Misplaced Pages

Talk:Prescott Bush: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:29, 9 April 2011 editOhiostandard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,699 edits →Geronimo's bones: Little choice but to escalate this, apparently.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:35, 19 October 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,892 edits →top 
(306 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{notforum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|living=no|listas=Bush, Prescott|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Connecticut|importance=High|class=C}} {{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=Mid|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Ohio|class=C|importance=}} {{WikiProject Bush family|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject College football|class=B}} {{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography {{WikiProject College football|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Connecticut|importance=High}}
|living=no
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Low}}
|class=B
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes|American-importance=low}}
|politician-priority=Mid
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|OH=yes|OH-importance=low}}
|politician-work-group=yes
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|subject=person|importance=}}
|listas=Bush, Prescott }}
}} }}
{{annual readership}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
{{User:MiszaBot/config
* ] <small>(Jan 2003–August 2009)</small>
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Prescott Bush/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
* ] <small>(Jan 2003 – August 2009)</small>
* ] <small>(Jan 2010 – May 2011)</small>
* ] <small>(May 2011 – )</small>
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
__TOC__ __TOC__
{{Clear}} {{Clear}}


== Prescott Bush == == Prescott Bush, the Business Plot, and Nazi-entanglement. ==


Is it noted that Prescott Bush hired ]? I first learned of Prescott Bush's involvement with the Business Plot from reading Misplaced Pages.
Now both the articles about the Business Plot and Prescott Bush have been scrubbed of reference to each other.
Other than that, there is now so much documentation available that Prescott was doing business with the Nazis along with numerous other US corporations, and that it is highly likely that he held Nazi symathies as did most of the US elites, considering how they equally hated Roosevelt and tried to instigate a fascist military coup against him as thoroughly documented in congress by Major General ]. Nice to see that wikipedia's attempts at being "NPOV" makes wiki a read similar to the soviet newspaper ], you just have to assume that the exact opposite of what is said on any given historic issue of any meaningful conflict is true. The Rockefeller and Carnegie institutes have succeeded in creating Orwell's nightmare. Real skepticism and historic controversy has drowned in a garbage soup sea of mediocre historians and their equally mediocre works filling the shelves of bookstores homes and libraries. I'll never read an american historian again, save perhaps ] and ]. Thanks wikipedia "admins".
I read the talk page for Prescott Bush, and found that the great editors determined that there was flimsy evidence to support the claims. And while I think it is admirable to clear a man's name decades after his death on the basis of good sense, I think their is ample evidence to link Prescott Bush to both incidents.
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
Just a quick Googling of "Prescott Bush Business Plot" links you to this article from Harper's Magazine. http://harpers.org/blog/2007/07/1934-the-plot-against-america/
:Got any reliable sources? ] (]) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
And a quick search for "Prescott Bush Nazi" returns this article from The Guardian.
Why don't you get off your ass and look it up yourself? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
::The "]" stuff does not implicate Bush (not even the Guardian claimed such). Nor did he ever "hire Nixon." The amount of stuff that people know that ain't so increases daily. ] (]) 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Maybe it's a global conspiracy. ;-) ] (]) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Now Harper's and the Guardian are not rags dedicated to the cause of paranoia, and to say that they don't rise to the level of credible Misplaced Pages sources is, to my mind, a little nuts.
Ah, sure. he did not "hire" Nixon, yes. Although many sources say he "recruited" Nixon, it's pretty clear he managed, supported and financed much of Nixon's campaigns. So what do you call it? Prescott Bush was even the Ike-Nixon presidential Campaign manager for "chrissakes". By the way, Nixon "hired" Jack Ruby..
Even if this is not enough citation to prove Prescott Bush's guilt, I think it is more than enough to warrant mentioning the allegations.


