Talk:John Birch Society

Comments at the bottom, please.

Membership numbers

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

Liberal Smear & Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

answers.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's keep this simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added to the lead:

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

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

Characterizations

• After enduring Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who had smeared his old colleague Gen. George C. Marshall as a Communist sympathizer, and having guarded the Republican Party against the newly emergent radical right John Birch Society, which labeled him and much of his cabinet Soviet agents, the president perhaps welcomed the opportunity to expound on his vision of the open society.
  • Ike's Other Warning; Max Blumenthal. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 3, 2009. pg. A.31
• The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats' prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we're seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes. Writing in 1964 of that era's equivalent to today's tea party cells, the historian Richard Hofstadter observed that the John Birch Society's "ruthless prosecution" of its own ideological war often mimicked the tactics of its Communist enemies.
  • The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York; Frank Rich. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Nov 1, 2009. pg. WK.8
• To support his argument, Piereson reconstructs the mood of the time, the powerful and violent resistance to the movement for civil rights in the south, the lunacy of the anti-Communist crusade of groups like the John Birch Society, the murders of the civil rights leader Medgar Evers and others by the Ku Klux Klan. The violent and irrational tone of life had led to a widespread assumption among liberals, who were the dominant voices in the media and in academia, that the main threat to American democracy came, not from Communists at home (deemed to be a paranoid figment of a discredited McCarthyite imagination) but from this genuinely frightening radical right.
  • The JFK assassination and a '60s leftist prism Letter from America; Richard Bernstein. International Herald Tribune. Paris: May 21, 2007. pg. 2
• [Ralph R. Harding, a former two-term Mormon congressman from Idaho], a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, blasted LDS Church Apostle Ezra Taft Benson as "a spokesman for the radical right" during a September 1963 speech on the U.S. House floor. Harding criticized Benson, who had served as Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower's secretary of agriculture from 1953 to 1961, for a speaking appearance that same month on behalf of John Birch Society founder Robert H. Welch. Welch had just published a book alleging that Eisenhower, commanding general of victorious U.S. forces in Europe during World War II, was a Communist Party sympathizer.
  • Former U.S. Rep. Harding dies at 77 Christopher Smith. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 27, 2006. pg. 1
• I had written a very accurate account in the Raleigh News and Observer about the John Birch Society's infiltration into conservative Kinston, N.C. At that time, nobody in North Carolina had heard much of the radical, right-wing group, even though its founder, Robert Welch, grew up just outside Hertford, N.C., in Perquimins County.
  • VOTERS ADMIRED N.C. SENATOR'S INDEPENDENT STREAK, SOUTHERN CHARM; IDA KAY JORDAN. Virginian - Pilot. Norfolk, Va.: Aug 26, 2001. pg. J.1
• Mr. Lake has been on the radical right's enemies list since 1970, when he resigned from the State Department to protest the Nixon Administration's Cambodia policy. But if his detractors examined his record, they would see that he is not the ideological foe they portray him to be. After Mr. Lake was nominated for Director of Central Intelligence, the John Birch Society and other anti-government fringe groups launched a smear campaign. They lit up the Internet with conspiracy yarns and indicted Mr. Lake for such crimes as working in the Carter Administration, serving as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (the Park Avenue State Department) and promoting world government. In an error-ridden article in The New American, a John Birch periodical, William F. Jasper dissected Mr. Lake's resume and found a pattern of anti-Americanism: attending Harvard and Princeton, speaking at the Institute for Policy Studies when it was supposedly a beehive of militant Marxists, working at Alger Hiss's Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  • The Right Choice for the C.I.A.; Douglas Brinkley. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Feb 10, 1997. pg. A.15
• In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, a May 1, 1995, article in Time magazine linked home-schoolers to the extremist component of the "radical right in America" that spawned such terrorist acts. Citing politicians swept into office in 1994 by the "widespread mistrust and even hatred of government power in Western and rural areas," the article said: "Their coalition included well-known elements of far-right thought: tax protesters; Christian home-schoolers; conspiracy theorists influenced by the John Birch Society's fear of one-world government; Second Amendment activists (mostly men) for whom guns are an important part of an independent way of life; self-reliant types who resent a federal government that seems to favor grizzly bears and wolves over humans on government land."
  • Home schooling's success shakes `extremist' image Carol Innerst. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Dec 11, 1996. pg. A.1
• A powerful magnetism has existed between extremist right-wing groups in America and the Republican Party for more than six decades, since the days of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. During the Great Depression, fringe leaders included William Dudley Pelley and his brigades of anti-Semitic Silver Shirts, radio preacher Father Charles Coughlin and his Christian Front, Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. In the early 1950s, Sen. Joe McCarthy initiated witch-hunting that revived the dormant bigotries of the 1930s and sustained the GOP majorities in Congress. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society, protagonists of the antifluoridation hysteria and other extreme right-wing groups stepped forward to buttress Barry Goldwater's candidacy.
  • PERSPECTIVE ON POLITICS; The Big Tent Isn't Big Enough; By allowing extremists to flourish openly, the GOP forces out those who represent the party's moderate values.; MARVIN LIEBMAN. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 17, 1996. pg. 5
• In a time when the radical Right under the newly founded John Birch Society flourished and when communists were presumed lurking in the groves of academe, Brown was a staunch defender of equality in employment, nondiscrimination in housing, and academic freedom.
  • Edmund G. 'Pat' Brown, Former Governor, Dies; Obituary: Democrat guided California through one of its greatest public and private building booms. He was 90.; JUDITH MICHAELSON. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feb 17, 1996. pg. 1
• Time magazine's Philip Weiss wrote, "The radical right in America today has its extremist component, which plainly was a force in the 1994 elections." He proceeds to loop in "Christian home-schoolers, conspiracy theorists influenced by the John Birch Society's fear of one-world government, Second Amendment activists (mostly men) . . . self-reliant types who resent a Federal Government that seems to favor grizzly bears and wolves over humans on government land."
  • Media smear the populist right; SAMUEL FRANCIS. San Francisco Examiner. San Francisco, Calif.: May 4, 1995. pg. A.23
• Though he was exposed as a reckless charlatan and provocateur, [Joseph R. McCarthy] left a malignant legacy. Before his demise, he managed to spawn a fear-driven and fear-spreading progeny, a "radical right" that included the John Birch Society as well as the gun-toting "militias" that today claim to be manning the ramparts of the republic against the menacing blue-helmeted hordes of the United Nations.
  • IN AMERICAN POLITICS WE TEND TO GO TO EXTREMES, DON'T WE?; By DAVID M. KENNEDY. The Record. Bergen County, N.J.: May 3, 1995. pg. n.09
• According to Berlet, who has researched the radical right for 20 years, the new militias also have borrowed much of their ideology from the John Birch Society, which was founded in 1958. Until the 1970s there hardly was a radical right outside the Klan and the John Birch Society.
  • Militia groups tap long, dark history of radical right; Lane Lambert. The Patriot Ledger. Quincy, Mass.: Apr 29, 1995. pg. 23
• Another parallel, [Kathy Olmsted, a University of California, Davis historian of the period] says, the Tea Party movement is not unlike a right-wing activist group of the time, The John Birch Society. The John Birch Society was extreme, but also connected to the Republican Party, and Republican politicians had to make a decision about whether they were with the movement, she says.
  • The Tea Party's (old) paranoia; Today's fervent ideological movement has roots in post-World War II right J Patrick Coolican. Las Vegas Sun. Las Vegas, Nev.: Jan 24, 2010. pg. 1
• But as National Review took flight in the late 1950s, anti-Semitic writers found themselves on the outside looking in. So, too, did apologists for the extremist John Birch Society.
  • The writer who chased the anti-Semites out JONATHAN S. TOBIN. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Mar 9, 2008. pg. 14
• Intellectual dissent was captured by extremists, from Ayn Rand to the John Birch Society. It took 40 years for the development of an intellectually serious and politically respectable conservative movement.
  • Looking for conservatism Michael Gerson Times Daily. Florence, Ala.: Mar 10, 2009.

