Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

What's the compromise?

Folks can't just keep deleting well-sourced material.[1] I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. What language does The Four Deuces propose to cover the "far right" issue?   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The current version is fine. We don't need to sacrifice accuracy along with a million reputable sources.UBER ^(talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasons but here is a summary:

• We should never present a minority opinion as fact.
• We should use sources that are relevant to the subject.
• The sources should explain why the group is far right. E.g., Routledge defines "far right" and explains how individual groups fit the definition

We should not trivialize words by calling every group or person we disagree with far right or fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Right-wing" seems to cover it perfectly fine. Conservative groups are not generally placed on the "far-right" by neutral sources. In the mean time Uber needs to stop pushing his own political views in articles, he is damaging the project. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Deuces is just factually wrong when calling this a "minority opinion," an absolutely outlandish assertion not supported by any reputable sources, mind you. The reason why far-right belongs in the lead is precisely because the organization is so overwhelmingly labeled by a vast swathe of reputable sources.

As for Yorkshirian, I have told the user to stop edit warring repeatedly, to no avail. Neutral sources, the same kind that Yorkshirian allegedly supports, call this organization far-right, and they should not be excluded from the lead.UBER ^(talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to entirely remove the phrase "far right" from the article. It is too common a description of the group. I'd be willing to compromise on how we say it, but with dozens of reliable sources not saying it at all isn't a viable alternative.   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I'm fine with where it currently stands in the lead. Like I said above, we don't need to sacrifice verifiability when the organization is overwhelmingly identified as far to the right.UBER ^(talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At the most recent noticeboard, the uninvolved editors agreed that it's appropriate to call the JBS "far right". If there's no compromise proposed by the editor who keeps deleting this then I'll restore it again. If well-sourced material keeps getting deleted then we'll have to engage in some other dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  00:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If Will and Uber disagree with the normal definition of "far right" then they should provide a source for their definition. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR to Deuces, on occasion #1 million. It does not matter how we define right, left, far right, far left, center-left, or center-right. That's not our job, and any attempt to do so would be a joke. I've told you this a million times before yet you still keep making the same tired and ludicrous request. Our only job, as it pertains to this issue, is to determine what reputable sources say about the subject: how they characterize its beliefs, its actions, etc. Identifying a definition for a political wing and trying to apply that definition to any subject is, for the umpteenth time, original research. Just report what reputable source state and leave it at that. This really isn't very difficult.UBER ^(talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a group as "far right", when most reputable sources do not call it that, is a violation of neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you know what most reputable sources call it? Do you have a reputable source saying "most reputable sources don't call it far right"? If you don't, then why are you making such a claim?UBER ^(talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From all I can tell, The Four Deuces has only found one source, though he keeps repeating it. The JBS is included Routledge, so even that is equivocal since it includes JBS. We've already taken this to two noticeboards. The Four Deuces refuses to suggest any compromise and just keeps deleting sourced material. I suggest mediation.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the article currently says that in a matter of a fact sense this "is a far-right" organisation. An inherently bias position inserted into the article purely based on the personal views of Uber after quote mining for references. It gives undue weight to this position. We can also find many references which calls the subject of the article simply "right-wing". In the present form it takes the opinion of Cultural Marxists and others whom are hostile to the JBS and its worldview, as if it was a matter of a fact, but doesn't take into account the view of people who are either neutral, more favourable diposed to it or the organisation itself. Based on this it is inherently a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What sources can you find that merely call it "right wing"? We have nearly four dozen sources that call it "far right", and many more that use similar terms. The Four Deuces says this is a minority view, but he's only found one source, and it doesn't call it a minority view. So it looks like the sources overwhelmingly call JBS "far right".   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Routledge defines and identifies far right groups and do not include the JBS. I can provide other sources that define the far right, but no source has been provided by Will Beback that defines it. What do you think that "far right" means? I am willing to accept mediation. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

