Talk:John Birch Society

Comments at the bottom, please.

Re-write

This is a mature article on a controversial topic. The text is the result of many editors' input and negotiation over several years. Like all Wikipedia articles, it is always open to improvement. However major changes require some discussion or explanation. I've reverted recent edits back to 20:41, June 15, 2008, undoingthese changes. I invite editors to make use of this talk page to discuss changes to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling the JBS "right wing" is a distortion of Society beliefs. If you want to understand the constitutional basis for the JBS, check out "Overview of America" on google videos. Right wing, in a classical sense, is anarchy. The JBS never has condoned anarchy. Fascism, Communism, Socialism are all forms of absolute government control. The JBS warns against all these forms of government.

Stating what the JBS is - a membership orginazation - rather than what you percieve it to be - right wing or whatever - is the proper course. Let the reader decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The contents if the John Birch Society article in it's "accepted" form contains many data inaccuracies that can be corrected with proper citations. The "accepted" form of this article needs to be completely re-written to more neutral and balanced with true and historical facts. Publiusohio has provided proper and correct citations to justify large edited to the John Birch Society article.

Lets use the talk page to dispute which parts of the article you feel need to be updated to wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's incumbent on the editor making the edits to justify their work. The previous version was sourced and neutral. If it isn't please say what changes are needed, not just tossing it the work of previous editors without any consideration. Also, reverting other editors more than three times in 24 hour is forbidden. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do wish to comply with your standards and contribute to articles worthy of Wikipedia. Each fact placed by Publiusohio has been properly cited with credible sources. Instead of Undoing all his work and going back to the original biased JBS article, why not point out which section needs to be rewritten to be more neutral according Wikipedia standards. Both of us, Publiusohio and I, will comply with the rules, but just let us correct the article to be more factual and balanced. - Vitacore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you start with reading WP:NPOV very carefully. I suspect your idea of 'neutral' is not what is meant by NPOV. Think about reading an article about the Democratic Party in a good encyclopedia. You wouldn't expect it to have been written or look as though it was written by someone working for the Democratic party. If we want to know what the JBS or the Democratic party think about themselves, we can look at their web pages. An encyclopedia article tells us what other people say about the subject. Nor do we simply accept and use JBS definitions of socialism, right wing, etc., which is what publiusohio (clearly a JBS member) would have the article do. I can guarantee you that 'right wing in a classic sense' is not anarchy, and it certainly isn't perceived as such today (which is in any case what counts here). The JBS is a right wing group by most people's definitions. I've just looked at the source given by publiusohio for the JBS -- all that source does is quote what organisation's say about themselves, so the source might as well have been the JBS website -- and that won't do. Doug Weller (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add, I'm a Yale grad, majored in -- political science. I think I need to emphasise that we are talking about contemporary ideas though. I'd love quotes from Burke or Locke where they use the phrase 'right wing' and define it though, although I don't think publiusohio is going to find it easy to provide them. Doug Weller (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

North American Union cited and confirmed, wikipedia losing credibility

CNN, as well as several Canadian politicians have openly admitted the plans for the north american union, so why does wikipedia continue to try and hide this fact whenevr it is brought up? UN Politics are corrupt and confirmed, and wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, so stop creating an environment that harbours government propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.135.171 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When did this happen? Jackjackjackjackjack (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of reliable third-party sources, so if you really have a CNN source that supports your claim, it should definitely go in the article. But i suspect you don't.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just an anonymous editor using the talk page as a soapbox for his/her politics, doesn't belong on the talk page at all. Doug Weller (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Smear & Bias

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)

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.

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)

Latest Edits June 2008

Using pajoritive and subjectice terms that can be mistaken as anything from anarchy to fascist is misleading and incorrect. The John Birch Society is a membership oginization. If you want to add a section about "criticism" of the John Birch Society, that is fine and fair. You can add your personal commentary about "right wing" or whatever in a context that the public will understand that it is your commentary and your speculation or the speculation of other socialist leaning groups. The point of NPOV is to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Not in the intorduction to the subject. That is pushing an agenda and nothing less.

However to use subjective terms in the intro is a clear violation of NPOV.

The historical fact basis for the reason for the namesake is critical to an understanding for the reason for the existance of the orginization. Removing these is clearly improper.

Modern politicians that adhere to the ideals of the JBS is a highly informative aspect of the article and puts the group in perspective in a neutral way. For example, in April 2008 Ron Paul said: “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.’”

The David Rockfeller comment is easily referenced and is critical to the JBS to what the JBS does as educational outreach.

---PubliusOhio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the lead can't reflect what reliable sources have said about it. NPOV means that all significant views should be reflected proportionately in the article, which is quite different, I think, to Publius's understanding of it. I note that the phrase 'right wing' (or 'right-wing') has been removed from the article entirely, which is ridiculous.

Criticism sections are in my opinion rarely a good idea. I agree with this

Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.

Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other.

Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Though I did not delete the "right-wing" description, I did not replace it either. I am apolitical, but as I understand the term "right-wing" (and I did go over and read the article), "right-wing" can be ambiguous because it means different things to different groups .... to some it would mean "politically conservative", while in other circles it connotates "fascist". While I agree the group is conservative, how far it actually approaches the end of the spectrum that is fascist is debatable.

If I may suggest: The lead should probably have a description of what the organization thinks of itself. There should also be a description that describes the organization as an outsider might see it. I think if you were to say something to the effect of: To some people, the organization is a right-wing ....yadda, yadda, then I think it is fine. However, the way it was originally written, it flat out labeled the group right wing without explanation, and I think that is not a universal view.

As I see it now, the lead heavily emphasizes the organization's self-image. There should be a counter to that in the lead in, but it should be clearly stated that it is not an opinion shared by the organization.

Just my two cents. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with reference sources in this article

Can anyone tell me why:

• a significant section of this article is referenced to an unpublished book? In what way does this meet the Verifiability policy?
• two of three paragraphs of the "Core values" section are unreferenced, and none of them reference JBS sources which would best describe their values? (having counter sources would also be important)
• there is a quote from Ayn Rand, completely without context, in the middle of the "1960s" section?
• there is no differentiation by books by JBS members and those of "other opponents of Communism"? And why those "other" books are included at all? And what relationship was between the JBS membership of some authors and their books? Were the books being promulgated in JBS publications? Otherwise this list of books seems awfully coatrackish (To paraphrase: "JBS is an anticommunist group. Some JBS members wrote anticommunist books. Here is a list of anticommunist books.")
• the allegation attributed to "many members" of the JBS that the chair of the JBS was the principal target of the KAL-007 shootdown has no reference sources?
• the wikilinked half of the names of notable members are in Surname,Givenname format? And not one of those names has a reference?
• this is considered a suitable reference?
• this is considered an acceptable reference? I mean...Youtube?
• all references from #29 on are 404?
• there isn't a single scholarly source used for the entire article? Are there no books written by scholars?
• many controversial statements and quotations are not sourced at all?

I would urge all of the editors who've been so busy edit warring on this article the past few days to start cleaning it up instead, preferably as a cooperative effort. This article is a mess, and since it includes information about living people, it needs to be cleaned up or their names removed. At the end of it, this should be a well-sourced, NPOV article that meets WP:V and WP:NOR standards as well. Risker (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problems that WillBeback and other simply want to put their slanted viewpont into the intro without concern to NPOV.---Publius Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.254.208 (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Publius, aren't you not even 4 hours into a 48 hour block? Is this sockpuppetry? LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See now, Publiusohio...after giving this article a very careful once-over, I was about to go to your talk page and offer to reduce your block time if you promised to discuss any changes on this page before you made them. But now that you're editing through your block, I can't really do that. Most administrators would extend your block under these circumstances. You are not permitted to edit this or any other article right now, and I suggest you log off for the night. Any further conversation you wish to have about this article or any other article should be on your talk page, which I have watchlisted, and I or another administrator will respond there. Risker (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

The links to the unpublished version of the published book -- I'm not sure, obviously the published vesion is acceptable, but how is the unpublished version verifiable? In any case, it's my impression that it takes up too much of the article. The Reporter's Source Book just reprints what organisations say about themselves, so I don't see that that can be used. Blogs and Youtube are generally frowned upon and need a good rationalisation to be included. Ditto personal websites like 'Birdman's'.

