Talk:Prescott Bush/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Yes, there's certainly an no lack of reliable-sources for this. I do have a comment about the "ten year old boy" claim, however. I looked at the pages in Robbins' 2002 book that discuss this episode. I notice that this 2006 article from the Yale Alumni Magazine also discusses the claim that the skull was that of a ten-year-old boy, among other germane considerations:

But they told [Apache tribal representative] Anderson that the skull inside it was that of a ten-year-old boy. They offered the skull to Anderson, but he declined, as he believed it was not the same one in the photo. Some researchers have concluded that the Bonesmen could not have even found Geronimo's grave in 1918. David H. Miller, a history professor at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma, cites historical accounts that the grave was unmarked and overgrown until a Fort Sill librarian persuaded local Apaches to identify the site for him in the 1920s. "My assumption is that they did dig up somebody at Fort Sill," says Miller. "It could have been an Indian, but it probably wasn't Geronimo."

My point in citing this passage is to say that if we're going to report the "ten year old boy" claim, then I think we're also obliged to report that the tribal representative didn't buy it. Also, if you read the alumni magazine article, you'll see that its author does appear to accept the claim that Bush and his pals dug up someone's remains at Fort Sill. There's no definitive proof, of course, but most RS news reports and book authors (eg Wortman) appear to do the same.

Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter whether Bush did or didn't dig up a grave, or whether that grave was Geronimo's. All that matters is that reliable sources have reported the allegations very widely. Our responsibility is merely to summarize what they've said in a neutral way. Wikipedia's policies that apply to this couldn't be more clear, and unless someone is operating from some motive outside of those policies, there's no reason at all that there should be the least contention over any of this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:30, 9 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 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)

I have no special interest in critiquing your editing. But I do have an interest in having a productive and mutually respectful discussion, and your posting at flush-left, as you did just above (again) makes that harder to accomplish. I've corrected that once more, and I'll again ask you to look at the link I gave you above about that.

Concerning the balance of your remarks, I asked you once already to refrain from personal attacks, and you've chosen to escalate them instead. Since your edit summary for the foregoing says that you consider your remarks to have been "a well considered and thoughtful reply", you've given me every reason to believe that you're unable or unwilling to work with me constructively here. That leaves me two alternatives: I can either let you drive me from editing this article, or I can ask for assistance from the community. I don't like that second alternative, but since I certainly won't accept the first, you can expect notification on your talk page shortly.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a cup of tea and read WP:AGF. Adding scurrilous rumour to any article is not supported by WP policies or guidelines. There is no consensus to add the Geronimo's skull rumour here. Collect (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding scurrilous rumour that's attributed to multiple reliable secondary sources is supported by WP policies and guidelines. Gamaliel's version sounds sufficiently neutral and relevant. Huon (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And there was a consensus that the material belonged only in the Skull and Bones article, and not in the Bush biography. The scurrilous rumour is alive and well on Wikipedia, just not in a bunch of articles. Wikipedia has no policy which says "every claim must be in every possible article which it remotely connects to." Collect (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the discussion where that consensus was established? I didn't find it on this page or its archive. Anyway, I'd say the allegations of involvement in grave robbery reported in reliable sources are not too remote a connection to Bush to mention them in this article. Huon (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Kitty Kelley is not the best of all sources. The grave was not disturbed, which rather reduces the odds of it being more than "urban legend." [3] Kitty Kelley, in The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty (2004), writes that the whole thing was a tall tale cooked up by Prescott Bush and friends that made its way into S&B lore. So KK says it is a "tall tale". The NYT states that S&B has a skull they call "Geronimo," and that Ramsey Clark does not believe the claim about the skull. Yale Alumni Magazine states: Some researchers have concluded that the Bonesmen could not have even found Geronimo's grave in 1918. David H. Miller, a history professor at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma, cites historical accounts that the grave was unmarked and overgrown until a Fort Sill librarian persuaded local Apaches to identify the site for him in the 1920s. In short, a nice story for the Skull and Bones article, but extremely tenuous for Prescott Bush. Collect (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No reply to Huon's question, I see. And I also notice that the quotation above excludes the immediately-following sentence in the source paragraph: "My assumption is that they did dig up somebody at Fort Sill," says Miller. "It could have been an Indian, but it probably wasn't Geronimo."  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Which means your addition could at most say "Prescott Bush and six others may, or may not, have dug up Indian remains at Fort Sill, or somewhere else, and may or may not have thought they were the remains of Geronimo or another Indian." Seems to be the most you can claim. Collect (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuit news: [4] The first named defendant is President Barack Obama, followed by the secretaries of defense and the army. Yale and the Order of Skull and Bones finish out the list. Of the "twenty-nine-page complaint, [PDF] Skull and Bones is only one paragraph," says the lawyer, Ramsey Clark, in a telephone interview. "The main entity is the U.S. Army," owner of Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where Geronimo was held as a prisoner of war and buried after his death in 1909. More to the point: [5] A District of Columbia judge on July 27 dismissed a case that had been brought against the mysterious society, as well as the University and senior members of the U.S. government, in February 2009. The plaintiffs are 20 descendants of the legendary Native American chieftain Geronimo hoping to reclaim their ancestor’s remains. Still, Clark said the fact that he tried to take the case straight to court, without first arguing his clients’ claim to their ancestor’s remains in front of the relevant government agencies, might be why the government never waived its immunity. IANAL, but immediately jumping to court without even talking to any agencies seems a bit like deliberate hoopla for Clark's benefit. Lawsuit dismissed. Sorry. Collect (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it really so onerous a burden to refrain from posting at flush-left, Collect? What would be the harm in extending the very simple courtesy of allowing others to respond to the original post without being prevented from doing so by your post? I've again indented the above to preserve other editors' ability to reply to the original post. I'll not insist on the point, but is it really too much to ask that you allow them the right to do so?

Re the substance of your statements, I have to ask, "Well, so what?" As the Yale Daily News reported on 9 August, 2010,

District Judge Richard W. Roberts said he dismissed the case [on 27 July, 2010] because the plaintiffs had failed to establish why immunity should be waived in this case. He also said that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), under which the prosecution was suing for ownership of the remains, only applies to burials, grave robberies and other incidents that took place after it was passed in 1990 — making the act irrelevant to this case.

No one disputes this, but what's your point? That the dismissal of the lawsuit on this basis means that young Prescott wasn't a grave robber? The article from which the above passage is quoted doesn't say that. All it says is, "It looks like the public will not be learning any time soon whether the secret society Skull and Bones keeps an Apache warrior's skull in its tomb."

I can accept that you've stated your belief that there's no substance to these allegations in good faith. I think they're pretty well supported, myself, although I suspect the Bonesmen robbed the wrong grave, as do some of the historians who've weighed in. But what of it? You certainly know that the allegations are notable in themselves, and that neither your opinion nor mine as to their truth or falsity is relevant to whether they're included or how much weight they're given in the article. Given that, I see no point in debating their credibility with you further.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

When a new topic is broached, it is normal to post flush left. Is that so hard for you to fathom, instead of berating me in edit summaries for doing what is standard procedutre on Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And that no evidence whatsoever was provided that Skull and Bones has any remains of Geronimo.' Collect (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So what? The text suggested by Gamaliel above would point out that the skull is that of a boy, not Geronimo. It's still a notable allegation that has been reported in numerous reliable sources. The lawsuit seems a red herring to me; it doesn't even mention Bush at all, does it? Huon (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The dismissed lawsuit never mentioned Bush at all. WRT Indian skulls, it appears that many thousands of skulls are kept at the Smithsonian. As for what can be said on the basis of what the cites actually say: "Prescott Bush and six others may, or may not, have dug up Indian remains at Fort Sill, or somewhere else, and may, or may not, have thought they were the remains of Geronimo or another Indian." Collect (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with not mentioning the lawsuit and just saying something like "a Skull and Bones representative said that analysis of the skull revealed it was that of a ten year old boy". Gamaliel (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to report that the Skull and Bones representative said it was a ten-year-old-boy's skull that he offered to the tribal representative, I think we're also obliged to report that the tribal representative rejected that because he said it wasn't the same skull that was shown in the photo he'd been sent. ( I really know much more about this than I ever wanted to. )  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We should report what notable WP:RS say about that.Could you please present exactly what passage do you want to insert to the article.--Shrike (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've replied briefly on your talk page already, as you know. I'll do so again shortly, if you won't mind, to avoid responding at excessive length here. To answer the part of your question that I'm assuming was asking about sources, though, there are just two that I'm currently aware of that speak to the offer of what was said to be a ten-year-old-boy's skull, and its rejection by the tribal representative as being dissimilar to the one in the photograph he'd been sent.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask what relevance Prescott Bush has to the proffer of a skull long after Prescott Bush was dead? Is there a possibility he was the one who switched the skulls? Collect (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand the allegations correctly, he may have been among those who stole the skull in the first place. Whether that's actually Geronimo's skull may be relevant to Bush; whether or not the skull he stole is the one that was offered the Apache leader seems rather irrelevant, and we should avoid making this a WP:COATRACK about Skull&Bones' post-Bush behavior. Huon (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He may or may not have been in a group of six who may or may not have gotten a skull at Fort Sill, or not, is about all the rumours amount to. The story belongs in the Skull and Bones article, where it is found. It is pure speculation in the Prescott Bush article. The nonsense about the child skull is absolutely totally unconnected to Bush. Collect (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an easy way to look at this:

• Did Bush steal or help steal a skull? We have no facts, only rumor.
• Was the S&B's skull Geronimo's? We have no facts, only rumor.
• Did the court case have any merit? No, it was thrown out.
• Do these "reliable sources" report this as more than a rumor promulgated by others? No, it's just a bit of sensationalized journalism rather than investigative journalism.
• Do these "reliable sources" have any academic merit? No.
• Did the rumor itself have any impact on the life of the subject? No.
• Have new facts arisen from reliable sources since this subject was last discussed and dismissed? No.
• Is Wikipedia in the habit of publishing non-scholarly rumors in high profile biographical articles? No. In fact, the more significant the article, the more careful we are to use only the highest quality sources and focus on the most significant details of the subject's life.
• Conclusion - this material has no place in an article of this caliber. Rklawton (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes, Wikipedia is "in the habit of publishing non-scholarly rumors in high profile biographical articles", as long as there still are reliable non-academic secondary sources reporting said rumors. Besides, it's not as if this article's sources otherwise weren't mainly newspapers. Huon (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at this scurrilous rumor from a non-academic source that appears in Wikipedia: George_Washington#Cherry_tree.

In all seriousness, the sources are plentiful and they fully comply with RS. If academic sources are wanted, they can be provided. For example, a quick Google search turned up this paper presented at the Western Political Science Association 2010 Annual Meeting. Gamaliel (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Geronimo's bones)

An update about archived content: Based on this search result, I wrote above that I could only find a single section that addresses the issue under discussion here. In reading through the archives (whew!) I found there's a second section that also discusses the issue, not highlighted by those search results. Editor's may wish to review both threads themselves. The second one speaks to the lawsuit: I'd forgotten that a former U.S. Attorney General was the plaintiff's lawyer. Anyway, the second thread, like the first, didn't produce anything remotely supporting Rklawton's statement, viz. "There's consensus not to add that kind of crap to this article, so it will be removed on sight."  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its pretty simple if reliable sources mention Prescott Bush with connection with this rumor then it should be included in the article.There are too main concerns in my opinion is WP:UNDUE and WP:RS.I think both could be dealt in the WP:RSN and maybe WP:CNB.Also input from additional uninvolved editors would be a good thing--Shrike (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(stumbling in from the ANI discussion) I concur, although I think mention of rumor should be brief to avoid undue weight. Press coverage extends from the mid 1980s to the present day, and this is not a BLP. All of the discussion above of what has or has not been proven is, I think, irrelevant, since we reflect what is reported in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been quiet the last day or so, and reading through the discussion above it seems to me that the consensus is leaning towards a brief neutral section covering the controversy. Gamaliel's version seems like a good start, and I would like to add that to the article, but wanted to post here to get additional feedback. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Any addition should include the doubts that Geronimo's bones are actually involved (as expressed in the sources), and should include the names of the six S&B members, lest anyone think Bush did anything on his own, pr was primary in any of this, and should also include the finding of law that no laws were violated by Bush and the others if, indeed, they did come back with a skull. Collect (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we know the names of all six? I doubt that is relevant to this article anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

One source appears to name all six. Bush was definitely not the leader of the group. Implying that he acted alone or even as the leader would be improper IMHO. Nor should we assert that they were specifically Geronimo's bones. Collect (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to list all six to make that point. How about a suggested wording so we could all see what you had in mind and respond to that? Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a neutral way to add unsubstantiated rumors to a biographical article? The claims above of "well, this isn't a BLP issue" are in fact an admission that this whole matter doesn't pass the smell test to begin with. Rklawton (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In regard to this not being a BLP issue, I believe that BLP guidelines are stricter than for normal articles. Is this not the case? As for the rest, I am fine with the notion that we need to state that the legal case was thrown out, that there is doubt that whatever bones were acquired are likely not those of Geronimo, and that a group of people were involved and identities uncertain. I think what we need to document in the article is the controversy regarding about Bush's possible role in an action that may or may not have actually taken place--in other words, we're not adding "unsubstantiated rumors" to the article, we're adding information from reliable 2ndary sources that the rumor exists. Gamaliel's suggestion of wording is good, I think. Personally, I'd be happy with 1-2 sentences, perhaps someone can make additional suggestions? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Re the lawsuit having been dismissed, what I wrote about that at ANI (link/permalink) applies:

"... the suit was dismissed only because the U.S. government refused to waive its immunity re the Fort Sill theft, and because the grave-robbery law it was in part filed under excludes remains stolen from Native American burial sites before 1990. Its dismissal says nothing at all about whether Prescott Bush and his fellow club members "crooked" bones and other items from a grave in 1918." (emphasis added)

If we're going to mention the dismissal, I think we need to make this clear so we don't give the false impression that it represented any judgment of guilt or innocence. It has been used on talk pages to try to show that it exonerated the alleged participants, and that's simply not true.

Also, I'd respectfully suggest that 1-2 paragraphs would be called for by due weight requirements, rather than just 1-2 sentences. I've provided nine RS above, some of which have run multiple stories about Prescott's alleged involvement, others have added more, and I know there are more still, including at least three books. If we were to include just one sentence for every reliable-source story about this we'd have nearly enough to start an independent article on the subject.

I'll try to put up an all-in-one place, easy-to-read list of the sources I know about later today, if I can find the time. ( Or if anyone else wants to, first, that'd be grand, too. ) I'd like everyone to be on the same page re how much exposure this story has seen in reliable sources before we try to come to conclusions about due weight. Does that seem reasonable?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, and to be clear, I'm not arguing that we must only have 1-2 sentences, just that I would be happy with that short of a mention. The key point is that we must accurately reflect sources, and I'm sure we would all appreciate an organized list of sources as you propose. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: The dismissal notes that no law was in place to have been violated in 1918. If no law was violated, no grounds for suit was given. And the suit did not even allege that S&B violated any law. So much for all this stuff. Collect (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Yale Daily News: He also said that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), under which the prosecution was suing for ownership of the remains, only applies to burials, grave robberies and other incidents that took place after it was passed in 1990 — making the act irrelevant to this case. Seattle Times: He also dismissed the lawsuit against Yale and the society, saying the plaintiffs cited a law that applies only to Native American cultural items excavated or discovered after 1990. Note that no evidence whatever was provided about the bones. Collect (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So we have reliable sources that no law was violated because no law was in place. That's good, more grist for an accurate representation of what the controversy was/is, if we choose to go into that level of detail (which I'm not sure is necessary, since I don't think Bush was named in the suit directly). But it's definitely an option. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bush was not named. No evidence that S&B has any of the remains was given, nor alleged. No evidence other than rumour as to who did what when, if at all. As an aside, the Smithsonian at one point had on the order of 20,000 Indian remains. And may not have had the largest collection. Collect (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about Prescott Bush? He was named in many reliable in connection with the lawsuit in the press. Yes, sources say that he was rumored to be a participant, so we report that. We can report that he wasn't named in the lawsuit, that the suit was thrown out, that if he acted he did not do so as the leader or sole participate, so long as we have reliable sources for same. As OS correctly pointed out, where there is a controversy about an individual, we document the controversy. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The lawsuit did not name him. Thus nothing about the lawsuit per se is relevant to him -- what you have is tabloidification of the issue, not fact. The facts: "Six members of Skull and Bones, then officers in the US Army, may, or may not, have legally removed Indian bones from Fort Sill. There is strong doubt that they found the then-unmarked grave of Geronimo. " citing Kelley etc. Collect (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Collect, but if CNN, the NYT, Yale's daily, and Fox have reported on this issue, it's not tabloidification, whatever that means, it's news. The fact is that reliable sources have reported that some have alleged that Bush participated in this act, and that evidence exists but is being kept hidden, and others dispute that the act occurred in the first place or that evidence exists. It is that dispute that we should document here, just as we do in the case of other prominent figures who have been accused of things, proven or not. Can you point to policy that says we should not document the dispute as presented in the press? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn and still like Gamaliel's proposed text: "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." That should cover all facts relevant to Bush, namely that he is named as one of those digging up Geronimo's skull and that there is doubt whether the skull in Skull&Bones' possession is actually Geronimo's. Further details, such as the reaction of the Apache representative or the lawsuit, seem too irrelevant to Bush to mention here. Huon (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest as a minimum

"Six Army Captains, all members of Skull and Bones, possibly including Prescott Bush, may have removed some bones from Fort Sill, according to lore of that society, which has named the skull "Geronimo." Most researchers doubt that the skull is that of Geronimo.

