Talk:John Birch Society

Comments at the bottom, please.

Membership numbers

How many people were in the Society over the years? This can be one way of estimating a movements influence. I have seen reports that membership has declined drasticaly over the last twenty years, and that the group is on the verge of extinction, but no hard figures. A breakdown by decades would be a good start.

Liberal Smear & Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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?" [1] , "ultraconservative" [2] or as right-wing [3]. 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)
• The article on the JBS continues to contain major falsehoods such as the claim that the published edition of Robert Welch's so-called "private letter" entitled The Politician (1963) deleted "one paragraph". In reality, Robert Welch made major edits to his entire manuscript before releasing it to the public in 1963. You may see the actual scanned copies from the original 1958 edition at http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/documents [4] Ernie1241 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ernie1241
• In addition, considerable primary source and other factual data about the Birch Society is contained in FBI files and documents - and much of this material is not publicly available elsewhere. FBI FILES ON JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY is a report available at: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 [5] Ernie1241 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ernie1241

If you want people to read your postings you should start a new discussion thread at the end. No one has posted to this section for over a year. The article must be based on reliable secondary sources who interpret whatever primary sources are available. While these sources may at times be inaccurate or biased, it should be possible to correct this with reference to other secondary sources. In general however we should not rely on FBI or JBS documents, although the thoroughness and recent date of the FBI report makes it a worthy source. If they are significant they should be covered in the literature about the JBS. Most editors appear to be neutral on this article and would welcome construction suggestions for improvement. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New Notable Member - Jon Schaffer, of Iced Earth (heavy metal band)

Jon Schaffer, of Iced Earth (heavy metal band), just announced that he's joining the John Birch Society. SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1M3_I-sP8g#t=4m48s

Not RS for WP purposes. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

answers.com

Is not considered a "reliable source" in itself. "Columbia Encyclopedia" is considered a "tertiary source" and should be regatrded with caution. Using a general encyclopedia as a reference for a general encyclopedia is not best practice. See WP:RS and WP:V . If you wish to use the word "extreme" find a reliable source making the claim, and be willing to accept sources which do not make the claim as well. Collect (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A few other sources can be cited in favor of the "extreme" descriptor—e.g., History Dictionary; [6]; First Principles magazine; the SPLC ("extreme antigovernment doctrines"); Faces of Right Wing Extremism, p. 39; and Radicals or Conservatives?: The Contemporary American Right, p. 98 ("extremist support for Goldwater and his apparent reciprocal encouragement of extremist groups. The most important of these was the John Birch Society..."). More and better references could probably be marshaled by someone with more time and resources.

I think some descriptor is necessary in the lead to make it clear that the Birch Society is outside of the mainstream Right; and I think "extreme right" is more neutral than what the article used previously: "far right". I do not think it is appropriate to lump the Society in with Klansman and Nazis, especially without an authoritative source. At the same time, describing them as merely "on the right" is misleading. Do you have a better suggestion? --darolew (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added some of the better sources listed above. As for Right-Wing Populism in America pp. 175–185 and The Liberty Lobby and the American Right—both references which have long stood in support of that sentence—I am not sure either should be kept. The latter is given without any page numbers and I have no way of reviewing it. The former never characterizes the JBS as "extremist", "extreme right", or "far right" in the pages cited, though it does call it a "pillar of the Hard Right" (p. 175) and mentions "labeling by critics as a radical right extremist group" (p. 184). (Right-Wing Populism also calls both the Henry Regnery Company and Robert Taft "ultraconservative"—which seems to undermine its credibility). --darolew (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You should avoid judgmental terms like extreme in the lead and instead mention in the article that they have been called extreme. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Stating who used the term, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the term "extreme" has been used to describe the group, it is a peacock term and should not be used. Bytebear (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. A peacock term must "promote the subject of the article". In political contexts, the term "extreme" is more derogatory than promotional. --darolew (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And a specifically derogatory term has no more place in an article than a peacock term. The SPLC does not even call it "extreme" and they use the term a lot. Collect (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Far right", "fascist", "communist front", etc., are derogatory terms as well. That does not mean they haven't a place in articles. --darolew (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again - any article dealing with named living people must meet WP:BLP standards. Collect (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Assertions about living people must meet WP:BLP. Assertions about an organization, even one made up of living people, does not have to meet that standard. That said, we should use the best available sources for all articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since a number of living people are named in the article as being part of the organization, it is clear that statements about the organization affect them in a biographical manner -- thus BLP applies (note that BLP specifically states that it does not only apply to "biographies"). Collect (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What we say about those people directly is covered by BLP. What we say about the organization they belong to is not covered by it.   Will Beback  talk  22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And an inference that a person "adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines" as is currently the case in the article is not a BLP issue? When a position is ascribed to an organization, it is ascribed to those people mentioned in the article -- posit this "the Ganrg organization is either a humanist or a pedophile organization" And "John Roe is the head of the Ganrg organization." Would you say there is no BLP interest? Here we ascribe possible "extreme antigovernment doctrines" to a group, and name their head in the article. We are therefore ascribing that possible position to the person quite clearly. We ought to excise that bit which does not have any other backing in the article about the "extreme antigovernment doctrines." That is all I am saying here. There is no need for that part to be here. Collect (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If we have a source that says the organizations promotes X, Y, and Z, and we have a source that says person A belongs to that organization, then all the bases are covered. If we're lacking in sources then we should avoid making those assertions. Let's not make this more complicated than it needs to be.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) What we have is SPLC saying it is a "Patriot group." Then we have a "boilerplate sentence" from SPLC saying Patriot groups either oppose the New World Order, or they adhere to extreme antigovernmental doctrines. We also have RS for JBS opposing the New World Order already in the article. The part of the SPLC boilerplate (which was not directly connected to the JBS) about "antigovernmental doctrines" appears therefore to be not-relevant to the JBS at all, and as the SPLC made no such claim about the JBS, it ought not be in the article. Collect (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Far-right" seems to be a common description of the JBS. Max Blumenthal has called it "radical right". Jonathan S. Tobin and Michael Gerson have called it " extremist". There's plenty of similar epithets in use to describe it. BLP does not prevent us from reporting significant views, as required by NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue I presented was that of the aside about "adhere to extreme antigovernmental doctrines" which is quite different from "far right" to be sure, and since the SPLC did not apply the words to the JBS, I ask why they should be in the article. Collect (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't "far right" in the article? Whatever the most common unsympathetic view is, it should be mentioned in the lead.