Here's an interesting source: Skipping Towards Armageddon: The Politics and Propaganda of the Left Behind Novels and the LaHaye Empire by Michael Standaert searchable on Amazon and here [1]

also:

Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society By Jean Hardisty, Wilma Pearl Mankiller A personal, historical, and well-researched tour through the parallel universe of right-wing America."*

Faces of Right Wing Extremism By Kathy Marks, Adolfo Caso [2]

The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right By Daniel Levitas Doug Weller (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing some unverified information

Further to my post above, I remain concerned about the quality of sourcing much of the information in this article. I have removed a controversial sentence (about many members believing the KAL shootdown was targeted at the president of the JBS), and also the list of notable members. The latter list included many living persons, and not a single name had a reference source of any type to verify that the individual is or was a member of the John Birch Society. Should anyone wish to reinstate the list, in whole or in part, references that meet WP:V and WP:RS should be provided for each name added. WP:BLP applies to biographical information on living individuals, no matter where it appears in the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the unpublished version of Welch's book has been cited by scholars and has been verified by the Birch Society itself which protests that it was never inteded for public distribution.--Cberlet (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Give the cites, then. To be honest, the book is given far too much weight in the article; it was published over 40 years ago and the JBS is not the same organization it was back during the Cold War - nothing is. Cberlet, I think you are verging very very close to violating WP:COI by referring to your own published works in this article, and would suggest you follow the usual protocol of recommending edits on the talk page of the article to see if other editors agree. Risker (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On the right or not?

Right wing is subjective and misleading. Let the reader decide, your liberal bias is not needed. Perhaps we shoud indicate what it is, a membership society dedicated to defending the original intent of the US Constitution. --PublisOhio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 03:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You could hardly get more POV than that. That is what it claims to be, not what it is. An encyclopedia is not just a rewrite of a PR statement. Otherwise we'd have to call snake oil salesmen 'purveyors of miracle cures'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The latest edit summary says the JBS is neither left-wing nor right-wing. Some sort of centrist organisation then? By most standards the JBS is a right-wing organisation, and there is no doubt that there is a significant view that it is right-wing reflected in a number of books, articles, newspaper stories, etc. Other encyclopedias call it right-wing [3] "The most prominent of the extreme right-wing groups active in the United States," the Britannica [The most prominent of the extreme right-wing groups active in the United States,], [4], [5] etc. but then they don't have JBS members trying to dress it up prettily. And who edited out " In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald, then its newly appointed chairman, characterized the group as most appropriately belonging to the old right, rather than the new right."? Old right wing or new right wing, here you have the chairman of the JBS saying it is on the right. So why are some editors trying to deny this?--Doug Weller (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is an absolute mess when it comes to proper referencing. I have no idea where that one went, but if it didn't have a reference then it was fair game for anyone to remove. The page needs a really thorough cleaning up, reorganization, and referencing; I don't have sufficient interest in the subject nor access to suitable reference sources to be willing to do that, but it seems there are some editors who've been watching the article for a while and may well have the knowledge and/or interest to do the work. I've noted my major concerns above, and would really like to see those addressed. Sure they are a right-wing organisation (reference it to something other than a book written by the person inserting the reference, it should be in more sources than that), and they have played a noteworthy role in 20th century US politics. But the current article is incredibly below our usual standards, and if nobody is willing to clean up what is here now, then it should be stubbed so other editors can come in and start over. Risker (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Larry McDonald thing was fair game as the reference was Youtube. The problem is that any edits that mention right-wing get removed even when referenced. Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of comparable articles for other similarly political groups and note that their being right-wing or left-wing or center-right or whatever is usually not in the first ten words of the article; terms like "conservative" and "progressive" (whatever that means) or "political organization focused on (name key issue)" seemed to be more common. That might be what is triggering the apparent kneejerk reaction. I'd like to see a scholarly rather than journalistic source used to reference that, though, and I'm sure there are some available. JBS has been around long enough to be the subject of quite a bit of work, and you've identified some of it up above. Risker (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Risker, though I do think that the "neither right nor left wing" description should be removed, as it does point toward being a centrist description (this is in agreement with where I think Dougweller is heading). I support that removal, unless it can be documented as such in a JBS publication of some sort, and even then, it needs to be clearly labeled that this viewpoint is that of the organization itself, and that outsiders may have differing views (provided,as Risker brings up) these views can be documented. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A few sources.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997755,00.html Earth to Reform Party Monday, Aug. 21, 2000 By MATTHEW COOPER commenting on Ezola Foster, active in "the far-right John Birch Society"

Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States By Sara Diamond

Faces of Right Wing Extremism By Kathy Marks, Adolfo Caso Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers Jean Hardisty. ISBN: 978-080704317-2 "A personal, historical, and well-researched tour through the parallel universe of right-wing America."

Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardisty is indeed an academic[6], so it is a step in the right direction, although her resume indicates quite not-right-wing advocacy. It would probably be good to find something that comes from a more centrist or conservative scholar as well to give further support to the degree of right-wingedness. The Time reference is good to balance, as well; good find, Doug. Risker (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is funny, a JBS article called 'Right-wingers are the nice-wingers' [7]Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That put a smile on my face! The link they have on their site doesn't work, but here is the original article. Risker (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The terms "right wing" and "Conservative" have become amorphic. For example, George Bush claims to be a conserative, even "right wing" yet he advocates high taxes, has created he largest welfare state in the history of civilization and uses the military as an empire builder worldwide. This is hardly "conservative" yet many, especially the "Christian right" are still confused. This is why the term "right wing" in the intro can compleely mislead the reader from the get go.

In Real Estate avertising, to avoid violating fair housing laws, agents are instucted to list the physical facts of the property, not the people that would live in the property. (i.e. "bachelor pad" is a no-no.). As for the JBS, it is far better to describe what it is (membership orginization) and what it advocaes (Constitution interpreted through original intent of the founders) and let the reader decide if that is right wing, centrist, fascist or whatever. Have some faith in the public, they are not as stupid as you may think. Publiusohio (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A good real estate broker will say which side of town a property is on. We're not making the characterization on our own, we're reporting what neutral parties call the group. The public comes to Wikipedia to see what the conventional view of a subject is. The conventional view of the JBS is that it is right wing. We would be remiss if we didn't say so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A good real estate broker will list the address and not waste time subjectvly discussing the town. The bottom line is that the term is subject to great difference of understanding depending upon the reader. Thus the NPOV is to objectivly discuss what the society is and what it believes and let the reader make their own conclusion. If you must put in a subjective view, put in a segment called "criticism" or whatever and put it there. The first sentence is not the place for subjective terms. Have some faith in the reader! Publiusohio (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any real dispute over the political political ideology of the JBS? Is anyone asserting that it's moderate, or left wing? Below are a dozen sources that call it "right wing". Can anyone find a single source that calls it moderate, centrist, or left wing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Publiusohio needs to read what WP:NPOV actually says. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles". Doug Weller (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some cites to sources besides newspapers and magazines for calling the JBS "right wing" or similar terms. I picked these off of ProQuest, and only looked through the first 140 out of 1421 results (mostly newspapers and magazines):

• At the November 1961 meeting of the NCWC, Archbishop Cousins of Milwaukee called specific attention to the dangerous presence of right-wing groups in both the society and the Church.69 The reference was to the grassroots growth of the John Birch Society and the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, both heavily Catholic, both virulently anticommunist.70 These "rightist" groups were complemented by the simultaneous public emergence of other groups of laity, more internationalist in their interests, more focused on civil rights, more directed to labor-management relations.71 The former group gravitated toward the teachings of Pius XII, the latter toward the new papal policy expressed in Mater et Magistra (1961) and Pacem in Terris (1963). In the United States, a sociopoliticaltheological split birthed previous to the Council was already occurring at both the popular and elite levels.
  • "AN HISTORIAN'S CREED AND THE EMERGENCE OF POSTCONCILIAR CULTURE WARS" Joseph P Chinnici. The Catholic Historical Review. Washington: Apr 2008. Vol. 94, Iss. 2; pg. 219, 26 pgs

• The most significant organization in this sector [the "xenophobic right"] is the John Birch Society (JBS), founded in 1959 by Robert Welch.
  • "The Write Stuff: U.S. Serial Print Culture from Conservatives out to Neo-Nazis" Chip Berlet. Library Trends. Urbana: Winter 2008. Vol. 56, Iss. 3; pg. 570, 31 pgs