York, have you even followed what's been happening on this talk page? "Uber quote mining for references"?!?!? What are you talking about? I have not added a single reference here; Will has done all the work on that front. I merely reviewed his sources and I came to the conclusion that the label applies to the organization. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion, at least pretend like you're paying attention.UBER ^(talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Has a compromise been offered that describes the group only as "right", unqualified? Qualifications like "far-" or "extremist" generally have negative connotations. Wouldn't it be best to let the reader decide how "far" they are relative to their experience? Has this proposal failed in the past? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why bother saying they are "right" if we're not going to be more precise? If we have four dozen sources that say Mexico is in North America, we don't say that it is "somewhere in the Western Hemisphere" and let readers judge its exact location for themselves. Since we have so many sources which unequivocally call JBS "far right" the logical and NPOV approach is to summarize their views. This is not a case where there is a range of views, or disagreement in the sources themselves. No source that we've seen calls the JBS "moderates" or "centrist", and the organization itself has not disputed the categorization. If lots of source say they are "far right" and non say otherwise, then we should just repeat what the sources say, as we would with any other topic.   Will Beback  talk  12:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Most reliable sources for the far right in the United States mention the JBS but do not include it as part of the far right. They do call them right-wing or radical right. "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (Routledge, p. 5) The Four Deuces (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Most reliable sources for the far right in the United States..." Which sources are you referring to? Can you list ten or twenty of them?   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is a big equivocation with the word "far". I qualify myself as far left, but that's only relative to what I see as the "normal" left around me, not per the definition provided above. In other words, I only see "far" as a distance. Isn't that a reasonable interpretation? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for us to define "far". It's sufficient to know that dozens of sources call the JBS "far right" without any equivocating (that is, they're not saying it's "sometimes called far right", or "critics label it far right", they are simply saying it is far right). When so many sources agree and none disagree then it seems appropriate to copy their usage.   Will Beback  talk  20:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Will is exactly right, and I've been telling this to Deuces for what seems like eternity. It is not our responsibility to define far-right for the sake of this article. All of us can search through reputable sources and dig up something like Deuces did, but that search is absolutely futile for our endeavor, which is focused on determining what reputable sources state about the ideological orientation of the organization—not about the orientation itself. IF this debate were happening at the far right article, then we would definitely need to specify a definition for far right. But here, it's just totally unnecessary.UBER ^(talk) 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing two disputes: one is neutrality and the other verifiability. Was "far-right" considered neutral before the sources were found, or is "far-right" neutral because of the sources? Is the use of the word "far-right" neutral? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Considered neutral by whom? I don't see how there is a significant difference in neutrality between calling a group "moderate", "right wing", or "far right". They are all characterizations. In this case, the overwhelming preponderance of sources say that the JBS is far right or similar terms. If there was one person who made the characterization we'd say, "according to X..." If several people with identifiable biases we might say, "observers on the Left call it..." But in this case even conservative sources, like the Wall Street Journal, use the term. And there is no range of views, so we would not say "some call it X while others call it Y." (There are a range of terms, but a very narrow range of near synonyms, such as "extreme right" or "ultraconservative".)   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What Uber and Will are saying is that because Martha Lee called them "far right" in "Nesta Webster: The Voice of Conspiracy", Journal of Women's History then we should call them far right. My question is "Why?" The Four Deuces (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure Martha Lee is the only source? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Can you elaborate on the above?

There are a few dozen reputable sources that have called the organization far-right.UBER ^(talk) 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My question is about Martha Lee, and why it's brought up. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Will BeBack brought up "Martha Lee" as a source. Obviously he has formed an opinion and data-mined for sources that support his views - even sources that are obscure and marginal to the subject. We should read and understand the main sources and use them to write articles rather than write articles and then find sources that support our personal points of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you using sources that are independent of your opinion? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am basing this on what I have read. Seymour Martin Lipset created the concept of the "radical right" in the 1950s, which included American fascists, the John Birch Society and the New Right. Later writers have reserved the term "far right" for fascists - the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation use this terminology as well as mainstream historians of political extremism. WP has categories for the "far right". (See: "Category:Far-right politics".[2]) I can provide links to sources that define the far right. The JBS are not "far right" because they are not overtly racist or anti-semitic, do not advocate the overthrow of the US government and are not opposed to the principles of the US constitution. They are in a different category from the Ku Klux Klan, the British National Party and the French National Front. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do provide these sources you keep referring to. I've asked you several times.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Will: I'm trying to follow a line of reasoning. It would be better if you asked on his talk page. Cuz who died and made me king?

