Talk:John Birch Society

Comments at the bottom, please.

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.

But they have endorsed the worthless Gold Standard. --173.21.19.155 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Gold has recently been keeping pace with inflation. Since no one has a good definition of what it is, the idea isn't worthless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.191.192 (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Considering the current rise and general popularity in America of ideas such as limited federal government and a desired return to the American Founder's conception and development of the U.S. Constitution it is likely unreasonable to characterize an organization like JBS who currently values these ideas to be a "radical" right wing group. Its hardly radical when nearly half of the American populace supports limited government and anti-socialistic policies.

Well, they're only for limited federal govt in regards to things they don't want. These ppl had no prob when Bush was trampling all over the Constitution (torture, warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention w/out charge). They also have no probs with the feds violating the separation of church and state when they tried, but failed, to pass school prayer legislation and school vouchers that can be used for religious schools. Nor do these folks have problems with with violating the civil rights of gay people. Anyway, by 1941, the majority of Germans supported Hitler and the Nazi Party--I guess this must mean that since they were supported by so many ppl that the Nazis weren't a radical right wing group either.99.103.230.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC). 99.103.230.244 (talk)

Except the Birch Society has been opposed to foreign wars all through the Bush years.

There is a similar attempt to characterize anyone associated with the current American Tea Party Movement as a radical, fringe, type. This appears to be a partisan attempt to marginalize some legitimate concerns of the American people, which only encourages ignorance. While some people associated with either group may be of the radical type this characterization should not define the entire organization or movement because it is not accurate. Perhaps JBS use to be radical (compared to the American political spectrum at the time) or had some radical elements or people associated with it. However, this cannot give rise to an "encyclopedia" defining it through the eyes of the Democrat Party or party member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.144.45 (talk) 20:27, 28 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?" [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)

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[6] 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[7] 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.[8]   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.[9] 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 [10] etc.? "Racist" per [11] ? No end of pejorative opinions are out there -- the question is do they belong in an encyclopedia article? Arianna says "lunatics" [12] 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 [13](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:[14]

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,[15], 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. [16] 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. [17] more clearly shows the relationship. [18] is of interest <g>. We are, frankly, safer using the USPS address for this one. Collect (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note [19] 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 [20] 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)

First Introduction Section

If you want to criticize the JBS, so so in a section outlined for that. You can source all of you far left liberals and their New Deal minions like Bill Buckley (who had a personal feud with Robert Welch) there. The otroduction section should simply state what the JBS does. You can editoralize with your far left sources in other places. Publiusohio (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make major changes without first seeking a consensus. The material you changed was the result of a long discussion between several editors who compromised and achieved consensus. I'm going to restore that version, but I'd be open to hearing your input after you've read the other discussions on this page.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Publius, the labels are cited to reputable sources and they received consensus here in the talk page. Please do not engage in edit warring either.UBER ^(talk) 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with UberCryxic and Publiusohio needs consensus before making major changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

POV template

An editor has placed a POV template on the article with the explanation, "Flagged article as not having a neutral POV... See discussion". However it is unclear what reason the editor has for this. Could you please explain why you think this article is not neutral. In the meantime, I am removing the template. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In reference too many of the comments here I've flagged the entire article as not having a neutral point of view. I realize some people take offense to this society and that's their prerogative. Just because you find source material with epitaphs against the group, putting these views in the first sentence does not create an article with a neutral point of view. Someone should re-write the article so it's has a criticisms section where opinions about the group belong. --Xephael (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

moved from incorrect location.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no dispute that this group belongs to the far/extreme/radical/ultra side of the right or conservative wing of the political spectrum. When there is a sufficient weight of evidence that it is described that way then it ceases to be a mere opinion. Are you aware of any sources that give a contrasting view?   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is important to have neutrality although that we must show how the group is perceived by mainstream sources. Could you please be specific in what you think shows bias. It may be that your complaint is about how the JBS is perceived by mainstream sources, which unfortunately we can do nothing about. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article takes sourced material from critics of the JBS and places it at the forefront of the article in a clearly BIASED MANNER. If you know how to read you can tell that many others in the articles discussion believe likewise. POV Flag re-added. --Xephael (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