• Second, there was the appearance of a number of new right-wing organizations funded by businessmen. Founded by Robert Welch in 1958, the John Birch Society held that one could defeat communism with communist tactics: small cells, secret member lists, and propaganda. Propaganda entailed books, newsletters, filmstrips, record albums, and 16mm film production; broadcasting was not a priority.
  • "God's Angriest Man: Carl McIntire, Cold War Fundamentalism, and Right-Wing Broadcasting" Heather Hendershot. American Quarterly. College Park: Jun 2007. Vol. 59, Iss. 2; pg. 373, 25 pgs

• In Mobilizing Resentment: Conservative Resurgence from the John Birch Society to the Promise Keepers,4 Hardisty details the formation and nuances of right-wing movements as they built upon strong social and political opposition to the expansion of rights for women, people of color and LGBT people over the last thirty years. Documenting the historical proliferation of conservatism, and how the right used specific campaign strategies to win the hearts of the nation, Hardisty's work has become a cornerstone for liberals and leftists.
  • "BEYOND BIG BUCKS AND MEDIA SAVVY Cole Krawitz. Bridges : a Journal for Jewish Feminists and Our Friends. Ann Arbor: Autumn 2006. Vol. 11, Iss. 2; pg. 77, 11 pgs

• Until the early 1980s, the Pew religiously followed J. Howard Pew's founding mission "to acquaint Americans with the evils of bureaucracy, the paralyzing effects of government controls on the lives and activities of people, and the values of the free market" by funding right-wing extremists like the John Birch Society and the Heritage Foundation.
  • "Scouring Scum and Far from the Bottom of the Pit" Petr Cizek. Canadian Dimension. Winnipeg: Jul/Aug 2006. Vol. 40, Iss. 4; pg. 26, 10 pgs

• During [Edmund G.] Brown’s re-election campaign in 1962 Republicans attempted to bring the communism issue into the campaign in a way that ten years earlier would have caused mayhem in Democratic campaign headquarters, but in 1962 the issue was downplayed. Roger Kent told Democratic candidates across the state to ignore the Republican questionnaire on internal communism as its sole purpose was ‘ to advance the candidacies of John Birchers and the other ultra right-wingers and, through the press, to pillory candidates who cannot in good conscience accept [their] extremist position’.79
  • "SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE RISE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN CALIFORNIA, 1950–1964" JONATHAN BELL University of Reading The Historical Journal, 49, 2 (2006), pp. 497–524 f 2006 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0018246X06005309 Printed in the United Kingdom

• [Richard] Hofstadter was impressed not simply by the wilder statements emanating from the radical Right-for example, the claim by Joseph Welch of the John Birch Society that President Eisenhower was a Communist-but by a mode of argumentation that seemed to begin with feelings of persecution and conclude with a recital of grandiose plots against the nation and its way of life.
  • "Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up" James Piereson. Commentary. New York: May 2006. Vol. 121, Iss. 5; pg. 45, 7 pgs

• Twenty years later the far right revered Flynn as a god, and in 2000, the ultra-right John Birch Society saluted him as one of twenty-five "heroes for all time."
  • "Right Turn: John T. Flynn and the Transformation of American Liberalism" Linda J Lumsden. Journalism History. Athens: Summer 2005. Vol. 31, Iss. 2; pg. 117, 2 pgs

• Scholarly syntheses also tend to give generous space to the protest movements. In one recent account, for example, Students for a Democratic Society merits eighteen page references in the index, while the right-wing John Birch Society is not mentioned at all.
  • "THE SIXTIES AS HISTORY: A REVIEW OF THE POLITICAL HISTORIOGRAPHY" M J Heale. Reviews in American History. Baltimore: Mar 2005. Vol. 33, Iss. 1; pg. 133, 20 pgs

• Buckley’s novel intends to narrow the circle of acceptable conservatism, but at the same time underscores its diverse and unwieldy origins. Although National Review is the clear winner in this battle, it is Objectivism and the John Birch Society that inspire the young recruits and bring them into the right-wing scene... Leonora leaves Objectivism when she learns of Rand’s extramarital affair with Nathaniel Branden, andWoody’s disillusionment beginswith intimations of homosexuality that surroundGeneral Edwin A.Walker, a John Birch favorite. For Buckley, rightwing politics are still not enough: only the Catholic Church can keep youth from falling into profound error.
  • "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the conservative movement" Jennifer Burns Department of History, University of California at Berkeley Modern Intellectual History, 1, 3 (2004), pp. 359–385 C�2004 Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S1479244304000216 Printed in the United Kingdom

• They included a Wisconsin state legislator and member of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society who tried unsuccessfully to legislate an accommodation in the state's compulsory schooling law that would have legalized the Amish position.
  • "The Yoder Case: Religious Freedom, Education and Parental Rights" Dwight Jessup. Christian Scholar's Review. Holland: Fall 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 1; pg. 153, 3 pgs

{{subst:unsigned|User:Will Beback|(09:03, 30 June 2008)}

July 2008 Edit Proposals

The current article is dreadful, poorly written and hacked apart. It does lack citation and substitutes personal viewpoint for objective facts. Hence I submit the following that will be supplemented with citation as time permits. Please make comment below the suggested changes but do not erase or change the text until the debate is fully explored. The proposed changes:

• See Talk:John Birch Society/draft

---PubliusOhio

• I moved your draft text to Talk:John Birch Society/draft, and I moved this discussion to the end of this page, per WP:TPG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FACTUAL ERROR: "Western Islands" was never an official JBS publishing house. It was started by Larry McDonald and taken over later by G. Edward Griffin.

Official JBS publishing entities include American Opinion, RWU Press, Belmont Pub. and JBS Press.Publiusohio (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that I removed uncited original research twice now from the article. If there are sources available for the text it should be added with in-line citations and not violate WP:SYNTH. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet, despite the fig leaf, it is generally accepted by scholars that "Western Islands" was actually run on behalf of and as a front for the JBS to allow books to be sold without the negative association of being published by the JBS.--Cberlet (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of 2002 autoboigrapy "Memoirs" at page 404 did you miss? You can buy a copy here to check it out for yourself. http://www.amazon.com/David-Rockefeller-Memoirs/dp/0679405887/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214974215&sr=8-2 Publiusohio This citation also added: Publiusohio (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While the book is cited, what is not cited is the fact that JBS refers to this. Without a cite for that, the inclusion of the book is pointless and unsubstantiated by a secondary source meaning that your inclusion is nothing but commentary and original research. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I see a pattern here? JBS is not a right wing organisation, nothing to do with Western Islands, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a cite given as a footnote: (http://thenewamerican.com/node/5524). The Rockfeller admission must be included.

The JBS would wish that it owned Western Islands but it does not. Thus to factually state that it does is inaccurate. Western Islands published great stuff but it was never owned by the JBS. '76 Press also published great stuff like Professor Anthony Sutton's "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" but the JBS did not own '76 Press either. As for a "pattern", yes, being objective and factually correct should be a "pattern" for us all. :) Publiusohio (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The pattern is one of dissemblance. Western Islands is the publishing arm of the JBS, however it has dealt with the legal niceties. There are all sorts of ways of having control of a comnpany without publicly owning it. Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"There are all sorts of ways of having control of a comnpany without publicly owning it" So you are a conspiracy theorist? Have you checked out the CFR? Publiusohio (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at how many Journalists write for The New American? Have you looked at the Last Circle which mentions one of the McManus brothers? Have you no idea that the JBS is the CFR branch of NBC/Universal and Wackenhut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The JBS has many publishing houses and they proudly publish many items and would further endorse the Western Islands books. But, the factual claim in the article is that Western Islands is the official publishing company of the JBS and that is not true. Publiusohio (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You are evading the facts then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

David Rockefeller Admission of Guilt

The article states that the JBS claims a conspiracy view of history and thus it becomes critical to include WHY the JBS makes such claims. The following is sourced and cited, is easily verifiable:

The Society points to several key admissions by “Insiders” to bolster the claim that the devaluing of the US Constitution in favor of international government is not an accident. Chief among these admissions is from David Rockefeller’s 2002 autobiography “Memoirs” wherein, on page 404 Mr. Rockefeller states: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Removing the paragraph by stating that the article is not about Rockfeller is devoid of logic. The article is not about evolution or civil rights laws either but you would freek out if those issues were removed. You cannot have it both ways! Publiusohio (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about Rockefeller. If we have a source that says the JBS sees his memoir as a confirmation of their beliefs then add that. We don't need to try to prove to readers that Rockefeller is a conspiracist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Proud to be an internationalist" is far different from Mr. Rockfeller's statement that he is guilty of being part of a "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States." These are his words, letter for letter, not a JBS spin on his words! To edit this out is to completely gut the support for statement in the article that the JBS believes the Constitution is under specific attack from men such as Rockefeller and others. We could also include quotes from Strobe Talbot "The Hard Road to a New World Order" or Carrol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope" and many others as well. This is an objective statement, sourced ans cited that gives direct perspective to the philosophy of the JBS. Publiusohio (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The citation for this is acessible only to JBS members. Could you please post the part that discusses Rickefeller? Let's see what they say abbout the quote - perhaps we can use their words directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The link works for everyone, no membership is required to access. Here is the text FYI:

ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: "Professional Blogger" John Hawkins says "there is nothing to the NAU conspiracy theory." We invite him to abandon his delusion and face facts: The architects of the NAU plainly admit that they seek to build regional and global government.