Note that no "testing" was done on the skull, so we can not claim that. And we do have a strong majority of those who actually researched this expressing strong doubts as to it being "Geronimo." The word "stealing" by the way has a connotation of illegality which has now been dispensed with. Collect (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a point regarding the word "stealing", though I find it hard to believe that it was actually legal in 1918 to dig up anybody's grave and remove the remains. I'm also not so sure whether the lawsuit's dismissal implies that it was legal; could you provide a source for that? Anyway, how about this:

According to Skull and Bones lore, Prescott Bush was among a group of Bonesmen who dug up and removed the skull of Geronimo from his grave at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.[6] Historians doubt that the skull, which Bonesmen still refer to as "Geronimo", is that of the Apache leader.[7]

I've added what I'd consider the relevant sources for those statements. If it's considered important that the six Bonesmen were Captains, I wouldn't mind a mention, but the sources I had a look at didn't say so, and it seems rather irrelevant to me. If necessary, we could provide yet another source for the "still refer to as Geronimo" part, which strictly speaking isn't covered by the Yale Alumni Magazine. Huon (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it pertinent that they were Army Captains at the time at Fort Sill, not Yalies "off on a spree." Removal of bones was legal - and the Smithsonian had over 20,000 sets to prove it. And, frankly, we have no source for "still refer to it as" - the most we can say was "called it 'Geronimo.'" Past tense. [8] mentions why they presumably were at Fort Sill (althoug it sets the group at five). [9] This log book states that the attack on Geronimo's grave was in May 1918, at Fort Sill. One of the grave robbers advised the others to proceed with caution. He is quoted as saying, "Six army captains robbing a grave wouldn't look good in the papers." The odd part really is An axe pried open the iron door of the tomb. The unmarked grave would not have had an "iron door" in my experience. Frankly it reads more like sophomoric adventure tale telling than anything else. See [10] Geronimo’s grave wasn’t a tomb guarded by an iron door, as the SKB document says. In fact, he was buried beneath a simple Army-issue wooden headstone in the Apache cemetery three miles east of the main post. ... “My suspicion is that Bush and the others dug in the old post cemetery,” Miller, who taught for 37 years at Oklahoma’s Cameron University, says. “There’s a structure in that cemetery with an iron door, like the one described. Even if they wanted to dig up Geronimo, I don’t think the Bonesmen would’ve had any idea where his grave was.” Except for a few close relatives, the Apaches themselves lost track of it shortly after Geronimo’s death, when a prairie fire destroyed many of the markers. By 1915, when Morris Swett, a librarian at Sill, visited the Apache cemetery, he found it overgrown with weeds; many of the graves were filled with water. So Bush opened an iron door which was absolutely not Geronimo's grave. The precise acount belies the claim. And wonder of wonders (same cite) Miller makes another point: Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library holds photographs of skulls sometimes purported to be Geronimo’s. But one of the photos is dated 1869, another 1879—dates that precede Geronimo’s death by decades. Case clear now? Collect (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, are we close to basic consensus that we can work out a bit that is somewhere between Huon's and Collect's latest versions, as a starting point? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I object to any inclusion of any unsubstantiated rumor into any biographical article here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for rumors or gossip. Rklawton (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

By that do you mean that you object to any mention of this rumor/legend/story, despite the documentation provided in multiple reliable sources? And if so, what policy would you feel would be violated if such information were included? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

At the most we can say the S&B had a skull they once called "Geronimo." That Yale had skulls with that same name as early as 1869. That Geronimo, as a specific individual, was alive in 1869. That Bush and five others may have opened a tomb with an iron door. That Geronimo's tomb did not have an iron door. That clearly Bush did not touch Geronimo's skull. That no laws were violated at the time. In short -- no actual story left. I suspect, in fact, that many people have used the name "Geronimo" without referring to the actual person. I suspect, in fact, that everyone here has heard the name being used other than in reference to the actual person. So what do you seriously think is left? Collect (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You keep saying that grave robbery was legal in 1918. That's only of tangential interest to this article, but could you please provide a source? And for the record, no, I've never used the name "Geronimo" without referring to the actual person or heard it used in such a way. I have no idea what it is supposed to refer to if not the Apache leader. Huon (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to assert that no laws were broken, that it was legal in 1918 to rummage through graves − on Federal property, no less − and take not only bones but also personal items buried with the deceased. That's not a serious statement, and we needn't consider it further. I saw yesterday that Collect has been making these same arguments for almost five years now: Does anyone know what you get someone for that kind of anniversary? This is the "Cecil Adams" he refers to in that diff, btw. Also, sorry to be late with the promised (ordered) list of sources: I've been trying to prepare that, but my internet connection has been like molasses these last several hours.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The 1990 Law was passed in 1990. It was not in effect in 1918. The graves on Federal property were not protected by any Federal law at the time. The curent court case specifically found that this was true. This is not just "Collect making these same arguments" - it is a half dozen other editors making the same arguments. Mainly because they are actually based in legal fact. That you fail to realize that an iron door was not present on Geronimo's unmarked grve is interesting, however. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for going for the boldface. That's just so helpful, because no one here knows how to read a regular font. I've already told you, several times now, that your opinion (or mine) about which grave was robbed, whose skull the club members have, & etc. is irrelevant, and that I'm done arguing truth or falsity with you. If it's broadly reported in reliable sources, that's what goes into our article. There's nothing else that can be helpfully said on the matter.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I fear it is needed sometimes. When making allegations about a person, it is so nice to know that nothing about the allegation counts, only that someone made it. When an allegation contradicts facts found in unquestioned sources, then that does not count because it is more important to spread scurrilous claims than it is to be honest with Wikipedia readers. We should pound them with every falsehood we can about fols we do not like, mainly because as long as we can find someone who put it on paper, it belongs in the encyclopedia. Would you also reinstate the "Bush made millions from Hitler" type slurs? And remove the ADA specific denial of it as a slur? Collect (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And here's yet another way of looking at it. This is a high profile article about a significant political figure in American history. There's no reason we shouldn't be pursuing "Featured Article" status. Unsubstantiated rumors from sources that are most certainly NOT high quality (from an academic point of view) will disqualify this article from FA status. Since it will have to be removed eventually, why include it in the first place? Rklawton (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This kind of reasoning strikes me as bizarre. I still fail to see any policy reason against inclusion. Now you claim that FA status will require the removal of content sourced to multiple reliable sources? Why would it? Let's handle that hurdle when we actually face it. Huon (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently sourced to some web pages, newspaper articles, and two books about Hurricane Katrina. If anything, the sources we'll use for the Geronimo issue are on par or superior to the ones currently in the article. FA status is a long way off and any possible problems caused by including this issue are far overshadowed by the deficiencies of the article in its current form. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit, I'm confused. FAs can't use sources like the NYT, CNN, FOX, and NPR? Would not excluding news stories that start in 1986 and run through to today in national press sources undermine an attempt to reach FA? We're not here to whitewash. But really, the central issue is what policy precludes documenting this coverage of the rumor/legend/story in a short neutral way? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

