Talk:Business Plot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Plotters[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears Dickstein did happen to appear in KGB records ... see [1], and fifty more sources dating after release of the KGB records. [2] etc. And the NYT as well [3] "The files show that they even had an agent in Congress: Samuel Dickstein, who represented a swath of Manhattan's Lower East Side and was generally useless to his Soviet paymasters." The article now includes biographical information on the other protagonists, it appears that this is well-sourced contentious BDP for Dickstein, and likely should be included IMHO. He definitely was a protagonist, to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Dickstein is now known to be a secret supporter of Communism and he was the cochair of the committee that took charge of the issue, so the idea that he was a disinterested Congressman searching for the truth has to be matched against the possibility he was trying to undermine capitalism by hinting there was a capitalist conspiracy. The article does not take sides but gives info for readers to decideRjensen (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. There is no indication that I'm aware of that Dickstein was a "secret supporter of Communism" at that time. And from Collect's quote above, I'd almost say that while he did take the communists' money, he didn't support them to any relevant degree... probably still illegal, maybe treasonous, but from the Business Plot point of view those are future events, and I'd like a source linking Dickstein's KGB dealings to the Plot before we add it to this article.
  2. I'm not aware of any indication that Dickstein was anti-capitalistic - and if we may take Spivak as an indication of contemporary public sentiment, Dickstein was perceived as almost as fervently an anti-communist (and a tool of Wall Street!) as he was an anti-fascist. Again, are there sources to that effect? Or is anybody who is anti-fascist automatically supposed to be anti-capitalistic too?
  3. I'm not aware of any specific action taken by Dickstein in connection with the Business Plot. What did he actually do? Does anybody know? Are there sources discussing Dickstein's role? Huon (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
well whwn a Congressman takes a secret $1000 a month from a foreign government to spy on the US government, that's about as serious as it gets.

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

I take that as an admission that there are no reliable sources linking Dickstein's KGB payments to the job he did four years earlier. Besides, if we assume that Dickstein controlled the committee's work and decided on the report, Dickstein becomes the one who didn't call the people denoted by Butler and French to testify before the committee and who removed parts of the testimony (including the mention of the Liberty League) from the committee's report. Sorry, but I fail to see that as undermining capitalism or hinting at a conspiracy. Huon (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
n dealing with conspiracy theories WP editors have to evaluate reliable sources; How trustworthy are they? Was there a secret agenda? Dickstein does not pass the RS test and that makes his committee report highly suspect. --add that it was leaked to a Communist magazine and to Spivak, who claimed it proved a Jewish banker conspiracy to take over America. As for creditibility --Let's add Butler, who made a living by denouncing bankers and capitalists on the lecture circuit. He was forced out of thde Marine Corps after making public statmments accusing Mussolini of murdering a pedestrian (he had heard the gossip at a party and repeated it to the press. President Hoover wanted a court martial --Butler was reprimanded and forced to retire.) The only identified businessman is McGuire, the $100 a week bond salesman with a vivid imagination. (Maguire denied everything--historians think he was a con artist.) Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's precisely why we rely on the historians as secondary sources and treat the committee report as a primary source. But I don't see how we could improve the article by adding stuff that no secondary sources link to the Business Plot. Huon (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We have to tell the readers how reliable the main players were (using secondary sources). Basically the reader has to sort out the claims. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If there are secondary sources discussing the reliability of the "main players" in connection with the business plot, I'm all for it. Actually we already do so; the article mentions "the self-serving accusations of Butler against the enemies of his pacifist and populist causes" and that "MacGuire emerged from the HUAC hearings as an inconsequential trickster whose base dealings could not possibly be taken alone as verifying such a momentous undertaking", both sourced to historians. But just adding random stuff not connected to the Business Plot seems to me a violation of WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
providing information on the integrity of the main players is indeed central to conspiracy articles. Rjensen (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I take objection to your recent edit where you simply added a "not" to turn a sourced statement into its opposite. That borders on vandalism. Also, the fascist organization Butler was supposed to head wasn't the VFW or the American Legion. If you prefer, we may follow the New York Times and call it a "fascist army" instead, but since the majority of members was supposed to consist of veterans, "fascist veterans organization" seems appropriate, and the committee report speaks of a "fascist organization" and "veterans organizations of Fascist character". Huon (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Existence of a plot.[edit]

