![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
No explanation has been given for the POV tags and therefore I will remove them. Viriditas has said that not mentioning the anti-flouridation campaign means the article is not neutral although it is mentioned. The correct approach of course is for Viriditas to add this information using reliable sources, but he appears to be unwilling to do this. However, that omission on its own does not affect the neutrality of the article. The article says they believe in the NWO conspiracy etc. TFD ( talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can/should there be citations for these individuals in this section? I removed Koch as being a CEO since I didn't see that sourced in his bio, only that he was "an early member". Thanks, -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Any source averring "paranoid" about living people needs to meet WP:BLP criteria as being especially well-sourced. Collect ( talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(out) essentially all of which refers to the 60s. Half a century ago. Surely we can find something about the current organization, for good or ill? Collect ( talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It'd really help if editors could explain what they're talking about, or at least include a link. I now see that the thread above, which has wandered about, apparently concerns this text that was added to the "popular culture" section:
First, that's not really a pop-culture item. I think that if we wanted to include it then it'd more appropriate under a heading like "legacy". However I think that it'd be better placed in the Tea Party movement article, perhaps at the beginning of the "history" section. The source itself is not an issue, as The New Yorker has an excellent reputation for fact checking. The article makes a number of other assertions about the JBS which we might include in relevant sections. Will Beback talk 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for this claim. Viriditas ( talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Try [5] for one of many sources. Collect ( talk) 11:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In the June 1965 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch declared: "Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as 'civil rights' is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes."
In August 1965, the JBS ran a full-page ad in many U.S. newspapers entitled “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?” One of the answers provided by the JBS was:
“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years.”
In the November 1966 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch declared: “We have said many times, and we repeat now, that if you can fully expose the civil rights fraud, you will break the back of the Communist conspiracy. But the word ‘fully’ is important in that sentence. It calls for bringing a preponderant majority of our fellow citizens really to grasp the fact that the ‘civil rights’ program has been designed by Communists, is controlled by Communists, and will be used by the Communists as a vital part of their total strategy for taking over our country.”
Lastly, the following comment appears on page 1 of the May 2008 issue of the JBS Bulletin in an article entitled "The New World Order Isn't New".
"Just as the John Birch Society showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new. The former was used to transfer power to Washington DC in the name of civil rights and the latter provided a pretext for transferring power to Washington. You cannot get a really good conflict started unless you control both sides of the argument."Bold text Ernie1241 ( talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)ernie1241
As it turns out, the John Birch Society was one of the leading proponents of the fluoridation conspiracy. [6] Regardless of the merits of fluoridation this article should mention it. Viriditas ( talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The advocates of fluoride eventually carried the day, in part by ridiculing opponents such as the right-wing John Birch Society, which called fluoridation a communist plot to poison America.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Viriditas (
talk)
15:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) From WP:OR: This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source i.e. No Original Research by editors. Yes - I suggest this means editors on WP do not do any "original research." +From WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Are both of these sufficiently clear? Collect ( talk) 15:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The addition of fluoride to city water systems, beginning in 1945 in Michigan and Illinois, sparked a major controversy. In 1942, a U.S. Public Health Service dentist, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, had determined that adding one part fluoride per million of drinking water reduced dental caries. By 1950, more than 50 cities had fluoridated their water supply. Then came the protests, most famously those of the John Birch Society, which believed the program to be a Communist plot to poison Americans. (Curtis, Cathy. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. (2003). "Dentistry". Dictionary of American History. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp.4.)
