Talk:John Birch Society

The Basis For "Radical" or "Extremist"

The Birchers have long been regarded as extreme, and long been viewed fearfully by minority groups (particularly Jews). This article totally fails to capture this aspect of the John Birch Society. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that they have been "viewed fearfully by minorities". Can you provide any sources? TFD (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Without sources, this is more or less meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right refers to Facism, which is not JBS. JBS is considered Conservative Libertarian. Nicholas Tan (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. It usually refers to U.S. groups that combine conservatism, libertarianism and anti-Communism. TFD (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RS for that claim? Or is it something you just know? And do not use your own article on the topic as the source. Collect (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not present a WP article, Radical Right, as a source. However you may wish to read some of the sources provided in that article in order to understand informed opinion about the topic in books published by the academic and university press and in peer-reviewed articles. Since you have tagged the article for POV, synthesis and OR, you may discuss your reasoning at the POV and OR noticeboards.[[1][2] TFD (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

When an "article" defines "radical right" to mean American anti-communists - then includes the US Anti-Masonic party and foreign parties, the aim of that "article" is quite amiss. Nor, by the way, does Lipset define "radical right" in those words at all. Meaning the use here is pure SYNTH and OR. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum for discussion of other articles. TFD (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering the article at issue, it is, indeed, relevant that you use the exact same words to define "radical right" here, and that you wikilink to that article in the lede here. Where a wikilink is 'improperly used, it is clearly proper to discuss it here. Collect (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC) .

Collect, much as I enjoy these free-wheeling discussions, could you please refer to policy. Do we actually provide definitions in articles of every term used? TFD (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The wikilink does not, itself, have anything near a definition to link to. What we have here, is coatracking material which would not be allowed in this article in the first place, which, as I noted, is improper. Collect (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because who are ignorant of a subject does not mean that no one has written about it. There are more things in heaven and earth.... TFD (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) WP requires that we have reliable sources backing each specific claim. Not that we are to say an editor is "ignorant of a subject" which is actually irrelevant to how articles are supposed to be edited. The worst cases of WP articles occur when an editor "knows" the "truth." The premise of WP is that we are not to assert anything at all which is not found in a reliable source. Collect (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If one is ignorant of what is in reliable sources, then one cannot edit, can one? Luckily, all one has to do is read and understand sources, but first one must assume an attitude of neutrality and accept what the sources say regardless of what one already "knows". TFD (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

When a claim is made which is not supported by the reliable source furnished, then the claim must go - even if you find another editor to be "ignorant." And the source cited does not support the claims made. Collect (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What claim are you talking about? TFD (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The FBI file on the Birch Society describes the JBS as a "right wing extremist" organization.

When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren Commission he was asked to comment upon an article published in the JBS magazine, American Opinion. Hoover chose to ignore the specific question he was asked and, instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize the assertions/positions of Robert Welch and the Birch Society as examples of a right-wing extremist point of view. Specifically, Hoover's comment was as follows: (Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101):

"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies."

"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him."

In 1961, J. Edgar Hoover asked subordinates in the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division to analyze a suggestion made by Attorney General Robert Kennedy which proposed that the FBI sponsor anti-communism seminars at its field offices for high school and college students along the lines of what the Bureau did at the FBI National Academy for law enforcement officers from around the country. The Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division subsequently analyzed this proposal in a 10/28/61 memo. This memo contains a paragraph entitled “Arguments in Favor” – copied below. Notice the reference to the JBS.

“Unquestionably there are apparent arguments in favor of such a procedure, including the reaching of a large segment of the American public during their formative years and thus thwarting to a great extent current recruiting drives among youths by the Communist Party USA, and combating 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; my emphasis in bold type]

Giants within the conservative intellectual and political communities have described the Birch Society and its views as both irrational and extremist. See for example comments made by such prominent conservatives as Sen. Barry Goldwater, Cong. Walter Judd, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Eugene Lyons, Frank Meyer, William F. Buckley Jr., and the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events. Lastly, our military intelligence agencies [G-2 Army Intelligence and ONI, Naval Intelligence, and OSI, Air Force Intelligence] also concluded that the JBS represented an extreme right position on our political spectrum.

