real or serious is itself debated among scholars; the motivations of anyone involved is even more speculative (even if we have a few sources that do speculate on them.) That being the case, we can mention things like the gold standard for context, but implying "this is totally definitely why all this happened" (as the section comes dangerously close to doing) is way out of line. Additionally, this section seems to be cited to only a few sources (which are repeated many times); devoting so much text to just a few sources feels like it's giving them WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I should add that most of these don't seem like particularly good sources; and some things in here are plainly wrong. Roosevelt isn't even mentioned on our main Gold Standard article, for instance; but there are definitely numerous sources that it was Nixon and not Roosevelt that ultimately took the US off the gold standard. I think that this aspect is mostly irrelevant (as we shouldn't be covering the topic in such depth on this article anyway, since its connection to the Business Plot is largely speculative and WP:SYNTH), but it's worth pointing out. For now I've tried to pare it down a bit; the only reason I left Archer's quote in is because he (unlike the other sources there) was at least commenting on the Business Plot specifically, so it's not WP:SYNTH. But I'm not sure his opinions are worth giving that much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not exceited by the background section, however it is not WP:SYNTHESIS to connect this to the gold standard issue. It is explicitly connected (and not just in Bulter's testimony). [7] This link is to Butler's bio at Penn State. It states that this was a supposed effort regarding the gold standard. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hrm. It isn't synthesis to mention it, perhaps, but I feel that going on about it at this length (and repeatedly citing a few sources on it that aren't about the Business Plot specifically) is giving it WP:UNDUE weight as an aspect of the incident. Beyond that, it's also a problem to portray either Butler's testimony or Archer's opinions as definitely true, which I feel the current section comes dangerously close to doing (it gives the impression, by talking about it at such length, that this history of disputes and worries over the gold standard definitely-clearly caused some businessmen to actually do this, etc etc.) We can say eg. Butler reported that the gold standard was discussed in this context, and these writers have connected it to the Business Plot incident, and give a sentence or two beyond that so people know what is being discussed, maybe. --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not entirely certain we need much "background" in the article. How do you propose a new background section read? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

By "How do you propose a new background section read" I was not suggesting wholesale elimination and replacement with an Archer(?!) quote. I was suggesting discussion and consensus here. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, obviously the version right now isn't ideal, either. But the key is to focus primarily on stuff that sources directly connect to the Business Plot, with only a minimal and uncontroversial summary of the history necessary to understand those things beyond that. To be honest I'd just as much prefer to remove the Archer quote, but it was the only citation in that section that directly referenced the Business Plot itself, so we should ideally find some better historical-perspective sources to replace it with. I would say that the main issue is that anything except the most vague generalities of "some wealthy people disliked Roosevelt and this was the cultural context Butler's report to the committee occurred in" can't be used there without a source specifically connecting it to the business plot in some fashion, and even then, it's best to avoid excessive detail that already exists on other articles. (eg. any really detailed stuff about Roosevelt and the Gold Standard kind of goes outside the scope of this article and would be better placed on the Gold Standard article or on one of Roosevelt's subpages, with just a sentence or two here and a link to there.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed this biased section by eliminating the obvious anti-"New-Deal" source from a guy who was a well underage when the New Deal was first mentioned at the Democratic Convention. This quote was obviously anti-Roosevelt and I re-wrote it, and the section to make it work. Then it felt unnecessary as I had added enough sources that supported the main point of the section, which was to show anger at Roosevelt. A quote from decades later from a biased source made no sense, so it was eliminated.

I added in more than enough points to support the paranoia of the business elite. As this is a conspiracy theory anyway, I think establishing the 'Motive and Opportunity' works since we are not officially naming any names. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.196.201 (talk)

Sargent's book review.

The 'Later reactions' section is mostly excellently-sourced, citing some very well-known historians describing later readings of the Business Plot. However, there is one that is glaringly out of place; Sargent has no particular credibility as a historian, nor is he actually writing about the business plot itself, merely discussing it in passing while reviewing a book by someone else (a book which, itself, isn't really the greatest source.) In fact, beyond that, our only reference for his article is a livejournal! And googling for information about him turned up this page. I removed it, but it was reverted saying that it was "long standing & much discussed." While it has sat in the article for a while, a look over the talk page history found no actual discussion; many people have pointed out that Sargent's book review is not a good source here, but as far as I can tell this has never been responded to in any depth. So let's talk about it. Who is Sargent and what makes his opinions on history and the Business Plot worth including the article? As far as I can tell, we are clearly giving his opinions WP:UNDUE weight here. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sargent is an academic historian, a professor of history at Clemson University, writing in an academic magazine (Sargent, James E. (November 1974). Review, The History Teacher, 8(1): 151-152.) The History Teacher (ISSN: 0018-2745) is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal delivered internationally in print to members of the nonprofit organization, the Society for History Education. This is WP:RS and the academic review is not in anyway undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

