![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Folks can't just keep deleting well-sourced material. [1] I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. What language does The Four Deuces propose to cover the "far right" issue? Will Beback talk 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The current version is fine. We don't need to sacrifice accuracy along with a million reputable sources. UBER (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"Right-wing" seems to cover it perfectly fine. Conservative groups are not generally placed on the "far-right" by neutral sources. In the mean time Uber needs to stop pushing his own political views in articles, he is damaging the project. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, Deuces is just factually wrong when calling this a "minority opinion," an absolutely outlandish assertion not supported by any reputable sources, mind you. The reason why far-right belongs in the lead is precisely because the organization is so overwhelmingly labeled by a vast swathe of reputable sources.
As for Yorkshirian, I have told the user to stop edit warring repeatedly, to no avail. Neutral sources, the same kind that Yorkshirian allegedly supports, call this organization far-right, and they should not be excluded from the lead. UBER (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
How do you know what most reputable sources call it? Do you have a reputable source saying "most reputable sources don't call it far right"? If you don't, then why are you making such a claim? UBER (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, the article currently says that in a matter of a fact sense this "is a far-right" organisation. An inherently bias position inserted into the article purely based on the personal views of Uber after quote mining for references. It gives undue weight to this position. We can also find many references which calls the subject of the article simply "right-wing". In the present form it takes the opinion of Cultural Marxists and others whom are hostile to the JBS and its worldview, as if it was a matter of a fact, but doesn't take into account the view of people who are either neutral, more favourable diposed to it or the organisation itself. Based on this it is inherently a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
York, have you even followed what's been happening on this talk page? "Uber quote mining for references"?!?!? What are you talking about? I have not added a single reference here; Will has done all the work on that front. I merely reviewed his sources and I came to the conclusion that the label applies to the organization. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion, at least pretend like you're paying attention. UBER (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Has a compromise been offered that describes the group only as "right", unqualified? Qualifications like "far-" or "extremist" generally have negative connotations. Wouldn't it be best to let the reader decide how "far" they are relative to their experience? Has this proposal failed in the past? Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing two disputes: one is neutrality and the other verifiability. Was "far-right" considered neutral before the sources were found, or is "far-right" neutral because of the sources? Is the use of the word "far-right" neutral? Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(out) Routledge companion to fascism and the far right says: "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (, p. 5) What is Will BeBack's definition? None of the sources that Will Beback provides include any definition of the "far right". I can provide other sources, but Will has presented none. He thinks that the fact that Martha Lee called them far right is sufficient. The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way Deuces, since you brought up Hughes...that aphorism is, in fact, attributed to Hughes. Why do you say that he did not make the comment? UBER (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Right-wing seems to cover it fairly enough. If "far-right" is in the article anyway (no way in the lede), then we need to make sure its mentioned WHO uses the phrase; ie - that it political opponents, critical theory Marxists and people who have a financial incentive to exagerate or distort the JBS. The version as it has been protected is simply complete POV. Maybe later in the article simply mention "far-left extremists have claimed that the JBS is far-right". - Yorkshirian ( talk) 10:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand and respect Diamond's viewpoint, but she by herself cannot bypass and override the work of so many other scholars and reputable journalists. We're not going to refrain from using far-right just because Sara Diamond says it's not ok. You're still talking about a distinction without a difference, and I think I need to explain what the so-called radical right does in this country (US). Let's see...they bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions, launch physical attacks against people who "look like" illegal immigrants (while railing against immigration on talk radio all day), and go to Unitarian Universalist churches and kill the members for being liberals. In this country, that gets called the radical right, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same psychotic right-wing you're describing elsewhere. Like I said, we're just going in circles over semantics. UBER (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's just call them radical right and move on from this pointless fight. Deuces, before I go any further, let me get a hard assurance from you on the following point: would you be willing to substitute "radical right" for "far right" at that exact spot in the lead? If you agree to that, I think we should pat ourselves on the back and call it a day. Arguing over what is essentially nothing but semantics for weeks can get a little bit tiresome. UBER (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
{editprotected} Is it possible to unlock this ariticle for an edit that is unrelated to the present controversy? Bert Schlossberg ( talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In the After Welch section, I'd like to insert the italics :
The second head of the Society was Congressman Larry McDonald from Georgia, the only sitting member of Congress to reportedly have been killed by the Soviets during the Cold War when the plane he had boarded along with 268 others, KAL 007, was shot down by the Soviets in international waters on Sept. 1, 1983. He was on the way to the 30th year commemoration of U.S.-S. Korea Mutual Defense Treaty in Seoul , along with Senator Jesse Helms on KAL 015, 15 minutes behind, when KAL 007 was downed near Moneron Island just west of Sakhalin.
Yorkshirian ( talk · contribs), a key party to the edit warring, has been banned by (overwhelming) community consensus. What do people think about unprotecting? Can we play nice and maybe even stick to 1RR for a while and make use of this talk page? (Yes, I copied this same message to Yorkshirian's other battleground, Talk:British National Party). Wknight94 talk 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb here and claim that we're not making any progress and that we're unlikely to do so in the next week. I have irreconcilable differences with Deuces, with the possible exception that I'm willing to substitute "radical right-wing" for "far-right." If Deuces and Will are willing to agree with that, mediation won't be necessary. Otherwise, formal mediation is the best way forward. UBER (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Formal mediation will not reconcile irreconcilable differences, either. I'm the chair of that committee, and I wouldn't know how to respond to the case being accepted. One-word disputes are the bane of good mediation. I can't think of a way around this except phrases such as "outside the mainstream of the US right", etc. If I'm not mistaken, 4D's position is to have the JBS as "right-wing" unqualified, correct? Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There are two sources which have not been discussed. Both of these sources have been effusively praised by the Birch Society itself. Both of these sources constitute formal and informal investigations conducted into the JBS.
SOURCE #1 = J. EDGAR HOOVER / FBI
The Birch Society has effusively praised Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of data about the communist movement as well as on what constitutes legitimate and effective anti-communist activities. For example:
JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 11
“But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”
American Opinion [JBS magazine], October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”:
Hoover is described as "the government's top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!"
In his Warren Commission testimony (Volume 5, page 101), J. Edgar Hoover characterized the Birch Society's beliefs as "extreme right".
Many FBI internal memos describe the Birch Society with terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics".
For example, one memo discusses what the Bureau could do to combat "the growth of extreme rightists as exemplified by the John Birch Society.” [FBI HQ file 62-106364, serial #72, 10/28/61 memo from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Belmont, page 1].
SOURCE #2 = THE CALIFORNIA SENATE FACT-FINDING SUBCOMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
This Subcommittee conducted a two-year investigation of the Birch Society and it issued its Report in 1963. The Birch Society was so impressed with the Report that they reprinted the entire Report in July 1963 and then sold the reprint at their American Opinion bookstores.
In his introduction to the reprint, JBS founder Robert Welch stated that "nowhere in this Report is there the slightest sign of any unfair partisan approach to the task of the Committee" AND "But the important fact is that this Committee of Democratic legislators, in the currently very 'Liberal' state of California, was determined to do its investigating job -- and did its job -- in a completely honorable and objective manner."
The Chairman of the Subcommittee, State Senator Hugh M. Burns, responded to an inquiry about his Subcommittee's Report by stating that the Birch Society was “...an extremist group, and, like extremist groups from time immemorial, plagues our country. Extremists from the Know-Nothings on have served no useful purpose."
