Talk:Smedley Butler/Archive 1

Archive 1

1934 coup

Why "See Also Chesty Puller" ? Sivamo 08:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose because he was also (in his own time) the most highly decorated soldier in the U.S. I'm not sure the link is appropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 13:51, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is very appropriate either, but, what I do think would be appropriate would be a link to a page of famous Marines. (As a nitpick, Chesty Puller was a Marine, not a soldier.) However, I am not offering to create such a nice page (of famous Marines), so, there's not so much point in me going on about it, is there ? :) (And to be clear, I don't mean a page of famous people who were Marines; I mean a page of Marine heroes, as it were.) Sivamo 03:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WHY no 1934 coup de etat mention ?

There is:

came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1933 to reveal a plot by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

66.101.11.220 15:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an effort has been made to delete the Business Plot from Smedley Butler's biography, and from the list of "conspiracy theories" that proved to be true. No explanation for the deletes. What are you afraid of guys? It happened in 1934! How long before we can admit Nero burned Rome?

personally i have a little trouble completely believing something furthered by a rabid isolationist with CPUSA connections. and a guy who thinks that "the military-industrial complex" masterminded World War I. damn financiers! J. Parker Stone 06:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your POV clashes with a suppressed truth here: the Business Plot was planned, then abandoned, in Roosevelt's first year. The military-industrial complex does exist, and was first described by President Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Do you want to go purge Ike's page too?

Again, the only evidence we have of such a plot is from Butler himself, a known isolationist (people who became known for attributing every foreign intervention solely to sinister business interests -- possibly "Jewish financiers") who had associated himself with the CPUSA and other left-wing groups. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez -- and this is from a site that no doubt meets your "standards:" Though Butler was not a member of the American Communist Party he did give speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930s as well as many speeches for the League Against War and Fascism. [1] J. Parker Stone 23:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So using Trey Stone's reasoning, we may assume the following:

1. "Isolationists" and/or "Communists" and/or "People who ASSOCIATE with Communists" and/or "left-wing" groups are all liars, who lie all the time.

2. There are never any sinister business interests for foreign interventions; all said interventions are conducted for their stated rhetorical purposes, as "proven" by examining transcripts of the politicians speeches. Any subsequent benefit by said business interests is purely coicidental.

3. Jews NEVER commit crimes, and are incapable of criminal conspiracies; as opposed to Christians, Buddhists, Shintos, Muslims, etc. Although we have Italian, Russian, Irish, Albanian, Vietnamese, etc. mafias, there is no Jewish mafia, nor has there ever been. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a lying anti-Semite.

4. American left-wingers are Stalinists, approve of Stalin, and condone the crimes of the Soviet Union.

5. Isolationism is never a principled position. Interventionism is always a principled position.

6. Any policies associated with left-wing views are unprincipled/wrong. Right-wing policies should not be subject to the same scrutiny, if any.

From YEEssh.

i'm not sure what to make of your rants. J. Parker Stone 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, J. Parker Stone, I'll spell it out for you. See, this is what you posted was: "Again, the only evidence we have of such a plot is from Butler himself, a known isolationist (people who became known for attributing every foreign intervention solely to sinister business interests -- possibly "Jewish financiers") who had associated himself with the CPUSA and other left-wing groups;" and what I posted were ASSUMPTIONS implicit to your post. I also forgot an extremely important one . . .

7. The only evidence we have of such a plot is from Butler himself. You mean there's no other evidence? What about all the circumstantial evidence, such as the close business and cultural ties between Nazis and American oligarchs? What about the large German-American population with sympathies for the Fatherland?

User Trey completely fabricates an anti-semitic angle here on the talk page in a really clumsy guilt-by-association argument. (Clumsy because he somehow wants to paint Butler as both an anti-semitic isolationist AND a communist business-hater.) There's no reason for any such ad hominem attack against a highly decorated Marine general.

the anti-Semitic thing was just an aside, has nothing to do with my edits. i just know that certain isolationists held a rather conspiratorial view of Jewish "war profiteers." J. Parker Stone 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant to Smedley Butler, isn't it?

putting aside your overanalysis of a minor comment of mine for a second, i think the fact that there is no evidence for such a claim outside of Butler's personal testimony is relevant and should be noted, as should the lack of an investigation. J. Parker Stone 23:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

this version, as suspected, tries to trump up Butler so it sounds like "aww how could a nice guy wike dis lie?" despite the fact that there was no hard evidence presented. and no, the mainstream media did not ignore it. what they did was mock him as a crackpot (and i don't entirely blame 'em) J. Parker Stone 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly there is controversy on this topic. Therefore, I'm changing the last sentence in the second paragraph, the one that begins with "Therefore historians have concluded...", to be more accurate. In the same paragraph, the sentence starting with "Congress in fact refused..." is simply not true, according to the Straight Dope article. Therefore, I'm changing it as well. 69.181.125.71 22:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To the person who said Spivak confirmed it

here's a quote:

The leftist magazine New Masses carried an article by John Spivak that included wild claims of "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups." Spivak's article spun an elaborate web involving the American Jewish Congress, the Warburg family, "which originally financed Hitler," the Hearst newspaper chain, the Morgan banking firm, the du Ponts, a truly impressive list of prominent American Jewish businessmen, and Nazi spies! Spivak's article raised some disturbing and legitimate questions about why much of Butler's testimony was left out of the final committee report. But these important concerns were seriously undermined by Spivak's paranoid ravings. [2]

I don't think we should cite this guy as an end-all source. J. Parker Stone 07:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is that Spivak is the ONLY source that named the big names (DuPont, Raskob, Al Smith...). If you don't use Spivak you havce the story that MacGuire (a bond salesman earning $100 a week) was plotting to raise 500,000 men to take over Washington and install a dictator. Maybe he was--he denied it, then suddenly died. In sum,: without the Big Names there is no story here, and Spivak provides the names. Please read his article to see how he understood the plot. Rjensen 20:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini killed a little girl with his car

