Talk:Prescott Bush/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

9/11 Truth Candidate

[1] may be of interest for anyone remotely considering John Buchanan as anything other than what he is. [2] Are you anxious, alarmed or outraged by our post-9/11 world? Have you ever asked yourself who ultimately profited from that day and who has lost the most? Have you ever doubted parts of the "official story" or noticed how many official lies have been exposed? Have you heard the victims' families' continuing cries for answers and for truth? Don't give George W. Bush four more years to lead our land and party to ruin. Rise up and end the corporate coup.

[3] GOP Presidential Challenger' Demands Immediate Impeachment of Bush for 'Subversion Of Constitution

THIRTEEN DAYS, THIRTEEN DECEPTIONS = DAY 11, LIE 11 = "Bush saw the first airliner hit the WTC on television and immediately implemented an emergency response plan."

Take Back the Media" & Michael Stinson present Robert Greenwald's film UNCOVERED: THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ Followed by a Round Table Discussion Featuring John Buchanan, the "9/11 Truth Candidate" now challenging Bush in the NH GOP Primary.

He then confronted the American media's current refusal to examine mounting evidence that the "official 9/11 narrative" is an increasingly threadbare tissue of lies. The corporate media not only refuse to help the victim families' in their desperate quest for truth, they still deny there are unanswered questions. etc. Collect (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Your point? That Buchanan's belief in a 9/11 cover-up makes his work reviewing the National Archive documents erroneous? And that the Guardian article, which was based on the work of five journalists' review of those documents, is therefore equally erroneous?

That argument is so full of holes I barely know where to begin. For one thing, most of the members of the 9/11 Commission themselves felt there was a cover-up; they complained very loud and long about being denied access to evidence and witnesses, saying it was like dealing with the Nixon White House. One Senator quit in disgust, saying the investigation had been compromised by the Government's refusal to cooperate. And 30-40% of Americans along with around 85% of Germans, btw, believe there was some kind of cover-up. But we're not going to let you make this discussion about 9/11; that's a nice, shiny hook you're dangling there, but your attempt to discredit the Guardian article in this way isn't anything we're going to bite at, thanks.

And for another thing, you keep ignoring the other four journalists who reviewed the National Archive documents. Care to explain why that is?  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Buchanan hates the Bushs. 2. 9/1 trutherism is a "conspiracy theory", despite your apparent defense of it. 2. Loftus has a very similar record. [4] On his website, John Loftus covers the Bush-Harriman business, Iraq, Enron and 911 and the Saudis: "As a combined result of two blocks against an investigation between Saudi Arabia and terrorist ties, the Saudis were able to fund middle eastern terrorists in complete secrecy during the 1990's through a network of Muslim charities in Virginia, Tampa and Florida. The Saudi funding conduit has now been exposed and shut down by means of a private lawsuit, Loftus vs. Sami Al Arian, which is currently pending in Hillsborough County, Florida. 3. HNN ran a Buchanan article linking the documents used by Bushanan. Those articles, thus used in a reliable source, and hosted by a reliable source, are reasonably likely to meet WP:RS and are a teeny bit unlikely to be "fakes." Cheers. Hope to see your edits on the 9/11 page! Collect (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Buchanan speech: ''ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2000, BEFORE MR. BUSH TOOK OFFICE, THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY PROPOSED THE INVASIONS, WITHOUT PROVOCATION OR ATTACK, OF AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. THE MOTIVE? ‘TO PROTECT AMERICA’S OIL INTERESTS.’ THE SIGNATORIES TO THAT SINISTER PLAN – DICK CHENEY, PAUL WOLFOWITZ AND RICHARD PERLE, TO NAME BUT A FEW – CLEVERLY AND DISHONORABLY SET THE STAGE FOR ALL THAT WOULD FOLLOW, INCLUDING THE HORRIFYING SPECTACLE OF 9/11, WHEN THEY NOTED THAT SINCE WELL-FED AND MATERIALLY-COMFORTABLE AMERICANS WOULD LACK THE WILL AND FOCUS TO FIGHT SUCH ‘INTERVENTIONIST’ WARS – NOW KNOWN AS ‘THE BUSH DOCTRINE’ – THERE MUST BE A GALVANIZING INCIDENT ON THE ORDER OF PEARL HARBOR. Seems a teeny bit far out from here. [5] Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, that sure is a nice, shiny hook you've got there, but I prefer to keep the discussion on-topic, thanks. Your problem with Buchanan and evidently Loftus' political views does not discredit the Guardian article. And thanks for the random outdenting, btw; that really helps us all participate here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue was a claim that Buchanan was somehow not a "conspiracy theorist." Remember? But then you averred that if 85% of Germans believe something, that there must be truth in it. <g>. Collect (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That grin of yours is just so cute. The passage you cite from Buchanan's speech is merely his take of the facts presented in a historically prominent September 2000 position paper from the Project for a New American Century, the group from which G.W. Bush's inner circle and cabinet was drawn, and it did include Wolfowitz, Cheney, et. al. And the group had previously urged then-President Clinton to attack Iraq, as well. Given your liking for history, you should find the position paper interesting. Try searching the document for "new Pearl Harbor" for example. But I'm done answering your ad hominem about Buchanan. We all get it that you loathe his politics; that says nothing at all about the reliability of the Guardian article, which is the only topic that's relevant here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

From HNN.US The association of the Tarpley-Chaitkin book with the organization headed by the Lyndon LaRouche organization (published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, a LaRouchian press) has not been helpful, to say the least. Nor has the sensationalist tone and dubious message of Loftus’s The War Against the Jews. Glad to see folks who back LaRouche here. Collect (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Guardian is a RS -- for all it says on the topic (which is ascribed to John Buchanan in the main). Including its statements about who John Buchanan is. Glad to see you agree on that. Collect (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You're glad to see folks who back LaRouche here? That's so cute, just precious. I know almost nothing about him except that he's controversial. Care to try a different ad hominem? You seem to be on a roll here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the RS which makes the connection, not I. I trust you do indded agree on HNN.US being reliable? Collect (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Time for a breather, my friend, if you think HNN.US has implied that I back LaRouche. What next, XYZ.EE says I look better in black than in brown, and PQR.ZZ says I could stand to lose ten pounds?  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As I made no such comment, I think you should have a large cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Truther label

For those who may not be aware of it, in the past when regulars here found there wasn't universal acclaim for their "conspiracy theorist" label of John Buchanan, they switched to calling him a "truther" or, as I suppose the current push demonstrates, the "9/11 truth candidate". I imagine we'll see a resurgence of that here again, too. The more so, because I see that when Collect left here after making his very graphic point, above, that he'd use all the boldface he wants, he went off to John Buchanan and 9/11 conspiracy theories and added the excerpt from Buchanan's speech that he posted to this talk page at 11:31, 28 May 2011 UTC.

