Talk:Pat Buchanan/Archive 2

Pat on Afghanistan

Pat Buchanan did not approve of the invasion of Afghanistan. In his article, "US Pays the High Price of Empire," he clearly states that Afghanistan was not a vital national interest. (http://www.theamericancause.org/highprice.htm)

Pat + Jesse

Let me explain why I cut the Jesse Jackson reference. I tried to find a source for it and all I could find was a 1996 -Esquire- interview by Mailer. Not GQ. Anyway, here's the Jackson material:

NM: I've been suggesting that unless you make some major move to double your constituency, there's no Buchanan presidency on the horizon. Suppose you had won the Republican nomination; could you have made such a move to Jesse Jackson? PB: There was no doubt we were looking at some people outside the Republican party. We looked outside. You mentioned Jackson--if someone could bring you 20 percent of the black vote without losing you something, you'd win the election. But I think if you went outside the Republican party, you probably would have exacerbated your basic problem, which is to put the party together. NM: I vow on my nine children, I'm not here as an emissary--but what, for instance, if you and Jesse Jackson could do something together within the Democratic party? PB: That would be exciting within the Republican party, too, Norman. NM: Certainly would. PB: No, I'm saying that the differences between me and Jesse are so great on so many other issues that if you move into an alliance like that, you forfeit a significant part of our constituency. NM: He'd forfeit a significant part of his constituency. PB laughs : Let me say this: Jesse, I think, is on the right side of NAFTA for the right reasons. He sees these deals as putting working-class black folks in America into direct competition with people who have considerable skills and work for lo percent of the wages that a black American gets paid in a factory. Now, we could come together as we did on NAFTA and GATTA noninterventionist foreign policy. But a considerable part of my base is with social and cultural conservatives and traditionalists. And Jesse has gone south on right to life.

Nothing here says Pat & Jesse are friends. Maybe they are, but we need another source for it. Yakuman 08:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Sailer

Under the "Assimilation and security" subheading, I don't see why Steve Sailer's argument should be included. (The American Conservative’s Steve Sailer argues that while neoconservatives want to "invade the world and invite the world,” Buchanan is right for advocating the exact opposite policy regarding Muslims and people from third world countries in general.) Sailer's opinion might be relevant in the article on Steve Sailer, but there is no reason to include every instance in which someone (even someone notable) supports/agrees with one of Buchanan's views. Schi 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's relavent because someone wrote that some people find it inconsistent for him to be concerned about Muslim immigration but critical of what he considers meddling in Muslim countries. Sailer's "invade-the-world-invite-the-world" description of the neocon policy is relevant because it answers that statement. It may not be POV, but if it isn't then the previous statement certainly isn't either. 08:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Boffo quotes"

Removed this:

Some of his opponents collected boffo quotes from his enormous canon of work, examples of which appear below, claiming they show that he is a menace to American democracy. Buchanan says he has been called "an anti-Semite, a homophobe, a racist, a sexist, a nativist, a protectionist, an isolationist, a social fascist and a beer-hall conservative" and accepts none of those labels.

While this may be true, I don't see its relevance to the section on "Republican politics". Perhaps if there was a section about "Pat Buchanan's critics", but I'd argue that there's no need for such a section (especially considering the length of the article as is).

Also this: "Some of his contemporary positions reflect the influence of the paleoconservative magazine, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture." is, as far as I can tell, original research.

As well as this: "On MSNBC before the 2006 State of the Union Address, he called President Bush a "Great Society" Republican. "He is Woodrow Wilson in foreign policy, FDR in trade policy, he's LBJ on immigration, but he's Reagan on judges," he said.[1]" This quote does not demonstrate that Buchanan has a rocky relationship with the Republican Party or the administration. In the transcript, Matthews asks Buchanan if he thinks that Bush is not a "true conservative", which Buchanan does not answer directly, instead giving the above quote. I think this is an interesting quote, but if we are to include it, it needs to be given a proper context.

Speaking of boffo quotes, there are far too many in this article, many of which are not offered to a useful purpose. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote; we need to edit this down. Schi 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the quotes serve a very useful purpose. They establish context. Trying to rely on summaries creates an ongoing POV fight, which I am trying to prevent. Yakuman 00:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotes can be very useful in establishing context, I agree. But not all quotes do so. I think that many of the quotes included in this article don't actually contribute anything to the article. In this case, there is a lot of redundancy that should be cleaned up. (Actually there is a lot of redundancy in general, in how the article is organized, but that's another matter.) For example, I'm taking out the following quote where Buchanan defends his memo about visiting Coretta Scott King.