Didn't Gen. Butler tell a second hand story illistrating that Benito Mussolini was a monster years before WWII?

i have no idea anon. how is that relevant? J. Parker Stone 01:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

about the "military-industrial complex" -- this was a term introduced by Eisenhower after he left office, soon to be hijacked by the far Left about how every U.S. intervention amounted to sinister corporate interests. it shouldn't just be plopped in the intro, especially when the term wasn't even invented until later. J. Parker Stone 01:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Butler actually coined the phrase "military-industrial complex". Eisenhower used the phrase in the same sense as Butler intended it. I don't know who brought in the Spivak reference, but we've got to stop the anti-semitic angle. It has nothing to do with Butler, but I feel it's being tossed out here to discredit him. Along with the CPUSA stuff. The guy was the most highly decorated Marine at the time of his retirement. He had led many overseas military interventions. I think that lends some credibility to his political opinions about military intervention. Later, powerful interests put out feelers to see if he would lead a coup, he squealed to Congress and the press ran from the story like a live bomb.

if you could point me in the general direction of the source that says Butler coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" i'd appreciate it. in any case, Eisenhower's the one who elevated it to "popular discourse" in select circles.

the CPUSA thing is true, the article says he spoke at the leftist League Against War and Fascism so why can't it also reference the CPUSA? and about "highly decorated," that's great, and we already have it in the intro. J. Parker Stone 05:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Eisenhower couldn't have used the phrase sincerely unless he drank through his Presidency and somehow totally missed the nature of the works of his Administration until the last minute. 21 July 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaizzilla (talk • contribs)

eat it

"In 1931, Butler talked informally after a speech, and discussed how European conquerors became drunk with power and became "mad dogs." He related an apparently true story told him by Cornelius Vanderbilt Jr. Vanderbilt spent time with Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, and they were driving in an armored car through the Italian countryside, with Mussolini driving. During their drive, Mussolini hit and killed a child. Mussolini did not even stop the car, telling Vanderbilt as he grabbed his knee, "Never look back, Mr. Vanderbilt, never look back in life."[21] Mussolini passed off his hit and run incident with the observation that one life was insignificant when compared to the affairs of state.

Butler's comments caused an international outcry, and Butler was arrested and court-martialed by Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, and ordered to publicly recant. He never apologized to Mussolini, and instead retired. Today, Butler looks like a prophet. The incident was the first time that Mussolini's image was tarnished in America. Back in 1931, Fascism was the up-and-coming form of government."

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm

dude you really need to stop with the irrelevance and loaded links. J. Parker Stone 02:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

awwww is some one upset because an anon made them look stupid?

this event took place deal with it.

i'm not upset, i just want you to stop posting irrelevant nonsense on this page. J. Parker Stone 03:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hardly irrelevant nonsense.

Unfounded claims of anti-Semitism

Unless someone can provide a quote from a book Mr. Butler wrote or a transcript of a speech he gave or a sourced remark he made which provide clear proof of anti-Semitism, all such claims based purely on “people in those days who held similar anti-war views were also often known to be anti-Semitic” and similar nonsense are nothing more than biased slander and hearsay.

the article says nothing about anti-Semitism, so i don't really know what the problem is. and sign your posts. J. Parker Stone 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

footnote #1 is an unusually nasty anti-semitic essay charging the Jews with taking over the country in alliance with the fascists. Rjensen 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Butler as weirdo

Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930. He want to Communist rallies, gave a speech and sold his pamphlets. He told Congress a fantastic story about the richest businessmen in America offering him millions of dollars to stage a coup against President Roosevelt. Only one journalist believed him--Spivak--who wrote a violently anti-Semitic magazine article that the is footnote 1 . Historians have all agreed this was a hoax, and an encyclopedia should say so. Rjensen 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen said: "Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930." Huh? Most of the veterans supported him, are you saying that all the veterans who wanted their pay from the US government and camped out in Washington were all "far left"?

Butler gave one speech to the Bonus March veterans, as did many other people. Butler was a popular speaker among pacifist and church groups as well as far-left groups. He gave his anti-war speech to churches and his anti-business speech to leftists, and sold his pamphlets to both. Butler vehhemently attacked the arms industry (DuPont) which does make it unlikely that DuPont wanted to make Butler a dictator. MacGuire tried to get Butler elected to high American legion office, but Butler could not even get elected as a local delegate. That suggests his popularity was none too deep. So did some vets like him? probably so, especially in 1934-5 when Butler was saying the vets ought to get their 1945 bonus $$ right now. That was a BIG issue that year. (Congress did pass several Bonus bills but FDR vetoed them. Finally in 1935 a $$$$ Bonus was passed over FDR's veto and the issue ended.Rjensen 20:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned above if the "Far left" supports it, then it must be a lie!...how simplistic a world view! Travb 17:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If the far-left supported it then we have an explanation why the story gets repeated so often. It's a way to attack capitalists. Always look for people's motivations! Rjensen 20:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This argument is illogical, but a common an Ad Homeniem attack

Argumentum Ad Hominem

(Literally, “Argument to the Man.” Also called “Poisoning the Well” and "Personal Attack"):

Attacking or praising the people who make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by a criminal, congressmen, or a pastor.

This is a fallacy of logic I have noticed that you use often, Rjensen, associating those on the left with the big "C" word, which is a common way for Americans to destory their fellow Americans credibility.

Rjensen words:

"The Russian archives, opened after the fall of Communism, show that Congressman Dickstein, the main person arguing there was a fascist plot, was on the Soviet payroll as a spy. That shoots his credibility."[3]

So your fallicious logic is such:

Congressman Dickstein was arguing there was a facist plot, Congressman Dickstein was found to be on the Soviet payroll as a spy, so everything that Congressman Dickstein said about the plot can not be trusted.