Are we looking for a source for "antigovernment"? If so I can provide a couple.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A comment about the SPLC's definition of "Patriot group". The definition is that these groups are: a) "opposed to the 'New World Order'", and/or b) "adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines". The SPLC page does not specify which part of the definition they think the JBS fits. Collect's point is that since we know the JBS is "opposed to the 'New World Order'", the second part of the definition is not notable. However, the SPLC might well think the JBS meets both criteria; we have no way of knowing, and cannot make assumptions. If the item is to be in the article at all, the whole definition needs to be retained.

It might also be worth noting that we do not know the SPLC's definition of "extreme antigovernment doctrines", if they even have one. But when you have JBS leaders who say eighty percent of the federal government ought to be abolished—the JBS president, John F. McManus, said as much at the Rally for the Republic when he remarked that that, if the constitution was adhered to (something he obviously favors), the federal government would be twenty percent its current size—then it seems plausible that a liberal organization like the SPLC might regard the JBS as adhering to "extreme antigovernment doctrines". We certainly cannot assume the contrary. --darolew (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, about "far right": I think it would be unobjectionable if the lead had a sentence like "Critics (such as...) have argued the Society is a far right (or extreme right, or radical right) organization."—followed, of course, by good references. --darolew (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like "far right" was removed from the article recently. But the last discussion about it here was in November. Would whoever deleted it please put it back, or give an explanation for its removal?   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. The sentence read: "The society is on the far right of the American political spectrum." The references cited did not support the description, and I thought it was inappropriate to use such a derogatory term without adequate references. I changed "far right" to "extreme right". Collect then objected, correctly, that the references did not support this description either, and removed the word "extreme". I re-added it, citing the Columbia Encyclopedia, as reproduced on Answers.com. Collect undid this edit, citing a concern that the source I used was unreliable—that it where this thread began. I reinserted "extreme", but since Collect did have a point, I added more references which supported the description. Collect removed the term again, for reasons stated in this thread. Then I removed the sentence altogether, as I thought that a sentence that just said the JBS was "on the right of the American political spectrum" was pointless and redundant, given the lead introduces the JBS as a conservative group.

That is what happened to the old "far right" sentence. I think it should remain deleted. A new sentence, along the lines I mentioned above, would be appropriate—and would be more NPOV and less contentious than the old one. --darolew (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that history. It appears that everyone was acting in good faith, but unfortunately the result was an article that omitted important information about the topic. I think your proposed text is good. Let me know if you need help with sources. I can give you the citations for the three writers I mentioned above.   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The term "far right" has a specific meaning. It refers to groups that admire Hitler and Mussolini, deny the holocaust and advocate extra-legal resistance to government. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything, then, such terms might well mislead readers. The first requirement of any article is not to do that. At least, I do not think the JBS supports any sort of totalitarianism. Collect (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I would remind you that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Even if your definition of "far right" is correct (which is debatable), it does not follow that we can exclude all sources describing the JBS as "far right". As per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles must represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", even if those views are wrong.

Also, Will Beback, citations for those three writers would be helpful. --darolew (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly mention that they have been described as far right, among other things. But that is not my definition, it is how it is used in mainstream sources. Notice the Wikipedia Category "Far-right politics".[7] Incidentally I can find sources that place mainstream Republicans on the far right. It still would be wrong to call them far right. BTW opinions published in tertiary sources are irrelevant? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if reliable sources could be found, do you agree that a sentence along the lines of what I suggested above—"Critics (such as...) have argued the Society is a far right (or extreme right, or radical right) organization.(references)"—would be appropriate to include?

I do not want to get sidetracked into debating the definition of 'far right';—but if there was a significant opinion that mainstream Republicans were far right, which could be backed up by reliable sources (not partisan or fringe sources), then there would be nothing wrong with including that opinion in the relevant articles.

