Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 10 October 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Birch Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Wisconsin This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 9, 2004, December 9, 2005, and December 9, 2006.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Birch Society article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

In Popular Culture

Suggest an additional reference to the popular culture references section. The Smothers Brothers mentioned John Birch on their 1962 live album The Two Sides of the Smothers Brothers when Dick quiped, "I'd like to introduce the entire ensemble: on my extreme right is John Birch."

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

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

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

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

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

By no stretch of the imagination is this neutral. This line COULD (not necessary) be included in the body under an appropriate heading. By this logic, every entry on[REDACTED] should/could have a sentence in the first paragraph which states: "He/she/it has been described as ". Why not edit the following, "Princess Diana has been described as a whore, Michael Jackson has been described as a pedophile, Ice cream has been described as a carcinogenic"... OptimusPrime321 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we only refer to informed and notable opinion. The JBS was the main model for the concept of extremism. The term itself has no bad connotations. It is taken from statistics and merely refers to the approx. 2% at either end of a bell curve. However the term's use to describe the JBS has given it negative connotations. (Incidentally your examples are extremely offensive.) TFD (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Radical Right (again)

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

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

We summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not what we think about them.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I still suggest "Far right" is fully adequate as a descriptor. And pretty much identically sourced to "radical" if not better sourced. Collect (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this at length a few months ago. Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 6#The current description of the John Birch Society is Biased. Is there anything new to add?   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As I recall. My position thereon was not changed. IIRC, you, at the time, stated that both terms were used with similar frequency. And it is simpler to use the less extreme term if any editors disagree. YMMV. Collect (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Webb wrote that the term "far right" is the label most broadly used by scholars to describe militant white supremicists. Do you consider militant white supremicists to be "less extreme" than the John Birch Society? TFD (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I consider the most widely used term to be "far right" and that the term is not specific to "white supremacists" so that is just a pure maguffin in this discussion. If we had someone who said "radical right" meant "people who wear green pyramids on their head at Easter" that would still be totally irelevant. Collect (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What you consider or know or believe is irrelevant. We use reliable sources. If you believe that the source I presented which was published by the University of Georgia Press is wrong and you are right, then please provide a source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before. Will BeBack stated that the number of uses was similar. Did you fail to read his past posts? I do not "know" anything here except what reliable sources claim. And since the number of sources for each phrase ase, by Will's statements, comparable, it is reasonable to discuss which term the article should use. Now do I need to go back and post again the sources presented by a number of editors, including Will, which use "far right"? Your tendentiousness on this is truly awe-inspring! BTW, Google Scholar (your fave) shows 827 books cited using "John Birch Society" and "far right" with only 751 using "radical right." Current usage? Check the news - 9 current stories using "far right" and 2 using "radical right." So on both current usage in news grounds and on scholarly works grounds - your position is nicely untenable. Collect (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Insisting on following what is in sources is not tendentious. But it is prudent to use the terminology that sources say is used rather than conducting original research, especially when it reduces ambiguity. Can you please provide a source that supports your opinion. TFD (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And for the last time - there are a sufficiency of sources (a plurality of sources, in fact) using "far right" and not "radical right." Thus if we are to follow the sources, "far right" is, in fact, the proper term. As for the silly claim that it is "original research" to look at Google Scholar results, that has been used far too often here to be anything more than tendentious twiddling.

WP:OR refers to, ond only refers to, claims made in articles. It has nothing to do with editors writing on talk pages, has never been used for that purpose, and will never be used for that purpose absent some astounding change of consensus. This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.

For sources using "far right" and specifically excluding "radical right" we have: 468 results. Starting with J George… - No.: ISBN 1-57392-058-4, 1996 - ncjrs.gov, Men of the far rightR Dudman - 1962 - Pyramid Books, The Far RightD Janson… - 1963 - McGraw-Hill, Mormonism and the New Christian Right: An Emerging Coalition?A Shupe… - Review of Religious Research, 1985 - JSTOR, Science in the service of the far right: Henry E. Garrett, the IAAEE, and the Liberty LobbyAS Winston - Journal of Social Issues, etc.