There are actually a whole group of articles more or less closely related to this one, e.g John Buchanan, John Loftus, Union Banking Corporation, Geronimo, and some others I can't recall off the top of my head. Anyway, I thought others should be aware of this, too, since based on previous attempts here, it seems quite likely we'll see attempts to call Buchanan a "truther", perhaps supported by these recent additions to his bio article or the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It's my opinion that we shouldn't allow discussion here to get pulled into the whole "Buchanan believed X so his work re Prescott is rubbish, as is that of anyone who consults his work" thing. If people want to keep playing that game, then as I said above, the biographical details about the other five journalists go in, too. That would include those about John Loftus, the former Federal Prosecutor of Nazis for war crimes who thought Prescott should have been prosecuted.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Buchanan is listed on the 911 truther websites, and he specifically ran on a "9/11 Truth" platform. Your protestations to the contrary. And I rather think you would not want the Loftus details in, by the way. Really. Collect (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And article talk pages are intended for discussions about the articles to which they are attacjhed - not for gratuirous asides about other editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's uncontroversial that Buchanan billed himself as the "9/11 truther candidate" when he ran for president. But how is that relevant to Bush? If it's not relevant to Bush, why bring it up here? Huon (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

His charges were the primary basis for the Guardian article, according to the Guardian, - and the Guardian article clearly described him. It seems that some felt that he is a paragon of sorts - and that "conspiracy theorist" was a canard. He believes that Bush and Cheney were complicit in the 9/11 affair. I suggest that such is, indeed, a "conspiracy theory." YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more specific: How is that relevant to Prescott Bush? I'm pretty sure not even Buchanan suggests Prescott Bush was involved in 9/11. Huon (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually - he does - as he asserts the "corporate conspiracy" behind 9/11 was present under Prescott Bush, and that the entire Bush family was involved in such conspiracies. Buchanan's rants are tres amusant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

While that's pretty obviously not suitable content for this article, could you just for the fun of it provide a source? All I found was Buchanan's proposed movie which had Bayer, ex-IG Farben, blackmail George W. Bush with Prescott's Nazi past into allowing them to profit from the anthrax scare. I thought that not a supposed documentary, but a work of fiction - but maybe I misunderstood Buchanan. Huon (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

He did not view it as "fiction". [6]

His investigation ultimately led to a screenplay called Project Clear-Vision, taken from the name of an actual CIA anthrax-biowarfare project that may have violated the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

"The plot of the script," he told me, "is that the German principals of Bayer AG, which came out of I.G. Farben after WW II, blackmailed Daddy Bush with the ‘Nazi past’ of the family into allowing the anthrax letters to happen so Cipro sales could save Bayer US from bankruptcy. I got a really hotshot young turk agent in Hollywood who told me on September 2 that he could [sell] the script if I could ‘prove’ the Nazi past and publish the documentation. So, technically speaking, motivated more by sheer greed than patriotism, I set out to sell a movie script for millions of dollars by landing a huge scoop."

Need more? (BTW, the Internet is rife with copyvios!) Collect (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I too had found, thanks. Huon (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How much weight should we assign his "truth" about anything related to such issues? Collect (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article should mention anything about 9/11, "truthers" or anthrax letters. Buchanan's movie script is hardly a reliable source, and even if it were, this would still be off-topic for an article on Prescott Bush. Huon (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

IOW we should ignore the clear implications that Buchanan is a bit of a conspiracy theorist who sought to sell a screenplay based on his beliefs that the Bush family has Nazi connections, etc.? That is a bit like saying the Protocols should be used as a source in the Judaism article! The guy sought to make money off the charges, and that rather means we ought reasonably include such material as indicates who the fellow is. Cheers. Even dead people are entitled to have a fair showing on Wiipedia. Collect (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) Since we're evidently going to discuss this whole messy topic, I'll mention that in going through article revison history I found a now-deleted link to what looks to be a scholarly and well-researched analysis of Fritz Thysen's involvement in financing Hitler. It doesn't mention Prescott, but it does discuss the Union Banking Corporation, saying, among other things:

In any event, and more relevant from our viewpoint, the August Thyssen front bank in Holland — i.e., the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. — controlled the Union Banking Corporation in New York. The Harrimans had a financial interest in, and E. Roland Harriman (Averell's brother) was a director of, this Union Banking Corporation.

I was wondering whether anyone knows whether this is a chapter from some published book, and if so, which one? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I don't get it. Just a few days ago you were vigorously arguing that the documents found by Buchanan are reliable sources and that we should quote them in the article. Now you are arguing that Buchanan is a conspiracy theorist and that we therefore should discard the documents he found? Do you really want to liken the documents which you yourself wanted to include to the Protocols forgery? What, specifically, did Buchanan say about Prescott Bush that you disagree with? We don't use anything Buchanan said that hasn't also been reported by reliable secondary sources, so why should we care if Buchanan is a nutjob or not?

For the record, I agree that Buchanan is a conspiracy theorist and that Buchanan on his own is hardly a good source, partly because he admitted a financial interest in finding a Bush-Nazi link. But we don't cite Buchanan directly; we cite the Guardian. If you prefer, we could also cite HNN which agrees that UBC was a Thyssen front, though not in those exact words. Huon (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The documents are real. JB's conclusions from them, however, are the conclusions of a "conspiracy theorist" (so called by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, among others) and a "9/11 Truther" (by himself) and a sufferer of "hypermania" (per The Guardian and many other sources). The folks who talk about "Building 7", for example, can certainly use "real" documents - it is the conclusions they draw which are the problem! And we really ought to indicate what The Guardian says about its own source - that he suffers from hypermania, and what other sources tell us about him and the Bush family - including his pecuniary interest, his background as a "conspiracy theorist" etc. lest we make the reader think this is an absolutely ordinry journalist making those conclusions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat: We don't cite Buchanan's conclusions. We cite the Guardian's conclusions. And as I said above, the conclusions drawn by the professor of history HNN asked to review those documents weren't significantly different - if you prefer, we can cite him, too. If the Guardian, the professor and Buchanan happen to reach the same conclusions about the Prescott Bush documents, maybe that's because Buchanan is actually right this time. Just because he's otherwise unreliable we cannot conclude that he, and everybody agreeing with him, must automatically be wrong. If you want to add something disagreeing with the Guardian's conclusions, please provide a reliable source, not your gut feelings. Huon (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment on the use of the "conspiracy theorist" label, in this or any other context; I think it should be used only rarely as it contains within it certain assumptions as to the theory in question's validity. In modern usage it has a tone of dismissiveness that, intentionally or not, colors perceptions. As a matter of fact, the official explanation of what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, ie; four guys with box cutters directed by an old man in a cave are responsible for the events of that day. Yet we don't characterize the official explanation as a "conspiracy theory". To do so would draw the wrath of those who wish this theory to be accepted, some of whom seem to be participating in this discussion. Any theory that proposes multiple participants in an event without knowing with absolute certainty what actually happened is a "conspiracy" theory. Yet we only seem to see the term used dismissively. Therefore I suggest that it has no place in a supposedly objective historical document. BTW, I am new to participating in these discussions so If I am off-topic, out of line or should use different methods, please let me know. Peace. (WanderingFool (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC))

AJC source on Buchanan

Collect recently added this excerpt of an Atlanta Journal-Constitution as a reference on Buchanan, "directly mentioning Bush and Buchanan enmity". That article (more precisely the parts of that article that aren't hidden behind a paywall) does not mention an enmity between Buchanan and George W. Bush, and it does not mention Prescott Bush at all. It is in no way, shape or form relevant to the sentence to which it was added as a reference. If our readers want to know more about Buchanan, they can just follow the link - we have an entire article on Buchanan where that source may serve a useful purpose. I see no such purpose served here. Reliable secondary sources have largely agreed with Buchanan's stance on Prescott Bush, and we don't even cite Buchanan directly. So why turn this into an anti-Buchanan WP:COATRACK? I have removed that reference. Huon (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Tha AJC specifically labels JB as a "conspiracy theorist." 2. It specifically mentions his animus towards the Bushes. What more do we need? I would just re-add "conspiracy theorist" to the article and use the AJC for a source for that characterization of JB if you prefer - I did this as a compromise - and ask you look at it as such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The AJC excerpt does not mention enmity or animus - all it says about George W. Bush is that Buchanan ran against him in the New Hampshire primary. Is other relevant information hidden behind the paywall? Anyway, I agree Buchanan is a conspiracy theorist - but unless we want to somehow include Buchanan's proposed movie script in the article (which I'd oppose due to a lack of significance), Buchanan's 9/11 conspiracy theories are unrelated to Prescott Bush. For all I care Buchanan might publicly argue that the Earth is flat and the Moon made from green cheese - unless that's actually relevant to Prescott Bush, this is not the article to discuss it. Huon (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The magic 8 ball says "definitely yes." www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542723/posts

Buchanan's "baggage" is bizarre.

