Talk:Bush family conspiracy theory

Note, with rare exceptions, add talk to the bottom of the page. Otherwise its next to impossible to follow.

See Talk:Bush League/Archive for all previous entries.

---

---

Wow, what a contentuous lot: Ill limit my comments to the basics. Provided these are followed, then we can proceed.

• First, 141, ( or whatever your i.p is)

I want to thank you for dropping this particular stone in the pond.

• Secondly, Ill ask you to pick a "face": ( Wikipedia:Accountability), an identity, whatever it is. read the link for the wikisition on this.
• Third, dont make marks on a talk page under the assumption that we know who they are from. - Sign them- see step 2.

After these are complied with, the rest of us will find reason to have a discourse with you. Your points are not without merit, though you seem to be making some common wikipedia mistakes; your energies are going toward argument, rather than discussion, negative rather than positive. And your tendency to exaggerate and inflame the discussion will not serve you here. NPOV is more than just a fad here at WP. Though you are right to point out, that bias (in the form of proper method) does sometimes rear its head in debate and discussion. Please comply with the above basic requests, and we can proceed. and atribute your sections, when you get a chance. ---Stevert

---

Okay, let's parse this. The Bush family has historical associations with the oil industry, the CIA, multinational corporations, and the executive branch. We should be able to agree that's incontrovertible.

Through the oil industry, the CIA, multinational corporations, and the executive branch, the Bush family has (unsurprisingly) connections with various unsavory figures (dictators, etc.). That also should be incontrovertible.

At the same time, it should be noted (and it is) that it's pretty much impossible to be involved in the oil industry, the CIA, and the executive branch and not have dealings with people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.

This is not worth getting upset about. At least it doesn't seem so to me. Those in power necessarily have blood on their hands. --The Cunctator

That last line pretty much summed up the problem. You have a POV underlying the page. Maybe you can see the connectings, but most people who look on it see it as a lot of dodgy supposition. Linking the Nazis to the CIA in a single sentence is a classic example of paranoia gone mad. You jump from 'they have links with x' to implying 'and we all know what that means.' What next: the French (eventually) overthrew Emperor Bokassa, who murdered and ate babies. George Bush is opposing the French. Therefore he must be sympathic to murdering and eating babies!

So explain: 'Those in power necessarily have blood on their hands'. Facts, not paranoid fantasies.

BTW, I have no time for any of the Bush family whatsoever. Personally, I think my dog has greater intelligence that the current US pres. (Its dog turd probably has, come to think of it!) And Homer Simpson has a greater grasp of English. But if we are going to knock these assholes, do it will a well researched, well sourced article, not this type of '*wink wink* we all know what that means' cow-manure. JTD 05:16 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

And its usually not the blood of their constituency.-豎眩

---

Given that other users have reverted my deletion of this strange article, I have renamed this article to "George Bush family conspiracy theory" to more closely reflect its contents. This article still reads like a paranoid conspiracy theory, without any research to back up its assertions, still less to link them together. BTW, I am not a fan of the Bush administration -- but, as JTD says, if you're going to knock them, you will have to do better than this rubbish. The Anome 07:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

I have now trimmed this down further to the core allegations. This really is a non-article -- there are other more specific allegations of wrongdoing in other articles: perhaps this article should be turned into a links page to more specific conspiracy theories involving members of the Bush family? Or (my favourite) deleted? The Anome 08:54 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

Jtdirl, I believe your dislike of me is coloring your perception of my edits. I don't "see the connectings [sic]". I'm not engaging in paranoid fantasies. The entry is about paranoid fantasies. I did explain my "everyone in power has blood on their hands" comment. Did you read what I wrote before that?

it should be noted (and it is) that it's pretty much impossible to be involved in the oil industry, the CIA, and the executive branch and not have dealings with people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.

Do you disagree with that statement?

