Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

POV Tags

No explanation has been given for the POV tags and therefore I will remove them. Viriditas has said that not mentioning the anti-flouridation campaign means the article is not neutral although it is mentioned. The correct approach of course is for Viriditas to add this information using reliable sources, but he appears to be unwilling to do this. However, that omission on its own does not affect the neutrality of the article. The article says they believe in the NWO conspiracy etc. TFD (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned in a popular culture section in relation to a fictional film, giving the issue the false impression that it never happened. This is a very clever propaganda strategy. If you can establish a relationship between a fictional work and a real, historical incident, then in the mind of the reader, the notability of the fictional work takes precedence. Why is there no historical mention of their work against flouridation? Because you removed the tag, I've added the disputed tag in its place. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the omission is a violation of NPOV or not is a semantic issue. The simple fact, as far as writing an encyclopedia articles goes, is that the article is incomplete without at least a sentence or two on the subject. Rather than fighting over tags, let's fix the problem.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article's lead reads like a hate message. The sources are critical and do not inform, so I have placed a neutrality tag. Please help me improve the sourcing...--Novus Orator 04:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the matter with the sources? They include a scholarly book and the New York Times, both of which are generally considered high quality sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it sounds like a fair, well-sourced description. Terra Novus, which particular words do you think hateful? Your last set of edits were intensely POV. I think you need to explain on the talkpage why you think re-labelling critics of the JBS as New Left is acceptable, or inserting the phrase big government into the lead is not very much POV, or labelling Voice of America as a progressive radio station is not the action of a POV warrior.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Novus Orator, could you please provide a source that provides an example of how the article should be presented. As far as I can see this is how they are represented in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My bad! I double checked the sources, and it does sound like most of the info available on JBS does use that wording (whether I agree with it or not is not relevant) I'm sorry about the misunderstanding, it just seemed like it was a little extreme...--Novus Orator 04:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations for notable members/ceos, ect

Can/should there be citations for these individuals in this section? I removed Koch as being a CEO since I didn't see that sourced in his bio, only that he was "an early member". Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the "CEO" referred to Koch's outside job title, not his role in the JBS. I don't think it's helpful to split up the list in this manner, and I suggest we have an alphabetical list instead. Lists like these are typically unsourced, but, like all content on Wikipedia, it should be sourced. There are multiple sources available for Koch's membership.[1][2]   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, oh, ok, thats how much I know. Yeah, I saw in is bio that he was a member, but I thought the list was for former presidents, ceos, ect of the society. Yeah, an alpha list would be fine. Citations would also be a nice touch :). Ayways, thank you. --Threeafterthree (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's the least bit worry about the names on the list, cite 'em all. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm compiling a list of notable members, using Wikipedia bios that mention membership.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For living people, it is clear that WP:BLP requires cites for any such claims in this article. We can not rely on "it is in the WP article" for sure. Collect (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's any real doubt then yes, we should have sources. However we should at least check the bios first. You deleted Meir Kahane even though that bio devotes an entire section to his infiltration of the JBS. (On top of that, I confirmed it in additional sources).   Will Beback  talk  18:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP claims about Tea Party and JBS living people

Any source averring "paranoid" about living people needs to meet WP:BLP criteria as being especially well-sourced. Collect (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What're you talking about? I see "paranoid" in connection to Buckley and Eisenhower, and in the name of a Dylan song.   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In regard to "Tea Party" as a matter of fact, and to the current members of the JBS. Collect (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim was made about a group, not a living person. I notice that you do not apply the same standards for the anti-Communism series of articles as you do for the John Birch Society. TFD (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh? What BLP standards do I elide per your claim with regard to "anti-Communism series of articles"? Heck - what is the "anti-Communism series of articles"? Collect (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! And Robert Welch is dead, besides. But I'll be happy to take out the word "paranoid", if that's your objection. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party members are (generally) alive, as are current JBS members. Collect (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to groups. This has been discussed at WT:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet in CC articles, it was definitely applied to groups. [3]. Seems odd. Collect (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And also "Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP situation than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw any distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." Collect (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The "small groups" language was intended to cover things like two-person partnerships, not organizations that have had "60,000 to 100,000 members".   Will Beback  talk  20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Current membership is likely far lower than that claimed in the 60s. And groups of circa 100 are apparently covered, not just "two person partnerships." But perhaps you have looked at the Koch brothers pages and seen what is allowed as being valid claims? Collect (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is just concerned with the JBS, not with the Climate Change issues. Of course, any assertions in this article that concern identifiable individuals would be covered by BLP. But an assertion that addresses the entire JBS would not.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of literature written about "paranoid politics" in the 1950s. See for example The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Are you going to put it up for AfD because it offends right-wing extremists? TFD (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And clearly assigning the word "paranoid" to any living person or group of living persons requires exceedingly good sourcing. I do not engage in AfD gamesmanship, by the way. Collect (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You'd like us to assemble sources showing that JBS associated with the word "paranoid"? No problem. But once we've found ten or thirty of them then we'll have to give that assertion its appropriate weight, which will likely be considerable.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A sample of what we might find: [4]   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(out) essentially all of which refers to the 60s. Half a century ago. Surely we can find something about the current organization, for good or ill? Collect (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should cover the entire history of a topic, not just the recent past. WP:RECENTISM It happens that some organizations are most prominent at one point in their history and it's natural that most of the attention will be on that period. But if there's evidence that the organization has changed since the 1960s then we should certainly include that too. Do you know of any sources to support that view?   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The main historical significance of the JBS is its early days. It actually has had little influence on modern conservatism although they are now invited to conservative conventions. However the right-wing extremist views of Cleon Skousen which were adopted by the JBS have been recycled by Glenn Beck and are now the dominant views of the Tea Party. TFD (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect's example of BLP being applied to groups is not quite correct. In that circumstance, it was an accusation of criminality against a small group of individuals who were working at the same place - which would be a violation of BLP. In this case, it is not a factual accusation, but an analytical opinion, and not about the mental health of individuals, but about the style of a group. Conversely, if we use the word "Paranoid", we have to be clear that we're using it in the sense of The Paranoid Style in American Politics, not as a personal psychological attribution. I agree with Will Beback and TFD that JBS' characterisation as part of the politics of paranoia is entirely notable. JBS not only gets name-checked in the Hofstadter article (a seminal piece), but several modern sources make various assertions about the extent to which Hofstadter was inspired by/directed at JBS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Confounding Fathers

It'd really help if editors could explain what they're talking about, or at least include a link. I now see that the thread above, which has wandered about, apparently concerns this text that was added to the "popular culture" section:

• A 2010 commentary by Sean Wilentz in The New Yorker traces the origins of the Tea Party movement to the "paranoid politics" of the John Birch Society in the 1950s.
  • Wilentz, Sean (October 18, 2010). Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party’s Cold War Roots. New Yorker archive. Retrieved 2010-10-12.