:The connection between Prescott Bush and the Business Plot is the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee, the precursor of what became the ]. That committee investigated both Bush (or a company he was involved in; I rather doubt Bush himself was investigated) and the plot - but in separate investigations. Bush was of interest due to his involvement with the ], suspected of Nazi links, and that's what Harper's Blog is talking about. The Guardian similarly discusses Bush's business connections to Nazi Germany and to German businessmen that supported the Nazi Party. The Business Plot was completely unrelated. It had nothing to do with Germany, Nazis, the Hamburg America Line and, by extension, Prescott Bush. This article already discusses Bush's Nazi ties (or lack thereof), based on more reliable sources than Harper's Blog, but there simply is nothing but a misunderstanding connecting Bush to the Business Plot. ] (]) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's "global coincidences" again. Coincidence theory. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: The Guardian article contains more info that could be used in this article. It also mentions several books which could probably be used. --] (]) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Agreed, this information should be included as it is a matter of record. Harper's and the Guardian are both top-tier primary sources.] (]) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::"Many sources"? Nope. Prescott Bush, along with many other Republicans, campaigned for the Nixon-Lodge ticket in 1960, but no sign whatever he was a "recruiter" of Nixon at all. Sorry -- sometimes the internet is full of gross misinformation. ] (]) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
: There's clearly some whitewashing going on here. Prescott was a goddamned Nazi, he made money doing business with other Nazis, and his son went into the family business as head of the CIA, a key institutional enemy of liberty. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:::Interest in issue may increase due to the release of the film Amsterdam.(2022) Parmets article also suggests that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son(s).] (]) 16:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
==Citing sources==
::My friend you good, or just intellectually illiterate? ] (]) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
We're having some very basic failures What bothers me, is the fact that, yet again, we have conspiracy where there is none. I would like to ask fellow editor ] on his interpretation of the cited source. I would like to understand how can independent verification/confirmation of the historical fact made by the reliable source end up in largely pejorative 'conspiracy (as defined by Misplaced Pages) construct'?


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::''The Guardian has obtained '''confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives''' that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.''

::''Three sets of archives spell out Prescott Bush's involvement. All three are readily available, thanks to the efficient US archive system and a helpful and dedicated staff at both the Library of Congress in Washington and the National Archives at the University of Maryland.''

Now, how exactly you take this sort of information/confirmation (proof that something is true) and turn it into 'an article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work', who is, for logic sake and with regards to this particular research, vindicated by the confirmation himself, which is, again, no where to be found in the 'conspiracy nut' article we've managed to coin for him here...

Also, it would be really interesting to see the explanation, with regards to the current flow of the section in question, how is it possible for ADF to answer confirmation made in article published in 2004 back in 2003? How in the world is that possible?

::''In an article relying on conspiracy theorist John Buchanan's work, The Guardian stated that the company formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world. The Alien Property Custodian records state "Whether all or part of the funds held by Union Banking Corporation, or companies associated with it, belong to Fritz Thyssen could not be established in this investigation."

::''In 2003, the Anti-Defamation League responded, saying:''

So the 'confirmation' is published in 2004 (there are other sources, but I'm sticking to this one), and the Anti-Defamation League responded in 2003. Now, pray tell, where can you read such stuff? I'll tell you where, only on wikka wakka, and it really doesn't serve us well, no credence there.

Finally, the name of the paragraph is 'Bush and the Union Banking Corporation', while the subject of the paragraph is, to cite the source; 'a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine'.

There, and my apologise for the tone, but if allowed to contribute here in future, I'm certain that I'll share some strong opinions about our inability to discern between facts and conspiracies. We have formal, long established tools to do so, it would be about time we use 'em. This paragraph is not just POV, this is not some simple misinterpretation of source, it is bad faith paragraph by definition. ] (]) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:See ]. If one reads the Guardian story, it's entirely based on the bogus interpretations of a conspiracy theorist--the same rumors that the ADL was responding to. Prescott Bush was on the board of a bank that was confiscated by the Nazis; that's not news, that's not relevant, and it doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer; ] himself was persecuted by the Nazis. The conspiracy theory merits exactly the space it currently has in the article, and no more. ] (]) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
::Bush was not even a founder of Union Bank <g>. ] (]) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Who to hell is conspiracy theorist?

