Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush family conspiracy theory

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. --Ezeu 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush family conspiracy theory

Violates WP:NOT, wikipedia is NOT a repository of all things conspiracy, and this article presents them as reality, please decide fairly and remove this nonsense right away--Ham and jelly butter 13:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As long as sources can be provided for examples of when these conspiracy theories have been alleged (to avoid WP:OR) and the article is slightly rewritten to emphasise that they are conspiracy theories, I see no problem with a verified list of things people have alleged. Maybe rename to List of Bush family conspiracy theories. Jdcooper 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can some sane rules for theory inclusion be established and enforced? It would be undesirable to have Wikipedia automatically repeat every idiocy that Alex Jones and his ilk happen to post on their conspiracy blogs. Weregerbil 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Rules can be established, yes, and we already have one: No "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." But most pages like this one are full of original research. They rely far too heavily on primary sources and become link farms. For many of these things, there just aren't a whole lot of secondary sources anyway. What can we do? The pages are followed by the people who care most about them, and this is what we get. Wikipedia seems to have, de facto, two tiers: Real encyclopedia articles, and sandbox articles. This is one of the latter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Sure we can't just repeat any old tripe that anyone has ever said, but it seems obvious that people have alleged conspiracy theories about the Bush family, so why can't we detail the popular or common ones? Maybe all that in necessary is a bit (or a lot) of weeding? Jdcooper 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or break out the tin foil hats. Bush Senior killed JFK. The Bush family orchestrated 9/11. Give me a break. Our current President may not be the best we've ever had, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the family is into satan-worship and that they knock off foreign leaders in their spare time. BigDT 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The theory is not that "Bush killed JFK." I think it is that right-wing anti-Castro extremists did so, and that Bush knew them for both business (oil drilling between Florida and Cuba) and political reasons. I don't share this view, but it is one of many theories about the Kennedy assassination. Btw, are you suggesting that Bush Sr had no prior experience with the CIA before he became CIA Director on 30 January 1976 (until 20 January 1977),[1] and that based on this mere 355 days on the job the CIA Headquarters in Langley, VA was permanently named after him? Just curious. No-one credible suggests that "Bush orchestrated 9/11" -- but this false belief is widely held, hence it is important to debunk.

• Delete WAY to POV for its own article. Filled with randomcrapcruft IMHO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• ?question?: Why is the Prescott Bush War seizures controversy listed as a conspiracy theory?--152.163.100.66 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because it is one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a conspiracy theory that the federal government seized his assets during WWII? that's quite a conspiracy theory--152.163.100.66 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Pretty much. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • So by seizing his assets, the federal government was just helping to perpetuate this conspiracy theory?--152.163.100.66 19:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
          • One share does not a major war seizure make. But this isn't the place for this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This violates WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR. 216.239.38.136 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• After thinking about this a while I'm starting to think this is really best classified as original research. The individual claims that suggest conspiracies can be verified — in the sense that the claims have been made in someone's blog or wherever, not that the claims are true. But collecting them into a list that suggests a far-reaching web of systematic conspiracies is unsourced and appears to be WP:OR. This article suggests that a credible source believes there is such a list of systematic conspiracy. This is misleading to the reader, as well as being original research. If there is a TV documentary that discusses seven Bush family conspiracies then documenting that documentary would be encyclopedic; picking seven(ty) random whining idiots' blog entries into an article is just WP:OR. So I'm thinking delete. Weregerbil 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- nominator has also listed for AfD Movement to impeach George W. Bush, List of Republican sex scandals , etc. Amcfreely 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

* Comment - Having a discussion on all three is not unreasonable. I took a look at List of Republican sex scandals . That article accuses President Bush of rape based on a National Enquirer article? Umm ... that's a tabloid.

