Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

1960s criticism

"Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas."

What groups? Where exactly did the criticism appear in the 1960s? The three sources aren't particularly RS; two are SPS and one is a blog. There's not a close correspondence of the article's claims to the sources either. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

MY RESEARCH: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home This does not appear to be a reliable source for the claims made. I have tagged the cite as {{rs}} and shall look for something reliable. Tentontunic (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, so probably can't be used in the article. That said, he seems to have genuinely done a lot of research and could be used as a tool the way a lot of people use Wikipedia: for finding sources to then consult oneself. I substituted other sources for the info and quote. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I am the author of the material on the site which Tentontunic asserts "does not appear to be a reliable source for the claims made", I would appreciate it if Tentontunic would be specific. Why is my site supposedly not reliable? It is fully documented with appropriate FBI file numbers and serial numbers plus it contains numerous scanned copies of FBI documents along with primary source material such as correspondence written by JBS founder Robert Welch, and major city newspaper articles, and internal documents produced by the Birch Society. My JBS report is an accurate and truthful summary of JBS assertions along with what is contained in FBI files about those assertions---which is why I have included so many scanned copies of the original documents. Perhaps, therefore, Tentontunic can be more precise about what makes my site not reliable? Incidentally, numerous authors, scholars, and researchers have cited me and my on-line reports in their own books, doctoral dissertations, academic journal articles, online articles, and conference papers. In fact, many of them have used, in their own writings, documents I provided to them from my collection. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS. TFD (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article you link to is much too complex to understand. Here is the bottom line: if you make a statement that something does not appear to be a reliable source -- then there should be some specific reasons given and, hopefully, an example or two to illustrate your concern. Documents cited (and often scanned into) my on-line reports have been used by numerous scholars and researchers and authors in their books, articles, doctoral dissertations, and academic conference papers. Making generalized unsubstantiated derogatory statements or innuendos about a source (as was done in this case about my reports) is an example of why Wikipedia itself is NOT regarded as a "reliable" source. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that contain abject falsehoods and minimal research would confirm that -- which only goes to demonstrate how phony your "reliable" sources article link is. Ernie1241 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Founder" as title v. "founding member"

"Founding member" simply means "one of the first members." It has a different meaning in American English than "Founder" does. Jimbo Wales is "Founder" of Wikipedia, but there were several dozen "founding members" (i.e. first users) of Wikipedia. "a person who establishes an institution, company, society, etc." is different from "an early member" [1] as opposed to [2]. As the distinction is clear, it is inapt to call Fred Koch a "founder" of the JBS without a source stating such. It is proper to call him a "founding member" or "one of the first members." Collect (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit regarding the above diff is a good one. I was not aware there was a distinction.

However, the Wiktionary definition you link doesn't say a founding member is "an early member." That's a vague descriptor depending on how one cares to define "early." Instead, it says "A member of an organization that was involved in, or whose membership commenced with, the organization's foundation." One could be an early member without being involved in the founding or having one's membership commence with the founding.

Wiktionary is not a reliable source, though... but it does appear to have a fairly accurate definition in spite of its lack of any sources or citations. The OED states "founder member n. a person belonging to or associated with the founding of a society or institution." and "founding member = founder member n." Every founder is a founding member, but not every founding member is a founder. So you're quite correct to say a source would be needed describing Koch more narrowly as a founder, and thank you for making that correction.

Incidentally, you can create InterWikimedia links (fine in article space, poorer in a discussion): [[wikt:founding member]] produces: wikt:founding member. 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Founder" has a specific sense of being key in the initial creation of a group - how many "Founders" does Wikipedia have? Collect (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with you above regarding the point about the narrower definition of the word "founder," which I thought I made quite clear, so I'm not sure with regard to your reply above what new point you're making or what you're asking now. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Welch invited 12 individuals (mostly prominent businesspersons) to attend a 2-day meeting in Indianapolis on December 8-9, 1958. The purpose of the meeting was to present Welch's interpretation of our postwar history and then to create an organization to "educate" the American public about what he considered the gravity of our situation and the actions required to address the "conspiracy" which Welch thought was operating inside the U.S. The 12 individuals were already generally familiar with Welch's beliefs because they all received Welch's monthly magazine entitled "One Man's Opinion". In addition, all of the persons present at the meeting had received a copy of Welch's book-length "private letter" entitled "The Politician" which stated that: "For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower's motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy, for all of his adult life." After Welch completed his 2-day speech, he asked those present to join him in creating the John Birch Society. Eleven did so. They thus became "founding members". However, the "founder" was Robert Welch. Had all 12 of those present declined to become JBS members -- the JBS would still have been created by Welch alone. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Members

Would it be appropriate to edit the member lists to indicate people who are no longer associated with the JBS? As the article indicates, the society purged itself of anti-semites and other racists in the 60's but several prominent ex-Birchers now associated with far right, white supremacy groups are listed as members. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Characterizations and Criticism section

I think we need attribution for "ultraconservative",[15] "far right",[16] and "extremist".[17]. Regarding "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order' or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines," which is it? Without specificity, this is WP:COATRACK and should be removed.Lionel (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• It has been described as "ultraconservative", "far right", and "extremist".