In its 1965 Report, the Subcommittee updated its 1963 findings on the JBS. The Committee confirmed what it predicted about the JBS in 1963:
" The John Birch Society is certainly charged with a high degree of emotionalism...It has, as we predicted, been beset by an influx of emotionally unstable people, some of whom have been prosecuted in the courts for their hoodlum tactics in disrupting meetings and heckling speakers with whom they disagree...We are more critical of the Society now than we were [in the 1963 Report] for the reason that it has, in our opinion, merited such criticism by reason of its activities as exemplified by the irresponsible articles by a member of its National Council, the re-publication of The Politician, the inexcusable actions of its minority of irresponsible members, and dangerous increase of anti-Semitism among a minority of the membership." 1965 Report, page 174]
Given this data, it seems entirely fair and reasonable to describe the Birch Society as an "extreme right" organization --- particularly since giants within the conservative intellectual and political activist communities denounced the JBS as inept and harmful to legitimate conservatism.
See, for example, derogatory comments about the JBS made over the years by such prominent conservatives as Russell Kirk, James Burnham, George F. Will, Frank S. Meyer, Eugene Lyons, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr., Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, Gov. George Romney, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Cong. Walter Judd, the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events, and a host of others. Ernie1241 ( talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Per above discussions, are Will and Deuces willing to agree to substitute "radical right-wing" for "far-right"? This seems like the best compromise. UBER (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There is "sourced material" on both sides. What makes "far right" or "radical right" POV is that the liberals here only want THEIR sourced material listed and seek to eradicate sourced material to show that the JBS advocates a constitutional moderate position. Publiusohio ( talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Has properly sourced criticism of the John Birch Society been removed by user, who claims that the material is taken out of context and is POV, particularly sources that describe the JBS as "marginalized" or "conspiracist?"
Publiusohio claims that material is taken out of context and is POV, particularly sources that describe the JBS as "marginalized" or "conspiracist?" [11] , "ultraconservative" [12] or as right-wing [13]. When asked why (s)he has removed this material, Publiusohio writes POV essays or attempts to discuss other irrelevent topics, such as the entry on the ACLU. Would other users like to comment on what can be done regarding this? Thank you. -- Hardindr ( talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Publiusohio seems hostile to the introduction of sources other than the official JBS website, or attempts to characterize the activities of the society in any kind of political context. Accordingly, the article has some glaring omissions most notably
In other words this article more or less exclusively presents the history of the JBS from the JBS perspective, and would need a drastic re-structuring to even approach NPOV. Any one (preferably someone who knows more about American History than I do) care to lend a hand? EDIT: added a source, fixed a code error. 151.199.22.152 ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You can always depend on Chip Berlet to promote the JBS using slander. Now he is an editor of this page. How ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 ( talk) 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been described as "ultraconservative", [1] "far right", [2] "radical right", [3] and "extremist". [4]
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)There is a dispute about whether or not the John Birch Society (JBS) should be described as "far right". Current academic usage, law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups generally reserve the term for groups that are racist, anti-semitic or violent. However the JBS is sometimes referred to as "far right" in newspapers and journalism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) You have not provided a reference from the Wall Street Journal that calls the JBS "far right". However if you Google search "Wall Street Journal" "John Birch Society" and "far right" and search through hundreds of hits you will probably find a reference that backs up your viewpoint. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment via RfC Far right is a fairly vague term and should probably be avoided unless there's a fair amount of mainstream consensus that a particular group are "far right". A point which is particularly more acute when a group don't exhibiting some of the characteristics that normally make a group far right. In saying this I can't help notice that this article seems to apply quite of labels to the John Birch Society without saying where they stand on more mundane issues. If it said where they stood on immigration, health care, abortion, positive discrimination and so on, readers could judge where the Society stood politically, for themselves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment re RfC While it's a vague term, if it is used in a source as a describer for the JBS then a sentence should be included along the lines of "JBS has been described to be a far right group{source##}" or something along those lines. We cannot say that it is far right, as we cannot draw conclusions, make synthesis, or give undue weight as it does not sound like the description is used universally(would they describe themselves as such is always a good question to ask). Outback the koala ( talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
One problem with citing those who use possibly pejorative terms is that there is clearly no possiblility of finding a cite that "a group is not (pejorative)." Clearly WP expects POV statements to be possibly balanceable by other statements, but such statements are intrinsically not balanceable as people do not generally make "anti-pejorative" claims in RSs <g>. Thus the possibility that "X org members are mass murderers" (in someone's opinion) would be balanced by what? How can it be balanced? IMHO, where an opinion can not possibly be counterweighted, it produced an NPOV paradox. Collect ( talk) 12:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) "Far right" is a perjorative term when loosely applied. I notice that the US broadcast media is now using the term "far right" to describe the radical opponents of mainstream Republicans (the Tea Party movement), but that does not mean that we should report this. However, for groups like the BNP that are normally described as "far right" in academic literature and by law enforcement and groups that monitor the far right, it is fitting that this would be reported. It works for the other side as well - the Democrats have been called "socialist", which is pejorative, but would not be pejorative if applied to the Socialist Party USA. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Will Beback, what you are doing is cherry picking:
Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias.