• Theodore Kaczynski The Anticivilization Left Jailed 'Unabomber' Kaczynski (shown here after his 1996 arrest in Montana) is the most famous figure in a new left-wing branch of the antigovernment movement. Formerly, only ultra-right groups like the John Birch Society believed the U.S. government was illegitimate. Now that view is shared by extreme environmentalists, 'primitivist' anarchists and some anti-corporate activists. Right-wing Patriot and Militia members have come to support left-wing causes such as anti-trade protests
  • 'We're living in 1930s Germany' Doug Saunders. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jun 16, 2001. pg. F.4

• No one can directly blame ultra-conservative organizations like the John Birch Society, or sympathizers or opponents of Fidel Castro's Cuban regime, for Kennedy's assassination but we know -- thanks to 9/11, Fort Hood and Oklahoma City -- that a handful of political extremists, or just one, can be influenced and persuaded to use violence to make a statement.
  • A grim lesson from Nov. 22, 1963. Middletown Journal. Middletown, Ohio: Nov 20, 2009.
• [ Judith F. Krug] also fought for the inclusion of literature on library shelves that she herself found offensive, like "The Blue Book" of the ultraconservative John Birch Society.
  • Judith F. Krug, 69; fought efforts to ban library books Anonymous. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Apr 19, 2009. pg. A.7
• [W. Cleon] Skousen never joined the ultra-conservative John Birch Society but was a supporter.
  • Beck's backing bumps Skousen book to top Sharon Haddock Mormon Times. Deseret News. Salt Lake City, Utah: Mar 21, 2009. pg. WEB
• [H.L. Hunt] was a member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society and promoted his anticommunist views with a foundation and on the radio.
  • Business Bookshelf: Piles of Green From Black Gold J. Lynn Lunsford. Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Feb 4, 2009. pg. A.11
• Before the 1960s, it was common for properties in San Marino to have a legal stipulation banning sales to blacks and Jews, and until 1989 the city was national headquarters to the ultraconservative, anti-communist John Birch Society.
  • Churches tackle tough topic of race Shelia Byrd. Sunday Gazette - Mail. Charleston, W.V.: May 25, 2008. pg. C.5
• In addition to accusing southern California of stealing their water for decades and being residents of a cultural wasteland, northern California voters sneer at a part of the state that bred Richard Nixon and backed the ultra-conservative John Birch Society.
  • California now the 'big prize'; Moving primary forward from June has increased the focus on the diverse, populous, unique state; Jim Byers. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Feb 4, 2008. pg. AA.3
• Otis [Chandler] turned the parochial, rightwing paper into a prize-winning national. One of his first moves was an expose of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, which Philip supported.
  • Media: LA Times: Papers before profiteering Peter Huck. The Guardian. London (UK): Jul 3, 2006. pg. 3
• Besides decrying the damage the repeal would do to public education, critics have taken aim at I-920's sponsor, campaign manager and chairman, Dennis Falk, a former Seattle police officer and a longtime leader of the ultraconservative John Birch Society.
  • REPEAL OF ESTATE TAX HAS WEALTHY BACKERS ; BUT THE CAMPAIGN TO DEFEAT I-920 ALSO ENLISTING WELL-KNOWN SUPPORT; NEIL MODIE P-I reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Jun 9, 2006. pg. B.1
• Patterson's wife, Rene, recalled that her husband -- Modesto's second (and last) black man elected to the City Council -- was stunned when a member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society offered to host a fund-raiser.
  • PATTERSON DIES AT 57, WAS MODESTO LEADER; GARTH STAPLEY, BEE STAFF WRITER. The Modesto Bee. Modesto, Calif.: Mar 18, 2006. pg. A.1
• John Harry Katz, a lifetime member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society whose demonstrations in Modesto targeted the United Nations, died of natural causes Monday in Manteca at Kaiser Foundation Hospital.
  • CONSERVATIVE RADIO SHOW HOST JOHN KATZ, 70, DIES ; OBITUARIES; MERRILL BALASSONE, BEE STAFF WRITER. The Modesto Bee. Modesto, Calif.: Mar 10, 2006. pg. B.4