:::

:::Go ahead, read the end of that article, and tell me, what gives you or anyone here any right to take a freelance journalist and stick the 'conspiracy libel' on him? Tell you what, it appears that your opinion is that Guardian is fringe source which is disseminating conspiracies, in turn, such train of thoughts makes me wonder, why bother..? Honestly. ] (]) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

::::...so, instead of bank 'seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act', we have the bank which was 'confiscated by nazis'? I'm out of here... ] (]) 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::Many of the assets of the bank in Germany were seized by Hitler long before the US entered WW II. ] (]) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

==]==
Another conspiracy nut has tried adding the Business Plot twice to this article - never mind that Bush isn't mentioned in the main article. The source he used was self-published, and that source cited blogs, self published crap, and our own article on the Business Plot. In short, it lacked reliable sources. I've added a polite note to the IP's talk page. Now, if we were allowed to give vent to conspiracy theories, I'd say the fascist dictator Kim Jong-il through his communist agents in the west were responsible for this latest affront. But I'm wouldn't do that here. ] (]) 04:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush was involved despite your political bias. You may now retract your "polite" note and replace the text.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Your main problem is that zero sources link Bush to the "plot" as alleged by Butler. ] (]) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

== New editor - confused about 'relevant' sources ==

I just signed on today because I tried to add the allegation of Bush's involvement with the Business Plot. I didn't know how to add sources, so when I figured out how I put it back on with a citation, but was rebuffed because the source wasn't relevant. I have a list of books that can back up General Smedley Butler's public allegations and that point out who those allegation were made about. Can I add this piece of history to the Prescott Bush page, along with the book citations? How do I know if the books are relevant sources? I read this talk page and I've found that many sources are considered irrelevant or conspiracy oriented. Who makes that judgement call and what are the criteria behind that judgement? Sorry for the long post, but I'm interested in contributing and keeping wikipedia full of real, interesting information. Thanks for you help and your time. :-) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:First -- the Guardian article about Bush is already in the article. It has been thoroughly duscussed (for which see the talk page and talk page archives). I commend you to read what has been written here in the past. And, by the way, neither the Guardian nor the BBC ever connected Bush with the "Plot" which makes adding much about such a claim rather problematic at best. I suggest you listen to the actual BBC programme. ] (]) 11:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

:Here's another example of a source that wouldn't work for us. An editor awhile back tried adding information that derived from an author's self-published works. Since an individual can publish anything they want so long as they pay for it, the source was pretty much worthless. We prefer our information come from ]. As far as who makes the decision about the worthiness of a source goes, any of us can do that. If there's disagreement, we try to find more sources and reach a consensus. ] (]) 12:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

::After the 20 minute mark the BBC program forms links to Bush. To paraphrase "Later in the Mccormack-Dickstein report, a shipping company called Hamberg-America Line was accused of providing free passage to Germany to American journalists willing to write favorable copy on Hitler's rise to power. The company also managed to have brought Nazi spies and pro-fascist sympathizers into America. One of this company's managers was Prescott Bush. He managed the company at an executive level." The show in question ties Bush's activities then to his trading with the enemy charges later, inferring that there is a link. They also state that Bush was a member of the chief lobby group implicated in the attempted coup (The American Liberty League), and have a history expert come in and doubt verbally that any member of the group was truly non-revolutionary.

::However, all of that being said I realize listening to it the second time around that the programme itself is weak and very speculative. I rescind my case; too much of the Prescott Bush section is just guesswork and 'implication by association'. Also, the program itself mentions that not much can be found to support any of the business plot.

::I am a bit confused about the discrediting of Buchanon as mentioned in above talk. Was he professionally discredited?

