Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

"Far-Right"

This term is inadequate for describing the position of the JBS society on the political spectrum and is generally used by people who seek to conjure prejudices in the readers mind. I think it is not right to label the society as such, particularly right at the start of the article, but for full factual description we should mention it as a term some people use further down the page.

If you click through the link used here, this is the definition you reach: "Far right politics involves supremacism, believing that superiority and inferiority are an innate reality for individuals and groups, and involves the complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm. Far right politics often supports segregation, and the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior. Far-right politics and political views commonly include authoritarianism, homophobia, nativism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia."

This does not correctly describe the politics of the JBS. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article did not in fact say that the "John Birch Society" was "far right" and if you read the archives you will see that I have opposed that description. Please discuss before reversing. TFD (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I did read the archives, but that's where the link sends you. In fact one of the sources explicitly has the term in its title.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
We use reliable sources, not other Wikipedia articles, as the basis for this article. If you have a source that says the JBS is not a radical right organization then we can add that too. Otherwise please stop deleting well-sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Well your sources call it "far-right", not "radical right" (whatever the difference in the term you allege is), and the link to the wikipedia article sends you to "far-right" too, where an incompatible description of the term is articulated. I'll move your sources to the relevant paragraph where other critical sources of the JBS belong. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I changed "radical" to "far" before I read the discussion. Sorry. I hope you all can see that weather you keep a word before "right wing" or not, "far" is way better than "radical". "Radical" has name-calling taint which is non-neutral. One of the references for it (ABC) doesn't even say "radical", it says "far". I think it is important on controversial things to be really dry and drearily straightforward. For these reasons, I would prefer leaving off any descriptor, even if ABC news used it once providing that vaunted-reference-to-prove-it's-okay. The best bet is to be really dry and boring!  :-)

108.7.8.102 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. The terms radical right and far right are clearly defined and could you please explain where you are getting your terminology. TFD (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)!
When I look for sourcing[1] I see dozens, if not hundreds, of well respected reliable sources describing the JBS as being "far right". We should accurately and neutrally reflect what we see in the sourcing, as opposed to mincing our words. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see previous lengthy discussions. (Look at the link you provided as well.) While the term "far right" is often used, it is more likely to be used in popular writing, especially in the 1960s. Academic sources usually reserve the term "far right" for violent organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis, and use the term "radical right" for the JBS. Incidentally you probably did not read all the "hundreds of sources" you provided, so please do expect others to do so. Also, where there is a lack of concensus we cannot rely on a multitude of sources to establish a fact. I can find 100s of sources saying that Bush 43 lost the 2000 election but cannot add that as a fact to an article. TFD (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
TFD wrote "academic sources usually reserve the term far right for violent organizations", giving this assertion a quick check[2], I see that the first Google Scholar link[3] George and Wilcox write: "Among the groups on the far right are the John Birch Society...". So, I am having a hard time confirming TFD's reasoning here. Help me understand please. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
President John F. Kennedy used the term "far right" as reported by the New York Times[4]. That seems to be an extremely high quality source. Reuters reported just two weeks ago "...far right groups like the John Birch Society..."[5]. I am not sure I have the stomach to read all 25,000 words of discussion above. Glancing through it I see that TFD is vehemently opposed for sure. Regardless, my quick source check found many extremely reliable sources calling the JBS to be "far right". I don't understand TFD's reasoning for opposition. Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments? Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have replied below. TFD (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How should the JBS be described

The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right says: "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (p. 5) Seymour Martin Lipset coined the term "radical right" in the 1950s to describe American extremist groups, which includes the far right, the John Birch Society and patriot groups.[6] Sara Diamond confirms that this terminology is generally used by mainstream social scientists.[7]

WP:Weight says, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That means that "radical right" takes priority.

WP:LABEL says, "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That means we can state the the JBS has been called "far right" but cannot state this is a majority view.

TFD (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when I look, it seems that I can state a majority view. Looking to recent news sourcing I see that "far right"[8] is used eight times more often than "radical right"[9] in context of the John Birch Society. In short, "far right" is more widely used by reliable sources. And, neither is WP:Weight being violated here that I can see when comparing "far right" to "radical right" the weight in the reliable sourcing clearly points to "far right". I am still willing to listen, but your argument as to weight in the reliable sourcing fails to check out. Please try again. SaltyBoatr get wet 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The evidence I have presented shows that there is a consensus that they are radical right and that their description as "far right" is a minority view. All the sources on the first page of your google search are news media. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available."[10] By the way it would be helpful if you provided a source saying they are "far right" that explains what the term means. Are you arguing that they are not radical right? Since you seem to have your heart set on calling them "far right" would you like to set up another RfC (content)? TFD (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Not yet at least, I am hoping to avoid another 25,000 words :) And, stop the straw man arguments and red herring assertions, my heart is not set on 'far right'. You made an empty claim: "The evidence I have presented shows that there is a consensus that they are radical right and that their description as "far right" is a minority view." Yet, you haven't actually shown evidence of this consensus that I can see. All you did was point to three sources, Routledge, Lipset and Diamond. This has not demonstrated a consensus. Your quote from Routledge comes from the chapter discussing early 20th Century European fascism, a much different context that the late 20th Century period. Looking at the Diamond book, I don't see your point confirmed. Your point with Lipset with his 1955 paper, is probably good, but I would like a chance to read it. I see other scholars that use 'far right' to describe the JBS. For instance the Randel Hart's 2008 peer reviewed paper "Practicing Birchism: The Assumption and Limits of Idiocultural Coherence in Framing Theory." Social Movement Studies 7, no. 2: 121-147 uses the term "far right" to describe the John Birch society. In 1981 Lipset himself used the term 'far right' to describe perceptions of Ronald Reagan, (ISBN9780917616433 pgs 44-45), so maybe the meaning of the term 'far right' has been changing between 1955 and 2010? How can we measure consensus? Looking to the Google news search seems a reasonable way to measure this, and 'far right' seems the consensus by a factor of eight. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The way we do not establish that a consensus exists is to conduct original research. One does not establish consensus by butchering through the literature to see how various writers describe something but we go to one good source that tells us what the consensus is. Now please explain what you think "far right" means. By the way the terms "straw man arguments and red herring assertions" have meanings too, so please use them correctly. TFD (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Answering with personal attack isn't helpful. I am reading "far right" in exactly the way meant by Reuters[11] and by JFK in the NYT[12]. Just reading excellent sources, not WP:OR.
This answer[13] didn't satisfy, I asked you to explain more, and you dodged my questions, instead attacking me personally. I am not biting that bait. Asking again: Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments? Thanks. SaltyBoatr get wet 01:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Since you failed to understand my clearly worded and sourced response, I fear another attempt will bemuse you. You are still begging the question: "you think "far right" means"? TFD (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, you dodged my questions. Please take a moment to re-read each of the questions I have asked above, and engage in talk page dialog. Thanks. (And, answering your question again: What I think 'far right' means is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources, JFK/NYT and Reuters, mean. I argue we should match the vernacular we see being commonly found and used in the reliable sourcing.) SaltyBoatr get wet 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'm fine with "far right", "radical right", "ultra right", or "ultra conservative". Those are all commonly used labels that have, in my opinion, roughly the same meaning. I'll support whichever term editors here decide on.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The 1961 NYT source SaltyBoatr provides does not say that John F. Kennedy ever used the term far right, and even if he had it would be irrelevant. Could you please familiarize yourself with WP policies on articles and stop presenting irrelevant articles. I am not sure I have the stomach to read 25,000 more words of discussion. Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments? Thanks. BTW here is a link to the article that you have quoted.[14] In fact, Kennedy never used the term "far right" or even mentioned the John Birch Society. Your statement that "I am reading "far right" in exactly the way meant... by JFK" is therefore false. The term does not even appear in the article, only the headline. Please do not misquote people and expect us to use it as a reliable source. TFD (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I concede a minor point about JFK, but that doesn't change the main thrust of my objection. WP:NPOV requires us to match the proportion of balance seen in reliable sourcing, and by a large factor 'far right' is used over 'radical right' in reliable sourcing. The New York Times, ABC News and Reuters and many other reliable sources use the term "far right" to label the JBF. I see that User:TFD is looking instead to relatively obscure academic sources. But consensus is set by weight of all reliable sourcing not just TFD's selected academic. Against policy, User:TFD excludes mainstream significant viewpoints seen in reliable sources when measuring weight, why? Seymour Lipset coined an academic term that didn't stick in the mainstream sourcing. (By a very large factor.) We may need to explain the difference between the common vernacular using "far right" and the academic vernacular using "radical right". This belongs down in the article where it can receive adequate explanation, but not up in the first sentence of the introduction. There, for clarity, we should use the common term 'far right' which we see dominant in reliable sourcing.
TBF, would you take a moment to address my concern raised about 'majority view' and WP:LABEL which I asked 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)? You dodged that question earlier, and your direct response is needed. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not "obscure" academic sources but the mainstream academic sources for the John Birch Society and the (not so near) Right. Furthermore I am not relying on the terms that they use, but Diamond's claim that this is the usual terminology used by academics. There are two reasons why we should prefer this usage over usage in popular media:

  • Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.[15]
  • The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.[16]

Please provide a reference to a WP policy that says we should give priority to the New York Times over peer-reviewed academic sources and a policy that says WP editors may conduct their own research to determine what terms are most commonly used.

TFD (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you did not say anything about WP:LABEL. TFD (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You point to WP:RS guidelines as your justification. I point to WP:NPOV policy. Policy trumps guideline. The specific wording I see is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Nothing there to justify your personal preference for the guideline interpretation which excludes certain (non-academic) reliable sources when measuring proportion of all significant viewpoints. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources are included in the policy Verifiability[17] and no original research is a policy too. Again, academic sources are more reliable than popular media, and you cannot conduct original research to determine which views are most prevalent. TFD (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, actually not. The 'academic sources' restriction that you claim was based on your justification (of 16:04, 24 May 2010[18]) where you pointed to the WP:RS guideline which is subordinate to policy. You may not like it, but policy requires us to look to all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source when determining weight, and not just to the academic. Neither am I not doing original research. I am merely looking at the balance seen in the reliable sources, this act of looking is required per policy. Explain explicitly under which policy you are justifying that we ignore the large ratio of reliable sources we see using the term "far right". SaltyBoatr get wet 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Looking at the balance seen in the reliable sources" is original research. Can you please provide a source that says this. I love original research, but you need sources to support your statements. Also, you seem to believe that popular media is more reliable than academic sources. Please provide sources that back up your view. I find it unfortunate that some people wish to trivialize the far right, which was responsible for the Second World War in which 50,000,000 died by grouping them with crazy but harmless US conspiracy theorists. I also find it sad that people would prefer to use screaming headlines from newspapers as sources rather than reasoned opinions in academic writing. Incidentally, it we label a group, we need sources. I understand that in America there is a tendency in the media to provide extreme labels to groups - for example Fox News calls General Electric a "far left corporation". In fact they are more commonly called "far left" than "radical left". You seem to have strong views on the US political spectrum, but this article should be written from a position of neutrality and not parrot American "left-wing" or American "right-wing" points of view.

By the way I will ask you again, I have asked about three times already but you have not replied. If you do not wish to answer my question you do not have to do so, but out of courtesy, please say that you refuse to answer rather than ignoring the question. What do you think "far right" means, why do you consider the JBS to be far right, can you please provide a source calling the JBS far right that explains what the term means. In fairness I have I have provided sources for the current description.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I answered before: What I think 'far right' means is irrelevant. So, this talk page isn't the place for that discussion. Ask me over on my user talk page and I will answer. (Also, this talk page is not for discussion of what you may think is sad.) What matters is what the reliable sources mean. Any quibble with what ABC News, The New York Times, Reuters means when they say "far right" isn't for me to answer. It appears that they mean something different than what academics, and you, mean when they are describing early Twentieth Century European fascism. Definitions of words sometimes change depending on context.
Also, It is plain silly that you say that my looking at reliable sources is original research. The policy says: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Looking at these viewpoints to evaluate whether a term is widely used is a necessary step in the process of checking whether a term is widely used. You just can't do it without looking.
I have answered your questions, but you continue to dodge mine. Explain why you give priority to WP:RS guideline over WP:NPOV policy? Explain why you ignore reliable sourcing that isn't academic? That seems at odds with policy. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I took your advice and asked you on your talk page what you think "far right" means. I should actually have asked you what reliable sources (as you understand them) interpret the term to mean. Obviously, if we wish to label a group as "far right" we should understand what the term means.

I certainly accept that NPOV should dictate how this article is presented. The policy, as you so kindly pointed out says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". According to the policy of no original research, "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material". Please provide a source that says your label is the mainstream view. Also, WP:Verifiability dictates that we give priority to academic sources.

I suppose that in your Weltanshauung, the JBS is "far right" and you can find articles that support your view. But the purpose of articles is to inform people, not to disgrace groups or to present personal views. The fact that the news media is sloppy in its description of various extremist groups does not mean that we should be equally sloppy. You have a choice to make: do you want to discredit or to explain the JBS? Please show respect for readers' intelligence. They do not need to be told that the JBS is "far right", they need the organization to be explained to them in a neutral way. While you may wish to steer people away from them, misrepresenting them is unlikely to succeed. Injecting our personal bias into articles is no way to persuade people, and of course the purpose of Wikipedia is not to do this. Please see the policy neutral point of view.

TFD (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I get it, your tactic here is to talk this to death, answering questions with more questions and rambling asides. At the core it looks like you and I disagree that Reuters, The New York Times and ABC News are reliable sources. They are 'sloppy' as you put it. To me it is enough to see that they are generally considered to be reliable sources, and that by a large margin they use "far right" to describe the JBS than they use "radical right". Our duty is to look to reliable sources and match them. You disagree, instead choosing to screen out sources you disagree with. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am merely replying to your questions. Also, even if you wanted to put "far right" into the lead, policy dictates that you present it as an opinion, not as a fact. The most you could say is, "While the JBS is frequently called "far right", most social scientists reject the description because...." NPOV states: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.... statements which express a value or opinion, or a fact about which there is serious dispute among reliable sources, should not be made directly....[19]

But how do you know the press usually calls them "far right"? While your Google "News Archives" returns 207 hits for john-birch+"far right"[20], it returns 27,500 hits when the term "far right is omitted.[21] Presumably 99% of articles about the JBS do not call it "far right". A search for "sarah palin"+"far right" on the other hand returns 997 hits.[22] (Granted many of them are about her supporters.)

TFD (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:AGF is not unlimited in face of clear evidence to the contrary. Take a look at the tens of thousands of words above, spilling back into the talk page archives, this has been incessantly argued using a dogged 'talk it to death' delay strategy. SaltyBoatr get wet 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You asked me to explain my position which I have and you must accept that you cannot get everyone to accept your opinions. Please accept that I disagree with you and the correct course of action for you to take, if you want to change the lead, is content dispute resolution not further discussion with me. TFD (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I asked you a number of specific questions, and raised a number of specific concerns, which were dodged. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You have asked the following questions all of which have been answered:

  • 1. "Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments?" Please see reply here.
  • 2. "How can we measure consensus?" I explained that we do not measure consensus which is original research, but use reliable secondary sources that explain what the consensus is.
  • 3. "Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments?" I explained that NPOV, NOR and V were implicit in the guidelines used. So that you understand, saying that reliable sources are required for statements in articles, while based on the RS guideline is required by V. Not conducting our own independent research on what consensus is, while based on the RS guideline, is required by NOR. Following both these policies is required by NPOV.
  • 4. "User:TFD excludes mainstream significant viewpoints seen in reliable sources when measuring weight, why?" I had already explained my reasons for choice of sources and determination of what the consensus was.
  • 5. "TBF, would you take a moment to address my concern raised about 'majority view' and WP:LABEL which I asked 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)? You dodged that question earlier, and your direct response is needed." In fact you had not asked this question as can be seen here. In this case, you are merely repeating questions that have already been answered.