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


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


I'd argue that while we go with innocent until proven guilty once a court or official comity makes an official ruling we hold that ruling to be the truth until proven otherwise. Thus, if proven guilty, guilty is the conclusion or accepted truth even though innocence was presumed until the ruling. While no one was prosecuted for the business plot, the "committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler" (as noted in the article itself) suggesting that the business plot, for the sake of consistency with Wikipedia standards, is ruled true by an official comity and thus accepted truth and not a matter of opinion or merely "alleged".82.21.108.103 (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, historians' works published in reliable sources take precedence over primary documents such as the committee report. For example, if someone was convicted for a crime and later proven innocent without a formal repeal of the verdict, we still report his innocence. Secondly, you're taking the committee's statement out of context. They refer to very specific statements about the creation of a fascist veterans' organization only, not the wider putsch allegations, and even then they could not verify the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. Huon (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Recent revert[edit]

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

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

Gerald MacGuire[edit]

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

He appears to have been quite frankly unremarkable. Collect (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
RE natural causes: In Butler's testimony the General refers to MacGuire's grave injuries in WW1. He refers to MacGuire having had brain injury and a metal plate put in his head. It is not surprising to learn he didn't have a long happy life. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Spivak and Jews[edit]

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

Spivak was Jewish and spent much of his career in the 1930s exposing anti-Semites. For you to generalise in the article and imply that he claimed there was a Jewish plot completely misrepresents him. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I provided a link to Spivak's own diagram about the American Jewish Committee and "Je[wish] controlled business". He also mentions anti-semitic propaganda disseminated by the American Vigilance Intelligence Federation. I do not claim Spivak was an antisemite himself; his accusation of anti-semitism against his opponents make that unlikely. But since he included the American Jewish Committee in his conspiracy, he either had a bizarre opinion of that organization (for which I would like a source), or he did indeed see the premier Jewish advocacy organization in America as a significant part of the conspiracy, which imo could thus be called "a conspiracy of financiers and Jews". Huon (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Alleging that one organization is part of a conspiracy and that "Jews" in general [conspired] are two quite different things. In any case, neither of the two sources that are actually cited in the article appear to make that claim or use the language attributed to the sources.Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We can instead make it "a conspiracy of financiers and the American Jewish Committee", and cite Spivak's New Masses article as a source. There, Spivak writes: "[T]his article, and succeding ones, will reveal Jewish financiers working with fascist groups [...]," and continues about "the American Jewish Committee, a powerful organization active in fighting the spread of anti-semitism. The American Jewish Committee is controlled by wealthy Jews." He goes on to detail the Committee's involvement in the conspiracy. Spivak seems to accuse these Jewish financiers of betraying the cause of anti-semitism, but for that he has to emphasize their Jewishness. How about "a fascist conspiracy of financiers and wealthy Jews to take over the U.S. government, betraying the cause of anti-semitism in the process"? The wording can be improved, but something along these lines should capture Spivak's true point. As an aside, a conspiracy of Jews is not a conspiracy of all, or just most Jews. As a further aside, I don't see why the National Archives source is relevant to that part of the article at all. Huon (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, we must read Spivak's article in the New Masses. I created the John L. Spivak article and there are two links to the actual article Spivak wrote. It is unfortunate but undeniable that Spivak asserts ( beginning in the 4th paragraph ) that his article does " reveal Jewish financiers working with Fascist groups". He goes on and on. He spends considerable time talking about the American Jewish Commitee and various wealthy Jews he asserts are involved. He talks of " capitalists, including Jews, making common cause with anti-semitic fascist and potentially fascist organizations, in an effort to crush labor." It gets worse but I think we get the idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
As relates to Spivak's Jewish ethnicity, he was first and foremost a doctrinaire Marxist. That doctrine explicitly ( and Spivak mentions in this article) says that class and economic position trump ethnicity and religion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a ref. on this point. Hans Schmidt's Maverick Marine p 229. I hope that helps. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, using the formulation "financiers and Jews" is misleading and distorts Spivak's claim by implying a Jewish conspiracy. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