"Far right"

• In her recent article titled "Right On" in The Nation, New York University history professor Kim Phillips-Fein, asks: "Is the conservative movement dead?" She writes that before Ronald Reagan's White House victory in 1980, scholars wrote hardly any serious books about conservatism. Sure, they produced works about McCarthyism, the John Birch Society and other far-right excesses, but most university historians ignored conservatism as an intellectual subject.
  • Is there a Buckley in the house? Bill Maxwell Sentinel & Enterprise. Fitchburg, Mass.: Sep 30, 2009.
• "The best historical parallel for the Birthers is the far-right John Birch Society, or 'Birchers,'" according to UC Davis historian Kathryn Olmsted, author of Real Enemies Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11.
  • Birthers' fiction takes on a life; Claims that Obama wasn't born in the U.S.A. lives on in media, despite the facts Mitch Potter. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Aug 1, 2009. pg. A.14
• In 1966, he founded the Institute for American Democracy to fight political extremists. It was attacked by the John Birch Society and other far-right groups, and the window of his home was shot out.
  • FRANKLIN LITTELL| JUNE 20, 1917 -- MAY 23, 2009; SCHOLAR OF HOLOCAUST, AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS Douglas Martin. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: May 31, 2009. pg. C.5
• Despite [Clarke T Reed]'s actions, his politics contained as much pragmatism as conservatism. He briefly belonged to the far-right John Birch Society in the late 1950s but later insisted that he had quit after one meeting.
  • "Lily White and Hard Right": The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980 Chris Danielson. The Journal of Southern History. Athens: Feb 2009. Vol. 75, Iss. 1; pg. 83, 36 pgs
• Political figures and institutions that were regarded as being on the lunatic fringe of the far right during that first visit of mine, such as Senator Barry Goldwater and the John Birch Society, began to look mainstream, even moderate, in retrospect. It was with a start that I read in Hillary Clinton's autobiography that she had been a Goldwater Girl as a student.
  • Fascinating prospect as Obama seeks to capitalise on shift in US politics Allister Sparks. Cape Times. Cape Town: Jun 12, 2008. pg. 9
• On the far right, the ultra-conservative John Birch Society was increasingly vocal and strident.
  • Commentator, raconteur, novelist; America's best-known Conservative voice was a 'Renaissance man of the right'; Bart Barnes. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Feb 28, 2008. pg. A.11
• A few years ago, on assignment for this newspaper, I attended a memorial service for McCarthy at his grave site in Appleton, Wis. It's an annual event, sponsored by a local group that hopes to turn the senator's birthday into a national holiday and put his likeness on a postage stamp. Most of the celebrants were elderly, and several belonged to the far-right John Birch Society. "There aren't a lot of us still around," an 87-year-old McCarthy supporter told me. "When we die, who'll be left to tell the truth about Joe?"
  • In the Heart of the Heart of Conspiracy David Oshinsky. New York Times Book Review. New York: Jan 27, 2008. pg. 23, 1 pgs
• The more ideological Ronald Reagan avoided Nixon's mistake, positioning himself as an insurgent in both his early political career in the 1960s (going so far as to endorse a representative who was member of the far-right John Birch Society) and in 1976 when he mounted a strong challenge to the incumbent president, Gerald R. Ford, for the Republican nomination.
  • An anti-war campaign that takes a page from the GOP playbook; Sam Tanenhaus. Beaumont Enterprise. Beaumont, Tex.: Aug 13, 2006. pg. A.6
• Tim LaHaye has a long history of involvement in far-right politics. He lectured on behalf of the John Birch Society throughout the 1960s and '70s and later helped found the Council for National Policy.
  • Religious Right Power Brokers: THE TOP TEN Rob Boston. Church & State. Silver Springs: Jun 2006. Vol. 59, Iss. 6; pg. 10, 5 pgs
• The far-right and secretive John Birch Society was very active around Washington C.H. at the time, and as the right's No. 1 cause in the early 1960s (just ahead of preventing fluoridation of public water supplies) was withdrawing the U.S. from the United Nations, the local Birchers were suspected as being behind the harassment of O'Brien and his family, but all of the known members denied involvement, and the precise origin of the campaign was never identified.
  • Coach's fight for right reverberates today; Richard Riegel. Cincinnati Post. Cincinnati, Ohio: Dec 19, 2005. pg. A.13.0
• No matter how wrong they are, however, Fox is not the first to announce that Christmas is under attack. The last time was back in the 1950s, when leaders of the far-right John Birch Society blamed an anti-Christmas campaign on communists. But they were only echoing Henry Ford, who warned Americans in 1921 that Christmas was being stolen by the Jews. Fox is today's John Birch and Henry Ford.
  • No more Christmas in America? Editorial / Opinion. Sentinel & Enterprise. Fitchburg, Mass.: Dec 7, 2005. pg. 1
• Nesta Helen Webster (1876-1960) was one of the most influential conspiracy theorists of the twentieth century. Although an advocate of women's rights early in her life, her conviction that a vast and dangerous conspiracy threatened the British state and Christian civilization soon overshadowed these concerns. During her lifetime, she was a woman of considerable political influence, but she is perhaps even more influential today. Her books remain in print, and her work is a foundation of many far-right ideologies, including those of the John Birch Society and the Militia and Patriot movements. Webster's life and work are illustrative of the paradoxical position of women of the far right, both in the early twentieth century and today. [..] Her work is a foundation for many modern American far-right political ideologies, including those of Pat Robertson, the John Birch Society, and the Militia and Patriot movements, and it is a component of a number of radical Islamist ideologies.
  • NESTA WEBSTER: The Voice of Conspiracy Martha F Lee. Journal of Women's History. Baltimore: Fall 2005. Vol. 17, Iss. 3; pg. 81, 25 pgs
• In 1981, there were very few women judges, and almost no Republican ones. In fact, as some conservatives pointed out at the time, [Sandra Day] O'Connor as a state senator had supported legislation to decriminalize abortion and sparred with the far-right John Birch Society.
  • Queen of the Center Evan Thomas, Stuart Taylor Jr, Andrew Romano, Karl Gude. Newsweek. New York: Jul 11, 2005. Vol. 146, Iss. 2; pg. 24, 9 pgs
• [Pat] Brown badly underestimated Reagan's appeal. He lumped the Republican nominee in with the far-right John Birch Society, though the first-time candidate took great effort to distance himself.
  • California Rising: The Life and Times of Pat Brown David Mark. Campaigns and Elections. Washington: Jul 2005. Vol. 26, Iss. 6; pg. 38, 2 pgs
• Twenty years later the far right revered [John T.] Flynn as a god, and in 2000, the ultra-right John Birch Society saluted him as one of twenty-five "heroes for all time."
  • Right Turn: John T. Flynn and the Transformation of American Liberalism Linda J Lumsden. Journalism History. Athens: Summer 2005. Vol. 31, Iss. 2; pg. 117, 2 pgs
• The John Birch Society, whose ideals of limited government, anti- Communist crusades and conspiracy theories placed it on the far- right of the American political spectrum, is affiliated with the school, and its members have worked for years to establish it. But legally the school and the society are separate entities with different headquarters in Appleton.