He used his candidacy to urge "that Congress investigate the 60-year media cover-up of the Bush family history," he wrote on one Web site (direct connection of his Prescott Bush crusade to his crusage against GWB)

Tom Fiedler, executive editor of The Miami Herald, said Buchanan threatened to kill him.

"I thought the story was going to make me rich and famous," he said. "Instead, it destroyed my life." (John Buchanan)

"I'm too wacky for North Georgia," Buchanan said.

Apparently up to, and including, death threats. Collect (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So apparently the first AJC article you linked to did not contain specific mentions of Buchanan's animus towards the Bushes. Buchanan seems deeply troubled, but since we don't actually cite Buchanan, that's irrelevant. Turning his remark about a media cover-up of Bush family history into a crusade against Prescott Bush is also quite a strech - if anything, it's a crusade against media deeply uninterested in Buchanan's accusations. More to the point, I don't see what you actually object to. Prescott Bush was a director of UBC. UBC was a Thyssen front. In 1942, it was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. It was later returned. Bush himself was no Nazi nor a Nazi sympathiser. That's basically all we say about that episode. None of that looks controversial to me, and none of it is just Buchanan's interpretation. Huon (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reread please. He was quoted in the AJC as asking "that Congress investigate the 60-year media cover-up of the Bush family history." I do not know of a clearer way to express animus than to ask for an entire family to be investigated! I simply gave a non-paywall cite of the original article so that you would not have to pay $6 to read it <g>. We do not, by the way, have a source other than Buchanan's interpretation that UBC was owned iby Thyssen at all. In fact, after the war, the bank was not given back to Thyssen but to its sharegolders, of which Prescott Bush was a 1/4000 holder. By the way, if one accepts that 1 share was worth $1.5 million, Harriman must have received almost $6 billion from the Treasury <g>. If so, he was the worst investor in history, as he certainly was not worth that when he died many years later. Conversely, $6 billion invested in 1950 (roughly) in the DJIA and throwing out all dividends <g> would be on the order of $260 billion dollars in the Harriman family coffers. They ain't got it. If they kept all the dividends and reinvested it would be $2 trillion dollars (using conservative figures). So much for the absurd valuation found in some "sources." Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense, but I don't understand at all what you're trying to say. The financial math is fine and well, but the Guardian says: The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn't actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. [...] "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary. The 4,000 shares hereinbefore set out are therefore beneficially owned and help for the interests of enemy nationals, and are vestible by the APC." The latter part is the Guardian quoting the documents from September or October. Or see Prof. Parmet's article at HNN: Much of this is confirmed by the new documentation. The UBC was not a “bank” at all but “in reality a clearing house” for many assets and enterprises held by Fritz Thyssen [...]. While the historian may be partly quoting Buchanan, he obviously includes those quotes among the "confirmed". For the unconfirmed, look at him discussing the Auschwitz claims (which we don't mention, and shouldn't mention IMO). Regarding that supposed stock sale, the Guardian says: Some claim that Bush sold his share in UBC after the war for $1.5m - a huge amount of money at the time - but there is no documentary evidence to support this claim. So that's obviously not endorsed by the Guardian, and we rightly don't mention it in our article. The historian is also precise enough to just say that "according to Buchanan" Bush got the $1.5 million - he adds no such caveats for UBC's status. In conclusion, we have the Guardian and Prof. Parmet agreeing that UBC was a Thyssen front. Huon (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the APC document provided by Buchanan does not make nor support that claim, and, in fact, says that it could not determine the bank ownership. Nor did Thyssen get anything for the bank. Buchanan made a lot of claims - and his background is important to understand why he makes the claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This APC document provided by Buchanan supports the claim reported by the Guardian. There may be more explicit support for that claim among the pages Wayback didn't archive; after all, the Guardian is quoting one of those documents when it says that the Bank voor Handel was owned by the Thyssens. Also according to the Guardian, which quotes your favorite among the documents provided by Buchanan, that one was written on August 16 1941 and was not the investigation's final conclusion. Guardian proceeds to explain how the investigation continued and found sufficient proof of ownership to seize the assets. All this is backed up by the Guardian; none of it relies on Buchanan's claims. Discussing Buchanan's motives is a straw man. Huon (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And you still do not understand that the inclusion by The Guardian of the "hypermania" was clearly placed to distance The Guardian from Buchanan by a few miles on his conclusions? Buchanan furnished no later results of the investigation. None. Cheers - (uploading bifocals). Collect (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Buchanan furnished no later results of the investigation? Then what is this? And whether or not that was furnished by Buchanan, there's also the memo by Jones mentioned in the Guardian article. The Guardian distancing itself from Buchanan is a red herring because we don't cite Buchanan. Neither is the relevant part of the Guardian article just the Guardian quoting Buchanan. To be more precise, the Guardian article doesn't even mention Buchanan at all when it details the UBC-Thyssen connection, and there is no indication in the Guardian article that Buchanan was the primary source for that part.

Sorry for being blunt, but this begins to look like a massive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part. Huon (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Um -- the cite you give is for the Dutch bank - not for ownership or control of UBC. "Bank vor Haendel" is not "Union Banking Corporation." What you show is that a Dutch bank had deposits with an American bank, and that Thyssen "presumably controlled" that Dutch bank (actually "presumably" seems a bit of a weasel word at best). The page makes no assertion, claim or inference that Thyssen owned or controlled the UBC. Is that clear? Or didn't you hear it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the Guardian quoting the government reports: May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: "Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. And further on: "[...] Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family [...]" Thyssen owned the Bank voor Handel, and the Bank voor Handel owned UBC. Seems pretty clear to me. Do you know of a secondary source disagreeing with that? Huon (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The document you gave does not make that claim. The document you gave, in fact, says that Thyssen met Harriman (BFD), and told him he wanted to start a US bank. The purpose appears to have been to move money away from Germany, and not to move American funds into Germany. The BvH was founded by Thyssen's father and not by Fritz, and is currently substantially owned by Chase. The owners of a corporation are the shareholders - of which Harriman owned virtually all the shares. BvH was the primary depositor in UBC - but that is not the same as ownership. And "presumably controlled" is not the same as "ownership" either. Is this finally getting through? And Bush was not even one of the original incorporators or directors, of all things. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given explicit quotations from the Guardian article quoting government documents to the effect that Thyssen owned BvH and that BvH "wholly owned" UBC. That's what reliable sources report. Regarding the shareholders: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel [...]." That, too, is in the Guardian article. I see no secondary sources supporting your stance on UBC ownership. Huon (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And then how does Buchanan make any claim that Bush profitted from the UBC other than as a director of it? Tha BvH never got any money for UBC when it was returned after the war? As for what Buchanan said: After Buchanan's story was published, The Associated Press investigated the allegations. Jonathan Salant, the AP reporter, said he "couldn't prove everything" Buchanan asserted, but wrote a story on what he found in the archives. The documents did show that Prescott Bush served on the bank board but was never charged with any crime. In short, Buchanan's assertions were found by the AP writer to be unproven. I dinna ken how much more you need on this guy -- a man described by the AJC and others as a "conspiracy theorist". LaRouche also buys into it, I suppose we could add his rants? <g>. Collect (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC) The Guardian even asserts: Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125. Which is odd since the original document shows otherwise! [7]. When a newspaper contradicts its own documents, do you trust the document or the newspaper? Collect (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[8] on which you place a great deal of reliance does notsay Fritz Thyssen owned either the BHS or UBC at all. In fact it asserts that it has no reliable knowledge as to ownership of BHS. [9] describes the shareholdings - which do not show "ownership" as being other than of the shareholders. The money amounted to roughly $500,000 -- or about $10 million give or take today - a very normal amount of capital for a bank with only about $1 million in its own net assets per the documents. If Thyssen "owned" the bank, those folks were roundly defrauded. If any hanky-panky was there, it would have had to be by Averell Harriman, who was the only one whose holdings amounted to a hill of beans. So we have specific documents saying Fritz id not own UBC, specific documents showing that the ownership of BHS was not known - but was not Fritz Thyssen, and the only enemy nationals on the Board were Groeninger and Kouwehnoven. All in the "Buchanan documents" if you please. Collect (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat: We have reliable secondary sources which provide quotations according to which Thyssen did own BvH and BvH did own UBC. We furthermore have a bunch of context-free, incomplete document scans. The secondary sources win. As an aside, our Bush article currently doesn't even say that Thyssen owned UBC, but that UBC was part of a web of Thyssen front companies that served to help him shuffle his money around. Being part of that web would not require formal ownership; giving the appearance of not being controlled by Thyssen may actually be preferable.