4D: if your sources are being used independent of your opinion, then how does that square with the other sources? Does the intent of the provider diminish the reliability of the sources provided? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Routledge companion to fascism and the far right says: "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (, p. 5) What is Will BeBack's definition? None of the sources that Will Beback provides include any definition of the "far right". I can provide other sources, but Will has presented none. He thinks that the fact that Martha Lee called them far right is sufficient. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Presented none"?! I've provided nearly fifty sources. Although you keep referring to some large number of sources, you've only provided one, which is equivocal since it include the founding of the JBS in its chronology of far right groups. Our job in this article is not to define "far right". This article is about the JBS, and we're using sources which define it.  Will Beback  talk  03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, what you just did right there—with that profound analysis of why the JBS is not far-right—is blatant original research. If that's the standards you're adopting in this conversation, then I'd classify them as far right because they are viscerally anti-government, anti-socialist, and even outrageously conspiratorial. But you know how much our opinions matter here? Zip. The Routledge source is absolutely irrelevant in this conversation because it does not mention the JBS in the context of that definition, and your fundamentally misguided attempt to link that definition with the JBS here is intellectually reprehensible.UBER ^(talk) 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it might be a misunderstanding of policy more than it is "intellectually reprehensible". Don't give your opponent something to bat at. You may wish to strike that last bit if you want to get anywhere. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Routledge defines the far right and discusses major groups that are either far right or have some relation to the far right. It is not original research to follow good authorities. However what you are doing - defining the far right with no reference to sources - may be seen as original research. Could you please provide some reliable source that supports your opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proving a negative based on one source is fairly OR. You do so by saying that because that particular source does not include the JBS in its definition of far-right, then the JBS must not be far-right. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, no one here except you is defining "far right." What we're telling you is that such a definition is irrelevant for this debate. Please stop asking us to provide you with a definition for far right. I can't speak for Will, but I will not engage in such a futile adventure. Seriously, stop repeating yourself: we understand you want a definition for far right, but I'm telling you that your request is meaningless in the context of this conversation. Any more such requests will be met with the same response: it's meaningless.UBER ^(talk) 03:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I for one disagree. It has connotations associated with it that may make the article appear non-neutral. I don't particularly care one way or another, but it's something to consider. We can't define far-right, that's true, but we also don't need to use it. This is not a sourcing dispute: I also suspect it's about pushing back against someone for their insistence against the prior consensus. I do not believe that it's intentional, merely that the tail has begun wagging the dog. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