First, that's not really a pop-culture item. I think that if we wanted to include it then it'd more appropriate under a heading like "legacy". However I think that it'd be better placed in the Tea Party movement article, perhaps at the beginning of the "history" section. The source itself is not an issue, as The New Yorker has an excellent reputation for fact checking. The article makes a number of other assertions about the JBS which we might include in relevant sections.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Fact tag

The society opposed aspects of the civil rights movement in the 1960s because of its concerns that the movement had communists in important positions.

Please provide a reliable source for this claim. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Try [5] for one of many sources. Collect (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredibly disturbing read. I would reply, but I have to go take a bath first. Disgusting. Viriditas (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The reference above to "that the movement had communists in important positions" is a huge euphemism concerning the actual JBS position --- which was and is as follows:

In the June 1965 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch declared: "Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as 'civil rights' is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes."

In August 1965, the JBS ran a full-page ad in many U.S. newspapers entitled “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?” One of the answers provided by the JBS was:

“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years.”

In the November 1966 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch declared: “We have said many times, and we repeat now, that if you can fully expose the civil rights fraud, you will break the back of the Communist conspiracy. But the word ‘fully’ is important in that sentence. It calls for bringing a preponderant majority of our fellow citizens really to grasp the fact that the ‘civil rights’ program has been designed by Communists, is controlled by Communists, and will be used by the Communists as a vital part of their total strategy for taking over our country.”

Lastly, the following comment appears on page 1 of the May 2008 issue of the JBS Bulletin in an article entitled "The New World Order Isn't New".

"Just as the John Birch Society showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new. The former was used to transfer power to Washington DC in the name of civil rights and the latter provided a pretext for transferring power to Washington. You cannot get a really good conflict started unless you control both sides of the argument."Bold text Ernie1241 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)ernie1241

Water fluoridation controversy

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[1] During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.[12] Sociologist Brian Martin states that sociologists have typically viewed opposition to water fluoridation as irrational, although critics of this position have argued that this rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.[1]

As it turns out, the John Birch Society was one of the leading proponents of the fluoridation conspiracy.[6] Regardless of the merits of fluoridation this article should mention it. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your "as it turns out" is a classic example of SYN and OR. You need a specific source for the single claim that JBS opposed fluoridation, and then can not make any other claim not found in the precise single reference you provide. See [WP:SYN]]. BTW, WP articles can not be used as sources in WP articles. Also note the source you giave also links the Christian Science church to being against fluoridation -- care to put that in the article as well? Collect (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are greatly misinformed as to the meaning of SYN and OR. You may want to ask for guidance on this matter. I provided a single, specific source that JBS opposed fluoridation, and a quick search of the literature shows this claim to be true. In the future, please avoid Tu quoque arguments. We are discussing the JBS, and they are notable for claiming that fluoridation was a communist conspiracy. Is there a good reason this is not in the current article when the preponderance of reliable sources discuss it? Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you can insert a source for JBS opposing fluoridation, but you can not then assert that it was "fringe" nor can you cite a WP article within a WP article. I would, of course, add the part from the source about Christian Scientists etc. as well, as that is directly supported by the one source you gave. Making any assertions beyond what a single source gives (combining two or more) is WPSYN by definition. Is this quite clear? Collect (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused. The example I gave came from the water fluoridation controversy article. The source I provided has nothing to do with that example. I have not made any proposed edit, other than to say that this article should mention it. When the example says, "some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health" they are referring to JBS. Is this making sense to you? So, the question must be asked, why doesn't this article mention the issue of JBS and water fluoridation? Please answer that question and work towards resolution with an answer that provides a remedy. No more obstruction. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That you assert "some opponents" equals "JBS" is a classic example of WP:SYN. Collect (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I'm afraid you are really confused again. Do you understand that "opponents" in the reliable source literature refers to JBS? Do you acknowledge, Collect, that it is a historical fact supported by the preponderance of reliable sources that the John Birch Society opposed water fluoridation, suggesting that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health? Do you agree with this statement of historical fact, yes or no? Viriditas (talk)

Read WP:RS The rule is that claims must be supported directly by the source - not that your own "research" shows that the word "opponents" means "JBS." By the way, NPA applies to edit summaries, I commend you to read WP:NPA as well. BTW, we do not discuss "facts" on article talk pages - we discuss what sources say, and not inject our own opinions about our own "research." Collect (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am only discussing what sources say, Collect. Please stop with the opposition, obstruction, and obfuscation. I will ask you again, Collect, do the sources say that the John Birch Society opposed water fluoridation, suggesting that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health? Yes or no? Have you bothered to do any research on this subject, Collect? Viriditas (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I declaine to do any WP:OR as that is what seems to be your primary problem. Collect (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect? This may come as a huge shock to you, but on Wikipedia, we do research on subjects. After we do the research, we sift and weigh our information, using the best sources on the topic. Then, we take those sources, and the material from them, and begin to write articles based on what the sources say. There is nothing "original" about this. Is any of this making sense? I hope so. Now, if you had bothered to do the necessary research on this topic, you would discover that the John Birch Society opposed water fluoridation, suggesting that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health. There are a great deal of reliable sources on this subject, and this fact is part of the historical record of the United States and the radical right. Fagin, Dan (Jan., 2008). "Second Thoughts abut Fluoride". Scientific American. The advocates of fluoride eventually carried the day, in part by ridiculing opponents such as the right-wing John Birch Society, which called fluoridation a communist plot to poison America. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Viriditas (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A passing reference to the JBS in a popular magazine is not a good source. The article should be based on books and articles actually written about the JBS and the radical right. TFD (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a passing reference, and that was only one of dozens of examples. Are you actually claiming that this material is disputed in some way? It's a historical fact taught in school and supported by every book and journal on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) From WP:OR: This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source i.e. No Original Research by editors. Yes - I suggest this means editors on WP do not do any "original research." +From WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Are both of these sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are apparently confused. It is an undisputed historical fact that the John Birch Society opposed water fluoridation, suggesting that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health. This fact is supported by the preponderance of reliable sources on the subject. There is nothing that comes close to original research about this. You need to actually do the research. Have you?