You are currently picking and choosing which of the documents you wish to believe, but that's not for you to decide. That is precisely what we have secondary sources for. Unless you can find a secondary source that contradicts the Guardian's account, that's what we should report. (I believe I can spare both of us replying to your bunch of straw-men "Buchanan, LaRouche, unproven".) Huon (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I picked the source you gave? Not. The Guardian ran far from Buchanan - but you seem not to wish to add their caveat that he has "hypermania". And how on earth can you say Bush was one of the incorporators when the original source specifically says he was not one of them? We are not required to be blind last I checked - when a source is shown to be actually wrong, we can deal with that. And in this case, The Guardian was obviously quite wrong. What makes sense is that we simply accept the AJC description of JB as a "conspiracy theorist." Which he is. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting occasionally contains errors Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't say Bush was an incorporator, and neither does our article. The Guardian does not mention Buchanan at all in the sections detailing the Bush-Thyssen connection, and his hypermania is mentioned only in connection with Buchanan's reaction to media disbelief, not in connection with the documents or the Guardian's take on these documents. But that's not even relevant, and neither is the AJC characterization, because we don't cite Buchanan. (I wish I could put a tune to that so I can sing it whenever I have to mention it.) And last I checked, the relevant passage from WP:V says: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you say the Guardian is wrong when it quotes documents according to which Thyssen indirectly owned UBC, find a secondary source that says so. I mean, do you suggest the Guardian invented the documents which assert that BvH owned UBC and that Thyssen owned BvH? Or that they got the quotes they printed wrong? And that the HNN historian is bizarrely mistaken in the same direction when he asserts that UBC was a Thyssen clearinghouse? I'd really like to see a secondary source supporting your interpretation if we are to dismiss other secondary sources outright.

Somehow I don't think we're getting anywhere, and I'd like to propose some alternatives to re-iterating our respective points of view over and over again. Maybe you'd like to write a draft for the section of the article about Bush's involvement with UBC, so we can see what you aim for and try to reach a compromise? Or do you think wider community input might help? I don't think any of this article's WikiProjects will prove helpful, but maybe I'm too much of a pessimist, or maybe you have an idea on where to ask for more input? I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government; that seems the most relevant project and maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Huon (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Um -- do you recall your post: Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125. As he was not an "incorporator" I suggest that you agree that the Guardian was "wrong" in that claim. Do you remember making that post, by the way? And since ZERO documents say Fritz Thyssen owned UBC, that part is simply on the order of a canard at this point. What the source says is that the BHS was owned by a relative of Thyssen (Heinrich Thyssen), having been founded by his father. And still, the fact that the "investigation" was done by a conspiracy theorist, and that the AP story says the charges were not proved, that should be in the article. I would not want any reader to think that we believe implicity what a person who is described by the Atlanta Journal Constitution as "sick" says is the WP:TRUTH, would you? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Guardian seems to imply Bush was among the incorporators (it says "founding member", to be precise), and that it probably confused the list of directors with the incorporators. But that's rather irrelevant because we don't mention that in the article; we only say Bush was a director, and that's supported by both primary and secondary sources. Similarly, the technical details of ownership - and the Guardian quotes documents which assert that a) UBC was fully owned by BvH and b) BvH was owned by the Thyssens, though not necessarily Fritz Thyssen - are rather irrelevant since we don't write in the article that Thyssen actually did own UBC. All we say is that UBC was part of Thyssen's web of front companies used to shuffle his assets around - and that, again, is supported by both the primary and the secondary sources. Regarding Buchanan, I just had a look at both this article fragment and the article copy at freerepublic (which apparently runs afoul of a spam filter), and neither contains the word "sick". But even if they did, it still would not matter because we don't cite Buchanan. So how should we proceed in your opinion? Suggestions? Huon (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Seems to imply"? It states "incorporation documents" and "founding member" -- that does seem a teensy bit past "imply"! Do you grant that The Guardian specifically erred? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian apparently confused the list of 1942 directors with the list of 1924 incorporators. I agree; that looks like an error on the Guardian's part. But since we don't actually rely on that part of the Guardian article, the error is irrelevant to us. Will you now say what you actually want to achieve? Huon (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"So what?" is an odd comment since you earlier averred that they did not make this clear error. Once a major error is found in an article, it rather does make the likelihood of more errors substantial, indeed. But since you insisted they made no errors at all here, I suppose I should just mark this all down as "Guardian Infallibility" as you most surely assert Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember insisting that the Guardian made no errors at all here; could you please provide the diff? And more to the point, could you please tell me why we're even having this debate? What specific changes to the article do you suggest? Huon (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding what is already in the Guardian article cted stating what it knows about the person whom it credits with providing the documents. Simple indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? There's no reason to do so; if anything, I'd advocate removing all mention of Buchanan and the other journalists and authors mentioned in the Guardian article. Mentioning Buchanan's problems in a different context from that given by the Guardian itself violates WP:SYNTH and is an ad hominem fallacy. Mentioning Buchanan's problems in the same context as the Guardian, namely in relation to his bizarre reaction to the dismissal of his story by the media, is irrelevant to Prescott Bush. Huon (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? SYNTH deals with combining disparate sources ina single claim. That is a few miles from what I suggest. And is it "ad nominem" to cite what the exact article cited says about the proponent of the conspiracy theory? Nope. What we are left with is "I do not want to see an accurate depiction of Buchanan connected with allegations by Buchanan." That is actually an attempt to mislead the readers into giving any significant weight to the "theory" he proposes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to indict a source using other sources. If not that, then how do we determine which sources are reliable sources? Rklawton (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about using the exact same cite which is used to charge Bush - from The Guardian - which also makes clear that the source of the documents, John Buchanan, has a bit of baggage indeed. I suggest that where the exact same source is used, that refusing to allow what the source says, is a selective use of the source - in this case, to indict Bush without showing the counterbalance furnished specifically by The Guardian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What I don't see are "allegations by Buchanan" and a "theory he proposes". We don't cite Buchanan as a source, and the Guardian does not say that the relevant parts of its article are based on Buchanan. Since nothing we write is based on Buchanan (at least not without a secondary source confirming it), we need not care about Buchanan's reliability. Buchanan proposed a Bush/Thyssen link. All secondary sources confirm this link; none contradict it. (For example, the AP article whose author couldn't prove all of Buchanan's claims says: Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp, a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents. Doesn't sound as if Salant couldn't prove this part of Buchanan's claims; there are even other versions of the same article explicitly saying the documents were reviewed by the Associated Press.) So instead of offering sources which say that Bush didn't work as director of a Thyssen front company, we are supposed to have this article discuss Buchanan's mental health? Irrelevant to Bush, and indeed ad hominem because the criticism of Buchanan's position deals not with his position at all, but with the man himself. In short: A secondary source stating that Bush wasn't director of a Thyssen front company would be relevant to this article, but a secondary source stating that Buchanan has mental health issues without contradicting the relevant parts of Buchanan's claims is irrelevant. Huon (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you find an actual independent secondary source saying Bush was directly connected to Thyssen? Pray tell. I did not find any non-conspiracy-theorist such secondary source. Collect (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Given above: Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by The Associated Press. So says Salant. The Associated Press (ie, probably Salant himself) reviewed the documents. I don't think you can accuse Salant of a pro-Buchanan bias or of being a conspiracy theorist. I've shown mine, now show me your source disputing the Bush-Thyssen connection. Huon (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a Harriman-Thyssen connection - Bush was not even part of the start of UBC, as the HNN.US documents show. Nor has any document furnished shown that Bush actually met Thyssen - though Harriman definitely did. The reason for the article was to link Bush with Nazis during WW II, and the ADL statement makes cear that such claims were entirely politically motivated. So the Bush-Thyssen connection likely does not exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Now find a secondary source that says so. I see no reason to disregard the secondary sources we already have on Bush, UBC and Thyssen. Huon (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

HNN.US (a secondary source) published the document furnost by Bushanan, and notarized by the US Government, attesting to the fact that Bush was not an incorporator or founding director of UBC. I believe you have ackowledged the authenticity of the HNN.US documents. Meanwhile, I find the assertion that the ADL cleared Bush in 2003, with the implication that they do not still believe in their words, toi be an affront to the consept of NPOV as a minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Add as source [10] with the specific statement that Prescott Bush viewed six decades later ... the ultimate clean bill. No reason to not include a source which is directly contradictory of the conspiracy theory one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"At best", "at a minimum" ... extremely common usage: But don't be shy, just say what you think. What I think is that while the primary source incorporation documents we have, with most of their pages missing, don't list Prescott as an incorporator, it's true, they do list him as a director ... we don't have enough of the context in the primary sources to determine whether he was a "founding" director or not. But that's okay, we don't have to: The Guardian does that for us, by saying,

One of the first jobs (George Herbert) Walker gave Bush was to manage UBC. Bush was a founding member of the bank and the incorporation documents, which list him as one of seven directors, show he owned one share in UBC worth $125.

It's nice not to have to be a journalist, and be able to rely on secondary sources instead of creating them, isn't it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether Bush was a founding director or not is rather irrelevant because we don't actually say so and I haven't seen anybody advocate that we should. Duty, Honor, Country is the "flattering" authorized biography mentioned in the Guardian article, and being authorized, I'm not sure whether it's really independent. The Guardian seems highly skeptical of Herskowitz' coverage of the Thyssen/UBC affair. Huon (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Publication dates of assertions

Hmm ... I didn't think adding the dates on which statements were released would be so controversial. A short while ago I added the month and year of publication for the Guardian piece to our article, and immediately reverted by Huon. Collect then immediately removed the longstanding disclosure of the "In 2003, the Anti-Defamation League said..." and changed it just to " The Anti-Defamation League said ..."

Now, I disagree that the dates are irrelevant. I think our readers should be permitted to know "who said what, when". This is especially relevant because at the article existed before I added the publication date of the Guardian article, the serial order in which the Guardian and ADL source were presented gave the impression that the ADL statement came after the discovery and publication of the newly-discovered National Archive documents, which is false. I accept that, because the ADL still has the web page that claims it's all a rumor "up" on its website, that they have not retracted their (effective) press release. That's fine, but the date they made the statement in the first place, and that it appears to have preceded the discovery of the National Archives documents, is a fact that I believe our readers should provided. They should have the opportunity in this case to determine for themselves whether the dates the statements were made is important.

I've rearranged the order of the assertions by the ADL and the Guardian, to reflect the order in which they were made, and added the dates back. Please review the changes and discuss the issue here, and explain why you think our readers shouldn't be informed of the order of publication, before you revert or modify that change. Thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. We should not structure the article by publication date of our sources. Unless there are conflicting sources, publication dates are irrelevant except for the bibliography. There is no reason to believe the ADL changed its mind (especialy since Prof. Parmet at HNN, aware of the newest sources on Bush, basically agrees with their interpretation of his motives). There are no newer sources claiming that Bush was either a Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser. Thus, we sould not give the impression that the ADL's stance is outdated or invalidated by newer evidence. The wording of the rewrite ("however"?) is quite explicit in giving that impression, and I'd prefer the old version. (I'd also say the ADL was quite aware of the Bush-Thyssen connection; more aware than Collect would probably like. The new documents don't really add much beyond "business dealings between Bush and Fritz Thyssen".) Huon (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I was explicitly trying not to give the impression that the ADL had changed its mind, and I don't see where you infer that I did so. I've modified my previous, though, to try to address your concerns, at least in a preliminary way. I did struggle with the word "however", though: I needed some transition word, and had thought of something like "In contrast, a 2004 story in The Guardian said ....", but I assumed people would dislike that, also. It's a little awkward putting the ADL statement first, because if you put anything after it you need some transition word ( "subsequently", maybe? ) but if you put the ADL statement last it appears to be a rebuttal of the Guardian story, which it isn't, in my view. You're right, though, that following after the "Bush wasn't a Nazi" statement by the ADL, with "however" was problematic, and I've removed that. I'm somewhat confused by your comment about HNN, though; can you elaborate? ( answered in following section )

I'd also be interested in hearing your view re the ADL as a source, though, in the section below, preferably. It does seem to me that their web page is, in effect, a press release, and press released have dates ... this one is explicitly dated, in fact. Do you disagree with that? But I shouldn't be asking for input on that in this section, doing so will tangle the two subjects, a very bad thing, I'm sure.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this, Huon? Could you draft a version you think fairly represents the various secondary-source reports and either run it up the flagpole in the article or present it here? I know you're at least as familiar with the sources as Collect is, but you're not trying to keep out or discredit all information about this affair. I'm inclined to suspect that, more than any of us, you could come up with a fair presentation of the facts and of various prominent evaluations thereof. I will just state that I think it's just plain silly that we quote the very brief ADL press release in its entirety while we have only a sentence or two more from the very much longer Guardian source. Due weight, you know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ADL as a source, and Jewish Advocate