Might we all agree upon this first principle?

A person or organization which disseminates false information can properly be described as extremist or radical?

Furthermore, can we agree that when an organization or its surrogates have been defendants in defamation lawsuits and they have been found guilty of libel or slander --- then that, too, is indisputable evidence of being "radical" or "extremist"?

See, for example, the historic precedent-setting defamation lawsuit against Robert Welch Inc. (the publishing arm of the Birch Society) by Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz. After 14 years of litigation, including two jury trials, and numerous appeals, plus review by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the Birch Society paid Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only allowed when "malice" can be shown -- which in legalese is “reckless disregard for the truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.

The 1982 Appeals Court decision in the Gertz defamation lawsuit made the following observation:

"There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz." [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].

On 6/25/74, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the U.S. Supreme Court decision [docket number 72-617] which pertained to the appeal of the first Gertz trial verdict.

Justice Powell stated that this case "involves a libel action by a reputable attorney against a magazine that falsely libeled him a Leninist and a Communist-fronter."

Lastly, I quote verbatim (below) from comments made by Birch Society founder Robert Welch to the first meeting of the JBS National Council. Does anyone seriously contend that these premises and assertions represent any sort of mainstream political opinion in the United States?

A scanned copy of the minutes of this meeting are available for review here (scroll about half way down the webpage):

FBI FILES ON BIRCH SOCIETY

"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists." [page 2]

"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [page 7] [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]

"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [page 8]

“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [page 8]

"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ... [page 8]

"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department." [page 8]

Surely, all of the data presented above should be adequate to justify characterizing the Birch Society as both "extremist" and "radical"?? Ernie1241 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

1960s criticism

"Antisemitic, racist, anti-Mormon, anti-Masonic, and religious groups criticized the group's acceptance of Jews, non-whites, Masons, and Mormons. These opponents accused Welch of harboring feminist, ecumenical, and evolutionary ideas."

What groups? Where exactly did the criticism appear in the 1960s? The three sources aren't particularly RS; two are SPS and one is a blog. There's not a close correspondence of the article's claims to the sources either. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

MY RESEARCH: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home This does not appear to be a reliable source for the claims made. I have tagged the cite as {{rs}} and shall look for something reliable. Tentontunic (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, so probably can't be used in the article. That said, he seems to have genuinely done a lot of research and could be used as a tool the way a lot of people use Wikipedia: for finding sources to then consult oneself. I substituted other sources for the info and quote. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I am the author of the material on the site which Tentontunic asserts "does not appear to be a reliable source for the claims made", I would appreciate it if Tentontunic would be specific. Why is my site supposedly not reliable? It is fully documented with appropriate FBI file numbers and serial numbers plus it contains numerous scanned copies of FBI documents along with primary source material such as correspondence written by JBS founder Robert Welch, and major city newspaper articles, and internal documents produced by the Birch Society. My JBS report is an accurate and truthful summary of JBS assertions along with what is contained in FBI files about those assertions---which is why I have included so many scanned copies of the original documents. Perhaps, therefore, Tentontunic can be more precise about what makes my site not reliable? Incidentally, numerous authors, scholars, and researchers have cited me and my on-line reports in their own books, doctoral dissertations, academic journal articles, online articles, and conference papers. In fact, many of them have used, in their own writings, documents I provided to them from my collection. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS. TFD (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article you link to is much too complex to understand. Here is the bottom line: if you make a statement that something does not appear to be a reliable source -- then there should be some specific reasons given and, hopefully, an example or two to illustrate your concern. Documents cited (and often scanned into) my on-line reports have been used by numerous scholars and researchers and authors in their books, articles, doctoral dissertations, and academic conference papers. Making generalized unsubstantiated derogatory statements or innuendos about a source (as was done in this case about my reports) is an example of why Wikipedia itself is NOT regarded as a "reliable" source. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that contain abject falsehoods and minimal research would confirm that -- which only goes to demonstrate how phony your "reliable" sources article link is. Ernie1241 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Founder" as title v. "founding member"

"Founding member" simply means "one of the first members." It has a different meaning in American English than "Founder" does. Jimbo Wales is "Founder" of Wikipedia, but there were several dozen "founding members" (i.e. first users) of Wikipedia. "a person who establishes an institution, company, society, etc." is different from "an early member" [3] as opposed to [4]. As the distinction is clear, it is inapt to call Fred Koch a "founder" of the JBS without a source stating such. It is proper to call him a "founding member" or "one of the first members." Collect (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit regarding the above diff is a good one. I was not aware there was a distinction.