The source says the JBS existed before it existed? I doubt that it says that. Your "quote" is only found on "encyclopedia.com." Indeed, that is the only source found by Google, meaning the book you cite has not been indexed by Google at the very least, making it quite difficult to verify at all. As noted before, moreover, encyclopedias are specifically listed as "tertiary sources." From WP:NORS : Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So we have a tertiary source, or an impossible to verify secondary source, making claims. I rather suspect the author (?) simply did not know when JBS was founded in order to assign its opposition to "shortly after 1950" at best. Collect ( talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently adding sources. In progress... Viriditas ( talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming this was from Viriditas. Alas - it shows all sort of speculation without factual claims that the JBS was in any way the prime mover in any objections to fluoridation in the early 1950s. As for the anti-religious bit about Christian Science - if JBS goes in, so does CS as it is clearly a much more directly connected organization opposing fluoridation. Collect ( talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Collect, I don't know how old you are, but in the early 60s the John Birch Society was practically synonymous with all sorts of extreme claims, and the flouridation thing was very prominent among those claims. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm too busy, but is this [7] useful? Dougweller ( talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim in this article that by March 1961 the JBS had 60,000-100,000 members is false. In reality, the JBS had approximately 13,250 members. In September 1960, Robert Welch told his National Council that the JBS had 324 chapters and 5300 members. In the December 1960 JBS Bulletin, page 4, Robert Welch declared that "we have been doubling in size approximately once every four months" (i.e. 25% per month) which seems fairly accurate considering that in April 1960, the JBS had 150 chapters and 2800 members according to JBS National Council meeting minutes. If one uses the formula stated by Welch (i.e. 100% every 4 months), then actual JBS membership would be approximately as follows: 9/60.......5300 01/61......10,600 Thus, the JBS was increasing its membership by about 1325 per month between September 1960 and January 1961 -- which would produce the following member estimates: 9/60......5300 10/60.....6625 11/60.....7950 12/60.....9275 01/61.....10,600 02/61.....11,925 03/61.....13,250 Interestingly, the 1960 financial statement of the JBS declares that it received $198,719 in member dues during all of 1960. At that time, annual dues were $24 for men and $12 for women. If one uses an average of $18 that would mean there should be about 11,039 members as of the end of December 1960 -- which is very close to the 10,600 extrapolation shown above for 1/61. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The two citations include JBS writings which state:
American exceptionalism begins with the following brief definition:
I believe that statements about America having "the finest [government] yet developed by man" would be very clear indicators of American exceptionalism. If you disagree, please explain. Dylan Flaherty 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
We have the JBS talking constantly about America this, America that. We need a brief way to describe it. So far, two alternatives have been discussed. We're open to others.
The issue is not WP:OR, it's normal synthesis in the form of summarization. Dylan Flaherty 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like this phrase is just cherry picked out of declarations. We could pick all sort of other phrases from them too. It'd be better to rely on secondary sources. Will Beback talk 21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The JBS is not a "radical right-wing" organization. The John Birch Society supports the U.S. Constitution and Limited Government. Also, labeling the JBS as "Americentric" is misleading and needs to be removed.
My Proposed description for the John Birch Society:
The John Birch Society is an American Nonpartisan Paleoconservative political advocacy group that supports Constitutional principles, anti-communism, limited government, and personal freedom. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore ( talk • contribs)
Neither 'radical left" nor "radical right" has a clear and generally accepted definition. Period. Dictionaries may define [12] "radical left" as the faction representing extreme left-wing political views, often Marxist or Maoist in ideology. and "radical right" as the faction representing extreme right-wing political views; ultraconservatives; reactionaries. Collect ( talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"OR" usually menas drawing a conclusion -- if it is OR to say that no conclusion has been made by general sources, then that is a quite original interpretation of "original research" LOL! Perhaps you should reread WP:OR. Collect ( talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Lipset was in the 50s. The term was used in the nineteenth century. Do you consider that simple statemnet of fact to be OR? Seriously? Collect ( talk) 21:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I wrote, "when use of the term republican was outlawed in 1832, they started calling themselves radicals". Yes 1918 is long after 1832. 2011 is long after 1918. But the name continues. TFD ( talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not be more specific and accurate? Describe the society as "a group that has been attack by mainstream media as radical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 ( talk) 04:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
...and if an article is watched by a group of politically-motivated watchdogs, that equates to "consensus"? The last study I read estimated that the "consensus" is tipped left by about 6-1 across WP as a whole.-- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Google Books:
