Talk:HRG Group

Early comments

It would be good to upload those .jpgs (linked here) to Wiki, in case those sites go down. All the pics are in the public domain. I just don't have time today. --

Possibly worthy of mention: Lee Harvey Oswald was in frequent contact with George de Mohrenschildt, a Russian emigre settled in Dallas, who was also in contact with GHW Bush. Mohrenschildt's address book contained the entry: "Bush, George H.W. (Poppy) 1412 W. Ohio also Zapata Petroleum Midland. [Number] 4-6355."[1] Mohrenschildt allegedly had known Bush since the 1940s, and allegedly had some dealings with the CIA. --

Just a request: so far this article has been blessedly free from POV rancor. Please help keep it this way. Avoid unsupported allegations or innuendos; call attention to contrary evidence or interpretations if appropriate. Avoid unreliable sources (and there are many on this topic). Footnote, reference, cite all sources on disputed facts. Flag disputed facts with {reference needed}, as appropriate.

--

It might be appropriate to put in the "CIA?" section the reason this question is of such interest to historians; namely, because Bush has denied any connection. So, it is not that Zapata played a huge role, but it sheds light on Bush. This needs to be stated in neutral language, w/o POV. --

I added the lengthy Watergate tape trascript; but am not sure it should stay. It's long. But rich! Could cut way back and link to Watergate tapes?

Whoa, major revert occurred here, with no discussion

Please engage in discussion before deleting such extensive and excellent work. Please mark the sections that you think should be split, deleted, edited, sourced, etc. IP 208 even suggested that certain sections are too long, but as a work very clearly "in progress" there's no reason to wipe out other parts. I am restoring some of the best parts, others may want to restore more. Eugene Banks 15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other readers, what are your reactions? Please compare the major reversion with this last full version (from 19 May 2006): which is better? I count over 200 edits that were just cut; they must have taken many, many hours of work. Until this is resolved, I suggest postponing minor edits, as they would lead to aggravation. So I have reverted to the last edit by 141.161.48.111 and put a temporary {protect} on this page; this is not an endorsement of either page version, it's just an attempt to resolve this gracefully, through discussion, save us all time and aggravation, and make this a useful article(s). One possibility, rather than engage in edit/revert disputes here, is to create two articles: one on purely the business aspects of Zapata, and the other (linked by a clear disambiguation "see" reference on the first line) on evidence of GHW Bush's ties to the CIA c.1959-1973. What do others think? What's the best name for these pages, if we do? "Zapata (business)" and "Bush ties to CIA"? The problem with the latter is it is then a stretch to include Zapata/Liedtke's role, e.g. in Watergate. So, perhaps "Zapata (political)" instead, which has a nice symmetry with "Zapata (business)"? This makes sense to me. For the time being, I have reverted this page and marked it with a {Split} template, but I understand Gazpacho's concerns that it was getting unwieldy, too long, and wandering off-topic. There is clearly a need for discussion here before proceeding with cleanup. This page contains useful {templates} and guidelines on cleanup: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Eugene Banks 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, everything that is about demonstrating Bush family connections needs to go. We have a Bush family article. This article is about Zapata. If you want to move the material from this article to another, you can get it from the history. Claims that have been specifically disproven (I'm talking about the FBI memos, should not be anywhere. Gazpacho 02:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining the discussion, Gazpacho. Sounds like you vote for splitting the article. Please: fill us in on what has been disproven about the FBI memos!! Seriously, any external links, Wiki articles, or other sources are very much welcomed on this. Please list them here in this Talk page. (The memos are in the Natl Secty Archives, and it wasn't the G. William Bush misidentified in 1988. So... ?) Of course, the Bush family page is far too broad for the detailed focus here (political ties of GHW Bush/Zapata companies, esp. c.1959-1971), but a Zapata corporation (political) page might work. The choice of what is covered about a company depends in part on readers' interests. I've reverted so that others can provide input. Please leave the revert and {templates} up for enough time to get input from other Wikipedians. Thanks again! Eugene Banks 04:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I misread it to say that G. William Bush had admitted to being the person in the memo. Nonetheless, that memo says nothing about Zapata. You apparently believe that any connections GHWB had with the intelligence community prior to 1966 belong in this article. They don't unless Zapata's business assets specifically came into play. The Bush family is a political family. The Zapata Corporation is not a political organization; it is a business, regardless of whether it was involved in US operations. Consider splitting to something like "Bush family and US intelligence". Gazpacho 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the two FBI memos: did you read them closely? The first one (Nov 22) explicitly says "GHW Bush, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company." The second FBI memo reports a briefing just 24 hours later of "George Bush of the CIA." These memos are very much related to Zapata. Why would the FBI brief the President of Zapata? Why would they brief him about the anti-Castro Cuban exile community? (A briefing on an insanely busy day, no less, the day after JFK was killed. A briefing so important that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo about it, a week later, and sent it to the State Department's Intelligence division.) I do not have answers to these questions, nor are any answers required. Whatever the interpretation, the facts are worth knowing.