However, the Wiktionary definition you link doesn't say a founding member is "an early member." That's a vague descriptor depending on how one cares to define "early." Instead, it says "A member of an organization that was involved in, or whose membership commenced with, the organization's foundation." One could be an early member without being involved in the founding or having one's membership commence with the founding.

Wiktionary is not a reliable source, though... but it does appear to have a fairly accurate definition in spite of its lack of any sources or citations. The OED states "founder member n. a person belonging to or associated with the founding of a society or institution." and "founding member = founder member n." Every founder is a founding member, but not every founding member is a founder. So you're quite correct to say a source would be needed describing Koch more narrowly as a founder, and thank you for making that correction.

Incidentally, you can create InterWikimedia links (fine in article space, poorer in a discussion): [[wikt:founding member]] produces: wikt:founding member. 17:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Founder" has a specific sense of being key in the initial creation of a group - how many "Founders" does Wikipedia have? Collect (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agreed with you above regarding the point about the narrower definition of the word "founder," which I thought I made quite clear, so I'm not sure with regard to your reply above what new point you're making or what you're asking now. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Welch invited 12 individuals (mostly prominent businesspersons) to attend a 2-day meeting in Indianapolis on December 8-9, 1958. The purpose of the meeting was to present Welch's interpretation of our postwar history and then to create an organization to "educate" the American public about what he considered the gravity of our situation and the actions required to address the "conspiracy" which Welch thought was operating inside the U.S. The 12 individuals were already generally familiar with Welch's beliefs because they all received Welch's monthly magazine entitled "One Man's Opinion". In addition, all of the persons present at the meeting had received a copy of Welch's book-length "private letter" entitled "The Politician" which stated that: "For the sake of honesty, however, I want to confess here my own conviction that Eisenhower's motivation is more ideological than opportunistic. Or, to put it bluntly, I personally think that he has been sympathetic to ultimate Communist aims, realistically willing to use Communist means to help them achieve their goals, knowingly accepting and abiding by Communist orders, and consciously serving the Communist conspiracy, for all of his adult life." After Welch completed his 2-day speech, he asked those present to join him in creating the John Birch Society. Eleven did so. They thus became "founding members". However, the "founder" was Robert Welch. Had all 12 of those present declined to become JBS members -- the JBS would still have been created by Welch alone. Ernie1241 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Characterizations and Criticism section

I think we need attribution for "ultraconservative",[15] "far right",[16] and "extremist".[17]. Regarding "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order' or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines," which is it? Without specificity, this is WP:COATRACK and should be removed.Lionel (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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

As you can see, each assertion has multiple sources, and more are available. The only reasonable way to attribute these statements would be with a blanket term, like "according to numerous sources".   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the SPLC general description as a coatrack? Lionel (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In what sense is it a WP:COATRACK? TFD (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is SPLC stating that JBS is (a) opposed to the 'New World Order' OR (b)advocate extreme antigovernment doctrines OR (c) adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines OR (d) can't tell? Lionel (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with WP:COATRACK? TFD (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Implicitly advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines will be read by some users as applying to the JBS. Ought we encourage such an implication? Collect (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When we say that the SPLC has described the JBS as a patriot group we should enable the reader to know what this means. It could be covered by an internal link, a definition in a footnote, or an explanation from the SPLC of why they have termed it one. The way it reads now does create ambiguity. TFD (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We link to the SPLC release. Adding this material is more apt to give a false impression than to elucidate anything. And I trust no one here would want to give any impression that the JBS "advocates or adheres to extreme antigovernment doictrines". Yet, that is precisely what is happening. Collect (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is your complaint about the JBS being considered "anti-government" or having "extreme doctrines"? Both are common descriptions, it seems to me.   Will Beback  talk  19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The term is "advocate or adhere to extreme anti-government doctrines" which is not backed by any source other than the apparent attempt to implicitly make the claim. The JBS, if anything, appears 'extremely committed" to constitutional government, and has not been linked to any attempt anywhere to overthrow anything. The implication, however, of the language is otherwise. If you feel that the implicit description is correct, I think you should find a reliable source for it - otherwise I agree with TFD that it belongs in a footnote at most, as we certainly would not wish to mislead any readers. Collect (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A dedication to 1789-style government could easily be considered as opposition to 2011-style government, the one we have now. But regardless of our own conclusions, JBS has been described as having anti-government views and of being opposed to the "New World Order" by other sources. Perhaps this issue could be resolved by replacing the definition of "Patriot Group" with a link to Patriot movement, which discusses the issue more fully.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The requirement that WP articles not mislead readers is paramount. That you "know" that the definition of "Patriot group" was specifically intended to refer to the attributes of the JBS is not found in the source. Also note that WP frowns on wikilinking one term to a different term without real solid grounds for asserting that the second meaning was what was "really meant." The only proper action is to include the SPLC definition in a footnote where, presumably, readers will see which other groups are so categorized. And "easily construed" is not how articles are supposed to be based. Collect (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reporting what reliable, noteworthy sources say about a topic isn't necessarily misleading. We could say say something like "The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a 'Patriot Group'. (footnote to definition). Other sources, such as..., call it a part of the Patriot movement." Any objection to that formulation?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And you would need specific separate reliable sources not relying on the SPLC listing for such claims (per your suggestion - specifically linking the JBS as a society to the "Patriot movement") . Simple. See how easy that is? Collect (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. The question is whether there's any objection to that formulation. I don't know what you mean by referring to the the JBS "as a society". What other way is there to refer to it?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I.e. the official position of the JBS as a society as opposed to some members of the society. Positions held by "some members" may not be a valid item to ascribe to the society in an article on the society. F'rinstance, suppose the Gnarph Society has some members who assert that "taxing marijuana is wrong" (and there are reliable sources saying some members of the Gnarph Society hold that position) - it would not be fair to the reader to say "the Gnarph Society opposes taxes on marijuana." Articles, especially articles representing viewpoints of living people, must be scrupulously correct lest incorrect implications be made. Collect (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

how is that applicable to this discussion?   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It relates precisely to your proposal about using a definition from the SPLC in the SPLC footnote, and linking "Patriot movement" to the JBS - which should not be done without independent reliable sources making the connection. It is not up to editors here to assert that connection. This is all in response to your post made at 22:40 today. Collect (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are sources which connect JBS to the "patriot movement" Since there's no objection to the porposed formulation I'll make that edit.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it's of any help, but there are sources for the JBS being anti-government. Being "extremely committed" to (one's own reading of) the constitution doesn't preclude the possibility of that, particularly given a belief that it's Communists all the way down. E.g. "The Birch Society is a conservative political organization and acts as a vanguard for the anti- government forces in America today." Rowady, Michael L. "Wolverine Fear: An Inside Look at the Citizen Militia Movement in Michigan and the United States" 74 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 771, 784 (1996-1997); "A passel of conservative organizations, notably the John Birch Society, founded by Robert Welch in 1958, sought to combine religion with anti-communist and anti-government sentiments." Balmer, Randall. God in the White House: A History. NY: HarperCollins, 2008. p. 130. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Um -- "vanguard" simply means that the JPS was a precursor to a movement, not that it specifically ascribes to that movement. "Rembrandt was a vanguard for Impressionism" does not make Rembrandt an impressionist. You have, in short, one opinion cite which says it combines "religion" with "anti-government sentiments" which is ten miles from "advocting extreme anti-government doctrines." There is no doubt that the JBS is anti-cmmunist, by the way. The make-up of the JBS belies any claim that they were ushing any particular "religion" as it was attacked by some for allowing Mormons in, etc. The JBS may be extremely despicable, but that is all the stronger a reason for getting this absolutely correct. See WP:PIECE Collect (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanguard means "leading", i.e., the JBS is the leading anti-government group. And yes their views are extreme by mainstream standards, even if they may seem moderate to some editors. Collect, you should not present your personal arguments against the conclusions of sources used, but find reliable sources that rebut them. Otherwise this discussion does nothing to improve the article. TFD (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a dictionary - but the cite does not support the SPLC definition as being "extreme anti-government" by a mile. You need a specific reliable source for the adjective being applied to the JBS wrt "anti-government". Period. Note, by the way, that I have repeatedly stated that despicable people and organizations must be treated properly by all editors, that you impute some views to me which I do not hold makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What does your dictionary say? I am also curious to know which dictionary you happen to use. TFD (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Many dictionaries. The NOAD says as a noun it applies to "a group of people leading the way in new developments or ideas" which does not say the "vanguard" holds any "extreme positions" in any sense, nor say the vanguard subscribes to all that follows. All it says is that the vanguard is the first to lead the way. Period. Do you have any cites at all -- even the self-published ones -- which says otherwise? Collect (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is that since the term "vanguard" does not necessarily mean that they are extremist that a vanguard cannot be extremist. Fails logic 101. You may see JBS views as moderate, and they may be compared with your worldview, but not with the normal view. TFD (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing remotely near what you seem to claim I said. I said that to use the term "extreme anti-government" would require specific solid sourcing using those words, and the source you offered does not remotely come near that requirement. You need a reliable source making the precise claim no matter how despicable the JBS or any other person or group is. Collect (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What source did I offer? What are you talking about? TFD (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NOAD didn't say vanguard means precursor, did it? The OED doesn't give that as a definition. It says it's "The foremost division of an army; the forefront or van." and "In fig. use." "Rembrandt was a vanguard for Impressionism" would be all around wrong. I don't think the JBS is a terrorist group, and I can't recall seeing anything by them advocating violence domestically, but I did find reliable sources (and I'm sure there's additional ones*) that say it's anti-government or "a vanguard for the anti-government forces". Whether it really is or not in some objective sense (perversely) doesn't matter, because WP doesn't care about that. *E.g. "[Ron] Paul, who speculated that the group used one of his speeches, said the John Birch Society shares anti-government goals with Libertarians." "Libertarians Choose Texan as Nominee." Miami Herald. September 6, 1987. 28A. "the anti-government John Birch Society" Hicks, Jerry. "The Right Place" Los Angeles Times. December 27, 1999. Metro Part B.Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A huge number of people would fall into that category (being somewhat "anti-government" - at last count ) - the issue was use of "(advocating) extreme antigovernment doctrines." The use of "extreme" must be specifically and strong;y cited. So far, it is not. [5] Pew last year found only 22% of Americans trusting government most of the time, with 50% of the populace wanting a "smaller government." Hardly seems to be "extreme" at that point. Collect (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect you should know better than to decide issues based on what seems correct to WP editors. JBS may not seem extreme to us, but our opinions don't count. Instead of writing what we think about a topic, we summarize what reliable sources say about the topic, with weight dependent on prominence. SPLC is a prominent, reliable source, so we report what they say. We only devote a short sentence to it. That's appropriate. I'm not quite sure what the intent of this ongoing thread is. We don't need to convince each other, we just need to summarize reliable sources. We've done that. What else is there to discuss?   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I am saying unless the sources specify "extreme anti-government doctrines, we can not say it. That is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, even applying to most despicable people, views and organizations. SPLC does not state that the JBS advocates "extreme anti-government doctrines" by the way, and reliable sources making that explicit claim are needed in this article. Never mind that the JBS may be worse than the Brown Shirts - they are entitled to a NPOV and accurate article adhering to every WP policy. In fact, despicable groups need adherence more than others do. I trust this is now clear? Collect (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What is your issue? Do you oppose calling the JBS extreme? What do you consider moderate? TFD (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose violating WP policies and guidelines is what I oppose. And ascribing words without a clear reliable source for the precise claim is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Find a reliable source making the precise claim that the JBS (a horrid group) "advocates ectreme anti-government doctrines" and you are fine. Absent a reliable source as required by Wikipedia for such a claim, it fails to be allowed. Is this bold enough and clear enough for George III to read? Collect (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the SPLC Web site uses those precise words.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/active-patriot-groups-in-the-united-s

Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good link, DoctorJoeE. Collect, your hyperbole and sarcasm aren't helping, but you may have a point about "extreme anti-government," so I can agree with you to that extent. However, there are sources for "patriot group," "extreme far right" and "anti-government" separately. Do you have an issue with them being described as such, provided there's a separation between them? As a side note, the JBS has an article in their news feed in which the New American's senior editor[6] accuses the SPLC of being a "principal front for the militant homosexual lobby."[7] Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect's "hyperbole & sarcasm" are due, understandably I think, to exasperation. For 5 days he's pointed out that the SPLC description of patriot groups is too general to apply to JBS specifically. It shouldn't be in the article. Lionel (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm -- If those shifty militant homos used an arbitrary definition I would agree, but it's pretty specific. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) They identify the criteria by which they define patriot groups, and then they say that according to those criteria, JBS is a patriot group. I'm afraid I don't follow what is "too general" about that. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I fear you missed the "or" in the SPLC definition of "Patriot groups" - are you saying the "or" is really an "and" for the JBS? Which half of the definition does ths SPLC aver applies to the JBS? Hint: The JBP does appear opposed to the "New World Order." Collect (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that no response is going to be good enough, even when it's exactly what you asked for. Let me quote you here: "Find a reliable source making the precise claim that the JBS (a horrid group) 'advocates ectreme [sic] anti-government doctrines' and you are fine." Well, we did that -- and apparently we're not "fine." I urge you to take a closer look at SPLC-JBS interactions in print -- for example, this article on the SPLC blog, plus the articles linked to it. The shoe fits. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect is right that the reading in the SPLC website does not specify which of the three criteria apply to the JBS. We know that all three do, but the source is not clear. TFD (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"We" most certainly do not know "that all three do." And that is specifically why attributing all three requires strong sourcing to an article which connects to living people. Collect (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming an OCD exercise -- but JBS itself, in multiple articles, such as this one, a rebuttal to the SPLC conspiracy debunking, makes its extreme anti-government stance -- for example, its belief that "the federal government...[is] laying plans to intern American dissidents in concentration camps as part of an imminent crackdown" (their words) -- quite clear. That said, I have no objection to stronger sourcing, as long as we neither de-tooth the article (as some are clearly trying to do), or make it unreadably ponderous. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The stance you cite as "extreme anti-government doctrine" (a fear that a government could hold citizens in, say, a place like Guantanamo) is also held by the ACLU as a possibility in its opposition to the Patriot Act -- I guess they are also part of the JBS? [8] (showing the ACLU prudly showing conservative support for the ACLU anti-government position) [9] showing ACLU distrust of the government etc. We clearly should list the ACLU as being "extreme" if that is the criterion. Clearly the ACLU's direct opposition to Expanding pretrial detention and lifetime supervision for laundry list of crimes said to be terrorism-related beyond what is already provided in Patriot Act. seems precisely apropos here. Thanks for making that argument clear :) Collect (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a classic JBS-style argument -- also a classic "red herring" debate fallacy -- if you want to debate the ACLU, go to that talk page and have at it. But what the ACLU does or doesn't do or believe has no relevance to what we're discussing here. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What sort of response is that inrended to be? I only pointed out that there is still no source for the specific claim that the JBS "advocates extreme anti-governmant doctrines." Absent such a source, WP requires that the claim not be made. The claim was made, moreover, that opposing the possiblilty of detention of people on the basis of belief is somehow an "extreme anti-government doctrine" per se, and I aver that such is not an "extreme anti-government doctrine" per se. I trust this is simple. Collect (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It was intended to point out that your argument is a red herring: To say that a JBS argument is somehow valid because an ACLU argument is similar is a classic fallacy that would get you tossed in the first round of any debate competition. Maybe the ACLU is anti-government too -- I don't know that much about the ACLU -- but it has no relevance to a discussion about the John Birch Society. DoctorJoeE (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Again - it is not a "red herring" to point out that zero sources have been given for asserting that the JBS "advoces extreme anti-government doctrines." If you can find one - great. But without one, WP policy is clear. And pointing out that a claim that opposing part of the Patriot Act is somehow sufficient - the use of a counter-example is not a "red herring" but a common method of absolute disproof used in science. Collect (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And again, as Einstein would say, if you were right I would agree with you; but quoting another organization's assertions says nothing about the Birch Society, and is thus a red herring, and is just as big a fallacy in science as it is in politics. Find us a JBS quote saying they do NOT advocate "patriot-style" rebellion against the federal government, and you'll have your counter-example (though not "absolute disproof"). Comparing JBS to the ACLU has no relevance to your argument. DoctorJoeE (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct in reading your position that unless there is a source explicitly stating that the JBS does "NOT advocate 'patriot style' rebellion against the federal government" that therefore thay must be advocating rebellion? I fear that such is not logical here or on any page. Collect (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I'm saying (for the third time) that your ACLU comparison says nothing about the Birch Society's position on that, or any other, subject. Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is anyone in this thread proposing an edit to the article? If not then this discussion should be moved to some other forum. If there is a proposed edit could someone please restate it? I can't find it.   Will Beback  talk  08:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Collect wants "Patriot group" delinked in John_Birch_Society#Characterizations. I don't think it should be delinked, and I think "anti-government" should be added to that section. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Which is wrong. I basically felt the SPLC definition should be in the footnote and not in the body - which is what everyone seems to have agreed on other than you. I do, moreover, feel that the "patriot movement" sentence is fully unnecessary, and that I am unable to confirm that the sources given make that precise claim. Perhaps Will can give the full quotes needed to affirm that the sources made the connection with the JBS explicitly? Neither seems available through the usual places online at all. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Which is wrong" is not a particularly helpful comment. Regarding your assertion that "the SPLC definition should be in the footnote and not in the body - which is what everyone seems to have agreed on other than you": "everyone" strikes me as more hyperbole. Anyway, I think it's a questionable use of a footnote; if their definition is going to be in the article, it should be in the body of the text. Asking for details on the newspaper articles is fair enough, though I'm unsure why you wrote "Neither seems available through the usual places online at all." Why emphasize "neither"? What are the "usual places" you checked? The Colorado Springs Gazette source shows up on Google News Archive as being available online (for a fee):[10] Junas' is online through LEXIS NEXIS: "The [militia] movement, in turn, has arisen out of the larger and broader 'Patriot' movement, comprised of organizations and individuals who share a conspiratorial world view, in which key political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite insiders. At the right wing of the movement are white supremacists and anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. At the other end of the spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism, but which nonetheless espouses a conspiratorial world view in which international elites are attempting to impose a new world order through such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations." You could acquire either article through interlibrary loan. But at any rate, Google Books has a number of relevant sources too, among them: "The militias are the militant arm of the patriot movement, which includes such groups as the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, tax resisters, and others." Snow. Robert. Terrorists Among Us: The Militia Threat. Perseus Publishing, 2002. p.14. "The Patriot movement is represented by many diverse groups. Moderates in the movement probably include groups like the John Birch Society and some of the televangelists representing historical but fundamentalist approaches to Christianity." Quarles, Chester L. The Ku Klux Klan and Related American Racialist and Antisemitic Organizations: A History and Analysis. McFarland & Company, 1999. p. 134.; "The militia are the most militant, and organized, wing of a much broader, self-proclaimed 'patriot movement,' whose ideiological galaxy encompasses established, extreme, conservative organizations, such as the John Birch Society" Castells, Manuel. The Power of Identity. Blackwell, 2010. p. 88.; "The Patriot Movement, formed in the 1980s, loosely unites far-right groups who command the support of as many as 5 million Americans (Junus 1995, 228). The nonviolent and more moderate wing of this movement includes the waning John Birch Society" Sandbrook, Richard. Civilizing Globalization: A Survival Guide. State University of New York Press, 2003. p. 254. Other sources say the movement employs their ideas, without saying whether the JBS itself is or isn't part of the patriot movement. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When two sources are not directly available to be verified "neither" is the normal Englsih word used. Your first cite gives a really helpful "This webpage cannot be found" 404 error here. Saying a "galaxy" includes the JBS does not seem a strong source for the claim. Sandbrook's claims should be examined in the context in which he makes them - his thesis is that globalization itself is "disruptive" - thus I suggest that his opinion, at best, can be cited as his opinion. As for "self-proclaimed" - that would require that a JBS source be found wherein it asserts that it is part of a "patriot movement." As for the footnote - when TFD and Will agree with me, that is pretty unanimous :). In short, I see no gain past the extant SPLC label of "Patriot group" already in the article. Collect (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect, so your complaint with the current text is about the sentence on JBS being considered a part of the "patriot movement"? The sources listed are directly verifiable. I assume you really mean that they are not hotlinked to free websites.

• Nonetheless, one student of ultra-conservative groups credits patriots with getting the 10th Amendment ball rolling. "The patriot movement is the largest ignored movement in America," said Chip Berlet, who studies the right wing (a prideful label at this conference) for Political Research Associates in Cambridge, Mass. Berlet estimates there are more than 5 million patriots, "with the John Birch Society and Pat Robertson on the moderate flank and Bo Gritz and white supremacists on the right wing of it. A whole lot of otherwise sensible conservative state legislatures around the country are picking up on what is essentially a right-wing conspiracy theory in support of states' rights."
  • Determined 'patriots' say their time has come/ Reduction of government sought Jeff Thomas, Gazette Telegraph. Colorado Springs Gazette - Telegraph. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Feb 13, 1995. pg. A.1
• The movement, in turn, has arisen out of the larger and broader "Patriot" movement, comprised of organizations and individuals who share a conspiratorial world view, in which key political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite insiders. At the right wing of the movement are white supremacists and anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. At the other end of the spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism, but which nonetheless espouses a conspiratorial world view in which international elites are attempting to impose a new world order through such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the United Nations.
  • DISAFFECTED CITIZENS FORMING ARMED MILITIAS; [FINAL Edition] Daniel Junas. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 14, 1995. pg. A.9

Since "patriot group" and "patriot movement" are clearly similar, it makes sense to treat them together. We could mash the sentences together. Something like, "the SPLC and others consider the JBS to be a patriot group or part of the patriot movement".   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC sentence is sufficient. None of the sources presents the "patriot movement" as an organized entity unto itself. It is interesting that the JBS is at the left wing of the movement to be sure. What we have, basically, is that they can say the JBS says it is patriotic. I can tnink of few groups which would actually call themselves "unpatriotic" in any case :). All that is needed is(roughly) "The SPLC has labelled the JBS a "Patriot group", while others refer to a broad "patriot movement." including the JBS." One sentence as both concepts appear to be the same. Collect (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The SPLC source is not sufficient to show membership in the movement since it doesn't mention it. But I agree that one sentence would be fine so long as we retain the link, the footnote, and the citations.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How can describing the JBS a "right wing extremist organization" be regarded as a neutral point of view?

I heard folks describe Wikipedia as "left-leaning" I can see why. How can describing the JBS a "right wing extremist organization" be regarded as a neutral point of view? Simply adding references from liberal authors does not make it so. By that criteria, why is the Southern law Poverty Center not described as a "radical left-wing organization"? Navy AMDO (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Which liberal authors are you referring to? Have you checked the sources?   Will Beback  talk  03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

How else would you describe an organization that claimed that Eisenhower was a Communist agent and the U.S. government is controlled by Communists? Do you think that is a moderate or an extreme view? If it is moderate, then what would an extreme view be? TFD (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Navy AMDO is a one-day / two-edit Wikipedian (his other edit, to Southern Poverty Law Center, was immediately reverted as it was grossly non-neutral POV.) — Robert Greer (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right (again)

Most scholarly sources describe the JBS as radical right, although some writers describe them as far right, extreme right, etc. See for example Clive Webb's Rabble rousers: "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society...." (p. 10)[11] Editors who wish to change that description need sources to support a different description and should not change the sourced description. TFD (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

---

JBS "supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic[3][4] and personal freedom." (Wikipedia 1st line) You must be right those are truly radical beliefs--when pigs fly!74.192.7.135 (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)