A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants.
Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.
What you are doing is picking articles that are not mainstream about either the John Birch Society or the "far right". Indeed some writers have described the JBS as "far right" and they have called the Tea Party movement the same. Similar sources may also describe progressive democrats as "far left". None of this provides any useful information to readers. What you should do is read the literature about the JBS and include it in the article rather than refer to obscure articles that have received no recognition in the literature. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Yes they were peer-reviewed and are therefore reliable sources for The Mississippi Republican Party and Nesta Webster, not for tangential information. Why would you use these articles as a source that JBS is far right rather than an article about the JBS or the far right? That represents cherry-picking and poor scholarship. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The sources here are overwhelmingly reputable, and they overwhelmingly describe the organization as far right. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that we are even having a discussion over this particular topic. UberCryxic ( talk) 07:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hope this helps, -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The current first staement about the JBS is a hit piece that a far left liberal keeps adding hit and run style. This is no different from calling the ACLU a communist front group. Publiusohio ( talk) 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the website, the headquarters is at: [24]
Grand Chute is apparently a suburb of Appleton. Will Beback talk 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
ZIP is 54914 - listed as Appleton, WI. [26] thinks the address is in Appleton. In short, the USPS uses Appleton as the proper address for mail. Appleton, though a city, is significantly smaller than Grand Chute. [27] more clearly shows the relationship. [28] is of interest <g>. We are, frankly, safer using the USPS address for this one. Collect ( talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a smear against the jbs organization on here. The editors seem to think that what a group defended historically has prevalence in it's current message and by that logic the Democratic Party must also be considered Radical Right Wing as it too once supported segregation as a state right during the civil rights movement. The JBS organization has clearly defined it's terms on it's website to continually smear it is not only grossly unfair but misleading to label them as a radical right-wing organization. The JBS should be listed as a conservative group as they are just that. I will be removing the term "radical right-wing" in order to present a clear and factual basis. Tomgazer ( talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The difference between orginazations such as the KKK and JBS is that the KKK accepts and admits radical ideals where as the JBS has never accepted any of these ideals. IT DOES NOT MATTER what people say about them and just because The Washington Post runs any article about them saying they are radical does not mean NECCESARILY that they are. The KKK can not be compared to the JBS as the JBS has never accpeted or espoused any of those so called radical beliefs and the primary mission of the JBS HAS been to confront communism. The article should be edited to refer to them as Conservative with a sub-section about the accusations. Tomgazer ( talk) 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Folks can't just keep deleting well-sourced material. [1] I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not going to get into an edit war. What language does The Four Deuces propose to cover the "far right" issue? Will Beback talk 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The current version is fine. We don't need to sacrifice accuracy along with a million reputable sources. UBER (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"Right-wing" seems to cover it perfectly fine. Conservative groups are not generally placed on the "far-right" by neutral sources. In the mean time Uber needs to stop pushing his own political views in articles, he is damaging the project. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all, Deuces is just factually wrong when calling this a "minority opinion," an absolutely outlandish assertion not supported by any reputable sources, mind you. The reason why far-right belongs in the lead is precisely because the organization is so overwhelmingly labeled by a vast swathe of reputable sources.