TFD (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First Introduction Section

If you want to criticize the JBS, so so in a section outlined for that. You can source all of you far left liberals and their New Deal minions like Bill Buckley (who had a personal feud with Robert Welch) there. The otroduction section should simply state what the JBS does. You can editoralize with your far left sources in other places. Publiusohio (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make major changes without first seeking a consensus. The material you changed was the result of a long discussion between several editors who compromised and achieved consensus. I'm going to restore that version, but I'd be open to hearing your input after you've read the other discussions on this page.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Publius, the labels are cited to reputable sources and they received consensus here in the talk page. Please do not engage in edit warring either.UBER (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with UberCryxic and Publiusohio needs consensus before making major changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the intro should you mention who the society is named for? I was unable to find this information in this article. Another article said it was named for a missionary killed in China. Limonar27 (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

POV template

An editor has placed a POV template on the article with the explanation, "Flagged article as not having a neutral POV... See discussion". However it is unclear what reason the editor has for this. Could you please explain why you think this article is not neutral. In the meantime, I am removing the template. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In reference too many of the comments here I've flagged the entire article as not having a neutral point of view. I realize some people take offense to this society and that's their prerogative. Just because you find source material with epitaphs against the group, putting these views in the first sentence does not create an article with a neutral point of view. Someone should re-write the article so it's has a criticisms section where opinions about the group belong. --Xephael (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
moved from incorrect location.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
There's no dispute that this group belongs to the far/extreme/radical/ultra side of the right or conservative wing of the political spectrum. When there is a sufficient weight of evidence that it is described that way then it ceases to be a mere opinion. Are you aware of any sources that give a contrasting view?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is important to have neutrality although that we must show how the group is perceived by mainstream sources. Could you please be specific in what you think shows bias. It may be that your complaint is about how the JBS is perceived by mainstream sources, which unfortunately we can do nothing about. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article takes sourced material from critics of the JBS and places it at the forefront of the article in a clearly BIASED MANNER. If you know how to read you can tell that many others in the articles discussion believe likewise. POV Flag re-added. --Xephael (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

According to whom are the sources "critics of the JBS"?   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When you're calling a society "extremists" I would think it's fair to say you're a critical of it. I am getting rid of the POV flag since the critical comments were moved down to the values area. I'm not exactly a fan of "left/right wing" in describing political groups, but that's a different matter. --Xephael (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I came here to try to do research, and immediately dismissed the validity of the article because it was obviously biased. Rationalize it anyway you like, but it is not worthy to be considered for objective research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgeOldSage (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction as the previous commenter. Even though I personally agree the Birch Society to be more on the extreme end, finding this article state it as a fact and up front made me dismiss this article from the first as unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.170 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have created a new section where people can happily submit their critical sources and descriptions of the JBS without irritating the other people who don't want an inaccurate and non-neutral term to be used in the article's introduction.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be more sensible to include the perceived criticism interspersed throughout the article as opposed to putting into a dedicated "criticism section". Also, there is a general consensus at Wikipedia that we try to avoid using "criticism sections" and seek more neutral ways to express the information, read the essay WP:CRIT for more explanation. SaltyBoatr get wet 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Saltt above, a separate criticism section can become a troll magnet. Criticism is like trivia, it's far more balanced and informative if it's actually included and worked into the main article. Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, the section is not needed. TFD (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


Remember the Radical Republicans? Champions of abolition and equal rights for freedmen before and after the Civil War? I'd rather wear my radical label as a badge of honor, than as a reviled scarlet letter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.194.149 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JBS is far right

It has been stated that the JBS is on the far right as even rightwing figures like Reagan and Nixon thought that it was to extreme and radical in it's views on communism and american socitey. Read Reagan's bio for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's self-evident, is it not? Reagan and Nixon never advocated impeaching Earl Warren, for example. DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The term far right is normally only applied to overtly fascist, racist and/or violent groups such as the modern Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party. However terminology may have changed so that Obama and McCain who had no ideological differences may be called far right and far left. TFD (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The belief that labels actually define political stances is not valid - as shown by groups simultaneously considered "left" and "right" <g> depending on who is drawing the lines. It is unclear tht having this whole bit in an article about a group whose statements make their positions sufficiently clear is anything more than a waste of time. We can actually trust readers to figure some things out. Collect (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
We use the terminology found in the literature. Verifiability not truth. It may be that the terminology no longer describes political groups accurately, e.g., conservative, liberal, socialist, but it continues to be used. TFD (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, we don't say that the JBS is "radical right-wing" because we decided that was the label which fit best. We do so because that is the label used most frequently (more or less) by secondary sources. We did a review of the literature and found many instances of similar labels ("ultra, "far", etc). Wikipedia applies similar labels to left wing groups and to right wing groups in other countries. See the excerpts from reliable sources and other Wikipedia articles above and in the archives. We've been over this before.
I assume that all of the IPs and recent accounts are the same person. I don't like "negotiating with terrorists", but I suggest for everyone's sanity that we try to find a different formula. We've been reverting every almost day for months now. Maybe if we moved the characterization into a later sentence in the lead it would be less bothersome and deletion-prone.   Will Beback  talk  09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I would vote against moving the characterization because (a) I doubt it would help, and (b) it sends exactly the wrong message. I'm perfectly willing to continue undoing unreferenced deletions, it only takes a few seconds. But how about semi-protecting the article, which would at least cut down on the vandalism? Is that doable? DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In reply to Collect, the terminiology radical right, far right, etc. was developed to describe groups that are more hardline than mainstream conservatives. In reply to Will Beback, we need to describe the ideology of political groups in the lead. Semi-protection would help because it stops IPs and new accounts from editing. TFD (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks as if someone proactively semi-protected the article last night. Bravo. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify who "Eisenhower" is with a link to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Clarify who "Eisenhower" is with a link to Dwight D. Eisenhower. 99.102.182.152 (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've added that link.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories presented as factual

It's a nice hack job of an article, but where is the criticism of the paranoid, irrational rants and ravings found throughout? Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Try reading on how WP works by using reliable sources, not what yuo WP:KNOW. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I know how Wikipedia works, thanks, and I would appreciate it if you would stop linking to your own personal essay as a reply. Where's the criticism? There is quite a bit in reliable sources, but none in this article. Why? Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The article is rife with reliably sourced criticism. What other criticism do you want in it? Collect (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The only so-called "criticism" that I've found is not actually criticism at all, but veiled praise for the group: "Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormon. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas." Hopefully, you can point me to actual criticism of the JBS in this article? Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"Extremist", "radical" etc. do not count as criticism? We are stuck with using what reliable sources actually say. Sorry if that is not enough. Collect (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Those are not criticisms, Collect. I believe I said "there is quite a bit in reliable sources" before you replied with "we are stuck with using what reliable sources actually say" yet again. Could I ask you to stop replying with stock, template responses in every discussion that we have, and just address the problem? One way for you to address this, is to point me to the most notable critical work on the subject of JBS. And, my question then becomes, is that work represented in this article? Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What sort of criticism do you think there should be? TFD (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with what I think, TFD. Please look at the literature. Welch and his organization is criticized on many levels, often times by the right. Except for a quote from Ayn Rand, we don't know too much about what makes this organization different from others on the right. That's one of the many problems with this article, including the small lead section which fails to summarize the topic. You should be able to name notable critics and their primary arguments against the organnization, and those arguments should be represented here. There also seems to be an attempt to make the outlandish ideas expressed in this article appear to be mainstream and non-controversial, which is not the case. Another red flag, is the fact that the article remains unassessed and lacks the appropriate WikiProject tags, which keeps it under the radar and prevents more cogent analysis. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Tagged and assessed. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The article explains their beliefs, e.g., they believe in the New World Order. Do we need to explain that informed sources reject their opinions? Readers may form their own opinions. TFD (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia articles do not exist in a vacuum. There is a great body of literature about the group, including criticism of their beliefs. The current article makes it seem like their beliefs are mundane, when they are actually considered extreme. Because this gives the wrong impression, the most notable critics of the group and their beliefs should be represented. This is true of any controversial organization. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The article does not need to explain that the New World Order theory is irrational. Readers may decide for themselves. People who want to know how reasonable they are may click to the links about the subject. We are not bowing to pressure from "conservative" editors, TFD (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Kindly do not assert that I hold an opinions which I do not have. I ask that you redact such claims. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop with the straw man arguments. Comprehensive encyclopedia articles are written from a WP:NPOV, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Is any of this making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand you. So Collect and other editors believe in the NWO conspiracy. We already tell readers that the JBS believe in the NWO. Must we also tell them that there is no NWO? Do you think that they will believe this? TFD (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you do understand me. I'm not talking about Collect or what other editors believe. I'm not even talking about what the Birch Society believes. I'm talking about the overall topic, its coverage in reliable sources, and the way those sources are represented in this article according to NPOV. This is very simple to understand. Viriditas (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I really do not understand your point. The article explains what the JBS believe. Why do we need criticism of these beliefs? If we had an article about devil-worshippers we would not need "criticism" that says the devil does not exist/is evil etc. TFD (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I really think you do understand my point. WP:NPOV is perfectly clear and easy to comprehend. There are significant critics of JBS as found in RS. You should be able to name them, and their sources should appear in this article. Please add them. You are free to discuss your proposed changes to NPOV on the policy page. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported Assertion: "Collectivist" philosophy of the New Testament