The addition of fluoride to city water systems, beginning in 1945 in Michigan and Illinois, sparked a major controversy. In 1942, a U.S. Public Health Service dentist, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, had determined that adding one part fluoride per million of drinking water reduced dental caries. By 1950, more than 50 cities had fluoridated their water supply. Then came the protests, most famously those of the John Birch Society, which believed the program to be a Communist plot to poison Americans. (Curtis, Cathy. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. (2003). "Dentistry". Dictionary of American History. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp.4.)

This information is everywhere. The protests by the JBS on this issue were considered notable and famous. The question must be asked: Why doesn't this topic appear in this article? Collect, could you please answer this question? Viriditas (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Try this: The protests started in the early 1950's. Before the JBS existed. Seems this is evident to the most casual observer? Collect (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the source says, Collect, and I find your misreading of it to be deceptive. Are you denying that this source is accurate, and that this was a real, notable, historical event that should be added to this article? Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The source says the JBS existed before it existed? I doubt that it says that. Your "quote" is only found on "encyclopedia.com." Indeed, that is the only source found by Google, meaning the book you cite has not been indexed by Google at the very least, making it quite difficult to verify at all. As noted before, moreover, encyclopedias are specifically listed as "tertiary sources." From WP:NORS : Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So we have a tertiary source, or an impossible to verify secondary source, making claims. I rather suspect the author (?) simply did not know when JBS was founded in order to assign its opposition to "shortly after 1950" at best. Collect (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, that source does not say what you say it says, and I think you know this, and the source is both reliable and accurate. It is referring to protests by the JBS that occured after it was formed, not before. To go to such extreme, convoluted distortions of a reliable source, tells me that there is something wrong with your ability to read and comprehend, Collect. I want to apologize if you have special needs, perhaps you could request the help of another editor who can explain this to you. Collect, this information is factual, and based on a great number of reliable sources. Are you going to continue to deny that it happened? Because if you are, I'm going to ask you to step away from this article. We need to have editors who can read and understand basic information and do the necessary research to corroborate and verify content. After doing the research, one will discover that the JBS began making these claims in December 1959 and continued into the 1960s . This is all documented and is a matter of public record. I hope Collect is mature and sensible enough to recognize that he has made a serious error in judgement and now needs to concede this point. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Most of this discussion doesn't seem very helpful. In any case, the JBS is well known for its anti-fluoridation campaign and we should include at least a short description of it. There are numerous sources available. Let's find the best and summarize them.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but just so the point Collect made doesn't get lost in the noise, it is true that the anti-fluoridation campaign began in the early 1950s, before the JBS was formed, and many groups, including the KKK, argued against it. Why the JBS became famously associated with this movement probably has more to do with the publishing of their newsletters, their visibility at the time, and their willingness to talk to reporters. I suppose it also fit very well into their anti-communist platform and allowed them to reach more people, after all, it's easiest to generate fear with something you can't see or control, but that you require for survival. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When the subject of flouridation comes up, the JBS would be the most obviously vocal opponent, to those of us from that era. And as you say, their connection with it may be exaggerated due to their higher visibility. But their higher visibility is their own "fault", not ours. They also labeled sex education in schools "a filthy communist plot". They became a laughingstock, ridiculed for seemingly labeling everything they didn't agree with, "a communist plot". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback's comment that we should find the best sources is sensible. My advice to Viriditas is to read the mainstream literature about the John Birch Society, and ensure that it is correctly reflected in the article. Of course the anti-flouridation campaign was one of the major activities of the JBS and the article even mentions how their view was satirized in Dr. Strangelove. But we should not Google mine for sources for what we think the article should include and come up with sources like an abstract of an article about dentistry. TFD (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It can be difficult to find "reliable" sources for what are essentially pop-culture items. If the JBS still exists, maybe their own words could be cited. They certainly would know if they opposed flouridation or not. I would also point out that the JBS was never mentioned by name in Strangelove, but everyone in the audience knew where that notion came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is somebody disputing that the Birch Society opposed water fluoridation? If so, please consult page 13 of the March 1960 issue of the JBS Bulletin which contains a section captioned "How To Defeat Fluoridation In Your City". JBS members are instructed to "expose the horrors of fluoridation" by sending anti-fluoridation flyers, tracts, and pamphlets to "ALL of your top city officials, school board, PTA, ministers, and leaders in the city." However, then members are cautioned that: "If you live in a large enough city, or if the Communists have been able to beguile a sufficiently large enough, powerful enough, and determined enough clique into supporting fluoridation, the above formula, alone, may not stop them." In addition, the JBS magazine, American Opinion, published an anti-fluoridation article that year which resulted in dentists sending letters to J. Edgar Hoover to ask if he had any information confirming that water fluoridation was part of some sort of "Communist plot". Ernie1241 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)ernie1241

References

Currently adding sources. In progress... Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• The addition of fluoride to city water systems, beginning in 1945 in Michigan and Illinois, sparked a major controversy. In 1942, a U.S. Public Health Service dentist, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, had determined that adding one part fluoride per million of drinking water reduced dental caries. By 1950, more than 50 cities had fluoridated their water supply. Then came the protests, most famously those of the John Birch Society, which believed the program to be a Communist plot to poison Americans.
  • Curtis, Cathy. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. (2003). "Dentistry". Dictionary of American History. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp.4.

• In the key Wellesley campaign, the chief opponent was the Rev. Andrew G. Rosenberger. 42, a retired Unitarian clergyman who grew rich selling "nature foods," and is currently awaiting trial on a federal charge of misbranding products. His far-right-hand man was Laurence E. Bunker, a forn. — aide of General Douglas MacArthur. and a member of the council of the semisecret, archconservative John Birch Society (TIME, March 10). Additional support came from Boston's antimedicine Christian Science Monitor. "Fluoride is a poison," said Rosenberger in speeches. Bunker noted darkly that the Daily Worker had supported fluoridation, and insisted: "This is not a question on which any group has a right to vote. No group has a right to force taxpayers to take medicine not recommended by their own doctor." Anti-fluoridation groups in other states helpfully flooded Massachusetts with leaflets implying that fluoridation causes cancer and brittle bones and hinting that its proponents are acting on orders from Moscow to soften American brains. Throughout the campaign Rosenberger kept in close telephone contact with Seattle Radiologist Frederick B. Exner, anti-fluoridation strategist, lecturer and pamphleteer.
  • Time magazine (1961-03-24) Medicine: Fluoridation Fails Again

• The question that has agitated hundreds of U.S. communities is whether fluorides,-even in a dilution of one part per million, are safe. The answer, from scientifically controlled studies in many countries, is an unequivocal yes on the basis of the evidence. But strident opposition has come from Christian Scientists, the Ku Klux Klan, the John Birch Society and a handful of physiologists and dentists. They assert that fluorides (among other effects) increase the incidence of mongolism, cancer, allergies, and sterility, and even make the teeth fall out.
  • Time magazine (1970-03-02) Medicine: Fluorides Revisited