• Strong keep - There is a lot of conspiracy theories around this family, as long as they are all sourced, I don't see a problem with it --- K a s h ^{Talk | email} 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Sourced" needs to be more than wild imaginations of bloggers + tabloids. BigDT 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - and if reliable sources can't be found, then that particular part should be removed. The fact remains that there are still verifiable Bush family conspiracy theories, why can't they be listed? Jdcooper 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. We don't want articles that will attract every conspiracy theorist like moths to a flame. Capitalistroadster 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is tin-foil hat nonsense. Violates a host of Wikipedia guidelines especially, WP:OR --RWR8189 21:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No credible reliable sources. Violates WP:RS and WP:OR Copysan 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just because an article is not neutral does not mean it should be deleted. Besides this article was kept before, [2] and I believe should be still. Perhaps an arbitration comitee should look at these articles, since even if this one is deleted this time, it previously was kept by a majority. Falphin 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • On the references, a lot are cited, some of the further reading is likely some additional references and other parts relating to 911 would go under the documentories. I can't find the seciton of NOT that says wikipedia is "not repository of all things conspiracy". Why note delete 911 conspiracy theory while we're at it? Falphin 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I would also like to point out that the nominator has already tried to vfd 2 other Bush related articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush military service controversy(speedily kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). Falphin 22:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also List of Republican sex scandals, too. I am noticing a very strong partisan pro-Bush theme here from Ham And Jelly Butter. Also, check out his user page. I for one think he is trying to get rid of all the political articles he personally doesn't like. --Stenun 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Weregerbil. I could see a well-sourced list of notable conspiracy theories, but this looks more like a collection of blog entries, which violates WP:RS. BryanG 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So, why couldn't the unsourced ones be deleted? Falphin 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete contains numerous unsourced allegations, looks like original work Crum375 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per nom. --Strothra 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete interesting but allowing it leads to problems. Newyorktimescrossword 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Now this is a POV fork. Unlike on the other two Bush links submitted, this article glosses over everything, just tossing out one-sentence accusations without backup or rebuttal. -- Grev 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Partisan blogcruft. Bans all round, for polluting wikipedia with *yuck* blog postings. -- GWO
• Keep. Other conspiracies and conspiracy theories have articles on Wikipedia, so why not this one? The article might not be well written and could do with a little tidying up but that is no reason to delete it. An article exists on the Clinton Chronicles and despite it being completely discredited no one is calling for it to be deleted, same with the Arkansas Project and doubtless many more. I fail to see how this article is any different from any of those. No one is claiming the allegations in this article as true, they are conpsiracy theories. What is the problem? --Stenun 14:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - In the absence of good secondary sources, this can never be anything but a "synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this proliferation of liberal anti-Bush cruft is doing more than the proliferation of Pokemon articles to convince me that wikipedia is not serious about its stated purpose. Thatcher131 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too many unreferenced statements, and irrelevant references --Astrokey44 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia reports on conspiracy theories, even those that concern Republicans. — goethean ॐ 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bad faith nom - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nom. Who gave these dirty hippies computers? Halliburton, no doubt.--Capsela 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good form. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- yet another political blog that ended up on Wikipedia. Full of original research and unreliable sourcing. Morton devonshire 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above rationale.--MONGO 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, is an owned article.--Jersey Devil 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's sourced, substantial and important; providing that it is kept NPOV, I don't see the problem. Matthew Platts 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article clearly and expressly presents these as conspiracy theories, it does not assert that all are true. (Indeed, it seems to go overboard in this.) Many are widely-believed. This is a great place to debunk any false charges. Actual conspiracies do abound, "tin-hat" pejoratives notwithstanding. Every accusation of a criminal or covert operation is initially a "conspiracy theory" until, bit by bit, the evidence mounts that it is likely true or false. (Some die-hards will always deny this truth, so it is almost never black-and-white. Many actual conspiracies are never proven -- false negatives. So there will always remain a grey area.) Some proven examples include the Iran-Contra Affair (illegal arms sales to Iran as an attempt to free hostages from Hezbollah and obtain money to illegally fund the Nicaraguan contras); the Bay of Pigs; the CIA-supported overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected leader, Mossadegh (who was replaced by Shah Pahlavi, whose repression led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 and current rule by mullahs); the CIA-supported overthrow of Guatemala's democratically-elected Arbenz (who won Guatemala's first universal-suffrage election with 60% of the vote, marking the first peaceful transition of power in Guatemala's history); the CIA-supported overthrow (and murder) of Chile's democratically-elected Allende; Enron's manipulation of energy markets with fraudulent business practices like "Death Star"; the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (a fabrication which prompted Lyndon B. Johnson to dramatically increase US troop levels in Vietnam; etc. All of these were denounced as "conspiracy theories," for many years. All are now known to be true. Given the role of GHW Bush as CIA Director, it strains credulity to believe that the full truth is yet known about operations he supported then and as President. The revolutionary beauty of Wikipedia is that it is both a repository of knowledge developed from the grass-roots (unlike top-down knowledge which stems from goverment- or corporate-funded research), and a platform for the development of that grass-roots knowledge. Go ahead and debunk all false claims, this is part of Wikipedia's mission. But please do NOT delete this page.