"It opposes collectivism, including wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, socialism, communism, and fascism, despite the collectivist philosophy espoused in the New Testament." This is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. Please add supporting evidence or strike "despite the collectivist philosophy espoused in the New Testament." Mpkorich (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the inclusion was appropriate, really, but it's a fact that the early church was anything but antagonistic to the idea of collective ownership and use of resources, and it will make interesting reading for anyone who's unfamiliar with the topic. Here's a good place to start: Acts 2:44 [NRSV], “All who believed were together, and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” The plan wasn't continued, because some folks "cheated" and that pretty much spoiled the thing, but they certainly approved of the intent of the idea, at least. Then, of course, and less emphatically, there's an abundance of exhortations like the one I used to hear in church every Sunday when I was a kid, and still remember, the first part from Saint Paul in Hebrews 13:16 (KJV); it was always said just before the offering: "To do good and distribute, forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. And remember the words of our Lord Jesus, saying 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Not the least offence intended to my JBS friends, but I doubt Jesus would have been in any great rush to join the libertarians. He would have loved them all, though. ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Peace symbol conspiracy

Looks like JBS was behind that too.[23] Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Welch was - but ascribing everything he ever said to the JBS requires strong reliable sources. Nor does Time here assert such. Collect (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sex education conspiracy

  • Sex education has become the most hotly debated topic in American elementary education. In recent months, a carefully orchestrated campaign led by political conservatives has embroiled one school district after another across the nation in angry argument over sex courses....The Crusade's crusade was quickly taken up by the John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, decided that sex education was a "filthy Communist plot," akin to community fluoridation plans.
It appears that you are not interested in reliability and accuracy in writing this article, or for that matter others, such as Fox News Channel. TFD (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, there's that quote I recall from the time, "filthy communist plot". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

JBS was also against urban renewal, and margarine. All we need is genuine reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I bet you we can find sources asserting that they were right about margarine, though maybe (and typically) for the wrong reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Their own words ought to do it, provided we could find such material. As I read the article a bit ago, I was astonished by 3 things: (1) that they still exist; (2) that they are still harping on the same old stuff; and (3) how some of their far-out ideas about internationalism seem to have been visionary rather than wacko. Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There's an article (I think it was Time) showing that Glenn Beck is using sources on his show that were used by the JBS 50 years ago. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure those sources are every bit as good now as they were then. Regarding the fluoridation issue, I see that it's mentioned in the article, so I'm not clear on what the hubbub is. Unless it's the mere presence of that one blurb. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is currently mentioned in passing in a "In popular culture" section, which will likely be removed or merged. We generally take trivial popular culture sections and merge them into more solid sections. The material in question says: "General Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove was based upon the John Birch Society's anti-fluoridation campaign." I haven't visited that source, so I can't comment on it, but I would like to see this merged into the appropriate section with a discussion of the topic. For example, James Wynbrandt writes: "The John Birch Society linked fluoridation to communism, a conspiratorial plot to poison the water supply. The vocal opposition succeeded in slowing widespread adoption of fluoridation during the 1950s."[24] This so-called communist plot deserves to be fleshed out and discussed, since the formation of the group hinges around their reaction to communism. This is an essential part of who they are. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
He wrote introductions to Cleon Skousen's books. But you should really familiarize yourself with the subject rather than looking for sources to support your recollection, especially when you did not know that they still exist. TFD (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please fix your indent, as you are responding to Baseball Bugs, not me. Try to be mindful of who you are replying to here. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
My indent is perfectly correct. I was responding to your comments beginning "There's an article..." and therefore have the correct indentation - exactly the same indentation as Baseball Bugs who replied to the same comment. TFD (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)If you're talking to me, I knew they still existed, I was just being funny. And obviously sources are needed, not just recollections. All recollections do is apply the "ring of truth" test. What surprised me is that to a degree on some issues I think they're right on the money - and as one who considers himself liberal-leaning, that's a bit scary. But as I said, they might be right about something for the wrong reasons. The article doesn't say anything about margarine, but based on their usual approach, they probably said margarine was a commie plot to destroy the dairy industry. Well, the dairy industry seems to be doing OK, and margarine has come under a lot of heat for its negative health impacts. And as far as fluoridation, there were legitimate concerns about it at the time, for health reasons, without bringing the commie conspiracy theorists into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That is entirely correct. Namely, that concerns with fluoridation and sex education, which might be valid in another context, were instead used to justify a vast, "communist conspiracy" and functioned as talking points to recruit members. It would be interesting to find out if any solutions have ever been offered by this group, other than "it's a commie plot". In science and education at least, people can talk about these issues in a civil manner, without accusing proponents of being communists or claiming that they are engaging in a conspiracy to destroy America. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Your 1961 Time article is fascinating. It brings back scary memories. It's a good capsule summary of what things were like, at least in some places, during the 1950s "Red Scare". The JBS took up where the McCarthyists left off, it seems. The fact they drove away guys like Buckley and Goldwater is very telling. As you've probably observed, conspiracy theorists come in all flavors, but the one thing they're certain of is that they're right, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The "solutions" they offer strike me as not too far removed from the hard-core Libertarians (a subject also under constant debate here) in that they basically want the USA to return to the wild frontier, every man for himself. Their comments about the USA subverting its interests for the sake of internationalism ring loud and true to a lot of us. However, that train has already left the station. Regardless, that 1961 article is an excellent resource for how things were at that time. The question is, what do current sources have to say about the current version of the organization? That would seem to be a bit more relevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Joe McCarthy's hometown was Grand Chute, Wisconsin, right outside Appleton, where JBS is located.[25] The conspiracy over at JBS is still active. According to CQ Researcher:

Members of the far right have gone even farther back in time in tracing the roots of plotting against the United States. "The John Birch Society has long held that the conspiracy of the Illuminati...is the predecessor of a modern-day conspiracy warring against our country and civilization," John F. McManus, president of the right-wing organization, wrote in 2007. Long centered in Massachusetts, it is now based in Appleton, Wis., McCarthy's hometown.