[I said that in] a memo in 1969 whether we should recognize the day or go down and see Mrs. King, and I suggested we not see Mrs. King. I said, ‘Martin Luther King was one of the most divisive men. Some see him as the messiah of the nation, others think he’s a dreadful person. He is a divisive figure.’ Look, I knew Martin Luther King. I am the only candidate who was at the march on Washington. I was in the Lincoln Memorial. I was in Mississippi covering the civil rights demonstrations...Like every great movement, the civil rights movement had things that were attractive and things that were not. And for my history, friends, we make no apologies.[2]

As far as I can tell, the quote doesn't make any points that aren't made in the original quote. Schi 01:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, it establishes context. The original statement was in 1969 and it is continually brought up. That's how he explained it. Look, the best thing to do with a controversial figure is to let him speak for himself. PLEASE STOP DELETING QUOTES. Yakuman 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of quotes; that's what Wikiquote is for. I agree that Buchanan is a controversial figure and as such we should do our best to establish context. However, I don't think that including the 2000 public radio quote, or its entirety, helps to establish context. How do you think it helps to establish context? Like I said before, I don't see how it makes any points that aren't already made in the original quote (from the memo). I can agree with a statement like: In 2000, Buchanan defended his recommendation to not visit Mrs. King, emphasizing his belief that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a divisive figure., followed by the cite. In fact, that's what cites are for. They let readers establish context, in this case letting Buchanan speak for himself, without making Wikipedia be overly selective about choosing what quotes should be included and what shouldn't.

Why did you revert my edits here[3]? Like I discussed above (and you did not address), the Chronicles is apparently original research. And I don't see what the claim about what names he's been called has to do with "Republican politics". Cites are needed for the two places I put the fact tag: the quotation in American Conservative needs a specific citation (month, year). (A lot of the quotes to Buchanan's various books also need page numbers, too.) The other statement about Buchanan's opinion on the current Republican Party is probably pretty generally accepted as accurate, but like you said, quotes establish context, or reliable sources establish context, and I would like to see a reliable source back up that statement, especially since it's a summary of Buchanan's point of view.

Here[4] you reverted my removal of the quote comparing Bush to FDR, etc. Currently, the paragraph reads:

"Buchanan currently has a rocky relationship with the Republican Party, having returned after his stint in the Reform Party. He says he believes the party has largely abandoned its traditional conservative principles for neoconservatism and compromise. For example, on MSNBC before the 2006 State of the Union Address, he called President Bush a "Great Society" Republican. "He is Woodrow Wilson in foreign policy, FDR in trade policy, he‘s LBJ on immigration, but he‘s Reagan on judges"

I understand that the comparison is "no compliment" to Bush, but that's not the point. The point of the paragraph is Buchanan's relationship with the Republican Party. The sentence before the quote summarizes his beliefs about the party, that they are neocons and compromisers. The quote you supply immediately thereafter, however, does not support this belief. The quote does not characterize the Republican Party or Bush as neocons, nor does it refer to them as compromisers. If you read that quote in context, you'll note that Buchanan declines to express his opinion on whether or not Bush is a neocon or "true conservative".

In the cases, as above, where I have discussed the reasons for making my edits on the talk page, I'd appreciate it if you discussed the edits you take issue with rather than just reverting. Schi 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote establishes context because it shows the entirety of Buchanan's nuanced opinion on a sensitive subject. To not include the 2000 radio quote would be misleading about his views on Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. 09:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Booker T. Washington

The quote about Booker T. Washington and immigration needs no citation, it is from State of Emergency. That is pretty clear from reading that section. In fact I don't see why anyone would claim it needs a citation unless they were absolutely convinced or wanted people to be convinced that Buchanan dislikes blacks. Or maybe that person just can't readShield2 09:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that person would like a page number. Schi 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done. Shield2 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Abe Foxman and Charles Lindbergh

Whoever edited the section to make it appear as if Foxman got the year of the speech right is guilty of dishonest editing. In fact, before the section at least spared Foxman's dignity by correcting him itself. Thanks to that one dishonest Foxman supporter, the section will now point out that Buchanan corrected him. If anyone has a problem with that, too bad because it's the truth. 09:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

pretty interesting perspective. GrandWizard 02:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights and AIDS

In this edit, Yakuman reverted some edits I made that I think are somewhat important but I don't want to get into an edit war. The text now reads Buchanan denies that homosexuality is a civil right, calls it unhealthy and described gay male sex practices as "not only immoral, but filthy."

For starters, the tense is mixed. But more importantly, I had changed it to: Buchanan has said that "[h]omosexuality is not a civil right" and described gay male sex practices as "not only immoral, but filthy". I think this is preferable because the other version ("denies that homosexuality is a civil right") implies that sexual orientation is a civil right, i.e. "the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law." I don't that anyone contends that sexual orientation, which is innate, is a civil right. I think people may contend that activities/behavior related to their sexual orientation may be civil rights. In any case, that's not what Buchanan said in the quote. He said "homosexuality is not a civil right", which is a statement that could be interpreted in a number of ways (as I just tried to illustrate), and as such I think we should stick to the strict quote.

Also, I changed the references to "gays" to "gay people"; I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline on this (that I know of) but I just think it's generally better, when possible, to refer to people as (adjective) people (like "white people" vs. "whites"). I guess that's just a stylistic preference.

Finally, this sentence He has written of "“sodomites," the “pederast proletariat” and the “butch brigade.” is almost too vague to be meaningful. "Written of"? What was wrong with "He has referred to gay people as..."? Schi 03:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing info regarding Larry Pratt

I just replaced some info regarding Larry Pratt in the 1996 campaign section. The previous wording essentially had a gap in that didn't explain why there was any controversy. 130.113.16.134 20:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pruning

This article is excessively long (126 KB) and goes into an unencyclopedic level of detail (see WP:NOT). I listed the article at WikiProject Biography for a peer review: see comments here. Both reviewers commented that the article is too long and has too many quotes. In the past, I have tried to edit out quotes I've seen as unnecessary and encountered resistance; I'd appreciate help from other editors in pruning, consolidating, and prose-ifying the article. Schi 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not irrelevent or excessive at all, because there is so much misinformation circulating about him that it's very important to let his quotes about the issues speak for themselves. "Prosifying" the article would ruin it, and in fact the parts that are explained rather than shown are already fairly tacky becaused his opinions are so nuanced and complex. I'm not saying the page should extend its capacity, but with him there should be as many quotes as there is room for because his actual positions are difficult to explain and to someone unfamiliar with him they may look bizarre when taken out of their proper context. 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Not so much his positions on religious and moral issues and things of that nature, which are similar to someone of the "Religious Right." But his positions on race, trade, history, and foreign policy are unique, complex, and controversial and therefore need to shown accurately in order for viewers to make their own decisions. For the most part, this can't be done without the use of quotes. 09:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, please take a look at What Wikipedia is not, particularly Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; encyclopedias are supposed to be concise references, not an exhaustive information vault. Nor is Wikipedia supposed to set the record straight regarding widespread misinformation. Rather, if there's a documented, notable instance of widespread misinformation about Pat Buchanan, we can discuss that, as long as it's appropriately sourced and not original research or undue weight.

Also see the guideline on article size and the guideline on including primary sources.

I disagree that prosifying the article would ruin it (also see the guide to writing better articles, which recommends using summary or news style). There are many, many articles on Wikipedia about people with complex and nuanced opinions that manage to be written in prose and not have dozens of repetitive blockquotes. I believe that it's possible to provide accurate explanations with appropriate context without including dozens of long quotations. Context is addressed by properly referencing sources, so readers unfamiliar with Buchanan can consult the source for a more nuanced understanding. As I've said before, citations "let readers establish context, in this case letting Buchanan speak for himself, without making Wikipedia be overly selective about choosing what quotes should be included and what shouldn't." Also note that external links can provide readers with a lot of great resources for finding out more about such information that falls outside the scope of an encyclopedia.

I'm not saying there should be no quotes; I think some should certainly be included, particularly when it's difficult to otherwise paraphrase his stated position. However, certain quotes don't need to be included, or at least not in such length. For example, the four-line quote I removed about Buchanan's Georgetown brawl: we don't need to know all these details; that he paid a fine of $25, or "came close" to getting kicked out again in Columbia. I don't find these items suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia at all. If they had to be included, we could say: "Buchanan was involved in a couple of brawls during his student years." - and provide cites afterwards for context and explanation. Schi 10:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that quotes that go into great detail about his personal background are unnecessary. Briefly mentioning that he was involved in brawls and had some minor run-ins with authority is fine. Perhaps his views on moral issues should be condensed, as they are consistently conservative but neither unique nor nuanced, nor are they particularly controversial (al least not among conservatives). It should, however, be mentioned that he is a devout Traditionalist Catholic, which is relevant because it has almost certainly shaped the views that set him apart from today's Republicans. The quotes involving the subjects I mentioned above, however, should stay, for the reasons I have mentioned. The only thing I found that was overdone was that the part about demographic change and Balkanization was mentioned twice and didn't really belong in the "Affirmative Action" section, which itself could have just been added to the "Race Relations" section. Also, the part about Jacob Weisberg was unsourced and didn't seem that relevant, and the part about the Podhoretzes accusing him of anti-Semitism didn't need to be formatted like a list. The "Russia" section could be a sub-section under "Europe," of which he considers Russia very much a part. Other than that, I didn't find anything overly long, redundant, or irrelevant in this article. 18:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC) On the other hand, you're right that we don't need a whole bunch of blockquotes. Only the ones that are more than three or four sentences long should be in blockquotes. If someone would only put back the stuff that was deleted (which is most of the page, and very immature I might add), I could condense it without deleting much of the actual content. 22:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Shield2, I think you accidentally deleted much of the page. I've just restored it to a previous edit of yours. Schi 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I feared that possibility in the back of my mind, as you seem too mature to do something like that and I'm pretty bad with impatience and impulse control behind a keyboard.[ 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to prune the quotations. In most cases the views can be easily summarized, and in many instances there is already a summary making the quotes redundant. -Will Beback 06:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is one of the best articles on wikipedia, because it is complete and not vague. It is not even close to his entire body of work, and in fact it only scratches the surface. But it really lets the reader know where Buchanan stands on the issues, which not enough sites about political figures on this site do. Many other wikipedia articles do not even look credible because they do not display any examples of what they claim, but this one does not have that problem. I did, however, get rid of the excessive blockquotes. Some blockquotes add quality to the article, but before there were so many it was annoying and it stretched the page. I will continue to work on this page and look for ways to condense it without wrecking it. 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It won't wreck the page to remove the quotations. It's our job, as encyclopedia editors, to summarize the thoughts and research of others. -Will Beback 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not trust anyone to put summaries of his quotes without the page turning into a review or an editorial rather than a summary of his ideas, and I do not expect anyone to trust me either. Even a description of a man walking a dog down the street is going to be biased, let alone something as controversial as the views of Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan's views are too controversial and complex to be described, and in fact if someone does then it's an unresolvable NPOV dispute waiting to happen. It would not look credible if it were a bunch of biased descriptions of even sourced statements. I will say, though, that if more wikipedia pages were like this, the chatter about wikipedia not being a credible site would die down. You don't throw acid on the pretty girl's face to make her more like the ugly ones. 06:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting throwing acid on anybody's face and reducing the number of verbatim quotes won't scar anyone. It's a bizarre comparison. I'm sorry if you don't trust Wikiepdia editors, of which you are one. However people who want to read Buchanan's ideas in Buchanan's words should seek one of his books or articles. People come to encyclopedia articles looking for summaries. -Will Beback 09:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job, whoever wrote this

A lot of work, its like one of the longest articles i have seen on wikipedia.

Reply: It's a good article, I'm an Australian so I really only had a vague idea about who this guy was and the article was helpful. It has over 160 citations which has given me more faith in it's objectivity and credibility than pretty much anything else on Wikipedia. Length however is not a virtue in and of itself, as the website www.somethingawful.com pointed out.

I agree. This is one of the finest and least biased articles on Wikipedia. This article should not be shortened at all. Robertsussell 01:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

(taken from Somethingawful) Allow me to provide a brief list of Wikipedia articles that are shorter than the one about Knuckles the Echidna:

• Echidnas
• The Internet
• The Internal Combustion Engine
• William Shakespeare
• Western Culture

58.107.102.215 05:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing that could be deleted