As for Yorkshirian, I have told the user to stop edit warring repeatedly, to no avail. Neutral sources, the same kind that Yorkshirian allegedly supports, call this organization far-right, and they should not be excluded from the lead. UBER (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
How do you know what most reputable sources call it? Do you have a reputable source saying "most reputable sources don't call it far right"? If you don't, then why are you making such a claim? UBER (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, the article currently says that in a matter of a fact sense this "is a far-right" organisation. An inherently bias position inserted into the article purely based on the personal views of Uber after quote mining for references. It gives undue weight to this position. We can also find many references which calls the subject of the article simply "right-wing". In the present form it takes the opinion of Cultural Marxists and others whom are hostile to the JBS and its worldview, as if it was a matter of a fact, but doesn't take into account the view of people who are either neutral, more favourable diposed to it or the organisation itself. Based on this it is inherently a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
York, have you even followed what's been happening on this talk page? "Uber quote mining for references"?!?!? What are you talking about? I have not added a single reference here; Will has done all the work on that front. I merely reviewed his sources and I came to the conclusion that the label applies to the organization. Please, if you're going to participate in the discussion, at least pretend like you're paying attention. UBER (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Has a compromise been offered that describes the group only as "right", unqualified? Qualifications like "far-" or "extremist" generally have negative connotations. Wouldn't it be best to let the reader decide how "far" they are relative to their experience? Has this proposal failed in the past? Xavexgoem ( talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing two disputes: one is neutrality and the other verifiability. Was "far-right" considered neutral before the sources were found, or is "far-right" neutral because of the sources? Is the use of the word "far-right" neutral? Xavexgoem ( talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(out) Routledge companion to fascism and the far right says: "The 'far right' consists of those anti-Communists and anti-socialists who, in the pursuit of their goals, are also either hostile to or indifferent to the values and practices of liberal democracy. However, their view, that the ends justify the means, even if the means include extra-legal violence, terror and dictatorship, often echo those of the far left." (, p. 5) What is Will BeBack's definition? None of the sources that Will Beback provides include any definition of the "far right". I can provide other sources, but Will has presented none. He thinks that the fact that Martha Lee called them far right is sufficient. The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way Deuces, since you brought up Hughes...that aphorism is, in fact, attributed to Hughes. Why do you say that he did not make the comment? UBER (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Right-wing seems to cover it fairly enough. If "far-right" is in the article anyway (no way in the lede), then we need to make sure its mentioned WHO uses the phrase; ie - that it political opponents, critical theory Marxists and people who have a financial incentive to exagerate or distort the JBS. The version as it has been protected is simply complete POV. Maybe later in the article simply mention "far-left extremists have claimed that the JBS is far-right". - Yorkshirian ( talk) 10:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand and respect Diamond's viewpoint, but she by herself cannot bypass and override the work of so many other scholars and reputable journalists. We're not going to refrain from using far-right just because Sara Diamond says it's not ok. You're still talking about a distinction without a difference, and I think I need to explain what the so-called radical right does in this country (US). Let's see...they bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortions, launch physical attacks against people who "look like" illegal immigrants (while railing against immigration on talk radio all day), and go to Unitarian Universalist churches and kill the members for being liberals. In this country, that gets called the radical right, and for all intents and purposes, it's the same psychotic right-wing you're describing elsewhere. Like I said, we're just going in circles over semantics. UBER (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's just call them radical right and move on from this pointless fight. Deuces, before I go any further, let me get a hard assurance from you on the following point: would you be willing to substitute "radical right" for "far right" at that exact spot in the lead? If you agree to that, I think we should pat ourselves on the back and call it a day. Arguing over what is essentially nothing but semantics for weeks can get a little bit tiresome. UBER (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
{editprotected} Is it possible to unlock this ariticle for an edit that is unrelated to the present controversy? Bert Schlossberg ( talk) 02:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In the After Welch section, I'd like to insert the italics :
The second head of the Society was Congressman Larry McDonald from Georgia, the only sitting member of Congress to reportedly have been killed by the Soviets during the Cold War when the plane he had boarded along with 268 others, KAL 007, was shot down by the Soviets in international waters on Sept. 1, 1983. He was on the way to the 30th year commemoration of U.S.-S. Korea Mutual Defense Treaty in Seoul , along with Senator Jesse Helms on KAL 015, 15 minutes behind, when KAL 007 was downed near Moneron Island just west of Sakhalin.