And in another article from CQ:

The founding of the John Birch Society in 1958 marked the reemergence of conspiratorial, far-right views — minus the anti-Semitism — in respectable society. Birch Society doctrine viewed the United Nations as a communist organization. Founder Robert Welch, an executive in his brother's candy company, went further, calling President Dwight D. Eisenhower “a dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.” Welch's wild accusation stoked outrage in the political mainstream. President Harry S Truman reportedly called the Birch Society “the Ku Klux Klan, without nightshirts.”[26]

The more things change... Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the catchphrase "it's a commie plot" is not to be found in an RS on the JBS, however. No matter how despicable a person or group is, WP requires that we look at the material dispassionately and with a NPOV. Collect (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Probably not used by the Birchers themselves, as it would tend to be "cute" in reference to something that they considered to be the Great Satan. But it was certainly in broad popular use, and not in a good way. Just as the Cincinnati Reds renamed themselves the "Redlegs" for awhile, the Decatur Commodores stopped being called by their long-time nickname, the "Commies", in the press. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
No I was replying to Viriditas. He wrote, "There's an article... showing that Glenn Beck is using sources on his show that were used by the JBS 50 years ago". I replied, "[Glenn Beck] wrote introductions to Cleon Skousen's books". Skousen's writings were a source used by the JBS 50 years ago. TFD (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, your comments were replying to Baseball Bugs, as he was the one who wrote, "I was astonished...that they still exist...that they are still harping on the same old stuff.." TFD, you then responded with "you should really familiarize yourself with the subject rather than looking for sources to support your recollection, especially when you did not know that they still exist." Baseball Bugs even responded with "If you're talking to me, I knew they still existed, I was just being funny". Please try to follow what is being said. My comments about Glenn Beck have nothing to do with your reply, but with what sources say about his connection with the JBS material. In the future, please do not combine two different comments by two different users and then respond to them as if they were one person. Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you intend on inserting Mr. Beck into this article? On the basis of which reliable source would this be done? Collect (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well of course I was replying to you. You said, "There's an article (I think it was Time) showing that Glenn Beck is using sources on his show that were used by the JBS 50 years ago". The sources that Glenn Beck is using on his show that were used by the JBS 50 years ago are the books of Cleon Skousen. As this syndicated column says, "Beck also became a devotee of... W. Cleon Skousen.... Like his ultra-right friends in the John Birch Society and kindred groups, Skousen was a dedicated foe of civil rights legislation". TFD (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Radical Right

How is it appropriate to characterize a group as "radical right" before recognizing its nationality? "Radical right" seems to be used as a pejorative to disqualify the organization's views outright.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We can switch it to "American radical right" if that's better.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This terminology is not nation specific, and is used to describe groups such as UKIP and right-wing populists in Europe. TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This should be a case of let the facts speak for themselves. Readers can draw their own conclusions on the matter from the group's policy positions. How others have referred to the group is listed in the body of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present right-wing[3][4][5] organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy and nationalism.
  • The Front national (FN)—sometimes translated in English as the National Front—is a French far-right, nationalist[1] political party, founded in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen.
  • The Centre Party (in Dutch: Centrumpartij, CP) was a Dutch nationalist extreme right-wing[1][2] political party espousing an anti-immigrant program.
  • The Fatherland and Liberty Nationalist Front (Spanish: Frente Nacionalista Patria y Libertad or simply Patria y Libertad, PyL) was a nationalist and authoritarian political and paramilitary group [1] grouping, denounced by their opponents as being fascist and a front for CIA activities in Chile [1].
  • The National Radical Camp (Polish: Obóz Narodowo Radykalny, ONR) was a Polish extreme right[1][2] anti-semitic,[2] anti-communist,[2] anti-capitalist[2] and nationalist political party, formed on April 14, 1934 mostly by the youth radicals who left the Stronnictwo Narodowe party of the Narodowa Demokracja movement.[2]
  • The Dutch Peoples-Union (Dutch: Nederlandse Volks-Unie (NVU)) is a Dutch political party. Because of its many calls for the rehabilitation of convicted World War II war criminals and SS costumes worn at demonstrations, it is counted among the most extreme right of Dutch politics.
  • The Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood (CRB) (Croatian: Hrvatsko revolucionarno bratstvo (HRB)) was a far right-wing organisation formed in Australia in the early 1960s.
  • Worker's Party (Czech: Dělnická strana) was a Czech political party, often described as the major far-right extremist party in the Czech Republic.
  • The Greater Romania Party (Romanian: Partidul România Mare, PRM) is a Romanian radical right-wing,[1] ultra-nationalist political party, led by Corneliu Vadim Tudor.
And so on. I don't see why we'd treat the JBS differently than we treat other political groups. We don't shy away from labeling other parties, even those counted as "radical right-wing". (I assume we do likewise with "radical left-wing" groups as well).   Will Beback  talk  05:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay I concede that point. However, "American" should be affixed to the front as the nationality is placed in most of the above organizations.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a common problem throughout Wikipedia. WP:LABEL. If it is disputed, then attribution is needed. The label does not need to be applied in the first line (although editors love doing it for some reason) so if there is any concern simply move it a line down and say that they have been described as such.Cptnono (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is attributed in the article. If you have a source that says they are normally described differently, then please provide it. We do in fact label political groups according to ideology. TFD (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Essential sources for addition

I'm going to use this section to add general references (about JBS) to this section for proposed expansion and addition. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


  • Bunch, Will (2010). The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama. HarperCollins. ISBN 0061991716.
  • Clay, Ed. "Mixed Bag on Far Right: Birchists Late Arrivals," Pine Bluff Commercial, May 14, 1961.
  • Goldberg, Robert Alan (2001). Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300090005.
  • Hermann, Robert. "John Birch Society Sees Sell-Out of U. S.," [Memphis], Tennessean, Feb 26, 1961. 171.
  • Lichtman, Allan J. (2008). White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0871139847.
  • Patrick, Ralph R. "Birch Society: Big Business, Getting Bigger," The Times, Vol. 67, No. 5, March 3, 1966. 13.
  • Powers, Richard Gid (1998). Not Without Honor: The History of American Anticommunism. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300074700. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)
  • Ryskind, Morrie & Sevareid, Eric. "Two Opposing Views About the John Birch Society," Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1961. 172.
  • Shannon, Karr. "Story Behind Anti-Red John Birch Society," Arkansas Democrat, April 12, 1961. 172.
  • Storke, Thomas M. "How Some Birchers Were Birched," New York Times Magazine, December 10, 1961. 172.
  • "Organizations: The Americanists". Time. 77. 1961-03-10.

Comments about sources

It appears to be an "opinion piece" more than anything else. Why do you feel it is "essential" here? Collect (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please actually read the article. It's considered one of the first major, mainstream articles about the group, and is notable. It is not an opinion piece as far as I can tell, and is a reliable source about the group. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any signs that the Time article is an op-ed piece.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Did I say "op-ed"? (Forst "op-ed" was in 1964) Nope. It is clearly an editorial overview of JBS at best, with remarkably little verifiable fact in it. In short, it is "reliable" only for Time's opinions about the group at best. Collect (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not clear that it is an editorial overview, and it is not clear that the information is unverifiable. Please stop making claims you can't support. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between an opinion piece and an op-ed piece? Is there an objective way of determining which articles are opinion pieces?   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
A 1961 article from Time magazine is unacceptable, just as we would not use it for articles about Castro, Kennedy, etc. If you want to improve the article you should use books published by the academic press, like Chip Berlet's Right-wing populism in America (2000) or Sara Diamond's Roads to Dominion (1995). If you want a good historical essay, there is a 1962 essay about them in Daniel Bell's revised version of The Radical Right, Volume 2000 (2002). But be sure to read the articles before editing so that the article represents how the group is normally described. TFD (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That is not true. We do not have any type of blanket proscription on the date of a source used. Rather, we judge the material on accuracy and relevancy in addition to the date. If the material is historically significant and relevant, we can most certainly represent a period of time using historical sources. As an encyclopedia, we use primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, with the main bulk of our claims rooted in the highest quality secondary sources. There is nothing wrong with this Time magazine article. It depends on how it is used. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The sourcing looks absolutely fine. We have Time, Scientific American, Dictionary of American history, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and so on and so forth. Several books also mention JBS' opposition to fluoridation on the grounds it was a communist plot. The original complaint was that we can't trust Time because of Castro and Kennedy - whatever that's supposed to mean. Yet so many other separate sources repeat the information that we can take at least this from the Time article - that we have no reason to mistrust the source, and it is not a lone voice in the dark stating that JBS opposed fluoridation as a communist plot, and that they achieved notoriety for doing so. Insisting on only using the academic press for sourcing is not in line with wikipedia policy full stop. Accusing another editor of being "not interested in reliability and accuracy in writing this article, or for that matter others" is breaking AGF, and is an attempt to bring arguments from one page to another, which is disruptive. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Using outdated news sources makes no sense. The Kennedy and Castro reference is that they were in the news at the time, yet no reasonable editor is insisting that we reject the great volume of scholarship written about them and base their articles on 1961 clippings from Time Magazine. TFD (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you cite the wikipedia policy that you are basing this on? And what year, for you, would be under the wire in wikipedia terms? Or is this an argument that the fluoridation campaigns are not notable? Or is it an argument that statements of fact can only be sourced by "up to date" academic publishers? And why are you ignoring all the other sources of a variety of vintages that cover the same material?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see new discussion thread at bottom of page. TFD (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Six articles in search of an Author