As for tertiary sources, they can be used in articles, but "the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources." --darolew (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) The definition of far right is important. The term "far right" has clear associations as seen for example in the book The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right[8] What do you think "far right" means? The term "radical right" is problematic too. It was coined in the 1950s and applied to the American conservative movement in general. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The JBS appears on page 300 of the Routledge book. The meaning of "far right" is beside the point. Our job here is just to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We don't have to decide it they are or are not "far right" or "extremist", we just have to report the significant points of view about the group.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not listed as a far right organization, just mentioned in the glossary.[9] Notice that the glossary contains many groups that are certainly not far-right, like the Khmer Rouge and the Liberal International. Also on page 306 it refers to the Liberty Lobby as a "Far-right faction in American politics". We really need a book about the far right that groups the JBS into the label. So far you have not provided any sources that could be discussed. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Take the same Google search but leave off "Routledge", and you'll find plenty of sources.[10] I don't understand why this is controversial - does anyone here think the JBS is only moderately conservative?   Will Beback  talk  01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

When Seymour Martin Lipset coined the term "radical right" in 1950, he applied it to McCarthyites, American conservatives, the JBS and neo-nazis. The term was used interchangeably with "far right" and "extreme right". Note that most of your sources are from the 1960s and follow this definition. See for example Life's "Who's Who in the Gamut of the Far Right" (1962).[11] Barry Goldwater and his conservative movement are called "far right". Today, the term would be considered wrong. I did not say that the JBS is only "moderately conservative" but that its lack of overt racism, anti-semtism and open connections with neo-fascists puts it in a separate group. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few sources below that characterize the JBS as "far right", "radical right", or "extremist". And those are far from all that are available.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Only one of your sources calls them "far right". They are mostly called "radical right" (as Lipset called them) or extremists. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources Will Beback has provided are certainly sufficient to include the opinion that the JBS is 'extremist' and 'radical right'. I agree that more sources would be required for 'far right'. --darolew (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start looking for "far right" until I'd spent the allotted time on the searches. I can go back and add more. I hope that all parts of the article will become so well-referenced.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a bunch, just from the last five years. I also came across "ultra-right" and "ultra-conservative".   Will Beback  talk  09:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

When we are trying to find a label for a group the best approach is to find what they are called rather than find sources that support our description of them. Clearly the most common term is "radical right" which is what they are normally called in academic literature. The term "far-right" is generally reserved for groups that are neo-fascist, racist or anti-semitic. Far right organizations co-operate with one another and are often engaged in illegal activity. The modern Klan in the US is described as far-right. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that "radical right" is used more frequently than "far-right", or is preferred in academic literature. I'll draft a paragraph for the article and a sentence for the lead which summarizes the characterizations of the group found in the sources below. If there are other sources that should be included please add them.   Will Beback  talk  17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple:

• The Society has been characterized as "extremists", "far right", "radical right", and "ultra-conservative". [Added "extremists"]

Any problem with that text in the intro?   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Has been described as 'far right' by thus-and-such" with refs should be sufficient. WP is not the place for listing everything anyone has said about a group. Our task is to state facts, not to list every available opinion out there. I suspect we could find cites for "nuts" etc. but that is not what an encyclopedia article should have. Collect (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is the place to report what people say about a group, at least every significant view. We have more sources for them being called "radical right" than for most material in the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have long argued, the term "far right" has a specific meaning which does not include the JBS and the fact that a few newspapers have called them far right is unimportant. May I suggest that you use search engines to confirm current use of the term. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did use an archive of newspapers to find its current use, which includes the JBS. If we have sources which dispute the characterization then we can include those too.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Collect: Wikipedia does not list everything which has been said about a group, but it does list verifiable and "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV). The material amassed by Will Beback seems to meet these criteria.

Will Beback: I would modify your suggested sentence to the following: The Society has been characterized by its critics as "extremist", "far right", "radical right", and "ultra-conservative". This adds "by its critics", and makes 'extremist' singular to be an adjective rather than a noun; and perhaps 'described' should be substituted for 'characterized'. Further, sources should be cited for each term individually. --darolew (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Those suggestions are fine, except for calling the sources "critics". Have any of these sources been called "critics", or would that be our own assessment? We could say "by critics and others", which avoids calling them all critics, but it's still close to original research unless it's sourced.   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added to the lead:

• It has been described as "ultraconservative",[5] "far right",[6] "radical right",[7] and "extremist".[8]

Each footnote contains three citations, which should be sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the John Birch Society far right?