According to whom are the sources "critics of the JBS"?   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When you're calling a society "extremists" I would think it's fair to say you're a critical of it. I am getting rid of the POV flag since the critical comments were moved down to the values area. I'm not exactly a fan of "left/right wing" in describing political groups, but that's a different matter. --Xephael (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I came here to try to do research, and immediately dismissed the validity of the article because it was obviously biased. Rationalize it anyway you like, but it is not worthy to be considered for objective research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgeOldSage (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 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)

"Far-Right"

This term is inadequate for describing the position of the JBS society on the political spectrum and is generally used by people who seek to conjure prejudices in the readers mind. I think it is not right to label the society as such, particularly right at the start of the article, but for full factual description we should mention it as a term some people use further down the page.

If you click through the link used here, this is the definition you reach: "Far right politics involves supremacism, believing that superiority and inferiority are an innate reality for individuals and groups, and involves the complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm. Far right politics often supports segregation, and the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior. Far-right politics and political views commonly include authoritarianism, homophobia, nativism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia."

This does not correctly describe the politics of the JBS. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article did not in fact say that the "John Birch Society" was "far right" and if you read the archives you will see that I have opposed that description. Please discuss before reversing. TFD (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I did read the archives, but that's where the link sends you. In fact one of the sources explicitly has the term in its title.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, not other Wikipedia articles, as the basis for this article. If you have a source that says the JBS is not a radical right organization then we can add that too. Otherwise please stop deleting well-sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well your sources call it "far-right", not "radical right" (whatever the difference in the term you allege is), and the link to the wikipedia article sends you to "far-right" too, where an incompatible description of the term is articulated. I'll move your sources to the relevant paragraph where other critical sources of the JBS belong. --81.100.215.14 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I changed "radical" to "far" before I read the discussion. Sorry. I hope you all can see that weather you keep a word before "right wing" or not, "far" is way better than "radical". "Radical" has name-calling taint which is non-neutral. One of the references for it (ABC) doesn't even say "radical", it says "far". I think it is important on controversial things to be really dry and drearily straightforward. For these reasons, I would prefer leaving off any descriptor, even if ABC news used it once providing that vaunted-reference-to-prove-it's-okay. The best bet is to be really dry and boring!  :-)

108.7.8.102 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. The terms radical right and far right are clearly defined and could you please explain where you are getting your terminology. TFD (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)!

When I look for sourcing[21] I see dozens, if not hundreds, of well respected reliable sources describing the JBS as being "far right". We should accurately and neutrally reflect what we see in the sourcing, as opposed to mincing our words. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see previous lengthy discussions. (Look at the link you provided as well.) While the term "far right" is often used, it is more likely to be used in popular writing, especially in the 1960s. Academic sources usually reserve the term "far right" for violent organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis, and use the term "radical right" for the JBS. Incidentally you probably did not read all the "hundreds of sources" you provided, so please do expect others to do so. Also, where there is a lack of concensus we cannot rely on a multitude of sources to establish a fact. I can find 100s of sources saying that Bush 43 lost the 2000 election but cannot add that as a fact to an article. TFD (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD wrote "academic sources usually reserve the term far right for violent organizations", giving this assertion a quick check[22], I see that the first Google Scholar link[23] George and Wilcox write: "Among the groups on the far right are the John Birch Society...". So, I am having a hard time confirming TFD's reasoning here. Help me understand please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

President John F. Kennedy used the term "far right" as reported by the New York Times[24]. That seems to be an extremely high quality source. Reuters reported just two weeks ago "...far right groups like the John Birch Society..."[25]. I am not sure I have the stomach to read all 25,000 words of discussion above. Glancing through it I see that TFD is vehemently opposed for sure. Regardless, my quick source check found many extremely reliable sources calling the JBS to be "far right". I don't understand TFD's reasoning for opposition. Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have replied below. TFD (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How should the JBS be described

The 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) Seymour Martin Lipset coined the term "radical right" in the 1950s to describe American extremist groups, which includes the far right, the John Birch Society and patriot groups.[26] Sara Diamond confirms that this terminology is generally used by mainstream social scientists.[27]

WP:Weight says, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That means that "radical right" takes priority.

