Talk:John Birch Society

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconWisconsin Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

Footquote needed for claim

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Perhaps other sources would support the claim more directly. Llll5032 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]