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

What exactly do reliable secondary sources say about this? Regarding Spivak's theories, do they use phrases like "financiers and Jews"? Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The source Huon Capitalismojo is trying to reference is here. I don't think "financiers and Jews" is an accurate representation of what Spivak said which was "Jewish finaciers working with fascist groups" and I also think that Schmidt's qualifications regarding Spivak's article need to be included ie that by "Jewish financiers" he was referring to "Jewish financier Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee" (rather than to "Jews" in general) allegedly colluding with J.P. Morgan and that this was "guilt by association" "overblown aspersions" and a case of Spivak "grinding his own axes" . Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
That's actually Capitalismojo's source, and it cites Spivak using the term "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups". I wouldn't mind using that literal quotation in our article, too: "[...] the plot was part of a conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups to take over the U.S. government." Huon (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the source. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I've asked before: What do you think would be an accurate reflection of the source? Huon (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
How about: "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups to take over the U.S. government, but his accusations were overblown and influenced by Spivak's own agenda", citing Schmidt. Huon (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to see what User:Jayjg thinks but I think a) when Spivak referred to "Jewish financiers" he was not referring to Jewish financiers as a whole but to specific individuals and that using his quote out of context is misleading. Tentatively, I'd prefer something along the lines of: "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a 'conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups', the former referring specifically to Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee in collusion with J.P. Morgan. Hans Schmidt argues that Spivak was engaging in guilt by association in regards to his claims about 'Jewish financiers' which were 'overblown aspersions' and not supported by the evidence" or "not supported by the Butler-MacGuire conversations". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well we have to add something. If Spivak's article is to be mentioned in the article at all we have to put in what he asserted. Spivak did assert both Jewish involvement in this supposed conspiracy and suggested jewish involvement in a coverup. Of course it is unfair and provocative; that was the whole point of Communist propaganda. As it stands we have a source that backs up the old formulation, if Vale has a different formulation let's give it a try. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
V of G's proposal "Spivak argued that the plot was part of a 'conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups', the former referring specifically to Felix Warburg, HUAC, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee in collusion with J.P. Morgan etc." seems to me to be an accurate and NPOV presentation of the source (Hans Schmidt). Jayjg (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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

That seems a good change.Capitalismojo (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I like Vale of Glamorgan's improvements; much better than my version. Huon (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The second fascist plot of Wall Street[edit]

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

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

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

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

No such "plot" is documented in any reliable sources, hence speculation about such is left to venues other than Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The first NYT article linked to above speaks of a "fantastic, though vague, plan to establish a ..." A Fascist organization, a Fascist state? I have no idea who that Moseley is who is mentioned as proposed dictator (a Google search only turns up Oswald Mosley in Britain), and I see no indication that Wall Street was involved. Digging up that issue of the NYT in a library may be helpful. In general, I would be rather sceptical about conspiracy claims for which the proof was destroyed in a suspiciously convenient fire. It's so convenient when you can claim absence of proof as proof for a conspiracy. Huon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Video Statement of Smedley Butler[edit]

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

Does it have anything not already reasonably cited? As for videos in general, Wikipedia far prefers RS sourced transcripts as being far easier for anyone to verify for any claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to login. No, it doesn't. But I've tracked it down and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons in case someone is looking for it later on. Aoss (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
added to the article_
Smedley Butler describes a political conspiracy to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933

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

"Wall Street Putsch"[edit]