RFC text

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

RFC discussion

There is a dispute about whether or not the John Birch Society (JBS) should be described as "far right". Current academic usage, law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups generally reserve the term for groups that are racist, anti-semitic or violent. However the JBS is sometimes referred to as "far right" in newspapers and journalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not calling JBS "far right". Rather, we are reporting that the term is used by reliable sources, including scholarly journals, to describe the JBS. I have seen no sources, despite requests for them, to support the assertion that the term is reserved for only those groups that are "racist, anti-semitic or violent".   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In fairness I did mention that neither The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right[12] or the Southern Poverty Law Center consider the JBS to be "far right". Incidentally the "scholarly journal" articles that you mention are not about the JBS or the "far right". One of the other sources you provide calls Barry Goldwater "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It matters little what a particular source fails to say about the JBS; what matters is what it does say. What Will Beback is saying is that no source has been provided which says the JBS is not 'far right'. As for the source that calls Goldwater 'far right', that source—which was from the 1960s—was, quite properly, not used in the article; the article uses three sources from 2005, 2008, and 2009, respectively. --darolew (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, The Four Deuces, you define 'far right' as "racist, anti-semitic or violent"—earlier, you defined 'far right' as "neo-fascist, racist or anti-semitic". Let us accept this definition for the moment. Now,—remembering that the John Birch Society opposed the civil rights movement, and that it had members like Revilo P. Oliver and John G. Schmitz,—is it really inconceivable that some might consider the JBS to be racist and anti-Semitic, and thus 'far right' by your definition? And yes, I am well aware that the JBS expelled Oliver and Schmitz, and that its opposition to the civil rights movement was rooted in anti-communism. It is not my argument that the JBS is racist or anti-Semitic, but rather that it is conceivable it could be perceived that way; and, should that opinion be significant enough, Wikipedia should mention it. --darolew (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to prove a negative and the fact that there are no academic articles about the far right or the John Birch society should suffice to exclude mention in the article. There is within the American radical right a spectrum that runs from the Tea Party types through groups like the JBS to far right groups like the KKK. While they share many of the same aspects, beliefs and membership, they differ in the degree of their extremism and willingness to act outside democratic institutions. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to make a personal remark, but you keep making assertions without providing any source to support it. I've provided dozens of sources that describe the JBS and all I get in response is argument. Again, if there are sources that say somehting differently then we can work with those. But argument without supporting sources is just hot air.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In fairness I did mention that neither The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right[13] or the Southern Poverty Law Center consider the JBS to be "far right". Incidentally the "scholarly journal" articles that you mention are not about the JBS or the "far right". One of the other sources you provide calls Barry Goldwater "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not writing about Goldwater, so I don't understand the relevance. This entire comment appears to be a duplicate of what you wrote 01:03, 11 February 2010.   Will Beback  talk  06:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to express your views on this subject and google-searching for obscure articles that appear to support your views, may I suggest that you read about the subject and then make recommendations based on mainstream views. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal isn't really an obscure publication. If you can suggest some sources to read I'd be interested.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) You have not provided a reference from the Wall Street Journal that calls the JBS "far right". However if you Google search "Wall Street Journal" "John Birch Society" and "far right" and search through hundreds of hits you will probably find a reference that backs up your viewpoint. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, perhaps, but the Voice of America has used the term.[14]   Will Beback  talk  07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

But to fulfill your suggestion, I've added a citation to this page from the WSJ in which Roger Pilon, who is hardly a leftist, uses the term for the JBS.   Will Beback  talk  08:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions should be sourced. If you want to say that "Andrew Guthrie" has called them "far right" then that would be reliably sourced. But for notablity, could you please explain why his opinion is important. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Many people have called the JBS "far right". It's really not an extraordinary assertion. Nobody calls them "mainstream conservatives" or "moderates". We're just informing readers about some of the more common characterizations of the group. If there are other views that you think should be included also then let's add those too. As it is, this is among the best-sourced assertions in the article.   Will Beback  talk  08:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment via RfC Far right is a fairly vague term and should probably be avoided unless there's a fair amount of mainstream consensus that a particular group are "far right". A point which is particularly more acute when a group don't exhibiting some of the characteristics that normally make a group far right. In saying this I can't help notice that this article seems to apply quite of labels to the John Birch Society without saying where they stand on more mundane issues. If it said where they stood on immigration, health care, abortion, positive discrimination and so on, readers could judge where the Society stood politically, for themselves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Far right" is a fairly mainstream description of the group (see the list of citations above). So much so that they are arguably part of what defines a "far right group".   Will Beback  talk  05:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

'Far right' is no more vague than 'conservative' or 'liberal'; with political articles, vague terminology often cannot be avoided. However, I agree that it would be desirable for the article to go into more detail on the JBS's stands on the issues. --darolew (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment re RfC While it's a vague term, if it is used in a source as a describer for the JBS then a sentence should be included along the lines of "JBS has been described to be a far right group{source##}" or something along those lines. We cannot say that it is far right, as we cannot draw conclusions, make synthesis, or give undue weight as it does not sound like the description is used universally(would they describe themselves as such is always a good question to ask). Outback the koala (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"We cannot say that it is far right"—quite right; note that as the article is right now, it says that the JBS "has been described as ... 'far right'". --darolew (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For the benefit of those coming to comment on the RfC, I've posted the text in question at #RFC text above. Note that although there are just three sources for "far right" listed in the footnote, the #Characterization section also lists another couple and that list is far from exhaustive.   Will Beback  talk  03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

One problem with citing those who use possibly pejorative terms is that there is clearly no possiblility of finding a cite that "a group is not (pejorative)." Clearly WP expects POV statements to be possibly balanceable by other statements, but such statements are intrinsically not balanceable as people do not generally make "anti-pejorative" claims in RSs <g>. Thus the possibility that "X org members are mass murderers" (in someone's opinion) would be balanced by what? How can it be balanced? IMHO, where an opinion can not possibly be counterweighted, it produced an NPOV paradox. Collect (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does WP say that POV statements should be balanced by other statements? If there are other significant views we should include those too for completeness, but not for balance. To use your analogy (and meaning nothing by the comparison) if we're writing about the Manson Family then it's acceptable to say they were regarded as mass murderers without providing a contrary point of view.   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Placement on any "political spectrum" is a matter of subjective opinion, not of demonstrable fact. Where the wording of the subjective opinion is frequently used as a pejorative, it is clear that not only is it not a matter of objective fact, it is a matter of opinion strongly influenced by the position on the political spectrum of the person making the statement of his opinion. As a matter of opinion, it should always be referred to as such, with the name of the person having that opinion placed in the sentence in the article. Thus "John Does states his opinion is that the John Birch Society is on the ultra-right of the political spectrum" is fine. "The JBS is described as on the ultra-right of the political spectrum" is not. The first makes clear that it is the opinion of a specific source, the second does not do so. Can you see the difference here? Collect (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If one person makes a POV comment, then it should be attributed. If a half dozen reliable sources make the same POV comment then it's less necessary to attribute it to all those who've expressed it.

Curiously, the same editor who started this RfC about simply saying that the JBS has been described as "far right" has no trouble with actually labeling the British National Party with the same term.[15] In that case he says it's fine because it's well-sourced. This is well-sourced too. We have two scholarly journals using the term, not to mention the conservative Wall Street Journal. And that's just based on a quick search. I'm sure we could find many more.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaops then we should include "paranoid" per [16] etc.? "Racist" per [17] ? No end of pejorative opinions are out there -- the question is do they belong in an encyclopedia article? Arianna says "lunatics" [18] ought that not be included? I suggest, moreover, that reasonable people should draw a line at, say, one pejorative clearly assigned rather than open the very large kettle of fish available. Collect (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The terms we've added to the article are all cited to three sources, and in each case more citations are available, indicating that they are significant points of view. By comparison, terms which have only been used once are less significant. I expect that we could find more sources that describe the "paranoid" or "conspiracy theory" aspects of the group, so that is worth investigating. The approach of the JBS to race is less commonly discussed and I doubt there are many sources that call it "racist" or even "anti-semitic". "Lunatic" is more of a put-down than a serious description, but if iut's used repeatedly then it might be worth consideration.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A great many use pejoratives - the issue is, however, whether pejoratives belong in an encyclopedia. And there are, indeed, sources which call it "racist" even though other sources are quite clear it is far from racist. Note moreover that the category "American progressive organizations" was just deleted as "subjective" even where the term was used about the organizations. I happen to think "progressive" is not nearly as subjective as "paranoid" by the way. If we are to avoid "subjective" stuff, we should at least not add the most pejorative terms, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting placing this article in a "far right" category. Who says that "far right" is primarily a pejorative term? What less pejorative term covers the same description? And why is it OK to call the BNP "far right" but a problem to even report that some people call the JBS "far right"?   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

As I made no opinion known on the BNP, the argument does not affect me at all. I did oppose the repeated labelling of the Daily Mail as "fascist." Collect (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) "Far right" is a perjorative term when loosely applied. I notice that the US broadcast media is now using the term "far right" to describe the radical opponents of mainstream Republicans (the Tea Party movement), but that does not mean that we should report this. However, for groups like the BNP that are normally described as "far right" in academic literature and by law enforcement and groups that monitor the far right, it is fitting that this would be reported. It works for the other side as well - the Democrats have been called "socialist", which is pejorative, but would not be pejorative if applied to the Socialist Party USA. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the term is "loosely applied in this context? Here are the citations we're using:

• Oshinsky, David (January 27, 2008). "In the Heart of the Heart of Conspiracy". New York Times Book Review: p. 23.
• Danielson, Chris (Feb 2009). ""Lily White and Hard Right": The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980". The Journal of Southern History (Athens) 75 (1): 83.
• Lee, Martha F [19](Fall 2005). "NESTA WEBSTER: The Voice of Conspiracy". Journal of Women's History (Baltimore) 17 (3): 81.

So we have a prominent historian writing in the New York Times and two professors writing in academic journals. This isn't coming from Keith Olbermann. What other material in this article is so well sourced?   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Far Right is a subjective term and should not be stated as a fact. Perhaps it would be better to simply outline the platform of the society and leave it at that. It would be self-evident to anyone who holds to a definite description of far right without labeling it. Perhaps I am naive to think that would suffice. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the text at the top of the thread? We aren't stating as fact that they are far right.   Will Beback  talk  01:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"It has been described as" sure sounds like a blurring of fact and opinion. An iceberg "has been described as a large floating island of ice" is rather more a statement of fact than of opinion. WP is better served by avoiding such. Collect (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that it's been described that way. Can you suggest alternate wording?   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Elmmapleoakpine: You say 'far right' is subjective and "should not be stated as a fact." This idea is at variance with precedent and would have far-reaching implications if consistently applied. However, in this case, I agree that the article should not state, as a fact, that the JBS is 'far right'; and as it does not, there is no issue. You also say, "it would be better to simply outline the platform of the society and leave it at that." But we are trying to include all significant views on the subject; simply outlining their positions would not do this.

Collect: I second Will Beback's request. If you think "it has been described as" sounds too much like an endorsement of the descriptions, please provide an alternate wording which you feel is acceptably neutral. --darolew (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Will Beback, what you are doing is cherry picking:

Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias.

A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants.

Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.