::As a newbie I do belief that I should find a different section to work on, though. Reading through the talk page has made me feel that this particular article is and has been a battle field between liberals and conservatives. I just want to contribute; I don't have time to back and forth with edits. So thanks for helping my brief foray, you may find me wandering the talk pages of cat (domestic) :-)
] (]) 12:43, 26 February 2010 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Buchanon isn't mentioned above, so I don't know what you're talking about. This article isn't so much a battle ground between conservatives and liberals as it is between editors and conspiracy theorists - hence our emphasis on reliable sources. Your exposure to the issue regarding reliable sources here will serve you well in your future editing activities - as it is one of our fundamental principles. Folks can read all kinds of crap on the Internet. We'd like to think they can come here and get reliable facts. Cheers, and best wishes. ] (]) 17:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The ALL was primarily run by Democrats (Al Smith etc.), and had circa 125K members. I suppose we ''could'' list them all, but Bush was not in the leadership at all. ] (]) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

==Sock work==
It's obvious that ] is a sock of a banned editor - if anyone feels like following up on it, that would be great. We do not need to present conspiracy fodder as fact in our articles. ] (]) 02:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
==The ADL may have made an error,or it's a case of vandalism==
I find it hard to believe that the ADL made a statement defending Prescott Bush in 2003. Are you sure that the paragraph that mentioned the ADl isn't just vandalism? If you will allow me to state the facts,I will say that Prescott Bush was found guilty of a criminal act,and that act was,specifically,trading with the enemy. Because of this,the assets of his company were seized. The U.S. government would not have seized the assets of Bush's company if Bush was innocent of the charges. The fact that his assets were seized is a historical fact. Prescott Bush was essentially a war criminal who profited from his investment in Nazi slave labor. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 17,2010. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:All cites have been vetted. Discussed. Determined to be reliable sources. And the charges otherwise have been totally debunked. Bush was "found guilty" of no criminal acts. The company was owned by BBH (and likely a Dutch bank albeit not ever proven - the assets were returned post-war). Bush's "assets" were, in fact, never seized (unless you count his ''single share'' of Union Bank held to qualify as a director). Time to lay this all to bed. ] (]) 10:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

==You need to start a new page==
You need to start a new page on Misplaced Pages. The new article should be titled: Americans Who Supported Nazi Germany. I can think of three people who should be mentioned in that article.
1. Prescott Bush.
2. Henry Ford. He was well-known as the founder of the Ford Motor Company,a manufacturer of cars and trucks. In the 1930's Henry Ford published anti-semetic editorials in a newspaper he owned. He admired Hitler,and was a supporter of Hitler. When world war two began,henry Ford realized he was wrong about Hitler.
3. Charles Lindberg. He was well-known as an aviator,the first person to fly an airplane across the Atlantic Ocean,but he was also a supporter of Hitler in the 1930's. When world war two started,Lindberg realized he was wrong about Hitler.

There were so many Americans who supported Nazi Germany in the 1930's,Misplaced Pages needs a page devoted exclusively to that subject. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 17,2010. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:FDR himself owned stock in businesses which did business with Germany. As did the United States Government. Your suggestion is, however, invalid. Doing business with foreign countries does ''not'' imply support for their governments. So much for that. ] (]) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

== Geronimo's bones ==

There's currently a minor edit war going on over whether to include a "see also" link in this article to our article on ]. Take a look at these sources; read them in their entirety before you decide, and especially before you expunge mention of Geronimo from this article:

* A longstanding tradition among members of Skull and Bones holds that Prescott S. Bush — father of President George Bush and grandfather of President George W. Bush — broke into the grave with some classmates during World War I and made off with the skull, two bones, a bridle and some stirrups, all of which were put on display at the group’s clubhouse in New Haven, known as the Tomb.

* "There's a Skull and Bones document that describes how Prescott Bush and other Bonesmen robbed the grave of Geronimo, and I spoke with several Bonesmen who told me that inside the tomb there's a glass display case containing and the Bonesmen have always called it Geronimo," said Robbins, author of "Secrets of the Tomb," a book that delves into secretive societies at Yale, with special attention to Skull and Bones and its paths to power... The robbing of Geronimo's remains fits into what Robbins calls "crooking" -- a competition among Bonesmen to steal valuable things, which were then hidden in the tomb, which has extremely limited access.

* Geronimo became a celebrity in the twilight of his life, appearing at fairs and selling souvenirs and photographs of himself. He died of pneumonia in 1909 at Ft. Sill and was buried at the Apache Indian Prisoner of War Cemetery on the military base. Three members of the Skull and Bones, including Prescott Bush, served as Army volunteers at Fort Sill during World War I. They are accused of stealing the items which supposedly are used in initiation ceremonies. One alleged ritual includes kissing Geronimo's skull.

Most other major news organizations have reported about these allegations also ( e.g. , , , . There's certainly doubt about the truth of these allegations, but they're also certainly relevant to Prescott Bush, and should be included in the article about him. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 02:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:Absolutely not - this stuff was removed from the article for good reason, and trying to sneak it in under "see also" is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

::<small>( Rklawton has now the Geronimo "see also" link from this article, within a three-hour interval. He did so at first with the edit summary, "geronimo isn't related to this article", and then with "there is no reference to this in any part of the article - so there's no way it belongs here". &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC) </small> )

::Your comment, about "trying to sneak it in", Rklawton, along with your talk-page edit summary of "" is a wholly uncalled for attribution of motive that amounts to a personal attack. I'm sure you know those can have unpleasant consequences here; please don't make any such remarks again.

::I agree, however, that the "see also" section isn't the right place for this information. It belongs in the body of the article, and I intend to put it there.

::Based on what I've seen at this article in the past, I'm sure some editor or other will want to revert that. If the urge strikes you, consider this: The standard of proof for what goes into a BLP is considerably higher than what goes into a biography of a deceased person. This is ]:
{{Quote box
|quote = In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out... Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but ''The New York Times'' publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography...
|width = 80%
|align = center
}}
::Well, ''The New York Times'' <u>has</u> published the allegations, along with every other major news property in the country, <u>and this isn't even a BLP</u>. There is zero policy basis for expunging this information from the article, and (in the BLP passage cited above, and elsewhere) ample policy support for including it. We're all obliged and required to uphold that and every other policy standard, even when doing so results in outcomes we dislike. I would strongly recommend that no editor put his individual preferences above the community standards that apply to this matter by trying to exclude the allegations from this article. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::The "see also" link is just silly. But this material should be included. I'm pretty familiar with what reliable sources say about ] and Prescott Bush and the Geronimo skull are absolutely central to the history of that organization. To leave it out would be a prominent omission. ] <small>(])</small> 06:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024054819/http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/findaids/Bush_PS/MSS19910001.html to http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/findaids/Bush_PS/MSS19910001.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::No solid basis for a ''rumour'' at best. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. BTW, this article mentions living people, and any claims reflecting on them ''in any way'' must meet ]. ] (]) 12:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::::Of course. But Misplaced Pages does document widely discussed claims appearing in reliable sources. I'm thinking something brief and factual like "A widely discussed story in Skull and Bones lore has Prescott Bush and other Bonesmen digging up and stealing the skull of ] from his grave at ]. Experts say that the skull, which Bonesmen still refer to as "Geronimo", is unlikely to be that of the Native American leader, and a lawyer representing Skull and Bones told an Apache chairman seeking return of the skull that testing revealed the skull was that of a ten year old boy." This can all be sourced to the links above and the book ''Secrets of the Tomb'' by journalist Alexandra Robbins. This meets all BLP and RS criteria. ] <small>(])</small> 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::I should note that in addition to the sources already mentioned, a google book search reveals that it is mentioned in what appears to be the only published biography of Prescott Bush as well as numerous biographies of George Bush and the Bush family. ] <small>(])</small> 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


== Business Plot ==
::::::Yes, there's certainly an no lack of reliable-sources for this. I do have a comment about the "ten year old boy" claim, however. I looked at that discuss this episode. I notice that from the ''Yale Alumni Magazine'' also discusses the claim that the skull was that of a ten-year-old boy, among other germane considerations:
12 years after Scott Horton's article in Harper's Magazine, there is still no clear evidence of Bush's involvement in the Business Plot.