What's the problem with have Wall Street Putsch as a redirect to this page?[4] I don't think anyone believes it deserves a standalone article?   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Found in a total of one newspaper in the archives in a single article, and in works by a single author - in short it was not, and is not, in any sense a "common term" anyone would look up. Cheers (add refs if you can find any for the term, Will). Collect (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. So then it appears that you think a single source is inadequate even for something as non-controversial as a name for an event over 70 years ago - is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea of "also known as" implies that it was also known as something. Where only a single source is found after searching through the news archives, there is a high likelihood that it "was also known as" means only the single source knew it. Else someone else would have uused the term. Where no one else used the term it is singularly unlikely that people knew it by that term. Suppose we had a single source, out of 20,000 sources mentioning George Gnarph saying he was known as "Loony Gnarph" and no other sources are found remotely saying the same thing - would you say the article on him should say "also known as 'Loony Gnarph' "? Or say there should be a redirect from "Loony Gnarph" based on that single, solitary source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if there were one good source for it out of 20,000 an alternate name may deserve mention. All sources are not the same. For example, a wire service article may be reprinted in 1000 newspapers, but it's still really only a single source. Is there any source which says that it was not called "Wall Street Putsch"? Here are additional citations:
  • Although congressional hearings confirmed some of the plot's details, the so-called Wall Street Putsch was mocked by major newspapers and has been "mostly marginalized or ridiculed by historians," [Sally Denton] writes. From the vantage point of 2012, she makes a pretty convincing case about the dangers of alliances among big business, populist propaganda, and a lazy media.
    • Sizing up the challenges FDR faced after election Tuttle, Kate. Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 18 Jan 2012: G.4.
  • She resurrects the so-called Wall Street putsch, in which wealthy businessmen supposedly plotted to overthrow the government. Although most historians have dismissed the "plot" as no more than wild talk, Denton provides some evidence that the plotters were quite serious.
    • The Plot against the President: FDR, a Nation in Crisis, and the Rise of the American Right Freeman, Jay. The Booklist108. 7 (Dec 1, 2011): 12.
  • The failed assassin, an unemployed bricklayer, probably acted alone, and the "Wall Street Putsch" never went beyond preliminary plotting.
    • Nonfiction Reviews Publishers Weekly258. 40 (Oct 3, 2011).
  • Ein neues Gesetz soll den Wall-Street-Putsch auf Dauer stellen. Der Legislative Proposal for Treasury Authority to Purchase Mortgage-Related Assets gäbe, einmal in Kraft gesetzt, dem Finanzminister praktisch unbegrenzte Vollmachten, zur Stützung der Märkte aufzukaufen, was immer ihm notwendig erscheint, zu jedem beliebigen Preis.
    • Der absolute Präsident Wefing, Heinrich. Die Zeit [Hamburg] 25 Sep 2008: 1.
Do book reviews count as sources?   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Not to establish anything more than that the single author used the term -- you know better, Will! When there is zero evidence that the term was widely used at any time in history, the use by a single author promoting her own book is not enough to use as a strong source! We know Denton has been actively promoting her book which uses the term, but all that means is that Denton has decided to use the term, and not that anyone else really used it widely at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so you don't think book reviews are separate sources. As for it being widely used, I don't see anything about that in Wikipedia:Redirect. The closest i see it about "very obscure synonym". But since it was used in a mainstream book this does not seem to be "very obscure". Anyway, you've listed it at RFD so it can be settled there.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Book reviews are not a source for a term being in common usage - in fact they all make clear that the term is Ms. Denton's term - and make no claim that it was the common name for the "plot". We cannot use a source for anything the source does not say - and that is what appears to be happening here. Thousand fo cittes for other names - and only one article using the phrase more than seven decades ago, and a single book just out, and the reviews about that single book. And a brand new book with an author promoting a phrase does not make the phrase "notable" by a few miles, Will. The book could not even have a WP article on it - as it would absolutely fail the "notability" test. Collect (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Make your points at the RFD. This isn't the best place to discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

You seem to be spamming for this new book and this term, and to have no other interest in this encyclopedia project. I am inclined to suspect that you are either Denton or her agent. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Commercial book promotion does not belong in this or any article on Wikipedia. The repeated insertion by IPs is contrary to Wikipedia policy at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Buchanan[edit]