As you can see, each assertion has multiple sources, and more are available. The only reasonable way to attribute these statements would be with a blanket term, like "according to numerous sources".   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the SPLC general description as a coatrack? Lionel (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is it a WP:COATRACK? TFD (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is SPLC stating that JBS is (a) opposed to the 'New World Order' OR (b)advocate extreme antigovernment doctrines OR (c) adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines OR (d) can't tell? Lionel (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with WP:COATRACK? TFD (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Implicitly advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines will be read by some users as applying to the JBS. Ought we encourage such an implication? Collect (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When we say that the SPLC has described the JBS as a patriot group we should enable the reader to know what this means. It could be covered by an internal link, a definition in a footnote, or an explanation from the SPLC of why they have termed it one. The way it reads now does create ambiguity. TFD (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We link to the SPLC release. Adding this material is more apt to give a false impression than to elucidate anything. And I trust no one here would want to give any impression that the JBS "advocates or adheres to extreme antigovernment doictrines". Yet, that is precisely what is happening. Collect (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is your complaint about the JBS being considered "anti-government" or having "extreme doctrines"? Both are common descriptions, it seems to me.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The term is "advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines" which is not backed by any source other than the apparent attempt to implicitly make the claim. The JBS, if anything, appears 'extremely committed" to constitutional government, and has not been linked to any attempt anywhere to overthrow anything. The implication, however, of the language is otherwise. If you feel that the implicit description is correct, I think you should find a reliable source for it - otherwise I agree with TFD that it belongs in a footnote at most, as we certainly would not wish to mislead any readers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A dedication to 1789-style government could easily be considered as opposition to 2011-style government, the one we have now. But regardless of our own conclusions, JBS has been described as having anti-government views and of being opposed to the "New World Order" by other sources. Perhaps this issue could be resolved by replacing the definition of "Patriot Group" with a link to Patriot movement, which discusses the issue more fully.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement that WP articles not mislead readers is paramount. That you "know" that the definition of "Patriot group" was specifically intended to refer to the attributes of the JBS is not found in the source. Also note that WP frowns on wikilinking one term to a different term without real solid grounds for asserting that the second meaning was what was "really meant." The only proper action is to include the SPLC definition in a footnote where, presumably, readers will see which other groups are so categorized. And "easily construed" is not how articles are supposed to be based. Collect (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting what reliable, noteworthy sources say about a topic isn't necessarily misleading. We could say say something like "The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a 'Patriot Group'. (footnote to definition). Other sources, such as..., call it a part of the Patriot movement." Any objection to that formulation?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And you would need specific separate reliable sources not relying on the SPLC listing for such claims (per your suggestion - specifically linking the JBS as a society to the "Patriot movement") . Simple. See how easy that is? Collect (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. The question is whether there's any objection to that formulation. I don't know what you mean by referring to the the JBS "as a society". What other way is there to refer to it?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I.e. the official position of the JBS as a society as opposed to some members of the society. Positions held by "some members" may not be a valid item to ascribe to the society in an article on the society. F'rinstance, suppose the Gnarph Society has some members who assert that "taxing marijuana is wrong" (and there are reliable sources saying some members of the Gnarph Society hold that position) - it would not be fair to the reader to say "the Gnarph Society opposes taxes on marijuana." Articles, especially articles representing viewpoints of living people, must be scrupulously correct lest incorrect implications be made. Collect (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

how is that applicable to this discussion?   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It relates precisely to your proposal about using a definition from the SPLC in the SPLC footnote, and linking "Patriot movement" to the JBS - which should not be done without independent reliable sources making the connection. It is not up to editors here to assert that connection. This is all in response to your post made at 22:40 today. Collect (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are sources which connect JBS to the "patriot movement" Since there's no objection to the porposed formulation I'll make that edit.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's of any help, but there are sources for the JBS being anti-government. Being "extremely committed" to (one's own reading of) the constitution doesn't preclude the possibility of that, particularly given a belief that it's Communists all the way down. E.g. "The Birch Society is a conservative political organization and acts as a vanguard for the anti- government forces in America today." Rowady, Michael L. "Wolverine Fear: An Inside Look at the Citizen Militia Movement in Michigan and the United States" 74 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 771, 784 (1996-1997); "A passel of conservative organizations, notably the John Birch Society, founded by Robert Welch in 1958, sought to combine religion with anti-communist and anti-government sentiments." Balmer, Randall. God in the White House: A History. NY: HarperCollins, 2008. p. 130. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Um -- "vanguard" simply means that the JPS was a precursor to a movement, not that it specifically ascribes to that movement. "Rembrandt was a vanguard for Impressionism" does not make Rembrandt an impressionist. You have, in short, one opinion cite which says it combines "religion" with "anti-government sentiments" which is ten miles from "advocting extreme anti-government doctrines." There is no doubt that the JBS is anti-cmmunist, by the way. The make-up of the JBS belies any claim that they were ushing any particular "religion" as it was attacked by some for allowing Mormons in, etc. The JBS may be extremely despicable, but that is all the stronger a reason for getting this absolutely correct. See WP:PIECE Collect (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanguard means "leading", i.e., the JBS is the leading anti-government group. And yes their views are extreme by mainstream standards, even if they may seem moderate to some editors. Collect, you should not present your personal arguments against the conclusions of sources used, but find reliable sources that rebut them. Otherwise this discussion does nothing to improve the article. TFD (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a dictionary - but the cite does not support the SPLC definition as being "extreme anti-government" by a mile. You need a specific reliable source for the adjective being applied to the JBS wrt "anti-government". Period. Note, by the way, that I have repeatedly stated that despicable people and organizations must be treated properly by all editors, that you impute some views to me which I do not hold makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What does your dictionary say? I am also curious to know which dictionary you happen to use. TFD (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Many dictionaries. The NOAD says as a noun it applies to "a group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas" which does not say the "vanguard" holds any "extreme positions" in any sense, nor say the vanguard subscribes to all that follows. All it says is that the vanguard is the first to lead the way. Period. Do you have any cites at all -- even the self-published ones -- which says otherwise? Collect (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is that since the term "vanguard" does not necessarily mean that they are extremist that a vanguard cannot be extremist. Fails logic 101. You may see JBS views as moderate, and they may be compared with your worldview, but not with the normal view. TFD (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing remotely near what you seem to claim I said. I said that to use the term "extreme anti-government" would require specific solid sourcing using those words, and the source you offered does not remotely come near that requirement. You need a reliable source making the precise claim no matter how despicable the JBS or any other person or group is. Collect (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What source did I offer? What are you talking about? TFD (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NOAD didn't say vanguard means precursor, did it? The OED doesn't give that as a definition. It says it's "The foremost division of an army; the forefront or van." and "In fig. use." "Rembrandt was a vanguard for Impressionism" would be all around wrong. I don't think the JBS is a terrorist group, and I can't recall seeing anything by them advocating violence domestically, but I did find reliable sources (and I'm sure there's additional ones*) that say it's anti-government or "a vanguard for the anti-government forces". Whether it really is or not in some objective sense (perversely) doesn't matter, because WP doesn't care about that. *E.g. "[Ron] Paul, who speculated that the group used one of his speeches, said the John Birch Society shares anti-government goals with Libertarians." "Libertarians Choose Texan as Nominee." Miami Herald. September 6, 1987. 28A. "the anti-government John Birch Society" Hicks, Jerry. "The Right Place" Los Angeles Times. December 27, 1999. Metro Part B.Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A huge number of people would fall into that category (being somewhat "anti-government" - at last count ) - the issue was use of "(advocating) extreme antigovernment doctrines." The use of "extreme" must be specifically and strong;y cited. So far, it is not. [3] Pew last year found only 22% of Americans trusting government most of the time, with 50% of the populace wanting a "smaller government." Hardly seems to be "extreme" at that point. Collect (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect you should know better than to decide issues based on what seems correct to WP editors. JBS may not seem extreme to us, but our opinions don't count. Instead of writing what we think about a topic, we summarize what reliable sources say about the topic, with weight dependent on prominence. SPLC is a prominent, reliable source, so we report what they say. We only devote a short sentence to it. That's appropriate. I'm not quite sure what the intent of this ongoing thread is. We don't need to convince each other, we just need to summarize reliable sources. We've done that. What else is there to discuss?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I am saying unless the sources specify "extreme anti-government doctrines, we can not say it. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, even applying to most despicable people, views and organizations. SPLC does not state that the JBS advocates "extreme anti-government doctrines" by the way, and reliable sources making that explicit claim are needed in this article. Never mind that the JBS may be worse than the Brown Shirts - they are entitled to a NPOV and accurate article adhering to every WP policy. In fact, despicable groups need adherence more than others do. I trust this is now clear? Collect (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your issue? Do you oppose calling the JBS extreme? What do you consider moderate? TFD (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose violating WP policies and guidelines is what I oppose. And ascribing words without a clear reliable source for the precise claim is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Find a reliable source making the precise claim that the JBS (a horrid group) "advocates ectreme anti-government doctrines" and you are fine. Absent a reliable source as required by Wikipedia for such a claim, it fails to be allowed. Is this bold enough and clear enough for George III to read? Collect (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the SPLC Web site uses those precise words.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-s

Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good link, DoctorJoeE. Collect, your hyperbole and sarcasm aren't helping, but you may have a point about "extreme anti-government," so I can agree with you to that extent. However, there are sources for "patriot group," "extreme far right" and "anti-government" separately. Do you have an issue with them being described as such, provided there's a separation between them? As a side note, the JBS has an article in their news feed in which the New American's senior editor[4] accuses the SPLC of being a "principal front for the militant homosexual lobby."[5] Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect's "hyperbole & sarcasm" are due, understandably I think, to exasperation. For 5 days he's pointed out that the SPLC description of patriot groups is too general to apply to JBS specifically. It shouldn't be in the article. Lionel (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm -- If those shifty militant homos used an arbitrary definition I would agree, but it's pretty specific. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) They identify the criteria by which they define patriot groups, and then they say that according to those criteria, JBS is a patriot group. I'm afraid I don't follow what is "too general" about that. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear you missed the "or" in the SPLC definition of "Patriot groups" - are you saying the "or" is really an "and" for the JBS? Which half of the definition does ths SPLC aver applies to the JBS? Hint: The JBP does appear opposed to the "New World Order." Collect (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that no response is going to be good enough, even when it's exactly what you asked for. Let me quote you here: "Find a reliable source making the precise claim that the JBS (a horrid group) 'advocates ectreme [sic] anti-government doctrines' and you are fine." Well, we did that -- and apparently we're not "fine." I urge you to take a closer look at SPLC-JBS interactions in print -- for example, this article on the SPLC blog, plus the articles linked to it. The shoe fits. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect is right that the reading in the SPLC website does not specify which of the three criteria apply to the JBS. We know that all three do, but the source is not clear. TFD (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"We" most certainly do not know "that all three do." And that is specifically why attributing all three requires strong sourcing to an article which connects to living people. Collect (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming an OCD exercise -- but JBS itself, in multiple articles, such as this one, a rebuttal to the SPLC conspiracy debunking, makes its extreme anti-government stance -- for example, its belief that "the federal government...[is] laying plans to intern American dissidents in concentration camps as part of an imminent crackdown" (their words) -- quite clear. That said, I have no objection to stronger sourcing, as long as we neither de-tooth the article (as some are clearly trying to do), or make it unreadably ponderous. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The stance you cite as "extreme anti-government doctrine" (a fear that a government could hold citizens in, say, a place like Guantanamo) is also held by the ACLU as a possibility in its opposition to the Patriot Act -- I guess they are also part of the JBS? [6] (showing the ACLU prudly showing conservative support for the ACLU anti-government position) [7] showing ACLU distrust of the government etc. We clearly should list the ACLU as being "extreme" if that is the criterion. Clearly the ACLU's direct opposition to Expanding pretrial detention and lifetime supervision for laundry list of crimes said to be terrorism-related beyond what is already provided in Patriot Act. seems precisely apropos here. Thanks for making that argument clear :) Collect (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a classic JBS-style argument -- also a classic "red herring" debate fallacy -- if you want to debate the ACLU, go to that talk page and have at it. But what the ACLU does or doesn't do or believe has no relevance to what we're discussing here. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What sort of response is that inrended to be? I only pointed out that there is still no source for the specific claim that the JBS "advocates extreme anti-governmant doctrines." Absent such a source, WP requires that the claim not be made. The claim was made, moreover, that opposing the possiblilty of detention of people on the basis of belief is somehow an "extreme anti-government doctrine" per se, and I aver that such is not an "extreme anti-government doctrine" per se. I trust this is simple. Collect (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was intended to point out that your argument is a red herring: To say that a JBS argument is somehow valid because an ACLU argument is similar is a classic fallacy that would get you tossed in the first round of any debate competition. Maybe the ACLU is anti-government too -- I don't know that much about the ACLU -- but it has no relevance to a discussion about the John Birch Society. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Again - it is not a "red herring" to point out that zero sources have been given for asserting that the JBS "advoces extreme anti-government doctrines." If you can find one - great. But without one, WP policy is clear. And pointing out that a claim that opposing part of the Patriot Act is somehow sufficient - the use of a counter-example is not a "red herring" but a common method of absolute disproof used in science. Collect (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, as Einstein would say, if you were right I would agree with you; but quoting another organization's assertions says nothing about the Birch Society, and is thus a red herring, and is just as big a fallacy in science as it is in politics. Find us a JBS quote saying they do NOT advocate "patriot-style" rebellion against the federal government, and you'll have your counter-example (though not "absolute disproof"). Comparing JBS to the ACLU has no relevance to your argument. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in reading your position that unless there is a source explicitly stating that the JBS does "NOT advocate 'patriot style' rebellion against the federal government" that therefore thay must be advocating rebellion? I fear that such is not logical here or on any page. Collect (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I'm saying (for the third time) that your ACLU comparison says nothing about the Birch Society's position on that, or any other, subject. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is anyone in this thread proposing an edit to the article? If not then this discussion should be moved to some other forum. If there is a proposed edit could someone please restate it? I can't find it.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Collect wants "Patriot group" delinked in John_Birch_Society#Characterizations. I don't think it should be delinked, and I think "anti-government" should be added to that section. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is wrong. I basically felt the SPLC definition should be in the footnote and not in the body - which is what everyone seems to have agreed on other than you. I do, moreover, feel that the "patriot movement" sentence is fully unnecessary, and that I am unable to confirm that the sources given make that precise claim. Perhaps Will can give the full quotes needed to affirm that the sources made the connection with the JBS explicitly? Neither seems available through the usual places online at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Which is wrong" is not a particularly helpful comment. Regarding your assertion that "the SPLC definition should be in the footnote and not in the body - which is what everyone seems to have agreed on other than you": "everyone" strikes me as more hyperbole. Anyway, I think it's a questionable use of a footnote; if their definition is going to be in the article, it should be in the body of the text. Asking for details on the newspaper articles is fair enough, though I'm unsure why you wrote "Neither seems available through the usual places online at all." Why emphasize "neither"? What are the "usual places" you checked? The Colorado Springs Gazette source shows up on Google News Archive as being available online (for a fee):[8] Junas' is online through LEXIS NEXIS: "The [militia] movement, in turn, has arisen out of the larger and broader 'Patriot' movement, comprised of organizations and individuals who share a conspiratorial world view, in which key political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite insiders. At the right wing of the movement are white supremacists and anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. At the other end of the spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism, but which nonetheless espouses a conspiratorial world view in which international elites are attempting to impose a new world order through such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations." You could acquire either article through interlibrary loan. But at any rate, Google Books has a number of relevant sources too, among them: "The militias are the militant arm of the patriot movement, which includes such groups as the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, tax resisters, and others." Snow. Robert. Terrorists Among Us: The Militia Threat. Perseus Publishing, 2002. p.14. "The Patriot movement is represented by many diverse groups. Moderates in the movement probably include groups like the John Birch Society and some of the televangelists representing historical but fundamentalist approaches to Christianity." Quarles, Chester L. The Ku Klux Klan and Related American Racialist and Antisemitic Organizations: A History and Analysis. McFarland & Company, 1999. p. 134.; "The militia are the most militant, and organized, wing of a much broader, self-proclaimed 'patriot movement,' whose ideiological galaxy encompasses established, extreme, conservative organizations, such as the John Birch Society" Castells, Manuel. The Power of Identity. Blackwell, 2010. p. 88.; "The Patriot Movement, formed in the 1980s, loosely unites far-right groups who command the support of as many as 5 million Americans (Junus 1995, 228). The nonviolent and more moderate wing of this movement includes the waning John Birch Society" Sandbrook, Richard. Civilizing Globalization: A Survival Guide. State University of New York Press, 2003. p. 254. Other sources say the movement employs their ideas, without saying whether the JBS itself is or isn't part of the patriot movement. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When two sources are not directly available to be verified "neither" is the normal Englsih word used. Your first cite gives a really helpful "This webpage cannot be found" 404 error here. Saying a "galaxy" includes the JBS does not seem a strong source for the claim. Sandbrook's claims should be examined in the context in which he makes them - his thesis is that globalization itself is "disruptive" - thus I suggest that his opinion, at best, can be cited as his opinion. As for "self-proclaimed" - that would require that a JBS source be found wherein it asserts that it is part of a "patriot movement." As for the footnote - when TFD and Will agree with me, that is pretty unanimous :). In short, I see no gain past the extant SPLC label of "Patriot group" already in the article. Collect (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, so your complaint with the current text is about the sentence on JBS being considered a part of the "patriot movement"? The sources listed are directly verifiable. I assume you really mean that they are not hotlinked to free websites.