WP:LABEL says, "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That means we can state the the JBS has been called "far right" but cannot state this is a majority view.

TFD (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when I look, it seems that I can state a majority view. Looking to recent news sourcing I see that "far right"[28] is used eight times more often than "radical right"[29] in context of the John Birch Society. In short, "far right" is more widely used by reliable sources. And, neither is WP:Weight being violated here that I can see when comparing "far right" to "radical right" the weight in the reliable sourcing clearly points to "far right". I am still willing to listen, but your argument as to weight in the reliable sourcing fails to check out. Please try again. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence I have presented shows that there is a consensus that they are radical right and that their description as "far right" is a minority view. All the sources on the first page of your google search are news media. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available."[30] By the way it would be helpful if you provided a source saying they are "far right" that explains what the term means. Are you arguing that they are not radical right? Since you seem to have your heart set on calling them "far right" would you like to set up another RfC (content)? TFD (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet at least, I am hoping to avoid another 25,000 words :) And, stop the straw man arguments and red herring assertions, my heart is not set on 'far right'. You made an empty claim: "The evidence I have presented shows that there is a consensus that they are radical right and that their description as "far right" is a minority view." Yet, you haven't actually shown evidence of this consensus that I can see. All you did was point to three sources, Routledge, Lipset and Diamond. This has not demonstrated a consensus. Your quote from Routledge comes from the chapter discussing early 20th Century European fascism, a much different context that the late 20th Century period. Looking at the Diamond book, I don't see your point confirmed. Your point with Lipset with his 1955 paper, is probably good, but I would like a chance to read it. I see other scholars that use 'far right' to describe the JBS. For instance the Randel Hart's 2008 peer reviewed paper "Practicing Birchism: The Assumption and Limits of Idiocultural Coherence in Framing Theory." Social Movement Studies 7, no. 2: 121-147 uses the term "far right" to describe the John Birch society. In 1981 Lipset himself used the term 'far right' to describe perceptions of Ronald Reagan, (ISBN9780917616433 pgs 44-45), so maybe the meaning of the term 'far right' has been changing between 1955 and 2010? How can we measure consensus? Looking to the Google news search seems a reasonable way to measure this, and 'far right' seems the consensus by a factor of eight. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The way we do not establish that a consensus exists is to conduct original research. One does not establish consensus by butchering through the literature to see how various writers describe something but we go to one good source that tells us what the consensus is. Now please explain what you think "far right" means. By the way the terms "straw man arguments and red herring assertions" have meanings too, so please use them correctly. TFD (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Answering with personal attack isn't helpful. I am reading "far right" in exactly the way meant by Reuters[31] and by JFK in the NYT[32]. Just reading excellent sources, not WP:OR.

This answer[33] didn't satisfy, I asked you to explain more, and you dodged my questions, instead attacking me personally. I am not biting that bait. Asking again: Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you failed to understand my clearly worded and sourced response, I fear another attempt will bemuse you. You are still begging the question: "you think "far right" means"? TFD (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you dodged my questions. Please take a moment to re-read each of the questions I have asked above, and engage in talk page dialog. Thanks. (And, answering your question again: What I think 'far right' means is irrelevant. What matters is what the sources, JFK/NYT and Reuters, mean. I argue we should match the vernacular we see being commonly found and used in the reliable sourcing.) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm fine with "far right", "radical right", "ultra right", or "ultra conservative". Those are all commonly used labels that have, in my opinion, roughly the same meaning. I'll support whichever term editors here decide on.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1961 NYT source SaltyBoatr provides does not say that John F. Kennedy ever used the term far right, and even if he had it would be irrelevant. Could you please familiarize yourself with WP policies on articles and stop presenting irrelevant articles. I am not sure I have the stomach to read 25,000 more words of discussion. Can you restate your opposition using about 200 words and using just explicit WP:Policy based arguments? Thanks. BTW here is a link to the article that you have quoted.[34] In fact, Kennedy never used the term "far right" or even mentioned the John Birch Society. Your statement that "I am reading "far right" in exactly the way meant... by JFK" is therefore false. The term does not even appear in the article, only the headline. Please do not misquote people and expect us to use it as a reliable source. TFD (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I concede a minor point about JFK, but that doesn't change the main thrust of my objection. WP:NPOV requires us to match the proportion of balance seen in reliable sourcing, and by a large factor 'far right' is used over 'radical right' in reliable sourcing. The New York Times, ABC News and Reuters and many other reliable sources use the term "far right" to label the JBF. I see that User:TFD is looking instead to relatively obscure academic sources. But consensus is set by weight of all reliable sourcing not just TFD's selected academic. Against policy, User:TFD excludes mainstream significant viewpoints seen in reliable sources when measuring weight, why? Seymour Lipset coined an academic term that didn't stick in the mainstream sourcing. (By a very large factor.) We may need to explain the difference between the common vernacular using "far right" and the academic vernacular using "radical right". This belongs down in the article where it can receive adequate explanation, but not up in the first sentence of the introduction. There, for clarity, we should use the common term 'far right' which we see dominant in reliable sourcing.