You purposely ignore other Congressman who were involved with the committee, who were never found to be on the Soviet payroll as spies, such as Senator McCormack, who was the head of the house from 1961-1969. Speaker of the House John McCormack (1961-69) saluted the general by saying "In peace or war, Gen. Smedley Butler was one of the outstanding Americans in our history. I cannot emphasize too strongly the part he played in exposing the fascist plot in the early 1930s backed by and planned by persons possessing tremendous wealth."

Let me give you some free advice Rjensen, you come off as an amateur partisan ideologue. You use some borderline ethical tactics in espousing your pet ideologies.[4][5]

In telling the story of history, why not tell the entire story, instead of cherry picking history which supports your pet ideology and ignoring everything else? I believe people are smart, they can read all sides, and come up with a conclusion by themselves, without someone else deciding what they think they should believe.

The way you manipulate history not only is a disservice to the public at large who reads this site, but what should be more important to you:

Cherry picking history seriously weakens your argument. When people realize that you are only telling them one narrow view of the a very rich and complex story, they begin to doubt your credibility, and they will usually disregard your view as inaccurate, incomplete, and/or biased, and seek out another explanation of history which has more depth and contains less ideological blinders.Travb 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles

Rjensen wrote:

"Butler as weirdo"

"Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930."

"Butler was a popular speaker among pacifist and church groups as well as far-left groups. He gave his anti-war speech to churches and his anti-business speech to leftists, and sold his pamphlets to both."

Okay, there are a couple of underlying assumptions here, screaming to be said.

1

First of all, you seem to assume those on the far left, who believe in far left views, are "wierdo's". (i.e. they don't share your world views) That is your opinion, which you are entitled to have, like everyone, but it is another illogical Ad Homeniem, guilt by association attack, which I explained above.

2

You seem to fallaciously equate Butler's popularity with the validity of his claims. Another illogical assumption. The validity of his claims are irrelevant to how popular they are.

Argumentum Ad Populum: Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare’s version of Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

(Bandwagon Approach):

“Everybody is doing it.”

This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true or the course of action must be the best one.

Example: “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers

rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must

make the best computers.”

3

First you wrote:

"Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930." (emphasis my own)

You then back track and temper your statment, as you seem to do a lot of on these talk pages, by stating:

"Butler was a popular speaker among pacifist and church groups as well as far-left groups. He gave his anti-war speech to churches and his anti-business speech to leftists, and sold his pamphlets to both."

So, if I were to combined the two statements, pacifist and church groups are "far left circles".

First you brush aside the mention of veterans, who Butler was widely popular with, by an incredibly weak argument: "Butler gave one speech to the Bonus March veterans, as did many other people."

So, by your logic, Butler was not popular because he was only gave one speech, and many other people gave speeches too. I saw the speech last night. No one was cat calling him, in fact they seemed genuinly happy, estatic in fact.

You then continue: "So did some vets like him? probably so, especially in 1934-5 when Butler was saying the vets ought to get their 1945 bonus $$ right now. That was a BIG issue that year. (Congress did pass several Bonus bills but FDR vetoed them. Finally in 1935 a $$$$ Bonus was passed over FDR's veto and the issue ended."

So therefore, combining your broad blanket statment above "Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930.", we can now include vets in that category. So vets, pacifist and church groups were all "far left circles".

This is a common theme with you Rjensen, you continually make selective partisan, broad ideological statments, which if held up to further scrutiny, are shown to be questionable at best, possibly dishonest at worst.

I don't have to carry this argument any further, because as mentioned above in my point #2, your entire argument is flawed at its base:

How popular Butler was or was not in America is irrelevant on whether his claims are or are not true.

Calling Butler "a wierdo" when he appealed to a wide swath of working class people (vets, pacifist and church groups) is an irrational Ad Homeniem attack.

Since labeling Butler a "weirdo" does not benefit the historical debate, it only is helpful in one respect:

It warns others of your own personal biases. Travb 18:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RJ comments. I stand by my statements. (and indeed I have looked at the original documents.) Butler went on the lecture circuit in 1931 and spoke before many groups. He was lionized by the far left that made him their hero and kept alive his charges. He ran for office (GOP Senate Primary 1932) and was defeated in a 2-1 landslide, showing the limits to his popularity. He himself said he was unable to get elected as a local delegate to the veterans convention and joked that maybe far-off Hawaii would make him a delegate. What does that add up to? He was immensely popular in far left circles --that seems clear. His popularity among veterans is problematical. I very much doubt it. Was Butler a weirdo? He repeatedly made wild exaggerated allegations that got him in deep trouble. While the #2 Marine he charged in a major speech that Mussolini killed a pedestrian in a hit and run accident. That caused an international incident. (Butler's evidence: someone told him the gossip in conversation.) He was the only Marine general ever to be court martialled, which suggests an extreme personality indeed. Other wild charges: President Coolidge betrayed him when he was head of police in Philadelphia because Coolidge was in cahoots with the gangsters. His judgment is problematical--for example Butler was a leading dry and as a general once court martialed a marine colonel who got drunk at an after-hours birthday party. (Heavy drinking, I might add, was rather common in military circles.) Spookiest of all: Butler was denouncing the rich capitalists and bankers all over the copuntry in 1933-34 as evil war mongers. Then he announced the very same people had chosen him to be America's dictator because he was so popular with veterans. Did he really belive that? He swore to it under oath. Maybe he was tricked into believing this by this fellow MacGuire a mid-level bond dealer, in which case his credulity level is at the 99.9%ile. Is it true that weirdos can be popular? well yes, have you noted Governor Ventura of Minnesota for example? How about Michael Jackson as popular weirdo, perhaps? Butler's popularity is central to the hoax: the hoaxers have to answer the question of why the Big Capitalists like DuPont selected Butler as their dictator. The hoaxers answer, because he was immensely popular, especially with veterans. But I think only the far left strongly supported him. I see no evidence whatever that he was a hero to vets. Rjensen 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent points. I did the wikipedia site on a similar colorful character Jacob H. Smith. I need to go. Travb 06:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Butler's popularity among veterans

"Even when toleration for dissent narrowed with the coming of war in the late 1930s, he remained a popular spokesman on the veterans' circuit" p. 249 Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Hans Schmidt

Smedley retained his stature as a red-blooded patriot; the Marine Corps League (veterans) pleaded with him to attend its 1936 national convention." p. 250...More later

Overhaul

This article needs a major overhaul. The introduction is way too long and for some reason the Business Plot takes up about 80% of it. Shouldn't that have it's own section within the article? General Butler is, IMO, one of the more fascinating military persons of the early 20th century. But the article skips briskly through the awards he received during his military career without any details and gets straight to his dealings with Mussolini as well as the aformentioned Business Plot.T

And how many times does "far left" need to be mentioned? I get the feeling from reading the article that it was primarily written by someone with a bone to pick.

Of course, I should start contributing to the article, but I need do a bit of brushing up on him again. I'll need to check out some books at the library. Just thought I'd throw that out and see what people thought. Paulcleveland 05:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it is bad. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't really spend much time reading it recently. I will take out the business plot section, except briefly, and all links to it, and add a link to business plot. That way when an editor is editing one article, he doesn't have to edit both. I will also change "Far-left" to what the user above who I argue with uses.

Unfortunatly, many Americans see being on the left as something to be ashamed of, and the simple mention of the word "left" denounces the person, regardless of the validity of his or her views. Quite a diferent world than what Butler lived in, were the majority of Americans would be considered far left today. Travb 05:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I did a bit reading on General Butler many years ago, but it's been so long that I really do need to brush up on his life and career. Once that happens I'll start cleaning up and revising the article. Hopefully with participation, of course.

I read a version of this article many months ago and remember it being in much better shape. Don't know what's happened since then. The Business Plot was hardly the cornerstone of Butler's career, as it was just small weird bit of history in the '30s. For those who are aware of the it, it seems to draw out quite a bit of emotions, and so it seems to have dominated the article. Same goes for the Mussolini incident.

Butler did have many left-wing views (when it came to foreign policy, anyway) but there's absolutely no evidence of the man being a "kook" and it's downright intellectually dishonest to discredit him simply because of this. Apparently there are still many who refuse to acknowledge that much of what Butler said turned out to have lots of truth it, and in some cases prophetic. I wonder if these people find right wing views of the world instantly more credible. Butler was very much a patriot (I believe that he's claimed that "maintaining a democracy" to be one of his hobbies), and if you ask me, he had views and a passion very similar to many of the founding fathers. But I don't see many people attempting to discredit them. Paulcleveland 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest edit is a dramatic improvement. Nice Job! Rjensen 23:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Butler running as republican?

Re: the latest edit

Although a registered Republican, I am almost certian that Butler DID NOT run on the Republican ticket for the Senate, I think he ran under a prohibition ticket, third party. Can someone do some research and confirm this? (cite your sources) I don't want to take the time.Travb 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad info

Thanks for revert 8bitJake, I can source the info if needed on the third medal of honor.Travb 08:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haverford School

Is it possible that 'Haverford School' that Smedley is said to have attended is Haverford College? He is not listed among the prominent alumni of Haverford, but he might still be so. Thanks Hmains 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

At Haverford Preparatory School near Philadelphia, a popular choice of old Quaker families, he joined both the baseball and the football teams. Although he was younger and lighter than his teammates, his fighting spirit, qualities of leadership, candor, and fair dealing made him highly popular and won him the captaincy of both teams. --Plot to Sieze the White House, p 38 (available for download on the Business Plot wikipage).

Quaker mother, Maud Darlington Butler, saw to it that he attended Friends meeting twice a week. From Friends Graded High School in West Chester, he went on to nearby Haverford School, the elite secondary school for sons of upper-class Quaker families in and around Philadelphia. Haverford has been credited with credited with fielding the first all native-born American cricket club...At Haverford Smedley was an indifferent student but a keen athlete...he was captain of the Haverford baseball team and quarterback of the football team. Had he not joined the marines, he almost certainly would have finished Haverford and gone on to college. Both his brothers-Samuel, who was three years younger, and Horace, twelve-went to college, and years later Smedley's father gave him $4,000 in compensation for having missed out. --Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History, p. 6, 7

...he had kept in touch with local affairs through marine football, frequent afterdinner speaking engagements, at least one radio address, Haverford alumni functions, and veterans gatherings' ibid. p 141

SDB left Haverford before the end of his final year but was awarded a diploma, 6 June 1898, which states he completed the Scientific Course "with Credit" ibid. Notes, Chapter 2, footnote 2

signed:Travb 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"References not provided"

I replaced a note asking for evidence to support a claim, added by an anonymous user, with a citation tag. I have no interest in this myself, but I will say that there is an inline citation at the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph in the section "Speaking and writing career" that supports this. (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm). I don't care what's done. I just wanted to get rid of the ugly-looking note without disrupting the editing process. TaintedMustard 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done, TaintedMustard, the proper tag is much less obtrusive than a direct editorial remark. As for the WP:V issue, see the following section. --Bwiki 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetings organized by communists?