• Nonetheless, one student of ultra-conservative groups credits patriots with getting the 10th Amendment ball rolling. "The patriot movement is the largest ignored movement in America," said Chip Berlet, who studies the right wing (a prideful label at this conference) for Political Research Associates in Cambridge, Mass. Berlet estimates there are more than 5 million patriots, "with the John Birch Society and Pat Robertson on the moderate flank and Bo Gritz and white supremacists on the right wing of it. A whole lot of otherwise sensible conservative state legislatures around the country are picking up on what is essentially a right-wing conspiracy theory in support of states' rights."
  • Determined 'patriots' say their time has come/ Reduction of government sought Jeff Thomas, Gazette Telegraph. Colorado Springs Gazette - Telegraph. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Feb 13, 1995. pg. A.1
• The movement, in turn, has arisen out of the larger and broader "Patriot" movement, comprised of organizations and individuals who share a conspiratorial world view, in which key political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite insiders. At the right wing of the movement are white supremacists and anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. At the other end of the spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism, but which nonetheless espouses a conspiratorial world view in which international elites are attempting to impose a new world order through such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations.
  • DISAFFECTED CITIZENS FORMING ARMED MILITIAS; [FINAL Edition] Daniel Junas. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 14, 1995. pg. A.9

Since "patriot group" and "patriot movement" are clearly similar, it makes sense to treat them together. We could mash the sentences together. Something like, "the SPLC and others consider the JBS to be a patriot group or part of the patriot movement".   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC sentence is sufficient. None of the sources presents the "patriot movement" as an organized entity unto itself. It is interesting that the JBS is at the left wing of the movement to be sure. What we have, basically, is that they can say the JBS says it is patriotic. I can tnink of few groups which would actually call themselves "unpatriotic" in any case :). All that is needed is(roughly) "The SPLC has labelled the JBS a "Patriot group", while others refer to a broad "patriot movement." including the JBS." One sentence as both concepts appear to be the same. Collect (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC source is not sufficient to show membership in the movement since it doesn't mention it. But I agree that one sentence would be fine so long as we retain the link, the footnote, and the citations.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How can describing the JBS a "right wing extremist organization" be regarded as a neutral point of view?

I heard folks describe Wikipedia as "left-leaning" I can see why. How can describing the JBS a "right wing extremist organization" be regarded as a neutral point of view? Simply adding references from liberal authors does not make it so. By that criteria, why is the Southern law Poverty Center not described as a "radical left-wing organization"? Navy AMDO (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Which liberal authors are you referring to? Have you checked the sources?   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How else would you describe an organization that claimed that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and the U.S. government is controlled by Communists? Do you think that is a moderate or an extreme view? If it is moderate, then what would an extreme view be? TFD (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Navy AMDO is a one-day / two-edit Wikipedian (his other edit, to Southern Poverty Law Center, was immediately reverted as it was grossly non-neutral POV.) — Robert Greer (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination is this neutral. This line COULD (not necessary) be included in the body under an appropriate heading. By this logic, every entry on wikipedia should/could have a sentence in the first paragraph which states: "He/she/it has been described as [insert source based opinion here]". Why not edit the following, "Princess Diana has been described as a whore, Michael Jackson has been described as a pedophile, Ice cream has been described as a carcinogenic"... OptimusPrime321 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we only refer to informed and notable opinion. The JBS was the main model for the concept of extremism. The term itself has no bad connotations. It is taken from statistics and merely refers to the approx. 2% at either end of a bell curve. However the term's use to describe the JBS has given it negative connotations. (Incidentally your examples are extremely offensive.) TFD (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right (again)

Most scholarly sources describe the JBS as radical right, although some writers describe them as far right, extreme right, etc. See for example Clive Webb's Rabble rousers: "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society...." (p. 10)[9] Editors who wish to change that description need sources to support a different description and should not change the sourced description. TFD (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