He is the author (1981) of Roosevelt and the Hundred Days: Struggle for the Early New Deal published by Garland (an academic publisher now part of Fracis and Taylor academic publishers). It is often cited. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Tony Badger the more famous historian (FDR: The First Hundred Days, 2009) had this to say about Sargent and his scholarship: "Anyone writing on the Hundred Days is indebted to ...the unduly neglected James E. Sargent, Roosevelt and the Hundred Days (NY, Garland 1981) a meticulous study that among its many virtues..."

I suggest that the Sargent's reputation as a historian is spotless and that some "very well-known historians" place a lot of value on his scholarship. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean, all right, that establishes him as a historian; but the section already covers extensive views, and I'm still dubious about the value of using a book review (especially since the quote mostly talks about his critique of someone else's book about the business plot rather than the plot directly.) Has he written anything about the Business Plot directly which we could use instead? --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I find that academic and RS reviews are broadly and frequently used in articles at Wikipedia. This review is, I believe, important because Archer is a much read popularizer of this incident. This bears directly on the business plot in that Prof. Sargent says explicitly that Butler was mistaken in his understanding of the existence of a conspiracy. While other historians in the article say the same, I believe it is a solid addition by a respected historian (a specialist on the Roosevelt administration) that is on point. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As to other things that Sargent has written that might be of value...I am not sure. He was a participant in the big Columbia University oral history project of the 1930s/Roosevelt administration back in the 1970s. His text book on the first 100 days is quite good, I no longer have a copy to check what (if anything) it says about this. It costs over $70 now, I should have kept it. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Video Statement of Smedley Butler

A video statement of Smedley Butler describing the Business Plot is included in the documentary The Corporation. While many copies can be found on sites like YouTube, I believe we should be able to track down a copy from a more original source and either have it uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or hosted on Archive.org. I'm having trouble finding one though. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.43.76 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it have anything not already reasonably cited? As for videos in general, Wikipedia far prefers RS sourced transcripts as being far easier for anyone to verify for any claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to login. No, it doesn't. But I've tracked it down and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons in case someone is looking for it later on. Aoss (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

added to the article_

Smedley Butler describes a political conspiracy to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933

Victor Grigas (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Existence of a plot.

There can be little doubt that the plot was in fact a reality. In fact the page and sources on the Smedley Butler page state numerous points that document the fact. In addition, one would have to suppose that Smedley, the highest decorated officer in US history, was lying, one would have to suppose that there was no evidence of a plot, and that congress would have initiated and put on a commission and a congressional investigation _without_ any evidence. Also the admittance of several newspapers at the time that all evidence pointed to its existence can not be taken lightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you "know" the truth. WP, however, works on using reliable sources, which do not support what you "know." Collect (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that while we go with innocent until proven guilty once a court or official comity makes an official ruling we hold that ruling to be the truth until proven otherwise. Thus, if proven guilty, guilty is the conclusion or accepted truth even though innocence was presumed until the ruling. While no one was prosecuted for the business plot, the "committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" (as noted in the article itself) suggesting that the business plot, for the sake of consistency with Wikipedia standards, is ruled true by an official comity and thus accepted truth and not a matter of opinion or merely "alleged".82.21.108.103 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, historians' works published in reliable sources take precedence over primary documents such as the committee report. For example, if someone was convicted for a crime and later proven innocent without a formal repeal of the verdict, we still report his innocence. Secondly, you're taking the committee's statement out of context. They refer to very specific statements about the creation of a fascist veterans' organization only, not the wider putsch allegations, and even then they could not verify the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. Huon (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the article being started with an 'alleged' plot when later on the committee itself said that there was evidence? Removing the word 'alleged'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:A000:18A:E1B0:B283:3217:101B (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Because the consensus of modern historians is that the plot as described by Butler likely didn't exist. Even the committee could not verify the intended creation of a fascist organization, much less the intended putsch. Huon (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, are people suggesting we take HUAAC decisions at face value? Really? So, because they want to believe in the Business Plot, they are willing to accept all of McCarthy's accusations as well? And the charges against every blacklisted actor and writer? Really? 128.164.108.55 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevance to the 2016 election