It may or may not be true that Smedley Butler spoke at meetings organized by communists, but saying so without backing it up with a reference to a reputable source violates WP:V. Someone has provided a reference to "Rational Revolution", which is neither a news organization nor a history research site, but a private individual's website (and blog), which has a rather unclear, idiosyncratic agenda. That website also states that "Einstein was a member of many Communist organizations", which goes to show that it must be using a rather peculiar definition of "communist organization" and, of course, that the site is not a reliable source.
For this reason, I have removed the information about Smedley Butler speaking at "communist-organized" (or even "Communist Party") meetings. On the other hand, it seems less biased to note that some pacifist groups were accused (by some, rightly or wrongly) of being communist-dominated, and I have not removed the following sentence (which has a book reference in the article): "Between 1935 and 1937, he served as a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism (which some considered communist-dominated)."
--Bwiki 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

Smedley Butler has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed GAs continue to meet the Good article criteria. Since 2006, when Smedley Butler was listed as a Good article, the assessment criteria have changed significantly. Whilst this is a well-written and interesting article, it does not currently meet the GA criteria in all respects.

Specifically (under criteria 2b), the article has significant gaps in its referencing. As a rule of thumb the current minimum requirement is for every paragraph to be cited (preferably at the end, covering the para content) with additional cites for those statements that need them. This may not apply to the lead, as relevant citations should be present in the main article body.

I believe that there are no other real problems with the article so I have put its GA status on hold pending this issue being addressed, and will check back in no less than seven days (around 21st October). If progress has been made, the article will remain listed. Otherwise, it may be delisted. Should this happen, the decision can be challenged at WP:GAR, or, once improved, the article can be renominated at WP:GAN.

Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All {{fact}} tags have been addressed — citations added. — ERcheck (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've posted further comments on User talk:Kumioko, but I'm now happy to pass this GA reassessment (although I can wait until the copyediting is done so we get a stable version of the article if you prefer). Great job! EyeSerene^TALK 09:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My thought is to go ahead and pass it for GA reassessment since it meets the criteria now. The work can continue to be done to get it to FA status. — ERcheck (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

Right, I've done that. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Thank you ERcheck and Kumioko for your hard work! Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 14:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific references needed

Billy Bragg liner notes

The item below was in the "Legacy and honors" section, along with a {{fact}} tag. Does anyone have an online citation? Or a copy of the liner notes? — ERcheck (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

“ Billy Bragg quoted Butler's famous paragraph (above) to describe his song The Marching Song of the Covert Battalions in the liner notes of the album The Internationale. ”

Upon further reflection, I don't think that this entry is appropriate for the Legacy and honors section. It seems to fall more into the classification of trivia. — ERcheck (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Director of Public Safety - roofs

I also remmoved a sentence from teh section when he was Director of Public Safety which stated

“ He had roofs removed from police cars so that the officers could not sleep during their shifts, which had apparently been a fairly common practice prior to his appointment. ”

Once we find the reference we can add it back.--Kumioko 20:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Marine Corps highlights

Also,

“ He also set about vigorously to keep the Marines in the public limelight. In four years, his Quantico Marines football team amassed a record of 38-2-2 against powerful service teams as well as civilian schools, and bulldog mascot "Sergeant Major Jiggs" became a national symbol of Marine tenacity and aggressiveness. ”

and

“ Butler helped to preserve the Marine Corps' existence against critics in the Army and the Congress who, during budget fights, argued that the Army could do the work of the Marines. ”

--Kumioko 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken link to War is a Racket

The link to War is a Racket gives a 404 on the Veterans for Peace website, and I was not able to find the text on that website. I did find the following link, which claims to be the complete text, though it seems to be too short to be described as a book, even if you're feeling very generous. I didn't want to put it in the article because this lexrex website also seems very commercial, and I also couldn't figure out how to lay it out properly. Anyway, there's the link: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Shanen (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which link is broken, but here is a link to a clean and ad-free copy. Amazon.com shows the actual book is 80 pages long.

http://www.horstwisdom.com/wiki/index.php5?title=War_is_a_Racket

--CliffC (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Need by tonight

Why is Smedley Butler controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.70.229 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

misappropriation of quote?

The quote "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?" attributed to Smedley Butler in the article is also attributed to Daniel Daly in the same battle of Belleau Wood. (See article on Daniel Daly.) Like Butler, Daly was also awarded two medals of honor, one of which was for heroism during the same WWI fighting. A google search indicates that the quote should be attributed to Daly, but I am reluctant to alter the article based solely on that. Someone with better military history resources than I should investigate and reconcile the two articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.68.92 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Awards

In building Butler's awards list, I referenced File:SmedleyButler.jpeg. However, the image is fairly overexposed, and I was somewhat dubious of some of the ribbons I saw. I'm fairly certain some of them were not in the order of precedence established today, and some of them I couldn't tell what they were at all due to the quality of the photo. I made some educated guesses based on the prose, but if you see anything that you feel is totally incorrect, let me know and I will try to make a correction. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one correction I can see, just off the top of my head. The Medal of Honor ribbon with the award star is incorrect. If my memory serves me, there was never any devices authorized for wear on the ribbon, obviously owing to the fact that only two Marines ever recieved multiple MOHs. General Butler always wore two MOH ribbons side by side on his rack as can be verified by numerous photos as well as his surviving uniforms.--SmedleyButler (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked my records and there are a couple of other mistakes I spotted. General Butler never wore the China Service Medal shown, as it was authorized for service in China beginning in 1937. Butler retired from the Marine Corps in 1931. He never wore the Occupation of Germany Medal, as it was authorized in 1941, by which point, General Butler was already deceased. I also have my doubts about the Mexican Border Service Medal (as I don't believe he ever served on the border, only ashore at Vera Cruz), as well as the Yangtze Service Medal, but don't know for sure on that one. He WAS authorized to wear the Sampson Medal, the Phillipine Campaign Medal, and the Dominican Republic Campaign Medal, which should be added. His World War I Service ribbon carried a Maltese Cross device, designating non-combatant service overseas, and his U.S.M.C. Expeditionary Medal ribbon carried a numeral "4" for participation in 4 actions for which the medal was authorized.--SmedleyButler (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the first point, chech the Medal of Honor article. Stars are indeed the authorized device. The ref doesn't specify when devices were first authorized, however. In the photo, it is possible he is wearing two ribbons... bu again, the photo is so poor that all I can say for sure is that there is a large white blob on the first row. I do know for sure that I can count 16 distinct awards, meaning that if he is wearing two MOHs, then one of the other ribbons needs to come off (assuming that the photo is recent enough to include all of his awards). At this point, I usually default to the current regulations in those cases where the period regs are unclear, so I've reverted to using the star. In any case, it should be obvious to any reader that he was a double recipient. Note: in File:Butlerretirement.jpg, he seems to be wearing only one, so it would seem that the regulation was adapted before he retired in 1931.