For google scholar orthogonal results: 392 results (76 fewer results) starting with: BOOK] The radical Right: report on the John Birch Society and its alliesBR Epstein… , The John Birch Society:'Radical Right'and'Extreme Left'in the Political Context of Post World War IIAF Westin - The Radical Right, ed. D. Bell (Garden City, NY), 1964, The paranoid style in American politics from posterous.comR Hofstadter - Harper's Magazine, 1964 - posterous.com, An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory increases 1950s-1970s from stanford.eduJL Sullivan, J Piereson… - The American Political Science …, 1979 - JSTOR, etc.

In short, no shortage of reliable sources per Google Scholar to belie the claim that there is any preponderance of "radical right" instead of "far right." Collect (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(out) Google bombing is a pain. You expect me to read through countless sources which you have not even looked at. I will therefore comment only on your first link. It is to an abstract of Laird Wilcox's and John George's book, The American extremists: militias, supremicists, klansmen, communists, and others. Note that while reliable sources describe some of these groups as "far right", few sources describe them all as far right. Communists for example are rarely described as far right. Wilcox btw rejected the term "radical right", preferring to call the JBS "right-wing extremists". Rather than Google searching for sources that support your viewpoint, try reading the literature and ensure that articles support what is found there. I could for example, using your logic, google search "Joe McCarthy" and "Communism" and conclude he was a Communist. Extremely poor logic. TFD (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Um -- Google Scholar has been used by you many times. It is not "google bombing" as most editors readily admit. So far you have failed to show any rational reason why you dismiss "far right" as a term. Other than to take personal aim at me. And the McCarthy silliness proves the point rather well. I decline to continue this exercise in tendentiousness you are making. Collect (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not use Google scholar in order to poll scholars on their positions. I rely on reliable sources for their explanation of what weight is placed on different scholarly opinion. Your methology is inconsistent with rational and neutral research. TFD (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul and the John Birch Society

Texas Congressman Ron Paul endorses the John Birch Society, "The John Birch Society is a great patriotic organization featuring an educational program solidly based on constitutional principles. I congratulate the Society in this, its 50th year. I wish them continued success and endorse their untiring efforts to foster 'less government, more responsibility, and--with God's help--a better world.'" Ron Paul gave the keynote speech at the 50th Anniversary of the John Birch Society in 2008.

Ron Paul congratulates the John Birch Society on 50th anniversary http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_9_24/ai_n25385019/ || Ron Paul Addresses John Birch Society http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/409

Which is likely more apt for his BLP than for this article. We do not include every person's quotes about the group in this article - it could easily get to be 500K long at that point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

this article reads like a official pamphlet

This article reads like a pamphlet for the John Birch Society. You don't even get a hint of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to either fix the problems you see or make specific, constructive recommendations. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I doubt any pamphlet would make the charges found against a society which are found here. The goal is NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Authoritarianism

The Authoritarianism link in the "see also" section should be removed for internal consistency. The top of the page characterizes the John Birch Society as advocating limited government and personal freedom. 121.72.219.220 (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the see also links seem helpful and I will therefore remove the section. TFD (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"antiscience fearmongering"

As the quote is specifically in reference to, and only in reference to, the fluoridation fghts, it is insufficient to simply say the JBS is "anti-science." Misleading readers when the fluoridation issue is covered in the body without the broad brush characterization is improper. "Disappearing Spoons" makes zero other reference to the JBS, is not about the JBS, and the single sentence in regard to fluoridation taken out of context is mal-used here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Science

I removed the claim of Anti-Science, which should really have an easily checkable source. Additionally, it fails the face validity check. If the JBS has as a founding member Fred Koch's then it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Chemical Engineering plays a huge role in the petroleum industry. Why in the world would a clearly scientific person like Koch be involved with an anti-science organization? Correction, I see Collect was addressing the same issue. Arzel (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Wisconsin articles
• Unknown-importance Wisconsin articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• Automatically assessed Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2006)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics