![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
This term is inadequate for describing the position of the JBS society on the political spectrum and is generally used by people who seek to conjure prejudices in the readers mind. I think it is not right to label the society as such, particularly right at the start of the article, but for full factual description we should mention it as a term some people use further down the page.
If you click through the link used here, this is the definition you reach: "Far right politics involves supremacism, believing that superiority and inferiority are an innate reality for individuals and groups, and involves the complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm. Far right politics often supports segregation, and the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior. Far-right politics and political views commonly include authoritarianism, homophobia, nativism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia."
This does not correctly describe the politics of the JBS. -- 81.100.215.14 ( talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. I changed "radical" to "far" before I read the discussion. Sorry. I hope you all can see that weather you keep a word before "right wing" or not, "far" is way better than "radical". "Radical" has name-calling taint which is non-neutral. One of the references for it (ABC) doesn't even say "radical", it says "far". I think it is important on controversial things to be really dry and drearily straightforward. For these reasons, I would prefer leaving off any descriptor, even if ABC news used it once providing that vaunted-reference-to-prove-it's-okay. The best bet is to be really dry and boring! :-)
108.7.8.102 ( talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The 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) Seymour Martin Lipset coined the term "radical right" in the 1950s to describe American extremist groups, which includes the far right, the John Birch Society and patriot groups. [6] Sara Diamond confirms that this terminology is generally used by mainstream social scientists. [7]
WP:Weight says, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That means that "radical right" takes priority.
WP:LABEL says, "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That means we can state the the JBS has been called "far right" but cannot state this is a majority view.
TFD ( talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
These are not "obscure" academic sources but the mainstream academic sources for the John Birch Society and the (not so near) Right. Furthermore I am not relying on the terms that they use, but Diamond's claim that this is the usual terminology used by academics. There are two reasons why we should prefer this usage over usage in popular media:
Please provide a reference to a WP policy that says we should give priority to the New York Times over peer-reviewed academic sources and a policy that says WP editors may conduct their own research to determine what terms are most commonly used.
TFD ( talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you did not say anything about WP:LABEL. TFD ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"Looking at the balance seen in the reliable sources" is original research. Can you please provide a source that says this. I love original research, but you need sources to support your statements. Also, you seem to believe that popular media is more reliable than academic sources. Please provide sources that back up your view. I find it unfortunate that some people wish to trivialize the far right, which was responsible for the Second World War in which 50,000,000 died by grouping them with crazy but harmless US conspiracy theorists. I also find it sad that people would prefer to use screaming headlines from newspapers as sources rather than reasoned opinions in academic writing. Incidentally, it we label a group, we need sources. I understand that in America there is a tendency in the media to provide extreme labels to groups - for example Fox News calls General Electric a "far left corporation". In fact they are more commonly called "far left" than "radical left". You seem to have strong views on the US political spectrum, but this article should be written from a position of neutrality and not parrot American "left-wing" or American "right-wing" points of view.
By the way I will ask you again, I have asked about three times already but you have not replied. If you do not wish to answer my question you do not have to do so, but out of courtesy, please say that you refuse to answer rather than ignoring the question. What do you think "far right" means, why do you consider the JBS to be far right, can you please provide a source calling the JBS far right that explains what the term means. In fairness I have I have provided sources for the current description.
TFD ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I took your advice and asked you on your talk page what you think "far right" means. I should actually have asked you what reliable sources (as you understand them) interpret the term to mean. Obviously, if we wish to label a group as "far right" we should understand what the term means.
I certainly accept that NPOV should dictate how this article is presented. The policy, as you so kindly pointed out says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". According to the policy of no original research, "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material". Please provide a source that says your label is the mainstream view. Also, WP:Verifiability dictates that we give priority to academic sources.
I suppose that in your Weltanshauung, the JBS is "far right" and you can find articles that support your view. But the purpose of articles is to inform people, not to disgrace groups or to present personal views. The fact that the news media is sloppy in its description of various extremist groups does not mean that we should be equally sloppy. You have a choice to make: do you want to discredit or to explain the JBS? Please show respect for readers' intelligence. They do not need to be told that the JBS is "far right", they need the organization to be explained to them in a neutral way. While you may wish to steer people away from them, misrepresenting them is unlikely to succeed. Injecting our personal bias into articles is no way to persuade people, and of course the purpose of Wikipedia is not to do this. Please see the policy neutral point of view.