As far as the rest, {{ribbon devices}} does not support a maltese cross or numerals. I prefer to show stars rather than nothing, as long as the note is intact. Note:The article Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal says that the switch from numerals to stars occurred in 1921, ten years before Butler left the Corps, so he would have switched over then. bahamut0013^words_deeds 09:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In the photo you cited, File:Butlerretirement.jpg, you state that the General is wearing a single MOH ribbon. General Butler is unquestionably wearing two MOH ribbons side by side, as I stated earlier, so that needs to be corrected. You will note that the first row of ribbons extends to the brass button on his uniform, while the lower rows which follow do not specifically because of this (4 ribbons across on the top row, three on the rest). Numerous photographic references, not to mention Butler's actual surviving uniforms, which still exist with their original ribbons, also attest to this fact. Following his second award, I have never seen a photo of him wearing a single ribbon, always two, side by side. The MOH article you mentioned cites CURRENT regulations in regards to multiple awards, not the regs which existed when Butler recieved his awards, regs which have been modified over the years. Given the scarcity of such an occurance, even today, it is highly doubtful that those specific regulations existed at the time. You also need to take into consideration that during this period, great leeway was given in regards to the wear of awards, especially for a Major General. Honostly who was going to correct him? Awards he was entitled to may or may not all have been worn at any given time and may also have included fraternal or society medals, which, although not officially authorized, can be seen being worn by Marine Officers in numerous period photos. --SmedleyButler (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All points I considered (perhaps you missed when I stated "The ref doesn't specify when devices were first authorized, however"). Given that there is likely no real record of when such devices were first authorized, we can't know for sure if Butler was just using his own judgement or possibly disregarding the regulations of the time (like you say, it is unlikely he would have been challenged for wearing his MOH wrong). When considering the possibility that the wearer himself is out of regulation, I see no need to duplicate the error on Wikipedia. I also consider that when period regulations are vague or contradictary, I will always revert to something that isn't so unclear; the closest unambiguous regulation to that time period (in this case, the current ones). Any further guesswork based on when devices were first authorized for the MOH, without a ref, would simply be OR.

As to your otherpoint, I disagree with your conclusion that the photo conclusively shows two MOH ribbons... In fact, my opinion is that the other ribbon represented is actually the Brevet Medal. Again, a hard call to make, given the size and quality of the photo, but that's what I got out of it (the next ribbon over is much more clearly the Distinguished Service Medal). However, I thought it odd that the top row was longer than the remainder... especially since the regulations in 1931 wouldn't have allowed such an eccentric top-heavy display (again, probably the general getting his way based on prestigue); other period photos would show Marines adding that extra ribbon centered on the top row.

Now, you refer to other photos and surviving uniforms... would you be able to provide these as references? I wouldn't say that this conclusively proves he never wore them with devices, but it would be good enough for me to change the article with confidence. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether authorized or not, Butler is indeed wearing two MoH ribbons; in some of the photos he's wearing a plastic-covered ribbon bar, the reflection of which may have obscured the view in photos; also the plastic is sort of cloudy. Here is the ribbon bar, on Butler's dress whites, in a private collection: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=1972&view=findpost&p=45285.

As to his ribbon precedence, the photo linked above (and in period photos) shows his Brevet Medal in the correct position for the time, i.e., behind the Navy DSM; in later years it was elevated to just behind the Medal of Honor. The photo also shows a numeral "4" device on his Expeditionary Medal ribbon, and a maltese cross device on his WWI Victory Medal ribbon.69.105.97.114 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

major changes

Changes which appear to be designed to remove cited material about how Butler was viewed concerning the "Business Plot" allegations are improper. If the editor wishes to defend his wholesale revision and redaction of the article, I beg him to do so here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fact of matter is that a congressional committe determined that there was a plot, so calling it "Alleged" it just plane innacurate. The debate among historians today is over how extensive the plot was and whether or not it was actually close to being implemented. To say that there is a controversy among historians on the existense of a plot is disengenous. No Historian has acccused Butler of making up his story.

Also, this business of Butlers military career being ruined, tell me what source you linked to says this. There all 70 year old newspaper articles and the nnbd site. Did Hans Schmidt say this in his book? If not then that sentence is innapropriate. annoynmous 00:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Those "70 year old newspapers" are RS by WP policies. Removing them because they are "70 years old" runs contrary to stated RS policies. And the "alleged" is used as the committee only said it believed Butler had meetings. The report does not claim any actual measures taken to initiate any such plot. Please reconsider your edits here. Collect (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is just plain false. Here is what the comitte concluded:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient. This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.[36] MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.[37]

The Committe determined that there was a plot and that it was close to implementation. So saying the committe said it believed Butler only had meetings is just untrue.