Follow this link to the original source: "The Non-Existent North American Union [10]"

COMMENTARY: Those who question the motives, activities, and goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are belittled as "conspiracy theorists" or worse. But if there is nothing to worry about, then why are the SPP meetings so secretive, staged in remote venues, and isolated from the media? It should be intuitively obvious that it’s because the people who plan and attend SPP meetings don’t want the rest of us to know what they are up to.

Five years ago, former Mexican President Vicente Fox gave a speech in Madrid, Spain, in which he stated the following:

Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons.

The new framework we wish to construct is inspired in the example of the European Union.

After reading that, the only conclusion that one can come to is that those who, like John Hawkins, deny that the SPP is working toward a North American Union are either ignorant or deceitful. If Hawkins is ignorant, then he would be what Lenin described as a "useful idiot." If he is being deceitful, then he is effectively working as a shill for those who want to scrap our Constitution and take away our sovereignty.

Hawkins claims that it would take a constitutional amendment to establish a regional currency, for example, because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, gives Congress the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measure." He says that the chances of that happening 'are as close to zero as it gets."

But it didn’t take a constitutional amendment to create the Federal Reserve. The Fed, not Congress, now has the power to create money out of thin air. Our money used to be gold and silver coins, or paper certificates backed by gold and silver. Now our money is backed by nothing. The Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court have been ignoring the Constitution for decades, because the voters have not held them accountable. And it's not just on the issue of money that Constitutional role of Congress is being ignored. Think, for instance, of the wars this nation has been involved with since World War II. How many times since then has the Congress issued a Constitutionally mandated declaration of war? The answer, of course, is not once since 1941.

One of the heavy hitters in the movement toward regional and global governance is David Rockefeller, former head of the Chase Manhattan Bank and founder of the Trilateral Commission. He recently had his memoirs published, in which he stated the following:

For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents, such as my encounter with Castro, to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. Conspiracy theory? No, conspiracy fact!

The sovereignty of the United States, as defined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, is our most precious asset. Our sovereignty is part of the formula that has made our nation the greatest and most successful political, economic, and cultural experiment in the history of the human race. In order to protect it, it is imperative that we contact our representatives in Congress and demand that they oppose anything to do with a North American Union.

Publiusohio (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So the JBS, speaking through a reseasrh asssitant, says that Rockefeller's memoirs confirm there are conspiracies. That's what we should say. This article isn't about Rockefeller, and Rockefeller doesn't mention the JBS, so the quote is irrelevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly twist of logic. You claim that Mr. Rockefeller must specifically address the JBS in order for the JBS to use his comments as proof that he is working with others "against the best interests of the United States"? The purpose of the quote is to support WHY the JBS claims that there are a group of powerful individuals working together to subvert the United States Constitution in favor of a globalist worrld government. You cannot throw around the "C" word and not give the JBS the fair opportunity to defend the position. (unless you have an agenda of smer and disinformation) Publiusohio (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The JBS may use whatever quotes it wants for whatever purposes it chooses. This article, on Wikipedia, is about JBS, and quotes that don't concern the JBS don't belong here. The only thing that matters for this article is what the JBS says and what others say about the JBS. I don't object to including a summary of what the researcher says, but the long verbatim quote from Rockefeller is out of place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just making up rules as you go. The quote is a damning admission of a hard core globalist that makes the point that the JBS advances - that the US is being sold out from "enemies domestic." The quote thus directly concerns the JBS, in fact it is at the heart of why the JBS exists. Publiusohio (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's just sound editing. We do have a rule that requires edits have consensus. WP:CONSENSUS. This addition does not appear to have consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If I can jump in as an apolitical person:

I am not wholly familiar with Mr. Rockefeller, aside from what I read on his article. Is this statement a part of his representing the JBS? If it is, then I would find it a relevant comment to be added, provided it is clearly labeled that this man is speaking on the group's behalf.

If not, then I must agree with Will B. Any comment on the state of the world can be taken to be proof of something that the speaker is not necessarily connected to. It depends greatly on context, audience, etc. without establishing that, I would not be in favor of using that quote.

Further, I must also agree: this article is about the John Birch Society: its history, its beliefs, how outsiders see the group, etc. It is not a page for providing evidence that its beliefs are correct or not. That would constitute turning the article into a private homepage.

To take it to a great extreme: If this were an article about the Democratic Party, you could discuss the traditional planks of its platforms, and you could discuss how supporting these planks affected history (provided they were third party reliably verified). I would guess that you could not begin to include quotes from outside individuals that discussed something related to that, and present it as a quote in support of the party. (For example, and I am inventing this: you could get a quote from a Bob Dole saying that the New Deal was successful in pulling the U.S. out of the Depression, but it would be absolutely wrong to use that to support that Bob Dole supports the Democratic Party, or socialism, etc. You also would not use it to support the idea that the New Deal itself worked).

I'm not sure if this is even making sense or if it is particularly relevant (I hope it is).

Now, if this article were about globalism and such, then I could also see the quote being relevant.

Publiusohio, I respect your passion, and do not take the use of this term the wrong way, but I think the concern here is that when you start putting in "evidence that the beliefs are right" .... there is concern that the article is becoming less encyclopedic, and more propagandistic.

I think it is enough to say something to the effect that the JBS is against globalism. This should be easily citable from a society publication. If there are counter beliefs to this from outsiders, that should also be included, and cited appropriately.

Good editing, editors! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the into and body of the JBS article says simply "the JBS is against globalism" that would be fine and I would agree. But the current article makes NUMEROUS assertions about conspiracy without any explination as to why the JBS advances certain arguments. Thus it is misleading and only tells half the story. So, do we edit out the "conspiracy" language or include the Rockefeller quote? Publiusohio (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we include information about the subject and we exclude information about other groups and people. That's a simple formula and it works for hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You, (not "we") clearly seek to advance an agenda of hyperinflating the most controversial aspects of JBS research and preventing any explination of context for those positions. This is not NPOV, it is just smear. Publiusohio (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, chill out. I'm not smearing anyone. I'm trying to tell you why a long quote from Rockefeller doesn't belong in this article. Removing it will not result in "hyperinflating the most controversial aspects of JBS research". Make hyperbolic assertions, and failing to assume good faith, doesn't help your case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain this way. When the word "Conspiracy" is tossed around it can be EASILY misunderstood to include the ridiculous like "Lizzardmen from Mars" or "Freemasonry" or other silly sci-fi ideas. The Society means "Conspiracy" to the extent that some very powerful and well-placed individuals seek to subvert the current system of Constitutional Government and replace it with an oligarchy with them in control. The quote is a recent direct admission of guilt by a chief conspirator. Under the proposed logic, one would be forced to describe a bicycle without mention of "wheel" because wheel belongs only in a separate article. Publiusohio (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In all your examples there is no conspiracy, which is part of the problem. A long quote from Rockefeller really is not necessary. Doug Weller (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Rockefeller: "and of conspiring with others around the world". I think you are making the point for inclusion. His words, not mine, not the JBS. Publiusohio (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

"Proud to be an internationalist" is far different from Mr. Rockfeller's statement that he is guilty of being part of a "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States." These are his words, letter for letter, not a JBS spin on his words!

---

Actually, if you read the phrase in full, it is a JBS spin. What the actual Rockefeller quote says is that "some have said ..." Then he repeats what he considers to be standard charges made against him by others, and finally mockingly claims to be proud of it. This is not the type of comment which could be validly cited as "proof" of anything which the JBS has ever tried to claim. Specifically, the reference to a "secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States" in the Rockefeller quote is clearly stated with derision towards groups like the JBS. Sarcastically "admitting" to such a charge in such a context doesn't really say much. What he clearly is saying that is that he has worked against what the JBS would assert are the best interests of the United States, but that's all which can be read from the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.17 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of JBS in improper location (or balance is needed)

The following is in the intro and needs to be mover to a different section: Partly due to various changes in the personalities, tactics, and ideologies within the conservative movement, the Society has been greatly marginalized since the 1960s among mainstream conservatives.