Why do we need to read things said about him? I have defended this page from people who keep wanting to delete things said by him, because they are relevant to this page. But hundreds of people have said things about him. Why are the few that are included here relevant unless Buchanan has responded to them? For example I can see why Norman Podhoretz is important because Buchanan's response sheds more light on his views on anti-Semitism, and I can see why Abe Foxman is important because Buchanan's responses shed more light on his views on Charles Lindbergh and the Gulf War. But the parts where other people's commentaries are included just to be included should probably go, as should the "stockholm syndrome love-fest" joke because he didn't make it. Also, could somebody who agrees with me that deleting the quotes would wreck the article (at least, deleting most of them would) help me come up with other ways to shorten it, before these people get their way and completely mutilate this high-quality page. 08:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotations from 3rd parties are no more necessary than quotations from the subject. But 3rd party viewpoints are very important to a biography. We aren't just interested in the opinions of Buchanan; we're also interested in the opinions that others have about him. Unfortunately, nobody has perspective on themselves. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. We can't simply delete all the critical views of Buchanan. -Will Beback 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose, but many people have attacked him for the HItler quote for years. What is so special about Jacob Weisman? The "sounded better in the original German" one could stay (I actually think that's kind of funny). Anyway, I do notice a few quotes that could be shortened to a sentence or two and sub-sections that could be merged, upon closer examination. I'll give that more attention. Reducing or shortening the number of quotes is one thing, but I stand by my assessment as to why this still needs to be a quotation-oriented article if it is to retain its quality. 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One part that could be shortened is the part about Israeli-U.S. policy. That is one section in which his opinions can be summarized and the quotes shortened to include only the "red meat" parts. That section seems tedious and sort of kills the momentum of the article. 23:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What Now?

Could someone please explain why they put a claim that this article is not neutral? I have shortened it somewhat, but I have not altered the content and message of an article that was already unbiased (if initially a bit overlong). If no one explains why, I will take the warning off. That is a serious charge. By the way, I didn't write the whole thing and I wasn't the one who put up most of those blockquotes. From the looks of it, there were just as many anti-Buchanan writers as pro-Buchanan. 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no one came forward and explained what was wrong except those who corrected the part about Canada, I have deleted the apparently unfounded disclaimer 05:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps putting the tag up should come forward and explain why or get banned 06:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Canada Entry

One part of this entry reflected a POV (i.e., comment about Buchanan's "stature" being "low" in the USA), so I edited it brief summary of the reaction Canadians had to both remarks. With the Arar deportion affair, I added a link of the recent Canadian court conclusion that the RCMP passed incorrect intelligence to US authorities, thus making the deportion possible. Then corrected one grammar error. FResearcher 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I just made this section much more concise. Half of the discussion, about Soviet Canuckistan, is more appropriately discussed at the article on Anti-Canadianism, not here. If anyone can dig up the actual transcript of the 10/31/02 show in question, that would be a good ref to include as well. Schi 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does this keep happening

I tried to just delete the NPOV tag which someone put up for no apparent reason (at least not one he or she felt was worth explaining) and I end up deleting half the page. That's the second time this has happened. How do I get it back, and why does this keep happening? 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted and removed the NPOV tag. Perhaps you're using a browser that crops the page to 32K? See Wikipedia:Article size? schi ^talk 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You know, it wasn't the problem the last time I deleted it. I think it was only a problem because I deleted the space it left, and brought it up higher. 06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) On second thought, you were right. It is my browser. 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

2008

I cut out the references to the 2008 speculation/draft Buchanan movement. I'm pasting it here:

Buchanan spokeswoman Linda Muller said on September 7, 2006 that "PJB is not running" in the 2008 presidential race. A Connecticut-based "Draft Buchanan" campaign, however, wants him on the Republican primary ballot. Chairman Paul Streitz claims Buchanan can win in New Hampshire by 30,000 votes.

The Draft Buchanan campaign was called a "scam" by Buchanan's official website. Seems to be non-notable, I haven't seen any mainstream media talking about this possibility; one mention in the Hotline might make it (barely) pass as notable (can someone find the link?), but I'd prefer to keep this section out of the article. Relative to the other 122K of article here, it seems relatively trivial. schi ^talk 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Research resources

For reference, I'm just going to drop some cites and links to articles/etc. that I come across but don't have time to incorporate into/check against other things in the article. Feel free to add other resources too. schi ^talk 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lacayo, Richard (1996-02-26). "The Populist Blowup". Time. Retrieved 2006-12-06.
• Morrow, Lance (1992-08-31). "Family Values". Time. Retrieved 2006-12-06.

Section on Israel

How would we feel about summarizing the section on Israel here, and making the whole its own article, which can then be linked from here? It's long enough, and seems enough of an aside to be warranted. Kc8ukw 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)