Google Scholar
As I wrote before, I don't think Ghits are worth anything for this kind of determination. That said, I don't see a clear predominance of one term over the other using that methodology. Will Beback talk
In the above discussion, I see posters who want to have opinions (on both sides) presented as if they are facts. In the current version of the article, referring to the JBS as a "radical right-wing" organization is an opinion, and it doesn't matter that we can quote other sources who hold that opinion, it still doesn't change it into a fact. The problem can be solved, following Wikipedia principles, by presenting what is actually a fact. I suggest that the opening of the article could be reworded along lines something like this: "The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic, and personal freedom. It has been characterized by many sources as being a radical right-wing organization, though others dispute that characterization." If someone wants to go further, you could add references to the two halves of the second sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.27.47 ( talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This article really white washes the controversial nature of the organization and its history. It looks biased in favor of the subject. There should be a third party review of the entire article. 24.61.171.248 ( talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If the article is going to make those assertions, then it needs to offer proof in the article. What makes them radical or extremist? And what is extremist about wanting an America that is like what the forefathers had in mind? 72.11.40.181 ( talk) 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Birchers have long been regarded as extreme, and long been viewed fearfully by minority groups (particularly Jews). This article totally fails to capture this aspect of the John Birch Society. 24.61.171.248 ( talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(od) WP requires that we have reliable sources backing each specific claim. Not that we are to say an editor is "ignorant of a subject" which is actually irrelevant to how articles are supposed to be edited. The worst cases of WP articles occur when an editor "knows" the "truth." The premise of WP is that we are not to assert anything at all which is not found in a reliable source. Collect ( talk) 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The FBI file on the Birch Society describes the JBS as a "right wing extremist" organization.
When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren Commission he was asked to comment upon an article published in the JBS magazine, American Opinion. Hoover chose to ignore the specific question he was asked and, instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize the assertions/positions of Robert Welch and the Birch Society as examples of a right-wing extremist point of view. Specifically, Hoover's comment was as follows: (Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101):
"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies."
"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him."
In 1961, J. Edgar Hoover asked subordinates in the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division to analyze a suggestion made by Attorney General Robert Kennedy which proposed that the FBI sponsor anti-communism seminars at its field offices for high school and college students along the lines of what the Bureau did at the FBI National Academy for law enforcement officers from around the country. The Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division subsequently analyzed this proposal in a 10/28/61 memo. This memo contains a paragraph entitled “Arguments in Favor” – copied below. Notice the reference to the JBS.
“Unquestionably there are apparent arguments in favor of such a procedure, including the reaching of a large segment of the American public during their formative years and thus thwarting to a great extent current recruiting drives among youths by the Communist Party USA, and combating the growth of extreme rightists as exemplified by the John Birch Society.” [FBI HQ file 62-106364, serial #72, 10/28/61 memo from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Belmont, page 1; my emphasis in bold type]
Giants within the conservative intellectual and political communities have described the Birch Society and its views as both irrational and extremist. See for example comments made by such prominent conservatives as Sen. Barry Goldwater, Cong. Walter Judd, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Eugene Lyons, Frank Meyer, William F. Buckley Jr., and the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events. Lastly, our military intelligence agencies [G-2 Army Intelligence and ONI, Naval Intelligence, and OSI, Air Force Intelligence] also concluded that the JBS represented an extreme right position on our political spectrum.
Might we all agree upon this first principle?
A person or organization which disseminates false information can properly be described as extremist or radical?
Furthermore, can we agree that when an organization or its surrogates have been defendants in defamation lawsuits and they have been found guilty of libel or slander --- then that, too, is indisputable evidence of being "radical" or "extremist"?
See, for example, the historic precedent-setting defamation lawsuit against Robert Welch Inc. (the publishing arm of the Birch Society) by Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz. After 14 years of litigation, including two jury trials, and numerous appeals, plus review by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the Birch Society paid Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only allowed when "malice" can be shown -- which in legalese is “reckless disregard for the truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.
The 1982 Appeals Court decision in the Gertz defamation lawsuit made the following observation:
"There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz." [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].