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

You should see what some editors tried to get in this "article." And Dickstein was a paid agent of the NKVD, of all things! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of Dickstein to whether or not we should quote Buchanan. Could you please elaborate? Huon (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Buchanan and Dickstein, who appear as the two chief accusers outside of Butler, both had colourful pasts. One as a conspiracry theorist and "interesting" newspaper editor, the other as the "fascist hunter" founder of HUAC who was actually in the NKVD payroll <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
From the perspective of the Business Plot, Dickstein has a colorful future. But that's rather irrelevant because a) we don't cite Dickstein except in committee reports he didn't sign off on his own, and b) this section was meant to discuss Buchanan, not Dickstein. Huon (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Butler's testimony in detail[edit]

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

I'm not sure I see this as quite that much of a problem. While secondary sources are of course preferable, per WP:PRIMARY primary sources are acceptable as long as we do not analyze or interpret the sourced content ourselves, and I don't think we do so. Huon (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is a terrific problem either especially in the light of the Haymarket Riot experience. The one thing that does trouble me is that the original source documents are at wikisource. That would be fine except someone has included Spivak's New Masses material into the source material. On wikisource it is in red font. It seems to me that the material is suspect and should be wikisourced as it's own document not threaded into the Congressional source material. Also the congressional material doesn't seem to be complete on wikisource. These things raise my antenna a little. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

pushing the book - again[edit]

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

I agree with Collect that we need neither this book nor the "Wall Street Putsch" name. I just did a little Google search to fid the prevalence of the various names: While at Google Web the ratio of "Business Plot" to "Wall Street Putsch" is just 8:1, at Google Books it's 195:5 (and one of the five is Denton's book), and at Google Scholar it's 38:2 (and one of the two is Denton again). Yes, some people including Denton use that name, but it's anything but widespread, and the better the sources are, the rarer does it get. We need not mention every single name by which the plot has ever been called. Huon (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
On further Googling, "White House Putsch" and "Plot against FDR" seem little more common than "Wall Street Putsch", and "plot against FDR" often seems to be just a description, not a name. Thus I also agree with the removal of those alternative names. Huon (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree and have reverted to the long-time consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Alleged" once again[edit]

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

McCormick Section--Primary Sources[edit]

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

Section on reaction to Roosevelt contains factual inaccuracies.[edit]

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


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

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

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

And that would matter if platforms meant anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As the article states, Roosevelt eliminated the "gold clause" from contracts and took the US off the gold standard. Those are the hard facts of history. The campaign platform of his party is deeply irrelevant. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I added a POV-section template to this section as it makes a variety of POV assumptions about the benefits and drawbacks of gold standard vis-a-vis the poor, about deflation, and about the way Big Business viewed F.D.R.; the section entirely ignores the fact that some people saw his programme as a shift toward the fascistic corporatism promoted by Mussolini.