• Members of the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, for example, have traditionally been enthusiastic supporters of the anti-fluoridation movement.
  • FLUORIDE / Dentists champion its power over tooth decay. Critics claim its not safe. Politicians are caught in the middle; [SUNDAY Edition] ELLEN RUPPEL SHELL. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 28, 1986. pg. 9
• As early as the 1950s, a faction of the populace, generally identified with archconservative movements such as the John Birch Society, believed that fluoridation was the moral - and probably the physical - equivalent of well poisoning. Some even felt that fluoridation was a plot by the communists to kill off Americans.
  • FLUORIDATION: OLD ISSUE, NEW TALK David Iams. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Sep 13, 1984. pg. H.2
• In the 1960s, the anti-fluoridation movement was composed of ultra- right political groups such as the John Birch Society in the United States.
  • Montreal remains divided on use of fluoride The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 29, 1987. pg. A.8
• Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once described a Bircher's attitude as "one of longing for a dream world of no communism, no overseas entanglements, no United Nations, no federal government, no Negroes or foreigners - a world in which Chief Justice Warren would be impeached, Cuba invaded, the graduated income tax repealed, fluoridation of drinking water stopped and the import of Polish hams forbidden."
  • Birch Society is anti-communist Series: TIMES ACTION; [CITY Edition] PAT FENNER. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Oct 21, 1988. pg. 2.2
• [Evan] Mecham's backers packed local Republican meetings in a half-dozen counties, winning scores of seats at the state convention. There they pushed through various resolutions, including one long championed by the anti-communist John Birch Society that condemns fluoridation of drinking water.
  • Republicans Rue Mecham's Return; Arizonan's Maneuvers Embarrassing National Party Leaders; [FINAL Edition] T.R. Reid. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Mar 14, 1989. pg. a.12
• The practice was attacked by political conservatives, who saw it as an unwarranted government intrusion into people's lives. Part of the opposition then and now has come from the ultraconservative John Birch Society. Birchers are more afraid of a government gone totalitarian than the fluoride, society spokesman John McManus said by telephone from Wisconsin. "We don't know anything about the medical end of it. But if you can force medication, you can do anything else to the water supply," he said.
  • OLD FLUORIDE BATTLE GETS ANOTHER ROUND; [Final Edition] STEVE RINEHART Daily News reporter. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, Alaska: Feb 10, 1990. pg. A.1
• In the 1950s, when water fluoridation began in the United States, staunch conservatives, including members of the John Birch Society, led the opposition, claiming it was part of a communist plot to undermine the health of the nation's youth.
  • County divided on flouridation; [FINAL Edition] Bethany Kandel. USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: Apr 17, 1991. pg. 06.A
• In 1978, for example, pollsters surveyed participants at a Michigan rally calling for the legalization of laetrile, a supposed cancer cure made from apricot pits. In theory, people who had been diagnosed with cancer would have been the likeliest participants at such a rally. What the demonstrators most had in common, however, was a stance against fluoridation of the water supply, a view strongly embraced by the John Birch Society.
  • Quack, quack, quack Thirty-eight million Americans have used a phony health product within the last year. As long as people are desperate for cures, this $27-billion-a-year industry will thrive.; [City Edition] Madeline Drexler. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: Mar 29, 1992. pg. 52
• In Abilene, water utilities director Dwayne Hargesheimer said City Council approved fluoridation in 1964 -- with results similar to those in San Antonio. Opponents, among them the ultraconservative John Birch Society, successfully called for a referendum. Fluoridation was defeated by about 300 votes.
  • Foes take teeth out of fluoride drives/Five decades later, San Antonio and other cities still resist; [2 STAR Edition] ALLAN TURNER. Houston Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). Houston, Tex.: Jan 28, 1995. pg. 1
• Critics remain, however, including the conservative John Birch Society, which regards the practice as forced medication.
  • FLUORIDATED WATER HONORED AT ITS SOURCE; IN 1945, A MICHIGAN CITY BEGAN TREATING ITS WATER.; MANY OF TODAY'S SMILES OWE MUCH TO THAT DECISION. David McKay. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: Feb 5, 1995. pg. A.5
• Still, fear and fluoride go together like rinse and spit. In the 1950s and 1960s, various right-wing groups like the John Birch Society were convinced that fluoridating the nation's water supply was a Communist plot. The paranoid character who started World War III in the 1964 Stanley Kubrick movie Dr. Strangelove, for instance, feared just such a devious scheme. The theory lost steam, though, as the Soviet bloc crumbled and children's teeth continued to harden.
  • Fluoride campaign bares its teeth in Citrus; [CITY Edition] T. CHRISTIAN MILLER. St. Petersburg Times. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Mar 5, 1995. pg. 1
• But the spread of fluoridation has been slowed by an aggressive group of foes, who have perpetuated a lingering public anxiety about its safety. In the early days, the John Birch Society claimed it was part of a diabolical Communist plot to poison America. Other opponents portrayed it as a government conspiracy that would, in the words of one activist, "weaken people's minds and create a race of moronic, atheistic slaves."
  • Fluoride Fight Comes to Capitol Politics: Assembly panel to begin discussing bill to add the substance to many cities' water. Proponents tout cavity-fighting benefits while opponents describe it as a carcinogenic poison.; [Home Edition] JENIFER WARREN. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Apr 18, 1995. pg. 3
• In our own century, fear of communism spawned McCarthyism, and the John Birch Society then isolated and institutionalized its most paranoid strain: In one memorable campaign, it portrayed the adding of fluoride to drinking water, intended to prevent tooth decay, as a communist conspiracy.
  • A millennium of paranoia Pipes, Daniel. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Apr 26, 1995. pg. A14 (Commentary)
• People who monitor the militias say they evolved from the John Birch Society in the 1950's -- when fluoride in the water supply was viewed as evidence of a Communist plot -- through various hate groups in the 1970's and 1980's.
  • MEN AT WAR; Inside the World Of the Paranoid TIMOTHY EGAN. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Apr 30, 1995. pg. 4.1
• Tom Eddlem says he does not know how it started, the mistaken label some people gave the John Birch Society, that it linked communists to fluoridation of water. The conservative organization promoting less government opposes fluoridation but not because there was any communist plot. "It's mass medication. That's the main reason," said Eddlem, director of research for the society based in Appleton, Wis. "Our position is chlorine treats the water, but fluoride treats the people. Our view is people who want fluoride ought to be able to take what they want. If you put it in the water, you basically eliminate the right to choose."
  • TO FLUORIDATE OR NOT On Tuesday, a health coalition announced support for adding fluoride to York Water Co.'s water supply. The debate over adding it to public water resurfaces MARK WEINSTEIN Daily Record staff. York Daily Record. York, Pa.: Jun 28, 1995. pg. 01
• At one point, the John Birch Society claimed fluoridation was part of a Communist plot to poison America. Others suggested it was a government conspiracy aimed at turning people into "a race of moronic, atheistic slaves."
  • Governor Signs Bill to Fluoridate Water; Health: Most communities in the state will be required to add the tooth-decay fighter to drinking supply. Move ends years of opposition.; [Home Edition] JENIFER WARREN. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 10, 1995. pg. 3
• Second, by recognizing the medicinal properties of fluoride, Dr. Muhler induced innumerable local governments to add fluoride to potable water supplies. This not only enhanced the dental health of his fellow citizens, but gave suchgroups as the John Birch Society - which thought fluoridation was a communist plot - more publicity than they ever dreamed possible, and a reason for being in the late '50s and early '60s.
  • Communist plot?; [ALL Edition] Providence Journal - Bulletin. Providence, R.I.: Jan 15, 1997. pg. B.04
• In August, when [Ezola] Foster accepted Buchanan's offer to be his vice presidential running mate, she resigned her job as a traveling speaker for the John Birch Society, a post she'd held since 1996. Founded in 1958, the Birch Society became famous in the 1960s for its crusade against the fluoridation of water and for its elaborate conspiracy theories, which include the notion that President Eisenhower and his brother Milton were agents of the international Communist cabal.
  • Pat Buchanan's Far Right Hand; Ezola Foster Can Make Even the Reform Party Candidate Look Like a Liberal; [FINAL Edition] Peter Carlson. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Sep 13, 2000. pg. C.01
• The story goes back to 1999, when the [Nevada] Legislature introduced a bill that required fluoridation of water. Then-Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani (now a Clark County commissioner) recalls the John Birch Society coming after her and people leaving messages accusing her of trying to poison them.
  • The government says it's good, so Nevadans say no to fluoride David McGrath Scwhartz. Las Vegas Sun. Las Vegas, Nev.: Apr 7, 2009. pg. 1
• Among the event's sponsors is the John Birch Society, which students of the McCarthy and Goldwater eras of Republicanism might be shocked to learn still exists. The group, named for a Christian missionary who was allegedly killed by Communists in China, once labelled Republican president Dwight Eisenhower "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." (Suddenly, the RNC's consideration of a purity test starts to make sense, doesn't it?) It called for the impeachment of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "one of the most important agencies of Communism." It considered the fluoridation of drinking water to be a plot worthy of Soviet socialism.
  • Paranoid style is in again Konrad Yakabuski. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 2, 2010. pg. A.15

