Jump to content

Talk:Pat Buchanan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Unprofessional article

Clearly there is a NPOV problem with (especially) the anti-chicano portion of this article. Can someone pls clean it up?


How much proof do you want Asherbal? I will attempt to very concisely repeat well-documented proof of Buchanan's views: 1.Spent years supporting Nazis war criminals 2. Wrote book w/ premise : Hitler should not have been fought by British , French and USA 3. Gas chambers couldn't have killed more than 1 million people 4. The US provoked Bin Laden. etc. JayWhite




This page about Buchanan is misrepresentative of his views and offers little proof for racist accusations. Whether he is racist or not it is not even vaguely journalistic to state that he is an apologist for Hitler and Islamic terrorists without conclusive evidence - especially because of the magnitude of those claims. I feel that this article tarnishes Wikipedia's reputation and is in dire need of cleanup, both to achieve neutrality and a logical biographical organization.

Asherba2 00:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This article seems poorly written with emphasis on the subject's most outrageous quotes. It is generally unorganized. For example, "political views" and "controversial views" are in two separate sections that are removed from each other. The "early life" section includes facts about his life from 2002. His position in the Reagan administration gets one sentence. I am a little reluctant to edit this page due to the edit history, but I would like to clean it up, leaving the material mostly intact, but reorganizing the facts around several themes (keeping a strictly nPOV): (i) Buchanan is a prolific, well-known journalist, (ii) Buchanan was a member of several Republican White Houses but now is outside the party, and (iii) Buchanan is a divisive figure within the conservative movement. Any thoughts? --JChap2007 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow this is nothing more than an opionion piece against Pat Buchanan. Are his comments about Canada really enough to warrant a whole paragraph?! It does'nt even mention that he favors a living wage and there is no paragraph about his strong oppostion to the war in Iraq. It brings up comments made in the 1970's which are likely out of context. I'd try to edit it but I really don't have all day. Bamaman 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The Vandalism of this page needs to stop. Someone thinks it is hilarious to switch his bio with that of sadaam. The IP of the fool who does this is 216.75.131.198 Do not continue with this.

Additionally leave his quote about Adolf Hitler as-is. The context of that quote is important, and taking out the negative quantifiers he states at the beginning of the sentence and simply adding ellipses (those are these: "..." for idiots like 216.75.131.198). The removal of the beginning of his sentence is nothing more than blatant bias.

I know who is doing this, and I will attempt to stop it, but I cannot garuntee it. He is a huxter, and well known for in my school.

NPOV Controversy

This is one of the least accurate and most biased entries on Wikipedia. Horribly slanted and unfair to Buchanan. I'm convinced those who keep changing the entry to reflect racism, et. al. have never read any of Buchanan's works or done any significant research into the facts as they speak for themselves. Many of us disagree with Buchanan on policy, but to resort to racist charges (which can never be factually proven - how do you document a man's internal emotion?) is an act that serves to eliminate real historical documentation in lieu of feeling. (DJ)

By your standard, it's impossible to say whether anyone is a racist. If it quacks like an anti-Semite, it's probably an anti-Semite. KrJnX

What's wrong with Arbiter's inclusion of alleged racist. He uses the word alleged and frankly Buchanan is a racist, so having the words "alleged" neutralize the statement dont they??StoptheBus18

He can't just throw in allegations without justifying them. WHO says he's a racist? Give some quotes. RickK 19:54, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

All right good point. If its to go in the article it should go in a seperate section. But on a personal level? Do you not think he's a racist? StoptheBus18 22:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whether the subject of the article is someone you like or dislike, try to stick to the facts. Putting "alleged racist" into the introductry sentence is not appropriate if there is no context why this is an important aspect to Buchanan in the article. If he is a racist, post evidence that this is so. If he is an "alleged racist", sight who is making the allegation and why. -- Infrogmation 21:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I removed the quotes,supplied largely by StoptheBus18, because it seems they furnish a rather narrow and biased or incomplete view of Mr. Buchanan. The selected topics may represent Mr. Buchanan to some degree but they seem to flavor the article politically. Also there are just too many of them. Maybe an effort to add quotes to return them to NPOVishness would be good, or it would just make the collection more ungainly. A transfer to Wikiquote may be an answer.-JD--65.172.205.49 18:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If that's how you feel then whatever. But it is not ok to just delete them. Until you can find a more appropriate decision rather than deleting them, they stay up. StoptheBus18 17:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


People, I think there needs to be some explaining.

Pat Buchanan is a racist, and this claim is supported with hard evidence, some of which are published on Wikiquotes.

For example, Pat Buchanan has urged Former President Richard Nixon to not visit MLK's widow on the first anniversary of his death, saying that he was one of the most divisive man in modern history.

The worst you can say about Buchanan here is that he was wrong about MLK being divisive. His advice to Nixon said nothing about any "racism". Wikismile 19:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He also thinks that the US is conspiring with the world to ruin the Apartheid South African government with sanctions. The sanctions were there for a purpose, and he thinks it is a plot to ruin an "innocent" regime.

Pat Buchanan also claims that the Western culture is superior to other cultures and also claimed that Multiculturalism is an attack on this US's national heritage. He has also urged all Americans to purge America of foreign influences.

Sheesh, why doesn't anyone know the different between racism and ethnocentrism any more?

The facts prove that he is a racist. Please let me add a section about him being an alleged racist and leave it there. I do not want it to be taken off once more.

Agreed. Now that said, the first sentence of his encyclopedia article is not the place for this. My complaint is stylistic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:58, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

I moved these quotes from the article:

On Adolf Hitler:

  • "...an individual of great courage...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path." - From a 1977 syndicated column as reported by The Guardian [1/14/92]

On the SS:

  • "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." - From New Republic [1/22/96]

On running for president in 1996:

  • "You just wait until 1996, then you'll see a real right-wing tyrant." - From The Nation [6/26/95]

I think the balance of these and the other quotes reflects an anti-Buchanan POV, and does not give a neutral view of his views or their detractors. For example, Buchanan denies the second quotation, which appears to be out of context, at [1].

Wmahan. 21:48, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)


First off, I want to state I worked in the Reform Party and am someone personally upset at Buchanan for trying to take over the party and inject his social views and anathematic rhetoric into the platform. So I have no intention to apologize for him.

But I'm uncomfortable with this article, because though its fair include allegations, it appears like more of an anti-Buchanan editorial piece. A lot of the comments in the article are things Buchanan would rebut or claim is out of context--he himself adamantly denies being a racist or anti-semite. (He is intent on showing this to the point that he picked a black vice-presidential candidate, which, to enforce my point, isn't mentioned) If Buchanan is clearly a racist, it should be able to be show up in what he agrees he believes, and not insinuations that he would contest.

Write the positions to just show what he himself would agree with, and then add comments where appropriate to note others reacion to that and whether Buchanan rebuts those.

One example is that I rewrote the vague and explictly condemning "Finally, his views of Hitler and Nazi Germany's threat ... considered to be, at best, Nazi Revisionism or Anti-Semitic at worst" to elaborate what his views were, and why he brushes off criticism (in the same book he called the Holocaust 'horrific').

The only other change I made was a deletion of the quote on Francisco Franco, which was just "Catholic savior". Why? Because there is absolutely no context. Maybe Buchanan did intend on praising him, I don't know, but how is the reader of this article to know?

Its simply not necessary to cram the article with insinuations, just write an account of his beliefs. If things can be out of context don't present them otherwise. The article is also completely centered around the allegations of being a bigot, to the point where all of the quotes are designed for that, leaving out quotes major issues associated with his politics such as anti-globalization and anti-interventionism (each of which he devoted entire books to). Its not even a good historical account of his role in politics.

If Wikipedia doesn't try to be fair, it won't be taken seriously. It would be nice if the article were redone, but I'm doing other things, so I'll limit my changes at this point to what I've done.

brianshapiro

  • How are we supposed to write an article on Pat Buchanan that doesn't talk about racism? If it wasn't for his "politically incorrect" cries for attention, he wouldn't be famous in the first place. You say "he himself adamantly denies being a racist or anti-semite". Honestly, how stupid are you? -- Chaz
    • I never said the article shouldn't mention that he's believed a racist. Though, Buchanan isn't famous only because he's made controversial statements on race.. a lot of his support when he ran was because of his views on foreign policy and trade and other issues. He became known because he was an important insider in republican administrations, and later a commentator on CNN, where relatively few of his comments were on race. I don't understand why you think I'm stupid--because I know he denies being racist or anti-semite, which he does--or because I think its relevant when writing an encyclopedia article about him. brianshapiro
      • I can't see why someone as offensive as Pat Buchanan should be let off the hook so easily. Bill Clinton denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky but it didn't stop there, did it? -- Chaz

This article is still biased and not painting the whole picture. The logic behind the allegations of Buchanan being a racist are poor. None of his actions reflect racism, and a bunch of out of context quotes don't cover it. For example:

"The first example stretches back to the Nixon administration, when Pat Buchanan urged President Richard Nixon not to visit the widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King."

This line comes from when Buchanan was an Advisor and speechwriter to Nixon. He wasn't Urging Nixon not to visit MLK's widow because he hated blacks, it was because he was worried about how the south would react the next time they had to vote for Nixon or the Republicans. He was doing his job as a political advisor to inform President Nixon that many American people didn't view MLK is a positive light back then. His quote "Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history" does not paint him a racist, this is true. MLK was divisive back then, but divisive isn't a dirty word. You could say George W. Bush is one of the most divisive men in the past four years. Being divisive is not an insult.

"Pat Buchanan has also criticized multiculturalism frequently, calling it a "threat" and an "all-out assault" on American heritage. He has also called on his supporters to wage a "Cultural Warfare" to purge America of "foreign values"." "

This isn't a direct quote, and I don't recall ever reading anything of Buchanan that called for a "purge" of foreign values. Buchanan does campaign for traditional conservative (judeo-christian) values, that does not make him a racist it may make him old fashioned.

"Finally, Buchanan has in a book argued controversial views of Hitler and Nazi Germany's threat during the Second World War, suggesting that the United States did not need to enter a war because Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union would have destroyed each other."

Buchanan wasn't talking about this from a ethics point of view, but rather a strategic one. Had the US not entered the war, the Russians and the Germans might have taken a huge toll on each other, thus preventing the cold war. His arguement wasn't "Well, the Germans were killing Jews and we shouldn't have stopped them". His arguement was that looking back on it, it might not have been in America's best interests to enter WW2.

Calling a man a racist is a serious charge. You can't just back it up with out of context quotes or assumptions about his intentions. Why not let his quotes stand on their own merit?

Also, why not a brief summary of his books? I noticed the out of context Germany vs Russia scenario from his 1999 book "A Republic not an Empire" but why isn't his prediction of an Osama Bin Laden Terrorist attack on US soil, and a second Iraqi war mentioned?

If you think things should be changed or added to the article, go for it. You might wish to choose a user name and log in, but that's optional. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
William Buckley convicts Pat Buchanan of anti-Semitism in his essay (now book) "In Search of anti-Semitism." Whether or not you agree with Buckley or his essay or his conclusions, this is one of the other reasons Buchanan is called an anti-Semite; he is also accused of anti-Semitism by prodominant neo-Conservatives, such as Norman Podhoretz calling him the greatest threat to American politics in the 1990s in his various writings. Thus, "alleged anti-Semite" is from here forward a backed-up claim. This does not say he is an anti-semite, it says that he is alleged by some to be one. I have read numerous works of Mr. Buchanan, and while I don't personally subscribe to the allegations he is racist or what not, for the sake of balance, this claim should stand. I'm not updating the article aside from the previous elaboration on one of his supposedly anti-woman quote, but to those who say Buchanan is a racist, I say you should actually read Mr. Buchanan, and to those who say that Mr. Buchanan is unquestionably not racist, then you should read the criticism. People are updating this to show opinions, NOT actual information. That makes a bad article. Jmw0000 03:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The list of quotes has gotten quite long. The bulk should be moved to a Wikiquote article and linked. -- Infrogmation 16:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do so. -- Infrogmation 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My edits

I reintroduced the race / antisemite isue. Any objections / comments / etc..? Sam [Spade] 17:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed from the article

This text was removed from the "Immigration policy, charges of racism" subsection.

"This section is very skewed and biased, and really doesn't do anything to advance the Wikipedia concept. Editors of this page continue to reintroduce charges of racism no matter how many times the issue is flushed out in discussion. Reader beware."

The criticism may be valid but does not belong to the article User: Dimadick

This article should remain the same!

Let me start by saying I am a conservative Republican. I however, feel that the views of Pat Buchanan do not reflect upon the Republican party. I have heard many instances where he made racial, homophobic, sexist, anti-semetic comments. Truth is, Pat Buchanan is an extremely bias man who has used conservatism as a means to promote his agenda of hatred. This is no opinion, this is fact. Christianity is an amazing religion that has taken too many hits because of people like Buchanan. The comments he made at the 1992 RNC were most definately racist and homophobic. The comments posted in this report are very accurate indeed and nobody can deny the fact that he made those comments. I feel it is essential to leave them in there. If we remove the comments from the article than we would be holding back crucial information about Pat Buchanan's character and thus we would be truly bias. I find it completely necessary that people know EVERYTHING there is to know about someone and especially when it is somebody who has had a career filled with ethic slurs. Buchanan says he is a champion of moral values, yet he forgot to mention that moral values also include respect for other religions, respect for sexual identities, respect for other cultures and ethnicities and respect for people who do not believe every view that he does. Pat Buchanan has based his entire career on his views. To not mention the controversy over them would be tantamount to mentioning Strom Thurmond and not mentioning how he ran for President under the Southern Segregationalist Ticket.

Here is a link to the 1992 RNC speech of Pat Buchanan. If you don't believe me read it yourself. The speech is on his OWN website.

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-92-0817-rnc.html

This speech is considered the iceberg of Pat's career at it marked the entire 1992 RNC. It is believed that because of this speech, people found the Republicans to be insensitive and it is believed that this speech cost Bush 41 the second term.

Well the article when you saw it had already been changed and was a lot more fair than how it was when the previous comments were written. It needs much less changes now, though still would be nicer if it were better written. I'm sure you don't think the article should be an editorial on how he's spreading hatred. His 'culture war' speech was a major mark in his political career, and I doubt anyone who supports Buchanan would not want it mentioned. The article can mention the beliefs he argued in the speech, and the controversy over it. But he and his supporters don't view them as racist and say they don't condone racism, and there's value to understanding that, since usually racists want to promote racism. The point being, discussing the controversy is fine, but using the article to drive home the idea he's a racist wouldn't be a good job by Wikipedia, that itself is controversial and POV. It should just present his beliefs in a way Buchanan himself would agree was accurate (though without spin), and talk about controversy over them. brianshapiro


Please, provide links to when Buchanan has used any racial, homophobic, sexist, anti-semetic comments. You claim Pat's 1992 RNC culture war speech was "most definately racist and homophobic". Point to anything in that speech that is "Racist". You claim you are a conservative republican, tell me where that speech differs from modern republican views on homosexuals? Pat Buchanan predicted a 'culture war' was going on in America in 1992, but as he is with many things he was ahead of the curve. The true culture war election was in 2004.

Some Republicans blaimed Buchanan's speech with hurting Bush 41 in the 1992 election, but the truth is a strong third party showing and a poor economy did him in. Buchanan was simply a scapegoat, and Perot offered Republicans a true fiscal conservative. The 1992 speech didn't cause Pat to fall out of favor with the Republican party, his paleoconservative views and the negative media around his book 'A Republic not an Empire' are what caused him to defect from the Republican party to run with the Reform party in 2000. Comparing Buchanan to someone who ran as a Segregationalist is horribly biased.

You people should be criticized for justifying Buchanan's racist views. It is like saying what Hitler did is right.

--Arbiteroftruth 22:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article uses a quote by William F. Buckley to damn Buchanan on charges of anti-semitism. But Buckley has also said publically that he doesn't think anything proves or shows Buchanan to be an anti-semite. If I find the quote I'll modify the article. Brianshapiro

I think it should be pointed out that Buchanan only fits the definition of "conservative" from, say 1939 or so. Few conservatives these days actually agree with anything Buchanan stands for. I consider myself conservative and I can never agree with his conclusions. TMorrow

Buchanan opposes abortion, gun control, gay rights, and illegal immigration. He supports smaller goverment, lower taxes, and strict constructionist judges. These are all conservative views, although there are certainly people who apply the label "conservative" to themselves (because the label has generally positive connotations, especially amoung Republican voters), but hold opposite views. On a few issues, such as free trade, he breaks with most other conservatives. But if one _never_ agrees with Buchanan, one is probably a much much closer idealogically to Ruth Bader Ginsburg than to the typical Republican primary voter. Rast 07:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

What all the above is really about is Buchanan's traditional economic views per the Republican Party. As the above editor states, Buchanan is no different that other conservatives on smaller government, gun control, abortion, lower taxes, and cultural issues. He is accused of being a anti-semite because he does not always support Israel. Beyond this men who really are old time Democrat's recently come to the Republican Party and pro-Free Trade, Dubai Port deal, neo-conservatives are the ones who lambast Buchanan who served Reagan and Nixon both. Reagan had a high opinion of him as do most who work with him. But, don't tell that to the crowd of conservatives whose only beef is his 'fair trade' stance more in line with American history than their 'free trade' stance which is threatening American Indpendence - the same crowd though calling themselves conservative then propose 'open borders' - like President Bush. Most Americans and Republican voters actually do not favor either 'free trade' or 'open borders' guest worker stuff. What we are really speaking of is corporate conservatives and social conservatives. 1992? Racist? Saying there was a cultural war is racist? Seems everything is these days including insisting America have an official langauge that Lincoln, King, and Jefferson actually wrote and thought in. Nonesense. I do not agree with Buchanan on all issues but he is not either a racist, anti-semite or outside of the loop in regards to the Republican Base...he actually is more like them and neo-conservative crowd mentioned above spearheaded by Buckley is not. --Northmeister 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

POV issues

This article has numerious POV issues. For example, it is not explained what is "controversial" about wanting to reduce immigration. This is a mainstream position held by a majority of Americans. Mirror Vax 17:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


i don't think its perfect but it doesn't deserve the tag, what is inaccurate or in dispute?Scranton

User:Klonimus seems determined to inject his opinions. Mirror Vax 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i think you should cite the passages of concern, else, remove the tag 17:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

also where is the information about his recent work? he has been very critical of the Right lately and is also vocal in his opposition to the Iraq war...

My opinion

To say that a matter is "controversial" is not to belittle it or offer point of view - it is to say that such matter is much discussed, which immigration to the USA is.

Jessemckay 05:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


new trivia section

Most of the trivia seemed to be of the "unsourced dirt from 50 years ago" sort, so I removed it. I'm not convinced the dirt is relevant even if it was factual.

I am re-adding it because it's trivia that most people would consider interesting. Two of the items I think most people would consider negative, two neutral, all four interesting. I'm not trying "smear" him, just to include facts that surprised me when I heard of them. I think a trivia section is a relevant place to put this information. As to "unsourced", I added sources. Regarding the duplicate link, I missed that, thanks.
Unless you dug up and read those articles from 1996, your source for the two pieces of dirt is realchange.org (the "Pat Buchanan's Skeleton Closet" site), which is highly POV ("Buchanan is a big hypocrite."). This is not a difficult concept: If John tells you "I read in the New York Times that Bush is gay", your source for the triva item "Bush is gay" is John, not the New York Times.
"Trivia that most people would consider interesting" seems in this case to be a synonym for "dirt", and pretty pathetic dirt at that. If realchange.org is to be believed, nearly 50 years ago Buchana assaulted a cop and may or may not have contracted chlamydia. I suppose one is meant to conclude that Buchanan is therefore hypocritical to express conservative ideas about crime or sex.
The realchange article claims that he admitted these facts. The cop-assault was claimed to be from his autobiography and the Reiter's syndrome was also claimed to be admitted. I found these claims widely cited when I checked via search engines, and could not find any refutations on the web, as I would expect with an urban legend, but I do not own his autobiography or the original sources, so I'll refrain from getting in a revision war and won't reinstate your deletions. I think it's very likely that these facts are true and hopefully someone who owns the original sources (which are only available in print) can reinstate them. Posting of these facts was honestly not politically motivated, but I guess they have a "gossipy" slant in the sense that they deal with his personal life, rather then restricting the scope of this entry entirely to Mr. Buchanan's political and professional life. I would have posted the same items if I found them about John Kerry, George Bush, or Ralph Nader. I was merely sharing facts I found interesting and assumed others would (as they are contrary to his image). If you want to know my slant, I do not agree with Buchanan's political positions, but I find him more palatable then W, and he comes across in the documentary "Feed" as a (very rare) sincere politician, and I would not post slanderous "dirt" about him. I'm not sure why the Hunter S. Thompson friendship/obituary entry was removed, as there's nothing controversial, disputed, or slanderous about it, and it speaks to his humanity that he would contribute an article to a counter-culture magazine about a deceased friend on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
A trivia section should relate to facts about people's reaction to him eg. films, books etc. Facts about his life, if notable, should be integrated in to the article.--80.4.169.22 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Was World War II worth it?

where should this info go?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210 (comment by 132.241.245.49)

The article already links to Buchanan's columns. He has probably written at least a thousand over the years (but WND's archive only goes back to October 2001); if we mentioned each of them, the article would be too long. The article already does say, "Despite being an isolationist with regard to contemporary politics and World War II...", which seems to cover it.Rast 03:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial section changes

Explanation of the edit:

1) The statistics of AR camps and Chelmno have been pretty much settled in latter years, there's no "1.5-2.5 million" gap.

2) What is "CO asphyxiation"? If the victims died from the lack of air, this is normal asphyxiation (it is not clear if this scenario is compatible with witness testimonies, who described more or less quick deaths).

3) It is not clear that diesels were used in Treblinka. For example, in Sobibor gasoline engine was used according to Nazi Fuchs, who isntalled it there and it is not clear why the same effective method (as opposed to diesel gassings) wouldn't be used in Treblinka, another Aktion Reinhardt camp. It is true that five witnesses have testified about the use of diesel engines in AR camps (that is, Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec).

They were Gerstein, Pfannenstiel, Rosenberg, Malagon and Leleko. Rosenberg did not specify the source of his knowledge. Malagon and Leleko were guards, who were not necessarily informed about the details of killings. And they did not claim to see the engines. Pfannenstiel and Gerstein, who have testified about diesels in Belzec (Gerstein also testified about Treblinka) were outsiders, who could have been mistaken about the type of engine. Moreover, Belzec survivor Rudolf Reder testified about the gasoline engine. Since diesel engine was used for eletricity production in Treblinka, some confusion could have arisen from this fact. Anyway, we don't know for certain that exactly diesel and not gasoline engine was used for gassings in Treblinka.

Iraq and Iran

I would like to see more coverage of Buchanan's positions on the Iraq War and his views about the possibility of attacking Iran [2]. I'm just not sure as to the best way to fold in this information. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The American Conservative Magazine has many recent articles related to these topics. I agree that his views on the Middle East are lacking in this article. I suggest we have a 'viewpoints on interventionism and war' in chronological order. Does anyone else think this might be a good idea?--Saintlink 11:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

POV infiltrates again

Once again the article has turned into not just an artile on Pat Buchanan, but an article on allegations against him, making it inherently biased and NPOV. I'm fine that controversies should be mentioned in the article, but they shouldn't dominate it. And very unfair statements like about Fransico Franco which are shown without any context, and are impossible to judge, that were deleted before, are put back in. Some of the sections have defenses from Buchanan's supporters; but not equally, and anyway, overall the article is formatted like an anti-Buchanan editorial with some token attempts at "fairness" added in afterwards. Give it a break; I have no idea why people are so obsessed they want to turn an encyclopedia article on him into a critical editorial. Nothing like this would appear in a professional encyclopedia. I also don't know why his positions on free trade are listed under 'controversies' since a large part of the electorate and a large amount of congress (CAFTA passed by only two votes and was barely publicized by the media) aren't supportive of free trade. I really think, like I did before, that the entire article should be re-written with everything put in proper perspective. User:Brianshapiro

Brianshapiro (can I call you Brian?), the behaviors and actions of Pat Buchanan makes anything that is related to him inherently biased. It isn't the editor's fault. The fault lies with Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Buchanan himself. --Arbiteroftruth 01:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbiter, are you seriously suggesting that we make articles biased on purpose? Exactly what specific behaviors are you referring to? Detailed answers are welcome, vague ones only muddle the issue.--Saintlink 10:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How is this defending Apartheid?

Buchanan also defended Apartheid South Africa, asking, "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?"

It seems to me the "her" in this sentence is South Africa and Buchanan was arguing that sanstions would ruin South Africa. Right or wrong this is not defending Apartheid anymore than opposing the sanctions that were in place against Iraq after the first Gulf War (Something many people did oppose on the grounds in only the common people of Iraq while doing nothing to end Saddams regime) was defending Saddam.--198.93.113.49 11:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is likely that Buchanan opposed the Iraq and (still ongoing) Cuban enbargos. I'll try to find a source. Rast 00:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

impeach bush

The article about Movement to impeach George W. Bush says that Buchanon has called for Bush's impeachment over the immigration issue. This seems notable although I do not know where it could be included in the present structure. Savidan 07:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

American System

What exactly does the American System have to do with Pat Buchanan? This poster keeps trying to promote his Larouchite views in every article and I am getting tired of it. I keep getting the feeling this is another HK sockpuppet.--Jersey Devil 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that right Will Beback, more accusations and more bad manners. I am no ones sock puppet, and if you wish to make the test go right ahead. --Northmeister 01:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

HK is too clever to be caught by the checkuser again. But can you please point to any document which links Patrick Buchanan to the American System? -Will Beback 01:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Answering my own question, I see that Buchanan does refer to the American System as "economic nationalism" [3]. -Will Beback 01:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
As you can see Will Beback, I am not adding material that is irrelevant. I wish you would stop insinuating that I do, and follow AGF towards me. Civility goes both ways. Thank You. --Northmeister 06:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion Views

Could someone please put on some references about Buchanan's views on abortion, preferably recent statements? I recall during an interview with Chris Matthews he had stated he was in favour of "emergency-abortion", which stands in contrast to the writings here that he does not support abortion even in rape cases. Darkahn 20:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer -- What is a "Hong Kong Sockpuppet" and what, of all people, does something like Pat Buchanan have to do with Hong Kong?

(Sorry to invade this arcania) MasonC

Split Within Conservative Movement

It seems that the most significant aspect of Buchanan's career is that his divisiveness within the conservative movement. He has been critcized by George Will, William F. Buckley and Joseph Sobran, among others. If it would not violate NPOV, I think a section should be included on this topic. --JChap2007 03:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that our article is incomplete without some reference to the subject's place within the movement. NPOV means that all viewpoints must be included, but we should present them neutrally. It'll take some research to find reliable sources, but it'd be worth a paragraph at least, I'm sure. Some of it is already scattered across the article, so it can be summarized. -Will Beback 08:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I just rewrote the article and will add this section as soon as I get time.

Rewrite

I have rewritten the article to give it focus and have made some deletions. Some deletions were of repetitious material.

Substantive deletions include:

  • Introduction characterizing Buchanan as paleo. This did not seem necessary in that context (as we explain his views so readers can draw their own conclusions), although it may be relevant in a discussion of how he fits into the wider conservative movement.
  • Deleted some material on women's rights. The explanation of one of the context of one of his quotes merely rephrased the quote. Another quote by him did not seem relevant.
  • Deleted explanation of his comments on King to Nixon as those of a consultant and not his own views. Given the substance of the quote, this seems like a poor defense. If his defenders are really arguing this, they are doing him a disservice.
  • Deleted Vince Foster material. He did not know about the material put on his website, so it does not seem relevant.
  • Deleted British material for lack of relevance.
  • Didn't delete Canada material, but think it should go for lack of relevance. Any thoughts?

Added material:

  • Opposition to King holiday.
  • Mention America First was slogan of Lindbergh group.

--JChap 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article since your re-write and it seems balanced and meets the NPOV better than I've seen so far. I think the Canada section lacks relevance and should go. Otherwise, great job. --Northmeister 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This leaves unsupported "see also" and categorization for paleoconservatism. It should be easy to find citations for the label; he's probably the archetype right now, and was certainly one of the leaders of the party revolt against Bush and the neos. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Of all the pictures, why that one?

Of all the pictures we have of Mr. Buchanan, the editor had to pick the one where he was covered in Ranch dressing. Can you spell "A-g-e-n-d-a?"(unsigned comment)

I fail to see the "Ranch dressing" you mention above. Unless my eyes are getting tired from sitting in front of the monitor too long this "Agenda" is not jumping out at me. Could you please point to what part of the image is less-than-satisfactory? Off-topic, if you could sign your comments that would help everyone keep track of things around here. Thank you.--Saintlink 11:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

2000 Perot support

In late October 2000, Ross Perot appeared on Larry King Live and offered support, not to Buchanan or to the Reform Party, but to Republican candidate and Texas Governor George W. Bush. Interesting since Perot did not support Bush 41 in 1992 and might have cost Bush that election.

Jessemckay 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My NPOV Tag

I tagged this for a reason. Look, I don't dispute this person is a racist. I've read his stuff. I've read Buckley's stuff. And I challange a lot of the quotes on here as taken out of context, such as his one from Right From the Beginning. If you have not read that book and that passage, for instance, you have no right putting that quote up, and anyone who has read the book will agree that that is by no means the point of that section. Thus, unless you can authenticate these quotes and provide the correct context, I'm leaving the tag up. After all, I can chop up what most of you write and say and make you sound like a racist too if I had such an agenda. But to quote him is unfair: Pat Buchanan is a racist because the hypocriscy of his beliefs, his intolerance to many things, and some blatant positions. I would state that quotes for this page are unexcusable and POV. If you want to cite something for it, cite people like William Buckley, who wrote a whole essay on him and anti-Semitism for instance. This uneducated nonsense has no place on wikipedia. This article is a shame, a sham and a travesty.J. M. 08:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the whole, but keep in mind that Buckley, although it's reasonable to cite his views as notable commentary, is also merely POV; he's not an infallible authority because he's relatively respected and wrote an essay. St. Jimmy 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that he's POV, but since Buchanan himself does deny being an anti-semite, racist, etc. he is shown to be "allegded" and everything is POV. Thus different POVs must be given, and the most respectable ones are probably the best, from both his defenders, Buchanan himself, and his opponents.J. M. 00:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


National vs. Religious Heritage

The article contains this text: "He is often regarded as an Irish Catholic, but in reality he is one-half German, one-quarter Scots Irish, and one-quarter Irish." I hardly know where to start. First, this sentence starts with vague, unsourced "often regarded" phrasing. Second, it commingles national ancestry (German etc.) and religious heritage (Irish Catholic). And third, the words "in reality" carry a lot of baggage, as if the author is helpfully correcting a widely-held misconception. Just the facts, please. (I can't fix this myself since I don't know Buchanan's religious or national heritage, or how he is often regarded, or by whom, with citations.)

Why not keep his ethnic background separate from his religious beliefs? An "Irish Catholic" and a "German Catholic" are questionable terms, as the Catholic Church is a universal religion. While there are differences that can be derived from the various cultural impacts on the faith throughout the years, the fact remains that all Catholics are bound to the Pope in Rome. We should separate his ethic makeup from the religious background to avoid any unnecessary confusion. We might also consider adding the term Traditionalist Catholic as there are several references that can easily be found on Google to his support of the Latin Mass. Here is one example Washington Post: Rare Latin Mass A Return to Ritual--Saintlink 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocate?

Buchanan is listed under the 'Intelligent design advocates' category. I don't see it referenced in the main article at all. Where are the sources? I haven't removed it from the main page, but before we start putting people in groups there should be some substantial proof that they have taken a stand one way or another.--Saintlink 12:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How does one remove a person from a particular group? Unless anyone can cite the reference to his ID beleifs I suggest we remove him from that category ASAP.--Saintlink 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why all the vandalism?

He seems to be hated by Jews, WASPs and the military - is it coz 'e is Irish, or coz 'e is black? The only familiarity I have is through his McLaughlin Group contribs - seems a sensible man.--Shtove 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He gets a lot of heat because he is politically incorrect and doesn't "fit the mold" on either mainstream party lines. He doesn't glorify Hitler, is not an anti-Semite, etc. It's just slander, really. Maybe the vandalism is a good thing. Aaрон Кинни (t) 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to add new info from State of Emergency but it was deleted and I recieved messages accusing me of vandalism. The message accused me of a prior act of vandalism I didn't even know about but looking at what it was I can guarantee you my brother will not come near my computer again. But that was just one incident, and the editors would not have deleted my stuff over something clearly not written by the same individual unless they were hostile to the information I was adding. I recieved one message saying "Stop using English to support your views when you are not even very good at English." I would argue that whoever wrote that is the one who has trouble communicating in English. The info I added was simply designed to add to the incomplete description of his views on this page with passages and quotes from his newest book. 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not register for an account? That often helps keep track of all your edits and you are less likely to be "red flagged". People shouldn't get into edit wars, it could have been a mistake.--Saintlink 02:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yakuman

I don't feel like I have enough authority or experience to do something, but it looks like Yakuman is making the article his own and I'm surprised that nobody's saying anything. I'm not saying he has an agenda, but he's dramatically changing the article. What do other people think? Jeremy Peter Green 22:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up. The article as it was was choppy, heavily unsourced and lacked organization. It reflected lots of people adding specific details, but the piece did not come together as a while. Some bits needs fleshing out; for example, a previous version mentioned his anti-abortion views only in one short sentence. Also, some of the quotes needed context. Other topics, like evolution, guns and the environment, needed mention. I've tried to fix all that and add clarity where necessary, without destroying others' contributions or NPOV. I added resource links, both pro and con. I have also tried to be scrupulous at citation when adding facts. People who love or hate Buchanan will have plenty of reasons to do so, looking at the current version. Hope this helps. Yakuman 22:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to improve the article, chop its size down by about a third. St. Jimmy 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yakuman, very well done on the rewrite. The prior article was a POV war between those that love and hate Buchanan.

Legends

  • Yes, Buchanan punched a cop. Reuters says so.
  • Yes, Buchanan was rejected by the draft. The LA Times says so.
  • One legend remains, that Buchanan supposedly contracted a disease that supposedly rendered him sterile.[4] I find no positive evidence for it. Believe me, I've looked! Yakuman 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The story about PJB hitting a cop is linked to TWO sources: a Reuters news service story published in the Chicago Tribune. The text is from Copley News Service. which is run by a chain of daily newspapers. The story is sourced.

Israel and Accusations of anti-Semitism

I have worked to flesh out this section. Are there still concerns about neutrality? If so, maybe I or others can work to fix them. Yakuman 02:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pat_Buchanan/Archive_1&oldid=1137072258"