When an otherwise reliable source is proven to say something impossible, it is not up to WP to insist that it must have been so. Rather, it is up to us to acknowledge that presenting "impossible facts" to readers does a disservice to Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:V disagrees. If the best available reliable sources say so, that's what we report, and your notion of "impossible" does not take precedence. Besides, I don't see how it's impossible that Skull and Bones lore credits Bush with this grave robbery, and that's what we would be reporting. Huon (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And what about WP:NEWSORG Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. Which rather seems to be the case where a number of sources give strong reasoning that the "facts" brought out during political campaigns long after Bush's death may have been colored by political concerns. Collect (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The S&B document describing the theft which mentions the "iron door" - reliable source. News articles and books which discuss the story mentioned in the S&B document - unreliable sources. I fail to comprehend this logic.

This whole thing about the door is a red herring anyway. The truth of the story is immaterial and I think everyone here supports the article mentioning that experts disbelieve this story. The story belongs in there because it is a widely discussed element of Bush's biography, not because we believe or disbelieve in the truth of it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't mean we can say just that experts disbelieve the story, and leave it at that, I'm sure?. What experts disbelieve what parts of the story? David H. Miller, a history professor at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma said, "My assumption is that they did dig up somebody at Fort Sill. It could have been an Indian, but it probably wasn't Geronimo." Just want to be clear re what everyone here can be said to support.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The one indisputed fact is a "red herring?" I think the "cherry tree" parallel is nice - this is a "fable" which appeared during political times long after Bush's death. Collect (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What we have is "Bush and five other Army Captains may have removed remains from Fort Sill. They were almost definitely not those of Geronimo, whose grave did not have the "iron door" mentioned in the Skull and Bones lore. Yale by 1879 had at least two skulls named "Geronimo." All of which is reliably sourced. Collect (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The iron door is "the one indisputed fact"? Doubtful. Does anyone think that door even existed in any grave at Fort Sill? The red herring is how you are employing this non-fact to try to disqualify perfectly acceptable sources. Gamaliel (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussed, yes? Widely discussed in serious works, no. Sensationalist crap, yes. Appropriate for a Featured Article: NO! Rklawton (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of examples of serious news and even academic works have already been presented. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not when taken as a proportion of what's written about him. Taken in context of the subject's life, this stuff is trivial, tangential, untrue, and unworthy of inclusion. Rklawton (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, there are even more reliable sources dealing with Hillary Clinton's sexuality than there are about the subject proposed here (which is only tangentially related to the this article's subject), but we don't include that kind of rumor-mongering crap in her article - it's simply beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia of this caliber. Rklawton (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: If we consider unreliable all sources similar to the ones you object to, what remains in the article is almost insufficient to make Bush pass the GNG. It's not as if these were the lone newspaper articles among peer-reviewed papers and scholarly books. Huon (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us also cut to the chase. Our decisions here are based on developing consensus informed by relevant policy. Those seeking to exclude these data entirely need to point to policy that supports their position. As far as I know, there's no policy excluding major news outlets as reliable sources for FAs. The legend/rumor/story has been widely discussed for over thirty years in the press. There is also, as far as I know, no policy or guideline that says that every article must conform to FA criteria. We have guidelines and policies that tell us how to handle controversial information, and those of use wanting to include the information seem to be relying on those policies. Shouting "NO!" seems more like a case of WP:JDLI than anything else. I am certainly willing to entertain arguments based in policy, but I'm not seeing much of that from those who wish to exclude the information. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, there are problems with WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:BLPGOSSIP (admittedly, BLPGOSSIP doesn't strictly apply since the subject is dead, but it is disingenuous to insist that material inappropriate for a BLP suddenly becomes appropriate for an article when the subject dies). BLPGOSSIP puts the issue best "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." We have a reliably sourced rumor that some people think the subject may have pulled a college prank. Such unproven (and arguably debunked) rumors are hardly appropriate for a disinterested article about the subject. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the source reliable? Yes, most of them are clearly reliable. Is the material presented as true? Nope, pretty much always couched in terms of legend/story/myth. Is it relevant to a disinterested article about the subject? Yes, I think it is. Some people regard the removal of remains such as this as more than a college prank, it's been in the press for more than 20 years. You reference WP:NOTGOSSIP, I believe the relevant section is 'Scandal mongering, something "heard through the grapevine" or gossip. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.' We're not trying to attack the subject, who is not living, and we're not relying on gossip, but rather published reports in reliable sources. I don't think that excludes a neutrally worded report that reflects what the reliable sources say about this incident. Since you believe, rightly so, that just because someone's dead we shouldn't completely ignore BLP guidelines, I would suggest that WP:WELLKNOWN is relevant: "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." --Nuujinn (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"...we're not relying on gossip, but rather published reports in reliable sources. I don't think that excludes a neutrally worded report that reflects what the reliable sources say about this incident." The problem is that the reliable sources don't say "The person did XXX." It is more that "Some people believe that the person did XXX." Hence, it is basically gossip, even though the gossip is being reported in a reliable source. This is especially the case since even if this is true it would represent a rather minor aspect of the person's life. Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we're run into one of the sticky points right there. You seem to be saying it was just a prank, and thus not significant even if it were true. But others disagree that such as act is just a prank (if it's just college hijinks, it can't really be a slur to mention it, since pranks are not serious issues). Myself, I can see both sides, grave robbery has always been a serious issue in some respects, and pranks that run into grave robbery are not that uncommon, and we have to take into account the historical distance and variation in values. If there were only a few sources that treat this incident, I would be inclined to agree with you that it is not important, but given the level of coverage, the rumor itself has a life of it's own, so to speak. And it is not so simple as some people believe X, since it seems that Bush may well have tried to steal Geronimo's bones, but failed to find them, see this and this. Both suggest that Bush was there and tried to dig up Geronimo, but likely failed. There's just too much coverage on this issue to ignore it. We need to find a responsible way to report it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One rumor stemming primarily from one source and repeated by a variety of non-academic sources isn't worthy of inclusion. Rklawton (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Adams