Do you understand how having "dealings with people like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, etc." can be considered a bad thing by people, even evil? --The Cunctator 06:41 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I agree Cuntator, I believe Jtdirl also lets his dislike of me create an unnecessary bias. Susan Mason

• cough* No-one's yet mentioned that the Bush family are reptilian shape-changes. Allegedly. Anyone wanna? Gritchka

---

for all the rewrites this is still a ludicrously paranoid fantasist's dream article. It is neither encylopædic nor NPOV just some garbled wacky theories from those who believe the Bush family should really be renamed the 'Antichrist' family. The fact that after various attempts by competent contributors it is still bordering on the looney suggests this is an article that deserves the bin or its own page on the 'nutty conspiracies' website, not a page in a credible encyclopædia. (The fact that it has me defending the Bush family is indicative of how nutty the page is, for I am not exactly a fan of the political version of the Brady Bunch!) FearÉIREANN 02:33 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

• As it stands now this article doesn't seem to me to be anything like as bad as you are making out, Jtdirl. These conspiracy theories certainly exist, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to have an article about them. Maybe it needs some work, but then which articles don't? I vote to keep it. GrahamN 13:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Looks okay to me. I say keep it. -- Wapcaplet 13:44 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • Not only is this a widely held and common theory, its also true. Keep it. Pizza Puzzle
    • It isn't widely held, it is not a common theory, stating it is true is POV and the article at present in paranoid rubbish. If it is worth keeping (and I very much doubt it is) then it needs a fundamental rewrite, major NPOVing and dramatic culling. As it stands it is a paranoid joke. FearÉIREANN 21:03 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it is appropriate to infer that I am "paranoid" for believing such "rubbish". Just because you support Bush, doesn't mean everybody does. And yes, we have very "paranoid" reasons why we don't support him. Pizza Puzzle
    • If read anything of what I have contributed to wiki you would know that far from supporting Bush, I detest him, his politics and the people around him. And I have no problem with an article on this topic. But this article is unadultrated paranoid rubbush, a dubious anti-POV rant which even anti-Bush people find garbage. Stan is correct. If we can produce a good NPOV article then we should. But this article is so far from NPOV it is almost the personification bad agenda-laiden article writing at its worst. FearÉIREANN 21:48 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  • As an actual US resident, I can state authoritatively that various conspiracy theories are indeed widespread among the Democrats, and it should be Wikipedia's duty to at least list the claims and the factual tidbits on which they're based, as well as the other facts tending to discredit. It's hard to find NPOV writeups on many of the theories, this is the kind of thing that would make Wikipedia stand out on the web. For instance, my wife the Bush-hater hears some of these theories from her friends, and I'm always wishing for an objective source that explains the situation. Stan 21:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • I find myself in the unexpected position of agreeing with JTDirl (ie FearÉIREANN) on this matter. All else aside, these Bush allegations are POV theories, not fact, and so should not merit articles as such. These sorts of articles will in all probability serve as precedents for others to present their unproven beliefs as facts. Possibly a page could be set aside entitled "US conspiracy rumours and theories", but that's as far as it should go. Consideration should also be made in regard to possible defamation actions. Arno 09:38 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
• See Talk:9-11_domestic_conspiracy_theory for an aricle that approaches this "objective source" and reprises the history of the article. The present Wikipedia version is crap due to repeated censorship and misguided removal of attributed allegations and undisputed facts. See also history of Bush Knew and Bush League here. A credible version of the latter is at Disinfopedia 'Bush League' (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_League). Combining the two separate issues (oil-related conspiracy and direct knowledge of 9/11) is just more propadanda designed to make one who dismisses one, dismiss the other. You who have emotional reactions to this theory and idiom are in good company: No Brit accepted that Churchill knew about Coventry, many don't today. All good Germans believed Communists burnt the Reichstag, too. You are in good company. Many Russians even today believe Stalin did nothing nefarious.
  • Obviously there are a group of articles on wiki that are our equivalent of the Bermuda Triangle, but which we should call Paranoia Central, in which concepts like NPOV, objectivity, demonstrable facts, accuracy, etc cease to exist. Its like wiki's version of the X-Files, only not as well written. Weird. I could always suggest to keep taking the tablets but after we all know George W. is putting secret drugs in here to control the minds of wiki users. And there are hundreds of CIA agents busy reading everything written on wiki as part of some big government/CIA/FBI/Secret Service/Bush Family/New World Order/Left Wing/Right Wing/Catholic/fundamentalist/Jewish/Islamic/Russian/Communist/British/Saddam/Iraq/Iran/feminist/gay/liberal/New Conservative plot, all based on G.W.'s grandfather's secret seances where he plotted with the Fuhrer to launch a four reich just as soon as he could get a grandson who could spell 'Heil Hitler', with Barbara Bush as Adolf Hitler in a dress with facial hair. Jeez I better go and add that onto the page too! :-) FearÉIREANN 07:14 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    • We have lots of articles about bogus theories; check out flat earth for example. As with other things, the cut line ought to be scope; if the only adherent of a theory is the lunatic on the street corner, then no, but if a million people believe it, then its existence is worth nothing. For various reasons, conspiracy theories are running rife in the US these days. Stan 13:12 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
• FearEIREANN- are you disagreeing with this?:
  • Businesses associated with Prescott Bush were confiscated during World War II under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
• The article doesnt say, "G.W.'s grandfather's secret seances where he plotted with the Fuhrer to launch a four reich just as soon as he could get a grandson who could spell 'Heil Hitler', with Barbara Bush as Adolf Hitler in a dress with facial hair" which really isn't at all a reasonable or constructive comment. -- so Im not sure what you are referring to in your criticism of the article. Pizza Puzzle
  • • But it doesn't say (a) why the businesses were confiscated, (b) was he the only one in this situation, (c) was it a technical or material breach, etc. The it throws in such rubbish about Pearle's nickname (so what!), that GHB was director of the CIA (so what!), that Cheney was in two cabinets (so what!) etc. The article throws one or two facts without explaining why they are relevant, dumps in a lot of irrelevant nonsense, and treats it as though together it means something. All it means in the current form is that some people are paranoid. If you are going to mention why Bush had his businesses seized, explain how, what, etc. Give details. For all we know, it could have been a mere technical breach. The prosecution could have been politically motivated (Democrats were in the White House, after all! Now there's another unproven conspiracy theory to add in!). He could have been one of three people, or one of three thousand people so prosecuted. A proper article would know that. Not state something with the implication of hint, hint, you know what that means!" This article could be properly written, properly sourced. It could explain why some people believe in the conspiracy theory and why others don't. Instead it reads like a bad sub- 'X Files' script. After all, it is said that some Texas oilmen may have been behind Kennedy's assassination. Texas - Bush country. Oilmen - the Bush people. How do we know that the Bush family weren't behind JFK's assassination too in that case. FearÉIREANN 02:17 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you wish to add to the article, I believe you should feel free to do so. This is a work in progress. Pizza Puzzle