In regards to this article. Where in the 70 year old articles does it say his reputation was ruined. Why are newspaper accounts taken as official sources when a congressional committe found Butlers accusations credible. I agree that Time magazine and The New York Times are reliable sources of information, but not when a congressional committe specifically refuted them and especially not when there 70 years old. Contemporary sources agree there was a plot by certian people and that Butler basically told the truth. The debate is whether or not the plot was a real threat and whether or not Gerald Maquire embellished parts of it to Butler.annoynmous 00:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And the committee called them "allegations" or did that miss your notice? Nor, by the way, did the committee report "refute" the NYT article nor did the NYT ever retract its statements. Collect (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the committe found the allegations to be true. The point is that NYT and Time articles came out before the committe made it's final statement. So whether or not they retracted there article is irrelvant, the committe determined that Butlers allegations had merit.annoynmous 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And the committee referred to the testimony as "allegations" if you will recall. And the committee stated that it did not mention others whom Butler appeared to include as there was zero evidence regarding them. Collect (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that statement came out before the committe came to it's final conclusion. That statement was at the very beginning of the committes life. That was also the same time that the newspaper articles were written.

Yes, at the beginning of any investigation everything is an allegation, but at the end you've either proved it or not and the committe determined that the evidence for butlers claims was sound. Your reasoning here is extremely bizarre. I'm not sure what passage of the report your referring too where there called "allegations", but it doesn't matter because the committe found those allegations to be true.

I agree that saying there was a conspiracy definetely is wrong, but so is the term alleged because that implies that know officail body was able to confirm Butlers findings which isn't true. That's why I suggested the compromise of "according to the report". annoynmous 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That which is not proven is an "allegation." That is how the American judicial system works as well. Collect (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Except for it is proven by an official body, namely congress. So by your definition Lee harvey Oswald is the alleged killer. John Wilkes Boothe was an alleged killer. They were never convicted in a court of law?

According to your logic we should we refer to the "alleged" attack on the World Trade Center by Al Qaeda. Outside of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, no one has yet been charged with 9-11, but the 9-11 congressional committe determined that Al Qaeda Was responsible. Congress is an official body so there word counts for something. A court of law is not the end all of official truth

I agree that saying absolutely that there was a plot is wrong. That's why I came up with the compromise of "according to" because congress can get things wrong as can courts. That is not a justification to use the word "alleged" as if nothing was ever proven when it was. annoynmous 18:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As per the compromise offer I made on the Business Plot article I have added the 3 historians opinions on the matter , but again replacing it with the more neutral wording. annoynmous 20:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that the current articles on the BBC program use the word "alleged" -- and I claim that the BBC use of "alleged" is current and not 70 years old. Hence is a current RS -- not to be removed in a one-sided "compromise." Collect (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt for the BBC report you claim proves your point:

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.

Nowhere does the BBC call it the alleged plot. They clearily state that the plot was real and that there are documents to back it up. If your going to make arguments like this about sources then you need to quote them accurately and stop distorting what the sources actually said. annoynmous 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored more neutral version of Business plot

Now that the 2 month ban I agreed to is over I have restored the more neutral that deals with the Business plot. Someone needs to tell me where this accusation that Butlers reputation was hurt by the accusations comes from. The only thing I could find to support it is this passage from Hans Schmidts book:

"Otherwise, the plot and its ramifications isolated him further from conventional politics, and he seemed to relish the final burnings of bridges. He was now more than ever a loner, speaking his mind as a free spirit."

Okay so he became isolated from politics, theres nothing in there about it hurting his reputation. annoynmous 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again making unilateral undiscussed edits which are not supported by consensus is not how consensus is arrived at. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement on wikipedia that I have to self revert before a consensus is reached. I made a compromise edit and it is now being discussed. You are not the lord and master of wikipedia and I am not bound to obey your wishes.

I like the compromise edit that the unkown editor made, but I feel that the committes findings should be inlcuded in some way.annoynmous 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that people who are interested in another opinion on this should read J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets by Curt Gentry, pp. 201-11. He says that Butler was playing along in order to inform the government (which didn't have huge interest)Mmclic (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC). Given that Butler had been forced to resign from the military after labeling Mussolini a "mad dog," this seems quite reasonable (the U.S. had normal relations with fascist italy at the time)Mmclic (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC). Mmclic (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler 's Record in Haiti

The article above presents a glowing, heroic picture of Butler that is simply contradicted by the definitive work on the US Marine Occupation of Haiti, "The United States Occupation of Haiti 1915-1934" by Hans Schmidt (originally published in 1971 by Rutgers University Press). In particular, Chapter 5 of that book ("The Marines Take Charge")goes into some detail about Smedley Butler's activity, and includes that famous remark about "hunting Cacos like pigs." This and other well-documented quotes and anecdotes express Butler's contempt for Haitians who resisted the Occupation, which was---by any standards---and act of all-American greed on the part of the Wilson administration.

The casualties recorded at the Fort Riviere Ambush further call Smedley Butler's actions/attitudes into question with the final tally of 51 Haitians killed (official Marine Corps figures, although Butler claimed to have killed 200), one wounded Marine, and no prisoners taken. For overseeing this, Butler was awarded one of his two Congressional Medals of Honor, thanks to Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose own motives and interests in the Haitian Occupation remain debatable.

Smedley Butler, as Schmidt points out, exhibited little respect for the Haitian elite or the client-President of Haiti, Philippe Sudre Dartiguenave (who was installed with nine body-guards). When Butler traveled with the president, he required first use of their common bath water. He also urged Haiti to declare war against Germany, which it did not want to do. Furthermore, approximately 3,000 killings and numerous atrocities occurred on his watch in the first five years of the Occupation, and the roads that got built were achieved with a brutal program of forced labor ("corvee")until this practice came to an end in 1919. (Smedley Butler left Haiti in 1918).