Why are we quoting a web statement by the ADL at all? They're not a news organization, have no editorial oversight that I'm aware of, and their three-sentence statement doesn't give even the least glimpse into their rationale for making the claim. It provides no indication at all that they performed any research whatever. Their statement is nothing more, or less, or other than an extraordinarily brief press release, which makes it a primary source. I won't remove it at this point, because we're all friends here, but it's my opinion that it should be removed. The Guardian article mentions the ADL's support for Prescott, right at the end of the article, although it also mentions a (contrary?) treatment of the subject in the Jewish Advocate. Does anyone have access to that, btw?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree; at the very least, we should reword it instead of quoting the ADL verbatim. We can use Parmet at HNN as another source to the same effect, or possibly the Observer article (op-ed?) mentioned by Parmet. Both seem better sources than the ADL press release while making the exact same point (and both are aware of the Buchanan papers). Regarding the Jewish Advocate, I found a rather bizarre website that seems to be a collection of articles, including one originally appearing in the Advocate, but that one seems to significantly predate what the Guardian means. The Jewish Advocate archives turned up empty. Huon (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In which case, we should add sources which concur with the ADL position - right now the sectiobn is very heavily weighted to the allegation, and not to the facts about the accusers or the sources which dispute Buchanan et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the section is so heavily weighted against the allegation that before OhioStandard's recent rewrite, the ADL quote was the only place where the word "Nazi" even occured. I wondered whether we should mention Thyssen's role in financing the Nazis, but decided against it in my proposal below. It seemed too unrelated to Bush. Huon (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire section is marginally related at best. Bush held 1/4000 of the stock of a company worth a total of $3 million less deposits of about $2 million. He reported fully to the federal government, hid nothing. He did not actually know Thyssen, was not paid by Thyssen, but knew and was paid by Harriman. He did not manage anything contrary to US law at any point, nor was he charged with it, nor (except by odd implication) is such an allegation made by Buchanan et al. We established that he was a shareholder and "a director" of the bank (check out lists of directors for most corporations - it is "no big deal") as opposed to the British use of "Managing Director" wich would be a "big deal." The ADL, which tends, if anything, to be quite anti-Nazi, took the unusual step of stating that Bush most definitely was not pro-Nazi. We have substantial material which is excised from this article that Buchanan intended to make money from the charges. We have material excised from this article that the Atlanta Journal Constitution, inter alia, calls him a "conspiracy theorist." We have material excised from this article from a cite used in this article that casts strong doubt on the credence The Guardian gave to Buchanan. We have material excised from this article about Loftus, another of the theorists. So we give the theory our full credence by declining to show the publishers of the theory had less credence in it that we assert that they have! Tracking down the "$1.5 million" claim, by the way, appears to show that the total amount paid for UBC by the government was $1.5 million (or about $.5 million over its net asset value at the start of WW II), of which Prescott Bush got 1/4000, or somewhere around $375. A profit over two decades of just over two hundred dollars. Not counting legal fees <g>. If ever there were an artcle in which WP:WEIGHT is violated, this is it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The section says that he was one of seven directors of a bank shut down under the Trading with the Enemy Act. That's worth a bit of explanation, isn't it? Wnt (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian called him a founder - the document given by the US Government clearly shows he was not a founder. The bank was seized - and returned. Clearly that rather implies that no violation of law occurrred - the "Alien Property Custodian" took everything owned by "enemy aliens" which included property even of US citizens interned in Germany under the wording of the act. Note also that property of many Japanese Americans was seized and not returned under the same act - ought we then assume they were guilty of a crime? Or even imply they were guilty of a crime? I would trust not. Collect (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of events does not trump secondary sources. Can you provide one making the point that return of the bank implies that no violation of law occurred? Huon (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? See (from WP - but sourced) March 11, 1942: Executive Order 9095 created the Office of the Alien Property Custodian, and gave it discretionary, plenary authority over all alien property interests. Many assets were frozen, creating immediate financial difficulty for the affected aliens, preventing most from moving out of the exclusion zones See also [11]: The "enemy aliens" had their property seized by the US Alien Property Custodian. No "crime" involved. No "personal interpretation" involved. Secondary sources by the carload available. In 1933 it was even used to outlaw private gold ownership by a subsequent Executive Order. The penalty is forfeiture of property to the US government (not to the APC) and fines - neither occurred wrt the UBC. The most common recent examples are people caught with Cuban cigars in the US. [12] is a court decision (primary source) stating that the property was under the control of Heinrich Thyssen, and that he was an "enemy alien" under US law, but not an "enemy alien" under Dutch law. Weird. In short - no "crime" need to have existed for a seizure under the act. Absent a specific relaiable source stating (and itself sourced) that a "crime" was committed by Bush, such an allegation or implication is improper on Wikipedia. Do yu finally accept that I am not pushing "personal interpretations" but relying on strong reliable sources for all of this? I tire of ad hom attacks on me, really. Collect (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I accept that you raise yet another straw man. Does the article say Bush committed a crime, or has anybody proposed it should do so? If not, why argue that we should give a source for something we don't actually say? I'm also a little irritated by the source you gave above [13]: "[T]he NV Handelscompagnie Ruilverkeer (Ruilverkeer) owned all shares of the Union Banking Corporation (U.B.C.)" (p. 150), and "[t]he United States, after the termination of the hostilities, has neither returned the seized assets to the Netherlands companies nor indemnified those companies" (p. 153). So apparently Bush didn't own a share, and nothing was returned to him? Or did the United States "return" shares it had seized from the Netherlands companies to Bush? Anyway, that source doesn't actually mentions Bush. I haven't read the entire other article of 15 pages; could you please point out the relevant parts? I doubt it mentions Bush, and while your sources might serve on the UBC or Trading with the Enemy Act articles, I find them of little relevance to this one. Huon (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The share was owned by Bush. That is fairly clear from all the sources. And Harriman held nearly 4,000 shares. - the claim of "ownership" was for the assets held by UBC which appear to have been held by the Dutch bank. This biography should make no implication whatsoever that Bush violated any Act. All this "stuff" belongs, at best, in the UBC article, and not here. That is where the reliable sources lead us, entirely. Cheers. And thanks for the refrain of "another straw argument" as that shows your wondrous understanding of the issues. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So you mean the source you just gave is flat-out wrong regarding the ownership of UBC shares? It explicitly says Ruilverkeer owned all shares of UBC, not assets held by UBC. Judging from the primary sources and Conason's take, I would have assumed that Bush, Harriman & Co. held shares, but did not actually own them, holding them on behalf of BvH. Anyway, I don't see where the article says Bush violated any act. Could you please clarify that? We say Bush was a director of a Thyssen front company which was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act, and that is verified by multiple reliable sources making the explicit connection between Bush, UBC, Thyssen and the seizure. Apparently Bush's directorship of a seized company is a notable part of his biography. Huon (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the source. Bush owned 1 share. The obvious implication is that Harriman was holding the near 4,000 shares as a nominee of the Dutch bank - not that any source was "wrong." Ask your broker how "nominee" status works - that is how your own shares are likely held. Meanwhile the current version is not actually bad - but I wish to make my objections known to reinserting stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18

27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

UBC: Huon's draft

Bush was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation, an investment bank controlled by the Thyssen family which served as part of a network of front companies allowing Thyssen to move assets around the world. In July 1942 the bank was suspected of holding gold on behalf of Nazi leaders. A subsequent government investigation disproved those allegations, but confirmed the Thyssens' control, and in October 1942 the bank was seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The assets were held by the government for the duration of the war, then returned afterward.

Joe Conason said that Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial; Bush was not a Nazi sympathizer. The Anti-Defamation League and historian Herbert Parmet agreed with that assessment.