Yorkshirian ( talk · contribs), a key party to the edit warring, has been banned by (overwhelming) community consensus. What do people think about unprotecting? Can we play nice and maybe even stick to 1RR for a while and make use of this talk page? (Yes, I copied this same message to Yorkshirian's other battleground, Talk:British National Party). Wknight94 talk 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb here and claim that we're not making any progress and that we're unlikely to do so in the next week. I have irreconcilable differences with Deuces, with the possible exception that I'm willing to substitute "radical right-wing" for "far-right." If Deuces and Will are willing to agree with that, mediation won't be necessary. Otherwise, formal mediation is the best way forward. UBER (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Formal mediation will not reconcile irreconcilable differences, either. I'm the chair of that committee, and I wouldn't know how to respond to the case being accepted. One-word disputes are the bane of good mediation. I can't think of a way around this except phrases such as "outside the mainstream of the US right", etc. If I'm not mistaken, 4D's position is to have the JBS as "right-wing" unqualified, correct? Xavexgoem ( talk) 03:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There are two sources which have not been discussed. Both of these sources have been effusively praised by the Birch Society itself. Both of these sources constitute formal and informal investigations conducted into the JBS.
SOURCE #1 = J. EDGAR HOOVER / FBI
The Birch Society has effusively praised Hoover and the FBI as our nation's most knowledgeable, authoritative, and reliable source of data about the communist movement as well as on what constitutes legitimate and effective anti-communist activities. For example:
JBS Bulletin, July 1961, page 11
“But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”
American Opinion [JBS magazine], October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”:
Hoover is described as "the government's top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!"
In his Warren Commission testimony (Volume 5, page 101), J. Edgar Hoover characterized the Birch Society's beliefs as "extreme right".
Many FBI internal memos describe the Birch Society with terms such as "extremist", "irrational", "irresponsible", "lunatic fringe" and "fanatics".
For example, one memo discusses what the Bureau could do to combat "the growth of extreme rightists as exemplified by the John Birch Society.” [FBI HQ file 62-106364, serial #72, 10/28/61 memo from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Belmont, page 1].
SOURCE #2 = THE CALIFORNIA SENATE FACT-FINDING SUBCOMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
This Subcommittee conducted a two-year investigation of the Birch Society and it issued its Report in 1963. The Birch Society was so impressed with the Report that they reprinted the entire Report in July 1963 and then sold the reprint at their American Opinion bookstores.
In his introduction to the reprint, JBS founder Robert Welch stated that "nowhere in this Report is there the slightest sign of any unfair partisan approach to the task of the Committee" AND "But the important fact is that this Committee of Democratic legislators, in the currently very 'Liberal' state of California, was determined to do its investigating job -- and did its job -- in a completely honorable and objective manner."
The Chairman of the Subcommittee, State Senator Hugh M. Burns, responded to an inquiry about his Subcommittee's Report by stating that the Birch Society was “...an extremist group, and, like extremist groups from time immemorial, plagues our country. Extremists from the Know-Nothings on have served no useful purpose."