  • University to nurture Birch Society creator's dream; NAHAL TOOSI. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Milwaukee, Wis.: Mar 20, 2005. pg. 01
• In several states, however, the call for a convention has raised concerns on the far right, around which the political establishment, eager to defeat term limits, has rallied. Thus, in Colorado the call is opposed by a group called Citizens Against Constitution Tampering, while in Arkansas a suit has been brought to block "the destruction of the Federal Constitution as we know it." Perhaps the greatest opposition has arisen in Idaho, where nearly 60% of the voters in 1994 elected to limit the terms of every office from congressman to school board trustee. There, the John Birch Society has led the way in opposing a convention, followed by Gov. Phil Batt, Senate President Pro Tem Jerry Twiggs and Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth, Republicans all.
  • Rule of Law: Who's afraid of a constitutional amendment on term limits? Pilon, Roger. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Oct 16, 1996. pg. A21, 1 pgs
• '[John] Dunn was a member of the far-right John Birch Society, whose founder, Robert Welch, had famously called President Dwight D. Eisenhower "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy."46
  • Mixed Motives Behind a Pulitzer Stephen Bates. Journalism History. Athens: Winter 2010. Vol. 35, Iss. 4; pg. 205, 11 pgs
• Conspiracy theory mongering around NAFTA has been churning since President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993, with the John Birch Society and other far-right groups declaring it a threat to American sovereignty and jobs.
  • The Conspiratorial Urban Legend of the Evil NAFTA Superhighway Clay Risen. World Trade. Troy: Nov 2007. Vol. 20, Iss. 11; pg. 36, 3 pgs
• In 1966, [Franklin H. Littell] founded the Institute for American Democracy to fight political extremists. It was attacked by the John Birch Society and other far-right groups, and the window of his home was shot out.
  • FRANKLIN LITTELL| JUNE 20, 1917 -- MAY 23, 2009; SCHOLAR OF HOLOCAUST, AUTHOR OF MANY BOOKS Douglas Martin. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: May 31, 2009. pg. C.5
• NAPF also re-printed articles published by the far-right John Birch Society, one of which was titled "Truth about M. L. King" and linked the late civil rights leader with communism.105
  • Say No to Busing and the Liberal Media William Gillis. Journalism History. Athens: Winter 2010. Vol. 35, Iss. 4; pg. 216, 13 pgs
• A number of participants belong to the John Birch Society, a far-right organization, currently with headquarters in Appleton. It views McCarthy as a founding father of the struggle to purge communist influence from American life.
  • Graying Now, McCarthyites Keep the Faith David Oshinsky. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 1, 2002. pg. B.7
• [William Pierce] made his first entry into the far right through the rabidly anti-Communist John Birch Society, then became an associate of George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party who was assassinated in 1967.
  • Obituary: William Pierce Andrew Gumbel. The Independent. London (UK): Jul 26, 2002. pg. 18
• While Buckley and most other mainstream conservatives disavowed Welch's assertion that Eisenhower was a communist agent, they did not attack the John Birch Society or other far-right groups
  • The rise of conservatism since World War II Dan T Carter. Magazine of History. Bloomington: Jan 2003. Vol. 17, Iss. 2; pg. 11, 6 pgs
• This county used to pride itself on being the anti-Los Angeles. Once you drove south through the Orange curtain, as it was known, it was not just suburban, but anti-urban, overwhelmingly white, proudly insular and, in its politics, as far right as the xenophobic John Birch Society, which had deep roots here.
  • Orange County GOP's dilemma: Vote pragmatism or principle?; James Sterngold. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 12, 2003. pg. A.1
• Ronald Reagan's Monday-night problem, his table full of less than savoury friends, was serious. He had all but dropped out of acting in the early 1950s, becoming an inspirational speaker for General Electric. This led him into conservative politics, and gave him a stammtisch drawn from the John Birch Society and other far-right fringe groups.
  • What Arnold brings to the table Doug Saunders. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Oct 11, 2003. pg. F.1
• For the last great flowering of explicitly political movies in Hollywood - movies that had relevance to contemporary events - one must go back all the way to the early 1960s. Many of these movies still seem to reach directly into our present day. Certain of the anxieties they tackled - the rise of a snarling, paranoid far-right in the form of the John Birch Society, the 1964 Goldwater campaign, or quasi-fascists like General William Walker in Texas; the awesome power of the military-industrial complex; the sense of a nation irreparably divided against itself - are not merely with us today, they have their roots in those times.
  • Friday Review: Column: With Bush v Kerry on the horizon, Hollywood - as ever - is ducking the challenge John Patterson. The Guardian. London (UK): Mar 19, 2004. pg. 3
• There's a theory on political life that everyone -- think Barry Goldwater, Al Sharpton, or Patrick J. Buchanan -- can go from far-out firebrand to mainstream insider given enough passing time. Maybe it's too much to expect for the John Birch Society, which in its heyday in the 1960's was viewed as the most powerful far-right organization in the country.
  • Far-Right Group Now Seems Not So Far Peter Applebome. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Sep 22, 2004. pg. B.6
• Milwaukee has elected three socialist mayors, while Appleton, farther north, is the headquarters of the far-right John Birch Society.
  • Why Upper Midwest is up for grabs; Amanda Paulson Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Oct 25, 2004. pg. 01
• [Utah's Republican Assembly] has ties to a number of other far-right groups, including the John Birch Society, Grass Roots and the Utah Eagle Forum, of which Ruzicka's wife, Gayle, serves as president.
  • Is Utah on the Brink of a Far-Right Revolution?; Archconservatives view this election as `a defining event'; Far Right Is Prominent In the Primaries; DAN HARRIE and JUDY FAHYS THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE. The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Jun 17, 1998. pg. A.1
• The New American, organ of the far right John Birch Society, warns that the year 2000 may provide an ambitious president with "an opportunity to seize dictatorial powers."
  • Y2 Chaos As worrisome as any computer glitch; aggressive subtext to survivalist rhetoric; Daniel Schoer. The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass.: Jan 15, 1999. pg. 11
• It was no coincidence that the most notorious far-right group of the second half of the twentieth century-the John Birch Society-was named for an American soldier-turned-missionary who was (so the mythologizing goes) betrayed by his own government and murdered by the red Chinese.
  • Taiwan on the brink Joshua Micah Marshall. The American Prospect. Princeton: Jan 3, 2000. Vol. 11, Iss. 4; pg. 14, 3 pgs
• Indeed, Reagan was able to distance himself from the far-right John Birch Society while taking full advantage of the openings presented by Brown's failed fairhousing proposal, the Watts riots, and campus unrest at Berkeley.
  • The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics Robert F Nardini. Library Journal. New York: Aug 2000. Vol. 125, Iss. 13; pg. 129, 1 pgs
