Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-14/John Birch Society

Where is the dispute?

 * John Birch Society

Who is involved?

 * User:Will Beback
 * User:UberCryxic
 * user:Collect
 * user:The Four Deuces
 * user:Yorkshirian

What is the dispute?
This dispute concerns how to describe the John Birch Society. The modifier "far" had been added and deleted in 2009. In January, an beginning editor removed sources and changed "far right" to "center-right". That was reverted, and another editor changed ti to "extreme right". That was deleted for lack of a source. It was restored with a tertiary source, then deleted as being an inadequate source. It was restored and better sources were added. Thaen it was deleted again, this time on account of BLP because the article refers to living people, and the sources were also deleted. The remaining, unsourced sentence, "The society is on the right of the American political spectrum", was deleted as pointless.

This when I became involved. I started searching for sources to support the most common characterizations of the group. I added excerpts of sources to the talk page. I found 26 sources for terms including "ultraconservative", "extremist", and "radical right", and about 46 sources for "far right". Talk:John Birch Society. I proposed a sentence to cover all of these terms, using the formula of "it has been described as...", and added it with three sources for each term. Then the term "far right" was moved out of that sentence into the lead. It was deleted entirely, but that was reverted. Deleted and restored, twice. Deleted by an anon as part of a major overhaul, which was reverted. Deleted again, this time on the basis that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and restored on the basis of being unexceptional and well-sourced Deleted again, this time because the sources were not "relevant", and restored. Another source was added (out of the growing list on the talk page). It's deleted again, replaced again with the unsourced "center-right", and reverted. And deleted, and restored. It was deleted again, this time on account of it being a "libellous" personal opinion, and restored. Deleted, restored, deleted, restored, and finally protected.

Meanwhile the matter has been discussed in several threads on the talk page, in an RfC: Talk:John Birch Society, and on two noticeboards: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58 and Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I am open to compromise, but The Four Deuces and others apparently believe that the term is inaccurate and must not appear in the article at all.

What would you like to change about this?
The editors need to agree on wording that reflects the preponderance of sources and is acceptable enough to all editors that there won't be any edit warring over the term.

How do you think we can help?
The hope is that informal mediation can help editors come to an agreement.

Mediator notes
Staying on talk. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm not sure I understand what this dispute is about.

Anytime one uses terms such as "extreme", or "far" or "ultra" or "radical" attached to political descriptors such as "right" or "left"--- those terms pre-suppose some kind of NORM which has been exceeded.

I don't think academics have ever carefully delineated when and how to distinguish among "far" or "extreme" or "ultra" or "radical" right or left -- so a little common sense seems to be in order.

Here is what I propose:

1. All mainstream political groups see politics as a process of addition and multiplication, i.e. finding allies and building coalitions.

2. By contrast, all extremist political groups see politics as a process of subtraction and division -- i.e. preventing specified individuals and groups from exerting influence and control within political, economic, and social institutions while simultaneously trying to de-legitimize specific ideas and public policy options by demonizing the advocates of those ideas and options. Extremists do not recognize honorable, legitimate "competitors". Instead, they perceive "enemies".

3. Therefore, the basis for describing an organization as "extreme" or "radical" or "far" or "ultra" -- should be focused upon how it describes its opponents. Are they "enemies" or are they decent, honorable, legitimate competitors?

4. Associated with #3 is whether or not an organization routinely attempts to compel acceptance of its interpretations and its public policy preferences as the ONLY acceptable options. In other words, does the organization recognize legitimate competing ideas or does it attempt to de-legitimize alternative proposals by describing them in terms calculated to evoke fear, suspicion, contempt and revulsion?

5. By these standards, it clearly is the case that the Birch Society is a political extremist organization. For 51 years the JBS has attacked and defamed virtually all of our national political leaders and government officials (Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative). Its venom has been directed not just against its philosophical opponents (i.e. left-wing partisans) but, also, against prominent individuals and groups populating its own side of the political spectrum -- such as William F. Buckley Jr., John McCain, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and anybody it describes as neo-conservative (Bill Kristol, George Will, etc.)

6. According to the most recent edition of the JBS semi-annual "Freedom Index" which scores the voting behavior of all members of Congress, 70% of all of our elected representatives violate the U.S. Constitution -- and this has been generally the case for the entire time the JBS has "scored" Congress. In fact, in the mid-1960's, the JBS claimed that the United States was "60-80% under Communist influence and control".

7. According to the Birch Society, Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton should have been impeached for TREASON. According to the Birch Society, Sen. John Kerry is "a Communist" and so is President Obama.

8. In private remarks to the first meeting of the JBS National Council on January 9, 1960, at the Union League Club in Chicago, JBS founder Robert Welch made these observations about the gravity of our situation:

''“From a careful and realistic study of the mountainous pile of evidence that is there for all to see, certain terrifying conclusions are objectively inescapable. Among them are:

''(1) The Communists are winning their large victories, as they always have, through the cumulative effect of small gains;

(2)  They make these gains chiefly through the conniving assistance of many of the very diplomats and officials who are supposed to be opposing them;

(3)  Communist influences are now in almost complete working control of our government;

(4)  And hence, the United States Government is today, as it has been for many years, the most important and powerful single force promoting the world-wide Communist advance."

[From: A Confidential Report To Members Of The Council of The John Birch Society – minutes of 1/9/60 meeting held at Union League Club in Chicago IL, page 1-2; minutes signed by Robert Welch.]

Furthermore, according to Robert Welch:

"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." [Ibid, 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." [Ibid, 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..." [Ibid, 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.” [Ibid, 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." ...'' [Ibid, 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." '' [Ibid, page 8]

Obviously, these views can in no way be considered an expression of normal conservative thought within our country -- and they certainly justify the description "extreme right" or "far right" or "radical right" or "ultra-conservative" Ernie1241 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)