Talk:John Birch Society

Dallek

Despite it's length, the page is missing a lot. Historian Matthew Dallek, who had access to the JBS archives, published a history last years, Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right. 2600:1700:5B20:CAA0:AC89:82DE:AAB7:2978 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Footquote needed for claim

Fatherof-fuzzy-thecat, can you offer a footquote to this citation, to support the claim that the JBS is described reliably as mainstream conservative? It is not clear that the video section cited at 32:15 supports the claim sufficiently. Note WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Perhaps other sources would support the claim more directly. Llll5032 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

In any case, it's the equivalent of a conference paper and we don't use those. Removed. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Segregation

@Doug Weller In 1968 didn't these gentlemen support the segregationist George Wallace? What about intervening? 93.45.229.98 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Two recent sources about its effect on the GOP

How the John Birch Society Won the Long Game and The John Birch Society broke the GOP’s brain — and laid the groundwork for Trump. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are we including 3 staunchly leftist sources in the lede describing the GOP's supposed embrace of JBS theories? The Nation, Vox and The New Republic are all admitted leftist mags. I support their removal. TheLawMan85 (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am mildly familiar with Dallek, as he is a notable historian with academic credentials. The JBS at one point had about 100 Republican delegates. Bias to the left or right has little bearing on whether these are reliable sources. Neutrality is discarded when basing reliability solely on political bias. DN (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC}

You routinely put position labels on right-wing groups but also routinely omit them for left-wing groups. For example, the SPLC is a undeniably a left wing/leftist biased group and should be labelled as such in the same manner you label right wing groups. Fair is fair, and for an alleged information source you need to at least keep the appearance of being neutral. 100.7.194.57 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No rational sources consider the SPLC to be leftist. The encyclopedia does however mention if groups are socialist, anarchist or communist, which are by definition left-wing. TFD (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

what "rational sources" are you refering too? You have already proven the fact by using SPLC that you are indeed bias. The Hertiage Foundation, The FRC, which are both long standing main stream organizations and then a quick search shows even Politico has multiple times and for many years labeled SPLC as fringe, discredited, propaganda, and label it as "an unreliable source that should not be used or quoted". 69.41.6.34 (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the article in Politico, which may or may not reflect the position of the publication, "The Intelligence Project’s 15 full-time and two part-time staffers (it’s in the process of hiring five more) pump out reports that are regularly cited by just about every major mainstream media outlet, including Politico, and their researchers have become the go-to experts for quotes on those topics."[1]

I cannot find where the Heritage Foundation said that. The closest I could find is what some they interviewed said.[2] If you can show the Foundation actually said this, please provide a link.

As your sources point out, all reliable sources routinely report SPLC categorizations of far right groups. Last I checked, that included Fox News. Perhaps you have a different definition of left-wing. Do you mean people who don't use the Bible as a source for science and history? TFD (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Conservatism and the fight against Communism

In regard to this edit which reverts the addition by Flod logic. It seems like a perfectly fine place for this context. Unless 1990'sguy has a suggestion as to where it would be a better fit, I would prefer to leave it, unless there is good argument for exclusion. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The addition isn't bad, but it seems tangential to the section's focus on the JBS's influence on the broader conservative movement. I would suggest immediately above, in the "Political positions" section, but not in the "Influence on conservatism" section. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems amenable. If Flod has no objections I will facilitate. Thank you. DN (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples Sounds like a better place for it. Thanks! flod logic (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)