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

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

Please point out specific reliable sources that support your claims. The section mentions that Hoover called the abandonment of the gold standard the first step towards "communism, fascism, socialism, statism, planned economy", which explicitly includes fascism. Practically all of the other content cites reliable sources, for example Eichengreen on the end of deflation or Archer on conservative financiers' reactions. Huon (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the section goes into more detail than is really necessary. Some overview of the cultural and economic background is useful to understand the context in which Butler, MacGuire, and the McCormack-Dickstein Committee were operating; but given that very few sources connect these things directly to the Business Plot affair (I count one, at least in that section), it could probably be pared down to a single paragraph. Remember, the extent to which the plot was real or serious is itself debated among scholars; the motivations of anyone involved is even more speculative (even if we have a few sources that do speculate on them.) That being the case, we can mention things like the gold standard for context, but implying "this is totally definitely why all this happened" (as the section comes dangerously close to doing) is way out of line. Additionally, this section seems to be cited to only a few sources (which are repeated many times); devoting so much text to just a few sources feels like it's giving them WP:UNDUE weight. --Aquillion (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I should add that most of these don't seem like particularly good sources; and some things in here are plainly wrong. Roosevelt isn't even mentioned on our main Gold Standard article, for instance; but there are definitely numerous sources that it was Nixon and not Roosevelt that ultimately took the US off the gold standard. I think that this aspect is mostly irrelevant (as we shouldn't be covering the topic in such depth on this article anyway, since its connection to the Business Plot is largely speculative and WP:SYNTH), but it's worth pointing out. For now I've tried to pare it down a bit; the only reason I left Archer's quote in is because he (unlike the other sources there) was at least commenting on the Business Plot specifically, so it's not WP:SYNTH. But I'm not sure his opinions are worth giving that much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am not exceited by the background section, however it is not WP:SYNTHESIS to connect this to the gold standard issue. It is explicitly connected (and not just in Bulter's testimony). [5] This link is to Butler's bio at Penn State. It states that this was a supposed effort regarding the gold standard. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Hrm. It isn't synthesis to mention it, perhaps, but I feel that going on about it at this length (and repeatedly citing a few sources on it that aren't about the Business Plot specifically) is giving it WP:UNDUE weight as an aspect of the incident. Beyond that, it's also a problem to portray either Butler's testimony or Archer's opinions as definitely true, which I feel the current section comes dangerously close to doing (it gives the impression, by talking about it at such length, that this history of disputes and worries over the gold standard definitely-clearly caused some businessmen to actually do this, etc etc.) We can say eg. Butler reported that the gold standard was discussed in this context, and these writers have connected it to the Business Plot incident, and give a sentence or two beyond that so people know what is being discussed, maybe. --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not entirely certain we need much "background" in the article. How do you propose a new background section read? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
By "How do you propose a new background section read" I was not suggesting wholesale elimination and replacement with an Archer(?!) quote. I was suggesting discussion and consensus here. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously the version right now isn't ideal, either. But the key is to focus primarily on stuff that sources directly connect to the Business Plot, with only a minimal and uncontroversial summary of the history necessary to understand those things beyond that. To be honest I'd just as much prefer to remove the Archer quote, but it was the only citation in that section that directly referenced the Business Plot itself, so we should ideally find some better historical-perspective sources to replace it with. I would say that the main issue is that anything except the most vague generalities of "some wealthy people disliked Roosevelt and this was the cultural context Butler's report to the committee occurred in" can't be used there without a source specifically connecting it to the business plot in some fashion, and even then, it's best to avoid excessive detail that already exists on other articles. (eg. any really detailed stuff about Roosevelt and the Gold Standard kind of goes outside the scope of this article and would be better placed on the Gold Standard article or on one of Roosevelt's subpages, with just a sentence or two here and a link to there.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I fixed this biased section by eliminating the obvious anti-"New-Deal" source from a guy who was a well underage when the New Deal was first mentioned at the Democratic Convention. This quote was obviously anti-Roosevelt and I re-wrote it, and the section to make it work. Then it felt unnecessary as I had added enough sources that supported the main point of the section, which was to show anger at Roosevelt. A quote from decades later from a biased source made no sense, so it was eliminated.

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

Sargent's book review.[edit]