X, I am not doing that at all. The book specifically defines and identifies the groups of the American right (they are openly racist, anti-semitic and violent) and explains the relationship between the JBS and the far right. Essentially the JBS is a gateway between conservatives and the far right and has supplied a worldview to both. No, they do not say the JBS is not far right any more than they say the Republican Party is not far right. Ubermensch, what you are saying is that you have no idea what far right means but they were called far right in some article so that is good enough for you. Ghosts of Joe McCarthy. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally your statement that H. Stuart Hughes said conservatism is the negation of ideology is untrue. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces said that the SPLC does not call the JBS "far right". I've now added three citations from SPLC sources which do just that.   Will Beback  talk  03:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Really Deuces, I do appreciate arguing with you from time to time, just to stay quick on my feet. But invoking McCarthy and Nietzsche against me so recklessly is beneath even you. I'm done here. Let's start mediation.UBER ^(talk) 03:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the mediator. You folks really hate each other! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are we mentioning H. Stuart Hughes here? I don't see anything about him on this talk page.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hate" is far too strong a word. I hate things like...Hitler or those huge winter blizzards that wrecked the Eastern US last month. I don't care enough to hate someone with whom I've only interacted online.UBER ^(talk) 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And Will, let me fill you in: what's happening on this talk page is that it's being used by Deuces as a gateway to unleash his cascading frustration with me, which goes back about a year. We've had several "scuffles" on other articles related to political philosophy, and some are still ongoing. That's why he mentioned H. Stuart Hughes; it was in reference to something I said to another user.UBER ^(talk) 04:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You two can't possibly hope to compromise if it's really that bad. Again: tail is wagging the dog. If you two can't come to terms with each others' presence, then this is an impossible task. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way Deuces, since you brought up Hughes...that aphorism is, in fact, attributed to Hughes. Why do you say that he did not make the comment?UBER ^(talk) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we leave Hughes to another page? We have enough to discuss here already.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me.UBER ^(talk) 05:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• So, to restart this thread, could editors who are opposed to the current wording concerning "far right" propose alternate text that they'd find acceptable, or otherwise suggest how we can proceed?   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just omit. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fifty sources, and the only thing you find acceptable is to leave it out entirely? That might make sense if we set a consistent standard throughout the article, for example requiring that all assertions have a minimum of 60 sources. But if we did that then the article would be much, much shorter. I don't think that's reasonable or consistent with WP:NPOV, which calls on us to include all significant points of view, or with any other Wikipedia policy. What's your second suggestion? Or does anyone else have an idea?   Will Beback  talk  07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion at Fascism where some editors thought that fascism was not far right. A source was found for the statement fascism is generally considered far right - not just a list of sources. Then a source was used to explain why fascism is considered far right, as well as some minority opinions. Perhaps with all the sources you have you could do the same thing here. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what some sources for the the minority opinions in this case? I'd be happy to add those too.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have lots of sources that call them radical-right or merely right-wing. I would recommend Lipset, Berlet and Sara Diamond. You must provide a source explaining why their opinion is in minority because I cannot find one. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we can't find sources that call them minority views then that approach won't work exactly as you propose. However, broadly speaking that's what we're doing already. We present the (apparent) majority view first, in the lede sentence, and then we give other views. What do Lipset, Berlet and Diamond say about the JBS?   Will Beback  talk  09:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing seems to cover it fairly enough. If "far-right" is in the article anyway (no way in the lede), then we need to make sure its mentioned WHO uses the phrase; ie - that it political opponents, critical theory Marxists and people who have a financial incentive to exagerate or distort the JBS. The version as it has been protected is simply complete POV. Maybe later in the article simply mention "far-left extremists have claimed that the JBS is far-right". - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify the point? Are you saying that you don't think that any group should ever be identified as "far-" left or right, or just that this group should not be labeled that way?