On 6/25/74, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the U.S. Supreme Court decision [docket number 72-617] which pertained to the appeal of the first Gertz trial verdict.
Justice Powell stated that this case "involves a libel action by a reputable attorney against a magazine that falsely libeled him a Leninist and a Communist-fronter."
Lastly, I quote verbatim (below) from comments made by Birch Society founder Robert Welch to the first meeting of the JBS National Council. Does anyone seriously contend that these premises and assertions represent any sort of mainstream political opinion in the United States?
A scanned copy of the minutes of this meeting are available for review here (scroll about half way down the webpage):
"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists." [page 2]
"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [page 7] [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]
"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [page 8]
“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [page 8]
"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ... [page 8]
"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department." [page 8]
Surely, all of the data presented above should be adequate to justify characterizing the Birch Society as both "extremist" and "radical"?? Ernie1241 ( talk) 23:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
No explanation has been given for the POV tags and therefore I will remove them. Viriditas has said that not mentioning the anti-flouridation campaign means the article is not neutral although it is mentioned. The correct approach of course is for Viriditas to add this information using reliable sources, but he appears to be unwilling to do this. However, that omission on its own does not affect the neutrality of the article. The article says they believe in the NWO conspiracy etc. TFD ( talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can/should there be citations for these individuals in this section? I removed Koch as being a CEO since I didn't see that sourced in his bio, only that he was "an early member". Thanks, -- Threeafterthree ( talk) 20:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Any source averring "paranoid" about living people needs to meet WP:BLP criteria as being especially well-sourced. Collect ( talk) 17:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(out) essentially all of which refers to the 60s. Half a century ago. Surely we can find something about the current organization, for good or ill? Collect ( talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
It'd really help if editors could explain what they're talking about, or at least include a link. I now see that the thread above, which has wandered about, apparently concerns this text that was added to the "popular culture" section:
First, that's not really a pop-culture item. I think that if we wanted to include it then it'd more appropriate under a heading like "legacy". However I think that it'd be better placed in the Tea Party movement article, perhaps at the beginning of the "history" section. The source itself is not an issue, as The New Yorker has an excellent reputation for fact checking. The article makes a number of other assertions about the JBS which we might include in relevant sections. Will Beback talk 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a reliable source for this claim. Viriditas ( talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Try [5] for one of many sources. Collect ( talk) 11:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
In the June 1965 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch declared: "Our task must be simply to make clear that the movement known as 'civil rights' is Communist-plotted, Communist-controlled, and in fact...serves only Communist purposes."
In August 1965, the JBS ran a full-page ad in many U.S. newspapers entitled “What’s Wrong With Civil Rights?” One of the answers provided by the JBS was:
“For the civil rights movement in the United States with all of its growing agitation and riots and bitterness, and insidious steps toward the appearance of civil war, has not been infiltrated by the Communists, as you now frequently hear. It has been deliberately and almost wholly created by the Communists patiently building up to this present stage for more than thirty years.”
In the November 1966 JBS Bulletin, Robert Welch declared: “We have said many times, and we repeat now, that if you can fully expose the civil rights fraud, you will break the back of the Communist conspiracy. But the word ‘fully’ is important in that sentence. It calls for bringing a preponderant majority of our fellow citizens really to grasp the fact that the ‘civil rights’ program has been designed by Communists, is controlled by Communists, and will be used by the Communists as a vital part of their total strategy for taking over our country.”
Lastly, the following comment appears on page 1 of the May 2008 issue of the JBS Bulletin in an article entitled "The New World Order Isn't New".
"Just as the John Birch Society showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new. The former was used to transfer power to Washington DC in the name of civil rights and the latter provided a pretext for transferring power to Washington. You cannot get a really good conflict started unless you control both sides of the argument."Bold text Ernie1241 ( talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)ernie1241
As it turns out, the John Birch Society was one of the leading proponents of the fluoridation conspiracy. [6] Regardless of the merits of fluoridation this article should mention it. Viriditas ( talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The advocates of fluoride eventually carried the day, in part by ridiculing opponents such as the right-wing John Birch Society, which called fluoridation a communist plot to poison America.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Viriditas (
talk)
15:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) From WP:OR: This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source i.e. No Original Research by editors. Yes - I suggest this means editors on WP do not do any "original research." +From WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Are both of these sufficiently clear? Collect ( talk) 15:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The addition of fluoride to city water systems, beginning in 1945 in Michigan and Illinois, sparked a major controversy. In 1942, a U.S. Public Health Service dentist, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, had determined that adding one part fluoride per million of drinking water reduced dental caries. By 1950, more than 50 cities had fluoridated their water supply. Then came the protests, most famously those of the John Birch Society, which believed the program to be a Communist plot to poison Americans. (Curtis, Cathy. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. (2003). "Dentistry". Dictionary of American History. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp.4.)
The source says the JBS existed before it existed? I doubt that it says that. Your "quote" is only found on "encyclopedia.com." Indeed, that is the only source found by Google, meaning the book you cite has not been indexed by Google at the very least, making it quite difficult to verify at all. As noted before, moreover, encyclopedias are specifically listed as "tertiary sources." From WP:NORS : Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. So we have a tertiary source, or an impossible to verify secondary source, making claims. I rather suspect the author (?) simply did not know when JBS was founded in order to assign its opposition to "shortly after 1950" at best. Collect ( talk) 00:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently adding sources. In progress... Viriditas ( talk) 23:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming this was from Viriditas. Alas - it shows all sort of speculation without factual claims that the JBS was in any way the prime mover in any objections to fluoridation in the early 1950s. As for the anti-religious bit about Christian Science - if JBS goes in, so does CS as it is clearly a much more directly connected organization opposing fluoridation. Collect ( talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Collect, I don't know how old you are, but in the early 60s the John Birch Society was practically synonymous with all sorts of extreme claims, and the flouridation thing was very prominent among those claims. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm too busy, but is this [7] useful? Dougweller ( talk) 12:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The claim in this article that by March 1961 the JBS had 60,000-100,000 members is false. In reality, the JBS had approximately 13,250 members. In September 1960, Robert Welch told his National Council that the JBS had 324 chapters and 5300 members. In the December 1960 JBS Bulletin, page 4, Robert Welch declared that "we have been doubling in size approximately once every four months" (i.e. 25% per month) which seems fairly accurate considering that in April 1960, the JBS had 150 chapters and 2800 members according to JBS National Council meeting minutes. If one uses the formula stated by Welch (i.e. 100% every 4 months), then actual JBS membership would be approximately as follows: 9/60.......5300 01/61......10,600 Thus, the JBS was increasing its membership by about 1325 per month between September 1960 and January 1961 -- which would produce the following member estimates: 9/60......5300 10/60.....6625 11/60.....7950 12/60.....9275 01/61.....10,600 02/61.....11,925 03/61.....13,250 Interestingly, the 1960 financial statement of the JBS declares that it received $198,719 in member dues during all of 1960. At that time, annual dues were $24 for men and $12 for women. If one uses an average of $18 that would mean there should be about 11,039 members as of the end of December 1960 -- which is very close to the 10,600 extrapolation shown above for 1/61. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernie1241 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The two citations include JBS writings which state:
American exceptionalism begins with the following brief definition:
I believe that statements about America having "the finest [government] yet developed by man" would be very clear indicators of American exceptionalism. If you disagree, please explain. Dylan Flaherty 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
We have the JBS talking constantly about America this, America that. We need a brief way to describe it. So far, two alternatives have been discussed. We're open to others.
The issue is not WP:OR, it's normal synthesis in the form of summarization. Dylan Flaherty 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like this phrase is just cherry picked out of declarations. We could pick all sort of other phrases from them too. It'd be better to rely on secondary sources. Will Beback talk 21:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The JBS is not a "radical right-wing" organization. The John Birch Society supports the U.S. Constitution and Limited Government. Also, labeling the JBS as "Americentric" is misleading and needs to be removed.
My Proposed description for the John Birch Society:
The John Birch Society is an American Nonpartisan Paleoconservative political advocacy group that supports Constitutional principles, anti-communism, limited government, and personal freedom. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore ( talk • contribs)
Neither 'radical left" nor "radical right" has a clear and generally accepted definition. Period. Dictionaries may define [12] "radical left" as the faction representing extreme left-wing political views, often Marxist or Maoist in ideology. and "radical right" as the faction representing extreme right-wing political views; ultraconservatives; reactionaries. Collect ( talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
"OR" usually menas drawing a conclusion -- if it is OR to say that no conclusion has been made by general sources, then that is a quite original interpretation of "original research" LOL! Perhaps you should reread WP:OR. Collect ( talk) 21:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Lipset was in the 50s. The term was used in the nineteenth century. Do you consider that simple statemnet of fact to be OR? Seriously? Collect ( talk) 21:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I wrote, "when use of the term republican was outlawed in 1832, they started calling themselves radicals". Yes 1918 is long after 1832. 2011 is long after 1918. But the name continues. TFD ( talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not be more specific and accurate? Describe the society as "a group that has been attack by mainstream media as radical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.142.178 ( talk) 04:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
...and if an article is watched by a group of politically-motivated watchdogs, that equates to "consensus"? The last study I read estimated that the "consensus" is tipped left by about 6-1 across WP as a whole.-- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 23:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Google Books:
Google Scholar
As I wrote before, I don't think Ghits are worth anything for this kind of determination. That said, I don't see a clear predominance of one term over the other using that methodology. Will Beback talk
In the above discussion, I see posters who want to have opinions (on both sides) presented as if they are facts. In the current version of the article, referring to the JBS as a "radical right-wing" organization is an opinion, and it doesn't matter that we can quote other sources who hold that opinion, it still doesn't change it into a fact. The problem can be solved, following Wikipedia principles, by presenting what is actually a fact. I suggest that the opening of the article could be reworded along lines something like this: "The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic, and personal freedom. It has been characterized by many sources as being a radical right-wing organization, though others dispute that characterization." If someone wants to go further, you could add references to the two halves of the second sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.27.47 ( talk) 18:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This article really white washes the controversial nature of the organization and its history. It looks biased in favor of the subject. There should be a third party review of the entire article. 24.61.171.248 ( talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If the article is going to make those assertions, then it needs to offer proof in the article. What makes them radical or extremist? And what is extremist about wanting an America that is like what the forefathers had in mind? 72.11.40.181 ( talk) 08:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The Birchers have long been regarded as extreme, and long been viewed fearfully by minority groups (particularly Jews). This article totally fails to capture this aspect of the John Birch Society. 24.61.171.248 ( talk) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(od) WP requires that we have reliable sources backing each specific claim. Not that we are to say an editor is "ignorant of a subject" which is actually irrelevant to how articles are supposed to be edited. The worst cases of WP articles occur when an editor "knows" the "truth." The premise of WP is that we are not to assert anything at all which is not found in a reliable source. Collect ( talk) 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The FBI file on the Birch Society describes the JBS as a "right wing extremist" organization.
When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Warren Commission he was asked to comment upon an article published in the JBS magazine, American Opinion. Hoover chose to ignore the specific question he was asked and, instead, he used the inquiry as an opportunity to characterize the assertions/positions of Robert Welch and the Birch Society as examples of a right-wing extremist point of view. Specifically, Hoover's comment was as follows: (Warren Commission, Volume 5, page 101):
"Mr. Hoover: I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies."
"Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don't deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him."
In 1961, J. Edgar Hoover asked subordinates in the Bureau's Domestic Intelligence Division to analyze a suggestion made by Attorney General Robert Kennedy which proposed that the FBI sponsor anti-communism seminars at its field offices for high school and college students along the lines of what the Bureau did at the FBI National Academy for law enforcement officers from around the country. The Bureau’s Domestic Intelligence Division subsequently analyzed this proposal in a 10/28/61 memo. This memo contains a paragraph entitled “Arguments in Favor” – copied below. Notice the reference to the JBS.