JBS "supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic[3][4] and personal freedom." (Wikipedia 1st line) You must be right those are truly radical beliefs--when pigs fly!74.192.7.135 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not what we think about them.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I still suggest "Far right" is fully adequate as a descriptor. And pretty much identically sourced to "radical" if not better sourced. Collect (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this at length a few months ago. Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 6#The current description of the John Birch Society is Biased. Is there anything new to add?   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As I recall. My position thereon was not changed. IIRC, you, at the time, stated that both terms were used with similar frequency. And it is simpler to use the less extreme term if any editors disagree. YMMV. Collect (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Webb wrote that the term "far right" is the label most broadly used by scholars to describe militant white supremicists.[10] Do you consider militant white supremicists to be "less extreme" than the John Birch Society? TFD (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I consider the most widely used term to be "far right" and that the term is not specific to "white supremacists" so that is just a pure maguffin in this discussion. If we had someone who said "radical right" meant "people who wear green pyramids on their head at Easter" that would still be totally irelevant. Collect (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What you consider or know or believe is irrelevant. We use reliable sources. If you believe that the source I presented which was published by the University of Georgia Press is wrong and you are right, then please provide a source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before. Will BeBack stated that the number of uses was similar. Did you fail to read his past posts? I do not "know" anything here except what reliable sources claim. And since the number of sources for each phrase ase, by Will's statements, comparable, it is reasonable to discuss which term the article should use. Now do I need to go back and post again the sources presented by a number of editors, including Will, which use "far right"? Your tendentiousness on this is truly awe-inspring! BTW, Google Scholar (your fave) shows 827 books cited using "John Birch Society" and "far right" with only 751 using "radical right." Current usage? Check the news - 9 current stories using "far right" and 2 using "radical right." So on both current usage in news grounds and on scholarly works grounds - your position is nicely untenable. Collect (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Insisting on following what is in sources is not tendentious. But it is prudent to use the terminology that sources say is used rather than conducting original research, especially when it reduces ambiguity. Can you please provide a source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And for the last time - there are a sufficiency of sources (a plurality of sources, in fact) using "far right" and not "radical right." Thus if we are to follow the sources, "far right" is, in fact, the proper term. As for the silly claim that it is "original research" to look at Google Scholar results, that has been used far too often here to be anything more than tendentious twiddling.

WP:OR refers to, ond only refers to, claims made in articles. It has nothing to do with editors writing on talk pages, has never been used for that purpose, and will never be used for that purpose absent some astounding change of consensus. This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.

For sources using "far right" and specifically excluding "radical right" we have: [11] 468 results. Starting with J George… - No.: ISBN 1-57392-058-4, 1996 - ncjrs.gov, [CITATION] Men of the far rightR Dudman - 1962 - Pyramid Books, [CITATION] The Far RightD Janson… - 1963 - McGraw-Hill, Mormonism and the New Christian Right: An Emerging Coalition?A Shupe… - Review of Religious Research, 1985 - JSTOR, Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty LobbyAS Winston - Journal of Social Issues, etc.

For google scholar orthogonal results: [12] 392 results (76 fewer results) starting with: BOOK] The radical Right: report on the John Birch Society and its alliesBR Epstein… , [CITATION] The John Birch Society:'Radical Right'and'Extreme Left'in the Political Context of Post World War IIAF Westin - The Radical Right, ed. D. Bell (Garden City, NY), 1964, [PDF] The paranoid style in American politics[PDF] from posterous.comR Hofstadter - Harper's Magazine, 1964 - posterous.com, An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory increases 1950s-1970s[PDF] from stanford.eduJL Sullivan, J Piereson… - The American Political Science …, 1979 - JSTOR, etc.

In short, no shortage of reliable sources per Google Scholar to belie the claim that there is any preponderance of "radical right" instead of "far right." Collect (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(out) Google bombing is a pain. You expect me to read through countless sources which you have not even looked at. I will therefore comment only on your first link. It is to an abstract of Laird Wilcox's and John George's book, The American extremists: militias, supremicists, klansmen, communists, and others. Note that while reliable sources describe some of these groups as "far right", few sources describe them all as far right. Communists for example are rarely described as far right. Wilcox btw rejected the term "radical right", preferring to call the JBS "right-wing extremists". Rather than Google searching for sources that support your viewpoint, try reading the literature and ensure that articles support what is found there. I could for example, using your logic, google search "Joe McCarthy" and "Communism" and conclude he was a Communist. Extremely poor logic. TFD (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Um -- Google Scholar has been used by you many times. It is not "google bombing" as most editors readily admit. So far you have failed to show any rational reason why you dismiss "far right" as a term. Other than to take personal aim at me. And the McCarthy silliness proves the point rather well. I decline to continue this exercise in tendentiousness you are making. Collect (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not use Google scholar in order to poll scholars on their positions. I rely on reliable sources for their explanation of what weight is placed on different scholarly opinion. Your methology is inconsistent with rational and neutral research. TFD (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul and the John Birch Society

Texas Congressman Ron Paul endorses the John Birch Society, "The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster 'less government, more responsibility, and--with God's help--a better world.'" Ron Paul gave the keynote speech at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society in 2008.

Ron Paul congratulates the John Birch Society on 50th anniversary http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_9_24/ai_n25385019/ || Ron Paul Addresses John Birch Society http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409

Which is likely more apt for his BLP than for this article. We do not include every person's quotes about the group in this article - it could easily get to be 500K long at that point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

this article reads like a official pamphlet

This article reads like a pamphlet for the John Birch Society. You don't even get a hint of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to either fix the problems you see or make specific, constructive recommendations. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I doubt any pamphlet would make the charges found against a society which are found here. The goal is NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Authoritarianism

The Authoritarianism link in the "see also" section should be removed for internal consistency. The top of the page characterizes the John Birch Society as advocating limited government and personal freedom. 121.72.219.220 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the see also links seem helpful and I will therefore remove the section. TFD (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"antiscience fearmongering"

As the quote is specifically in reference to, and only in reference to, the fluoridation fghts, it is insufficient to simply say the JBS is "anti-science." Misleading readers when the fluoridation issue is covered in the body without the broad brush characterization is improper. "Disappearing Spoons" makes zero other reference to the JBS, is not about the JBS, and the single sentence in regard to fluoridation taken out of context is mal-used here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the claim of Anti-Science, which should really have an easily checkable source. Additionally, it fails the face validity check. If the JBS has as a founding member Fred Koch's then it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Chemical Engineering plays a huge role in the petroleum industry. Why in the world would a clearly scientific person like Koch be involved with an anti-science organization? Correction, I see Collect was addressing the same issue. Arzel (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The most the source could reasonably be used for is "anti-fluoridation" - which is already covered in the article and is not, in itself, a reason to call the JBS generally "anti-science" especially considering its membership. Meanwhile, of course, the fluoridation controversy has a new generation of discussions - and makes one wonder how wrong or right anyone was about the issue a half-century ago. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that the professional interests of one board member determined the science policy of the JBS would be original research unless there's a source which says so.

The source in question is a book about science, and the author is competent to describe the view that JBS was antiscience. We could phrase it more carefully, something like, "due to its opposition to fluoridated water, the JBS was seen as engaging in 'antiscience fearmongering'."   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not quite what I was saying. I was saying that it is absurd to think that Koch would be closely alligned with an anti-science organization when it would go against what he stood for. Aside from that I think it would be undue weight to make that statement. That one writer made that analogy is little reason to make that statement, and it seems like quite a stretch to use their stance against water flouridation as the basis for a blanket statement like that. Furthermore, the reason why the JBS is against it apparently has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with individual rights. Arzel (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we think about Koch's motivations or inner thoughts, we can't use our own inferences as the basis for editing. The author in this case is not making an analogy. He is directly saying that the JBS was perceived as anti-science because of its stand on fluoridation. It was probably too much weight to put this in the lead, but it is perfectly acceptable in the body of the article, in the context of the fluoridation discussion. Which seems strangely missing, considering it is among the JBS's most famous policy positions.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is that the source is adequate to say the JBS opposed fluoridation, but is not a valid source for a general claim of "antiscience fearmongering", Will. The fluoridation bit is covered in the body of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Two against one is not consensus. Where does the article discuss fluoridation? I can't find it.   Will Beback  talk  22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it in the article either, however its inclusion in the article would be under the context of anti-communism for which JBS rooted it stance against Fourinated Water. Anti-Science, regardless of what one WP:FRINGE writer stated appears to have absolutely nothing to do with it. Arzel (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-communism may have been the root cause for the campaign, but apparently it was received as also being antiscience. I'd hardly call Sam Kean a fringe writer. You'd have to establish that if your going to base your argument on his fringeness.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You have to show that Anti-flouridated water =~ Anti-Science and not a fringe statement. If such logic were applied evenly to everyone, nearly everyone in the world would be anti-science. It is a weak and lazy correlation to make. Arzel (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) Will -- you have a grand total of one source, and that source is specifically about the fluoridation issue and does not make any general claims about the JBS being generally "anti-science." At this point, you do not have consensus on your side for making a broad claim from a weak source, so that really ought to be enough. Cheers. BTW, twenty more posts will not make the source say more than it does already, and so it goes. Collect (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more concerned at this point to see why we don't mention fluoridation in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It had been prominent in the past - now it is just mentioned in General Jack Ripper in the movie Dr. Strangelove was based upon the John Birch Society's anti-fluoridation campaign.[52] I think the campaign is likely sourceable for sure. Collect (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Collect argued strenuously against saying anything about the issue back in 2010. Talk:John_Birch_Society/Archive_6#Water_fluoridation_controversy. Is there going to be another fight over it this year, or are we all in agreement that this is significant?

As for the "antiscience" issue, I see another source which makes a similar claim. The politics of healing: histories of alternative medicine in twentieth century: "The [JBS] ... often relied on upon anti-mental-health rhetoric to prove the existence of a global communist conspiracy".   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So Scientology is anti-science as well, then, because it opposes mental health science? Sorry, Will -- the JBS can be described as opposing fluoridation, but not as generally "anti-science." Wikipedia tries to be accurate, not looking for a general term when it was not used in that sense in the sources provided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As for the 2010 discussion - the issue was the proposed edit

Sociologist Brian Martin states that sociologists have typically viewed opposition to water fluoridation as irrational, although critics of this position have argued that this rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge

which is far different from your claim that I opposed mentioning the fluoridation issue. Will -- PLEASE try to be accurate here. I also noted there that a WP article can not be a source for a WP article - which was also attempted. And that TFD agreed with my position: A passing reference to the JBS in a popular magazine is not a good source. The article should be based on books and articles actually written about the JBS and the radical right. And even an editor named Will Beback did not back the edit proposed. Cheers Will -- and next time it would be nice if the claim made was not egregiously errant. Collect (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We'd say that JBS is antiscientific and anti-mental-health because sources say so, not because we believe it is. If there are other views we can report those too.

So, to get back to the question at hand, are we all in agreement that the anti-fluoridation campaign is significant and should be added to the article?   Will Beback  talk  17:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen much mention of it in books that write about the JBS or in literature about the anti-fluoridation movement and therefore do not see that the article should provide much coverage to it. TFD (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The JBS appears, in fact, to have been rather a "late-comer" to the fluoridation fight which started in the early 1950s. It did certainly oppose fluoridation, and that part is likely usable (likely a single sentence would cover it), but to leap from there to the general "anti-science" claim is one which would require far better sources that the single one which refers explicity to the fluoridation fights. Of course, there were and are a great many not in any way affiliated with the JBS who have also opposed fluoridation of water supplies. Collect (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

So it sounds like folks agree that we should devote at least a sentence to the matter.   Will Beback  talk  18:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please provide the source and the proposed edit. TFD (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not there yet.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there was no objection above I added a short sentence.[13]   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Panama Canal Zone Sovereignty

Correction: The US never had sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. Per the treaty, which is available on the Internet, Panama maintained sovereignty over the zone. The US in effect leased the land from Panama, although the word "lease" does not appear in the treaty.

Norm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.110.172 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you think the article should be changed. TFD (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011

Either delete the whole "members" section or put a citation needed template next to each name.

Sincerely

46.246.131.121 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe they are all sourced en masse within the stated source material -- but I'll double-check (unless someone has the references handy). DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 23:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I can't find a source for this at all. I have tried the provided sources but they are not present. I have also utilized a tool called google to no avail. I will delete the section called members because it seems out of place, mis-worded, and poorly cited. Maybe we could add it again once we have new sources and someone please types it up in a readable/understandable manner. Until then, toodles!108.70.61.233 (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Radical right wing

