Talk:John Birch Society

Rand Paul reference.

The article asserts that Rand Paul is "tied" to the John Birch Society, citing an interview which does not even mention the Society or support the assertion in any way. 47.180.65.242 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I removed the unsourced claim. 2001:4450:81CF:6800:0:0:0:6F1 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Self-descriptions

Like "The society opposes 'one world government'", citing its own literature. An example of better coverage would be using an independent source, describing it as promoting the "one world government" conspiracy theory. There are more self-serving self-descriptions that may be WP:UNDUE (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

So change it. TFD (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Top

Hello, TrueBlueSea, you edited the second sentence to say, "it supports anti-communism and social conservatism and opposes collectivism, big government, one-world government, and a New World Order". Can you add quote fields in refs to the cited RS (which are paywalled) to verify this phrasing? Llll5032 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Dissertation as RS?

Contraverse and 1990'sguy, I reverted this addition again because the dissertation may not be a RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule." Has it been peer reviewed with rigor? Is it clearly complete and published? Has it been cited in other literature? Llll5032 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly been published and is cited by at least two others according to Google Scholar, including a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the University of Nottingham is an esteemed research university. Undoubtedly, it's appropriate to cite in this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It meets rs. Also, a doctoral thesis on the JBS is more likely to be accurate than an article publihed in yesterday's newspaper. TFD (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 1990'sguy and TFD. I made an addition from the same sentence on page 7 of the dissertation to preserve the context. Llll5032 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the second paragraph mention JBS campaigns noted by RS?

There is disagreement about a sentence in the second paragraph noting the JBS opposition to the 1960s civil rights movement and other campaigns described by RS. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat, you deleted two versions of the sentence.[1][2] Mikeblas, you voiced a concern about the deletion.[3] Should we try for WP:CONSENSUS? Llll5032 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the second paragraph should note JBS opposition to at least the civil rights movement, which differentiated it from other conservative groups. The "Culture Wars" encyclopedia has several sentences about this subject in its one-page summary of the JBS on page 286. Llll5032 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• The second paragraph should not include that sentence. The introduction is brief summary of the article, per MOS:LEAD, and as I mentioned, the sentence is WP:UNDUE. JBS has been involved in many campaigns and issues over its history, but the unifying theme, as the sources themselves (including the one you linked) support, is stopping an alleged communist conspiracy. So the sentence amounts to cherry-picking. Also, JBS's position on the civil rights movement wasn't unique, considering that most Democrats in Congress and almost all leading conservatives including Barry Goldwater and even William F. Buckley opposed it and/or some of the federal laws. The JBS opposition to the civil rights movement and the Equal Rights Amendment are both noted below the introduction anyway. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the text that was removed should be replaced. There was no consensus to remove it. Also, it's part of the organization's history and speaks to a trend of their positions. I don't think it's relevant what other groups did or didn't do -- thier positions belong on their respective web pages. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for answering. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat, the RS say that the JBS opposed the civil rights movement and the ERA and accused them of being communist plots. Do you think the sentence would be DUE if it noted those accusations? Llll5032 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat that the sentence is UNDUE and gets too much into the weeds for the intro. For that matter, I would also oppose adding the sentence with the qualifier since the focus would still be on those specific positions rather than the organization's overall anti-communist goal. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a sentence should note first that the JBS has made various accusations of communist plots, and then name the civil rights movement and ERA (which it opposed) as examples. Llll5032 (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose the sentence, for the reasons that others here have stated. Even if we think some JBS positions should be mentioned in the lede, it seems undue to pick positions from the 1960s, when there are more recent and relevant positions, some of which are listed in the article body. After all, the organization is largely known for their religious patriotism and opposition to USSR and Russia than anything else. AnM2002 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)