It might be that Smedley Butler later changed his point of view, as aging soldiers often do. And it might be that he was a smart and able man. But the tone and "facts" as presented in this Wikipedia entry are in serious need of revision by a qualified historian. I am not one. My goal here is to simply raise this issue and propose a more accurate description of this man's role in Haiti's history. Belledame (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)P. Marxsen

Cite reliable sources for claims and edit the article. You do not need to be an historian to do so. As long as no POV is being pushed, it makes sense to present a balanced picture of the man and his acts. Collect (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful in the first place, if the sources provided in the text were cited accurately. I checked on Maverick Marine by Hans Schmidt on p. 80f. and did not find many of the information referenced by this source. For example, Schmidt provides no clue that Butler planned the attack on Fort Riviére and he explicitely states that the number of 200 Cacos killed in the Fort was hyperbolical.--Assayer (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

video: war is racked

When this video message, perhaps by General Smedley Butler himself, was recorded? Placing it in time-line is important to put it in proper place in article. Obviously it is after ww1. Somewhere in 193x? Is it an authentic recording or some retrofit 'actoring' on/of his thesis or even out of his message? Who know more and why if it genuine it is not in article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Smedley Butler

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Smedley Butler's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nris":

• From Butler House (West Chester, Pennsylvania): "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. July 9, 2010.
• From Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C.: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009.
• From Thomas S. Butler: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. January 23, 2007.
• From Academy of Music (Philadelphia): "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 15, 2006.
• From National Register of Historic Places: National Register Information System, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service. Retrieved October 11, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Banana Wars, Siege of Granada

In the info box, under Banana Wars, it says Butler battled in The Siege of Granada. The Siege of Granada link takes you to The article "Fall of Granada"(redirected), which is about the battle/siege in Granada that happened in the 15th century. Plain wrong.

I don´t know these things but it seems to me that no battle of significance occured when they captured Granada during the U.S occupation if Nicaragua. Read this article under Occupation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_occupation_of_Nicaragua — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprachspiel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Fighting Quaker"?

Any sources Can anyone explain how he came to be a violent Quaker? This is obviously a deep contradiction in terms, so I'd be interested in someone shedding some light on this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe any of the sources describe this other than to say that he was "a man of complicated beliefs" or something to that effect. One possibility is that his father was pro military and even though he was a quaker believed in an "honest damn" on occassion so a certain against the grain attitude ran in the family. It should also be noted that although his career events hailed him as a hero he frequently dismissed that by doing things like trying to refuse one of his medals of honor and talking about his views on American businesses intervention in the Carribbean (Commonly referred to as the banana wars) after he retired. All I can say is he was a conrtradictory kind of guy. --Kumioko (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all Quakers are pacifist. Richard Nixon was, at least nominally, a Quaker and he served in World War II - albeit in a non-combat capacity. Butler was undoubtedly attracted to the military in general and the Marine Corps in particular. Maybe he joined the Marines out of rebellion towards his parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.190.188 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Lede Discussion BRD

There has been some work on the lede. Rather than see edit warring begin I'd suggest that we reach a consensus here before further changes.

• I think mentioning the Business Plot twice in the lede is undue, but left it in so that could be discussed here.
• Refs are commonly in the lede of bio articles.
• Edits that suggest that the Business Plot was a true coup effort and more than an allegation of Butler's fly in the face of the consensus at the main article page, academic historical analysis, concurrent reporting at the time, and long term consensus at this page.
• It makes sense to have the lede summarise the article chronologically (as the article is organized) rather than talk about his military career, then the business plot, then awards earned in his military career, and then the business plot again.

Those are my initial thoughts as to the lede changes. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with Capitalismojo, but I suggest the lede should not be chronological it should be in order of importance--most important (Biz Plot) first. In the main text I added documentation re his activities on the far left in 1930s Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the there is an argument for having the Business Plot first. Some would say, though, that his military service and awards made him notable and lend notability to the incident. Ultimately, I just think that the lede reads better chronologically. It's short enough that being listed second in the lede doesn't detract from the understanding. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

His high rank did give him credibility. If he had been a retired major few people would have paid attention -- (it's unlikely that J P Morgan Co, would choose an unknown person to lead its 500,000-man army.) Rjensen (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reposted this content discussion from my talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You cannot make additions to the article, by undoing mine and then tell me to take them to talk, which is entirely hypocritical. There isn't a single mention throughout the article that Butler was a self-proclaimed Socialist or proclaimed himself left-wing and the source you dug up is clearly laughable, you do not even know how to cite a source firstly, you just took a random link from amazon which you no doubt searched up and haven't even read and pasted it into the lead, simply because an historian calls him left-wing doesn't make him so he just happened to have some similar views. Criticizing an action, for example "this business makes profit" is not a political viewpoint, its just a fact, I do not become left-wing for pointing that out. Guidelines suggest refs shouldnt be in the lead anyway, but thats besides the point. Keep this up and I'm taking this to the administrators because I do not consider this to be a disagreement on content, but someone (yourself) commiting to contentious editing and censorhsip to put forward a view, completely against Wikipedia. --JTBX (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are concerned about an incident please feel free to take it to ANI. Know that I am uncertain, based on your comment, what precisely you consider that incident to be. You have made a Bold addition to the article lede. It has been reverted by several editors. You have been invited to discuss the content on the talk page. This is the essence of WP:BRD. I look forward to reaching a consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As regards the "left-wing" description. If you have problems with the book as a RS take the discussion here or to RS/N, don't edit war. I suggest that this is a good recent history that was well-received. It says "This historical biography explores the life of Butler, a little-known American Marine who exposed an alleged fascist coup to remove President Franklin D. Roosevelt from office. This text is an exploration of the political issues of the first half of the twentieth century and an examination of a complicated, valiant man who shifted from Republican ideals to anti-corporate, left-wing populism." I note that another editor has added additional material from this book into the main body of the article. This is hardly a controversial view of Butler by historians. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

section titled "EARLY LIFE" second paragraph

the paragraph is unclear in it's statements- which seem contradictory:It states he left high school thirty eight days before his 17th birthday, and then states that the school "nevertheless" awarded him his diploma on 06june, 1898- which means he was awarded his diploma before he left the school, "nevertheless". I understand that being over a hundred years ago high school may have only been three years long, etcetera, but I do not understand the inclusion of the "nevertheless" adverb. If that IS an adverb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.23.15 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)