What you are doing is picking articles that are not mainstream about either the John Birch Society or the "far right". Indeed some writers have described the JBS as "far right" and they have called the Tea Party movement the same. Similar sources may also describe progressive democrats as "far left". None of this provides any useful information to readers. What you should do is read the literature about the JBS and include it in the article rather than refer to obscure articles that have received no recognition in the literature. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What literature do you recommend reading? This article really doesn't have many good sources other than the ones added for this sentence.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You should read peer-reviewed articles about either the John Birch Society or the far right. A New York Times article and two academic articles, none of which are about either the John Birch Society or the far right, do not qualify. You seem to have a problem in understanding what peer-review, relevance or significance mean when it comes to this subject. Can I help you in understanding these concepts? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why must the citations be specifically about the JBS or the far right? That seems like an arbitrary limitation;—one which is not applied when referencing other articles, and that (so far as I know) has no sanction in Wikipedia policy. --darolew (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you seem to be an expert on this topic. What peer-reviewed articles about the JBS do you recommend?   Will Beback  talk  08:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I can write an article about Abraham Lincoln and believing some fringe view about him - for example that he was born in Germany - find an article about a senator in the 1930s that mistakenly says that both of them were born in Germany. Here we have an article about "The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting" and another article about a woman in the US south. Why are these good sources for the JBS or the far right? The only explanation is that you are cherry-picking. Mainstream sources do not support your view and you therefore search through the tens of thousands of articles that mention the JBS in order to find something that supports your personal point of view. The fact that you are asking me to explain how totally irrational your view is boggles the imagination. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, I can provide you with sources but honestly how can you ask me when you should look into this before you edit the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't really cite any peer-reviewed article in this article now, do we? So any such articles you can suggest can be added to the sources and the article can be improved. Which would you recommend as the best sources available on this topic?   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why you continue this discussion. You obviously want the article to call the JBS "far right" and have no interest in reading anything about the JBS or the far right. No idea why you are asking me for sources. Why would you edit an article if you did not know what anything about sources? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary: I am interested in reading peer-reviewed sources. Which peer-reviewed articles do you recommend reading? Since you keep dodging the question I'm beginning to sense you don't know of any. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: Reliable sources should be used, unreliable ones should not. An article claiming Lincoln was born in Germany would not be reliable. "Why are these good sources for the JBS or the far right?" you ask. Why aren't they? It is a fact that reliable, verifiable sources "have described" the John Birch Society as 'far right'; and, as Will Beback's collection of characterizations show, this is not a entirely uncommon description (i.e., it is significant). You seem to be holding the inclusion of the term 'far right'—and only that term—up to very higher standards. --darolew (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which means, AFAICT, that "Critics frequently call the JBS 'far right'" is accurate and sufficient? The issue here is one of pejoratives and of overkill in listing all the terms some apply. Collect (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We discussed that phrasing before, but we don't have a source that calls these people "critics" or characterize the usage as "frequent".   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

An article claiming that Lincoln was born in Germany could be a reliable source. In fact I was involved in a discussion where a reliable source (a newspaper) claimed that Obama was born in Kenya (this was early in his political career.) The point is that reliable sources may be in error. If the error is trivial to the subject, as in the journal articles mentioned by Will Beback, then they do not enter into academic discussion. That is why sources used for articles should be relevant to the article. A claim that the JBS was "far right" in an article about the JBS or the far right would be subject to peer-review before publication and discussion following publication. At the very least the writer would have to explain why they thought the JBS and what "far right" meant, which none of the sources does. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The two journals cited are peer-reviewed. Which sources do you recommend as being better?   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Yes they were peer-reviewed and are therefore reliable sources for The Mississippi Republican Party and Nesta Webster, not for tangential information. Why would you use these articles as a source that JBS is far right rather than an article about the JBS or the far right? That represents cherry-picking and poor scholarship. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think peer reviewers let pass statements that are unreasonable just because they aren't closely connected to the thesis of the article. At the moment, these are the best sources we have for the article. Have you read any better sources? If not then your repeated admonishments to read sources that don't exist are unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've organized the sources that call the JBS "far right" into a section above, #"Far right".   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources here are overwhelmingly reputable, and they overwhelmingly describe the organization as far right. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that we are even having a discussion over this particular topic.UberCryxic (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you note the laundry list in the sentence at issue? Not just "far right" but a host of adjectives which are, at best, Ossa on Pelion. Collect (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think we should move "far right" out of the list and into the text of the lead sentence, something like, "The JBS is a far right organization that..." There are now so many sources that use the term it is obviously not a contentious characterization. We don't say that it is "described as 'anti-communist'", or "some people say it was founded by Robert Welsh". The current lead buries the key issues and probably should be re-written anyway.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from RFC: Here are some sources that characterize JBS:
• New York Times: "ultraconservative"
• BBC: "conservative"
• CNN: "conservative".
• Le Monde: "une organisation américaine d'extrême droite" (this is close to "American hard-right wing organization")
• Guardian: "snarling, paranoid far-right"
• Observer: "ultra-right-wing"

Hope this helps, --Dailycare (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My idea, for what it's worth

Looking at the weight of the evidence presented, as well as what I know myself about the group, I would definitely classify them as far right or extreme right. That term, however, has many layers of complexion, despite its superficial simplicity. I propose saying that certain reputable sources, to be cited in the article, have identified them as ideologically "far right" (only far right in quotes, but "ideologically" also included in article) to distinguish the group from more gruesome elements of the violent far right (ie. the abortion bombers like Scott Roeder).