“Unquestionably there are apparent arguments in favor of such a procedure, including the reaching of a large segment of the American public during their formative years and thus thwarting to a great extent current recruiting drives among youths by the Communist Party USA, and combating the growth of extreme rightists as exemplified by the John Birch Society.” [FBI HQ file 62-106364, serial #72, 10/28/61 memo from Mr. Sullivan to Mr. Belmont, page 1; my emphasis in bold type]
Giants within the conservative intellectual and political communities have described the Birch Society and its views as both irrational and extremist. See for example comments made by such prominent conservatives as Sen. Barry Goldwater, Cong. Walter Judd, Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Eugene Lyons, Frank Meyer, William F. Buckley Jr., and the editors of the conservative newspaper, Human Events. Lastly, our military intelligence agencies [G-2 Army Intelligence and ONI, Naval Intelligence, and OSI, Air Force Intelligence] also concluded that the JBS represented an extreme right position on our political spectrum.
Might we all agree upon this first principle?
A person or organization which disseminates false information can properly be described as extremist or radical?
Furthermore, can we agree that when an organization or its surrogates have been defendants in defamation lawsuits and they have been found guilty of libel or slander --- then that, too, is indisputable evidence of being "radical" or "extremist"?
See, for example, the historic precedent-setting defamation lawsuit against Robert Welch Inc. (the publishing arm of the Birch Society) by Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz. After 14 years of litigation, including two jury trials, and numerous appeals, plus review by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the Birch Society paid Gertz $100,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only allowed when "malice" can be shown -- which in legalese is “reckless disregard for the truth” arising from evil intent and a desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering.
The 1982 Appeals Court decision in the Gertz defamation lawsuit made the following observation:
"There was more than enough evidence for the jury to conclude that this article was published with utter disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements contained in the article about Gertz." [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, No. 81-2483, Elmer Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 6/16/82, page 20].
On 6/25/74, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the U.S. Supreme Court decision [docket number 72-617] which pertained to the appeal of the first Gertz trial verdict.
Justice Powell stated that this case "involves a libel action by a reputable attorney against a magazine that falsely libeled him a Leninist and a Communist-fronter."
Lastly, I quote verbatim (below) from comments made by Birch Society founder Robert Welch to the first meeting of the JBS National Council. Does anyone seriously contend that these premises and assertions represent any sort of mainstream political opinion in the United States?
A scanned copy of the minutes of this meeting are available for review here (scroll about half way down the webpage):
"Today, gentlemen, I can assure you, without the slightest doubt in my own mind that the takeover at the top is, for all practical purposes, virtually complete. Whether you like it or not, or whether you believe it or not, our Federal Government is already, literally in the hands of the Communists." [page 2]
"In our two states with the largest population, New York and California...already the two present Governors are almost certainly actual Communists...Our Congress now contains a number of men like Adam Clayton Powell of New York and Charles Porter of Oregon, who are certainly actual Communists, and plenty more who are sympathetic to Communist purposes for either ideological or opportunistic reasons." [page 7] [Note: the reference to Governors refers to Edmund G. Brown of California and Nelson Rockefeller of New York.]
"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference..." [page 8]
“Our Supreme Court, dominated by Earl Warren and Felix Frankfurter and Hugo Black, is so visibly pro-Communist that no argument is even needed…And our federal courts below that level…are in many cases just as bad.” [page 8]
"Our State Department is loaded with Communists from top to bottom, to the extent that our roll call of Ambassadors almost sounds like a list somebody has put together to start a Communist front." ... [page 8]
"It is estimated from many reliable sources that from 70% to 90% of the responsible personnel in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are Communists. Our Central Intelligence Agency under Allen Dulles is nothing more or less than an agency to promote Communism throughout the world...Almost all the other Departments are loaded with Communists and Communist sympathizers. And this generalization most specifically does include our whole Defense Department." [page 8]
Surely, all of the data presented above should be adequate to justify characterizing the Birch Society as both "extremist" and "radical"?? Ernie1241 ( talk) 23:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)