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

Sargent is an academic historian, a professor of history at Clemson University, writing in an academic magazine (Sargent, James E. (November 1974). Review, The History Teacher, 8(1): 151-152.) The History Teacher (ISSN: 0018-2745) is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal delivered internationally in print to members of the nonprofit organization, the Society for History Education. This is WP:RS and the academic review is not in anyway undue. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He is the author (1981) of Roosevelt and the Hundred Days: Struggle for the Early New Deal published by Garland (an academic publisher now part of Fracis and Taylor academic publishers). It is often cited. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Tony Badger the more famous historian (FDR: The First Hundred Days, 2009) had this to say about Sargent and his scholarship: "Anyone writing on the Hundred Days is indebted to ...the unduly neglected James E. Sargent, Roosevelt and the Hundred Days (NY, Garland 1981) a meticulous study that among its many virtues..."
I suggest that the Sargent's reputation as a historian is spotless and that some "very well-known historians" place a lot of value on his scholarship. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean, all right, that establishes him as a historian; but the section already covers extensive views, and I'm still dubious about the value of using a book review (especially since the quote mostly talks about his critique of someone else's book about the business plot rather than the plot directly.) Has he written anything about the Business Plot directly which we could use instead? --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I find that academic and RS reviews are broadly and frequently used in articles at Wikipedia. This review is, I believe, important because Archer is a much read popularizer of this incident. This bears directly on the business plot in that Prof. Sargent says explicitly that Butler was mistaken in his understanding of the existence of a conspiracy. While other historians in the article say the same, I believe it is a solid addition by a respected historian (a specialist on the Roosevelt administration) that is on point. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
As to other things that Sargent has written that might be of value...I am not sure. He was a participant in the big Columbia University oral history project of the 1930s/Roosevelt administration back in the 1970s. His text book on the first 100 days is quite good, I no longer have a copy to check what (if anything) it says about this. It costs over $70 now, I should have kept it. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Relevance to the 2016 election[edit]

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


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

Dodd quote.[edit]

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

Dickstein[edit]

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

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

the Dickstein name is mentioned over and over again but there is no link to his wiki article, which shows that he was a paid Soviet agent while in Congress. see Samuel Dickstein (congressman) Readers wondering why he made all those attacks on capitalism will want to know that Congressman Dickstein, the cochair of the committee, was revealed in the 1990s as a paid Soviet spy while in Congress in the 1930s. In his 2000 book The Haunted Wood, writer Allen Weinstein wrote that documents discovered in the 1990s in Moscow archives showed Dickstein was paid $1,250 a month from 1937 to early 1940 by the NKVD (equivalent to $21,300 in 2017), the Soviet spy agency, which hoped to get secret Congressional information on anti-Communist and pro-fascist forces. According to Weinstein, whether Dickstein provided any intelligence is not certain; when he left the Committee the Soviets dropped him from the payroll. Rjensen (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, his name isn't mentioned anywhere in this article aside from the name of the committee. It doesn't even mention him attacking capitalism (you seem to be parsing the Committee hearings as an attack on capitalism, but, again, that is WP:OR - it's not what the sources say.) Your implication that the Business Plot investigation had anything to do with the things you describe is (unless you can find a source making that allegation specifically) entirely WP:SYNTH. Same objection to adding Butler's opinions on capitalism to the lead - again, I can see what you are trying to imply, but you need a source alleging that specifically, connecting the Business Plot to that aspect of their backgrounds directly. In that case the sentence or two we have for Butler's background further down is fine, since he's a more central figure, but I don't see how it belongs in the lead unless we have sources explicitly making the allegation you're trying to imply (ie. that this somehow discredits his testimony, or was part of the reason he made his allegations to begin with.) Unless you have a reliable source saying that explicitly, you cannot use WP:SYNTH to imply it in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
calling it a "business conspiracy" is what an attack on capitalism looks like. The lede states "wealthy businessmen were plotting" the next paragraph is pretty explicit: "By 1933 Butler started denouncing capitalism and bankers, going on to explain that for 33 years he had been a "high-class muscle man" for Wall Street, the bankers and big business, labeling himself as a "racketeer for Capitalism." And who called it a " Business Plot" it seems to be a 21st century term. Rjensen (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The "business plot" is what it was called in the papers at the time. And, technically, that sentence about Butler you're describing is also synth. If you feel that his politics call his testimony into question, you have to find sources saying that, specifically. Then we can cite those sources and say "Historian so-and-so says Butler was probably just trying to shank capitalism because he was a dirty commie" (or whatever, in more genteel words, reflecting that historian's actual argument.) But you can't insert random asides to try and make that argument yourself. If the connection isn't made in the sources, we can't make or imply it here. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Bonus Army section[edit]

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

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

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