Since so many people apparently believe this as fact, I have re-inserted a short section about the plot and quickly explained that no evidence has been found to support it. My reasoning is that it is better to record it in the article as false rather than not have it in the article at all.
:::::::''But they told Anderson that the skull inside it was that of a ten-year-old boy. They offered the skull to Anderson, but he declined, as he believed it was not the same one in the photo. Some researchers have concluded that the Bonesmen could not have even found Geronimo's grave in 1918. David H. Miller, a history professor at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma, cites historical accounts that the grave was unmarked and overgrown until a Fort Sill librarian persuaded local Apaches to identify the site for him in the 1920s. "My assumption is that they did dig up somebody at Fort Sill," says Miller. "It could have been an Indian, but it probably wasn't Geronimo."''


I have also contacted Scott Horton by email and requested he make an updated statement about his 2007 article.
::::::My point in citing this passage is to say that if we're going to report the "ten year old boy" claim, then I think we're also obliged to report that the tribal representative didn't buy it. Also, if you read the alumni magazine article, you'll see that its author does appear to accept the claim that Bush and his pals dug up ''someone's'' remains at Fort Sill. There's no definitive proof, of course, but most RS news reports and book authors (eg Wortman) appear to do the same.
::::::Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter whether Bush did or didn't dig up a grave, or whether that grave was Geronimo's. All that matters is that reliable sources have reported the allegations very widely. Our responsibility is merely to summarize what they've said in a neutral way. Misplaced Pages's policies that apply to this couldn't be more clear, and unless someone is operating from some motive outside of those policies, there's no reason at all that there should be the least contention over any of this. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 03:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


--] (]) 06:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
:::Before re-adding the Geronimo nonsense, or threatening me with a block for that matter, review this article's archive. There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight. ] (]) 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


== Interesting facts reported in the Guardian ==
::::You would have done better, Rklawton, to have simply apologized for what was clearly a personal attack than to have continued your aggressive tone. That tone, along with your use of words like "nonsense" and "crap", and statements of intention like "it will be removed on sight" ], and make a collaborative one impossible.
::::You'll also notice that I've indented your previous comment from its original position at flush-left to indicate which of the above you were replying to. I suggest you take a look at ]; you may also wish to look at ] about the importance of using proper threading protocol, especially in any contentious discussion.
::::Re your apparent assertion that ], from 2006, supports your claim, referring to this issue, that "there's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article," I suggest you review the archives yourself. Unless there's an additional thread about this that I missed, you're simply mistaken. Even if that 2006 thread did support your claim, which it does not, I'll remind you of something from ]: Saying "this violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting a proposal or action. Further, consensus can change, and is especially likely to do so when new sources arise, as has occurred with this issue, since that thread was completed in 2006.


There is a lot of interesting factual information in this article I was thinking of adding, because the wiki article is currently spare on the war-time subject:
::::Finally, you should also be aware that the Arbitration Committee has stated that ]. Again, I'd urge you not to put any personal motives above the community policies that we're all expected to abide by here. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 02:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
:::::Let me be more clear - this bullshit was removed previously from the article. Trying to re-add it via "see also" was a dirty, rotten, low-life, and yes - disruptive - trick. So the disruption was adding it - not removing it. If you want to add it back - discuss it here first. If you'd like to spend your time critiquing my editing, feel free, but Wikilawyering won't win you any points. In fact, Wikilawyering often backfires for reasons that should be obvious and don't bear repeating. ] (]) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