A far better known scholar, and author of far more books, including a New York Times #1 Best Seller, Dr. Ron Paul states this about the JBS: "The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it's pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Barkun comment needs to be moved or the Dr. Paul comment needs to be added for fair balance. Publiusohio (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That tells us what another right wing politician and Hayek supporter thinks. It isn't evidence that the JBS isn't marginalised. Doug Weller (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice. An ad hominem attack. Very clever.

So your guy says it is marginalized and we are to take that as gospel? My source has authored far more books that have been read by far more people and is actually in Congress and can thus speak with authority about the effectivness of the JBS.

Again, your labels are curious. Dr. Paul, more than any other elected official, is against the war in Iraq. Does that make him "right wing"?

Was the JBS "marginalized" when they stopped the FTAA? How about as leaders that stopped Amnesty? Yes, there was a drop in membership for a brief period when the main stream media smear took root in the 1960's but as people descovered that there was no truth to the smear, JBS membership increased beyond previous levels. Today membership is the highest in all history. More than 20 states have Anti-NAU legislation. Oklahoma, lead by State Senator Randy Brogan (a JBS member) shut down the NAFTA superhighway and ended all welfare entitlements to illegal immigrants (with a mass self deportation that followed). The move to impeach Clinton was lead first by the JBS (over treason issues regarding the sale of military technology to China (or "Chinagate"). Pehaphs all of this should go in the intro as well? Publiusohio (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using the talk page as a soapbox. We aren't going to change the article based on comments like yours. I note that most of Ron Paul's books are self-published by the way. Doug Weller (talk) 11

10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Are you the self appointed dictator of wikipedia? I am not using this forum as a soapbox, I am just calling your faulty logic into question. Do you deny your ad hominem attack (which continues with the "self published" remark). FYI, the latest Dr. Paul book was published by Grand Central, a division of Hachette Book Group USA. It was a New York Times #1 bestseller and is still on the bestseller list months after release. I would guess that Dr. Paul has sold more of his latest book than all of Mr. Barkun's book combined. Moreover, Dr. Paul does not own or control the von Mises institute. The "Austrian" school of economics is quite a bit larger than Dr. Paul and includes Nobel prize winner Fredrich Hayek.

Make some rational arguments for either moving the Barkun comment or including a balance so that the into can come into complaince with NPOV. Publiusohio (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have said 'we'. There is no ad hominem. I was going by the Ron Paul Wikipedia article, and reading that it certainly appears that most of his books are self-published although obviously not all, which is why I said most. I agree he doesn't oswn the von Mises Institute so technically anything published by them is also not self-published. I've read enough of the Austrian school of economics to be aware of exactly what it is. But if you want to discuss Ron Paul, go to the article's talk page Doug Weller (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to start by checking out "ad hominem"! For example, if I said that the Barkun comment is just what a "left wing" marxist proferssor thinks, that would be an ad hominem attack. Instead I made an argument that a specific opinion in the intro is highly contested and offered contrary evidence from a much better known, much more widely read author, scholar and statesman.

I don't want to discuss Dr. Paul, I want to discuss an intro to the JBS article that is woefully out of balance and not in line with NPOV. The Barkun comment must be deleated, moved or we need to edit in some balance. Publiusohio (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A suggested change for the 1st paragraph:

The John Birch Society is an education and action organization with a specific focus on American politics. It was founded in 1958, in Indianapolis, Indiana, to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, and to support individual rights and private property. The John Birch Society promotes U.S. independence and sovereignty and opposes globalism, especially international regional groups such as the European Union or the proposed North American Union. Publiusohio (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That reads like a PR statement. Publiusohio (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to Publiusohio: Please stop trying to rewrite the entry to represent only one marginal POV that is contradicted by a plethora of reputable published scholarly and journalistic sources.--Cberlet (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a "plethera" on both sides. The intro must be objective and NPOV. If you want to list criticism of the JBS, that is legitimate but not in the intro. There are no other good wiki entries that have such slanted intoductions as what you propose. Publiusohio (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and the lead

I'm puzzled. PubliusOhio wants the lead to be NPOV, but in his version two of the three sentences in the lead have cites to the John Birch Society. His lead is basically a JBS written lead that might be used in JBS literature, yet he claims it to be objective and NPOV, and continually reverts any attempt to change it. Not only that, he has deleted any other point of view from the lead. Now our NPOV policy "requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Publiusohio quotes the bit about 'Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions', but that only works when the rest of the policy is implemented. The policy then states "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

So, let's see: The John Birch Society is an education and action organization with a specific focus on American politics. It was founded in 1958, in Indianapolis, Indiana, to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, and to support individual rights and private property. The John Birch Society promotes U.S. independence and sovereignty and opposes globalism, especially international regional groups such as the European Union or the proposed North American Union. not objective, just a JBS POV

I am happy with this as the first sentence: "The John Birch Society is a political education and action organization."

I think this is ok: "It was founded in 1958, in Indianapolis, Indiana, to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, especially a suspected Communist infiltration of the United States government, and to support individual rights and private property.."

Then the 3rd sentence: Its publicity states that it promotes U.S. independence and sovereignty and opposes globalism, especially international regional groups such as the European Union or the proposed North American Union.

or something like that. That is factual. It could start 'It claims to', or some version like that, I don't mind, so long was it doesn't try to state an opinion about what it really does.

Then in a second paragraph: It openly promotes a conspiracy theory view of history and current events that links political, social, and ideological trends to what it sees as a variety of global, and sometimes globalist agendas and is generally considered to be well on the right of the American political spectrum.Partly due to various changes in the personalities, tactics, and ideologies within the conservative movement, the Society has been greatly marginalized since the 1960s among mainstream conservatives.

Let's discuss that. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is a lot better than the JBS POV lead we have right now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable compromise. Works for me. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have some progress toward conseus as to paragraph one. To include: "especially a suspected Communist infiltration of the United States government" is poorly worded and creates a run on sentence. That statement should go into the "core values" section and should be sourced.

If you must have the second paragraph, including the Barkun opinion in the INTRO (as opposed to somewhere else in the article) then NPOV absolutly requires a balance. The Dr. Paul comment (again from a much better recognized and more widely known source) MUST be part of the mix.

The idea of an intro is to give a brief factual statement of what the orginization is and opinion items (far right, marganilized, etc.), and controversial items requireing more detail (conspiracy) can be stated later on in the body of the article. These can then be fairly stated in a NPOV way with detail and balance in a manner that allows the reader to consider all points of view and make a reasonable decision.

I am not trying to prevent the addition of all of the negetive opinions, but is it reasonable to load them up into the intro? No. In fact, getting attacked by socialists, collectivists, etc. is a badge of honor for the JBS. If the socialists were not so upset by the JBS, it would mean that the JBS was irrelivant. Publiusohio (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet: We have not reached consensus on the Barkun comment. Again, if you must have the comment in the INTRO (as opposed to somewhere else), NPOV requires balance! The Dr. Paul comment is by a much better known scholar, stateman and author than Barkun.