Anyway, that's if you're all up for a mild compromise. The sources that are there now are fairly solid.UberCryxic (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I've just made several changes to the article, mostly fixing grammatical mistakes and consolidating paragraphs. I've also placed the far right stuff after the first sentence. The readers need to be informed of prominent views about the group instantly, not all the way at the end of the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I've removed the tag. The article has many reliable third-party references, especially in the lead. Be bold my friends.UberCryxic (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, please read the discussion. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups who monitor the "radical right" draw a distinction between the "far right" which is neo-fascist and "patriot groups" that believe in conspiracy theories. Will Beback has presented two totally irrelevant sources that have called the JBS far right, but the term has been applied to other less extreme groups including the Tea Party movement. I do not think that we should trivialize the concept of the far right which normally refers to Nazism and fascism by applying the term to the JBS. I would point out also that academic sources do not normally call the JBS "far right" although Will Beback has found two articles, neither of which are about the JBS or the far right, which do use the term. Supporters of the British National Party who object to their party being called "far right" are of course happy to see an American group that is not overtly racist or violent included as "far right" because it makes them seem more moderate. You have to decide whether to accept the descriptions in academic literature or the other view. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Two articles? Count again. We now have excerpts from 44 reliable sources, every one of which calls the JBS "far right". Let me quote what an editor said on another page:

• The references for "far right" ... are properly sourced. These articles should reflect what appears in reliable sources and we cannot second-guess them. [20]

That editor is right. the article should reflect what reliable sources say about the subject, and we shouldn't be second-guessing them.   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Did someone mention the SPLC?

• But this same Strom also describes a more sinister influence on his political development. In a time of widespread fears of communist takeover, Strom's high school history teacher fueled his budding hatred of communism and introduced a young Strom to the far-right John Birch Society, where he allegedly encountered members of William Pierce's neo-Nazi National Alliance (NA). [21]
• One of Strom's high school teachers, who happened to be an extreme right-winger, discovered Strom's political leanings and recruited him into the John Birch Society, Kaiser said. It was in that far-right organization that Strom reportedly was first introduced to the National Alliance by Birchers who also belonged to the Alliance.[22]
• As of April, there were dues-paying party members in 49 states — including some Reform Party refugees, most notably Ezola Foster, the African-American fundamentalist and former head of the California chapter of the far-right John Birch Society who was Buchanan's surprising choice for vice president in 2000.[23]
• Stoked by paranoid far-right groups like the John Birch Society, which once accused President Eisenhower of being a secret Communist, these theories revive militia fears about the United States losing its sovereignty to various foreign powers.[24]

They seem to consider the JBS to be "far right".   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that sources supporting the view that the JBS is far right should actually use the term "far right"? This is all original research. One good source is better than forty + bad sources. I can find sources that subjects of other articles you edit, David Duke, Sarah Palin and Tom Tancredo are also "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this new objection. The sources I've listed use the term "far right". In some cases they say "far-right" instead, but I've never heard that the hyphen significantly changes the meaning of the term. If there are 44 sources that say Duke or Palin are far right then we should probably add that to those articles as well.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't very difficult everyone. The sources are reputable. The sources do overwhelmingly call the organization "far right," to the point where it's a dominant view. By Wikipedia standards, that's good enough to include the term in the lead.UberCryxic (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

• The John Birch Society is a political advocacy group that supports what it considers traditionally conservative causes such as the private ownership of property, the rule of law and U.S. sovereignty, and the opposition to globalism.

The old source for this is now a dead link, and isn't even in the archives.[25][26] the new link, http://www.jbs.org/core-principles, doesn't contain any of the assertions made in this sentence. Also, an edit back in September 2009 was probably faulty in removing the phrase "anti-communist" from the lead.[27] So we need some basic source and then we should probably rewrite the topic sentence from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Will, I've gone ahead and implemented your proposed changes, although you might have some quibbles with the particular version I've chosen.UberCryxic (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated previously, I am opposed to saying the John Birch Society is 'far right'. Collect, The Four Deuces, and Outback the koala have expressed the same opinion. It seems UberCryxic and Will Beback have been making changes without reaching consensus. I have been supportive of saying the JBS "has been described as 'far right'", because this is a significant opinion about the JBS; but I do not believe it is the "dominant" opinion as UberCryxic asserts.

As Collect and The Four Deuces have been pointing out all along, it is hard to disprove the assertion that the JBS 'far right'. For any given subject (the Republican Party, Barry Goldwater, etc.) it is far easier to find sources asserting it is far right than it is not. Sources that do not believe a subject is far right tend to not mention it at all. Thus it is easy to marshal sources like The New York Times and academic journals,—which suffer from notorious political biases,—and use them to assert the JBS is far right, but very difficult to find assertions to the contrary. A minority opinion,—no matter how demeaning and incoherent,—is declared as fact because it gets explicitly mentioned in publications; while the majority opinion, being implicit, is excluded.