This is how I'd cover the Bush/UBC/Thyssen affair. I would prefer not to explicitly mention Conason, Parmet and the ADL, but Conason's and the ADL's statements are just their personal opinions (Conason's looks like an op-ed, not an article with editorial oversight), and Parmet's take on that matter is explicit agreement with Conason: "Conason, of course, is right." If we could make the same point (that Bush was no Nazi sympathizer), which seems the consensus of every source addressing that question, without explicitly mentioning its proponents, that would be preferable, but I don't see a good way to do so. Huon (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The ADL passed RS/N in the past. I suggest that this should be given there if we are to effectively overturn the past positions at RS/N. Collect (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source for what, exactly, and in what context? I suggest that you need to provide a link to whatever thread there you think supports your apparent belief that we need to quote the ADL directly, and in its entirety, for some reason.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the RS/N archives, and the instances I checked (for example here, here or here) always advocated caution and attribution. It was said that the ADL should be used as a source for its own opinion, not as a secondary source for facts. If I missed something, a link would indeed be helpful. Huon (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Huon: Nice work, but much too short, in my opinion. This has just five sentences, only three more than the current two-sentence mention in our article of Bush's having passed a hurricane protection bill, despite there being orders of magnitude more source material available for this. Due weight policy requires that we present this much more substantially than that. I also would like to see "war" wikilinked to World War II, btw. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Collect reverted my last attempt to address concerns raised here. I'm not satisfied with Huon's draft, but it's a much more sound departure point for discussion than the version Collect reverted to, and I've installed it in the article, for that reason. If Collect objects to that, he would be the only editor here who does so, at this point, so I would suggest that he refrain from a unilateral revert.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The WWII link is a good idea; I'll add it if that hasn't been done already. But I couldn't think of additional facts relevant to Bush. Thyssen's early support for the Nazi Party and Thyssen's later stay in a Nazi prison are both irrelevant to him. We could mention the "one share", but it's rather insignificant - we don't mention every single share of other companies owned by Bush, and it's not the relevant part of Bush's connection to UBC either. Unlike the hurricane legislation, UBC should still have its own subsubsection, emphasizing its importance. Huon (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't have time to research it right now, but that single share might be more significant than you think. I recall seeing statements that there were just seven shares issued in the (first?) stock issuance/authorization in which our boy obtained his. Or was it ten? Anyway, if correct, then 10-13% of the company would be very substantial ownership. And, of course, the source documents list him as a "partner" in the Brown-Harriman firm, iirc.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Lots of sources for 4000 shares, and for Harriman holding over 3,990 of them. 1/4000 << 10-13%. And in most partnerships, the partners are not equals. In some accounting firms, "partner" only means "above the line" and does not indicate any significant ownership of the firm. I suspect the same is true of investment baks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Huon: As I said, I consider your draft an excellent departure point for discussion. It's so abbreviated, though, that it can't help but leave readers scratching their heads. Thyssen had "front companies"? Fronts for what? And these front companies allowed him to shuffle money around the world? Why was he trying to do that, surreptitiously? He was exonerated re holding gold for Nazis, okay. But then his company was seized. Why on earth did that happen? Do you see the problem?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, I'm going to modify one of your sentences, slightly. You wrote:

Joe Conason said that Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial; Bush was not a Nazi sympathizer.

I also think it quite unlikely that Prescott had Nazi sympathies, except to the extent that almost all WASPs of that era were anti-Semitic. But the semicolon makes it less clear that it's Conason saying so, rather than Wikipedia. I've changed it to,

Joe Conason said that Bush's involvement with UBC was purely commercial and that he was not a Nazi sympathizer.

Since we have multiple sources supporting that assertion, this seems fine to me. I'm going to try to find a copy of the Jewish Advocate story offline, though. It'll be interesting to see what it says. But let me know what you think about the "readers scratching their heads" thing I wrote of up above. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we're currently very short on background, but much of that background (for example, Thyssen's motivation for having front companies and shifting assets in the first place) is entirely irrelevant to Bush. Regarding the seizure: How about mentioning Thyssen's nationality, along the lines of:

"... controlled by the Thyssen family, German industrialists, which ..."

Together with us mentioning Nazis, the Trading with the Enemy Act and World War II, that should serve as sufficient context: The company belonged to people whose native country was an enemy of the US. Huon (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Heinrich Thyssen was Hungarian. 2. Thyssen at the time UBC was seized was under arrest by the Nazis. 3. The mention of Nazis is an attempt to link Bush with Nazism, which is not borne out at all, and which would necessitate the full ADL text being replaced in the article. 4. The TWEA did not require that anyone be a native at all -- only that they currently resided in any country under the countrol of an enemy (law included property of American citizens in that position). 5. Thyssen's "motives" are totally irrelevant to an article on Bush. 6. We had reached, I thought, a stable version - I did not like it, but could accept it. Moving away from that is, to me, disingenuous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Heinrich Thyssen was Hungarian, Fritz was German, and the core of the Thyssen industrial empire was undisputably the German steel works. Sources seem about equally divided on which Thyssen actually is relevant; some of the primary documents and the later lawsuit where BvH wanted to reclaim its possession argue for Heinrich, other primary documents and some more modern sources like the ADL argue for Fritz. Since we currently link to Fritz, I didn't think we'd sacrifice too much precision by omitting the Hungarian connection, but it seems better to actually link to the Thyssen family (though that article is in a pretty poor shape) and describe them as German-Hungarian industrialists. 2. We all know Fritz Thyssen's trouble with the Nazis, but it's irrelevant to Bush. 3. We only mention Nazis in connection with the "nest egg" allegations which we immediately dismiss. I don't think anybody can jump from "Bush's bank did not hoard gold for the Nazis" to "Bush was a Nazi". Still, it provides some background - we're dealing with wartime events, and the "Enemy" in the TWEA is, basically, Nazi Germany and its allies. 4. The details of the TWEA need not be discussed here. I believe we all agree that the reason for the seizure was the connection to the Thyssens which are described in the primary documents as "enemy nationals". Whether being owned by Americans residing in Germany would have sufficed for seizure doesn't really matter. 5. I agree. 6. I didn't perceive my draft as the be-all, end-all version. It can certainly be improved. But of course those improvements should be backed up by reliable secondary sources, and they should be relevant to Bush. Collect, what about the current version do you not like? How would you like to see it improved? Huon (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave it be for now. The "Enemy" included all Japanese Americans in the US, all people residing in the US who were citizens of any nation under the control of Germany (including the Dutch, Belgians, French etc.), and all Americans resident in any country under German control. And, of course, any American owning gold. And so on. Meanwhile posit "John Doe was accused of holding Nazi money." And then a rather weaselly "the allegations were disproven." Stating the allegation makes the damage, folks. Once the magic "Nazi" word is placed in conjunction with a person, that is all a lot of readers notice. So I will not dispute the current version even though I disagree with it - but making any further connection to Nazis is a poor choice for this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

UBC: THF's edits

I have just reverted THF's edits to our coverage of Bush's involvement with the UBC. There were several problems.

First of all, Fritz Thyssen's arrest is rather irrelevant to Bush anyway, and I see no reason to discuss it in this article. On the one hand, Bush's business relations with the Thyssens go back to a time before Thyssen's break with the Nazis, on the other hand, the primary sources actually allege a relation between UBC and Heinrich Thyssen, making Fritz' fall-out with the Nazis even more irrelevant to Bush. There is no indication that Bush and Fritz Thyssen's arrest affected each other in the least.

Next, THF removed mention of UBC's role as a Thyssen front company. Multiple reliable sources say something along those lines, none disagree. There is no reason to consider the Guardian's coverage of this detail unreliable.

THF also removed background on why the government investigated the company and seized it. I see no reason to remove this content. Especially the explicit link between Thyssen control and seizure seems important to me - otherwise readers might misunderstand why the company was seized and thus misinterpret Bush's role.