To sum up: Barkun AND Paul in the intro or Barkun and the rest of the criticism into a special catagory for "Criticism of the JBS" Publiusohio (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not even close. I moved the cited material lower than the intro and you still deleted it. Your editing is tendentious and POV. Please desist from trying to commandeer this page. Thanks--Cberlet (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Chippy, are you promoting the John Birch Society? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the self proclaimed Tsar, that belongs to Doug Weller. Moving it lower in the into is still in the INTRO! NPOV is balance if two sides are going to be represented. "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views"

So again, if the consensus is that he Barkun comment must be in the intro (anywhere in the intro) then NPOV mandates that a balance be stated in like manner if there is significant source. In this case a far MORE significant source in the form of Dr. Ron Paul exists to mandate balance to the Barkun opinion. Especially as the Dr. Paul comment is directly responsive to the Barkun statement. Another option, instead of having a long intro is to put the Barkun comment in a separate section, not the intro. Publiusohio (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A drive by edit to include "ultraconservative?" Nice. I suppose you also added "communist" to the first sentence of the ACLU? Publiusohio (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Politician

This book was actually writen by Robert Welch before the JBS was formed. Would it not be more appropriate for this section to be in the Robert Welch article instead? Publiusohio (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus on the move to Robert Welch? Publiusohio (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: Though it is based on a private letter Robert Welch wrote in 1956, the JBS was the original publisher of The Politician through its Belmont Publishing arm in 1963. The JBS still sells the book (in a new edition published in 2002 by Robert Welch Univeristy Press located in Appleton, WI) on its website. [8] The fact that an organization would publish (and continue to sell) a book that claimed a former US president was "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy" is certainly notable and worth mentioning in its entry. --Hardindr (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Welch said lots of things about Ike. Do we list them all or just the most controversial? He also gave specific items of evidence - you would agree that it is NPOV to include evidence as well as conclusion correct? Publiusohio (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The section on The Politician takes up a good chunk of the entry. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to clutter it up with more than it already has. You could start a new entry exclusively for The Politician, but for it to be NPOV it would have to indicate that almost all historians reject Welch's assertions about Dwight D. Eisenhower and regard them as paranoid conspiracy theories.

You could also request a RFC to see what other editors/users think. Just a thought. --Hardindr (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"it would have to indicate that almost all historians reject Welch's assertions about Dwight D. Eisenhower" - Where do you get this from? Do you have a score sheet somewhere? Welch's statement have in fact been vindicated as correct. Publiusohio (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Welch's statement have in fact been vindicated as correct." You aren't serious, are you? Who has done this? Can you cite a prominent historian or published expert on Eisenhower that has? I would also like to point out that entry on Eisenhower makes no mention of Welch's accusations, most likely because they are paranoid conspiracy theories that historians give no weight. --Hardindr (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: Ike's Department of State was overrun with communists who were complicit in many attrocities such as the overthrow of the elected government in Iran and much more. All of this came out and was exposed by House and Senate investigations all through the 50's and 60's and has been further exposed with FIOA requests over the years. Publiusohio (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<--- Most of the leftists/fellow travelers (few that there were) were purged out of the US State Department back in the 1940s. The Mosaddeq government was overthrown because they nationalized the Iranian oil industry and were not seen as being loyal to the US or the UK, or the oil companies that operated in Iran and had controlled the oil fields. What this has to do with Ike being an alleged communist, I don't know. --Hardindr (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Mosaddeq government was overthrown because they nationalized the Iranian oil industry and were not seen as being loyal to the US or the UK" Do you really think that Sadam was taken out because of WMD's or 9/11? It is the same international globalists then and the same now.

In the 1940's you say? How wrong you are. Arthur J.Schlesinger Jr. was a special advisor to Kennedy in the 1960's and he was a hard core socialist. Read this statement about how he predicts socialism can best be developed in the United States: http://files.meetup.com/684064/Schlesinger%20Predicts%20the%20Future%20of%20Socialism.pdf

I could go on and on, especially with the likes of Alger Hiss, John Dulles and Cyrus Vance, Henry Kissinger and so many others. Publiusohio (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are writing borders on the delusion, sorry to say. Please stop removing properly cited material from the entry. --Hardindr (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another ad hominem attack from someone who looses the debate on the facts and must resort to name calling. Sad. Have you ever heard of Alger Hiss before? How about Schlesinger? The "material" you speak of is not the published version of the Polician, but the alleged u-published version that was writen before the society was founded. Publiusohio (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to your incoherent POV rants anymore. I am going to move this to the Mediation Committee or Arbitration. --Hardindr (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Robert Welch said lots of things about Ike. Do we list them all or just the most controversial? He also gave specific items of evidence - you would agree that it is NPOV to include evidence as well as conclusion correct?"

The most relevant evidence to include here would be to simly note that nowhere do Haynes & Klehr, VENONA, indicate that Eisenhower was an agent of Moscow. I agree that boiler-plate smears by the JBS should be not only included, but also the evidence that they were false should be included. The failure to find anything in Venona pointing to Eisenhower is the best evidence on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.17 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Issues / Somebody Help!

I replaced the sentence: "The JBS was formed as an educational organization and does not endorse candidates but has often come out against political figures seen as un-American" with what you see on there now. The passive construction 'seen as' is unacceptable in an encylopedia ('seen as by whom?') and the phrase 'un-American' (as its own page notes) is an unstable and loaded word that seems to be placed there for the express purpose of impeding clarity. Really though, that's really only the tip of the iceberg. Ideology also seems to trump clarity in the assertions about the JBS opposing civil rights stemming from a fear of communism; I don't even understand why the two are related here. If this is the JBS's justification of its own actions, it should be given far less weight than it is given here.

In general, I have to say this page probably has the worst ratio of quality-to-general interest of any page I've bumped into on Wikipedia in my years as a (very casual) user. Somebody who has the power to do so really ought to lock this mess down until it gets sorted out...

Ps-does anyone know of a larger forum through which this page could be brought to the attention of the wiki community? The Birch society is a pretty major deal in American History and certainly deserves better (by which of course I mean more rigorous) treatment than this--in other words, it need some more fingers on it. 151.203.41.223 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The John Birch Society doesn't deserve much respect from conservatives. It does nothing and lets others do all the work for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to Publiusohio

Please do not revert properly cited material from the lead/intro. Please do not sanitize the JBS article of legitimately sourced criticism of the JBS. Please refrain from Edit Waring. Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your drive by edit was contrary to the long ongoing discussion as to NPOV in the intro. "Ultraconservative?" Only if you would eqully demand that "Communist" be in the first sentence of the ACLU article. There are numerous sources more significant than your "ultraconservative" comment to link the ACLU to communism. Publiusohio (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am getting really confused. The "ultraconservative" description of the JBS is from the JBS online website, from a JBS staffer. The staffer writes [9] , "In the context of the United States of America, however, 'ultraconservative' is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise," and "In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative." Your ACLU comment is bizarre. Many of the ACLU's founders were communists, as the wikipedia article on the ACLU notes. Howevever, communists were purged out of the organization in the 1940s and few members of the ACLU are communists today. What that has to do with the JBS is lost to me. --Hardindr (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of "ultraconservative" without attribution is a red flag. If JBS asserts it, this should be explicitly attributed, so we don't get silly edit wars. --Abd (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to go back to rightwing in the 2nd para myself. I think more people will understand what it means. Or we could have both I guess. I have no idea why PubliusOhio is at odds with a JBS staff member. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history here, so I'm just commenting on the immediate exchange. That comment, from a staffer, isn't necessarily authoritative (might be) and it is misleading as used, because it redefines "ultraconservative." I think it's usable, but in the lead? With proper attribution and context, maybe. --Abd (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "ultraconservative" comment back in, but lower in the lead. Does that satisfy your concern? --Hardindr (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at odds but the comment is out of place. The cited source is about stories that are a smear to the Society and the point is that smears are all over the board from ant-semite to ultraconservative. None are true in the sence that the smear was intended.

The bottom line is that subjective terms such as right wing, ultra conservative etc are amorphic and subject to confusion, especially in the intro.

In contrast, the ACLU article has absolutly NO commentary about its communist origins and current (and well documented) anti-american agenda IN THE INTRO (as compared to a brief mention later in the body of the article). Thus the NPOV policy is to state basic facts in the intro and save "right wing" "ultraconservative" and the rest for a section in the article. Publiusohio (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And it is a basic fact that the JBS is generally seen as right wing. It doesn't matter if the term is or isn't subjective, it's a fact that it is used to describe the JBS. And of course, it is rightwing, whereas the ACLU is not communist. Doug Weller (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<--- Just to be clear, the staffer from the JBS website does not regard the term "ultraconservative" as a smear, but as a complement and an accurate term to describe the JBS. Do you know something that he does not? Also, what is your buggaboo about the ACLU? How are they relevent to this discussion? --Hardindr (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

He is not taking it as a compliment, he is pointing out the duplicity. And as for the ACLU not being anti-American and not coming from overt communist origins, that is well documented - as much or more so than sources that claim the JBS is "ultraconservative" or "right wing."