• Like Buchanan, Foster is antigay, anti-choice, anti-affirmative action, anti-immigrant, and just a little paranoid-before joining his campaign, she was a proud member of the John Birch Society, a group of far-right conspiracy theorists who called Bill Clinton a Communist.
  • Women to watch: And watch out for Ezola Foster Michelle Knoetgen. Ms. Arlington: Dec 2000/Jan 2001. Vol. 11, Iss. 1; pg. 13, 1 pgs
• [Ezra] Benson became widely known in the 1960s and 1970s for his opposition to the civil rights and the women's movements and for his association with the far-right John Birch Society.
  • Mormon Head Ezra Benson Dies at Age 94; Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: May 31, 1994. pg. 1
• For instance: the Newt Gingrich thing. Just because someone is far right of center, I learned, doesn't mean he's conservative enough for the John Birch Society. Newt, the society fears, is part of a conspiracy to launch a single, freedom-sapping worldwide government; they cite his support for GATT and NAFTA by way of proof.
  • Spending time with Birchers is enlightening; MELISSA BALMAIN: The Orange County Register. Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Dec 19, 1994. pg. b.01
• Because groupings on the far Right tend to be secretive, obtaining estimates of membership figures is a problematic endeavor. "When you're at war, you don't give the enemy the number of your troops," a John Birch Society official said in an interview last October, and his organization is less surreptitious than most.
  • A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate Rees, Matthew. Commentary. New York: May 1996. Vol. 101, Iss. 5; pg. 64, 4 pgs
• During World War II and into the 1950s, the [Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities] tracked suspected Communists, ranging from Hollywood figures to union and college faculty members, and issued reports. Critics charged that the reports violated constitutionally protected rights of citizens, contained false information and were based on news reports and tracts from the far-right John Birch Society.
  • Old Files Hold a Suspicious Era's Lies and Smears; CARL INGRAM. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 25, 1998. pg. 1
• IN the heady days of the 1950's and the early 1960's, when American liberalism seemed securely enthroned, it was easy to dismiss the far right as the fading and obsolete remnant of a vanished past. Its most prominent organizations, after all, were usually clumsy and embarrassing (witness the John Birch Society).
  • THE RETURN OF THE RIGHT; [Review] New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Aug 15, 1982. pg. A.9
• But in separate interviews conducted yesterday, both [Joan] Kroc and [Ballard] Smith expressed concern over the fact that Padre pitchers Eric Show, Dave Dravecky and Mark Thurmond have discussed their memberships in the far-right John Birch Society with the media and other players.
  • Birch comments stir concern | Kroc, Smith worry about club's image; Nick Canepa. The Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Jul 13, 1984. pg. E.1
• And the recent news that another relic of the anti-communist movement of the 1950s - the John Birch Society - will soon move its headquarters to Appleton has caused some here to fear, and others to hope, that the area will once again become known as a cradle of the far right.
  • FIRST MCCARTHY, NOW BIRCH AGITATE WIS. TOWN Andrew Cassel. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Mar 19, 1989. pg. A.2
• [John] McManus is public relations director of the far-right John Birch Society.
  • Birch spokesman aims for listeners; Ray Huard. San Diego Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Apr 22, 1991. pg. B.1
• But [Dan] Quayle's conservatism almost always appears tinged with political calculus. Within the family, friends said, he is subjected to semi-serious rebukes for "liberal tendencies" from his father, James Quayle, a former member of the far-right John Birch Society.
  • What if Dan Quayle Were to Become President? Series: THE PRESIDENT'S UNDERSTUDY Series Number: 7/7 David S. Broder, Bob Woodward. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Jan 12, 1992. pg. a.01
• Kennedy was "always selling something. He was a conservative trying to gain entree to the movement" by buying Conservative Digest in 1985, Keene said. "Stanley became his editor - he goes back forever," to the far-right John Birch Society in the 1960s.
  • SELLING PATRIOTISM FOR A PROFIT; SECRET AGENTS OF KUWAIT, THEY FANNED U.S. SUPPORT FOR WAR Tim Weiner. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Jul 9, 1992. pg. A.1
• Such interpretations echo the ideological leaders of the far-right, such as the John Birch Society and its journal, The New American.
  • Constituting international political economy by Kurt Burch, Robert Allen Denemark 1997 Lynne Rienner Publishers ISBN 9781555876609
• [Jerry Latham, cofounder of Radio for Peace International] clarified who makes most effective use of short wave radio: "We're not talking about the Rush Limbaughs or Gordon Liddys. We're talking about the whole spectrum of the extreme far right--elements of the militia movement, neo-Nazis, John Birch Society, Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, Christian Identity, various White Aryan Nation people, survivalists, and conspiracy theorists."
  • Hilliard, Robert L. (1999). Waves of rancor. M.E. Sharpe. p. 96. ISBN 0765601311, 9780765601315. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• While many individual militia members cheered [Linda Thompson] with "Let's hang Reno and the Clintons," this particularly volatile rhetoric was too much even for such far-right groups as the John Birch Society, the Liberty Lobby, and a number of militia leaders.
  • Hilliard, Robert L. (1999). Waves of rancor. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 195–196. ISBN 0765601311, 9780765601315. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• The ADL's strategy of using alarm over the John Birch Society to discredit other far right organizations with avowedly anti-Semitic agendas was undeniably effective, but it was hardly logical, since Welch...
  • Powers, Richard Gid (1998). Not without honor. Yale University Press. p. 294. ISBN 0300074700, 9780300074703. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• For example, Robert Welch, the leader of the far-right John Birch Society, boasts of his group's Jewish and Roman Catholic members.
  • Pettigrew, Thomas F. (1971). Racially separate or together?. McGraw-Hill. p. 166.
• One of Strom's high school teachers, who happened to be an extreme right-winger, discovered Strom's political leanings and recruited him into the John Birch Society, Kaiser said. It was in that far-right organization that Strom reportedly was first introduced to the National Alliance by Birchers who also belonged to the Alliance.
  • "The Wannabe: Former National Alliance 'intellectual' Kevin Strom wants to be a boss" By T.K. Kim, SPLC, Intelligence Report, Fall 2005, Issue Number: 119 [12]
• Stoked by paranoid far-right groups like the John Birch Society, which once accused President Eisenhower of being a secret Communist, these theories revive militia fears about the United States losing its sovereignty to various foreign powers.
  • "Paranoid Style Redux: Nativist Conspiracy Theories Explored" by Heidi Beirich, SPLC Intelligence Report, Summer 2007, Issue Number: 126 [13]
• As of April, there were dues-paying party members in 49 states — including some Reform Party refugees, most notably Ezola Foster, the African-American fundamentalist and former head of the California chapter of the far-right John Birch Society who was Buchanan's surprising choice for vice president in 2000.
  • "'Our Terrible Swift Sword': Can the Constitution Party take politics to the extreme in 2004?" by Bob Moser, SPLC Intelligence Report, Fall 2003, Issue Number: 111 [14]