I suggest that there are several problems inherent in writing an article about any political group (or religious group, or economic group etc.). First - there is a set of information about the beliefs once held by supporters of the group or the group, which may not represent the current group accurately at all. Second - information which others have posited to be held by a group in the past (frequently taking the form of opinions in popular oublications) which may not represent actual positions taken by the historical group, and generally do not represent a "photo" of any current group at all. Third is a set of information representing current beliefs and opinions of a group as set forth by the group. Fourth is the set of opinions posited by current popular literature to be held by the current group. Fifth is the scholarly study of the historical opinions and beliefs of a group. Sixth is scholarly material relating to current opinions and beliefs of a group. There may be more. Much of any conflict in this article is due to trying to place everything in it as though all was the same <g>. Collect (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It also seems that, the John Birch Society appear keen to deny making a link between communism and fluoridation. MSNBC was attacked for making the claim, but came up with documentary evidence. They're verbatim quotes produced by a large news organisation in support of their position. It looks like a good source to me, to add to all the other RS. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This isn't rocket science, Collect. As editors, we go with what the reliable sources say, paying attention to the historical record. Birchian apologetics isn't part of our job description. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologizing for any despicable person or group is not part of any editor's task. The problem here is that the current JBS appears not to hold some positions which were asserted to have been held in the past. I trust you would not wish historical material to be so intertwined that a reader would not know what was current and what was in the past? And I know of no reason to claim that the current JBS has any position on any "commie plots" at all. Collect (talk) 11:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
If we have reliable sources that show that the group has changed their beliefs, that would be helpful, however, we also need to document their beliefs in a historical context. But, we should avoid the kind of historical revisionism you are proposing. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Backawards -- we need reliable sources that it is a current belief if we assert that it is a belief. Else we must say that it was an opinion, at best. Else we would have lots of anti-Christian Science stuff in that article, anti-Mormon stuff there, and so on. We ought not in any case mislead readers as to what current positions of any group are (right, left, vertical, horizontal, whatever). Collect (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of their current opinions (which would be good to cover), there is no question that during the 1950s they were well-known opponents of fluoridation. That fact can't be escaped. The article should make it clear that that was their stance then, and leave the present time out of it unless their current opinion can also be verified. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Reasonable. Though I would say "1960s" as being the time frame for which the JBS opposed fluoridation. As long as we make it clear that the issue was historical and we make no other imputation. Collect (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course - and I don't think any editor here would ever have disputed such a suggestion. JBS have recently distanced themselves from the conspiracy allegations, so clearly it's not what their current position is. Conversely, their recollections of the past are, it seems, demonstrably wrong, so we can only take their view of themselves now as reliable per WP:SELFPUB. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It can easily be demonstrated that they once believed it, and it should also be easy to demonstrate what they claim to currently believe, which would seem to be a fair way to handle things. If there are reliable sources that also say that their current actions differ from their current words, that's also fair game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper and magazine articles from the 1960s

I have posted a discussion thread at RSN here. TFD (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Smear & Bias

The use of the world "radical" here is not objective, it is opinion, and does belong in a purportedly objective, encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.144.46 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You should add your comments to the end of the page. In fact they are normally considered to be part of the "radical right". You may object to the term, but it is the one generally used in academic writing. Some writers call them "far right", "extreme right" or "extremist". Can you name any group farther to the right or any more radical right-wing groups, other than the far right? TFD (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

September 5

There is a similar attempt to characterize anyone associated with the current American Tea Party Movement as a radical, fringe, type. This appears to be a partisan attempt to marginalize some legitimate concerns of the American people, which only encourages ignorance. While some people associated with either group may be of the radical type this characterization should not define the entire organization or movement because it is not accurate. Perhaps JBS use to be radical (compared to the American political spectrum at the time) or had some radical elements or people associated with it. However, this cannot give rise to an "encyclopedia" defining it through the eyes of the Democrat Party or party member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.144.45 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the view that using the term “radical right wing” is a pejorative motivated by political biases, and this would be okay if we understood what “radical” meant in terms of the “right wing.” Perhaps we should go back to using terms such as federalist/anti-federalist. We cannot hold the author responsible for the entire body of work, but there should be an effort toward consistency at Wikipedia. For example, there is no statement regarding the New Black Power Party that identifies it as a “radical left wing” organization. What is it specifically that makes JBS radical? Is it because they hold conservative views? So too did Jack Kennedy. Is it because they appear racist? So too does NAACP policies. Is it because they are intolerant of other points of view? We have no evidence of that. Espousing a conservative point of view does not make anyone radical, even when they appear on the right side of the political spectrum. (Mustang63 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

How may times do we have to go through this? You can object to the description all you wish, but it is the one most commonly used in objective, academic writing, and it is the most conservative term used in that setting. "Radical" is not pejorative in this context; it connotes a political group whose views are significantly further afield than the norm, without passing any judgment on those views. I can't think of a modern right-wing political group that is further afield than JBL, can you? Comparably radical left-wing groups are described with similar terminology, and I don't see you (or anyone else, for that matter) objecting to that. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The term radical right is generally accepted in academic literature, TFD (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not quite sure why the confrontational question, “How many times do we have to go through this?” We are not children and do not take kindly to being treated as such. Either you allow a debate on the merits or you do not. State which you prefer and if you do not, then we can end the discussion here and now. If you object to challenges, then we submit you are in the wrong avocation.

In fact, we do object to the use “radical right wing,” and the argument of common usage in academia offers rhetoric in place of substance. It follows the argument, “It is so because I say it is so.” Since our views offer as much substance as yours, we suggest the following for your further consideration. Political advocacy that is anti-communist, favoring limited government, and Americentrism (itself a pejorative term, according to Wikipedia) would appear in the American mainstream were it not for the radical left ideology associated with Marxism and the progressive movement.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams

We believe JBS represents a libertarian point of view, which of course includes anti-communist, limited government, and an objective view of American history. We may also assume that it is constitutionally constructionist; such beliefs do not make people vile even when you have a disparate point of view. Finally, the appearance in academic literature of the term ‘radical right’ does not at all suggest it is true, or valid, or that we must accept such usage out of hand. (Mustang63 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you (and the rest of whoever "we" is) find a simple question confrontational, but I'm happy to spell it out for you: "How many times do we have to go through this" refers to the fact that this question has been debated multiple times - look through the archives, and the other current sections of this talk page - and by consensus, we have elected to use the terminology found in the peer-reviewed literature, in compliance with standard Wikipedia guidelines. If you don't agree with that consensus, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to change the description in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a political pamphlet. If you want to be a political advocate for JBS, you'll have to find another vehicle. DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

_____ "...the argument of common usage in academia offers rhetoric in place of substance. It follows the argument, “It is so because I say it is so.”