The fact is the JBS proposes a constitutional moderate form of government. Not nearly as much anarchy as is proposed by some libertarians but not as much state control as many so called "conservatives" "right wingers" etc. For example, the JBS has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, opposed the Patriot Act, FISA Immunity, Military Trib. Act of 2006 etc. They advocate an Art. 3 Sec. 2 solution to Abortion issues. They warn against all forms of total government power including socialism, communism, fascism, etc. The JBS promotes free trade but not phony trade deals such as NAFTA. Publiusohio (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, from the cited material [10] "In the context of the United States of America, however, 'ultraconservative' is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise," and "In celebrating and upholding the latter, The John Birch Society, as the Associated Press notes, is both anti-communist and ultraconservative." Please do not remove properly cited material from the entry. Please do not insert POV essays on the JBS in the discussion page. Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You take the quote completely out of context and that is the issue. The quote should be fully explained or if too much for the INTRO, it should be moved to a different section. Here is the quote in context:

"Byrd and the Associated Press, it should be noted, also use the label "ultraconservative" in an attempt to discredit the John Birch Society. In the context of the United States of America, however, "ultraconservative" is not a pejorative. In fact, it should be viewed as a form of praise.

To be a conservative in any nation is to desire to respect and, if necessary, to conserve those institutions that have proven their worth over time. Consequently, the word "conservative" can mean many different things in different places. An ultraconservative in London might conceivably be a strong advocate of British imperial ambition and monarchical power. In Moscow during the Gorbachev era (and even today), a conservative will likely be a supporter of Soviet-style secular tyranny.

In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers."

If the bold section is included then the quote is in context. As for "ultra" perhaps we must include Goldwaters quote: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [applause] Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

NPOV requires balance and comments in context. Publiusohio (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The term right-wing is much clearer to the ordinary reader and is the one most used in the media, etc. Let's use that instead. Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is fair to use the term in context, but not in the Intro. For example, do you see "Left Wing" or "ultraliberal" in the intro of the ACLU? The terms are esaily sourced (http://books.google.com/books?id=lNG_uRwbYKkC&dq=%22The+ACLU+vs.+America.%22&pg=PP1&ots=H2dJO-JX0o&sig=JR_n4UzlbbL2KbecEhNwSxEJY5E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP11,M1) for the ACLU but try putting them in the INTRO and see the reaction that you would get. NVOP for the ACLU is the same NPOV for the JBS. Publiusohio (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the staffer does not think that "ultraconservative" is an insult. He thinks it accurately describes the JBS. I am not taking the term out of context. Why is that difficult for you to understand?

The cites for the ACLU you are providing represent a marginal view, at best, but that is irrelevent. Please do not focus on the ACLU. Please go the ACLU entry for that. Please focus on the PBS on this discussion page. Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are caught trying to defend a clear double standard and resort to bold letters? Nice.

Your possissionis a misunerstanding, but regardless, if you want to put "ultraconservative" in proper context, namely:

In the United States, however, a conservative is one who seeks to support and retain the traditional institutions of the U.S. government, including the rule of law under the Constitution, and the political doctrines of individual rights and freedom as espoused by the Founding Fathers."

But if insead you are hopng to use "ultaconservative" in a sensational way to elicit an emotional respone from the reader, that is not NPOV. Still, the question as to placement in the intro of all this is highly qustionable. Publiusohio (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is getting us nowhere. Publiusohio is engaged in edit warring with a POV agenda that has been shown to be impenetrable by actual content discussions. Let's end this farce and ask for administrator intervention. The page should be locked due to edit warring until we can actually engage Publiusohio in a discussion rather than be subjected to lunatic POV rants.--Cberlet (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with this proposal. Can you do this, or do I need to start it? Should we start with an RFC, go to the Mediation Committee or just move on to Arbitration. --Hardindr (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

<---Is name calling part of good journalism? I call for balance NPOV and an intro that does not adhere to a double standard in comparison to other Wiki entries. So far the best argument for having criticism of the JBS in the intro but not the ACLU intro is that there is not as much "Sourced" material critical of the ACLU. In response, a quick google search reveals that to be a fraud. I have not heard anyone try and defend "sensational" remarks without balance. An example is a Barkun comment that says the JBS is "Marganalized" while Dr. Ron Paul, 10 Term Congressman and New York Times #1 bestselling author, cannot be allowed a diect refutation of that claim. So that is what Mr. Berlet (who likes to quote his employer's critical comments ofthe JBS as sourced material) calls "lunatic POV rants." Publiusohio (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the ACLU, the early version of this organization was formed in 1917 and I believe was then called the National Civil Liberties Union (NCLU). There was no Communist Party in the United States at that time, and so it would be wrong to say that it was formed by "Communists." The Communist International was founded in 1919 and this was what eventually led to the founding of Communist Party of the United States. Some leading figures in the ACLU such as Roger Baldwin did for a time take an enamored view of the Soviet Union, although Baldwin changed his stance sharply later. Then in the 1930s the Popular Front policy was instituted by Moscow. The latter policy directed members of Communist Parties affiliated to the Comintern to play down the actual Marxist point of view and to instead cultivate relations with liberals on the basis of purely anti-fascist slogans. It was during this period that the Comintern's members gained the most inroads into a wide variety of nominally liberal organizations. When Baldwin organized the purge of the ACLU in the 1940s it was to remove such members who had joined as ostensible liberals but who were potentially loyal to Moscow. So the key points are: a) the ACLU was not formed as a Communist organization, since no such Communist Party existed at the time; b) some ACLU members, including Baldwin, did go through a temporary honeymoon with Moscow, without ever joining the Communist Party as far I'm aware; c) some Communist Party members did join and plant themselves within the ACLU during the 1930s Popular Front coalition efforts against fascism, but were expelled at Baldwin's insistence once he caught onto them. Taken together, none of this justifies calling the ACLU a "Communist" organization. It would be like arguing that the JBS should be called "fascist" or "Nazi." Calling the JBS "ultra-conservative" or "Right-wing" is perfectly reasonable. It would also be fair to classify the ACLU as "liberal, with a period in its early past when it tilted a bit more to the Left than it has done in the last 6 decades." But claiming that the ACLU was "Communist" and then trying to use this as a rebuttal against assertions that the JBS is "ultra-conservative" is definitely not an even-handed approach to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.17 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"ultraconservative"

'ultraconservative' is actually a pretty UNcontroversial thing to call the JBS. The Encyclopedia Britannica Online (its site is content protected so unfortunately I can't link through) begins its entry by calling the JBS a:

"private organization founded in the United States on Dec. 9, 1958, by Robert H.W. Welch, Jr. (1899–1985), a retired Boston candy manufacturer, for the purpose of combating communism and promoting various ultraconservative causes. "

Of course this is copywrite protected so it can't be used verbatim, but it's a pretty good benchmark of what the consensus on the matter. Since the Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty much the definition of non-controversial, and since NPOV does not stand for No Point of View, I have changed the page to reflect what appears to be the mainstream scholarly consensus. 151.199.22.152 (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And MSN Encarta simply sattes the facts, no commentary such as "ultraconsrvative" needed.

Also, this does not address the issue of explaining what definition of "ultraconervative" applies to the JBS (necessary for NPOV) or of the INTRO is the correct place for the discussion. Publiusohio (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely you noticed that at the bottom of the Encarta entry it says "Reviewed by the John Birch Society." Again, we are looking for an *objective* analysis of the society, not a statement of what the society says about itself. And yes, everyone on this page except for you seems to agree that it is appropriate to try and characterize the positions of the organization at the beginning of the article. Inevitably, a broad label like 'liberal' or 'conservative' must be qualified by what the organization actually did and the past and does in the present. You have the structure backwards. FIRST we slap the label on, THEN we discuss the positions that justify the label (and the ones that don't). Every other page on Wikipedia works that way--first the subject is discussed in broad terms, then in more specific terms down below. Why should the JBS be the exception? Particularly when the label in question is used comfortably by the most standard traditional reference work available today? 151.199.22.152 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Every other page on Wikipedia works that way" - you are incorrect. Example: ACLU Publiusohio (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the ACLU page works that way too; it's true that the ACLU takes both traditionally 'left wing' and traditionally 'right wing' positions (which as far as I can tell isn't true of the JBS) but even so the article's intro takes a stand on the partisan affiliation of the ACLU, saying that it's more often supported by democrats than republicans. Since the ACLU's page works that way, I am still not sure why you are so unwilling for the (very) generally accepted political affiliation of the JBS to be in the intro paragraph. 151.199.22.152 (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one is stepping up to address my comments I'm going to get on the merry-go-round again. I still believe we can discuss the political tendencies of the society in a NPOV way without delegating all of the responsibility to the reader. No one has convinced me otherwise. 151.199.22.152 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should be able to, we should be presenting all significant points of view that we can reliably source. PubliusOhio has his own particular viewpoint on NPOV which is simnply wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

and another thing

This is the first paragraph as I have it. I'm putting it here intact because people are messing with it without leaving a footprint on the talk page.