Comments about sources

Assuming this was from Viriditas. Alas - it shows all sort of speculation without factual claims that the JBS was in any way the prime mover in any objections to fluoridation in the early 1950s. As for the anti-religious bit about Christian Science - if JBS goes in, so does CS as it is clearly a much more directly connected organization opposing fluoridation. Collect (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making tu quoque arguments. The topic is JBS, and the reference section is nowhere complete. Please also keep your comments in a separate section, as I am only using this area to add references. Thanks for your understanding. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the JBS was a "prime mover" will be determined by what we find in sources. Based on what I've seen so far, fluoridation was important to JBS even if JBS isn't important to fluoridation. Let's hold off making judgments and start by collecting sources. Then we can summarize those.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Collect, I don't know how old you are, but in the early 60s the John Birch Society was practically synonymous with all sorts of extreme claims, and the flouridation thing was very prominent among those claims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible source

I'm too busy, but is this [7] useful? Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am uncertain as to what factual claims are made in that article - it seems to be more about decrying Beck as a "Mormon convert" than about the JBS. Perhaps it should be there, if any place. Collect (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to an academic article that covers the connection in greater detail. Although Sean Wilentz is certainly competent to discuss this, it is better to use academic articles which have footnotes and enter academic discussion than op-eds in magazines. Since the claim is that the Tea Party draws inspiration from the same writer, Cleon Skousen, who was not a Bircher, I do not see that it is relevant. If the Tea Party had drawn inspiration from Robert Welch, the JBS leader, then it would be different. TFD (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

JBS Membership

The claim in this article that by March 1961 the JBS had 60,000-100,000 members is false. In reality, the JBS had approximately 13,250 members. In September 1960, Robert Welch told his National Council that the JBS had 324 chapters and 5300 members. In the December 1960 JBS Bulletin, page 4, Robert Welch declared that "we have been doubling in size approximately once every four months" (i.e. 25% per month) which seems fairly accurate considering that in April 1960, the JBS had 150 chapters and 2800 members according to JBS National Council meeting minutes. If one uses the formula stated by Welch (i.e. 100% every 4 months), then actual JBS membership would be approximately as follows: 9/60.......5300 01/61......10,600 Thus, the JBS was increasing its membership by about 1325 per month between September 1960 and January 1961 -- which would produce the following member estimates: 9/60......5300 10/60.....6625 11/60.....7950 12/60.....9275 01/61.....10,600 02/61.....11,925 03/61.....13,250 Interestingly, the 1960 financial statement of the JBS declares that it received $198,719 in member dues during all of 1960. At that time, annual dues were $24 for men and $12 for women. If one uses an average of $18 that would mean there should be about 11,039 members as of the end of December 1960 -- which is very close to the 10,600 extrapolation shown above for 1/61. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism

The two citations include JBS writings which state:

1. "We believe that a Constitutional Republic, such as our Founding Fathers gave us, is probably the best of all forms of government"
2. "We believe that our system of government, a Constitutional Republic, is the finest yet developed by man."

American exceptionalism begins with the following brief definition:

American exceptionalism refers to the opinion that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations.

I believe that statements about America having "the finest [government] yet developed by man" would be very clear indicators of American exceptionalism. If you disagree, please explain. Dylan Flaherty 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To combine the two (um -- WP articles can not be used as sources under any circumstances) is both SYNTH and OR. What one can say is that the JBS supports a "Constitutional Republic." Period. To use the term "American exceptionalism" requires finding a reliable source making that precise claim. Collect (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a synthesis, but I see no reason to think that it is undue. If you have some specific, reason, I would be glad to hear it. Dylan Flaherty 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WP has strict rules against SYNTH. Not to mention that the article reflects on "living persons" per WP:BLP. In other words, don't try adding a term unless you have a strong reliable source for the precise claim you wish to make. The only claim which appears to be borne out by the cite given is that the JBS favours a "Constitutional Republic." Collect (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The JBS is not a living person, and a close reading of WP:SYN does not appear to support your conclusion. I think this may be a communication problem, in that you haven't spelled out any of your reasoning, just stated a conclusion. As such, I cannot determine what its precise basis was. The best thing you can do here is to point at specific parts of the policy, as opposed to gesturing in its general direction.

The basic question here is whether believing our government is "the finest yet developed by man" is anything but unambiguous American exceptionalism. The point of exceptionalism is that it's based on being qualitatively different, and "finest yet developed by man" is a painfully obvious example of this. If you can find some plausible alternate explanation, I will gladly cede this argument. Otherwise, I will have to ask you to step back. Dylan Flaherty 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless you know something I don;t, the people of the JBS are "living persons" under WP:BLP and any contentious claims regarding them must conform to WP policy. OTOH, if they are all dead, your position is fine. The cite states that the US was the first example of a "constitutional republic" and does not state that any other "constitutional republics" are inferior, as would be implied by your original research. As for your kind claim that you have the right to "ask (me) to step back" - it is precisely that sort of statement whaich WQA looks rather unkindly towards. Collect (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Actually, I know something you don't, which is that WP:BLP explicitly does not apply. While we should always be careful about sourcing and neutrality, the specific requirements of BLP do not need to be met, so please do not repeat them again.
2. I don't follow your WP:OR regarding other Constitutional Republics. The very fact that we were the first to develop this near-ideal form of government is sufficient to make us exceptional.
3. I'm not all that clear on what WP:WQA looks kindly towards, but I'm sure it's entirely fair for me to ask you to follow the rules. Dylan Flaherty 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You would need a source and since the term AE is open to different interpretations, the source would have to be clear on how it was being used, which would have to be explained in the article. I do no think that the JBS's claims can be seen as belief in U.S. exceptionalism anyway. TFD (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"American exceptionalism" was added as a replacement for "Americentrism". The goal in both cases is to make it clear that the JBS rejects any sort of globalism and instead sees America as particularly special and important. I'm not in love with this term and more than the previous one, so I'm wondering if you might have any ideas on how we can fill this gap. Dylan Flaherty 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see where they claim that the U.S. is special and important. TFD (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty of pointing this out is similar to that of pointing out that the ocean is wet. Dylan Flaherty 22:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is original research at its finest. You are trying to define the JBS based on your interpretaion of AE. QED. Arzel (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We have the JBS talking constantly about America this, America that. We need a brief way to describe it. So far, two alternatives have been discussed. We're open to others.

The issue is not WP:OR, it's normal synthesis in the form of summarization. Dylan Flaherty 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is your observation and you need to find a source that has drawn the same conclusion. TFD (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. We need a source that makes this conclusion. I looked in Proquest newspaper archive and Google books, and the closest I've found are these: [8][9] Those aren't really strong enough, in my opinion, to merit inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Case in point, look at what the Bircher vandal wrote. Dylan Flaherty 04:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that has any bearing on this matter. We require reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, just that they demonstrated that Americentric view in their edits. The dilemma here is that we have a fact that's hard to source. Dylan Flaherty 04:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They? The vandal or the JBS? They aren't necessarily the same thing. Anyway, the dilemma you describe occurs across Wikipedia. We can't report anything for which we don't have a source. But keep looking - maybe one will appear.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Both; the vandal was a Bircher. I'll keep looking, both for new sources to the old terms and for new terms that carry the same general meaning but are sourced. Dylan Flaherty 05:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

While I empathise with Dylan's view, I don't think we have the sources for inclusion in the article. I haven't seen anything that could justifiably be paraphrased into Americentrism or American Exceptionalism.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional Republic

• [JBS] is a ... political advocacy group that supports...a Constitutional Republic ...

It seems like this phrase is just cherry picked out of declarations. We could pick all sort of other phrases from them too. It'd be better to rely on secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any groups in the U.S. that oppose a constitutional republic? TFD (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some on the far fringes. I'm pondering the phrase "Christian-style civilization", which is used in the same source. Why didn't they say "Christian civilization"? Is there a "Jewish-style civilization"? But I don't think we should add that either unless we have secondary sources that discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons given above, we should remove "a Constitutional Republic". Dylan Flaherty 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The current description of the John Birch Society is Biased.

The JBS is not a "radical right-wing" organization. The John Birch Society supports the U.S. Constitution and Limited Government. Also, labeling the JBS as "Americentric" is misleading and needs to be removed.

My Proposed description for the John Birch Society:

The John Birch Society is an American Nonpartisan Paleoconservative political advocacy group that supports Constitutional principles, anti-communism, limited government, and personal freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs)