I could not have said this any better. Common usage in academia is NOT a valid argument, particularly when such "common usage" directly contradicts the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the term in question: "radical" (see my argument above). 130.49.235.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)——

September 6

“We” assure you there is no advocacy for other than an unbiased entry. The topic is politicized, but only because you insist using pejorative language. If you are not dedicated to unbiased social science, we don’t think you should pretend otherwise. Thank you for your time.(Mustang63 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

Mustang63 or whomever "we" are... apparently you do not understand what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. Allow me to explain it to you in simple terms: It is a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge. There is no imperative for objective truth. I'm glad I could clear this up for you. (Leslie35 (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

September 28

Can you cite even one group on the "right" who describe THEMSELVES as "far right", "extreme right", or "extremist"? The FACT that you can't, right there - in and of itself - proves that the slur is obviously pejorative => i.e. not "neutral" and should be removed.130.49.235.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How many "far left" groups describe themselves as "far left"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You're making MY point, not your own. It is NOT a neutral descriptor.71.61.156.22 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you're going to have to spell out that reasoning for me -- how does the fact that right-wing extremists don't describe themselves as extremists, and left-wing extremists don't describe themselves as extremists, argue against the position that a neutral observer would accurately describe BOTH groups as extremists? It seems to me that only a neutral party would be justified in using "radical" or "extreme" to describe groups at either fringe. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure Joe.

  • Point One: As we have established, "extremist" is NOT a neutral term. It implies a dangerous and violent group.
  • Point Two: No intelligent "neutral" observer would characterize a traditional American belief in limited Government, a strong Constitution, ennumerated powers, and INDIVIDUAL rights - as framed by the founders - along with ZERO advocacy of force and / or political violence as an "extremist" position.

Perhaps you can tell me which of these concepts has you baffled, and I'll try to walk you through it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.156.22 (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Several points:
  • Please sign your contributions; even if you insist on remaining anonymous, we like to have some idea whom we're talking to.
71.61.156.22 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't patronize us; it violates multiple guidelines and contributes nothing to the discussion.
Oh? Violations of guidelines matter now? I had thought that since your royal "we" had already summarily disposed of wikipedia's neutrality guideline, that you'd at least be consistent. That you yourself are guilty of snobbery and condescension in this very section (as below) is ironic, but that being now said, I can assure you that I will be less patronizing than you were to mustang63 while pleading for a more accurate, less insulting, and more civil description of the JBS from the royal politbureau from this point forth. <===(starting here)
  • Neither of your points addressed my question, which I'll repeat: How does the fact that right-wing extremists don't describe themselves as extremists, and left-wing extremists don't describe themselves as extremists, argue against the position that a neutral observer would accurately describe BOTH groups as extremists?
Irrelevant. This is a circular argument.
  • "Extreme" views are far outside the norm, but not necessarily dangerous or violent -- and not necessarily wrong, either. One country's "extreme" can be another country's "mainstream." Example: It is my view that all people convicted of DWI (driving while intoxicated) should spend a year in prison at hard labor. That's an extreme view in the USA, but it's a mainstream view in the Scandinavian countries, because that's what they do in those countries. (And guess what? It works; DWI is almost nonexistent in Scandinavia, while 50% of US traffic accidents remain alcohol-related.)
  • The statement that "belief in limited government, a strong Constitution, individual rights, and the enumerated powers & duties is not an extremist position" is a straw-man argument, because nobody disputes that. JBS has earned its "radical" characterization because of some of the other positions it has taken -- for example, its opposition to civil rights legislation, and US membership in the UN; its campaign to impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren; its contentions that Eisenhower was a traitor and a communist, and that Alfred Kinsey was a "pedophile" and conspired with the Rockefeller Foundation to destroy America; and so on. Those are extreme views by any reasonably neutral standard. DoctorJoeE (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
SO by YOUR present wikipedia.org neutrality ruling, I now have permission to head over to the Barack Obama wiki and PROPERLY label him "radical far left" (evidence: 'hope & change') in the header of the article, and I now have YOUR permission and guarantee that you will not allow it to be ammended or reverted? Once I'm done with that, I'll gladly do the same for the ACLU and NAACLP wiki pages. Lord knows how many people each of THEM have personally attacked, smeared, and made incorrect and inflamatory statements over the years...
Barack Obama:
  • Doctors perform unnecessary amputations for economic gain [1]
  • Family doctors routinely misdiagnose to perform tonsilectomies for cash [2]
  • National Guard dereliction of duty (actual number died in tornado in question = twelve) [3]
  • Returning serivicemen greater threat to national security than Al Queda [4]
  • White folks greed runs (causes) a "World in need" (source: BHO autobiography) [5]
  • I don't know the facts but police "act stupidly" [6]
  • More examples available upon request
Obama can neutrally be defined by THESE statements - and they are not more properly addressed in the criticisms section, correct?
Or shall you be returning to the Ward Churchill defense? [7] Asserting that bias affirmation by tenured academic political activists (who actively despise conservatives and JBS) supercedes linguistic and factual correctness, supplants any actual need for reason based on evidence, and liberates one from the restraints of "neutrality" in the name of "common (liberal) practice"? 71.61.156.22 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Straw-man"
The real straw-man is this riduculous "extremist" tangent. The current pejorative against JBS is "radical far right". Extremist is an smear not yet in appearance on the main page. I have complied with your request and shown you the "far" right example you requested (anarchy), compared and contrasted it, and given clear reason why constitutional moderates are FAR to the LEFT of it.
I have further proven that the verbage "radical" is contra-indicative to JBS's political position - namely, that the term as recorded in english language dictionaries connotes those who seek CHANGE - whereas conservative connotes a desire and preference for TRADITIONAL forms. These are exactly opposite. Aside from the plainly obvious FACT that "radical" is a disparaging pejorative (as evidenced that NO GROUP would willingly tolerate it), it is ALSO, in this case, a complete 180 degree reversal of political position, and therefore indesputably and irreconcilably FACTUALLY INCORRECT to boot.


  • One: You have provided NO EXPLANATION as to why JBS cannot be denoted with the uncontested "Politically right" or "conservative" labels that you, I, and the JBS would all agree with.
  • Two: If this were NOT a controversial (non-neutral) position on your part(bias), how do you explain the fact that there are six archived pages disputing it?
  • Three: On what grounds do YOU get to label someone or something which you CLEARLY do not like (bias) despite numerous and repeated objections by multiple individuals offended by YOUR materially incorrect (and INSULTING) description 71.61.156.22 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I was holding out hope that we could have a civil discussion about this. I would first refer you to your own talk page, where another editor has today written a sage and courteous note that I hope you will accept in the spirit in which it was communicated, and heed. Second, by "us" I mean the Wikipedia community; "we" (all of us, no "royals" involved) are supposed to be working together to reach consensus; civility and assumption of good faith work well here, intimidation does not. So if your goal is to build a consensus toward changing the article's descriptor, you are not going to accomplish it with bluster, bluster, bluster. To your points: (1) au contraire, it has been explained multiple times that by consensus, we have elected to use the terminology found in the peer-reviewed literature, in compliance with standard Wikipedia guidelines. There are no absolutes, so we're forced to use benchmarks on the political spectrum that consensus has established. I don't think a majority (others are free to weigh here) will agree that "politically right" and "conservative" can stand alone as descriptors of JBS. As an example, I am a "Goldwater Republican" -- I'm "politically right" and "conservative" -- but like Barry Goldwater himself, I consider JBS well to my political right. A group that labels civil rights legislation and fluoridation of drinking water as communist plots cannot be accurately lumped in with mainstream Goldwater Republicans. (2) Another straw man: nobody said the existing terminology is not controversial; we will never find a descriptor EVERYONE agrees with; we need to go with the consensus. (3) The current descriptor evolved long before I got here; it's not MY description; but I happen to think it's accurate, and if you don't, assemble some reliable sources supporting your contention and see if you can build a consensus to change it. DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Addendum -- I see that while I was writing the above, you added additional comments which certainly speak for themselves. Once again, I refer you to the message on your talk page. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
...and now I see you tried to alter the wording of one of my posts; that speaks for itself too. Not to worry, I changed it back to what I actually wrote. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


"Constitutional moderate" is John Birch Society's OWN description of themselves. Proven and referenced here: [8]

Who is to their (JBS's) "right"? Anarchists. [9]


Anarchists: (Far Right)

    • Beliefs (No government. No law.)
    • Radical (Desiring change, seek fundamental transformation / reformation of society)
    • Extremist (Established history of Assasinations, violence, and rioting. Killed Abraham Lincoln, assassinated Franz Ferdinand, started World War 1, numerous clashes with Police [10], etc.)
Radical: a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, & policies of extreme change

Constitutional Moderates (Center Right)

    • Limited Government. Rights to Life, Liberty, Property, & National Sovereignty protected by a Government.
    • Not Radical (Traditional Values: Ennumerated Powers. Strict Constitutional Interpretation of the law. Objective justice with malice and sympathy toward none. Checks and Balances. Competing branches of government. Against "Implied Powers", Judicial Activism, Judicial Construction, "breathing" Constitutions, and other lawlessness) Do not seek change.
    • Not Extremist (JBS - NO history of assasination, violence, or rioting)


Conservative: a: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
b: cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
c: traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
71.61.156.22 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are to further persist in referring to the JBS as "extremist" or "radical" in the future, the impetous is on YOU to prove it. Provide EVIDENCE of violence, insurrection, riot, etc. conducted by the JBS, or on their behalf to justify it.

130.49.235.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Their public positions alone have labeled them. And what any group labels themselves is nothing more than marketing. Every conservative I've known considers themselves to be "moderate". Big deal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
What does Quote: "Every conservative I've known" -- Baseball Bug have to do with anything? Radical means "Change". Conservative means resistance to radical "Change" by definition. If you want to engage in your political activism, resign as an editor for wikipedia and find yourself another venue. Wikipedia.org is NOT a forum for you to air your opinion about "Every conservative" **YOU** "have known"

"what any group labels themselves is nothing more than marketing"

So then WHO does get to label them? If not the group themselves, then WHO? YOU? What gives YOU the right to label them? Does "Neutrality" mean YOU get to label whomsoever you wish based on whatever arbitrary, factually incorrect, and politically motivated (clearly dishonest) standard YOU desire? Why do they have to be "labeled" at all?
Why can we not refer to the John Birch Society as "conservative" or "politically right" - which EVERYONE agrees on - and move on? (Or would you consider such a bland and unloaded description "biased marketing" lol?)


Neutral: a: not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others.
b: not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy.
c: of or belonging to a neutral state or party.
d: of no particular kind, characteristics, etc.
71.61.156.22 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

—— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.235.213 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how "liberal" and "libertarian" mean totally different things? All kinds of right-wing wackos are "libertarian", that is, for guns and fundamentalism, against condoms and globalism. So, why on earth does cultural tolerance (as in liberalism) seem so remote from freedom of individual (as libertarians claim to alone campaign for) in all discussion? This kind of bothers me (just as a by-stander). Also, calling out "objective facts" to correct "liberal smear and bias" just seems like the another line of unconstructive critique. Please point the rest of us to the sources first. --Sigmundur (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several people on this site that do not consider objective facts and use their own uneducated perceptions of the JBS to label it as they see fit. This should entry should be fact based only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (moved down from top of page)

Ok, in future only use educated perceptions of the John BS; a link to William Buckley's famous 1962 reading-out of the John BS from the conservative movement would be a good start.

As for objective facts...facts are facts. As Chesterton pointed out, they are like twigs, they point in all directions. The world-view by which you interpet the facts is what gives them significance. The lumping of all their enemies into one unified-field-theory type of paranoid conspiracy is the world-view of the John BS. *That* is the significant thing about the group that distinguishes them from many other groups that favor limited government. I suggest this be put into the article as a fact.84.69.150.82 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Publiusohio, in order to add information (or remove sourced information) to an article such as this, where there are differences of opinion between editors as to whether or not the material is suitable, Wikipedia's policy is for the editors to come here to the talk page and discuss the proposed changes. During the discussion, agreement can develop as to the best course of action. References may be needed for new information, weighing of the relevance of the content can take place, and so on. If the editors immediately involved cannot come to agreement, then a Request for Comment can be made, which invites uninvolved editors to come and assist in the decision making. You are encouraged to participate in these conversations, and also to find reliable reference sources to support additions you would like to see in the article. I'll post a copy of this on your own talk page as well. Risker (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There are editors herewith a clear agenda tuse subjective terms such as "right wing" which connotate anachry or equally incorrectly fascism. The JBS has NEVER endorsed either.

But they have endorsed the worthless Gold Standard. --173.21.19.155 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Gold has recently been keeping pace with inflation. Since no one has a good definition of what it is, the idea isn't worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.191.192 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Publiusohio also needs to read WP:Civil and refrain from attacking other editors. Of course the article needs to represent what the JBS says about itself, but it also has to represent all significant views that can be reliable sourced. I don't know what publiusohio means by 'objective facts' -- quotes from the JBS are I guess objective facts about what the JBS says about itself, but are not objective descriptions of the JBS. I am going to reword the section heading as it is definitely uncivil - sorry, I wrote this yesterday and forgot to sign it. Doug Weller (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the current rise and general popularity in America of ideas such as limited federal government and a desired return to the American Founder's conception and development of the U.S. Constitution it is likely unreasonable to characterize an organization like JBS who currently values these ideas to be a "radical" right wing group. Its hardly radical when nearly half of the American populace supports limited government and anti-socialistic policies.

Absolutely correct. 130.49.235.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)——

Well, they're only for limited federal govt in regards to things they don't want. These ppl had no prob when Bush was trampling all over the Constitution (torture, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention w/out charge). They also have no probs with the feds violating the separation of church and state when they tried, but failed, to pass school prayer legislation and school vouchers that can be used for religious schools. Nor do these folks have problems with with violating the civil rights of gay people. Anyway, by 1941, the majority of Germans supported Hitler and the Nazi Party--I guess this must mean that since they were supported by so many ppl that the Nazis weren't a radical right wing group either.99.103.230.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC). 99.103.230.244 (talk)

Except the Birch Society has been opposed to foreign wars all through the Bush years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.54.209 (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "These ppl had no prob..." In my OPINION, the objection which you presented is a heartfelt emotional rant, and a clear unabashed display of bias.

You are claiming, through clear personal opinion that "torture" is whatever you say it is, "separation of church and state" is "Constitutional", despite not being found anywhere in the Pre-amble, the Constitution, or the Federalist papers; that the first amendment Constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech" specifically prohibit expression of speech in any place in which the state has placed its hand - despite the concept and term 'God' in every founding document, throughout law, and in our currency; You imply gay people living together is "marriage" - despite marriage's universal existance in every disparate culture, it's exclusive designation as male / female in virtually every unconnected culture from pre-history until present, and based upon an unqualified defacto declaration as "FACT" that reproduction is NOT of unique or special importance in personal relationships - despite an overwhelming proponderance of indisputable evidence in which thousands upon thousands of the worlds historically independent cultures have determined independantly for themselves that it does. "If a car and a roller skate are both red, both have four wheels, and are both means of conveyance, then a car must be a roller skate." This line of reasoning is clearly not valid, and to the point. Function matters. You declare your opinions as "FACT" and declare as "Center" - your OPINION - even though a great many people with equally valid, defensible, and rational opinion completely disagree with you and have a much deeper, more established, and historically cogent claim to the title "Center".

When you declare as "radical" or "far-right" any notion other than your own simply because YOU personally disagree is the very essence of bias. It is a clear contradiction of the "Neutrality" wikipedia.org declares ideal, and I strongly urge you to separate yourself emotionally and concede that "radical" is a loaded and disparaging term.

Definition: Radical: favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards *** change from accepted or traditional forms ***:

Clearly, if "radical" is used as a descriptor.. it is YOUR non-traditional, reformatory views that this term most aptly applies.130.49.235.213 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhNeGYYPgIE
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8
  3. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjO8Qc5s1fY
  4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/15/homeland-security-memo-right-wing-radicals
  5. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNQBTOVF4o
  6. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-e549qdS8Y
  7. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_9/11_essay_controversy
  8. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F13K8DvVLQ
  9. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F13K8DvVLQ
  10. ^ http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=G20+Riots&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=epGjTMvmGYGClAfDyfmOBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=8&ved=0CDsQsAQwBw
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Birch_Society/Archive_5&oldid=1136847968"