How could I have omitted BCCI from this list! (Perhaps because without constant vigilance, true conspiracies get forgotten? ;-) )

• Strong Keep. Some of the theories are nonesense, like alien reptile ancestry of the Bushes, but there are many serious and well substantiated historical facts here. The Bush family membership in Skull and Bones, the manipulation of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections via bogus "felon" disenfranchised in Fla, where brother Jeb is Governor and questionable vote counting and vote suppression, whre the Secretaries of State in key states Ohio and Florida were also the Bush Campaign Chairs, the extension of executive power, Neil and the savings and loan scandal, Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, Cheney's ties to Halliburton, which gets most large military contracts, the Project for a New American Century involvement of many administration officials, GHW Bush employment by the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs, and Prescott Bush's involvement with and profiting from being a banker for the Nazis, are as well established as the Teapot Dome scandal duting the Harding adminintration, or Clintons dalliance with Ms. Lewinski. They are issues of history, not speculation. Put them right onto the main article pages if they are removed from here. Why aren't they on the main pages for the appropriate Bush? Were they exiled to a conspiracy page for future deletion? That is pure spin doctoring, not worth of an encyclopediaEdison 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article discusses actual conspiracy theories. For great justice. 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This article belongs on Wikipedia just as much as "Clinton family conspiracy theory" does

Erm, if there was widespread independent discussion of Clinton Family Conspiracies, then yes, but there isn't. For great justice. 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Nonsense. Strong keep. a) See Clinton Chronicles, Lewinsky scandal, Troopergate, Vince Foster, Whitewater (controversy), Mena_Arkansas#Clinton_scandal, Barry Seal, Clinton v. Jones, Arkansas Project, David Brock, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Kenneth Starr, Travelgate, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, Susan MacDougal, etc. b) Clinton was a lecher (like many other politicians).[3] Bush Jr. deceived the US public and led us into a war that 2/3 of the US and 90% of the world now realizes was a bad idea. His clan deserves more scrutiny, given the role of his father (both with the CIA and as President), brother Jeb (esp. in Florida 2000), brother Neil (in the Savings & Loan scandal), Uncle Jonathan (in the Riggs Bank money-laundering scandal), and grandfather Prescott. Contrast that family network with Bill: you have Hillary and Roger. That's it. This article belongs here precisely because of the power the Bush family has exercised.

Comment, (Keep). Maybe Clinton and Bush Sr are in cahoots together.  ;-) Ever wonder why they're so palsy, travel together, tsunami, etc? [Maybe]... *laugh* (Just having fun.)

fair enough - so write the article! For great justice. 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT. Jsut a bunch of garbage.--Tbeatty 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles exist on other theories and the Bush family ones are notable. Skinnyweed 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of conspiracy theories. Sandstein 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:V wow.....this one I think takes the cake.....Aeon 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of whether you agree with the theories, some of the theories mentioned have been taken seriously in the world's media. And in particular the linking of Oil to the Iraq invasion is accepted my almost everyone in the UK regardless of whether they support the war or not, certainly friends of the Bush family if not the Bush family itself will profit from Iraqi oil. I think it is accepted that there are links between the Bush family and some relatives of Osma Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia too. So even if its all rubbish it probably deserves a page, even if it is there to debunk these theories.--Hontogaichiban 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Violates WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NOR and others. This is an amalgam of disparate allegations which does not exist in this form anywhere from any reliable source. This ad hoc assembly of anti-Bush accusations is a POV soapbox and is original research. Merecat 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the recent outbreak of the "delete all information that is uncomfortable to Bush"-virus is unsettling. The fact that all nominations were made by either the sock-puppet crowd or editors who have been indefinitely banned for thisdisruptive behaviour should suffice as argument. Any problems with sources should not be addressed with an AFD. As to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not meant to delete everything you disagree with. Nomen Nescio 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It would be a violation to delete this page, it would illustate the narrow mindfullness of some people who utilise this site. The article doesnt have any malicious nature or claim any validity to the claims. It would be wrong to delete this page. and i agree with the above comment, any article which could be harmfuk to george bush or the republicans must me delteed. THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS SITE STANDS FOR, political preferences shouldnt harm the information given to others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeychild222 (talk • contribs) .

Note The above is user Monkeychild222's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Who's the sock puppet now? hmm? --Strothra 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that there are conspiracy theories about the Bush family is not in dispute. They deserve mention no less than the articles about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, flat earth theory and Elvis sightings. - Gimboid13 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Clearly the article would need a lot of work. The nom complains WP "is NOT a repository of all things conspiracy" which is true, though there would seem to be notable conspiracy theories about the Bushes. Nom also complains "article presents them as reality" but this could be dealt with by differentiating fact from allegations. Also Bush crime family which redirects to this seems to be a more common term (187,000 hits on Google for +"bush crime family" -wikipedia). The concept of a Unified Conspiracy Theory linking all the crimes and alleged crimes committed by or connected to the Bushes, as the title suggests, would appear to be a less common concept. Even the introduction indicates that's not what it's about though by stating "various conspiracy theory allegations." If the article is to be kept, a better title may be in order. Шизомби 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sahasrahla 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Rename "Bush Family Synchroncities with 9/11 and the established dominance hierarchies".

Marshall McLuhan said the medium was the message. Whoever gets this far, you know your medium.

A friend played this for me today. For some young American youth this is more accessible than Alex Jone and others.

<snip nonsense>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.149.51 (talk • contribs) .

• Strong Delete - The Bush family supports crime and Satanism please wikipedia take the high road --MarsRover 05:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.