TFD ( talk) 05:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I am merely replying to your questions. Also, even if you wanted to put "far right" into the lead, policy dictates that you present it as an opinion, not as a fact. The most you could say is, "While the JBS is frequently called "far right", most social scientists reject the description because...." NPOV states: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.... statements which express a value or opinion, or a fact about which there is serious dispute among reliable sources, should not be made directly.... [19]
But how do you know the press usually calls them "far right"? While your Google "News Archives" returns 207 hits for john-birch+"far right" [20], it returns 27,500 hits when the term "far right is omitted. [21] Presumably 99% of articles about the JBS do not call it "far right". A search for "sarah palin"+"far right" on the other hand returns 997 hits. [22] (Granted many of them are about her supporters.)
TFD ( talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You have asked the following questions all of which have been answered:
TFD ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to criticize the JBS, so so in a section outlined for that. You can source all of you far left liberals and their New Deal minions like Bill Buckley (who had a personal feud with Robert Welch) there. The otroduction section should simply state what the JBS does. You can editoralize with your far left sources in other places. Publiusohio ( talk) 03:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In the intro should you mention who the society is named for? I was unable to find this information in this article. Another article said it was named for a missionary killed in China. Limonar27 ( talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has placed a POV template on the article with the explanation, "Flagged article as not having a neutral POV... See discussion". However it is unclear what reason the editor has for this. Could you please explain why you think this article is not neutral. In the meantime, I am removing the template. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This article takes sourced material from critics of the JBS and places it at the forefront of the article in a clearly BIASED MANNER. If you know how to read you can tell that many others in the articles discussion believe likewise. POV Flag re-added. -- Xephael ( talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
When you're calling a society "extremists" I would think it's fair to say you're a critical of it. I am getting rid of the POV flag since the critical comments were moved down to the values area. I'm not exactly a fan of "left/right wing" in describing political groups, but that's a different matter. -- Xephael ( talk) 02:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I came here to try to do research, and immediately dismissed the validity of the article because it was obviously biased. Rationalize it anyway you like, but it is not worthy to be considered for objective research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgeOldSage ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a similar reaction as the previous commenter. Even though I personally agree the Birch Society to be more on the extreme end, finding this article state it as a fact and up front made me dismiss this article from the first as unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.170 ( talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new section where people can happily submit their critical sources and descriptions of the JBS without irritating the other people who don't want an inaccurate and non-neutral term to be used in the article's introduction.-- 81.100.215.14 ( talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Remember the Radical Republicans? Champions of abolition and equal rights for freedmen before and after the Civil War? I'd rather wear my radical label as a badge of honor, than as a reviled scarlet letter. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.241.194.149 (
talk)
16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been stated that the JBS is on the far right as even rightwing figures like Reagan and Nixon thought that it was to extreme and radical in it's views on communism and american socitey. Read Reagan's bio for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 ( talk) 00:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarify who "Eisenhower" is with a link to Dwight D. Eisenhower. 99.102.182.152 ( talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a nice hack job of an article, but where is the criticism of the paranoid, irrational rants and ravings found throughout? Viriditas ( talk) 04:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"It opposes collectivism, including wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, socialism, communism, and fascism, despite the collectivist philosophy espoused in the New Testament." This is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. Please add supporting evidence or strike "despite the collectivist philosophy espoused in the New Testament." Mpkorich ( talk) 04:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like JBS was behind that too. [23] Viriditas ( talk) 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
JBS was also against urban renewal, and margarine. All we need is genuine reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Members of the far right have gone even farther back in time in tracing the roots of plotting against the United States. "The John Birch Society has long held that the conspiracy of the Illuminati...is the predecessor of a modern-day conspiracy warring against our country and civilization," John F. McManus, president of the right-wing organization, wrote in 2007. Long centered in Massachusetts, it is now based in Appleton, Wis., McCarthy's hometown.