The sources for the site being considered "radical" right wing are not reliable, there are only 2 sources, both from liberal opinion pieces. Plus just in comparison, the website WorldNetDaily is much more 'radical' than the John Birch Society website, but the article for WND just calls it "a conservative website", no mention of radicalism at all.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The main source, which is published by the University of Georgia Press says, "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and the John Birch Society,,,,"[14] Can you please explain why you do not consider the University of Georgia Press to be a reliable source? TFD (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd consider the source to be reliable, though the specific author seemed to have a liberal bias. I'd like to know though what issues Wikipedia considers John Birch "radical" on, because compared to other website like WND speaking, it's pretty tame.--108.193.118.126 (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say that they are "radical" but that scholars describe them as "radical right". TFD (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic[1][2] and personal freedom.[3] It has been described as radical right-wing.[4][5]" Why not just let the reader make up his or her mind about the group? The Ford Foundation has been described as both an arm of the CIA and a radical left wing organization, but this is not mentioned in the opening paragraph of its Wikipedia article. I am certain that I can find many other examples. Also, today one would label the founders of our country as a bunch of radical right wingers. The very definition of left wing vs right wing changes over time. The South was largely Democrat during the Civil Rights era. They were both progressive and racist.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.120.2 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes it sound as if it is just a claim rather than how they are classified. TFD (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And it is the opinions of the cited sources, and not a "fact." This version has been stable for quite a while now, TFD. Collect (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When experts agree about a categorization it becomes a fact. Notice that political parties have fields for "ideology". We do not qualify them by saying that they are opinions, nor should we for political organizations. TFD (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your problem here is that "experts" are far from unanimous on this, that you have argued elsewhere that published opinions as to ideology should be labeled as opinion (my consistent position here and elsewhere), and you use the opposite arguemnt here. Sorry - it does not fly. Collect (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I have argued that political ideology should be stated where it is generally accepted and properly sourced. As far as I can tell, the only opposition to the description comes from the John Birch Society itself, and therefore am bemused why you would take this line. If I am wrong, can you please provide me a source that explains how their ideology is most commonly described. Please provide links to what your "experts" say. TFD (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

)od) See from archives here: [15] where an editor specifically states: The source does not say that they are "radical" but that scholars describe them as "radical right" And the fact that books use "far right" just about as ofetn as "radical right" in conjuction with the JBS. Will acknowledged that in the past, by the way. And in any case, any such categorization of any group is an opinion, reasonably citable as opinion. And it is not up to me to provide "experts" to categorize anyone on any scale, especially when there is such debate as to the utility of a left-right spectrum which varies from time to time, country to country, religion to religion, etc. Cheers - the claim as I had placed it more than six months back was both reasonable, and stable. Collect (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you on many occassions, "radical right" is the term used to describe them - it does not mean that they are radical or right. Compare for example with "Holy Roman Empire" - neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, but only a tendentious editor would challenge the term. TFD (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Parsing words does not impress me. The fact is that an edit was here for six months and you made no objections to it. To make your bold revert requires that you obey BRD - that is you must discuss and gain consensus for your revert of a six month old accepted compromise edit first. Cheers. And note that my position on all such expressions of opinion is the same across the board. Collect (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, am comfortable with the compromise edit, clumsy wording and all. That said, you did assert that "experts are far from unanimous on this" -- "this" being the classification of JBS as "radical." I would love to see your list of "experts" who consider an organization that labels President Eisenhower as "entirely without principles and hungry for glory, who is only the tool of the Communists", presses for the impeachment of a sitting Chief Justice, and asserts that "the federal government...[is] laying plans to intern American dissidents in concentration camps as part of an imminent crackdown" (their words) -- statements which appalled Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley, among others -- as something other than "radical." I await your list of experts, and the adjectives they use in place of "radical". DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If today's 'experts' were to classify the founding fathers, they would classify them as radical right wing. My objection is not whether they are radical or right wing, but whether this belongs in a Wikipedia article. If this is proper, then why not put these types of labels at the top of all Wikipedia articles having to do with ALL membership organizations? If Southern Democrats of the 1960s were racist, then this makes Democrats radical right wingers, right?50.84.120.2 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