Is notable. [11] NYT 24 Feb 2000. [12] NYT 14 Oct 2009. Notable debunker of urban legends, indeed. And note further that the debunking specifically about the "iron door" is in the original logs as well - hence is pretty much a reliable source as to what is in the logs. Collect (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that this "legend" is debunked, what legitimate purpose would it serve to included it in this article? Rklawton (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So what's your take on this Wikipedia section? George Washington#Cherry Tree. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fully covered as a fable by Parson Weems. No claim that it "might be true." Collect (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, this is pretty much how I want to cover it. Present the fable, present the experts. So what's the problem? Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Also converting to L3 per OS, since that seems a reasonable request. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to have all our discussion about this topic under our "Geronimo's bones" section, if possible, to keep everything more naturally together when we eventually archive. That would make it easier to link to the entire thread in the archive with just one link, for example. Would someone make this a "level 3" section to accomplish that, please?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The way WP talk pages work is not in line with yout desires, however. Pieces have a habit of disappearing when refactoring is done, and the chain of responses is lost. Collect (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that a piece was lost by my refactor? And if not, what objection do you have to the reformatting? It seems a simple thing, and a good idea given that it is all part of the same major topic. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No - I am saying that I have seen improper refactors of talk pages in the past, including excision of content, and now routinely ask that they be undone. However, the community has come to prefer wholesale archival of talk page discussions, since archival preserves a fuller record of discussion, does not lead to misrepresentation (accidental or disruptive) of other editors' opinions, and conserves material that may be useful in the future. Represents the current state of opinion on Wikipedia. Note specifically: If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. which is the position I am in - and any refactoring changes should be undone. Thanks you for adhering to this provision in advance. OS is well aware of my position, by the way [13]. Collect (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll gladly leave it alone, but in my experiences, refactoring of format only is generally a good thing, since it makes following the conversation easier. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at AN/I

I've made a proposal at AN/I that pertains to behavior around this article. (link/permalink)  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Guardian cite

The Guardian specifically says Buchanan has "hypermania." As the same cite is used to make charges against Bush, it is clear that the Guardian's own description of the author of the charges is also valid here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that Buchanan's work may be unreliable and I understand the impulse to designate it as such in some way, but I don't think this is the appropriate way to do so given BLP policies and guidelines. Gamaliel (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is how the source which we use characterizes him. To not use it would be a clear disservice to the readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the manner in which we characterize him which is at issue. To my knowledge, people are typically characterized by their nationality and/or occupation, not their psychological disorder. Ie, American poet Sylvia Plath and not American suicidal bipolar Syliva Plath. Gamaliel (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The source speaks for itself. John Buchanan is called a "conspiracy theorist" by many people, and that was not good enough - so I would trust that the sanitizing of his problems should not be done here - the source is clear, and Buchanan himself has apparently referred to it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"The source speaks for itself" doesn't address the issue. I'm not sure you understand my point or you do not want to address it. I have no interest in sanitizing anything and if this material is problematic, perhaps removal should be discussed, but it shouldn't be handled in a manner that differs from our usual treatment of living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well put. I've been watching editors here fight to retain this wording for a long time. Calling Buchanan a conspiracy theorist in this article is merely an attempt to discredit the statements made by the Guardian. It's intended to be prejudicial, but do editors here really believe no one ever conspires with another person to achieve an outcome that furthers their own interests against the greater public good? If they believe that happens, should we call them "conspiracy theorists" too?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew you would drop in. Collect (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I can drop in. That's because I don't live here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Buchanan's mental disorder is relevant here. The Guardian does say he suffers from hypermania, but only after introducing him as "a Miami-based magazine journalist", and only in the context of Buchanan's reacton to having his claims ignored, not in the context of the claims themselves. Besides, as long as it's redlinked, it probably won't be that helpful a description to our readers. The other sources I found either describe him as a "presidential candidate" (which, while true, is irrelevant because he didn't talk about Bush as part of his presidential campaign) or a "freelance journalist." Maybe we should adopt that description. Huon (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it notes him making threats against others. I think that is noteworthy, indeed. BTW, the link now redirects to hypomania, which is related. Collect (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[14] shows Buchanan as a 9/11 "truther." [15] shows him as a presidential candidate in 2004 making a speech against GWB. He makes claims like Buchanan: 'The Bush Administration threatened (Graham's ) life and he cancelled the show...' . I suggest that any fair reading shows that a "9/11 truther" can, indeed, be called a "conspiracy theorist." Cheers. His animus to Bush is clear. And his hypermania (accusing the Bush administration of death threats) is clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's missing in this discussion is the fact that Buchanan was only one of five journalists who reviewed the newly-discovered archive files and came to very similar conclusions. Here's what our introduction of the Guardian article needs to say:

An article by Ben Aris and Duncan Campbell in The Guardian, reported that the company formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world. The article was based on its writers' confirmation of facts from newly discovered documents in three the collections held by the US National Archives. Its authors also drew from the work of three journalists who wrote independent works based on the document collections, John Buchanan, John Loftus, and Eva Schweitzer.

Until now the regulars here have been making it seem that Buchanan is the sole fount from which this information springs.

In this edit I've both added the passage above to the article and removed the slur about Buchanan. If the regulars want that in, then we're going to put in the fact that Loftus is a former U.S. Federal Prosecutor who tried Nazi war criminal cases, and that both he and Schweitzer say that Buchanan's research turned up previously undisclosed documentation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What sort of rubbish threat is that? The fact is that Buchanan readily admits his disability, and the Guardian made a substantial point of it. If you wish to make this into a "Bush money is from Hitler" rubbish - try adding that I suggest you read the extensive talk page material thereon.

Buchanan suffers from hypermania, a form of manic depression, and when he found himself rebuffed in his initial efforts to interest the media, he responded with a series of threats against the journalists and media outlets that had spurned him. The threats, contained in e-mails, suggested that he would expose the journalists as "traitors to the truth".

Unsurprisingly, he soon had difficulty getting his calls returned. Most seriously, he faced aggravated stalking charges in Miami, in connection with a man with whom he had fallen out over the best way to publicise his findings. The charges were dropped last month.