Is the Wall Street Journal a "far-left extremist" or "critical theory Marxist" source? What about the The Journal of Southern History? Newsweek? Life magazine? The Salt Lake Tribune? Library Journal? I don't think those terms properly describe those sources. Maybe something more like "mainstream journals, magazines, and newspapers".   Will Beback  talk  11:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, please refer to WP:OR. You do not have any authority whatsoever to claim that "right-wing" covers the ideological character of the organization. Only reputable sources can make those kinds of determinations, and reputable sources identify the party as far right.UBER ^(talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article where Martin Seymour Lipset grouped the JBS as part of the radical right. He coined the term in "The sources of the radical right" (1955).[3] Sara Diamond in Roads to dominion (1995) criticised Lipset's terminology which she acknowledged was in widespread use and said she preferred the term "right-wing movements".[4] Chip Berlet said "it is generally best to avoid the term Far Right because it is sometimes used to describe the Ultra Right and sometimes used to describe all groups to the right of the electoral system".[5] He calls them "Hard Right"[6] Yorkshirian is correct that applying the term "right wing" to Anglo-Saxon groups that have no connection to the European Right has its origins in Marxism, although I do not see why that matters. Outside the United States and Alberta, the term right-wing usually connotes extremism anyway. Now that I have provided a reliable source that says the JBS is usually classified as "radical right", could Will Beback please find a source that says it is usually classified as "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand this latest blip on the radar screen: your proposal is that we remove the term far-right after you just presented sources calling them hard right and radical right? Is there anyone else who sees something profoundly wrong with that reasoning? If it's simply a matter of semantics, I don't know why we wouldn't just distill everything down to the simplest phrase—in this case, far-right. For the record, however, I also have no problem starting off the lead with "The JBS is a radical right-wing organization..." etc. What seems strange here is how Deuces does not realize that his own argument is self-defeating: clearly we're dealing with an organization that nearly all reputable sources, including those provided by Deuces, agree is completely off the rails. The inclusion of far-right in the lead should not be controversial with so much overwhelming evidence. Deuces also needs to understand that Wikipedia often gives us leeway in describing the subject, preferring popular phrases to more academic lingo. Far-right seems like the more popular phrase, although radical right is also seen quite frequently. I'd be fine with either one of those, as long as we specify the organization's extremist ideological character.UBER ^(talk) 06:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been arguing this all along. "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (Routledge, p. 5)[7] They are different concepts. Notice that the Hard left and far left are also different concepts, although Bill O'Reilly overuses the latter term. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So you would be fine with "radical right-wing organization" in the lead, but not "far-right" organization? There are some scholars who hesitate to use the latter terminology, but by and large it doesn't seem to be a problem for scores of reputable sources. This issue now boils down to one of semantics, not reality. Whether you call them hard right, radical right, or far right, all those terms essentially convey the same point. I'm surprised we're even having this discussion. By the way, I'm also surprised to see you suddenly start caring about how the originators of certain words used them, considering that Chateaubriand essentially thought of conservatism as the negation of ideology—the same interpretation you mistakenly oppose. Additionally, like Cato used to end every speech with "And I think Carthage should be destroyed," I think I might end every response to you with, "Please join the modern world and get some more recent sources"...or something to that effect. De Ruggiero, Lipset...you seem to have a fascination with outdated scholars. Do explain.UBER ^(talk) 07:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The concepts we use today were developed in the past. (I notice you refer to Chateaubriand and Cato but do not consider them outdated and find it interesting that you would use a conservative definition of conservatism.) But I am not using the term radical right because post-war US social scientists used it but because Sara Diamond wrote that was the terminology used. But let us be clear about the difference between radical right and far right: the first group will run a re-call campaign against their congressman, the second group would shoot him. Incidentally you should avoid personal attacks against other editors. It does not improve discussions. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand and respect Diamond's viewpoint, but she by herself cannot bypass and override the work of so many other scholars and reputable journalists. We're not going to refrain from using far-right just because Sara Diamond says it's not ok. You're still talking about a distinction without a difference, and I think I need to explain what the so-called radical right does in this country (US). Let's see...they bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions, launch physical attacks against people who "look like" illegal immigrants (while railing against immigration on talk radio all day), and go to Unitarian Universalist churches and kill the members for being liberals. In this country, that gets called the radical right, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same psychotic right-wing you're describing elsewhere. Like I said, we're just going in circles over semantics.UBER ^(talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I presented Sara Diamond as a reliable source for the terminology used by other scholars (not her own views), which is that they generally call JBS radical right, even though she does not use that term herself. You are correct that people who bomb abortion clinics etc. are normally described as far right (see Routledge), which is a good reason to distinguish them from groups like the JBS. ~~