TBF, would you take a moment to address my concern raised about 'majority view' and WP:LABEL which I asked 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)? You dodged that question earlier, and your direct response is needed. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not "obscure" academic sources but the mainstream academic sources for the John Birch Society and the (not so near) Right. Furthermore I am not relying on the terms that they use, but Diamond's claim that this is the usual terminology used by academics. There are two reasons why we should prefer this usage over usage in popular media:

• Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available.[35]
• The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every scholarly reliable source located states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim.[36]

Please provide a reference to a WP policy that says we should give priority to the New York Times over peer-reviewed academic sources and a policy that says WP editors may conduct their own research to determine what terms are most commonly used.

TFD (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you did not say anything about WP:LABEL. TFD (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You point to WP:RS guidelines as your justification. I point to WP:NPOV policy. Policy trumps guideline. The specific wording I see is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Nothing there to justify your personal preference for the guideline interpretation which excludes certain (non-academic) reliable sources when measuring proportion of all significant viewpoints. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are included in the policy Verifiability[37] and no original research is a policy too. Again, academic sources are more reliable than popular media, and you cannot conduct original research to determine which views are most prevalent. TFD (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, actually not. The 'academic sources' restriction that you claim was based on your justification (of 16:04, 24 May 2010[38]) where you pointed to the WP:RS guideline which is subordinate to policy. You may not like it, but policy requires us to look to all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source when determining weight, and not just to the academic. Neither am I not doing original research. I am merely looking at the balance seen in the reliable sources, this act of looking is required per policy. Explain explicitly under which policy you are justifying that we ignore the large ratio of reliable sources we see using the term "far right". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Looking at the balance seen in the reliable sources" is original research. Can you please provide a source that says this. I love original research, but you need sources to support your statements. Also, you seem to believe that popular media is more reliable than academic sources. Please provide sources that back up your view. I find it unfortunate that some people wish to trivialize the far right, which was responsible for the Second World War in which 50,000,000 died by grouping them with crazy but harmless US conspiracy theorists. I also find it sad that people would prefer to use screaming headlines from newspapers as sources rather than reasoned opinions in academic writing. Incidentally, it we label a group, we need sources. I understand that in America there is a tendency in the media to provide extreme labels to groups - for example Fox News calls General Electric a "far left corporation". In fact they are more commonly called "far left" than "radical left". You seem to have strong views on the US political spectrum, but this article should be written from a position of neutrality and not parrot American "left-wing" or American "right-wing" points of view.

By the way I will ask you again, I have asked about three times already but you have not replied. If you do not wish to answer my question you do not have to do so, but out of courtesy, please say that you refuse to answer rather than ignoring the question. What do you think "far right" means, why do you consider the JBS to be far right, can you please provide a source calling the JBS far right that explains what the term means. In fairness I have I have provided sources for the current description.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I answered before: What I think 'far right' means is irrelevant. So, this talk page isn't the place for that discussion. Ask me over on my user talk page and I will answer. (Also, this talk page is not for discussion of what you may think is sad.) What matters is what the reliable sources mean. Any quibble with what ABC News, The New York Times, Reuters means when they say "far right" isn't for me to answer. It appears that they mean something different than what academics, and you, mean when they are describing early Twentieth Century European fascism. Definitions of words sometimes change depending on context.

Also, It is plain silly that you say that my looking at reliable sources is original research. The policy says: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Looking at these viewpoints to evaluate whether a term is widely used is a necessary step in the process of checking whether a term is widely used. You just can't do it without looking.

I have answered your questions, but you continue to dodge mine. Explain why you give priority to WP:RS guideline over WP:NPOV policy? Explain why you ignore reliable sourcing that isn't academic? That seems at odds with policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I took your advice and asked you on your talk page what you think "far right" means. I should actually have asked you what reliable sources (as you understand them) interpret the term to mean. Obviously, if we wish to label a group as "far right" we should understand what the term means.

I certainly accept that NPOV should dictate how this article is presented. The policy, as you so kindly pointed out says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". According to the policy of no original research, "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material". Please provide a source that says your label is the mainstream view. Also, WP:Verifiability dictates that we give priority to academic sources.

I suppose that in your Weltanshauung, the JBS is "far right" and you can find articles that support your view. But the purpose of articles is to inform people, not to disgrace groups or to present personal views. The fact that the news media is sloppy in its description of various extremist groups does not mean that we should be equally sloppy. You have a choice to make: do you want to discredit or to explain the JBS? Please show respect for readers' intelligence. They do not need to be told that the JBS is "far right", they need the organization to be explained to them in a neutral way. While you may wish to steer people away from them, misrepresenting them is unlikely to succeed. Injecting our personal bias into articles is no way to persuade people, and of course the purpose of Wikipedia is not to do this. Please see the policy neutral point of view.

TFD (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I get it, your tactic here is to talk this to death, answering questions with more questions and rambling asides. At the core it looks like you and I disagree that Reuters, The New York Times and ABC News are reliable sources. They are 'sloppy' as you put it. To me it is enough to see that they are generally considered to be reliable sources, and that by a large margin they use "far right" to describe the JBS than they use "radical right". Our duty is to look to reliable sources and match them. You disagree, instead choosing to screen out sources you disagree with. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am merely replying to your questions. Also, even if you wanted to put "far right" into the lead, policy dictates that you present it as an opinion, not as a fact. The most you could say is, "While the JBS is frequently called "far right", most social scientists reject the description because...." NPOV states: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.... statements which express a value or opinion, or a fact about which there is serious dispute among reliable sources, should not be made directly....[39]

But how do you know the press usually calls them "far right"? While your Google "News Archives" returns 207 hits for john-birch+"far right"[40], it returns 27,500 hits when the term "far right is omitted.[41] Presumably 99% of articles about the JBS do not call it "far right". A search for "sarah palin"+"far right" on the other hand returns 997 hits.[42] (Granted many of them are about her supporters.)

TFD (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:AGF is not unlimited in face of clear evidence to the contrary. Take a look at the tens of thousands of words above, spilling back into the talk page archives, this has been incessantly argued using a dogged 'talk it to death' delay strategy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to explain my position which I have and you must accept that you cannot get everyone to accept your opinions. Please accept that I disagree with you and the correct course of action for you to take, if you want to change the lead, is content dispute resolution not further discussion with me. TFD (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I have created a new section where people can happily submit their critical sources and descriptions of the JBS without irritating the other people who don't want an inaccurate and non-neutral term to be used in the article's introduction.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be more sensible to include the perceived criticism interspersed throughout the article as opposed to putting into a dedicated "criticism section". Also, there is a general consensus at Wikipedia that we try to avoid using "criticism sections" and seek more neutral ways to express the information, read the essay WP:CRIT for more explanation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Saltt above, a separate criticism section can become a troll magnet. Criticism is like trivia, it's far more balanced and informative if it's actually included and worked into the main article. Dayewalker (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the section is not needed. TFD (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)