The John Birch Society is a political education and action organization founded by Robert W. Welch Jr.. It was founded in 1958, in Indianapolis, Indiana, as a part of the anti-communist movement. Traditionally associated with ultra-conservative causes, its own publicity states that it promotes U.S. independence and sovereignty and opposes globalism, especially international regional groups such as the European Union or what the JBS claims is a proposed North American Union. It is perhaps best known for its historical opposition to the American Civil Rights Movement.

You will also notice that I replaced this sentence

It was founded in 1958, in Indianapolis, Indiana, to fight what it saw as growing threats to the Constitution of the United States, and to support individual rights and the ownership of private property.

with one about the society's origins as an anti-communist organization. I did this because it seemed to be a more precise analysis of the society's historical (rather than ideological) origins, and that stuff about the constitution and private property seems to fall in pretty neatly under the core values section anyway. Sorry to take up a lot of space on the talk page, but things seem to be pretty fraught here so I'm trying to tread very lightly. Wish others would do the same... 151.199.22.152 (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm being summarily reverted (guess who?) so hopefully someone will step in and mediate. 151.199.22.152 (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there - just a second I'll look at what's goin on. --mboverload@ 03:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are both fighting over wording. Both versions appear to be sourced. Of course I just stepped in but I can not see any blatent, horrible NPOV. Can someone enlighten me? I'll do whatever I can to help out.--mboverload@ 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is using sensational words without proper context or definition. Also a placement issue without using a double standard in regard to other wiki entries. Publiusohio (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

After further review I noticed "Ultra-conservative" and "historical objection to the civil rights movement". I think those claims should be strongly sourced before being added. At the moment I have to agree with Publiusohio's wording. --mboverload@ 04:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

mboverload, if you look further up in the discussion page, you will see that I have sourced the "ulatraconservative" label to the JBS Online page itself. The link is here [11]. Publiusohio seems to think I am taking the quote out of context, but I have not idea what (s)he is talking about. Who requested that you come and mediate? I haven't seen a formal request go through for the mediation committee yet. Just wondering...

Also, can you lock the page to prevent Publiusohio from sanitizing the entry and inserting POV essays? Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also a matter of location and balance. For example, there is a source (Barkun, a liberal professor) who claims the JBS was margenalzed but there is also a source (Dr. Ron Paul, 10 term Congressman, New York Times #1 Bestselling author) claiming that the JBS has been a primary behind the scenes power broker on issues defending the original intent of the Constitution for (now) 50 years. So does this go in the Intro? Somewhere else?

Also, I do not have a problem with a balanced discussion of "conspiracy" "right wing" or "ultra conservative". However, NPOV requires that the terms not be tossed about as sensational fodder but that they are defined and have all significant and soured commentary. Agan,the INTRO is not the correct place for this and a good example is he ACLU intro. Publiusohio (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

MB: as far as 'ultraconservative' goes, I could not conceivably find a stronger source than the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is generally considered as NPOV as NPOV gets. I also don't consider ultraconservative a 'sensational' word although I may be in the minority on that one. How do we feel about 'very conservative?' That's hardly tabloid fodder. You're right about the civil rights thing though, as much as I consider that a part of the historical record, I should have sourced it first. Thanks for weighing in. With regard to 'context and definition' that is what the article itself is supposed to provide. While it is possible to cut *any* label along the lines of liberal or conservative to semantic shreds, they are still useful labels and should be used. Otherwise wikipedia would simply be one long definition of 'is.' 151.199.22.152 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over sourced material

Has properly sourced criticism of the John Birch Society been removed by user, who claims that the material is taken out of context and is POV, particularly sources that describe the JBS as "marginalized" or "conspiracist?"

Publiusohio claims that material is taken out of context and is POV, particularly sources that describe the JBS as "marginalized" or "conspiracist?" [12] , "ultraconservative" [13] or as right-wing [14]. When asked why (s)he has removed this material, Publiusohio writes POV essays or attempts to discuss other irrelevent topics, such as the entry on the ACLU. Would other users like to comment on what can be done regarding this? Thank you. --Hardindr (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Publiusohio seems hostile to the introduction of sources other than the official JBS website, or attempts to characterize the activities of the society in any kind of political context. Accordingly, the article has some glaring omissions most notably

• 1. Any kind of coherent account of the controversy the society caused within the Republican party, particularly its denunciation by prominent republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and William F. Buckley. The current account buries the Buckley controversy in two sentences inside an irrelevant sub-heading, and makes it sound like a civil war within the JBS.
• 2. Any mention of the allegations of racism that have been leveled from both left and right against the JBS over the years--of course I am not suggesting we call the JBS racist (which would obviously be POV), but the issue needs to be addressed.
• 3. A clear, sourced, account of the society's activities in response to the Civil Rights Movement.

In other words this article more or less exclusively presents the history of the JBS from the JBS perspective, and would need a drastic re-structuring to even approach NPOV. Any one (preferably someone who knows more about American History than I do) care to lend a hand? EDIT: added a source, fixed a code error. 151.199.22.152 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.--Cberlet (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming on this article for the first time I was shocked to see what is essentially a sanitized PR puff-piece for the JBS. Are the editors not doing their jobs? Why are JBS advocates being allowed to basically control this content and render the article worthless in violation of both NPOV and sourcing requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.14.29 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You can always depend on Chip Berlet to promote the JBS using slander. Now he is an editor of this page. How ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• It IS extremely difficult to write a fair, balanced, and factual article about the JBS. However, the JBS itself must bear a lot of responsibility for this situation because it has routinely refused to cooperate with scholars and researchers who have requested access to JBS archives. It also has refused to allow random surveys of the JBS membership.
• I am particularly struck by the number of times that "publiusohio" has described something in the JBS article as "false" or not factual or "biased" when, in reality, "publiusohio" is ignorant about the very matters he CLAIMS to know a lot about. Example: Western Islands Publishing IS owned and operated by the Birch Society. Just check (a) their certificate of incorporation and (b) Robert Welch's admission of this in the JBS Bulletin of December 1961. --Ernie1241 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

most vs. some

There is a sentence under the heading "1960's" which read: "Unlike most advocates of the Illuminati-Freemason conspiracy theory, however, the Birch Society strenuously denies harboring any anti-Semitic..." Did the author of this sentence cite a neutral study of the vastly divergent people and groups who believe in an Illuminati conspiracy which shows that the majority of those people and groups are anit-Semites? Does such a study exist? Or did (s)he assume (perhaps unconsciously, based on common stereotypes) that such was true. Hence, I replaced the word "most" (which denotes a known majority sub-set within the larger set) with the more neutral word "some" (which makes no claim as to the size of the subset, only postulates its existence in some quantity). Thanks and have a great day! -by crescendo decibel Group/Wild WestSide ent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.52.121 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

fixing wording without injecting any POV as much as possible

Does everyone accept that simple editing for clarity and grammar is essential at the outset? Collect (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to muddy this page with Palin pix, post here first with a legitimate rationale. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

SCOTUS ruling on libel is that a person who is in public life, whether an "official" or not, must prove actual malice in a libel case. Thus I am emending the word "private" back to "public" in the article. Collect (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gertz v. Robert Welch

In section IV, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the opinion, the court states:

...allows the States to impose liability on the publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood on a less demanding showing than that required by New York Times. This conclusion is not based on a belief that the considerations which prompted the adoption of the New York Times privilege for defamation of public officials and its extension to public figures are wholly inapplicable to the context of private individuals.

[W]e hold that the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

The opinion of the court was that the petitioner was not a public figure and thus did not need to prove NY Times Malice to recover actual damages. But, they held that even a private figure, had to show NT Times Malice in order to recover presumed or punitive damages. Please discuss any changes made to the holding summary here. Unicityd (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As an added note, please keep in mind that the rule laid out by this decision was modified by Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss (472 U.S. 749). The court changed gears and ruled that on matter of purely private concern, a court could award presumed and punitive damages to a private plaintiff without a showing of constitutional malice (per the NY Times standard). Unicityd (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Encylopedia article or brochure??

The very notability of The John Birch Society is based on it's extremism, yet this article so blandly and misleadingly presents the organization that one wonders why it's considered notable at all. It's a radical organization: call a spade a spade.