I don't know when I will have time, but perhaps someone else here might be up to it anyway ] (]) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I have no special interest in critiquing your editing. But I do have an interest in having a productive and mutually respectful discussion, and your posting at flush-left, as you did just above (again) makes that harder to accomplish. I've corrected that once more, and I'll again ask you to look at ] about that.
::::::Concerning the balance of your remarks, I asked you once already to refrain from personal attacks, and you've chosen to escalate them instead. Since for the foregoing says that you consider your remarks to have been "a well considered and thoughtful reply", you've given me every reason to believe that you're unable or unwilling to work with me constructively here. That leaves me two alternatives: I can either let you drive me from editing this article, or I can ask for assistance from the community. I don't like that second alternative, but since I certainly won't accept the first, you can expect notification on your talk page shortly. &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 05:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:35, 19 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prescott Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prescott Bush. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prescott Bush at the Reference desk.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconBush family (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCollege football Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConnecticut High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Ohio Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) person(s).

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Prescott Bush, the Business Plot, and Nazi-entanglement.

I first learned of Prescott Bush's involvement with the Business Plot from reading Misplaced Pages. Now both the articles about the Business Plot and Prescott Bush have been scrubbed of reference to each other. I read the talk page for Prescott Bush, and found that the great editors determined that there was flimsy evidence to support the claims. And while I think it is admirable to clear a man's name decades after his death on the basis of good sense, I think their is ample evidence to link Prescott Bush to both incidents. Just a quick Googling of "Prescott Bush Business Plot" links you to this article from Harper's Magazine. http://harpers.org/blog/2007/07/1934-the-plot-against-america/ And a quick search for "Prescott Bush Nazi" returns this article from The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Now Harper's and the Guardian are not rags dedicated to the cause of paranoia, and to say that they don't rise to the level of credible Misplaced Pages sources is, to my mind, a little nuts. Even if this is not enough citation to prove Prescott Bush's guilt, I think it is more than enough to warrant mentioning the allegations.

The connection between Prescott Bush and the Business Plot is the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional committee, the precursor of what became the House Un-American Activities Committee. That committee investigated both Bush (or a company he was involved in; I rather doubt Bush himself was investigated) and the plot - but in separate investigations. Bush was of interest due to his involvement with the Hamburg America Line, suspected of Nazi links, and that's what Harper's Blog is talking about. The Guardian similarly discusses Bush's business connections to Nazi Germany and to German businessmen that supported the Nazi Party. The Business Plot was completely unrelated. It had nothing to do with Germany, Nazis, the Hamburg America Line and, by extension, Prescott Bush. This article already discusses Bush's Nazi ties (or lack thereof), based on more reliable sources than Harper's Blog, but there simply is nothing but a misunderstanding connecting Bush to the Business Plot. Huon (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian article contains more info that could be used in this article. It also mentions several books which could probably be used. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this information should be included as it is a matter of record. Harper's and the Guardian are both top-tier primary sources.98.207.14.143 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's clearly some whitewashing going on here. Prescott was a goddamned Nazi, he made money doing business with other Nazis, and his son went into the family business as head of the CIA, a key institutional enemy of liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:34D1:780B:76A2:643F:A13A (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Interest in issue may increase due to the release of the film Amsterdam.(2022) Parmets article also suggests that the sins of the father are not the sins of the son(s).Johnsagent (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
My friend you good, or just intellectually illiterate? NewDealChief (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prescott Bush. 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:

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) 20:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Business Plot

12 years after Scott Horton's article in Harper's Magazine, there is still no clear evidence of Bush's involvement in the Business Plot.

Since so many people apparently believe this as fact, I have re-inserted a short section about the plot and quickly explained that no evidence has been found to support it. My reasoning is that it is better to record it in the article as false rather than not have it in the article at all.

I have also contacted Scott Horton by email and requested he make an updated statement about his 2007 article.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting facts reported in the Guardian

There is a lot of interesting factual information in this article I was thinking of adding, because the wiki article is currently spare on the war-time subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

I don't know when I will have time, but perhaps someone else here might be up to it anyway Pythagimedes (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories: