Talk:John Birch Society/Archive 9

Organization vs. ideology
I think the actually crucial issue here, which the article fails to take into account, is to not confuse the actual number of official JBS membership and public exposure of the JBS name on the one hand for the wide spread of ideology originated by the JBS on the other, as such that the ideology (also used as justifications as to why supply-side economics should be better than a welfare state or "Big Government", and recently critics have started to refer to this ideology as neoliberalism) has become mainstream under Reagan as Goldwater's ideological successor, while simply the name of the JBS isn't as prominent anymore as it was in the past and its official membership seemed to decline. Another element of JBS ideology that has become mainstream conservatism ever since the term of Bush, Sr. is that of constantly detecting "political correctness" as some supposed pinko-commie conspiracy everyhwere.

In other words, the original organization may have been in decline for a long time, whereas its ideology has become mainstream, and not only as late as the 2010s. --2003:EF:13CE:6A41:F966:4672:F026:6E58 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The JBS was part of the modern conservative movement whose ideas became mainstream. But what separated them from the rest of the movement was their conspiracism, which isolated them from mainstream conservatism and has not become mainstream. They argued for example that Eisenhower has a Communist asset and the government killed JFK. Their ideas have however lived on with Pat Robertson and Glenn Beck. TFD (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * William F. Buckley Jr. didn't see them as part of the conservative movement, indeed he denounced them in National Review. As his article says, "In 1962, Buckley denounced Robert W. Welch Jr. and the John Birch Society in National Review as "far removed from common sense" and urged the Republican Party to purge itself of Welch's influence. " He disliked racists, etc. He wasn't a bad guy (I actually talked to him once). Doug Weller  talk 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The John Birch Society was formed in 1958 to re-educate the public on the U.S. Constitution and the importance of having government abide by it. The organization is NOT a "radical-right", "far-right", "ultraconservative" or "extremist" organization because it is non-partizan. It is not a "conservative" organization but an American one. It does not pursue conspiracy "theories" because it can verify all of its claims. It is anti-communist because communism is a true threat. It believes in limited government as outlined in the Constitution and as envisioned by the Founders. It NEVER called Eisenhower a communist. It simply demonstrated that the President was overly compromising with a very dangerous Soviet Union. William F. Buckley was at odds with the Society because he was a "neoconservative." A liberal in conservative clothing who promoted centralized government and offensive warfare. The Society apposed the addition of fluoride to water systems for fear that it would later allow government to put dangerous chemicals in water supplies. The Society apposes membership in the U.N. because the U.N. was created to one day be the capitol of a one-world totalitarian government. The Society apposes the Federal Reserve because it was created by a group of private citizens who wanted total control of the nations' wealth. And, because printed money must be backed up by something of value like gold and silver. Laetrile HAS been proven to be effective in the treatment of cancer as a number of publications will verify. Most notable is the book World Without Cancer by G. Edward Griffin. The organization was named after Capt. John Birch because he was murdered by the Communist Chinese ten days after the end of World War Two. Our government covered up the incident for five years. Our government had helped transfer power from the Chinese Nationalists to the Communists. The Society draws criticism because it promotes patriotism, morality and faith in God. The Society has irrefutable proof that the Council on Foreign Relations is a powerful and dangerous organization. There is solid evidence that the late Congressman and former JBS President Larry McDonald was deliberately murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanprice (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Doolittle Quote
I'm removing the quoted comment from Jimmy Doolittle that he believed Birch would not have approved of this use of his name.

Without explaining a basis, the opinion of a person Birch once met about how Birch would have felt regarding the use of his name is not relevant. The fact that Doolittle is famous in his own right doesn't change that.

An explanation of how well Doolittle knew Birch (if he really knew him at all) and the basis for his comment (if there was one), would be necessary to give the statement any meaning, but would also be a distraction.

Maybe there's an opinion out there on the subject by someone who had a closer relationship with Birch than just having "met" him, and who stated the basis for his opinion. John2510 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Self-descriptions
Like "The society opposes 'one world government'", citing its own literature. An example of better coverage would be using an independent source, describing it as promoting the "one world government" conspiracy theory. There are more self-serving self-descriptions that may be WP:UNDUE (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS)... — Paleo Neonate  – 17:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So change it. TFD (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Top
Hello, TrueBlueSea, you edited the second sentence to say, "it supports anti-communism and social conservatism and opposes collectivism, big government, one-world government, and a New World Order". Can you add quote fields in refs to the cited RS (which are paywalled) to verify this phrasing? Llll5032 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Rand Paul reference.
The article asserts that Rand Paul is "tied" to the John Birch Society, citing an interview which does not even mention the Society or support the assertion in any way. 47.180.65.242 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the unsourced claim. 2001:4450:81CF:6800:0:0:0:6F1 (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Dissertation as RS?
and, I reverted this addition again because the dissertation may not be a RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule." Has it been peer reviewed with rigor? Is it clearly complete and published? Has it been cited in other literature? Llll5032 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's clearly been published and is cited by at least two others according to Google Scholar, including a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, the University of Nottingham is an esteemed research university. Undoubtedly, it's appropriate to cite in this article. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It meets rs. Also, a doctoral thesis on the JBS is more likely to be accurate than an article publihed in yesterday's newspaper. TFD (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 1990&#39;sguy and TFD. I made an addition from the same sentence on page 7 of the dissertation to preserve the context. Llll5032 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does the article cite Article VI when mentioning state nullification?
Precise statement:

"using state nullification as outlined in Article VI"

when that is the article containing the Supremacy Clause, directly contradicting the premise of state nullification and instead nullifying those state laws/constitutional provisions in conflict with federal law:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

It's consistently been the clause used to reject claims of nullification in the courts, so it's pretty strange to cite it here as a reference in support of nullification, and the wording suggests a presence of nullification within Article VI when just the opposite is true.

8.4.231.67 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleted. The cited source did not support the statement. Thanks. Llll5032 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Should the second paragraph mention JBS campaigns noted by RS?
There is disagreement about a sentence in the second paragraph noting the JBS opposition to the 1960s civil rights movement and other campaigns described by RS. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat, you deleted two versions of the sentence. Mikeblas, you voiced a concern about the deletion. Should we try for WP:CONSENSUS? Llll5032 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the second paragraph should note JBS opposition to at least the civil rights movement, which differentiated it from other conservative groups. The "Culture Wars" encyclopedia has several sentences about this subject in its one-page summary of the JBS on page 286. Llll5032 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph should not include that sentence. The introduction is brief summary of the article, per MOS:LEAD, and as I mentioned, the sentence is WP:UNDUE. JBS has been involved in many campaigns and issues over its history, but the unifying theme, as the sources themselves (including the one you linked) support, is stopping an alleged communist conspiracy. So the sentence amounts to cherry-picking. Also, JBS's position on the civil rights movement wasn't unique, considering that most Democrats in Congress and almost all leading conservatives including Barry Goldwater and even William F. Buckley opposed it and/or some of the federal laws. The JBS opposition to the civil rights movement and the Equal Rights Amendment are both noted below the introduction anyway. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the text that was removed should be replaced. There was no consensus to remove it. Also, it's part of the organization's history and speaks to a trend of their positions. I don't think it's relevant what other groups did or didn't do -- thier positions belong on their respective web pages. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for answering. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat, the RS say that the JBS opposed the civil rights movement and the ERA and accused them of being communist plots. Do you think the sentence would be DUE if it noted those accusations? Llll5032 (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your proposal, but I don't think it would be WP:DUE if we keep the sentence the same but add the awkward-sounding "communist plot" phrase. Perhaps a sentence or phrase noting JBS's overall opposition to communism and collectivism, per the Stewart, Mulloy, and "Culture Wars Encyclopedia," would be fine, but not the sentence that was removed. Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat that the sentence is UNDUE and gets too much into the weeds for the intro. For that matter, I would also oppose adding the sentence with the qualifier since the focus would still be on those specific positions rather than the organization's overall anti-communist goal. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a sentence should note first that the JBS has made various accusations of communist plots, and then name the civil rights movement and ERA (which it opposed) as examples. Llll5032 (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I oppose the sentence, for the reasons that others here have stated. Even if we think some JBS positions should be mentioned in the lede, it seems undue to pick positions from the 1960s, when there are more recent and relevant positions, some of which are listed in the article body. After all, the organization is largely known for their religious patriotism and opposition to USSR and Russia than anything else. AnM2002 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent RS list a few aims. Politico in 2017: "Gone is the organization’s past obsession with ending the supposed communist plot to achieve mind-control through water fluoridation. What remains is a hodgepodge of isolationist, religious and right-wing goals that vary from concrete to abstract, from legitimate to conspiracy minded—goals that don’t look so different from the ideology coming out of the White House. It wants to pull the United States out of NAFTA (which it sees as the slippery slope that will lead us to a single-government North American Union), return America to what they call its Christian foundations, defundthe UN, abolish the departments of education and energy, and slash the federal government drastically." Llll5032 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of going into any specifics, I would much prefer either simply stating JBS's overall stance or keeping the intro as it is now. Besides, the article body doesn't give particular weight to any specific campaign or incident. Sources such as Stewart (2002) and Mulloy (2014) describe JBS as being broadly opposed to communism and "big government," and not being confined to even a handful of specific issues. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "return America to what they call its Christian foundations" Does that mean that the organization adheres to dominion theology? Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Including historical information is okay, but it should be clearly that (historical). What the JBS advocated for sixty years ago is of little relevance to today and thus shouldn't be a prominent part of the article. MinnesotaMuse (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Because we appear to lack consensus to put this information in the second paragraph of the top, I added a summary sentence to the middle of the Political positions section instead, where other historical positions are summarized. Llll5032 (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Main description in lede - "right-wing" ?
Quick question - how come is the main description of the organisation "right-wing" (with one of the two citations being to the organisations own site?), while there seem to be a whole collection of descriptions as far-right (or similar phrasings)?. Thanks! 217.116.116.252 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Far-right" is actually one of several terms used to describe JBS's stance. The other terms, both in the introduction and the "Political positions" section, are not necessarily synonymous with it. Thus, right-wing (though "conservative" might be another contender) is the best primary/broad description. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad sourcing
This article uses the JBS's own publication as a source. 216.8.162.69 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Chairman Larry McDonald was a democrat
To say it's right wing is ignorant or propaganda. The chairman of the John Birch Society was a Democrat. 2600:100C:B01E:D901:1E43:74AE:A646:334F (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A Southern Democrat and the second most conservative member of the House, next to Ron Paul. So no surprise. You don’t seem to know your political history. Doug Weller  talk 18:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A Southern Democrat who endorsed Reagan because the Democratic Party since FDR had become "socialist." TFD (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Four Deuces Lol. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 16:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * LBJ, Carter, Clinton, Gore. Can we stop saying "Southern Democrat" as if it implies conservatism? 216.8.162.69 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. We can call them out because they're exceptional, not typical, of Southern Democrats. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 13:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Advocated for?
I keep seeing the expression ‘advocated for’ in this article, and elsewhere, which to me seems a tautology, like ‘new innovation’. If something is ‘advocated’, then it is being proposed, suggested, supported, or in other words, ‘spoken for’. Which means that the expression ‘advocated for’ amounts to ‘spoken for for’.

It may be a confusion with usages like ‘agitated for’, ‘pressed for’, ‘argued for’. But ‘advocate’ contains both ideas and does not require the addition of a preposition. 2001:8003:303A:9D00:6502:F9C6:29C3:F5AC (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary both agree that they are two different things. "I advocate", transitive verb, "I support". "I advocate for", intransitive, "I act as an advocate for something". Subtle. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One can also advocate against something. Anyway, I agree both seem correct. TFD (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)