That's a bit of a long bow isn't it? Okay, wealthy backers, a military hero fine. But we're talking about a write-in third party candidate compared to an alleged coup backed by 500,000 troops. The cited article doesn't appear to link the plan to the Business Plot at all. I'm suggesting it be removed. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like WP:SYNTH, so I've removed it for now. At least skimming the article, I couldn't see anything in there connecting it to the Business Plot. (Although I only skimmed it, so I may have missed something.) At the very least, we'd need a source explicitly comparing it to the business plot or related figures like Butler in order to include it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business Plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020014333/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/68822.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/68822.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://store.aetv.com/html/search/index.jhtml?search=The+Plot+to+Overthrow+FDR&itemType=All&x=15&y=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Business Plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604000410/http://www.mcusa-archives.org/Archives/scannedphotos/Mennonite%20Central%20Committee%2C%201920-%20%28IX%29/Civilian%20Public%20Service%20%28CPS%29%20Photos%2C%201941-47%20%28IX-13-2-2%29/General%2C%20Paul%20C%20French%20%281-2a%29/French%2C%20Paul%20Comly%20-%200D2%20-%201944.pdf to http://www.mcusa-archives.org/Archives/scannedphotos/Mennonite%20Central%20Committee%2C%201920-%20%28IX%29/Civilian%20Public%20Service%20%28CPS%29%20Photos%2C%201941-47%20%28IX-13-2-2%29/General%2C%20Paul%20C%20French%20%281-2a%29/French%2C%20Paul%20Comly%20-%200D2%20-%201944.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211190309/http://clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm to http://www.clubhousewreckards.com/plot/plottoseizethewhitehouse.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dodd quote.

It only took a few moments of searching to find a contemporary citation for it. It attracted more attention recently (the massive number of places it's been mentioned shows clear WP:DUE weight), but (unless someone can find some flaw in that cite, which appears to be a collection of newspapers that includes it) it's definitely not a fabrication. We could fix up the citation I threw in a bit to cite the paper directly rather than the book that republished it, but obviously it doesn't make sense to pull out the quote. EDIT: I also reverted the anon changes to the date, since they broke the formatting. It might be worth digging through the sources above to establish it more concretely, though. --Aquillion (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dickstein

Unless there's a source that makes a direct connection to the Business Plot, elaborating on Dickstein's background here is WP:SYNTH. The article does not even mention him aside from the title of the commission; is the idea that this section will be dropped into every article touching on anything he had any involvement in as a senator? --Aquillion (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did Dickstein attack capitalism? he was a paid Soviet agent while in Congress.

the Dickstein name is mentioned over and over again but there is no link to his wiki article, which shows that he was a paid Soviet agent while in Congress. see Samuel Dickstein (congressman) Readers wondering why he made all those attacks on capitalism will want to know that Congressman Dickstein, the cochair of the committee, was revealed in the 1990s as a paid Soviet spy while in Congress in the 1930s. In his 2000 book The Haunted Wood, writer Allen Weinstein wrote that documents discovered in the 1990s in Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1,250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD (equivalent to $26,500 in 2023), the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. According to Weinstein, whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is not certain; when he left the Committee the Soviets dropped him from the payroll. Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, his name isn't mentioned anywhere in this article aside from the name of the committee. It doesn't even mention him attacking capitalism (you seem to be parsing the Committee hearings as an attack on capitalism, but, again, that is WP:OR - it's not what the sources say.) Your implication that the Business Plot investigation had anything to do with the things you describe is (unless you can find a source making that allegation specifically) entirely WP:SYNTH. Same objection to adding Butler's opinions on capitalism to the lead - again, I can see what you are trying to imply, but you need a source alleging that specifically, connecting the Business Plot to that aspect of their backgrounds directly. In that case the sentence or two we have for Butler's background further down is fine, since he's a more central figure, but I don't see how it belongs in the lead unless we have sources explicitly making the allegation you're trying to imply (ie. that this somehow discredits his testimony, or was part of the reason he made his allegations to begin with.) Unless you have a reliable source saying that explicitly, you cannot use WP:SYNTH to imply it in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

calling it a "business conspiracy" is what an attack on capitalism looks like. The lede states "wealthy businessmen were plotting" the next paragraph is pretty explicit: "By 1933 Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, going on to explain that for 33 years he had been a "high-class muscle man" for Wall Street, the bankers and big business, labeling himself as a "racketeer for Capitalism." And who called it a " Business Plot" it seems to be a 21st century term. Rjensen (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The "business plot" is what it was called in the papers at the time. And, technically, that sentence about Butler you're describing is also synth. If you feel that his politics call his testimony into question, you have to find sources saying that, specifically. Then we can cite those sources and say "Historian so-and-so says Butler was probably just trying to shank capitalism because he was a dirty commie" (or whatever, in more genteel words, reflecting that historian's actual argument.) But you can't insert random asides to try and make that argument yourself. If the connection isn't made in the sources, we can't make or imply it here. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Bonus Army section

I reverted this trimming of the section on the bonus army; the edit didn't give any reason beyond "trim", and the text there appeared clearly relevant. It could possibly use some better sources (especially more sources tying it to this topic specifically), but I don't see the reason it was trimmed down. --Aquillion (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears all those who would have wanted/benefitted from a coup denied everything when they were caught - duh. They seem to have gotten their way eventually anyway. 75.68.248.198 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

no one was "caught" except a lonely bond salesman. Rjensen (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Prescott bush whitewash

father and grandfather of two US presidents was accused of being a member of this plot but these details aren't present here or on his personal page - in spite of that article containing other potential P Bush ties to fascists.

someone is gaming this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B152:354B:1006:CAA8:FF6C:1CF6 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source highlighting and discussing his involvement in particular? One problem with listing individuals here is the level of disconnect between them and the topic - read the "later reactions" section, for instance, and it's clear how it's difficult to draw a straight line from MacGuire to the other people he said were involved. We could cover them, in theory, but we would need secondary sources both to establish relevance and to give us some sort of framework to go on in terms of context and conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Question

The section on the role of Jews used language that would be seen by some as reflecting classic antisemitic stereotypes and implied that the American Jewish Committee was litterd with fascist-collaborator Jewish financiers. We are talking about a tiny group of financiers, some of whom were Jewish.Chip.berlet (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please...let us avoid an edit war

There are strong views on this topic on both the political Left and Right. This version has a relatively fair balance. Let's keep it there.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)!

I agree with your reversions; as I've said above, my objection to those proposed additions is that they're clear WP:SYNTH - they use sources that don't mention the business plot to try and guide the reader to a specific uncited conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bring Back the section on the Plotters

I am just coming into the talk page to say I think removing Prescott Bush and the list of conspirators serves no purpose. This wikipedia article reads awfully now that it's trying to avoid talking about the conspiracy and it's plotters. If any of the plotters don't belong on the list, cite the source that indicates they were not involved. Don't just erase the names and say "wealthy businessmen" as if the names were not released.

Suzina (talk)1 Dec 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzinas (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing "Alleged"

I feel usage of alleged in the article referring to the validity of the plot is in direct conflict with he neutral tone policy of Wikipedia. Tumpcakes (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)TumpCakes

Opening Section

"While historians have not accepted the notion of a plot, they agree that Butler described one" makes no sense. There's no debate that Butler described one. Is a better word than "described" needed? Perhaps "believed there was one" or "was caused to believe there was one by others"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm (talk • contribs) 17:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed a claim about historians that was too confusing. Chip.berlet (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

historians agree that Butler described a plot--seems clear enough. multiple RS cite this. what is the problem? Rjensen (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was badly written, confusing, and not properly cited. Feel free to invite other editors here to comment. :-( Chip.berlet (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

you erased three perfectly clear well-sourced statements claiming you did not understand them. 1) "At the time of the incidents, news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax" and (2) "historians have not accepted the notion of a plot" and (3) "they agree that Butler described one." Where did you get confused? Rjensen (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Happy to bring in others to comment. Please refrain from further condecensio. I was not confused when I wrote that the section was "Sorry, but it was badly written, confusing, and not properly cited. Feel free to invite other editors here to comment. :-( "

I reverted it back to an older paraphrase of Schlesinger, whose opinion I feel reflects the general consensus. The "by Butler" framing is bizarre - what is it actually saying? Most historians agree that Butler actually testified? That is trivial and doesn't reflect the sources, which (at least based on the ones listed in the article) generally agree that MacGuire genuinely discussed a coup but question how much further it went than that. We could go into more detail, but that would require mentioning MacGuire in the lead, which would complicate things. --Aquillion (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wall Street Putsch revisited

I came across a mention of Wall Street Putsch (in the book The Soul of America, pp139-140) and looked for the Wikipedia article to learn more; the redirect brought me here, but the article failed to mention the term (which was mentioned in one of the sources for also-known) so I added it. Then I came to the talk page and saw that there were several previous discussion on that term, objecting that it was only ever used by Denton in her book. So, I took a look and found both contemporary (1934) newspaper articles calling it "Wall Street Putsch" and modern (2017/8) newspaper articles doing the same, so I decided to leave my edit in place. Redirect terms should be mentioned in articles. Schazjmd (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)