The founding of the John Birch Society in 1958 marked the reemergence of conspiratorial, far-right views — minus the anti-Semitism — in respectable society. Birch Society doctrine viewed the United Nations as a communist organization. Founder Robert Welch, an executive in his brother's candy company, went further, calling President Dwight D. Eisenhower “a dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.” Welch's wild accusation stoked outrage in the political mainstream. President Harry S Truman reportedly called the Birch Society “the Ku Klux Klan, without nightshirts.” [26]
How is it appropriate to characterize a group as "radical right" before recognizing its nationality? "Radical right" seems to be used as a pejorative to disqualify the organization's views outright.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to use this section to add general references (about JBS) to this section for proposed expansion and addition. Viriditas ( talk) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)It appears to be an "opinion piece" more than anything else. Why do you feel it is "essential" here? Collect ( talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that there are several problems inherent in writing an article about any political group (or religious group, or economic group etc.). First - there is a set of information about the beliefs once held by supporters of the group or the group, which may not represent the current group accurately at all. Second - information which others have posited to be held by a group in the past (frequently taking the form of opinions in popular oublications) which may not represent actual positions taken by the historical group, and generally do not represent a "photo" of any current group at all. Third is a set of information representing current beliefs and opinions of a group as set forth by the group. Fourth is the set of opinions posited by current popular literature to be held by the current group. Fifth is the scholarly study of the historical opinions and beliefs of a group. Sixth is scholarly material relating to current opinions and beliefs of a group. There may be more. Much of any conflict in this article is due to trying to place everything in it as though all was the same <g>. Collect ( talk) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a discussion thread at RSN here. TFD ( talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The use of the world "radical" here is not objective, it is opinion, and does belong in a purportedly objective, encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.144.46 ( talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a similar attempt to characterize anyone associated with the current American Tea Party Movement as a radical, fringe, type. This appears to be a partisan attempt to marginalize some legitimate concerns of the American people, which only encourages ignorance. While some people associated with either group may be of the radical type this characterization should not define the entire organization or movement because it is not accurate. Perhaps JBS use to be radical (compared to the American political spectrum at the time) or had some radical elements or people associated with it. However, this cannot give rise to an "encyclopedia" defining it through the eyes of the Democrat Party or party member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.144.45 ( talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with the view that using the term “radical right wing” is a pejorative motivated by political biases, and this would be okay if we understood what “radical” meant in terms of the “right wing.” Perhaps we should go back to using terms such as federalist/anti-federalist. We cannot hold the author responsible for the entire body of work, but there should be an effort toward consistency at Wikipedia. For example, there is no statement regarding the New Black Power Party that identifies it as a “radical left wing” organization. What is it specifically that makes JBS radical? Is it because they hold conservative views? So too did Jack Kennedy. Is it because they appear racist? So too does NAACP policies. Is it because they are intolerant of other points of view? We have no evidence of that. Espousing a conservative point of view does not make anyone radical, even when they appear on the right side of the political spectrum. ( Mustang63 ( talk) 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC))
We are not quite sure why the confrontational question, “How many times do we have to go through this?” We are not children and do not take kindly to being treated as such. Either you allow a debate on the merits or you do not. State which you prefer and if you do not, then we can end the discussion here and now. If you object to challenges, then we submit you are in the wrong avocation.
In fact, we do object to the use “radical right wing,” and the argument of common usage in academia offers rhetoric in place of substance. It follows the argument, “It is so because I say it is so.” Since our views offer as much substance as yours, we suggest the following for your further consideration. Political advocacy that is anti-communist, favoring limited government, and Americentrism (itself a pejorative term, according to Wikipedia) would appear in the American mainstream were it not for the radical left ideology associated with Marxism and the progressive movement.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams
We believe JBS represents a libertarian point of view, which of course includes anti-communist, limited government, and an objective view of American history. We may also assume that it is constitutionally constructionist; such beliefs do not make people vile even when you have a disparate point of view. Finally, the appearance in academic literature of the term ‘radical right’ does not at all suggest it is true, or valid, or that we must accept such usage out of hand. ( Mustang63 ( talk) 01:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
_____ "...the argument of common usage in academia offers rhetoric in place of substance. It follows the argument, “It is so because I say it is so.”
I could not have said this any better. Common usage in academia is NOT a valid argument, particularly when such "common usage" directly contradicts the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the term in question: "radical" (see my argument above). 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)——
“We” assure you there is no advocacy for other than an unbiased entry. The topic is politicized, but only because you insist using pejorative language. If you are not dedicated to unbiased social science, we don’t think you should pretend otherwise. Thank you for your time.( Mustang63 ( talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Mustang63 or whomever "we" are... apparently you do not understand what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. Allow me to explain it to you in simple terms: It is a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge. There is no imperative for objective truth. I'm glad I could clear this up for you. ( Leslie35 ( talk) 04:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Can you cite even one group on the "right" who describe THEMSELVES as "far right", "extreme right", or "extremist"? The FACT that you can't, right there - in and of itself - proves that the slur is obviously pejorative => i.e. not "neutral" and should be removed. 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure Joe.
Perhaps you can tell me which of these concepts has you baffled, and I'll try to walk you through it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.156.22 ( talk) 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Constitutional moderate" is John Birch Society's OWN description of themselves. Proven and referenced here: [8]
Who is to their (JBS's) "right"? Anarchists. [9]
Anarchists: (Far Right)
Constitutional Moderates (Center Right)
If you are to further persist in referring to the JBS as "extremist" or "radical" in the future, the impetous is on YOU to prove it. Provide EVIDENCE of violence, insurrection, riot, etc. conducted by the JBS, or on their behalf to justify it.
130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"what any group labels themselves is nothing more than marketing"
—— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it funny how "liberal" and "libertarian" mean totally different things? All kinds of right-wing wackos are "libertarian", that is, for guns and fundamentalism, against condoms and globalism. So, why on earth does cultural tolerance (as in liberalism) seem so remote from freedom of individual (as libertarians claim to alone campaign for) in all discussion? This kind of bothers me (just as a by-stander). Also, calling out "objective facts" to correct "liberal smear and bias" just seems like the another line of unconstructive critique. Please point the rest of us to the sources first. -- Sigmundur ( talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several people on this site that do not consider objective facts and use their own uneducated perceptions of the JBS to label it as they see fit. This should entry should be fact based only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (moved down from top of page)
Ok, in future only use educated perceptions of the John BS; a link to William Buckley's famous 1962 reading-out of the John BS from the conservative movement would be a good start.
As for objective facts...facts are facts. As Chesterton pointed out, they are like twigs, they point in all directions. The world-view by which you interpet the facts is what gives them significance. The lumping of all their enemies into one unified-field-theory type of paranoid conspiracy is the world-view of the John BS. *That* is the significant thing about the group that distinguishes them from many other groups that favor limited government. I suggest this be put into the article as a fact. 84.69.150.82 ( talk) 01:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There are editors herewith a clear agenda tuse subjective terms such as "right wing" which connotate anachry or equally incorrectly fascism. The JBS has NEVER endorsed either.
Considering the current rise and general popularity in America of ideas such as limited federal government and a desired return to the American Founder's conception and development of the U.S. Constitution it is likely unreasonable to characterize an organization like JBS who currently values these ideas to be a "radical" right wing group. Its hardly radical when nearly half of the American populace supports limited government and anti-socialistic policies.
Absolutely correct. 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)——
Except the Birch Society has been opposed to foreign wars all through the Bush years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.54.209 ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: "These ppl had no prob..." In my OPINION, the objection which you presented is a heartfelt emotional rant, and a clear unabashed display of bias.
You are claiming, through clear personal opinion that "torture" is whatever you say it is, "separation of church and state" is "Constitutional", despite not being found anywhere in the Pre-amble, the Constitution, or the Federalist papers; that the first amendment Constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech" specifically prohibit expression of speech in any place in which the state has placed its hand - despite the concept and term 'God' in every founding document, throughout law, and in our currency; You imply gay people living together is "marriage" - despite marriage's universal existance in every disparate culture, it's exclusive designation as male / female in virtually every unconnected culture from pre-history until present, and based upon an unqualified defacto declaration as "FACT" that reproduction is NOT of unique or special importance in personal relationships - despite an overwhelming proponderance of indisputable evidence in which thousands upon thousands of the worlds historically independent cultures have determined independantly for themselves that it does. "If a car and a roller skate are both red, both have four wheels, and are both means of conveyance, then a car must be a roller skate." This line of reasoning is clearly not valid, and to the point. Function matters. You declare your opinions as "FACT" and declare as "Center" - your OPINION - even though a great many people with equally valid, defensible, and rational opinion completely disagree with you and have a much deeper, more established, and historically cogent claim to the title "Center".
When you declare as "radical" or "far-right" any notion other than your own simply because YOU personally disagree is the very essence of bias. It is a clear contradiction of the "Neutrality" wikipedia.org declares ideal, and I strongly urge you to separate yourself emotionally and concede that "radical" is a loaded and disparaging term.
Definition: Radical: favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards *** change from accepted or traditional forms ***:
Clearly, if "radical" is used as a descriptor.. it is YOUR non-traditional, reformatory views that this term most aptly applies. 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
This term is inadequate for describing the position of the JBS society on the political spectrum and is generally used by people who seek to conjure prejudices in the readers mind. I think it is not right to label the society as such, particularly right at the start of the article, but for full factual description we should mention it as a term some people use further down the page.
If you click through the link used here, this is the definition you reach: "Far right politics involves supremacism, believing that superiority and inferiority are an innate reality for individuals and groups, and involves the complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm. Far right politics often supports segregation, and the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior. Far-right politics and political views commonly include authoritarianism, homophobia, nativism, racism, sexism, and xenophobia."
This does not correctly describe the politics of the JBS. -- 81.100.215.14 ( talk) 02:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys. I changed "radical" to "far" before I read the discussion. Sorry. I hope you all can see that weather you keep a word before "right wing" or not, "far" is way better than "radical". "Radical" has name-calling taint which is non-neutral. One of the references for it (ABC) doesn't even say "radical", it says "far". I think it is important on controversial things to be really dry and drearily straightforward. For these reasons, I would prefer leaving off any descriptor, even if ABC news used it once providing that vaunted-reference-to-prove-it's-okay. The best bet is to be really dry and boring! :-)
108.7.8.102 ( talk) 01:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The 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) Seymour Martin Lipset coined the term "radical right" in the 1950s to describe American extremist groups, which includes the far right, the John Birch Society and patriot groups. [6] Sara Diamond confirms that this terminology is generally used by mainstream social scientists. [7]
WP:Weight says, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That means that "radical right" takes priority.
WP:LABEL says, "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That means we can state the the JBS has been called "far right" but cannot state this is a majority view.
TFD ( talk) 20:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
These are not "obscure" academic sources but the mainstream academic sources for the John Birch Society and the (not so near) Right. Furthermore I am not relying on the terms that they use, but Diamond's claim that this is the usual terminology used by academics. There are two reasons why we should prefer this usage over usage in popular media:
Please provide a reference to a WP policy that says we should give priority to the New York Times over peer-reviewed academic sources and a policy that says WP editors may conduct their own research to determine what terms are most commonly used.
TFD ( talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you did not say anything about WP:LABEL. TFD ( talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"Looking at the balance seen in the reliable sources" is original research. Can you please provide a source that says this. I love original research, but you need sources to support your statements. Also, you seem to believe that popular media is more reliable than academic sources. Please provide sources that back up your view. I find it unfortunate that some people wish to trivialize the far right, which was responsible for the Second World War in which 50,000,000 died by grouping them with crazy but harmless US conspiracy theorists. I also find it sad that people would prefer to use screaming headlines from newspapers as sources rather than reasoned opinions in academic writing. Incidentally, it we label a group, we need sources. I understand that in America there is a tendency in the media to provide extreme labels to groups - for example Fox News calls General Electric a "far left corporation". In fact they are more commonly called "far left" than "radical left". You seem to have strong views on the US political spectrum, but this article should be written from a position of neutrality and not parrot American "left-wing" or American "right-wing" points of view.
By the way I will ask you again, I have asked about three times already but you have not replied. If you do not wish to answer my question you do not have to do so, but out of courtesy, please say that you refuse to answer rather than ignoring the question. What do you think "far right" means, why do you consider the JBS to be far right, can you please provide a source calling the JBS far right that explains what the term means. In fairness I have I have provided sources for the current description.
TFD ( talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I took your advice and asked you on your talk page what you think "far right" means. I should actually have asked you what reliable sources (as you understand them) interpret the term to mean. Obviously, if we wish to label a group as "far right" we should understand what the term means.
I certainly accept that NPOV should dictate how this article is presented. The policy, as you so kindly pointed out says, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". According to the policy of no original research, "The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material". Please provide a source that says your label is the mainstream view. Also, WP:Verifiability dictates that we give priority to academic sources.
I suppose that in your Weltanshauung, the JBS is "far right" and you can find articles that support your view. But the purpose of articles is to inform people, not to disgrace groups or to present personal views. The fact that the news media is sloppy in its description of various extremist groups does not mean that we should be equally sloppy. You have a choice to make: do you want to discredit or to explain the JBS? Please show respect for readers' intelligence. They do not need to be told that the JBS is "far right", they need the organization to be explained to them in a neutral way. While you may wish to steer people away from them, misrepresenting them is unlikely to succeed. Injecting our personal bias into articles is no way to persuade people, and of course the purpose of Wikipedia is not to do this. Please see the policy neutral point of view.
TFD ( talk) 05:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I am merely replying to your questions. Also, even if you wanted to put "far right" into the lead, policy dictates that you present it as an opinion, not as a fact. The most you could say is, "While the JBS is frequently called "far right", most social scientists reject the description because...." NPOV states: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.... statements which express a value or opinion, or a fact about which there is serious dispute among reliable sources, should not be made directly.... [19]
But how do you know the press usually calls them "far right"? While your Google "News Archives" returns 207 hits for john-birch+"far right" [20], it returns 27,500 hits when the term "far right is omitted. [21] Presumably 99% of articles about the JBS do not call it "far right". A search for "sarah palin"+"far right" on the other hand returns 997 hits. [22] (Granted many of them are about her supporters.)
TFD ( talk) 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You have asked the following questions all of which have been answered:
TFD ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to criticize the JBS, so so in a section outlined for that. You can source all of you far left liberals and their New Deal minions like Bill Buckley (who had a personal feud with Robert Welch) there. The otroduction section should simply state what the JBS does. You can editoralize with your far left sources in other places. Publiusohio ( talk) 03:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
In the intro should you mention who the society is named for? I was unable to find this information in this article. Another article said it was named for a missionary killed in China. Limonar27 ( talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor has placed a POV template on the article with the explanation, "Flagged article as not having a neutral POV... See discussion". However it is unclear what reason the editor has for this. Could you please explain why you think this article is not neutral. In the meantime, I am removing the template. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This article takes sourced material from critics of the JBS and places it at the forefront of the article in a clearly BIASED MANNER. If you know how to read you can tell that many others in the articles discussion believe likewise. POV Flag re-added. -- Xephael ( talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
When you're calling a society "extremists" I would think it's fair to say you're a critical of it. I am getting rid of the POV flag since the critical comments were moved down to the values area. I'm not exactly a fan of "left/right wing" in describing political groups, but that's a different matter. -- Xephael ( talk) 02:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I came here to try to do research, and immediately dismissed the validity of the article because it was obviously biased. Rationalize it anyway you like, but it is not worthy to be considered for objective research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgeOldSage ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I had a similar reaction as the previous commenter. Even though I personally agree the Birch Society to be more on the extreme end, finding this article state it as a fact and up front made me dismiss this article from the first as unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.170 ( talk) 17:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have created a new section where people can happily submit their critical sources and descriptions of the JBS without irritating the other people who don't want an inaccurate and non-neutral term to be used in the article's introduction.-- 81.100.215.14 ( talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Remember the Radical Republicans? Champions of abolition and equal rights for freedmen before and after the Civil War? I'd rather wear my radical label as a badge of honor, than as a reviled scarlet letter. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.241.194.149 (
talk)
16:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been stated that the JBS is on the far right as even rightwing figures like Reagan and Nixon thought that it was to extreme and radical in it's views on communism and american socitey. Read Reagan's bio for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 ( talk) 00:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Clarify who "Eisenhower" is with a link to Dwight D. Eisenhower. 99.102.182.152 ( talk) 23:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a nice hack job of an article, but where is the criticism of the paranoid, irrational rants and ravings found throughout? Viriditas ( talk) 04:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"It opposes collectivism, including wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, socialism, communism, and fascism, despite the collectivist philosophy espoused in the New Testament." This is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. Please add supporting evidence or strike "despite the collectivist philosophy espoused in the New Testament." Mpkorich ( talk) 04:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like JBS was behind that too. [23] Viriditas ( talk) 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
JBS was also against urban renewal, and margarine. All we need is genuine reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Members of the far right have gone even farther back in time in tracing the roots of plotting against the United States. "The John Birch Society has long held that the conspiracy of the Illuminati...is the predecessor of a modern-day conspiracy warring against our country and civilization," John F. McManus, president of the right-wing organization, wrote in 2007. Long centered in Massachusetts, it is now based in Appleton, Wis., McCarthy's hometown.
The founding of the John Birch Society in 1958 marked the reemergence of conspiratorial, far-right views — minus the anti-Semitism — in respectable society. Birch Society doctrine viewed the United Nations as a communist organization. Founder Robert Welch, an executive in his brother's candy company, went further, calling President Dwight D. Eisenhower “a dedicated, conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.” Welch's wild accusation stoked outrage in the political mainstream. President Harry S Truman reportedly called the Birch Society “the Ku Klux Klan, without nightshirts.” [26]
How is it appropriate to characterize a group as "radical right" before recognizing its nationality? "Radical right" seems to be used as a pejorative to disqualify the organization's views outright.-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to use this section to add general references (about JBS) to this section for proposed expansion and addition. Viriditas ( talk) 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)It appears to be an "opinion piece" more than anything else. Why do you feel it is "essential" here? Collect ( talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that there are several problems inherent in writing an article about any political group (or religious group, or economic group etc.). First - there is a set of information about the beliefs once held by supporters of the group or the group, which may not represent the current group accurately at all. Second - information which others have posited to be held by a group in the past (frequently taking the form of opinions in popular oublications) which may not represent actual positions taken by the historical group, and generally do not represent a "photo" of any current group at all. Third is a set of information representing current beliefs and opinions of a group as set forth by the group. Fourth is the set of opinions posited by current popular literature to be held by the current group. Fifth is the scholarly study of the historical opinions and beliefs of a group. Sixth is scholarly material relating to current opinions and beliefs of a group. There may be more. Much of any conflict in this article is due to trying to place everything in it as though all was the same <g>. Collect ( talk) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a discussion thread at RSN here. TFD ( talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The use of the world "radical" here is not objective, it is opinion, and does belong in a purportedly objective, encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.144.46 ( talk) 03:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a similar attempt to characterize anyone associated with the current American Tea Party Movement as a radical, fringe, type. This appears to be a partisan attempt to marginalize some legitimate concerns of the American people, which only encourages ignorance. While some people associated with either group may be of the radical type this characterization should not define the entire organization or movement because it is not accurate. Perhaps JBS use to be radical (compared to the American political spectrum at the time) or had some radical elements or people associated with it. However, this cannot give rise to an "encyclopedia" defining it through the eyes of the Democrat Party or party member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.144.45 ( talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with the view that using the term “radical right wing” is a pejorative motivated by political biases, and this would be okay if we understood what “radical” meant in terms of the “right wing.” Perhaps we should go back to using terms such as federalist/anti-federalist. We cannot hold the author responsible for the entire body of work, but there should be an effort toward consistency at Wikipedia. For example, there is no statement regarding the New Black Power Party that identifies it as a “radical left wing” organization. What is it specifically that makes JBS radical? Is it because they hold conservative views? So too did Jack Kennedy. Is it because they appear racist? So too does NAACP policies. Is it because they are intolerant of other points of view? We have no evidence of that. Espousing a conservative point of view does not make anyone radical, even when they appear on the right side of the political spectrum. ( Mustang63 ( talk) 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC))
We are not quite sure why the confrontational question, “How many times do we have to go through this?” We are not children and do not take kindly to being treated as such. Either you allow a debate on the merits or you do not. State which you prefer and if you do not, then we can end the discussion here and now. If you object to challenges, then we submit you are in the wrong avocation.
In fact, we do object to the use “radical right wing,” and the argument of common usage in academia offers rhetoric in place of substance. It follows the argument, “It is so because I say it is so.” Since our views offer as much substance as yours, we suggest the following for your further consideration. Political advocacy that is anti-communist, favoring limited government, and Americentrism (itself a pejorative term, according to Wikipedia) would appear in the American mainstream were it not for the radical left ideology associated with Marxism and the progressive movement.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams
We believe JBS represents a libertarian point of view, which of course includes anti-communist, limited government, and an objective view of American history. We may also assume that it is constitutionally constructionist; such beliefs do not make people vile even when you have a disparate point of view. Finally, the appearance in academic literature of the term ‘radical right’ does not at all suggest it is true, or valid, or that we must accept such usage out of hand. ( Mustang63 ( talk) 01:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
_____ "...the argument of common usage in academia offers rhetoric in place of substance. It follows the argument, “It is so because I say it is so.”
I could not have said this any better. Common usage in academia is NOT a valid argument, particularly when such "common usage" directly contradicts the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of the term in question: "radical" (see my argument above). 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)——
“We” assure you there is no advocacy for other than an unbiased entry. The topic is politicized, but only because you insist using pejorative language. If you are not dedicated to unbiased social science, we don’t think you should pretend otherwise. Thank you for your time.( Mustang63 ( talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Mustang63 or whomever "we" are... apparently you do not understand what the purpose of an encyclopedia is. Allow me to explain it to you in simple terms: It is a reference work offering comprehensive information on all or specialized areas of knowledge. There is no imperative for objective truth. I'm glad I could clear this up for you. ( Leslie35 ( talk) 04:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC))
Can you cite even one group on the "right" who describe THEMSELVES as "far right", "extreme right", or "extremist"? The FACT that you can't, right there - in and of itself - proves that the slur is obviously pejorative => i.e. not "neutral" and should be removed. 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure Joe.
Perhaps you can tell me which of these concepts has you baffled, and I'll try to walk you through it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.156.22 ( talk) 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Constitutional moderate" is John Birch Society's OWN description of themselves. Proven and referenced here: [8]
Who is to their (JBS's) "right"? Anarchists. [9]
Anarchists: (Far Right)
Constitutional Moderates (Center Right)
If you are to further persist in referring to the JBS as "extremist" or "radical" in the future, the impetous is on YOU to prove it. Provide EVIDENCE of violence, insurrection, riot, etc. conducted by the JBS, or on their behalf to justify it.
130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
"what any group labels themselves is nothing more than marketing"
—— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it funny how "liberal" and "libertarian" mean totally different things? All kinds of right-wing wackos are "libertarian", that is, for guns and fundamentalism, against condoms and globalism. So, why on earth does cultural tolerance (as in liberalism) seem so remote from freedom of individual (as libertarians claim to alone campaign for) in all discussion? This kind of bothers me (just as a by-stander). Also, calling out "objective facts" to correct "liberal smear and bias" just seems like the another line of unconstructive critique. Please point the rest of us to the sources first. -- Sigmundur ( talk) 14:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several people on this site that do not consider objective facts and use their own uneducated perceptions of the JBS to label it as they see fit. This should entry should be fact based only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) (moved down from top of page)
Ok, in future only use educated perceptions of the John BS; a link to William Buckley's famous 1962 reading-out of the John BS from the conservative movement would be a good start.
As for objective facts...facts are facts. As Chesterton pointed out, they are like twigs, they point in all directions. The world-view by which you interpet the facts is what gives them significance. The lumping of all their enemies into one unified-field-theory type of paranoid conspiracy is the world-view of the John BS. *That* is the significant thing about the group that distinguishes them from many other groups that favor limited government. I suggest this be put into the article as a fact. 84.69.150.82 ( talk) 01:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There are editors herewith a clear agenda tuse subjective terms such as "right wing" which connotate anachry or equally incorrectly fascism. The JBS has NEVER endorsed either.
Considering the current rise and general popularity in America of ideas such as limited federal government and a desired return to the American Founder's conception and development of the U.S. Constitution it is likely unreasonable to characterize an organization like JBS who currently values these ideas to be a "radical" right wing group. Its hardly radical when nearly half of the American populace supports limited government and anti-socialistic policies.
Absolutely correct. 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)——
Except the Birch Society has been opposed to foreign wars all through the Bush years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.231.54.209 ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: "These ppl had no prob..." In my OPINION, the objection which you presented is a heartfelt emotional rant, and a clear unabashed display of bias.
You are claiming, through clear personal opinion that "torture" is whatever you say it is, "separation of church and state" is "Constitutional", despite not being found anywhere in the Pre-amble, the Constitution, or the Federalist papers; that the first amendment Constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech" specifically prohibit expression of speech in any place in which the state has placed its hand - despite the concept and term 'God' in every founding document, throughout law, and in our currency; You imply gay people living together is "marriage" - despite marriage's universal existance in every disparate culture, it's exclusive designation as male / female in virtually every unconnected culture from pre-history until present, and based upon an unqualified defacto declaration as "FACT" that reproduction is NOT of unique or special importance in personal relationships - despite an overwhelming proponderance of indisputable evidence in which thousands upon thousands of the worlds historically independent cultures have determined independantly for themselves that it does. "If a car and a roller skate are both red, both have four wheels, and are both means of conveyance, then a car must be a roller skate." This line of reasoning is clearly not valid, and to the point. Function matters. You declare your opinions as "FACT" and declare as "Center" - your OPINION - even though a great many people with equally valid, defensible, and rational opinion completely disagree with you and have a much deeper, more established, and historically cogent claim to the title "Center".
When you declare as "radical" or "far-right" any notion other than your own simply because YOU personally disagree is the very essence of bias. It is a clear contradiction of the "Neutrality" wikipedia.org declares ideal, and I strongly urge you to separate yourself emotionally and concede that "radical" is a loaded and disparaging term.
Definition: Radical: favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards *** change from accepted or traditional forms ***:
Clearly, if "radical" is used as a descriptor.. it is YOUR non-traditional, reformatory views that this term most aptly applies. 130.49.235.213 ( talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)