Thanks, I did last night, and Mav made some changes too. What I did is add in some bullet points that raise questions about the interpretations some people put on issues. Hopefully the two alternative interpretations (for and against) of the points will NPOV the article. I have never had a problem with the existence of the article, just that it didn't provide a balance, though the idea of writing something positive about the Bush freaks me out as I am utterly opposed to Bush, his family, his world view, his policies, etc. But even in Bush's case we have to follow strict NPOV criteria, though where there are absolute facts they of course don't need qualification. But the issue was simply the interpretation being put to facts. FearÉIREANN 20:35 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

• I have never had a problem with the existence of the article
  • I was under the impression that u had urged its deletion on Votes for Deletion Pizza Puzzle
• I had a problem with the POV nature of the article and the fact that any time anyone tried to NPOV it their edits were removed amid accusations that they were Bush apologists, etc. If it was to survive, it had to be as an NPOVed version, not simply a devotee of conspiracy theories page.

Seems like wikipedia:pages needing attention or wikipedia:NPOV dispute would have been more appropriate. Can I remove this from VfD? Martin 11:17 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it is much more balanced and NPOV since Mav and I added in counter-arguments. Now it neither agrees with not disagrees with the topic, merely says some people believe this because of a.b.c. Others disagree because of d, e, and f. So I have no problem whatsoever with removing it from VfD. But that's just my view. I'll let others speak for themselves. FearÉIREANN 11:28 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The Straight Dope article is titled, "Was President Bush's great-grandfather a Nazi?" I too found this odd; however, the article is not merely alleging that Bush's grandfather was a Nazi; but, his great-grandfather is said to have been a nazi as well! Pizza Puzzle