Have you read the most recent discussion on this topic on Talk:John_Birch_Society/Archive_5? The only debate was whether JBS is far right or radical right. All of it sourced to very reliable sources, who consistently use one of the two terms - we settled on radical right. If you have a problem with those sources, then bring your concerns here. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP article for the radical left-wing group Code Pink. (They are about as far left and radical as you can get). There are numerous attempts there to label them correctly as "radical" (even without the "left wing" part), and those edits are immediately reverted by the liberal gatekeepers. If it is acceptable to label the tame JBS as "radical right wing", why is Code Pink being protected from the same Radical label, when they are far more demonstrably qualified as "radical"?--216.114.194.20 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't about what we think of these groups that matters- it's what reliable sources say. If there are many sources that characterize Code Pink in one or another fashion then that should be reflected in the article. But let's keep our discussion here focused on JBS.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am making the argument to make a point based on having consistency across WP as far as this type of definition, which has been used in these discussion pages as rationalization for labeling JBS as "radical". If one group obviously fitting the WP definition of "radical" keeps getting that label removed, why does the JBS article, working under the same WP standards, keep getting the label added?--216.114.194.20 (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback already answered your question. The reason why JBS is labelled as radical is because an apparent majority or strong number of sources characterize JBS as radical. Meanwhile, the same does not hold true for Code Pink. Notice how the additions of the term "radical" to the Code Pink article cite no sources. If you do believe that a majority or strong number of reliable sources label Code Pink as radical left, then you are free to bring it up at the Code Pink talk page. Wikipedia does run with a standard, and that is to cite reliable sources, not apply definitions to subjects based on original research and what we editors think of them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no discussion at all about how "Code Pink" should be described. Since it is a different article, the disucssion there is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Since it is a different article, the disucssion there is irrelevant." Yes, it is relevant, as the archives in the JBS discuss "radical" as being a consistent description across all of WP. I am showing that if Code Pink has been discussed at length in that article about NOT being radical, then obviously they are using the WP standards to remove the description. If the same standards apply, then both Code Pink and JBS should have identical labels. Every argument used for removing "radical" over and over from Code Pink should be used to remove "Radical" from JBS, in the interest of consistency with WP standards. Either they both get it, or none get it - it can't be conveniently applied according to editors political leanings.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you go to Google books, you will find that the term "radical left" has no clear definition, but normally is used to distinguish Marxist-Leninist groups from Democratic Socialists.[10] Using the terms Communist, Trotskyist, Maoist, etc. for groups would make more sense because they are more specific descriptions. The term "radical right" however has a clear definition, it was developed in order to describes groups like the JBS, and is the most commonly used term to describe them.[11] See for example the first book which contains the very first use of the term in social sciences. "Code Pink" is not a Marxist-Leninist organization and if it were, it would make more sense to say so in that article rather than use an ambiguous term such as "radical left". TFD (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither 'radical left" nor "radical right" has a clear and generally accepted definition. Period. Dictionaries may define [12] "radical left" as the faction representing extreme left-wing political views, often Marxist or Maoist in ideology. and "radical right" as the faction representing extreme right-wing political views; ultraconservatives; reactionaries. Collect (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your link has one definition for "radical left", from Random House: "the faction representing extreme left-wing political views, often Marxist or Maoist in ideology." That is how the term is used in the serious books in the Google books search. It defines "radical right" as "the faction representing extreme right-wing political views; ultraconservatives; reactionaries. Origin: 1950–55". The first source in the Google books result, The Radical Right explains that the term was coined by Seymour Martin Lipset in the early 1950s and explains his definition. Other books in the search explain how the term has come to be accepted by political and other social scientists. TFD (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And you asserted that there was no clear definition of "radical left" and then you adopt the Random House one? Odd. As for the use of "radical right" - the phrase antedates Lipset, amking it hard to assert that his is the only definition! Nor, by the way, does sequencing in Google Books results mean anything at all. Collect (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your original research, but reliable sources credit Lipset with coining the term "radical right".[13] And yes the term "radical left is ambiguous", but is used in reliable sources. The terms, right-wing, center-left, etc. are also ambiguous, but intelligent readers are able to understand what the writers mean be context. However we should avoid ambiguous terms when clear ones are available. For example it makes more sense to call the SWP "Trotskyist" or ML, rather than "radical left" because we are supposed to convey meaning, not push our own POVs. TFD (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"OR" usually menas drawing a conclusion -- if it is OR to say that no conclusion has been made by general sources, then that is a quite original interpretation of "original research" LOL! Perhaps you should reread WP:OR. Collect (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It is OR to say "the phrase antedates Lipset", without providing any references and especially considering that reliable sources say he coined the term. It is not OR to say that "no conclusion has been made by general sources", unless we intend to put that information into an article. The onus is on the person wanting to insert information that he has reliable sources. You cannot find a reliable secondary source that explains how the term radical left is generally used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lipset was in the 50s. The term was used in the nineteenth century. Do you consider that simple statemnet of fact to be OR? Seriously? Collect (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That "simple statement of fact" is OR if you cannot provide any sources to support it. In fact the term "radical" had a different meaning in the 19th century and the term "right-wing" referred to where one sat in a European legislature, not to political ideology. TFD (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Heck - even the NYT used the term many times -- it is not OR to point this out, and it is OR to claim the meaning in US political articles in the 19th and early 20th century was that of a European meaning! It absolutely was used to refer to political ideology, including a few hundred newspaper and book usages about the US. [14] for NYT using term in a modern sense. So Lipset "coined" the term in 1955? It was in exceedingly common usage, especially in articles about post-war Germany. Amazingly enough, I find 1927 to precede 1955, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1053 and 1954 also to precede 1955. YMMV. [15] 1945 precedes 1955. [16] 1918 precedes 1955. [17] Life used a dichotomy of "radical left" and "reactionary right." As I stated before, it is not OR to state that 1920 is before 1955, but I am certainly willing to go to WP:NOR/N if you wish. Collect (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion is getting far removed from the issue of how the JBS is categorized.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect was taking issue with whether the term "radical right" was clearly defined by attempting to show earlier usage of the term. In fact he has been unable to do this. Time does not use the term, in the NYT article the term "radcial" modifies Left not Right, and the 1919 article about the "radical right" is about radicals (in the 19th century sense) who sat on the right who merged their party with the Republicans of the Left. Republican and radial were interchangeable terms. TFD (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's say that sources called JBS a "widget supporter". We wouldn't need to define what "widgets" are in order to summarize those sources. We have an article on Radical Right, and that is probably the better place to define the term.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Republican and radial(sic) were interchangeable? Show me. Missouri time. Meanwhile, I find fully as many or more uses of "far right" as of "radical right" wrt the JBS in any case. And WP can not be sued in any sense as a source on WP, making that suggestion quite unworkable. Collect (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, this is not the place to correct your lack of knowledge of French history but when use of the term republican was outlawed in 1832, they started calling themselves radicals. And while WP articles are not reliable sources you can follow the footnotes to external sources that support the text. BTW finding snippet views of text that you have not read in order to support your unsourced assertions is unhelpful. TFD (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Golly - ad homs are not what are being discussed here. You state that in the US the word "republican" was outlawed? That is news to me -- as I was not writing about French history there, nor was I asserting that I know the "truth." And if you want to assert that you WP:KNOW more than I, that is a quite interesting bt useless claim on your part. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, did you read the snippet view from the NYT that you presented? It says, "At the close of the year there was much discussion in political circles of the means of continuing the sacred union, which from the outbreak of the war had put an end to party quarrels, and there were signs that in parliament the various groups were trying to reunite. The democratic left in the chamber, compromising twenty-eight members, issued an appeal to the republican federation (thirty-two members), to the republicans of the left (forty-nine), and to the radical right (fifty-six) for the fusion of these groups into a single party, to be known as the republican entente. In almost all the moderate newspapers this plan was upheld as preventing the return to old conditions of party strife. It was argued that it would result in aligning political divisions according to their real and important differences...."[18][19] It is about France, not the United States, and the term "radical right" refers to a faction of the Radicals. Nothing to do with how the term is used today. TFD (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha - you refer to the post-WW I NYT article then? I daresay that 1918 is a teeny bit later than 1832 -- which is what your earlier post claimed. Or was your 1832 simply a typo of some sort? Collect (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote, "when use of the term republican was outlawed in 1832, they started calling themselves radicals". Yes 1918 is long after 1832. 2011 is long after 1918. But the name continues. TFD (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You made a weird accusation about me not knowing French history and 1832, whilst I noted that the NYT used "radical right" long after the French Revolutionary period, and long before 1955, and used it in a modern sense entirely. Were you trying to prove in any way that "radical right" was coined by Lipset in 1955 as you earlier claimed? He didn't. Collect (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect the article is referring to various groups of the center-left and center-right, normally called radicals or republicans, who discussed cooperation for the 1919 election. It has nothing to do with how the term is used today. Please take the time to read and understand the sources you are presenting. TFD (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you know what the NYT meant in 1918 when the other articles from that period do not appear to conform with what you "know" and your aside about "Republicans and radials" seems totally irrelevant to the discussion here. Will agrees that "far right" is commonly used to refer to the JBS, so all of this aside about me not knowing that a word banned in 1832 (?) has any relevance is of no use whatsoever here. Collect (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think the NYT was talking about when they used the term "radical right" in the 1919 yearbook? If you do not know, then you should not have used it as an example. TFD (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not be more specific and accurate? Describe the society as "a group that has been attack by mainstream media as radical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be neither specific nor accurate. Leftist media attacks the right on a regular basis (and vice versa), but mainstream media has by and large been objective in its descriptions, as we have discussed here repeatedly, ad nauseum. This becomes obvious when you look at the specifics of those descriptions; a group that labels civil rights legislation and fluoridation of drinking water as communist plots cannot be accurately (or specifically) described any other way. The key is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It’s not a soapbox for you personally, for the political right or left, or for any other interest group. The standard for Wikipedia articles is a “Neutral Point of View” or NPoV, and the present JBS description is, by consensus, as close as we are ever going to get to NPoV. DoctorJoeE (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: "present JBS description is, by consensus, as close as we are ever going to get to NPoV"

...and if an article is watched by a group of politically-motivated watchdogs, that equates to "consensus"? The last study I read estimated that the "consensus" is tipped left by about 6-1 across WP as a whole.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

We didn't use this term because we agree it's appropriate or correct. We apply it because it appears most often in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I find "far right" to be at least as common overall, by the way. Collect (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Raw Ghits don't count. What methodology are you using? If it's the roughly the same, then we might use both terms. However it really seems like we went over all of this before.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Google books - more for "far", using Google Scholar - more for "far". Not to mention that, of course, raw Ghits has "far" far ahead of "radical." Far has it. And is likely not to be contestable in the way that "radical" is. Collect (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using Google is that the search terms might not be in reference to the JBS. Searches like this have to be done by hand.   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked almost two dozen at the head of the list - all appeared apt. Do you wish to do the counting to show that the Google Scholar count is wrong or errant? Absent such, I suggest the claim that "far" is used is a strong claim compared with "radical." Collect (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you post links to your search terms? If you want to propose a new change then the burden is on you.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Google Books:

• "John Birch Society" "radical right" About 4,810 results
• "John Birch Society" "far right" About 3,410 results

Google Scholar

• "John Birch Society" "radical right" about 759
• "John Birch Society" "far right" about 829

As I wrote before, I don't think Ghits are worth anything for this kind of determination. That said, I don't see a clear predominance of one term over the other using that methodology.   Will Beback  talk 

And 759 > 829? Odd sort of claim. If you find similar levels of usage, then the less extreme usage should be used on WP in any case. Does that argument help you a bit? If we had 300 sources saying "John Doe is Satan" and 350 saying "John Doe is evil" which one would you use? The issue here is what is the best wording for an encyclopedia after all. Collect (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

First, those are just gross Ghits, so anything within an order of magnitude is close. Second, I'm not sure which term is more extreme. IIRC, an editor was arguing that "far right" was actually more extreme. Third, we have plenty of actual citations for "radical right". We can compare those to actual citations for "far right" and see which is more prevalent. Fourth, if both terms are used more or less equally, and if we think they mean different things, then we can included both terms. Finally, we already discussed this at length and there don't seem to be any fresh arguments. There's one banned editor who keeps reappearing using IPs to change this, but otherwise it doesn't seem to be a big issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Google results vary from region to region, depending on which servers are used. I recall a comparison we did with editors from different places running the same query. We may not get the same results. That's another reason why Ghits are not reliable for this kind of determination.   Will Beback  talk  09:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In the above discussion, I see posters who want to have opinions (on both sides) presented as if they are facts. In the current version of the article, referring to the JBS as a "radical right-wing" organization is an opinion, and it doesn't matter that we can quote other sources who hold that opinion, it still doesn't change it into a fact. The problem can be solved, following Wikipedia principles, by presenting what is actually a fact. I suggest that the opening of the article could be reworded along lines something like this: "The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic, and personal freedom. It has been characterized by many sources as being a radical right-wing organization, though others dispute that characterization." If someone wants to go further, you could add references to the two halves of the second sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.27.47 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not an opinion but the name normally given to the classification of the JBS. Some writers prefer the terms "far right", "right wing extremism", pseudoconservative, etc., but agree on the classification. TFD (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This article really white washes the controversial nature of the organization and its history. It looks biased in favor of the subject. There should be a third party review of the entire article. 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Radical? Extremist?

If the article is going to make those assertions, then it needs to offer proof in the article. What makes them radical or extremist? And what is extremist about wanting an America that is like what the forefathers had in mind?72.11.40.181 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The description is sourced. TFD (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Some ideological enemies really claim that it is radical, extremist.... It is obviously not unbiased description but it should be written somewhere in the article what they claim. In articles about them should be also what John Birch Society writes about that sort of people. --Dezidor (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are the JBS's "ideological enemies", according to which source?   Will Beback  talk  11:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Basis For "Radical" or "Extremist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not present a WP article, Radical Right, as a source. However you may wish to read some of the sources provided in that article in order to understand informed opinion about the topic in books published by the academic and university press and in peer-reviewed articles. Since you have tagged the article for POV, synthesis and OR, you may discuss your reasoning at the POV and OR noticeboards.[[20][21] TFD (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Unquestionably there are apparent arguments in favor of such a procedure, including the reaching of a large segment of the American public during their formative years and thus thwarting to a great extent current recruiting drives among youths by the Communist Party USA, and combating the growth of extreme rightists as exemplified by the John Birch Society.” [FBI HQ file 62-106364, serial #72, 10/28/61 memo from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Belmont, page 1; my emphasis in bold type]

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

Might we all agree upon this first principle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FBI FILES ON BIRCH SOCIETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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