See Lipset & Raab's The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970. They did not classify the founding fathers as radical right although they did identify radical right elements in the revolutionary period. Neither have other writers who have written about the history of the radical right. Nor did they identify southern Democrats as radical right. TFD (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument, Collect. We're not talking about the Founding Fathers or Democrats, we're talking about the JBS. Let's get back on point: You said "the experts are far from unanimous", and I asked for some evidence of this, i.e. a list of experts who have a different descriptor for JBS. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 11:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I posted. I do not recall making any comments about "Founding Fathers" or the like - only that opinions are opinions are opinions and that they should thus be labeled as opinions and not as "fact." And I would note that searches for "far right" are as numerous as for "radical right" etc. for the JBS. (RR= 75K, and 17K in books) (FR = 378K and 9K in books), ("Extreme right" 53K and 5K in books) ('Conservative" 1 million and 62K in books) Thus hardly any clear consensus in sources using "radical right" as a "fact" about the JBS. In short - a range of opinions, albeit all placing the JBS on the right, but nor in any way asserting uniformly that "radical right" is a fact. And you will note that the present article does, in fact, state that such an opinion is held. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you need to re-read what you posted, if you don't recall writing, "If today's 'experts' were to classify the founding fathers, they would classify them as radical right wing." (Actually, they are usually classified as commie weirdos, but once again, that's off the subject.) And I've already said that I'm comfortable with the lead as it is, weasel words and all. I just wanted to see some of the "expert" opinions (as opposed to bloggers who turn up in Google searches) who think calling Eisenhower a communist is anything other than radical. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Who are you asserting wrote those words? AFAICT they were written by 50.84.120.2 .... Is that whom you were addressing here? Collect (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please address the issue. You believe that the view that Eisenhower was a Communist agent is a moderate view and no mainsteam scholars consider it to be radical. I have not seen mainstream literature claiming that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and would be appreciative if you could point me to any. BTW do you believe that these claims are true? TFD (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I obviously confused you with the anon. But I would submit that "far right" and "extreme right" are effectively synonymous with "radical right"; to distinguish between those terms is really splitting hairs. And I still haven't seen any objective published disagreement with placing JBS on the right fringe. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 03:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The term "radical right" was invented to describe groups like the JBS, while the term "far right" normally refers to violent neofascist organizations. Collect, where do you place them in your political spectrum?? TFD (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You really need a real argument far better than "The JBS is 'radical right' because some author invented 'radical right' specifically for the JBS therefore it must be a fact that the JBS is 'radical right'." See "recursion" on Google. Collect (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I do not place anyone or any group on any spectrum - I rely on using opinions from reliable sources, stated as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The "author" you disparage is one that you have repeatedly mentioned to support your view that fascism is left-wing. Why do you use a writer to support your views but reject them when they do not? Let me explain how scholarship works: An "author" presents a view, then other authors accept it. For example, Ptolemy said the world was round. No one says that was 2,000 years ago, maybe we have moved on. Do you agree? BTW, do you consider the JBS views to be moderate? Do you agree with them? TFD (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The grossly errant claim that I asserted Fascism is "left wing" is absurd, and an attack on the intelligence of any editor who read the talk pages. As I never said such a thing, and I have made abundantly clear that I never said such a thing, the repetition of the egregiously errant claim is tendentious in the extreme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you use big words? Your views on fascism btw are clear to anyone who wishes to search the talk page archives. It is also obvious that you do not know the difference between a "pretender" to the throne and a Walter Mitty. TFD (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- this beggars the imagination as to how anyone can conceivably advance such an erroneous, fatuous and egregiously wrong argument about another editor without having a massive keyboard explosion! Post the edits where you assert that I called "Fascism" left wing. Period. Absent solid diffs to advance your claim, I suggest that there is a very good reason why you can not post such diffs -- and a reason which is clear to every other person who ever lived. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Nope. The section states that historians have placed types of fascism on the left, right and center -- which is exactly what is shown. Clearly some historians have placed at least one type of fascism on the left, which is what the job of editors on WP is -- to present material which is VERIFIABLE. See WP:V." {Collect (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)} [Incidentally quoting the author you have just rubbished.] TFD (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Which means that I never asserted that Fascism is left-wing. And that I ascribed all positions as opinions held by such people as Schlesinger, Lipset etc. And where historians and political scientists have made such a statement, then it is our function to note it in any article - and note it as their opinion. Now will you admit you erred in making a claim that I held any opinion or averred that Fasicsm is "left-wing"? Seems it this was the absolute best you could do, that you well owe me a big apology! Collect (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My issue with "radical right wing" is that it is in the first paragraph of the sentence. It is hearsay to begin with since it is saying that it has been described as such. I don't think it is appropriate for an introductory paragraph which should strive to be as neutral as possible. This will CLEARLY influence people's reading of the page. A normal person will now read about the topic with the association that it is along the lines of the KKK or Neo-Nazis. This is the place for a Controversy Heading, of which, this page does have one to its credit. So all points of view are being discussed without unfairly categorizing the topic and influencing readers. Additionally, after reading their material and watching YouTube videos, they only appear to be FIERCELY Paleoconservative. I'm sorry but Paleoconservativism is the only non-radical right wing ideology out there, or that and Libertarianism if you don't consider it inclusive with Paleoconservatism as I do. Additionally, it tries to anchor itself within American thought in an attempt to preserve historical continuity. You might criticize them along the lines of the Tea Party where some of its members flirt with white nationalism but that is NOT the core modality. Neoconservatism which is the dominant strain of current American political conservatism is radical to the point of imperialism and advocates foreign wars, especially in the defense of countries whose interests are not EXCLUSIVELY American. If that isn't radical I don't know what is. You can make an argument then that political spectra changes so what was once liberal is conservative and conservative ultra or "radical" conservative. I would agree with that in theory but the connotation that Wiki is using to describe "radical" is not that but more associated with Hate groups and such.BinaryLust (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As the sources show "radical right" is the term most commonly used in serious writing to describe such groups as the JBS. KKK etc. are called "far right", not radical right. TFD (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree. If you go to the "far right" link, "radical" is used synonymous. It even says so at the beginning of the paragraph. Plus, I'm just going from my own Political Science education but Far Right is more respectable than "radical" right. My understanding has always been that Far right is the last of the "respectable" right wing ideologies before your cross into extremism, radicalism. Check out the Far Right article and let me know what you think. The two articles (radical right, far right) seem to be an amalgamation and that is the worry I have with the Birch article. In my book, Birch Society is the most Far right you can go before you cross into extremism. I equate it almost to the Tea Party in spectrum but slightly more right. Also, I skimmed the sources like you suggested and they are contradictory. That is they equate politically the Birch society with Nazism, militiamen at times and then at other times they are put into a separate category. And that is my concern. I think there needs to be a greater distinction here. I know that after reading this article I'm left with a neo-nazis feel to them instead of seeing them as the edge of the cliff before true radicalism. Take Care. BinaryLust (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no possible way that after reading this JBS article they could be lumped in with Nazi's. Fascism upholds an absolute unlimited central government, the very antithesis of the JBS. There is simply no comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article on the radical right explains the use of terminology. Also, go to Google books and type in "far right" - the main use is for neo-nazi type groups. TFD (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Citation located Feb 9, 2012

There is a "citation needed" note for the sentence that states that the JBS was a cosponsor of the 2010 CPAC conference. This was reported in several news outlets, the most authoritative (or main stream) is ABC. Here is the link to that article. It should be used for the citation:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/02/farright-john-birch-society-2010/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrumbley (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added a second ref as well. Mojoworker (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Question from web reader

I came to this article to learn about the JBS. I found it interesting they opposed civil rights, but then again, historically many opposed civil rights, including democrats and republicans, right and left. What I would have like to have read in this article is their CURRENT stance on the civil rights act. Did the JBS ever make a more current statement about its opposition to the civil righs act? Does it STILL oppose the civil rights act? This would be great information for a reader like myself. Thanks for making this article better, (to whoever can include the answers to those questions in the main article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.191.86 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The article does not say that the JBS opposed civil rights, just that they opposed civil rights legislation and aspects of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. TFD (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Suggest an additional reference to the popular culture references section. The Smothers Brothers mentioned John Birch on their 1962 live album The Two Sides of the Smothers Brothers when Dick quiped, "I'd like to introduce the entire ensemble: on my extreme right is John Birch."

essentially null edit to allow auto archiving, but no third party coverage provided to place the joke in context or show why it was an important joke or any other actual encyclopedic content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

John Birch revert?

Why did you (User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom) revert my edit to John Birch Society with the comment "(clearly something like this needs to be in lead)"? What do you mean by "be in lead"? In Notable members: Added New York Time Bestelling author *James Wesley Rawles, an avowed member. There are no sources cited for the entire "Notable Members" section. And Rawles is more well known and in print than many of the members listed there. If I list the source (http://www.survivalblog.com/biographies.html), can I re-add the edit? Jefferson Franklin (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

my edit with that summary did not remove anything [16]. My later edit after your note on my talk page removed all per lack of sourcing WP:V. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Members requires sourcing

The section about members contained no sources and so I removed it per WP:V (and for some WP:BLP). If anyone cares to provide sourcing the edit is [17] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The proper sourcing for each person should be that person's article, not this article.Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Notable members

Why was that removed?--94.65.21.240 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

because it failed to meet basic content requirements such as are outlined in WP:V and WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We could remove the living ones and keep the deceased with a big citation needed template.--94.65.21.240 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been challenged. You need to provide appropriate sourcing before returning ANYTHING to the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We need a source for each and every person. But it is probably best to omit the list. If people played an important role, such as McDonald and Ryskind, then they should be mentioned in the article. If they played a minor role, then they should not. Another problem with the list is that it ignores some notable members, such as Welch and Schlamm. TFD (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)