In its 1965 Report, the Subcommittee updated its 1963 findings on the JBS. The Committee confirmed what it predicted about the JBS in 1963:
" The John Birch Society is certainly charged with a high degree of emotionalism...It has, as we predicted, been beset by an influx of emotionally unstable people, some of whom have been prosecuted in the courts for their hoodlum tactics in disrupting meetings and heckling speakers with whom they disagree...We are more critical of the Society now than we were [in the 1963 Report] for the reason that it has, in our opinion, merited such criticism by reason of its activities as exemplified by the irresponsible articles by a member of its National Council, the re-publication of The Politician, the inexcusable actions of its minority of irresponsible members, and dangerous increase of anti-Semitism among a minority of the membership." 1965 Report, page 174]
Given this data, it seems entirely fair and reasonable to describe the Birch Society as an "extreme right" organization --- particularly since giants within the conservative intellectual and political activist communities denounced the JBS as inept and harmful to legitimate conservatism.
See, for example, derogatory comments about the JBS made over the years by such prominent conservatives as Russell Kirk, James Burnham, George F. Will, Frank S. Meyer, Eugene Lyons, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr., Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, Gov. George Romney, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. John Tower, Cong. Walter Judd, the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events, and a host of others. Ernie1241 ( talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Per above discussions, are Will and Deuces willing to agree to substitute "radical right-wing" for "far-right"? This seems like the best compromise. UBER (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There is "sourced material" on both sides. What makes "far right" or "radical right" POV is that the liberals here only want THEIR sourced material listed and seek to eradicate sourced material to show that the JBS advocates a constitutional moderate position. Publiusohio ( talk) 03:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Has properly sourced criticism of the John Birch Society been removed by user, who claims that the material is taken out of context and is POV, particularly sources that describe the JBS as "marginalized" or "conspiracist?"
Publiusohio claims that material is taken out of context and is POV, particularly sources that describe the JBS as "marginalized" or "conspiracist?" [11] , "ultraconservative" [12] or as right-wing [13]. When asked why (s)he has removed this material, Publiusohio writes POV essays or attempts to discuss other irrelevent topics, such as the entry on the ACLU. Would other users like to comment on what can be done regarding this? Thank you. -- Hardindr ( talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Publiusohio seems hostile to the introduction of sources other than the official JBS website, or attempts to characterize the activities of the society in any kind of political context. Accordingly, the article has some glaring omissions most notably
In other words this article more or less exclusively presents the history of the JBS from the JBS perspective, and would need a drastic re-structuring to even approach NPOV. Any one (preferably someone who knows more about American History than I do) care to lend a hand? EDIT: added a source, fixed a code error. 151.199.22.152 ( talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
You can always depend on Chip Berlet to promote the JBS using slander. Now he is an editor of this page. How ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.237.140 ( talk) 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It has been described as "ultraconservative", [1] "far right", [2] "radical right", [3] and "extremist". [4]
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)There is a dispute about whether or not the John Birch Society (JBS) should be described as "far right". Current academic usage, law enforcement and organizations that monitor hate groups generally reserve the term for groups that are racist, anti-semitic or violent. However the JBS is sometimes referred to as "far right" in newspapers and journalism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) You have not provided a reference from the Wall Street Journal that calls the JBS "far right". However if you Google search "Wall Street Journal" "John Birch Society" and "far right" and search through hundreds of hits you will probably find a reference that backs up your viewpoint. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment via RfC Far right is a fairly vague term and should probably be avoided unless there's a fair amount of mainstream consensus that a particular group are "far right". A point which is particularly more acute when a group don't exhibiting some of the characteristics that normally make a group far right. In saying this I can't help notice that this article seems to apply quite of labels to the John Birch Society without saying where they stand on more mundane issues. If it said where they stood on immigration, health care, abortion, positive discrimination and so on, readers could judge where the Society stood politically, for themselves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 02:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment re RfC While it's a vague term, if it is used in a source as a describer for the JBS then a sentence should be included along the lines of "JBS has been described to be a far right group{source##}" or something along those lines. We cannot say that it is far right, as we cannot draw conclusions, make synthesis, or give undue weight as it does not sound like the description is used universally(would they describe themselves as such is always a good question to ask). Outback the koala ( talk) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
One problem with citing those who use possibly pejorative terms is that there is clearly no possiblility of finding a cite that "a group is not (pejorative)." Clearly WP expects POV statements to be possibly balanceable by other statements, but such statements are intrinsically not balanceable as people do not generally make "anti-pejorative" claims in RSs <g>. Thus the possibility that "X org members are mass murderers" (in someone's opinion) would be balanced by what? How can it be balanced? IMHO, where an opinion can not possibly be counterweighted, it produced an NPOV paradox. Collect ( talk) 12:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) "Far right" is a perjorative term when loosely applied. I notice that the US broadcast media is now using the term "far right" to describe the radical opponents of mainstream Republicans (the Tea Party movement), but that does not mean that we should report this. However, for groups like the BNP that are normally described as "far right" in academic literature and by law enforcement and groups that monitor the far right, it is fitting that this would be reported. It works for the other side as well - the Democrats have been called "socialist", which is pejorative, but would not be pejorative if applied to the Socialist Party USA. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Will Beback, what you are doing is cherry picking:
Often the main tool of a coatrack article is fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias.
A common fact picking device is listing great amounts of individual peoples' quotes criticizing of the nominal subject, while expending little or no effort mentioning that the criticism comes from a small fraction of people. That small fraction thus gets a soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants.
Even though the facts may be true as such, the proportional volume of the hand-picked facts drowns other information, giving a false impression to the reader.
What you are doing is picking articles that are not mainstream about either the John Birch Society or the "far right". Indeed some writers have described the JBS as "far right" and they have called the Tea Party movement the same. Similar sources may also describe progressive democrats as "far left". None of this provides any useful information to readers. What you should do is read the literature about the JBS and include it in the article rather than refer to obscure articles that have received no recognition in the literature. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(out) Yes they were peer-reviewed and are therefore reliable sources for The Mississippi Republican Party and Nesta Webster, not for tangential information. Why would you use these articles as a source that JBS is far right rather than an article about the JBS or the far right? That represents cherry-picking and poor scholarship. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The sources here are overwhelmingly reputable, and they overwhelmingly describe the organization as far right. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that we are even having a discussion over this particular topic. UberCryxic ( talk) 07:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hope this helps, -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The current first staement about the JBS is a hit piece that a far left liberal keeps adding hit and run style. This is no different from calling the ACLU a communist front group. Publiusohio ( talk) 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the website, the headquarters is at: [24]
Grand Chute is apparently a suburb of Appleton. Will Beback talk 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
ZIP is 54914 - listed as Appleton, WI. [26] thinks the address is in Appleton. In short, the USPS uses Appleton as the proper address for mail. Appleton, though a city, is significantly smaller than Grand Chute. [27] more clearly shows the relationship. [28] is of interest <g>. We are, frankly, safer using the USPS address for this one. Collect ( talk) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a smear against the jbs organization on here. The editors seem to think that what a group defended historically has prevalence in it's current message and by that logic the Democratic Party must also be considered Radical Right Wing as it too once supported segregation as a state right during the civil rights movement. The JBS organization has clearly defined it's terms on it's website to continually smear it is not only grossly unfair but misleading to label them as a radical right-wing organization. The JBS should be listed as a conservative group as they are just that. I will be removing the term "radical right-wing" in order to present a clear and factual basis. Tomgazer ( talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The difference between orginazations such as the KKK and JBS is that the KKK accepts and admits radical ideals where as the JBS has never accepted any of these ideals. IT DOES NOT MATTER what people say about them and just because The Washington Post runs any article about them saying they are radical does not mean NECCESARILY that they are. The KKK can not be compared to the JBS as the JBS has never accpeted or espoused any of those so called radical beliefs and the primary mission of the JBS HAS been to confront communism. The article should be edited to refer to them as Conservative with a sub-section about the accusations. Tomgazer ( talk) 05:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)