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[15] 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[16] or the Southern Poverty Law Center consider the JBS to be "far right". Incidentally the "scholarly journal" articles that you mention are not about the JBS or the "far right". One of the other sources you provide calls Barry Goldwater "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 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.[17]   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.[18] 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 [19] etc.? "Racist" per [20] ? No end of pejorative opinions are out there -- the question is do they belong in an encyclopedia article? Arianna says "lunatics" [21] 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 [22](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)

My idea, for what it's worth

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

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

Changes to the article

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

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

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

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

• The references for "far right" ... are properly sourced. These articles should reflect what appears in reliable sources and we cannot second-guess them. [23]

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

Did someone mention the SPLC?

• But this same Strom also describes a more sinister influence on his political development. In a time of widespread fears of communist takeover, Strom's high school history teacher fueled his budding hatred of communism and introduced a young Strom to the far-right John Birch Society, where he allegedly encountered members of William Pierce's neo-Nazi National Alliance (NA). [24]
• One of Strom's high school teachers, who happened to be an extreme right-winger, discovered Strom's political leanings and recruited him into the John Birch Society, Kaiser said. It was in that far-right organization that Strom reportedly was first introduced to the National Alliance by Birchers who also belonged to the Alliance.[25]
• As of April, there were dues-paying party members in 49 states — including some Reform Party refugees, most notably Ezola Foster, the African-American fundamentalist and former head of the California chapter of the far-right John Birch Society who was Buchanan's surprising choice for vice president in 2000.[26]
• Stoked by paranoid far-right groups like the John Birch Society, which once accused President Eisenhower of being a secret Communist, these theories revive militia fears about the United States losing its sovereignty to various foreign powers.[27]

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

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

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

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

Lead sentence

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

The old source for this is now a dead link, and isn't even in the archives.[28][29] the new link, http://www.jbs.org/core-principles, doesn't contain any of the assertions made in this sentence. Also, an edit back in September 2009 was probably faulty in removing the phrase "anti-communist" from the lead.[30] So we need some basic source and then we should probably rewrite the topic sentence from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Martin Seymour Lipset established definitions for the American "radical right". (See: "The Sources of the "Radical Right" (1955).[31]) Sara Diamond discussed the terminology in Roads to Dominion (1995), p.5.[32] She in fact found trouble with the terminology which Lipset had also noted, but noted that they had continued in use. While darolew is correct that both the NYT and academic journals are unsympathetic to the JBS, newspapers are more likely to use exaggerated terms. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How far is "far"