I urge the editors to reconsider their positions, and favor the restoration of the previous sentence . --darolew (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm open. What sources can we muster to show that there is a more dominant opinion? Also, it looks like The Four Deuces is urging us to use academic journals, while Darolew is saying they are notoriously biased. What are the best sources for this topic that editors can recommend?   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Martin Seymour Lipset established definitions for the American "radical right". (See: "The Sources of the "Radical Right" (1955).[28]) Sara Diamond discussed the terminology in Roads to Dominion (1995), p.5.[29] She in fact found trouble with the terminology which Lipset had also noted, but noted that they had continued in use. While darolew is correct that both the NYT and academic journals are unsympathetic to the JBS, newspapers are more likely to use exaggerated terms. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source. But I am a bit confused - hadn't you previously warned against using older references because the meaning of the terms has changed over time? There are many sources from the 1960s which call the JBS "far right", shall we use those as well? As for the Diamond book, it looks like it might be a good reference for the article, thanks for finding it. Is there any meaningful distinction between "radical right" and "far right"?   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we're getting into the freakish realm of semantics and philosophy. To Darolew's point: nearly everything on Wikipedia that we say is can also be described as being. It's (mostly) a distinction without a difference. Even when we say something absurdly obvious like "Barack Obama is the President of the United States," it's effectively the same thing as "Barack Obama is described as being the President of the United States," only we don't use the latter because it's too verbose and awkward. So the real problem seems to be pinpointing what the weight of the evidence suggests. I think there's more than enough evidence to characterize them as far right without saying "they are described as far right." But our individual opinions here are just that: opinions. There is really no golden standard for deciding when you should say something is and when you should say it's considered to be.UberCryxic (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

To say something "has been described as", "has been characterized as", "is alleged to be", "has been called", etc., is to include the view, without sanctioning it; to say something "is" is to include the view and to sanction it as correct. There is a world of difference between saying "the TEA Party movement is an astroturfing project" and saying "the TEA Party movement has been described as an astroturfing project". In fact, if you look at Tea Party movement#Astroturfing allegations, you can see how the claims of astroturfing are included without ever sanctioning them.

It is an indisputable objective reality than Barack Obama is President of the United States; thus saying he is President is obvious. Political designations rarely have that level of certainty. Definitions of 'far right' differ, as do assessments of people and organizations.

Given that many,—perhaps most,—works on the John Birch Society do not describe them as 'far right' (examples could brought forward), it seems like common sense to me that this view is not accepted in significant quarters. Perhaps this argument does not satisfy you and Will Beback, as you seem to want something difficult, perhaps nonexistent;—reliable declarations that the JBS is not far right, or that the view they are far right is not dominant. If someone with better research skills than I can find something to that effect, that would be fine; but I would not hold my breath, for reasons already stated.

The case is especially difficult with the JBS. When the TEA Party movement is called 'far right' (as it is by CNN: "TEA Party activists are generally on the far right of the political spectrum..."), one can expect conservative media outlets to defend it. The JBS, by contrast, has few friends; the conservative media has been mostly hostile ever since Welch described Eisenhower as an agent of the Communist conspiracy; its conspiracism remains unpopular in most quarters. For this reason, and the aforementioned difficulty in disproving the assertion that a given subject is 'far right' (as a further illustration of this, "fox news is far right" gets 5,880,000 hits, "fox news is not far right" gets only 2 hits), I am not optimistic about finding sources refuting the 'far right' status of the John Birch Society. That said, if I have more time, I will look later, however grim the prospects. --darolew (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand the issue, but virtually every source is going to call the JBS something like "extreme right wing", "ultraright", "radical right", or "ultraconservative". I don't think there's much difference between those terms. We're not going to find any sources, I predict, that say it is "moderate", "mainstream conservative", or any other similar description. Further, many times reporters will use descriptions at arms length, saying "sometimes described as" or a similar construction. But not when it comes to calling the JBS "far right". Most of the 44 sources listed here call it "far right" without any hesitation or wavering. Ultimately, we're just here to report what is found in reliable sources, not to decide the truth on our own.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback, although Lipset's article is out of date, he and other writers in the 1950s established categories that were adopted by later writers as Diamond points out. I would use the categories that modern academic writers like Diamond use. The JBS is really a half-way point between the TEA Party and dangerous groups like the clan. They have been invited to CPAC, many dangerous extremists have been Birchers and their NWO theories have been influential. If you use terms generally used in academic sources you do not have to say (x describes them as "far right"), you may just write "they are a radical right-wing group". Then readers can follow sources to find clear definitions of the terms. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Darolew, you didn't address the fundamental problem, which is that any claim has some inherent subjectivity (including this one!). There are people who believe Obama was born in Kenya and he shouldn't be US president, and those people would never call him "the president," so to speak. To a large extent, in other words, certainty is a matter of degree, and on an issue like this, it's very much a matter of opinion. Now there are facts and truths with so much overwhelming evidence behind them that they can essentially be regarded as true without qualification (like evolution, global warming, or Obama being president). If we're deferring to Kant, there has to be some inherent subjectivity in all those claims, but it's effectively ignored because it's very tiny. Having analyzed the relevant evidence, I think it's more than appropriate to simply classify them as far right and not worry about qualifying that statement. I know you'll disagree, and I guess the only way to move forward is to find some sort of new consensus on this talk page.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Qualifier: any claim in natural languages (ie. English, French, etc). I'll accept virtually all mathematical claims stemming from axiomatic set theory as obvious and self-evident.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How far is "far"

To attempt to place a context with the pejorative "far," I would suggest that violence be present. The Weathermen were "far left", the ACLU is merely "left". The Bolsheviks are "far left". The Democratic Party is merely "left."

The Nazis are "far right". The John Birch Society merely "right."

We don't need to get carried away here. Every left winger or right winger calls his or her opponents "far left" or "far right". This stupidity should not be carried over into this encyclopedia. Student7 (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, since George Bush and the neocons have been described as far right, along with those who supported the Iraq war. It would seem that everyone on the right is far right, even libertarians and those against the Iraq which includes JBS.--173.31.191.192 (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)