Talk:Prescott Bush

Prescott Bush

Is it noted that Prescott Bush hired Richard Milhous Nixon? 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 Smedley Butler. Nice to see that wikipedia's attempts at being "NPOV" makes wiki a read similar to the soviet newspaper Pravda, 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 Howard Zinn and Michael Parenti. Thanks wikipedia "admins". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.25.168 (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Got any reliable sources? Rklawton (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you get off your ass and look it up yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.21.81 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Business Plot" 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. Collect (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's a global conspiracy.  ;-) Rklawton (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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..

Maybe it's "global coincidences" again. Coincidence theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.25.168 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2010 (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. Collect (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing sources

We're having some very basic failures here. What bothers me, is the fact that, yet again, we have conspiracy where there is none. I would like to ask fellow editor Rklawton 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 [1] end up in largely pejorative 'conspiracy (as defined by Wikipedia) construct'?

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.[8] 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."[9]

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. Praxidikai (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. 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; Fritz Thyssen himself was persecuted by the Nazis. The conspiracy theory merits exactly the space it currently has in the article, and no more. THF (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bush was not even a founder of Union Bank <g>. Collect (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Who to hell is conspiracy theorist?

Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler

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. Praxidikai (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

...so, instead of bank 'seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act'[2], we have the bank which was 'confiscated by nazis'? I'm out of here... Praxidikai (talk) 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. Collect (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Business Plot

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. Rklawton (talk) 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your main problem is that zero sources link Bush to the "plot" as alleged by Butler. Collect (talk) 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.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dames18 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

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. Collect (talk) 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 reliable sources. 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. Rklawton (talk) 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)  :-)

Dames18 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.142.237.47 (talk)

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. Rklawton (talk) 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. Collect (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock work

It's obvious that User:Bronco719 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. Rklawton (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.70.93 (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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. Collect (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to start a new page

You need to start a new page on Wikipedia. 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,Wikipedia needs a page devoted exclusively to that subject. Signed,Anthony Ratkov. August 17,2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.158.177 (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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. Collect (talk) 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 Geronimo. 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. ( source: New York Times, 19 Feb, 2009 )

• "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 [human remains] 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. ( source: CNN, 25 Feb, 2009 )

• 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. ( source Fox News, 17 Feb, 2009 )

Most other major news organizations have reported about these allegations also ( e.g. see Associated Press via MSNBC, see NPR, see this CNN video, especially beginning at 1:45 min in, the Yale Daily News also reported on it. 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.  – OhioStandard (talk) 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. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

( Rklawton has now twice deleted 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".  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC) )

Your comment, about "trying to sneak it in", Rklawton, along with your talk-page edit summary of "no sneaking around" 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 what our BLP policy says about public figures:

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...

Well, The New York Times has published the allegations, along with every other major news property in the country, and this isn't even a BLP. 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.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The "see also" link is just silly. But this material should be included. I'm pretty familiar with what reliable sources say about Skull and Bones 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. Gamaliel (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No solid basis for a rumour at best. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. BTW, this article mentions living people, and any claims reflecting on them in any way must meet WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. But Wikipedia 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 Geronimo from his grave at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 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. Gamaliel (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2011 (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. Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (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. Rklawton (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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" only provoke a battleground atmosphere, 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 our norms for indentation; you may also wish to look at this essay's statement about the importance of using proper threading protocol, especially in any contentious discussion.

Re your apparent assertion that the single archived entry I could find about this, 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 Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change#Consensus_can_change our policy on consensus: 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.

Finally, you should also be aware that the Arbitration Committee has stated that the removal of well-sourced edits made in a neutral manner is considered disruptive. Again, I'd urge you not to put any personal motives above the community policies that we're all expected to abide by here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

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. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)