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

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

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

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

Sources? Editors here seems to be trying to define "far". That isn't necessary. The JBS is commonly called "far"; it's sufficient to report that fact.   Will Beback  talk  10:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source: The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right.[33]. We should use the terminology in reliable sources, which conforms with Student7 and the IP's understanding. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure that being mentioned in a book with a given title actually is RS for claiming the adjective applies to each and every organization mentioned in the book automatically. Indeed, the Routledge title would then be usable to claim every organization mentioned in it is "fascism"? Nope. Routledge's "chronology" includes a great deal of historical information not implying that the people named are "far right" or "fascist" - inclusion in the chronology is insufficient for any claims really at all. (It starts pretty much with unification of Germany and Italy <g> and even covers the Kuomintang in China under Sun Yat-Sen, who accepted Soviet aid) (This is not a disagreement - just an indent to refer to the Routledge example <g>). Collect (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not provide the "title" of the book as an RS, but because it explains the far right. Certainly the book discusses people and groups who are not "far right" including the John Birch Society. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on the their information linking Al Qaeda to Afgahnistan and the Taliban, or their disinterest in George W Bush's Iraq war. Nothing about their support for the somewhat loony Ron Paul. Instead, you give a terse statement about the abolishing the Fed as if it were immenient. All this can be substantiated. "The Society has been active in supporting the auditing[32] of and aims to eventually dismantle the Federal Reserve System" should word "an auditing" rather than "the auditing". "The JBS is a cosponsor of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference.[33][34]" Correction they were a cosponser; it is too late state that they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.191.192 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces suggests we use The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right as a source for a definition of "far right". Which page contains their definition?   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Page 5 states, "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." The Four Deuces (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. We should add that to the article on Far right.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) This talk page is to discuss this article, not the far right. Do you think that the JBS fits this standard description of the far right and do you have sources that support that view? I have never read about them being involved in acts of terrorism or calling for the violent overthrow of the US government, although many far right extremists have passed through the group. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Far right means extremist. You state they don't advocate overthrow of the US federal government, yet you contend they are hostile toward liberal democracy. It would seem your definition of far right and fascism are not according to historical reality, and seems rather foreign at best. --173.31.191.192 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See #"Far right" above for sources that say the JBS is "far right". We don't need to decide on our own if the JBS meets a particular definition. In fact, doing so would be original research.   Will Beback  talk  01:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OTOH deciding that we think the article should call them "far right" and doing a Google search to find two totally irrelevant journal articles is a clear violation of neutrality. You want the article to say they are "far right" but are unable to find a relevant article that describes them that way, let alone an article that calls them "far right" and explains the term. For actual "far right" groups, like the Ku Klux Klan or American Nazis, it is fairly easy to find sources like the Routledge companion. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You know that there are more than two sources, so that argument seems disingenuous. There are dozens of reliable sources that call the group "far right". There are no sources that say it isn't. The founding of the JBS is included in the Chronology section of the Routledge book, so the editors there seem to consider it as part of their topic.   Will Beback  talk  02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you have two off topic academic journal articles and various newspaper articles that call it "far right". Routledge do not call the JBS "far right", and it is synthesis to assume they do. They mention for example the British Nationality Act 1981. Far right groups in the book are identified. Clearly the point of view that the JBS is "far right" is unsupported by reliable sources. You cannot provide a source that explains why they should be considered "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we already taken this to WP:RSN? Routledge isn't the source on the topic. Unless there's anything else I'll restore it tomorrow. If you still disagree, I suggest we take it to another noticeboard. Since you're now saying that there is a WP:SYNTH violation, shall we ask for views at the WP:NORN?   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to call them "far right" when the term is not used in serious studies of the JBS or the far right? My concern is that articles do not use exaggerated terminology. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

When we began the discussion my objection was to saying the JBS had been described as "far right", which was a source issue. However it is now called "far right", so it is a neutrality issue. It would be synthesis to say that they are far right because they are mentioned in a book about the far right but so far this has not been done. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We say that they are far right because that's what dozens of reliable sources say. Dozens more sources use similar terms, like ultra-conservative, radical right, ultra-right, and extremist. I still don't understand why you oppose this so vehemently.   Will Beback  talk  03:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ultra-conservative, radical right, ultra-right, and extremist may be similar terms but they have different meanings. By calling them "far right" we are grouping them with the American Friends of the British National Party, the Ku Klux Klan and American Nazis, when they are more accurately grouped with the militia movement and the Minutemen. See the category "Far-right politics" for it list of far right groups.[34] The distinction is that they do not openly support racism, anti-semitism or violence and do not openly oppose the US constitution, even if there is an overlap in membership. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So you insinuate they support something, which they personally say doesn't work: anti-semitism, violence, and racism.--173.31.191.192 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.191.192 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Such interpretations echo the ideological leaders of the far-right, such as the John Birch Society and its journal, The New American."
  • Constituting international political economy by Kurt Burch, Robert Allen Denemark 1997 Lynne Rienner Publishers ISBN 9781555876609

Yet another source.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use Google searches to support anything. The article you found groups the JBS, Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson as far right. If you search ""far right" reagan" you can find sources that he was "far right" too.[35] However the term is normally reserved for quasi-fascist groups. Incidentally if you want to call them "far right" in the article you should at least explain why your sources call them that. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's a book written by two professors of political science.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean psuedo-fascists. Quasi-fascism would describe a marxist who admires fascism.--173.31.191.192 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

173.31, you start many of your comments with "you", but it's not clear who you're addressing. Also, registering a username makes it easier to communicate and offers more privacy.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the author want to evade the issue? Either there is such a thing as quasi-fascism or it is a made up word which a person can use anyway he wants too.--173.31.191.192 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes IP "quasi-fascist" is a vague term. My meaning was neo-fascsim, neo-naziism, para-fascism, racial hate groups and similar groups. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But there is no such thing as neo-fascism. The KKK and Aryan brotherhood proudly claim to be fascist. If you want to compare the John Birch Society to fascism; you need to show what they have in common with the fascist groups. The best you can do is say their planks are similar, and their stance on welfare is perhaps the same. And you know that mentioning Wackenhut would be original research. Furthermore, what fascist system ever recommended getting rid of central banking? --173.31.191.192 (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