Deuces: I'm having trouble finding what those sources you've provided say about the JBS. Could you give us page numbers or, even better, excerpts?   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out the article "Three decades of the radical right: Coughlinites, McCarthyites and Birchers".[8] Would you like me point out which pages of the article describe the John Birch Society? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, we can add that to the list of sources for "radical right". And we have Berlet using "hard right". What does Diamond say?   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• How's this as a compromise proposal: we move "far right" back to the sentence with the other characterizations, where it was back ion Feb 10.[9] We replace it in the lead sentence with "radical right-wing", using Lipset as the source. Would that ve acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. This is basically a variation of what I posted below. My version leaves out far-right from the lead completely though. Because I think this is all semantics at this point, I don't care what variation of "[crazy term here] right" we use. As long as it's something that lets our readers know this is a fringe, insane organization.UBER ^(talk) 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you say they are called "far right" you should mention how commonly they are called this, who calls them this and what it means. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The info on who calls them that will is in the citation. We can link to far right so that readers will know what it means. I don't think it's appropriate to say something like "over 50 sources have called the JBS 'far right'" as that would be original research.   Will Beback  talk  02:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be original research. We do not search through articles to determine what is the most commonly used term. Sara Diamond says that they are normally called "radical right". (Let me be clear, she does not say that she calls them "radical right" but that academics call them that.) So what you need is a source that says that they are normally called "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Outside the mainstream US right"? That's a short skip and a hop from far and radical. (I suppose Ron Paul is also outside the mainstream US right...). Are phrases like these acceptable? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Diamond says that. Can Deuces give us a page number or an excerpt?   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

She discusses taxonomy on page 5. This is discussed further in the footnotes on page 313, where she mentions the book The radical right, which included articles by Lipset. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of JBS on page 5 or page 313.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's just call them radical right and move on from this pointless fight. Deuces, before I go any further, let me get a hard assurance from you on the following point: would you be willing to substitute "radical right" for "far right" at that exact spot in the lead? If you agree to that, I think we should pat ourselves on the back and call it a day. Arguing over what is essentially nothing but semantics for weeks can get a little bit tiresome.UBER ^(talk) 03:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlock?

{editprotected} Is it possible to unlock this ariticle for an edit that is unrelated to the present controversy?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You can post the text here and an admin can upload it.  Will Beback  talk  02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the After Welch section, I'd like to insert the italics :

The second head of the Society was Congressman Larry McDonald from Georgia, the only sitting member of Congress to reportedly have been killed by the Soviets during the Cold War when the plane he had boarded along with 268 others, KAL 007, was shot down by the Soviets in international waters on Sept. 1, 1983. He was on the way to the 30th year commemoration of U.S.-S. Korea Mutual Defense Treaty in Seoul , along with Senator Jesse Helms on KAL 015, 15 minutes behind, when KAL 007 was downed near Moneron Island just west of Sakhalin.

That was recently deleted as being irrelevant to this article.[10] What does it have to do with the JBS?   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't object to a short version. If nothing else, there's a powerful symmetry: the head of group named for someone killed by the Communists forty years earlier is himself killed by the Communists. But we don't need to include the details, like the number of passengers, or Helms' flight, etc.   Will Beback  talk  12:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war party now banned, can we play nice now?

Yorkshirian (talk · contribs), a key party to the edit warring, has been banned by (overwhelming) community consensus. What do people think about unprotecting? Can we play nice and maybe even stick to 1RR for a while and make use of this talk page? (Yes, I copied this same message to Yorkshirian's other battleground, Talk:British National Party). Wknight94 ^talk 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would just unprotect and think the mediation suggested route is probably the best way forward. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Here I finally agree with Deuces. We're not getting anywhere with this back and forth. Mediation is probably the best idea.UBER ^(talk) 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we're in informal mediation now, compliments of the Mediation Cabal. If we're still not making progress in a week we might ask for formal mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here and claim that we're not making any progress and that we're unlikely to do so in the next week. I have irreconcilable differences with Deuces, with the possible exception that I'm willing to substitute "radical right-wing" for "far-right." If Deuces and Will are willing to agree with that, mediation won't be necessary. Otherwise, formal mediation is the best way forward.UBER ^(talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's unprotected. Wknight94 ^talk 17:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation will not reconcile irreconcilable differences, either. I'm the chair of that committee, and I wouldn't know how to respond to the case being accepted. One-word disputes are the bane of good mediation. I can't think of a way around this except phrases such as "outside the mainstream of the US right", etc. If I'm not mistaken, 4D's position is to have the JBS as "right-wing" unqualified, correct? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing or radical right. My position is that this is how they are normally described in the literature and far right normally applies to violent groups. I have provided sources that show this is the main terminology used and while WillBeback has provided numerous examples where they have been called far right he has not provided a source explaining how prevalent that description is. We cannot label a group without showing that the label is generally accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

There are two sources which have not been discussed. Both of these sources have been effusively praised by the Birch Society itself. Both of these sources constitute formal and informal investigations conducted into the JBS.

SOURCE #1 = J. EDGAR HOOVER / FBI

The Birch Society has effusively praised Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of data about the communist movement as well as on what constitutes legitimate and effective anti-communist activities. For example:

JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 11

“But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”

American Opinion [JBS magazine], October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”:

Hoover is described as "the government's top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!"

In his Warren Commission testimony (Volume 5, page 101), J. Edgar Hoover characterized the Birch Society's beliefs as "extreme right".

Many FBI internal memos describe the Birch Society with terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics".

For example, one memo discusses what the Bureau could do to combat "the growth of extreme rightists as exemplified by the John Birch Society.” [FBI HQ file 62-106364, serial #72, 10/28/61 memo from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Belmont, page 1].

SOURCE #2 = THE CALIFORNIA SENATE FACT-FINDING SUBCOMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

This Subcommittee conducted a two-year investigation of the Birch Society and it issued its Report in 1963. The Birch Society was so impressed with the Report that they reprinted the entire Report in July 1963 and then sold the reprint at their American Opinion bookstores.

In his introduction to the reprint, JBS founder Robert Welch stated that "nowhere in this Report is there the slightest sign of any unfair partisan approach to the task of the Committee" AND "But the important fact is that this Committee of Democratic legislators, in the currently very 'Liberal' state of California, was determined to do its investigating job -- and did its job -- in a completely honorable and objective manner."

The Chairman of the Subcommittee, State Senator Hugh M. Burns, responded to an inquiry about his Subcommittee's Report by stating that the Birch Society was “...an extremist group, and, like extremist groups from time immemorial, plagues our country. Extremists from the Know-Nothings on have served no useful purpose."

In its 1965 Report, the Subcommittee updated its 1963 findings on the JBS. The Committee confirmed what it predicted about the JBS in 1963:

" The John Birch Society is certainly charged with a high degree of emotionalism...It has, as we predicted, been beset by an influx of emotionally unstable people, some of whom have been prosecuted in the courts for their hoodlum tactics in disrupting meetings and heckling speakers with whom they disagree...We are more critical of the Society now than we were [in the 1963 Report] for the reason that it has, in our opinion, merited such criticism by reason of its activities as exemplified by the irresponsible articles by a member of its National Council, the re-publication of The Politician, the inexcusable actions of its minority of irresponsible members, and dangerous increase of anti-Semitism among a minority of the membership." 1965 Report, page 174]

Given this data, it seems entirely fair and reasonable to describe the Birch Society as an "extreme right" organization --- particularly since giants within the conservative intellectual and political activist communities denounced the JBS as inept and harmful to legitimate conservatism.

See, for example, derogatory comments about the JBS made over the years by such prominent conservatives as Russell Kirk, James Burnham, George F. Will, Frank S. Meyer, Eugene Lyons, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr., Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, Gov. George Romney, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Cong. Walter Judd, the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events, and a host of others. Ernie1241 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Per above discussions, are Will and Deuces willing to agree to substitute "radical right-wing" for "far-right"? This seems like the best compromise.UBER ^(talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. Will, this is the best way to get out of this morass. We either end it right here, right now...or else it's several more weeks of pointless argument.UBER ^(talk) 03:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  03:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Funding

As "Deep Throat" told Daniel Bernstein, "Follow the Money". How does the John Birch Society fund itself? Is it donations from major right wing corporations, like those groups that funded right wing causes in Central and Southern Europe before World War II? Something on the funding of the John Birch Society would be a good addition. John D. Croft (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice for an investigative journalist, but as encyclopedists our options are more limited. If we find a source that discusses the funding I agree that it would be relevant.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over sourced material

There is "sourced material" on both sides. What makes "far right" or "radical right" POV is that the liberals here only want THEIR sourced material listed and seek to eradicate sourced material to show that the JBS advocates a constitutional moderate position. Publiusohio (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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?" [11] , "ultraconservative" [12] or as right-wing [13]. 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 [14] 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 [15] 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)

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[16] 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[17] 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.[18]   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.[19] 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 [20] etc.? "Racist" per [21] ? No end of pejorative opinions are out there -- the question is do they belong in an encyclopedia article? Arianna says "lunatics" [22] 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 [23](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)

The current first staement about the JBS is a hit piece that a far left liberal keeps adding hit and run style. This is no different from calling the ACLU a communist front group. Publiusohio (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF and please consult the extensive discussions we've had about the intro on this page.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

HQ address

According to the website, the headquarters is at:[24]

770 N. Westhill Blvd

Appleton, WI 54914

Grand Chute is apparently a suburb of Appleton.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Checking the maps on the Grand Chute city website,[25], it appears that that address is solidly inside Grand Chute, and about 1/2 mile away from Appleton. So we have a situation where the JBS says it's in the larger city, but apparently it's really in the adjoining town. I don't think it's uncommon for businesses to do things like this, but I'm not sure of the best way to handle it. My guess is that we should say they are in Grand Chute, but add a footnote explaining that they say they're in Appleton.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The NYT says they are in Grand Chute (there is a link in the WP article). The JBS website also has a postal address in Appleton. I would go with Grand Chute because the JBS may just be providing a mailing address. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

ZIP is 54914 - listed as Appleton, WI. [26] thinks the address is in Appleton. In short, the USPS uses Appleton as the proper address for mail. Appleton, though a city, is significantly smaller than Grand Chute. [27] more clearly shows the relationship. [28] is of interest <g>. We are, frankly, safer using the USPS address for this one. Collect (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note [29] Appleton is a "non-contiguous city" making it really, really tough to know what is, or is not, in it. I live in a similar situation - in a county area not part of the city where my mailing address is. Again - the "official" address is Appleton to all outward appearances. Collect (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh -- Grand Chute lays claim on its map to part of Appleton (RR yards form an island on Appleton map, are not shown on Grand Chute map). JBS is, at most, 2 blocks from Appleton, and is served from the Appleton post office, not Grand Chute's. Collect (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And [30] there is no "final border." In fact, Appleton may have right of annexation to a large area. Collect (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of that research shows the JBS headquarters to be in Appleton instead of Grand Chute. The location of their closest post office seems irrelevant if we're talking about their physical location rather than their mailing address. Future boundary changes also seem irrelevant to the current location. However, I don't think this is a very important issue. Let's just pick one.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Smear

There is a smear against the jbs organization on here. The editors seem to think that what a group defended historically has prevalence in it's current message and by that logic the Democratic Party must also be considered Radical Right Wing as it too once supported segregation as a state right during the civil rights movement. The JBS organization has clearly defined it's terms on it's website to continually smear it is not only grossly unfair but misleading to label them as a radical right-wing organization. The JBS should be listed as a conservative group as they are just that. I will be removing the term "radical right-wing" in order to present a clear and factual basis. Tomgazer (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles are based on reliable sources. If you do not believe that the article accurately reflects reliable sources, could you please provide sources that we may use. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The difference between orginazations such as the KKK and JBS is that the KKK accepts and admits radical ideals where as the JBS has never accepted any of these ideals. IT DOES NOT MATTER what people say about them and just because The Washington Post runs any article about them saying they are radical does not mean NECCESARILY that they are. The KKK can not be compared to the JBS as the JBS has never accpeted or espoused any of those so called radical beliefs and the primary mission of the JBS HAS been to confront communism. The article should be edited to refer to them as Conservative with a sub-section about the accusations. Tomgazer (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That is why they are called "radical right" and not "far right". Please read the discussions above where I defended the JBS against people who wanted to call them far right. But they are to the right of the Tea Party. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As you noted earlier, the term should be "described as 'radical right' by (names of those stating that opinion). " Collect (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One only says "described as" if there is doubt about a description, otherwise one is introducing doubt. See WP:FLAT: "You must not say 'the earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat-earth theory, the earth is not flat'." The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)