Seems a quite clear statement from The Guardian, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

At 20:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Collect added the above passage about Buchanan to the article, in this edit.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Collect is pulling quotes from the Guardian article to promote a theory not in the article, viz. that the article itself is unreliable. There's probably some policy name to specifically describe that, but it's so transparently wrong that I'm not going to bother looking it up. He's of course re-inserted the passage he quotes above. Very puzzling behavior coming from a man who leaves edit summaries like "BLP is all that matters" on other articles.

In any case, the whole section obviously needs a rewrite, but if he insists on keeping a bio blurb for Buchanan to try to show that one of the five people who reviewed the new documents had a mental health challenge, then similarly long passages about the credentials of the other four will go in, as well, and those credentials will demonstrate that this article is not the work of some lone crackpot, as he has been working for so long to have our readers believe.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

At 21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Huon removed the passage about Buchanan's illness that Collect had introduced.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian statement is indeed clear, but it is also entirely irrelevant to this article. There is an article on Buchanan, and that's the proper home for information on him. Adding it here is a pure ad hominem: We cast doubt on what Buchanan says about Bush by pointing out that other aspects of Buchanan's behavior are at best dubious. Unless we want to claim that Buchanan made up those documents (and I've seen no source for that), it does not matter whether he's a raving lunatic, an arch-criminal or an upstanding citizen. Huon (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian felt it was relevant to its article. Now if someone suggested just calling Buchanan a "conspiracy theorist" (9/11 truther etc.), that would be sufficient, but when that is removed for no strong reason, then it is proper that we describe him as the Guardian describes him. His charges must be seen in their context properly, don;t you all agree? Collect (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This article and the Guardian article don't have the same subject. How the Guardian describes Buchanan is relevant to Buchanan; it's entirely irrelevant to Prescott Bush and off-topic for this article. Even more generally, I fail to see what precisely Buchanan's "charges" are. That Bush was involved in running a company that served as front for Thyssen? That's a "charge"? By the time Germany and the US were at war, Thyssen had ceased to be a Nazi supporter, and getting Thyssen's money out of Germany would hardly have been in Nazi Germany's interest. Huon (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact, one of the documents from the Alien Property Custodian specifically stated that they could find no evidence of Thyssen's ownership of the bank. Perhaps the entire section should be excised since it is rank speculation? Collect (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

At 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Ohiostandard removed a passage and ref sourced to above-mentioned APC document, as described below.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In point of fact Collect's claim is original research at best, cited only to this single page of some one of thousands of pages of primary source documents. It won't wash here, and it won't wash in the article, either, where it was a dead link, btw. I've removed it. We need to find a secondary source that actually discusses this primary source page/claim (not just one that quotes it) and then we can have a conversation about whether to include it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The document was one directly linked from The Guardian, and was referred to in its article. The Alien Property Commission (APC) launched an investigation. The results of that investigation are not a "primary source" as a result - they are referred to by the secondary source. Would the reader be served by not being told that no evidence was found? I would trust not! As the primary source is discussed by the Guardian, that is enough for any reasonable person. Collect (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Live link furnished as well now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

At 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Collect restored the passage relying on the APC source document, and the link thereto.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

At 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Huon removed the passage relying on the APC source document, and the link thereto.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Bush's directorship of UBC is mentioned in reliable sources, and the Guardian clearly states that UBC was a Thyssen front. That's what the secondary sources say, and I see no reason to remove it. Apparently it's a notable part of Bush's business career. Secondly, the Guardian actually cites the results of the APC investigation: "Said stock is held by the above named individuals, however, solely as nominees for the Bank voor Handel, Rotterdam, Holland, which is owned by one or more of the Thyssen family, nationals of Germany and Hungary." That seems to flat-out contradict what we claim was the result of the investigation. I have no idea where that scan of a document used as a source comes from. There's no information given which would allow us to identify the depicted document and to put it in context. Is that really the investigation's final report? I can't tell, and given the Guardian's reporting on how the APC initially had problems to identify the owners, it might just as well be an interim report, not the final result. Furthermore, a scan of one page of an unidentified typewritten document is hardly a reliable source. If I put some effort to it, I could probably fake such an image in less than a day. Huon (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And the APC says that it found no evidence of it being owned or controlled by Thyssen. NPOV is required when making such claims. And since the UBC was returned by the APC, I suggest that this was, indeed, all they found. I know some love conspiracy theories, but WP does not require that they be presented as uncontroverted fact. The scan was fro HNN which ran the Buchanan story and sourced it to Buchanan. Assertoing that it may be a fake is nicely absurd. That is where it came from! Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect wants to use a primary source to dispute the assertions and validity of a secondary source. That would be fine for a journalist, but here it's just original research. He needs to find a secondary source that makes the point wants to assert, or leave it out of the article.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to bother the reliable sources noticeboard and ask whether a scan of an unidentified typewritten page is a reliable source? I don't think it's fake, but neither is it reliable, and it certainly does not offer any of the context Collect usually deems so important. The Guardian article is pretty clear; while the APC initially found no evidence of ownership by Thyssen, they later did so. Or are we supposed to believe they seized a company as foreign-owned despite acknowledging a lack of proof to that end? Huon (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1. HNN.US as archived is RS [16] is current page. Understandably, the American media has indeed been skittish about the Bush-Nazi story. The association of the Tarpley-Chaitkin book with the organization headed by the Lyndon LaRouche organization (published by the Executive Intelligence Review of Washington, a LaRouchian press) has not been helpful, to say the least. Nor has the sensationalist tone and dubious message of Loftus’s The War Against the Jews. 2. The HNN article linked to that document was based on the Buchanan alleations and states the source as being from Buchanan. 3. Sources presented in a secondary source are allowed in articles. 4. The UBC was returned after the war - the APC never found anything otherwise to keep it. 5. Your assertion that "they later did so" has absolutely no sourcing. 6. And yes - a large number of companies were returned after WW II as having not been properly seized. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [17] shows directly that the documents had been hosted at hhh.us. The Internet Archive is considered reliable for connecting such material. Really. Collect (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've asked the reliable sources noticeboard for more input on this scan of an unidentified document. Your point 1 is again guilt-by-association. Let me quote the article you linked to: Much of this is confirmed by the new documentation. The UBC was not a “bank” at all but “in reality a clearing house” for many assets and enterprises held by Fritz Thyssen, a German steel magnate who has written about his role in helping to finance the Third Reich. Buchanan may be unrelaible, but that won't change the documents he found and which have been independently assessed. Regarding your point 5: Re-read the Guardian quote I gave above, and have a look at that article itself. In August 1942, investigator Erwin May had no idea who owned the Bank voor Handel. By September, he had found out more, and a "few weeks later" Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation, wrote that the Bank voor Handel was owned by the Thyssens. Concerning the return of the assets, we already say so in the article. If you want to draw any conclusions from that, present a secondary source that does so. Personally I'd assume returning German nationals' assets would have been standard procedure unless said Germans could be shown to have been involved in war crimes, and Thyssen, being incarcerated himself, wasn't. Huon (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be making dramatic leaps not present in any sources. The document was presented by Buchanan to HNN.US and to The Guardian. It is notarized as of 2003, and is clearly a legit copy of a US document making a clear statement. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be a little more specific regarding my dramatic leaps? If you mean my assumption regarding the return of the assets, I agree; I wouldn't want that added to this article without any secondary sources saying so. But we also shouldn't add the opposite to the article without a secondary source. Regarding the document's veracity, by now I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to argue. Either you say that it's a reliable document, independently verified, or you argue that Buchanan is a nutjob and anything found by him is tainted by Buchanan's inherent unreliability. Arguing that just this page is to be taken seriously while the remainder of what Buchanan found is not seems inconsistent. As an aside, I took that stamp not as a sign of notarization, but of declassification - but IANAL, and I may be mistaken. Anyway, my main contention is that we don't know what document that is a scan of. According to the Guardian, by August 1942 the investigation had not uncovered Bank voor Handel's owners, but it did so subsequently. If that document is from August, its statement would not be a surprise nor a contradiction to what we write, namely that UBC did indirectly belong to Thyssen. Huon (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1. HNN.US is RS. Ok? 2. HNN.US placed copies of documents furnished by John Buchanan on its web site in connection with an article on his claims. Ok? 3. John Buchanan asserted the authenticity of the documents according to HNN.US. Ok? 4. The documents bear notarizations and dates. The 2003 dates would appear to be bona fide for the dates the documents were furnished to Buchanan. Ok? 5. If John Buchanan had presented any contradicting documents about the investigation, he would have had the chance to present them. I think that making a claim that HNN.US withheld a later document is not reasonable on its face. Ok? 6. wayback.org is a respected archive source, and is RS. Ok? Now where precisely is there a problem? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears you are using an interpretation of a primary source to contradict a secondary source, and this appears to violate WP:OR. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I am saying that where a primary source is published in a secondary source that it is usable. See the extensive discussions thereon. HNN.US is not a "primary RS source." Th eoperatve words are:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia.