Finally, THF included "conspiracy theorist" language and cited the Guardian for it - ironically, the same article he deemed unreliable before. Unfortunately the Guardian does not link the allegation to a "conspiracy theorist" at all. (I personally agree that Buchanan is a conspiracy theorist, and other reliable sources explicitly call him one, but we have deliberately removed all Buchanan stuff from the article and left only that which was independently confirmed by others who are not conspiracy theorists.) In my opinion, both the conspiracy theories and the criticism of the conspiraciy theories are off-topic. What Conason, the ADL and Parmet say about Bush belongs in the article, what they say about modern-day critics of Bush does not. Thus we should focus on their assessment of Bush's motives, not on what they say about others' conspiracy theories (which, again, they tend not to actually call conspiracy theories).

For these reasons I do not think THF's edits were an improvement. Huon (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Bush had little contact with Thyssen, who was mainly Harriman's friend. 2. The seizure act definition included even American citizens residing in "enemy territory" making all of the Union Bank stuff minor indeed. 3. The ADL specifically emphasized that the charges against Bush were politically motivated. In short - THF improved the article with the edits, and the reversion did not improve the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. We agree that Bush had little contact with Thyssen. Why then should we add more details about Thyssen to the article? How are other possible reasons for seizure that did not apply to UBC relevant to either the article or this discussion? When we agree that the more bizarre claims about Bush-Nazi deals are motivated by politics (wholly independent of Prescott Bush, though the ADL does not explicitly say so), why should we mention them at all? Do you want the article to reproduce those politically motivated charges? Huon (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case, frankly, the entire "Union Bank" stuff is of extremely marginal connection to Bush as far as any imputation of wrongdoing is concerned. Let's just pull it out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no imputation of wrongdoing in the entire UBC section. The UBC episode happens to be the part of Bush's business career most thoroughly discussed in secondary sources, and the article should reflect that. But we need not - and currently do not - dive into the conspiracy theories which actually do accuse Bush of wrongdoing. I would prefer to keep it that way, which is part of the reason why I reverted THF. Huon (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Birthname

I moved the full name to the "birthname" section of the infobox. Typically, the top name should match the title of the article, while the birthname should be more specific. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

UBC: Conspiracy theories removed

I have removed all mention of the supposed Bush-Nazi connections that are rejected by all reliable sources. In particular, despite what our article said, those reliable sources did not actually use the term "conspiracy theory", and we should not put such words in their mouths. I have also re-added the Nazi gold rumor and the government investigation that disproved said rumor; that seems relevant background to the government's seizure of UBC. Huon (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• How about, instead of whitewashing the 'conspiracy theory' section (which by numerous news articles I found via google in under 10 seconds is confirmed by government documents), sectioning it off. To out-and-out remove potentially valid information, especially regarding something which might be incredibly important, seems foolish and rash at best, and dishonest at worst. I would like to see this information restored, and partitioned into its own section. I apologize for not following the format of Wikipedia, but I was irked enough by this omission of potentially pertinent information as to post this.

- Semi-Anonymous Jew, 13:14 (EST) 29 March 2013

How about presenting the numerous news articles you found? That would make it much easier for others to assess them. Huon (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Business Plot again

The Business Plot made a re-appearance with some cut&paste screed from that article that didn't even mention Bush. We've been through this several times; compare this page's archives. The short of it: While one company Bush worked for was investigated by the same congressional committee that investigated the Business Plot, there is no connection between Bush and the plot. I've removed it. Huon (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheerleader

While I agree with Collect that Bush's stint as a college cheerleader is insignificant compared to Bush's political career, we do have a reliable source for it, and it is no less significant than Bush's other college sports activities (for which we do not have sources). Thus I have re-added it, but left the category off; it's hardly a "defining characteristic" of Bush as would be required to categorize him as such. Huon (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

OK -- I fear the new "category" seems to have few notable "cheerleaders" and a lot of politicians - perhaps the editor creating such has a good reason for the strange choice as to who was a "cheerleader" being mainly politicians, and not including any of the hundreds of people who were far more notable as such? Ought a misused category itself be placed up for deletion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems more of a case for cleanup and an admonition to the editor. I'll have a look. Surely some people are notable for being cheerleaders. Huon (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Geronimo once again

We last discussed Geronimo back in 2011. I believe back then there was a rather weak consensus to include some information about the Geronimo rumor, but 79.172.242.165's additions seem far too strong. Firstly, "some historias" is a classical example of weasel words. Secondly, the source does not provide any examples of historians that believe Bush dug up Geronimo's skull - the most we have is a letter, probably authentical, where one Bonesman writes another that they did dig up Geronimo's skull, and a historian's opinion that they were unlikely to have found the correct grave. The most forceful statement was this:

"Of all the tales about Skull and Bones booty — the skull of [President] Martin Van Buren: not true, Pancho Villa: not true, Geronimo: possibly true," says Robbins.

The 2009 lawsuit and its dismissal are entirely irrelevant to Prescott Bush; neither was Bush (obviously) a party to the lawsuit, nor did it provide any facts about him or the supposed skull theft. I'm still not opposed to a short mention of the Geronimo rumor, but we should indeed present it as a rumor, not as supposed fact, and we should stick to what's relevant to Bush. Huon (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove it utterly - rumours which have not in any way at all been substantiated are poor claims for any articles at all - the lawsuit does not even allege Bush's nvolvement - and one would suspect that such would be present if they thought it had the remotest chance of being true. Collect (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If reliable secodary sources discuss the rumors, so can we - compare George Washington's cherry tree incident. Huon (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

IOW "Unsupported rumours claimed Bush stole Geronimo's skull for Skull and Bones, but there is no credible evidence for this rumour." is what we would have. Parson Weems wrote a notable "biography" of Washington - that is why the cherry tree story gets mentioned there. No such valid provenence for this rumour - and it opens the door to "Bush made his money off dealing with Hitler" edits again - as I am sure you recall. Collect (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion the last time around was this:

According to Skull and Bones lore, Prescott Bush was among a group of Bonesmen who dug up and removed the skull of Geronimo from his grave at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.[14] Historians doubt that the skull, which Bonesmen still refer to as "Geronimo", is that of the Apache leader.[15]

In retrospect it might be better to name the historian who doubts the skull's providence to avoid any indication of weasel words; on the other hand, I believe there were multiple independent accounts calling it unlikely that the Bonesmen could have found the correct grave; I'd say that part is historical consensus. Huon (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

MSNBC, ABC and the Yale Alumni Magazine are reliable sources reporting on the rumor. I'm pretty sure I could find more. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any remotely reliable sources even discussing the Nazi rumors except to dismiss them, and we do report those dismissals. That's precisely as it should be. I'd consider WP:WEIGHT the relevant policy. Huon (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Truman's "Harry Hopkins"

I know who Harry Hopkins was and who Harry Truman was (obviously) but I'm confused as to the context of the quote about Bush being "Truman's Harry Hopkins". Can anyone make that a bit clearer in the article, or at least tell me what that's supposed to mean? Thanks. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Military service

The section on military service needs some major improvements. For instance "After graduation, Bush served as a field artillery captain with the American Expeditionary Forces" implies he went straight from Yale to France. Presumably he joined the army and was trained prior to going to France! He must have been in the army for some time to reach the rank of captain. "He received intelligence training at Verdun" - from whom, the French?. What does "was briefly assigned to a staff of French officers" mean? To a division HQ, battalion, or just a loose group of officers, as is implied? "Alternating between intelligence and artillery, he came under fire in the Meuse-Argonne offensive" does not clarify matters, confusing combat experience with unit. Was he actually in combat as an artilleryman?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories...

... like pretty much everything else, require reliable sources. This includes the so-called "Business Plot". Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)