IP, read my comments. I said that the JBS is not considered "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) No, it is an article by Mark Rupert in a book edited by two political scientists. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean Mark Rupert, Professor of Political Science at the top-rated Maxwell School?   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning his credentials, merely correcting your statement. His use of the term far right to describe Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson and the JBS is not standard in the literature. However, I would suggest that the correct way to build articles is to read the available literature and then edit the article. You should not look for sources to support a point of view and provide references to articles you have never read and have no knowledge of the writers. Notice that when Chip Berlet cites the article in "When alienation turns right" he changes "far right" to right wing and states that he avoids the term "far right" precisely because it can be used in different ways. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• At the time [1959], the campaign to save Christmas was not widely treated as a matter of great national import. The John Birch Society was generally regarded as a crank, far-right outfit whose paranoid conspiracy theories (it believed fluoridated water was part of an evil communist plot to poison America's brains) put it outside the pale of reasonable discourse. Staffers on the ultra-right 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign tried to prevent Birchers from volunteering because they carried the taint of extremism.
  • "How the secular humanist grinch didn't steal Christmas" By Michelle Goldberg 11/12/2005 Salon.com

What were you saying about "standard in the literature"? What's "standard" is calling the JBS "far right".   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Welch opposed fluoridation - but I can not find anywhere where his words call it an "evil communist plot" - that part comes from a book on "talking points" for supporters of fluoridation. [36] Making opponents seem deranged is a common tactic in such "talking points." Further, the Salon article could be used to descrtibe the Republican party as "ultra-right" in 1964 <g>. Collect (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the Salon.com alone since we have better sources, but it's proof that The Four Deuces is incorrect when he asserts that the JBS is not commonly called "far right".   Will Beback  talk  16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: fluoridation: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] There seem to be numerous contemporary and modern sources for that, though I haven't looked for Welch's own pronouncements.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) And the first one? Attributes fluoridation to a leader of ANTI-communist liberals, and does not say anything about the JBS <g>. Number 2? Shows no evidence that the JBS made any claim - just that it was "ridiculed" - seems a teeny bit weak to cite that one <g>. (It states The report concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency’s current limit for fluoride in drinking water—four milligrams per liter (mg/L)—should be lowered because of health risks to both children and adults.) Number 3 is Buckley's editorial opinion -- problem is that I have not been able to find Welch saying it, nor that it was or is a position of the JBS. Find the statement from the JBS -- else it falls into the same category as the Protocols as to veracity. Would you accept a RS that the Mormons are a "cult" similar to ones with "worshipping of Satan"? [45]. I would trust not. Unless or until one can show that the JBS held or holds an official position, it is wrong to attribute it from the words of those who specifically oppose it. IMHO of course. Collect (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's proposing to add this to the article. But it's not necessarily wrong.   Will Beback  talk  10:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sufficient unto the day. Ascribing positions to anyone based on claims of their detractors is iffy at best. Your argument would have allowed the Protocols in as a reference as it is "published" and "verifiable" ("Truth" is not relevant in WP, recall?). I prefer to be a bit more "conservative" in statements about people, many of whom are alive. Collect (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What argument is that? We're not discussing fluoridation, we're discussing sources for the JBS being a "far right" group.   Will Beback  talk  10:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the compromise?

Folks can't just keep deleting well-sourced material.[46] I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. What language does The Four Deuces propose to cover the "far right" issue?   Will Beback  talk  10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am basing this on what I have read. Seymour Martin Lipset created the concept of the "radical right" in the 1950s, which included American fascists, the John Birch Society and the New Right. Later writers have reserved the term "far right" for fascists - the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Federal Bureau of Investigation use this terminology as well as mainstream historians of political extremism. WP has categories for the "far right". (See: "Category:Far-right politics".[47]) I can provide links to sources that define the far right. The JBS are not "far right" because they are not overtly racist or anti-semitic, do not advocate the overthrow of the US government and are not opposed to the principles of the US constitution. They are in a different category from the Ku Klux Klan, the British National Party and the French National Front. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the article where Martin Seymour Lipset grouped the JBS as part of the radical right. He coined the term in "The sources of the radical right" (1955).[48] Sara Diamond in Roads to dominion (1995) criticised Lipset's terminology which she acknowledged was in widespread use and said she preferred the term "right-wing movements".[49] Chip Berlet said "it is generally best to avoid the term Far Right because it is sometimes used to describe the Ultra Right and sometimes used to describe all groups to the right of the electoral system".[50] He calls them "Hard Right"[51] Yorkshirian is correct that applying the term "right wing" to Anglo-Saxon groups that have no connection to the European Right has its origins in Marxism, although I do not see why that matters. Outside the United States and Alberta, the term right-wing usually connotes extremism anyway. Now that I have provided a reliable source that says the JBS is usually classified as "radical right", could Will Beback please find a source that says it is usually classified as "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

I have been arguing this all along. "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (Routledge, p. 5)[52] They are different concepts. Notice that the Hard left and far left are also different concepts, although Bill O'Reilly overuses the latter term. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I pointed out the article "Three decades of the radical right: Coughlinites, McCarthyites and Birchers".[53] Would you like me point out which pages of the article describe the John Birch Society? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

• How's this as a compromise proposal: we move "far right" back to the sentence with the other characterizations, where it was back ion Feb 10.[54] We replace it in the lead sentence with "radical right-wing", using Lipset as the source. Would that ve acceptable to everyone?   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlock?

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

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

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

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

That was recently deleted as being irrelevant to this article.[55] What does it have to do with the JBS?   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

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

SOURCE #1 = J. EDGAR HOOVER / FBI

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

JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

Funding

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

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

HQ address

According to the website, the headquarters is at:[56]

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,[57], 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. [58] 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. [59] more clearly shows the relationship. [60] is of interest <g>. We are, frankly, safer using the USPS address for this one. Collect (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note [61] 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 [62] 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)

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)

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)