Which is the case here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. How we use them is at issue, and this use of them appears to me to violate the rules against the use of primary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The "use" is an exact quote from the document, whose authenticity is not an issue it would appear. And this appears to be a proper use of a primary source which has specifically been published by a secondary source. We can not make any claims other than what an ordinary person would see in that document. Clearly an ordinary person can read the entire underlined section. I am not positing that no one is claiming that HNN.US is not RS and that the document was published by them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is:

1. We have no idea what the depicted document actually is, when it was written or by whom.
2. We have a reliable secondary source, the Guardian, assert that while in August the investigation had not (yet) definitely linked the Bank voor Handel to Thyssen, it did so in September or "a few weeks later". HNN's article also states: UBC was not a “bank” at all but “in reality a clearing house” for many assets and enterprises held by Fritz Thyssen [...] You apparently want to disregard these sources in favor of a context-free sheet of paper that may well be the August state of the investigation.
3. Buchanan provided additional documents, for example this one which asserts that Thyssen formed UBC.
4. There are pages missing; for example, wayback archived
   • http://hnn.us/resources/Bush%20Documents0012.jpg and
   • http://hnn.us/resources/Bush%20Documents0014.jpg, but not
   • http://hnn.us/resources/Bush%20Documents0011.jpg or
   • http://hnn.us/resources/Bush%20Documents0013.jpg.

This is a case of quote-mining. Yes, the primary source says exactly what Collect wants to use it for. But we are not given any context, such as whether this is the investigation's final report or whether a subsequent report contradicts it. And the secondary sources are unambiguous in saying that this was indeed not the final stance of the US government on the issue. If we deem it necessary, we might write that by August the investigation had not found out about the connection between Bank voor Handel and Thyssen, quoting the Guardian article and this document, but that it did so by September and October, quoting again the Guardian and probably the later document provided above. Is this delay in government knowledge important to Bush? I don't think so. Is it accurate to say that the government didn't find that UBC and Bank voor Handel belonged to Thyssen? Not at all, despite this document. Huon (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoting the entire underlined section of a document provided by Buchanan is "quote mining"? Seriously? I rather think this whole exercise is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you've started in with the boldface again. I have no objection to your using that once or twice, but please don't continue on with that here as you've done in other threads. It makes the discussion harder to read, as does your unusual indentation style. – OhioStandard (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And once more - what has that got to do with improving the article? If you dislike boldface, turn it off in your browser. As for indents - when a separate issue or point is being made, the consept of a "thread" does not require indents. Cheers, have some tea, and start worrying about the article and not iterated asides to an editor whom you appear to have a dispute about "boldface" of all things! Cheers. Collect (talk) 05

31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's still quote mining if there's insufficient context; in this case, the missing context is whether that's the final result of the investigation or just some interim status report. I also don't see the relevancy of who provided the document. Are you arguing that Buchanan providing it makes it more reliable, less reliable, or neither? By now you've misrepresented my stance regarding the veracity of that scan on the noticeboard, you have wrongly claimed that Buchanan didn't provide additional documents, you have engaged in ad hominem against Buchanan whom you now seem to consider either directly reliable or verified by secondary sources, and you continue to completely ignore secondary sources, including one provided by yourself, that contradict your preferred interpretation. I agree, this whole exercise is inane. Cheers. Huon (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)