Talk:Business Plot/Archive 1

message: The leader of the A.L. did at least once say he would lead a fascist revolt if he felt the need to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) .
:i don't know what AL stands for except for American League in baseball. elaborateplz (American Liberty League?) J. Parker Stone 02:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The leader of the A.L. did at least once say he would lead a fascist revolt if he felt the need to.  

message: Hey Bchan I appreciate your changes -- this should not be presented as if it's definitive. But I think you went a little overboard with the "alleged" and "were held to" stuff. Once we've established that it's not established whether this is true or not we don't need to constantly repeat those terms. J. Parker Stone 02:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bchan's changes

message: A.L.=American Legion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) .
:and American baseball league. J. Parker Stone 21:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think so anon. J. Parker Stone 23:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A.L. 

message: At its 1923 Convention, the American Legion endorsed Mussolini. With President Calvin Coolidge in the audience, Legion Commander-in-Chief Alvin Owsley praised Il Duce and added:
"The American Legion is fighting every element that threatens our democratic government--Soviets, anarchists, IWW, revolutionary socialists, and every other red.... Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italy what the American Legion is to the U.S." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.232.195.6 (talk • contribs) .
:that's great, please source this next time, and in any case it is irrelevant -- the article already mentions the Right's attraction to fascism and the Left's attraction to communism in the '30s. J. Parker Stone 05:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The American Legion is a nice group now but in the beginning.... 

message: It seems to me that the wording on this page is a bit heavy on the use of words like "theory" and phrases like  "historically conjectured conspiracy" in the beginning of the article. Than it seems that towards the end of the page many official US documents are sourced that prove this was, at least, a real plot. Whether it might have been implemented really is not the question here from an encyclopedic point of view. The plot is a fact and should, I think, be presented as such. The depth of the plot, who was involved and its feasibility can be called into question but not, i think, its existence.  --Fluxaviator 21:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact or theory 

message: I respectfully disagree. Mere verbal "corroboration" (from whatever source) must be weighed against other historical data before a determination of fact can be made. Corroboration itself is not necessarily valid historical evidence; witnesses can be mistaken, their remarks taken out of context, or they may lie. Add to that the single-source nature of the evidence presented so far to support the existence of the Plot (i.e. the Archer book) and the case for the factual existence of the "business plot" is pretty thin.
A coup d'etat is more than just talk. To effect the downfall of a government as big as the one in Washington requires a military operation of great size and detailed planning -- the sort of size and planning that leave a paper trail or other substantial evidence for historians to analyze. To my mind, while the evidence suggests that some number of wealthy persons disliked FDR's New Deal enough to perhaps flirt with the idea of some sort of extraconstitutional coup, it has yet to be demonstrated evidentially that an actual coup was plotted by them. Did the Business Plot conspirators raise an army -- an actual, physical fighting force? If so, where did this force muster, what did they eat, and who paid them? Did the plotters stockpile arms and ammuniation to be used against the government? If so, where was the stockpile and what materiel was accumulated? Were concrete plans drawn up for the seizure of railroad switching yards, telephone exchanges, military bases, etc.? I have seen no evidence here of any such plans.
Lacking hard evidence of a planned coup, I find it difficult to accept as fact that the Business Plot existed as a serious conspiracy to overthrow the government. The lack of support for the idea on the part of mainstream historians (e.g. Manchester) is further incentive for me to maintain that the Business Plot is conjectural at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bchan (talk • contribs) .
:Fist off please leave your signature so that I and others know whom they are talking to. 
:The article is NOT about the extent of the plot. The article IS about the fact that a plot was described and confirmed by these individuals in specific congressional testimony. This article should NOT be framed in so as to definitively say it happened and it also should NOT be framed to say the plot is “conjecture”.  We must look at the evidence and the evidence we have is the testimony given. 
:Therefore the article should be built around that testimony. Meaning it should use the phrases “described by Butler” and “As stated in congressional testimony” and so on. In this way the article will not be taking a position on the plots existence, it will only be taking the position that these specific people said the plot existed. Is this making sense?
:I would also strongly request that all reference to the opinions of others not involved in sources testimony or sourced material be removed from the article. 
:For instance the phase “Proponents of the theory” does not belong in the main body of the article. We can make two subdivisions (placed after the introduction and other personate information) one from the proponent’s position and one for opponent’s position, and that is the only place this type of language should appear. 
:So far I have not touched the actual article on this page but I will soon if someone else does not make it more NPOV. --Fluxaviator 07:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i haven't heard of many historians who've given this plot much weight, and as it was not proven it should not be presented as such. J. Parker Stone 07:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fact? what fact?

message: It's not clear from the article who admitted to being part of the conspiracy, who denied being part of it, who died before they were named, or died without comment.
Since this would have been a crime, why wasn't it prosecuted as one? patsw 01:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denials are missing. Where are the indictments? 

message: As of today, November 18, 2005, an article about this exists on The Straight Dope web page. It covers it pretty well, and it even mentions Wikipedia. According to the author, the most likely explanation is that this conspiracy did not go beyond a handfull of people and was never a serious threat, which is why we don't hear much about it anymore. --Cswrye 15:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I LOVE straight dope.  I will add it to the article, next time you are welcome to do this youself...thanks for info. Travb 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straight Dope article